Loading...
1987-04-28 TOWN BOARD MEETING April 28, 1987 7:00 P.M. TOWN BOARD MEMBERS George Kurosaka-Councilman Stephen Borgos- Councilman Ronald Montesi- Councilman Betty Monahan- Councilman Frances Walter- Supervisor Mr. Wilson Mathias-Town Counsel PRESS- WWSC, WENU, Glens Falls Post Star, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN MONTESI PUBLIC HEARING: 7:05 P.M. SUPERVISOR WALTER-The first order of business this evening is a Public Hearing relative to Hiland Park on SEQRA requirements and State Environmental Quality Review Act together with a hearing regarding Article 15 of our Zoning Ordinance which concerns Planned Unit Development Asked for comments from the public regarding either of these two subjects. The purpose of this hearing is to hear from the public, areas of the draft Environmental Impact Statement that you feel have not been covered and wish to received more information on. It is not to hear you say I am in favor of the development or not in favor, it is to hear comments so that the Town Board can include them in their decision making for Hiland Park rezoning. Stated that there is another public hearing tomorrow night which addresses a moratorium on the Towns acceptance of subdivision plans. We will not during this public hearing take any comments regarding that moratorium. JOHN CUSHING-8 Orchard Drive, Queensbury - I am here on a dual purpose...I am representing the Adirondack Regional Chamber of Commerce and also as a private citizen. I would like to read into the record the letter that the Adirondack Regional Chambers of Commerce president, wrote to our supervisor on April 24: "It is our pleasure to recommend approval of the proposed Planned Unit Development rezoning request presented by Gary D. Bowen of the Hiland Park Corporation. After reviewing the Executive Summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, it is apparent that Mr. Bowen is proposing a quality, well-designed and properly engineered project that would add greatly to the existing high quality of life in Queensbury. The Board of Directors of ARCC passed a resolution in March 1987 supporting the concept of Mr. Bowen's project. Now we would simply like to reiterate our support on the grounds that the project would be good for the regional economy and would be a life-style quality enhancement Thank you for giving the request your kind consideration and please do not to hesitate to call on this office when we might be of service. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Asked Mr. Cushing which areas either the Article 15 or the EIS the Chamber wishes to address? MR. CUSHING-The Chamber and myself as a private citizen wishes to address the EIS on the basis of economic development enhancing the economic development in Queensbury. I would like to leave these letter with you so they can be given to the individual members of the board. In addition to that letter, I do have a few remarks pertaining to the economic development relating to this project: first of all we in Warren County are experiencing an unemployment rate of 7.5 % which is the second highest in the Capital Region. During the construction phase of this project there will be over 200 people employed but more important the project will over a five year period create approximately 500 new and permanent jobs and just what does that mean to this community in terms of economic growth...for each new job an increase in sales tax revenue will be accrued, approximately $1,050.00...for 500 jobs that means $525,000.00 of which $112,000.00 would come to Warren County and the other $112,000.00 would come to the Town of Queensbury. With 500 additional jobs that means another Seven million, five hundred thousand dollars in disposal income based on earnings between $17,000 and $20,000. In addition based on the National Chamber studies, for every 100 new jobs over 50 new jobs are created in the service related sector, these are impressive, positive economic potentials. Secondly a quality development such as this with single housing plus the senior housing, golf course, conference center and the care facility will certainly go far in attracting new industry and business to the area. When industry looks to an area, they have to look for quality housing and this proposal certainly is a tool to attract that, a terrific living environment. Believe me with some major industries leaving and other thinking of leaving we must leave no stone unturned to attract new business and new jobs, Gary Bowen's project does exactly that. Certainly the people for the most part that will be moving into this facility will be retired. You are in reality getting a two for one situation. They are not taking away or filing jobs but are affluent and will have disposal income just as though they were working. They will be supporting our school system without adding to the burden and with one thousand, one hundred new families their purchasing power will be very great. Lastly this is the only substantial quality development that has been proposed for this area, and I am talking about the Bay Road, Ridge Road north of Quaker Road. Most of the others are in the crowded area west of the Northway. A true compliment to our well known and recognized Adirondack Community College, this facility can only enhance the community for years to come. i GORDON BLANK-Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Adirondack Regional Chamber of Commerce and following Mr. Cushing's comments I only want to reiterate that a study of the environmental impact study has indicated to us that the project is environmentally and ecologically sound at the same time that they are both contributing to the economy and the quality of life. From the Adirondack Regional Chamber of Commerce perspective we are interested in and concerned about the positive benefits from the creation of the new jobs and from the contributions from the overall economic status of the community at large. We are also very pleased about the environmental aspects of the project because we feel that there will be no environmental degradation at the same time as this type of project will contribute to the overall quality of life. From the aspect of the Adirondack Community College the Board of trustees has adopted a resolution in support of the project because it recognizes the benefits to the students of the college and to the programs of the college. For example the retirement village is very exciting and many implications for our nursing program, mental assistant program and for the entire area of continuing education. The recreation facilities in the project have implications for intramurals, intercollegiate and physical education activities as well as continuing education recreation opportunities. The technical part component of the project has implications for enhancing the curriculum and course of study at the college in the fields of science, engineering business and computer sciences. In addition the project is exciting to the college because it opens up new avenues for further program development in such areas as gerontology, recreation management, physical therapy, and many other programs that remain to be seen but clearly represent a challenge and opportunity for the future. We are also excited about this project because it provides our students part-time and full-time jobs while they are in college and after they graduate. As you know many of our students are in great need of job opportunities and that coupled with the fact that while they are in college many will have cooperative work and learn programs and termships associated with the various facilities of the project. In conclusi I would just like to reinforce the comments made by Mr. Cushing on behalf of the Adirondack Regional Chamber of Commerce and add the support of the College trustees. BRIAN LINGHAM-Sunset Trail-General Director of the Lake George Opera Festival...I am here this evening representing myself as a private individual who perhaps has an understanding of the cultural life of the community and what such a growing cultural life needs to develop and prosper. Cultural in my definition in this circumstance doesn't refer simple to the odds but rather to all the peripheral activities including and maybe most importantly in education a spin off from professional cultural activities. I foresee this project as the most appealing of all of the East of the Northway projects that have been proposed recently and particularly from my point of view, because of the senior citizens, the retirement village. An Organization like the Opera Festival thrives on a number of things and two of the most important things are ticket buyers, subscribers and volunteer support and its quite true that a retirement community is far more likely to provide both of those areas in a much greater percentage than a normal cross section of any community. As somebody who hasn't lived in this area for a long time, but has become very attracted by it as a place to live, I perceive this project as a major forward motion in the Town of Queensbury. SUPERVISOR WALTER-You are looking at it as a cultural not specifically relating to any part of the DEIS? MR. LINGHAM-I must confess unfortunately, not to be efficiently familiar with the technicalities of the DEIS or of your Article 15 to rationally address a specific issue, but I am, I must say - fairly familiar with the project and what it entails and all I can say is...lets do it. SUPERVISOR WALTER-As I indicated at the onset of the hearing the Town Board is particularly interested in comments relating to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement...I think that Mr. Bowen is interested in the comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and based on these comments that he will be preparing the final DEIS so it is important that you be specific in the items that you are addressing relative to this particular project. KENNETH PARKER-7 Centennial Drive-I am here tonight as a private citizen...I have just quickly read the DEIS and it is one of the most interesting books that I have ever laid my hands on. I would like to address my remarks to the point that the tax dollars that this project is 19 going going to bring in...the tax dollars being a kind of revenue dollars...the project will bring in regards to school tax base, which the municipal and the county tax base, the federal tax base and under the school tax base there will be a change in the formulas that, under current formulas, will be advantages to us, in the real estate tax there, will be changes in state aids that will be coming to the town, that will be advantages to us. The impact statement illustrates that under these situations, that during and upon completion the incomes that will be derived will far exceed the projected expenses...ie, students schooling requirements, road maintenances, road constructions...the new services that the Town and various municipal bodies would have to provide for this kind of a project, so it is just fantastic that...(a) we are going to have a project come in of this nature and we are all in support of it from that point of view...but yet it is not going to create a financial burden on anyone who is currently paying taxes, etc. The people who are building it, the people who are buying it, the people who are going to be directly enjoying the residences and services are the people who are going to be supporting it through the purchases and taxes...so from that point of view this is an exceptional project and we look forward to seeing it. ELEANORE OUDEKERK-I live on Bay Road on property that is adjacent to the Hiland Park project. The property is the former Stanley Harris Dairy Farm and consist of a 101 acre parcel and I have already outlined in a letter to Board Members of the concerns those of us who are bordering on this property have and what I would like to do is just reiterate it. Our major concern is the drainage and runoff from the proposed development sites. The South East portion of the property in the low land and wet area drainage follows the stream course in a southerly course which continues to the North West portion of the Bowen property and at this particular part of the planned development that we are concerned about. According to the DEIS there is a unit of 48 single family homes to be built along this particular corner and in the DEIS as I interpret it there were on site in ground septic systems planned for these units, although the alternative type of systems might in deed be necessary. I would like to point out that Mr. Bowen has been in touch with us, those of us who live on the particular properties involved and we did in fact go with him to view the terrain individually and inspect it last evening and what he pointed out to us was that some of this plan has been changed. The onset inground septic systems for this particular area in question will probably not go according to that particular plan in the DEIS and he foresaw that as being on possibly Town Sewers eventually and sewage would be handled in that particular fashion. I guess from my point of view this pretty much addresses one of the concerns we have had in that particular area and if this in fact is carried out in this fashion I can't see any particular problem as far as that portion of our farm concerned. I might just add that we are still intending to keep acreage in that area and tillable and this depends upon it being kept properly so this is one of our major concerns. We also noted that probably the multifamily units; Black Forrest would be probably eventually be adjacent to our areas, and we are concerned with how that is handled and we just want to emphasize the we are particularly concerned about your looking at this area, we are talking about. In summary the sewage and drainage systems we hope will be adequately addressed and it looks as though some of these things are also a concern of Mr. Bowen and we are very happy to note that but our concern again is we still have agriculture lands, we like this openness, we intend to keep it open probably for the foreseeable future so we are very concerned about the development along the perimeter of these properties. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-The original letter you sent to us and that Mr. Bowen had responded back to you...I've got both copies...there was some question as to how far your southern border went and did it include that stream...has that been squared away? MRS. OUDEKERK-That was an error on my part, it was merely a reference point...and it wasn't drawn on the scale by any means and he is perfectly correct in saying I included too much of his property on my part. MARGARET BURRELL-Lynnfield Drive-I have not acquainted myself with the Environmental Statement but one thing that concerns me is...recently we have seen newspaper reports that landfill is not in line with State requirements...I think I have heard in less than five years with our present rate of disposal the landfill will have been filled to capacity but now the septic systems which are being pumped out...the contents are having to be transported to quite a considerable distance...I hope in our deliberations, thinking of the impact on the landfill, that we all share, that we aren't rushing into something that will choke us in our own excess. JOHN CAFFRY-Queensbury Association, I have in fact read the entire DEIS and will address a few parts of it...We plan to submit written comments before the comment time closes. SUPERVISOR WALTER-For the benefit of the public the comment time is until May 29, that means Darleen Dougher our Town Clerk will accept written comments regarding the Hiland project until May 29, 1987. JOHN CAFFRY-First I wish to address the question of alternatives to the proposed action. We feel that a serious mistake was made in 1982 when this property was rezoned from agricultural 120 use to residential 30 and urban residential 5000 square feet zones and that in fact doomed the property and concluded the future as agricultural use and we request the Board choose the no action alternative in order to preserve this agricultural use. It is the largest most significant piece of agricultural land in the town and in all of Warren County. The recent poll by Stuart Mesinger of 3000 town residents showed that from 90% of town residents favored preserving agricultural land...in order to do that we suggest an alternative that is not mentioned in the EIS and that is to rezone the property back to something suitable for agriculture such as rural residential five acres. This would not totally preclude development because you you could use clustering and put perhaps 175- 200 houses somewhere on the property while preserving the rest of it for agricultural use. We urge the Board to listen to what the people have said the Planning Department poll and to adopt that alternative. If the Board is not willing to do that then we feel this a good plan as plans go as some of the speakers have said tonight, it is far better than some of the other plans we have seen come along lately. It has very many positive features...the very generous gift of land along Halfway Brook in order to preserve the stream corridor, the wetland and wildlife habitat... Mr. Bowen is certainly to be commended for that, he has gone far beyond what he has to do by law in that area. Another very positive aspect is that the density is not as high as he could cram in there as allowed —° by law, he has chosen not to do that and that has many positive benefits to the town, to the land itself, to the prevention of excessive traffic and other problems associated with too many people. The trail system, the bike paths, walking paths and all, are of a very positive aspect. His desire to retain architectural control over the commercial development along Haviland Road is another good aspect. As far as the Environmental Impact Statement goes it appears to be about a mile wide and an inch thick or several inches thick but perhaps not enough...it does not provide adequate data for the Town Board and the citizens of the Town to adequately study all of the issues that it presents and make a rational decision on these issues and we will present these in further detail later but I would like to highlight a few of them. One is traffic, there is a very thick traffic study in there but it makes some key errors that renders it less than perfect, for instance the traffic counts are bases on counts taken in February 1987, anybody that lives in this part of town or near Lake George knows that traffic is low in the winter on Bay Road and Ridge Road and highest in the summer and there is no factor in the studies to adjust for the difference between winter and summer traffic flows that can be done...if you have the data you can just make an adjustment, but that was not done. Another failure of the traffic study is that it does not adequately address the traffic growth from other projects in the town that assumes a one percent traffic growth per year by their own studies the population has grown to approximately three to four percent each year, so you are going to have at least three or four percent traffic growth on the roads in the town and that is in the town in general. Along Bay Road recently there has been proposals for several hundred, perhaps a thousand other housing units as well as commercial, all up and down Bay Road and that is certainly more than one percent of your growth even if it is phased in over the next ten or fifteen years, so that has not been adequately studied and factor into the traffic counts. Without accurate traffic counts as a comparison you can't make a reasonable decision as to whether or not you need traffic lights, what the speed limit should be, what curves may have to be straightened out and etc...I think the traffic study has to go back to the drawing board for further analysis. Another potential traffic problem is the intersection on Sunnyside Road...if you look at it the proposed intersection is located just around the curve as you are coming west on Sunnyside Road and if somebody was pulling out from the road that exits on Sunnyside Road there would be a very high potential of accidents there, and the study only says this will be study later. I know that each individual part of the project will be reviewed by the Planning Board under site plan review but the location of the northern exit on Sunnyside Road is a significant part of the project and I think that, that should be studied in some detail right now by the Town Board because it is not something that can be just moved around a few feet later on by the Planning Board. Another area without adequate analysis is the question of wildlife, Mr. Bowens' Impact Statement expresses great concern for wild life, it recognizes some important concepts such as the protection of the edge environment, such as between hedge rows and fields and other such things but there is no analysis of what wildlife is on the site and what affect the project would be on the different species...I have been told by DEC that there is deer in there (along Halfway Brook) and there is no mention of that...perhaps the affect would be beneficial but we just don't have the data to analysis this at that time. Another alternative that wasn't raised was the question of whether or not there should be some provision for some low income housing in this area, as everybody knows housing in Queensbury is very expensive. They talk about how many jobs they are going to create but many of those jobs will not be high paying - jobs, where are these workers going to live? Are they going to be squeezed out into outlined towns and I would note that the PUD Ordinance in its first Section states that PUD should t include housing for all economic levels. The cheapest housing in here I believe is $70,000.00 a unit and that is only in the senior citizen housing. The rest of the housing is between $160,000.00 a unit on up to $360,000.00 which is only upper income housing and certainly not lower income or even middle income housing...I think that some provision should be made to make this area open to all residents of the town and not just the wealthy. Another question is the impact on schools, there is a big set of figures back there, somebody did a lot of algebra and calculations but it doesn't include any analysis of what the real impact will be. It says there is going to be about 460 new students or something like that...if you assume 30 students to a classroom, I figure you are going to need 16 new classrooms in the Rueensbury School? Through those 1or 10;1 figures that they have in their economic impact statement do they calculate based on having to construct 16 new classrooms in the Queensbury School. Maybe their figures cover that but you can't tell from this impact statement. Another area that is not covered is the air pollution aspect of it. It states that there will be emissions from automobiles but it doesn't say what the volume of those emissions will be and doesn't compare to existing background levels and what roll they will play in pushing the air toward unsafe levels. There is no data there. When you get to the question of water, they state that most of the water will come from the water system which is fine...the big question of water is the irrigation of the golf course...they talk about taking it out of the Halfway Brook and they say how much water they are going to need, but they haven't presented much data to allow you to analysis the impact of this which falls on Halfway Brook. Maybe its a drop in the bucket but there isn't the data there...they took one measurement in February, they don't have any year round data, no data from high periods, low periods to show what the impact would be. On sewage disposal I think everybody preferred alternative would be to pump it to Glens Falls City Sewer system...that may not be feasible. There next preferred alternative is to discharge it into Halfway Brook but there is no study, no background data on the capacity of Halfway Brook to absorb this affluent. They say it will be true cherry treatment which theoretically drinkable water but I don't think anybody wants to drink it and I don't know what the impact is going to be on Halfway Brook. One possibility you could use to dispose of this water and would also solve the golf course irrigation, you could use that water to irrigate the golf course, to recharge the ponds on the golf course and that would keep it out of the brook, it would give it additional filtration before it reaches the brook, they would avoid the necessity of pumping irrigation water out of the brook and if it is good enough to put in the Halfway Brook, it must be good enough for the golf course. Another impact not addressed at all is their proposal alternative for irrigation water by setting up a well system to pump 400,000 gallons on a peak day—there may be no impact but when you pump that much water you create a cone of depression in the ground water table and we don't know how far that will extend—will it affect the wetland below it, will it affect Halfway Brook, will it affect the wells of the neighbors; there is no study of that aspect at all. We urge the Town Board to take a close look a this and have your consultants take a close look at this, and require the people who prepared the EIS to come back with a supplemental EIS or very much vastly improved to final EIS before you vote on this project so that you have enough data to make a good decision. In conclusion again our position is that the preferred alternative is to retain this area for its agricultural use, its aesthetic values as this is one of the most beautiful areas in the Town of Queensbury and as nice a job as proposed in developing it, it will never look as good or as beautiful as it does now. If that is not done we think it is a good project and certainly better than letting somebody else come in and put in 1800 or 2000 houses all on 3/4 acre lots but before you do that we would like you to take a hard look at it. -- COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Regarding the DEIS...the areas I had the most concern with initially, how do we maintain some open s ace character in our community and still allow orderly development. As I look at Hiland Park I see the developer Mr. Bowen has tried to do that, he has tried to balance the open space character of that land with some golf courses; with some density that doesn't even meet what he is allowed, along with that he has given us the opportunity to protect the Halfway Brook as it wanders through the southern portion of this property. The way I looked at the figures, I think 26 acres was based on our formula here and what he had to give and we are receiving a proposal that we accept 70 acres that would remain somewhat passive recreational area. I am fairly comfortable with that portion of the EIS. The other two concerns I have will be resolved by this Town Board in the next few meetings, will be water, and will the community be providing water for this development and at what cost, not only to Mr. Bowen but to the tax payers in general. I only offer this as general comments, will 400,000 gallons a day usage, ultimately, when this project is built require another main water line to this part of town, not specifically only to Mr. Bowen, but as a Town Board Member I have to be aware that there is another development in this part of town that has come before us...so will both of those require another water tank somewhere in this area and what is the cost ramifications not only to the developers but to the tax payers and who should bare that burden. With regards to sewer there is no question, I feel very strongly that at least the southern portion, when I refer to the southern portion I mean south of Haviland Road of Hiland Park should be sewered, that includes part of the golf course and a good deal of the residential and multifamily development. I feel strongly in that respect and we are working again with the developers with our engineering to study the feasibility and cost of sewering that project and that's a much bigger picture than running the pipes in the ground, will the pipes presently there, where we are building in sewer district one, handle this flow of water. Should we be going down Quaker Road and picking up the other development and tying it into the trunk line at Ciba-Geigy, that's the alternative, we are viewing...and lastly there was a question raised... and that is half the development if we can get the sewer line there and make things work in a cost effect way for both the community and the developer then perhaps the sewering of the total project will be a much more preferred alternative. With respect to the school, I know there was not an awful lot of data in there, I do know the developer and myself personally spent some time with Dr. Irion, the Superintendent of the Queensbury Schools, there may be some thoughts that come out of this meeting and one of them might be that in our present school system, we are not working to capacity so there might be some excess capacity presently there. I am not sure 16 classrooms would be needed, but if they were that would be one of the first thoughts that Dr. Irion would present 1_ti2 to myself and to this developer. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-In the summary it was 47 percent used, 53 percent open space and in an earlier report we got it was 47 percent developed, 46 percent open and 7 percent undetermined expansion, which figures are the correct one? MR. BOWEN-The first proposal. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-In your housing units you are talking about middle, middle luxury and luxury would you define what you mean by middle...either in the cost of the units or the income of the people that you think can afford these units? You are talking about jobs for 559 people...I also am interested in what the payroll range is going to be for those jobs. In one proposal that you gave to the town you were talking about the area along Halfway Brook the wetland being 77 plus or minus of the DEIS 60 plus or minus, could you clarify that for -, - us? MR. BOWEN-I don't know where the 70 came from? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It was in one of your earlier memos. MR. BOWEN-It was an unsurveyed estimate...3 1/2 acres of wetlands was mapped in 1983, there is an additional 33 acres that has been proposed and flagged by Encon which has not been mapped yet, that's inclusive of that figure. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I also wondered about taking and irrigating water from the Halfway Brook, what it will do to the brook and other peoples down stream rights to it and the esthetic quality of the brook. Again on the traffic I noted the same thing that Mr. Caffry did that this traffic study was done in February and it probably should have been done in August. Also the entrance to Sunnyside...I am also noticing one other thing, we are having a road coming out onto Sunnyside which is going to be bad enough and there's nothing we can do about it but try to get it in the proper location but also adjoining your land on each side are undeveloped tracts of land which I know nobody has any plans of developing now but we better look a hundred years in the future, because we can't stand anymore cuts onto Sunnyside, because it is so dangerous. I think we have to leave some stubs there where those tracts of land can be tapped into the road you are doing, because you are the first one coming down the pipe. If you don't have the critical care area there, have you given any plan to what you will do there...At one time you had mentioned also leaving space for a fire house annex on some of that land. Also on the traffic on Bay Road, you have that very bad condition, where the first entrance exit to ACC right below Haviland Road...I couldn't find any traffic count at all for Sunnyside Road and no mention of the level of service for that road, it was left out of that report. Blind Rock Road also you have to consider that in summer time use, what is the effect of. I do not see any effects factored in there of the subdivisions, Mr. Caffry mentioned the big one on Bay Road we have two very big ones on East Sunnyside and Ridge Road, one is Stonehurst and one is Jr. Bardin's farm. I am assuming that the Fire Companies are going to have full inventory of the pesticides and fungicides and herbicides etc. and to be consulted into the storage procedures. I think for right now that is about all that I have. SUPERVISOR WALTER-For the benefit of the Town Board and also the public, the Town Board has retained Environmental Design of Clifton Park as the reviewing engineer for this project The Town Board will be meeting with them to come up with any additional comments that we may have during the comment period, they will be laying them on Mr. Bowen and his technical people. Are there any other comments at this time? Is there anyone in the audience this evening that wishes to make any comments during this public hearing? Now is the time to make any comments that you have on the Hiland Park development, 713 acres within the Town of Queensbury. The comments that we are accepting this evening are on the draft environmental impact statement, and also Article 15 of the Town Zoning Ordinance. Anyone who has come in that wishes to make any comments to the Town Board, the comments that you state this evening will be addressed by Mr. Bowen and his team in his final environmental impact statement. This is the time to state any of the concerns that you have or any of the good things that you read that you wish to address. I have spoken to Mr. Bowen, my own concern is the marketing studies for the development. particular concern with the development in Queensbury and that we are able, each developer in his own project has identified a market for his development and I would like to see some I of the studies that have been done. Where you can indicate if the Town Board does rezone ---` this property to a Planned Unit Development that the Development will be able to take place in the marketplace. Is there anyone who wishes to comment during this public hearing? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I would just like to say, I would like to thank Mr. Bowen and his team for the cooperation they have showed the various boards in the Town during this whole process. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Thank you. Again I would indicate to the public that comments regarding i {r L} the Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be received until May the 29th with either the Town Clerk or as I have indicated I am indicated as the Contact Person, either one of us would get the comments to Mr. Bowen so that he would be able to address them. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Mrs. Walter, would you ask them to please to send them in as early as possible, if you get them all on the 29th if would be awful late. SUPERVISOR WALTER-That is true. In deference to Mr. Bowen, if you have something that you do not wish to address this evening orally and wish to put in written form it would be kind if you would do that and not on the 29th. He does need to respond to each of the comments and he would need time for his technical people to make some analysis to assessment. Again comments will continue to be taken until the 29th of May, I will ask one more time if anyone wishes to make any further comments during the Public Hearing, if not I would declare the public hearing on the Hiland Development for purpose of SEQRA and for the Town Article 15 of the Zoning Ordinance is now closed. 8:10 P.M. 3 min. recess...reconvened OPEN FORUM 8:15 P.M. Mrs. Charles Adamson-(Gave handout to Town Board ...on file) I picked this up in the Assessor's Office...Town Officials are Public Officials to my mind their salaries are paid by all the residents. Why is one segment of the population discriminated against publicly by the Town Assessor with the notices that he has posted on his office door, because as he has stated to me it is his office door. Our money helps pay his salary and I am offended that he will not post all sides of the assessment issue on the door he chooses to post one side. His door is a public door on a public thoroughfare in a public building and it is in poor taste to say the very least to show unwillingness to listen to all sides. In effect he is supporting the view that "they pay less so we pay more" which is exactly the opposite from the way he has assessed the Town of Queensbury. Many families on the Lake will be paying increases of 2 thousand dollars, 3 thousand dollars and 4 thousand dollars so that many families in the other areas of Queensbury will be paying each of them 2 hundred dollars or more,less. In otherwords a very small segment of the Town of Queensbury is going to be carrying a very large segment of the rest of the Town. We have been asking for a fair assessment and mostly we have been asking for an explanation of how he gave us this assessment, we believe we are entitled to an explanation. This form that I picked up today, a friend of mine received a copy of this from the State, I am amazed that this has not been available here it creates a change, I do not understand who it is going to effect a lot of us, I have not been able to find out exactly how one determines an equalized value and do not believe it is available until that is determined by the State or by the Schools so in effect I do not know what this is going to do to a lot of us. At this late date we will be going on wondering. The letter is dated...it is a change in a book on how to challenge your assessment it is dated August 14, 1986, it is just now available in the Town? Mr. LaRose said he did not have it before he just got it. When I asked Mrs. Walter how the people could be informed about this change... she told me it is not up to the Town to tell people how to fight their assessments, it is up to you to find out. I now submit the question to you the Town Board Members do you consider this a fair remark for an elected official who is supposed to represent all the people of this town? SUPERVISOR WALTER-I also indicated to you Mrs. Adamson, government does not do everything for all people and that people must do something for themselves. The Town changes an assessment, I do not think we are also obligated to stand out on the street corners with booklets to say how you can fight the change in your assessment. You need to find that out, there are places to find that out, Mr. LaRose had the books, it is not that unusual to me or any of the Town Board Members, who deal with the State of New York,to think that it could be six months to a year later when we are getting the updates on any changes. That is not unusual, it may be for you but it is not for us, who have had to deal with other state agencies before. I would contend there is no way that any of these board members can be informed on all issues as to take each individual citizen in the Town and lead him by the hand on a particular issue as to how to challenge the decisions they have made. I do not think it is up to myself or the Council members to rap on everyone's door or to hand out any kind of booklets on how you can fight what the Town has just put into effect. MRS. ADAMSON-You have a desk out here that this could be put on...posted on Mr. LaRose's --- door could be this. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Mr. LaRose is in violation because there should be no paper posted on doors, I cannot understand why our Fire Marshal let that get away from him. I will walk by tomorrow and they will all come down. MRS. ADAMSON-I understand what you are saying that the government isn't responsible for 1ti us but the government is doing this to us and I think you could make it a little fairer to people by making it ... SUPERVISOR WALTER-Mrs. Adamson, that is exactly what the reevaluation is, it is to make it a little more fair to all the citizens in a particular political unit to pay their fair share of taxes. What you are saying is, your assessment is going to go way up at the Lake, I contend to you that for the last many, many years I have been paying your share in my section of town. MRS. ADAMSON-I do not believe that. SUPERVISOR WALTER-That is exactly what a reevaluation is, it is to put everything in its proper perspective. If you in your own particular instance have a problem with your assessment there is a procedure that you can follow and after that I assume you can go and take legal action. We have not reached a point where the assessment rolls have been published, that is May 1st. you have time to file your grievance to be heard, this year by a group of your piers, five people from all areas of this community who will take a look at each one of those grievances on an individual basis and judge whether you have infact unfairly assessed. They are the only -° group that can over rule the sole assessor in this town, the Town Board can not, we have tried to make that clear. TOWN COUNSEL-WILSON MATHIAS-Reviewed the procedure for filing a grievance...re: Letter Joseph Brennan wrote to the Supervisor on April 17, 1987-One of the points of the letter that Joseph Brennan wrote had to do with the possibility of the Town becoming an approved assessing unit. I reviewed that section of the Real Property Tax Law and basically what that law permits is that it gives an approved assessing unit the option of attempting two methods of relieving a tax burden that comes to people as a result of a re-valuation. The first is to set up a category of homestead and non-homestead exemptions. What that basically does is say to the Town set up now many residential units you have and figure out what percentage they are paying in taxes in terms of what their fair market value is and also then take a look at the commercial and industrial properties and see what they are paying, and come up with a percentage for that. Basically to give an example most municipalities tend to assess residences a little than what their fair market value is and businesses closer to their percentage. In a lot of municipalities that percentage might be 30% for residential and 70% for commercial. What the legislature has allowed municipalities to do is to litimatize what they have done in the past what is not to tax everyone at 100%, but to let businesses pay a bigger share of the burden than the residences. Whether or not that is a good thing or bad thing is it is permissible under this particular section of the law. Within those two classifications of properties, homestead and non-homestead you still have to assess those people fairly within their own class. What happens is if someone j has been under-assessed for a period of time their assessment is clearly going to go up, they are going to pay a smaller percentage of tax than a business that had been under-assessed over a period of time. The classifications, the way units or individual properties are assessed within those classifications still have to be fair so that really what goes up and what goes down goes down. It , allows the Town to say to businesses or industry or commercial establishments, you guys pick up the bigger share of the tax, we are going to let the residents escape. The other provision in the law that is available that Joe Brennan's letter addresses is that in an approved assessing unit, the unit is permitted to pass any increases resulting from the new reevaluation over a period of four years, the fifth year you get back to your 100%. If you go up 20% a year until you get to what your full value is. As the Post Star reported there are no approved assessing units in the State of New York that have undertaken to do that. One of the reasons for that is that when you look at the statute it gives you a pretty good idea what happens when your taxes go up but what happens if your taxes go down, and you tell that guy you are going to have to wait four years before you get to where you should be. There is some legal thought that would indicate that if they are entitled to a reduction that they are probably entitled to it now. There may be some questions as to whether or not that particular provisions is legal.The negative side of things is that as I understand the law an approved Assessing Unit has to notify the State Board of Equalization and Assessment that it desires to be listed as such at least 120 days prior to the effective date of the tentative roll, May 1. You would have to back date to January 1st. or before then for any unit to notify the Board that it wants to become an approved assessing unit. Obviously that was not done in this case, it is the opinion of one of the Attornies at the State Board of Equalization and Assessment that the law basically it is a one shot deal. You get to try to be an approved assessing unit the first year of an re-val and if you do not 120 days before an tentative date it is too late. It would appear to me that as a matter of law, that option is not available to the Town should it desire to do so. Whether ' or not it would raises another question whether we will continue to tax different classes of properties at different rates. All the classifications would be assessed at full value it is just based on that assessment they would be paying a higher percentage of tax depending on whether they were residences or businesses. It appears to me that, is not an option that would be available to the town. The letter requests that the Board consider the possibility of imposing some type of moratorium on what the tentative roll would be or what the assessments would be, to freeze things at the 1986 level. I do not believe that the law authorizes the Town Board to do that, and I think there are really good reasons. There is some case law that at least indicates that the Town may not have any authority to do it. The other is the practical difficulty of permitting 1 �5` a Town Board this type of authority and creating the possibility of confusion of what its own body is going to do in terms of figuring out its budget this fall and also what the various school districts within this area are going base their budget on in terms of figuring out what their revenues are going to be and what their taxes ought to be. Just as there are some people that are going to contend that they have been over assessed, they have the opportunity to seek redress through administrative and court proceedings but there are in addition people now who realize...there are other properties within the Town, things have been brought into line their taxes are more consistent with what the value is of their property they may say I want you to go through with this, you do not have that authority to pass that type of moratorium, I want my taxes to go down, I want the tentative roll to be filed the way it is. You are going to have litigation whether you do it or you don't. There should not be an assumption that the system wouldn't work, if you do have a complaint after reviewing the tentative roll you have the opportunity to get that corrected. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Regarding the paper you presented to the Board...I talked to the lady in the Dept. of Assessments who order these, they were gotten from the County, when they run low they call up and get some more. In the last batch the County received from the State was the first time the notices appeared. MRS. ADAMSON-We are told it is up to us to defend ourselves and to find these things, my point is if you can't find out, how do you expect the tax payers to be able to find out these things? As to what the Attorney has said, naturally the people want the assessment to stay the way it is because they look at it and it is great, what the Town is doing is promoting the fact that they are getting those people on the lake because they have not paid their fair share... COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-That is not the intent. MR. CHARLES ADAMSON-I am not opposed to my taxes going up but what frightens me and what I find frustrating is that you cannot get answers to questions. I am not saying this is taxation without representation although to some degree I wonder about the quality of representation, but at this point it is taxation without explanation. We have asked for explanation in three areas, where he came up with the figure for the lake property, which we think is somewhat high, but he has not explained his ... system... SUPERVISOR WALTER-I went to the assessment department about a month ago and I was aware that Mrs. Adamson was down there I think she was there for a good amount of time, I was told when you came in Mrs. Dybas was very helpful that the problem was that what was explained to you, you did not accept and that is the problem we are talking about. MR. CHARLES ADAMSON-They have never, Mr. LaRose himself has never answered my three questions. Where does the property assessments come from, how did he get the houses to that level, there has to be a system. Why did he choose these particular comparables for my house, he would not answer. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Regarding the values on your house he took five comparable sales in the neighborhood which are listed on the computer ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I see what the Adamson's are saying, I have seen sales prices up there and I have seen what the house has been assessed for I have had people in my area told what their comparable areas are...I think that the Town Board has some responsibility here to make sure that this system is working...I have spent a long time here and a lot of time with the sheet out there and a long time trying to get answers and frankly sometimes my reception was so bad that I figured that I might better back off before I harmed by constituents in my area, I think that they have a lot of merit in the things that they have said. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Asked Mrs. Monahan to go with the Adamsons to the Assessment Dept. and get the thing straighten out. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I have a comment to make, when an area on my road is told Chestnut Ridge is a comparable to them I think they are crazy when Ridge Road is told that Twicwood is a comparable to them you have to prove those kinds of things to me. Everyone that goes is not getting the same answers and not getting treated the same. COUNCILMAN BORGOS-There are several issues that you raised tonight...I am pleased to hear the sign will be down...Unfortunately we have to wait two more days to see what is going to happen. I have reason and hope to believe that there will be some significant reductions on a great many properties, I don't know how much reduction. I have been having much the same problem you are, in that I don't have access to the final numbers either because the numbers won't be final until May 1...so what the Assessor is saying I can't give you final numbers because they don't exist yet. The Assessor and I have discussed the fact in regard to real estate when two people look at the same piece of property they have two different opinions of value...the only real way to find out something is worth is to find out what willing buyers and sellers will agree on as a price and only when the sale is consummated will we know the real value of that property is. Unfortunately or fortunately not every property is sold every year so we have to then estimate. What is comparable, is it the same size house, the same locations, the view of the lake, the same elevation above the lake, the same type of soil conditions, thats' a great deal of opinion. I think that some of that original opinion might have changed on May 1st. Original it appeals that all lake property was considered to be equal. After May lst. the best we could do is to say to you please show up at grievance day, please go before the Board of Assessment, those five people may overruled the Assessor. Right now the Assessor cannot in anyway be influenced by us, thats' the law. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It isn't just the final number that you are looking at that you are going to pay, they want to know how that final number was arrived at. COUNCILMAN BORGOS-There is no way we can compel the Assessor to divulge that at this moment. We have asked but have not found the legal way to have that done. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Generally speaking from citizens in my area, Ward 2, have not had a problem with the values that have been put on their houses and the values put on the land. When the original preliminary work came out all of us went down and addressed that to Harold LaRose and if he took heed to what we said and what the comments were the people brought in and he dropped the value of lake front property from 3500 to 2500 the average lake frontage being 100 feet he has dropped the assessed value $100,000.00 per resident. If that doesn't bring things in line for someone to come forth and say thats fair, I think thats comparable but I really have some problems with the quality with construction of my house verses new construction, then I think you have an argumentative point there. If he does drops $100,000.00 on a thousand residents on the lake thats a $100,000.00 times a thousand that will be picked up by every other tax payer in town. I think Harold LaRose has listened and made some adjustments and on May 1, hopefully the people who have been shocked along Glen Lake and Lake George will at least have an opportunity to feel their comments have been listened to how he arrived at the price and quality on their houses. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Noted that it was not just in her area, and one of the residents she mentioned was on Ridge Road. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-I have had a hundred people call me and they are not even in my Ward, they are friends and they are concerned. MRS. ADAMSON-We are singled out as the only ones who come in and complain and one of V the reasons other people do not come in and complain is because they are afraid. These people are afraid to have their names being published because they think if they complain their taxes are going to go up even higher. MRS. HALL-Rockhurst-I would like to request a no-parking zone on the lower end of Rockhurst Road. Stated that a partially constructed house has taken up 3/4 of the parking area and the people who do park there, park with the rear or the front of their car even with the road and liking the parking that was available, begin parking on the lake side of the road, narrowing the road more than it already is, as there is not much land on the lake side. From the intersection of Seeley and Rockhurst Road up to the curve, not going all the way down Rockhurst Road because it is very narrow and the people who own property and pay taxes for them, need a place to park cars. Presented the Town Board with a petition signed by the Rockhurst residents. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Noted that there was a fire up there, the fire trucks couldn't get up the road. MRS. HALL-This winter we had a fire across the street from my home, one that could have taken the whole building. They plowed for some reason, the last two years, backing all the way in and plowing just one lane out. I have lived there 25 years and this is the first that has happened. The four engines that came down the road could not turn around; they came in as far as they could come, parked their vehicles and you had to hang onto the side of the vehicle to walk along side of it to get to the house because you were in the bank. The ambulance who followed the fire trucks there, parked down at the marina...had there been a patient to come out of there they would never had made it. COUNCILMAN BORGOS-Asked Paul Naylor, Highway Superintendent, if he was aware of this particular spot in question? Why do you back in and would you think about no parking on the section in question. PAUL NAYLOR-Stated that there was no room to turn around and yes he would check on the section in question as to no parking on that side of the road. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Noted that the Highway Superintendent would acquire the necessary information, such as distances and report back to the Town Board. MRS. HALL-Noted there was another problem, the dumpster on the road, and stated that letters had been written last fall asking that the ordinance for trash be observed but it has not been...the boaters are back, the dumpster is full, the animals are scattering it. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Stated they would have someone check this out. PAUL NAYLOR-There will be an auction on Saturday, May 2 starting at 9:00 A.M. COUNCILMAN BORGOS-Noted that the 25th anniversary celebration for ACC will also be Saturday and noted that it was the 25th anniversary of the West Glens Falls Fire. OPEN FORUM CLOSED: 8:45 P.M. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MINUTES RESOLUTION NO. 119, Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos. RESOLVED, that the Town Board Minutes of April 14th and 16th, 1987 be and hereby are approved Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: None DISCUSSION: SUPERVISOR WALTER-Asked Town Board if it were agreed by the Town Board to untable Resolution 110. COUNCILMAN BORGOS-Stated that he had spoken to the people from the Warren/Washington Association for Retarded Citizens and indicated that the group does get a significant amount of state funding and their primary reason for asking to be placed on in lieu of payment is that their reputation in the community remains constant and the people won't begin to complain and they are unwanted and aren't paying their fair share. Noted that this was the exact reason he was opposed to this Resolution the last time, I believe by law they are tax exempt and I think they should stay tax exempt regardless of how it is characterize it...whether we pay extra taxes to the Town of Queensbury or to the State of New York. I think these people are entitled to their tax break and they shouldn't have to pay in lieu of. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Noted that they also said everyone uses this facility and felt this would be good public relations to Queensbury. SUPERVISOR WALTER-I would indicate that in the First Resolved, the Town Receiver of Taxes is authorized to notify A.R.C., that really should read The Town Supervisor because in other payments in lieu, it is the Supervisor who bills. Noted that she was in favor of the Resolution 110, because she did not turn down any monies for the Town, although she did agree that some people are less off with payment of certain taxes, I don't think it is fair because when one individual or agency gets exempt from taxes, the rest of the taxpayers have to pick it up. I get the feeling on the part of the Board Members of the A.R.C. that just because that particular unit of housing has to be in the Town of Queensbury does not mean that the rest of the citizens in our town should be penalized financially. RESOLUTION TO UNTABLE RESOLUTION NO. 110. RESOLUTION NO. 120, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi. RESOLVED, that the Town Board brings back onto the floor Resolution No. 110 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES FOR WARREN/WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CITIZENS. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter s A6 Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION NO. 110. RESOLUTION NO. 120-A,Introduced by Mrs. Frances Walter who moved for its adoption seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi. WHEREAS, the words in the first sentence of the first RESOLVED be changed from Receiver of Taxes to Town Supervisor NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, to amend Resolution No. 110 be changed as mentioned above. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes:Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES FOR WARREN/WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CITIZENS RESOLUTION NO.11O, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi. WHEREAS, the Warren/Washington Association for Retarded Citizens, a chapter of the New York State Association for Retarded Children (ARC) is the owner of certain real property situate in the Town of Queensbury and known as 22 Jerome Avenue, and WHEREAS, A.R.C. is wholly exempt from the payment of real property taxes, and WHEREAS, A.R.C. wishes to pay, compensate, and reimburse the Town of Queensbury and all other entities providing municipal services to the real property owned by A.R.C., and WHEREAS, the cost of providing adequate drainage, lighting, water, fire protection, educational social services, and other like services is $2890.60. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is authorized to notify A.R.C. of the annual cost of the aforesaid services and to accept payments by A.R.C. for such services as and for a payment in lieu of taxes, and be it further RESOLVED, that such receiver shall transmit appropriate portions of such payments to Warren County and the Glens Falls City School District, and be it further RESOLVED, that this authorization shall continue in force and effect so long as A.R.C. shall own the aforesaid real property. Ayes:Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes:Mr. Borgos Absent:None SUPERVISOR WALTER-Regarding the bids on Ridge Road Park, water testing was to be done before the Town Board can act on these bids...We have had some water testing done for bateria logical for purity by our Water Department, all of which showed it is satisfactory drinking water...there are further test being done for all sorts of elements...asked the Town Board if they wish to wait for these results? CONCENSUS OF THE TOWN BOARD WAS TO WAIT FOR FURTHER STUDIES. 1..9 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE EARLTOWN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION A TYPE I ACTION WHICH MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND REQUIRING THAT A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT BE PREPARED. RESOLUTIONS NO. 121, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos: WHEREAS, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law established the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and WHEREAS, such as act requires environmental review of certain actions requiring approval by local governments, and WHEREAS, The Earltown Corporation has applied to the Queensbury Town Board to redistrict 849.3 acres of land with frontage on Ridge,Quaker and County Line Roads to a Planned Unit Development district to allow construction of approximately 965 dwelling units of various types, a hotel/inn complex, up to 17 small inns, a commercial area, a technical park and 2 golf courses, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board on March 10 determined that the proposal was a Type I action under SEQR and designated itself lead agency for review of the Earltown Planned Unit Development application and so notified all involved state and local agencies of such designation, and WHEREAS, no involved state or local agency has objected to the designation of the Queensbury Town Board lead agency, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Planner and the Queensbury Planning Board have studied the environmental assessment for prepared by the project applicant and the project submission maps and documents, and have recommended to the Town Board that an environmental impact statement be required, and WHEREAS, the members of the Town Board have studied the environmental assessment form prepared by the project applicant and the project submission maps and documents, now THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board finds that the Earltown Park Unit Development proposal may have significant impacts on the environment, including but not limited to impacts on water supply and consumption, sewage conveyance and disposal, traffic congestion and improvements, open space preservation, recreational amenities, surface water quality, wetlands, and municipal services and finances, and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby determines that a positive declaration is hereby issued for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and that a draft environmental impact statement shall be prepared by the applicant to address all potential impacts of the project, including but not limited to those identified above, and be it further RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution shall be forwarded to those agencies listed in the distribution list annexed hereto. WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board on March 10 determined that the proposal was a Type I action under SEQR and designated itself lead agency for review of the Earltown Planned Unit Development application and so notified all involved state and local agencies Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes:Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter �- Noes: None Absent:None (Distribution list on file) RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING LEAD AGENCY FOR REVIEW OF WEST MOUNTAIN VILLAGES, INCORPORATED APPLICATION FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT RESOLUTION NO. 122,Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka, who moved for its adoption seconded by Mrs. Frances Walter. WHEREAS, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law established the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and WHEREAS, such act requires environmental review of certain actions requiring approval by local governments, and WHEREAS, the Mountain Villages, Incorporated has applied for approval of a proposed planned unit development off West Mountain Road, Luzerne Mountain Road and Corinth Road, 600 acres of which are in the Town of Queensbury and 2,200 acres of which are in the Town of Lake Luzerne with plans for 2,800 housing units, 80,000 square feet or more of commercial space, 250 or more hotel rooms, recreational facilities including one or more golf courses and office/manufacturing space, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is authorized to grant approval for such planned unit development in accordance with Article 15 of Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury and the developer have agreed that the proposal constitutes a Type I action under SEQR, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined that the anticipated impacts of the action are primarily of local significance including local land use classification, traffic, sewer and water usage, open space usage and temporary and permanent local employment opportunities, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is best qualified as lead agency a to review the aforesaid local impacts, and WHEREAS, the Town Board intends to avail itself of the use of technical experts in the review of the proposed project and any Environmental Impact Statements, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall notify all involved state or local agencies of its determination to act as lead agency unless written objection to such designation shall be received within 30 days hereof, and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution, the annexed notice and EAF be forwarded to those agencies listed in the distribution list annexed hereto. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes:Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes None Absent:None (Distribution list on file) DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE: COUNCILMAN BORGOS-In the fourth paragraph this implies that we are authorized the approval for that portion in Queensbury and that portion in the Town of Luzerne, should we change this to read grant approval for those such portions of planned unit developments within the Town of Queensbury under Article 15 SUPERVISOR WALTER-No because we want it in accordance with Article 15 of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I am not sure I want this Resolution to address the fact that I am going to oversee both, Lake Luzerne and Queensbury. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Asked if they wanted Lake Luzerne to oversee Queensbury. ., COUNCILMAN MONTESI-No. _- I SUPERVISOR WALTER-Then you might want to have the Lead Agency Status. TOWN COUNSEL-It is a matter of law, if there is a dispute as to who is going to be the Lead Agency, the law provides that the commissioner of Environmental Agency will make that decision so if Lake Luzerne adopting a resolution to be Lead Agency...the Commissioner is going to decide who gets to do it. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Queensbury has the resources to be the Lead Agency so we will get it anyways. STUART MESINGER-EIS is going to address the whole project...and no, I don't plan to review the Lake Luzerne side of it. RESOLUTION ADOPTING SPECIFICATIONS FOR TOWN ROADS RESOLUTION NO.123, Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, Article IV of the Town of Queensbury Subdivision Regulations provides that all required improvements, including streets and roads, within a subdivision shall be constructed in accordance with Town specifications, and WHEREAS, the Town Highway Superintendent has recommended that certain changes be made in the requirements and/or specifications for roads to be offered for dedication to the Town of Queensbury. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury hereby adopts the annexed standards and/or specifications for construction of roads offered for dedication to the Town of Queensbury. DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE: SUPERVISOR WALTER-Asked the reason for this resolution? COUNCILMAN MONTESI-The issue here is that when the regulations in the subdivisions were implemented stated that subdividers or developers had to pave the roads according to the standards as the Town was paving them at the time; with a penetration type of paving. We have found with these standards, that the subdivider paves the road, we accept it and then in a year or two we are in there repaving the road with blacktop. We felt it necessary for us to update our standards and see to it that the developers and their dedication of the roads to us are giving us roads comparable to what we are presently doing ourselves and that includes twelve inches of gravel, three and one/half inches of concrete asphalt and another inch and/half of...the specifications are to show the width of the road, etc. Our concern was that we were asking the taxpayers in general to make these kinds of improvements to bring the roads up to the standards and that we think the developer should be providing those standards now. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Some of the roads under the old standard are only 16 to 18 feet wide, and 24 feet is standard now. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Typically in a subdivision presentation the subdivider presents to our Planning Board a drainage system along with the road system and each subdivision depending on the topography is a little bit difference in how they treat or address the drainage of that particular subdivision. This particular resolution addresses specifically the road. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Two questions: One, the slope we are looking at...the maximum allowable slope from two to ten, and is that slope the terrain of the road? COUNCILMAN MONTESI-...that should never exceed ten percent. In some cases we have had driveways come into our roads that are over ten percent. SUPERVISOR WALTER-We are looking at a road cut here where it isn't necessarily two or ten, it could be on the level. COUNCILMAN BORGOS-This is going to be this way all the way not just for driveways...if this is going to be a swail all the way, I am concerned about plowing and keeping the drainage ditch open. SUPERVISOR WALTER-I was looking at the six foot typical which is showing the same kind of slope, is the road going to go like that or is it going to be straight across. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-This is giving you limits, if you stay below it there is no problem. SUPERVISOR WALTER-The 24 foot surface, you indicated that, that is what they are paving now. Noted that when this was discussed years ago with the Planning Board there was some concern that we didn't necessarily want all our roads 24 feet, has that been changed? COUNCILMAN BORGOS-Noted that there was 28 feet paved, because it is actually paved on each side also. SUPERVISOR WALTER-That's not drainage? 132 COUNCILMAN BORGOS-That's a swail. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think this is good but I think the Planning Board should have some discretion to this width. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-We have to have a minimum. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-I think you have got to work 28 feet of it. The problem with 18 and 20 foot allowing the Planning Board to do it, you are going to have the edges of the road unraveling as it is now. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Helen Drive has always bothered me because it is such a nice subdivision , but what happened the road is 16 to 18 feet wide and it was ten feet on each side which was no man's land which is our right of way but it gets frayed along the edges because of parking. This addresses that problem. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-They usually put at least ten foot and possible five foot shoulders on but the state is going twelve foot and four. SUPERVISOR WALTER-In looking at that area there relative to drainage itself, if we are looking at the cross section, you are looking at a lot of water lying in the slope. COUNCIL MONTESI-That water will be forced into catch basins. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-The drainage system underneath it, that is part of the engineering of the road to maintain at least a quarter to half inch run. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Asked if there were written standards for the catch basins? COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-There are highway standards available. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Stated that the developer will do what the Town of Rueensbury wants them to do, but they really want to know what Rueensbury wants them to do and the engineers for the developer ought to have a good idea of where they are going. TOWN COUNSEL-In investigating the provisions of the subdivision regulations that applies here, it seemed considerably better than the present set of specs. Its a step in the right direction but it does not need a Public Hearing. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Does this Town Board want to have twenty-eight feet of paving in every subdivision? COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Yes, I think we need it. The narrower a road is going to be it cuts the site distance down. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-The developers should have to mark the corners of every lot so they realize that they don't own right up to the road. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-That is State regulations. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-The Town owns fifty feet of any road dedicated to the town... COUNCILMAN BORGOS-Asked when this would take affect and what happens to projects already going through the Planning Board that have done their economic studies? SUPERVISOR WALTER-With our new regulations with a sketch plan the developer has to come in with a drainage plan. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-We need to remove the Rueensbury standards, we need to say when this would take effect at what stage the PUD would be included. SUPERVISOR WALTER-That is my question because the Resolution has adopted Article 4 ! of the Subdivision Regs. How do we include PUD's now, are they considered a subdivision? TOWN COUNSEL-I will take a look at this section of the law. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Asked to have this checked and when it is brought back to the floor, if it is approved by the people who approved it and seconded it, we can amend it so that all those things are included. Noted that this should go to the Planning Board and ask for them to get their comments to us. STUART MESINGER-Said he will take care of taking this up with the Planning Board. RESOLUTION TO TABLE RESOLUTION 123. RESOLUTION NO. 124, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka. RESOLVED, by the Queensbury Town Board to table Resolution 123 until May 7, 1987 Town Board meeting. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW TO AUTHORIZE PERSONNEL OF NORTHWAY PLAZA TO SERVE PARKING VIOLATIONS SUMMONSES. RESOLUTION NO. 1252 Introduced by Mr. Stephen Borgos who moved for its adoption seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi. WHEREAS, the Northway Plaza has requested the Town Board to be allowed to serve parking violation summonses, and WHEREAS, the Town Board proposes a Local Law to authorize personnel of Northway Plaza to serve Parking Violation Summonses in non-parking areas in said shopping center and that said public hearing be held at 7:30 p.m. in the Meeting Room of the Town of Queensbury Office Building, Bay and Haviland Roads, in the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York on May 12, 1987 at which time all persons interested in the subject matter thereof will be heard, and it is further RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk be hereby directed and authorized to publish and provide notice of said public hearing as may be required by law. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: None Local Law Number of 1987 A Local Law to Authorize personnel of Northway Plaza to serve parking violations summonses in non-parking areas in said shopping center. Section 1. For the purpose of this Local Law, the words "vehicle", 'owner", "parked", "standing" shall have the meaning defined in the Vehicle and Traffic Law of the State of New York. Section 2. The parking or standing of a motor vehicle upon the lands and premises of the shopping center, known as Northway Plaza located at Route 9 and Route 254, Town of Queensbury, including the roadways, fire lanes, pedestrian walks, handicapped spaces (unless vehicle so designated) and all other areas of said premises and the lands and premises contiguous and appurtenant thereto, excepting within those areas marked and defined by road markings as parking areas and except as herein otherwise provided, is prohibited. Section 3. Any violation of the provisions of this Local Law shall, upon conviction, be punishable by a fine not to exceed twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for a first violation and not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00) for each subsequent violation and shall further subject such violator to such further penalties as may be provided by the Vehicle and Traffic Law of the State of New York. A notice of violation hereunder may be served upon such violator by placing such notice on the windshield of the motor vehicle in violation and may be so served by the Northway Plaza Manager, Assistant Manager, Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds of the Shopping Center or by any duly authorized officer or employee of the Town of Queensbury. Section 4. This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing thereof in the Office of the Secretary of State. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE BINGO LICENSE RESOLUTION NO.126, Introduced by Mr. Stephen Borgos, who moved for its adoption seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka. RESOLVED, that Bingo License No. 2709 be and hereby is approved allowing Glens Falls Lodge, #81 B.P.O.E. to hold Bingo Occasions from May 6, 1987 through April 27, 1988. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A WATER DISTRICT IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, WARREN COUNTY, NEW YORK TO BE KNOWN AS THE PEGGY ANN ROAD WATER DISTRICT IN SAID TOWN. RESOLUTION NO.127, Introduced by Mr. Stephen Borgos who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, has heretofore duly caused a general map, plan and report to be prepared by a competent engineer, duly licensed by the State of New York, which have been filed in the Office of the Town Clerk of said Town in relation to the establishment of a proposed water district in said Town, to be known as the Peggy Ann Road Water District, and WHEREAS, an order was duly adopted by said Town Board on the 26th day of August, 1986, reciting a description of the boundaries of said proposed water district, the improvements proposed therefor, the maximum amount proposed to be expended for said improvements, the proposed method of financing to be employed, the fact that said map, plan and report were on file in the Town Clerk's Office for public inspection and specifying the 10th day of September, ; 1986, at 7:30 o'clock p.m., prevailing time, at the Queensbury Town Office Building, Bay and Haviland Roads, in said Town, as the time when and the place where said Town Board would meet for the purpose of holding a public hearing to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof concerning the same; and WHEREAS, such order was duly published and posted in the manner and within the time prescribed by Section 209-d of the town Law and proof of such publication and posting has been duly presented to said Town Board; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held at the time and place set forth in said order, as aforesaid, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were duly heard; and WHEREAS, following public hearing, and upon the evidence given there at and upon the general map, plan and report along with the Notice of Determination of Non-Significance which the Town Board had caused to be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act concerning the establishment of the proposed Peggy Ann Road Water District and the construction of the improvements proposed thereof, the Town Board duly adopted resolutions establishing lead agency and making a determination of no significant environmental impact of the proposed water district and the construction of the improvements thereof; and WHEREAS, following said public hearing, said Town Board also duly adopted a resolution approving the establishment of said water district and the construction of the improvements proposed thereof, said resolution expressly providing that it was subject to a permissive referendum as provided by Section 209-e of the Town Law; and WHEREAS, after the expiration of the time for filing a petition requesting that the matter be submitted to a referendum of the eligible voters of the proposed district, the Town Clerk duly filed in the Office of the Warren County Clerk, a certificate stating that no petition requesting that the matter be submitted to a referendum had been filed with the Town Clerk; and WHEREAS, permission of the State Comptroller is not required because financing of the district will not occur on the issuance of bonds as evidence of indebtedness of said Town, now, therefore, it is hereby ORDERED, by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, as follows: .1.35 Section 1. A water district in the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, to be known as the Peggy Ann Road Water District, is hereby established in accordance with the aforesaid order of the Town Board and is bounded and described as set forth in Schedule "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. The improvements proposed for said water district consisting of the construction of a water system to serve said district including original furnishings, equipment, or apparatus required in connection therewith, all as more fully described in the map, plan and report prepared in connection therewith, is hereby authorized and approved. The maximum amount to be expended for such improvement is estimated to be One Hundred One Thousand Dollars ($101,000.00). The entire cost of said improvement shall be paid by Thomas J. Farone and Sons, Inc. and BGH Enterprises, a general partnership consisting of Salvatore-R. Beltrone, Marilyn S. Goldie and Bob Howard. The cost and expenses of that portion of the cost of the existing capital improvements of the Queensbury Water District shall be payable in the first instance from the several lots and parcels of land within the Peggy Ann Road Water District in the same manner and at the same time as other Town charges and as guaranteed by the said BGH Enterprises and Thomas J. Farone and Son, Inc., in accordance with an agreement relating to the establishment of a Town Water District dated February 24, 1987. Section 3. The Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this order to be duly recorded in the Office of the Clerk of Warren County, New York, within ten (10) days after the adoption of this order by this Town Board and to file a certified copy thereof within that time in the Office of the State Department of Audit and Control, in Albany, New York, both pursuant to Subdivision 1 of Section 209-g of the Town Law. When so recorded, such order shall be presumptive evidence of the regularity of the proceedings for the establishment of said Peggy Ann Road Water District of the proceedings instituted for the construction of the improvements hereinbefore described and of all other action taken by said Town Board in relation thereto. Section 4. This order shall take effect immediately. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: None DESCRIPTION OF PEGGY ANN WATER DISTRICT All that certain parcel of land situate in the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, being portions of Lots 63 and 70 in the First Division of the Queensbury Patent, in said town, and which parcel is bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point in the northerly line of Peggy Ann Road where said northerly line is intersected by the division line between Lot 63 in the First Division of the Queensbury Patent on the west and Lot 56 of said patent on the east; running thence in a southerly direction, along said division line and along the westerly line of the Queensbury Water District, and along the westerly line of the Sherman Avenue Water District, for a distance of approximately 1150 feet to the common corner of Lots 63, 56, 55 and 62 of said Queensbury Patent; thence in a westerly direction, along the southerly line of Lot 63 and along the northerly line of the Sherman Avenue Water District, and along the northerly line of Extension #1 of said district, for a distance of approximately 2772 feet to the southwest corner of Lot 63, and being also the common corner with Lots 70, 69 and 62 of said Queensbury Patent; thence continuing westerly, along the southerly line of Lot 70 and along the northerly line of lands of Ernest G. Centerbar, and crossing lands of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, for a distance of approximately 1286 feet to the westerly line of said power corporation lands; thence in a northerly direction, along said westerly line and along the easterly line of lands of John and Elizabeth Joseph, and along lands of James N. and Calista Conley, for a distance of 850 feet, more or less; thence in a westerly direction, along the northerly line of said lands of Conley, for a distance of 866.02 feet to the easterly line of lands of Charles and Irene Sumner; thence in a northerly direction, along said lands of Sumner, and along lands of Bertha and Steven Sumner, and lands of Peter A. Mosher, for a distance of 861.16 feet to the northeast corner of said lands of Mosher; thence in a westerly direction, part of the way along said lands of Mosher, for a distance of 197.72 feet; thence in a northerly direction, along the easterly line of lands of the City of Glens Falls, and along the easterly line of the Queensbury Water District, for a distance of 926.13 feet to the southerly line of Peggy Ann Road; thence continuing northerly for a distance of 51 feet, more or less, to the northerly line of said road; thence in an easterly direction along said northerly line and along the southerly line of the Queensbury Water District, for a distance of approximately 1920 feet to the easterly line of Lot 70 in the First Division of the Queensbury Patent, being 1.36 also the the westerly line of Lot 63 of said patent; thence continuing easterly, along the northerly line of Peggy Ann Road and along the southerly line of the Rueensbury Water District, for a distance or approximately 2950 feet to the place of beginning. Dated: August 14, 1986 BOB STEWART-Stated that one of the requirements of the developer was to present his name to this Board for your approval...John and Dan Galusha of E. Galusha & Sons are here tonight to offer their name to the Town Board for approval...in addition presented certificate of insurance also presented the Town Board with security check of $83,361.00 with a supplement escrow agreement which provides if they don't do what they are supposed to do the Town will have the money to do it and if they do it like they are supposed to and the Town Engineer is satisfied the job is done, the money goes back to the contractor. We had paid at the time of signing the water district, some estimated expenses...Mr. Mathias notified me today that there was some additional expenses that you will soon start to incur which are some administration expense for supervising this project and also estimates for your Engineer Water Department Advisory -� Department. Those two items total $8,400.00 and presented the Town Board with this Certified Check in that amount. SUPERVISOR WALTER-I will check all these figures...the name of the construction firm has been given and now"the Town Board will have to name a Professional Engineer to oversee the situation. TOWN COUNSEL-Noted that the Town Board requested in the agreement the contract calls for the Town to be named Insured and this certificate of Insurance does not say that. I am sure it can be amended, and the contractor can provide it before work begins. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Agreed that this matter would be taken care of the next day at another Town Board Meeting and any action that needs to be taken relative to the Town. These dollars go in escrow. Asked the Town Board to approve the construction firm by resolution and also retain the engineer for supervision for the April 29, 1987 Town Board meeting. The internal procedure within the Town is when all of these things are taken care of the Town Highway Superintendent and the Town Water Superintendent will be notified by memo that the Town Board has done what they need to do and the developers have done what they need to do and that any kind of cooperation can be began as far as permits from the Highway Department Water Department, their employees will be released to handle those matters. Noted that she had talked with the Water Superintendent and the Highway Superintendent and they will not move on it until they hear and that is why I want the Town Board do it by resolution and that resolution can be sent to those people, then they will go ahead. DISCUSSION: SUPERVISOR WALTER-We have a Resolution on a Local Law... noted that the purpose of the law is for the inspection of installation and alteration of repair of wiring. In the Town of Rueensbury we use one firm who has the exclusive right for all inspections in the town. This local law within the town would regulate it and allow other electrical inspectors to inspect within the town. Page 5 under 9...license fees...should be $500.00 before we act on the resolution this should be determined. COUNCILMAN BORGOS-Referring to page 2 paragraph 6 noted that the inspectors fee charged has always been regulated by the inspector rather than the town, they are in business to make money how do we set the fee? We should be able to control it but we can't really set the fee. TOWN COUNSEL-Basically the only changes I made was a renumbering that made more sense and provide that the Town Board, as opposed to the Building Inspector, approve the Electrical Inspectors. COUNCILMAN BORGOS-Then instead of what charge will be fixed why don't we say what charge will be approved? SUPERVISOR WALTER-I would like to hold this until the meeting of May 29, 1987 when we have everything altogether...A copy of the law has to be on file with the Town Clerk and this law doesn't comply with what was originally put out. DISCUSSION HELD REGARDING THE RIDGE ROAD PARK BIDS: SUPERVISOR WALTER-Stated that a decision would be made within the next two weeks regarding the bidding. RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF EARLTOWN RESOLUTION NO.128, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to hold a Public Meeting for the purpose of receiving input from the public on the nature and scope of issues which should be addressed in the draft environmental impact statement for the Earltown project, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that a public meeting be held for the purpose of receiving input from the public on the nature and scope of issues which should be addressed in the draft environmental impact statement for the Earltown Project on May 7th, 1987 at 8:00 P.M. at the Queensbury Town Office, Bay at Haviland Roads, Queensbury, New York 12801 t Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: Mr. Kurosaka Absent: None COMMUNICATIONS Ltr.- Adirondack Girl Scout Council, Inc. on file Ltr. - Bud Sullivan, P.O. Box 11, Fort Edward,NY regarding passing zone in front of King Williams Restaurant and Lounge. DISCUSSION: SUPERVISOR WALTER:Stated that this being a County Road referred the matter to Mr. Austin. Ltr.- Thomas Flaherty regarding May 13, 14, 1987 Seminar in Syracuse, N.Y. on file. RESOLUTION TO ATTEND SEMINAR RESOLUTION NO. 129, Introduced by Mr. Stephen Borgos who moved for its adoption seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan WHEREAS, Thomas Flaherty and Mike Shaw have requested permission to attend a one day seminar on location of underground facilities to be conducted in Syracuse, New York May 13, 14, 1987. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that permission is hereby granted to Thomas Flaherty and Mike Shaw to attend a one day seminar on location of underground facilities in Syracuse, New York and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes payment of all reasonable and necessary expenses. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: None SUPERVISOR WALTER-Read a letter from Mr. Kenneth Sorlin stating that he is resigning from the Planning Board. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AUDIT OF BILLS RESOLUTION NO. 130, Introduced by Mr. Stephen Borgos who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan RESOLVED, that Audit of Bills as appears on April 28, 1987, Abstract and numbered 1700 and totaling $3386.00 be and hereby is approved. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 131, Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos. RESOLVED that the Town Board hereby moves into executive session to discuss Queensbury Association VS Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mr. Borgos, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent: None ON MOTION THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED DARLEEN DOUGHER, TOWN CLERK i