Loading...
1985-05-14 TOWN BOARD MEETING MAY 14, 1985 TOWN BOARD MEMBERS Mrs. Frances Walter-Supervisor Mr. Daniel Olson-Councilman Dr. Charles Eisenhart-Councilman Mr. Daniel Morrell-Councilman Mrs. Betty Monahan-Councilman Mr. Wilson Mathias-Town Counsel PRESS: G.F. Post Star, W1*SC GUESTS: Mr. Lozo, Mr. Williams, Mrs. Green, Mr. Nason, Mr. Brandt, Mrs. Shenk, Mr. Bolton, Mr. Stec, Mr. Mackey, Mr. Caffry, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Phillips TOWN OFFICIALS: Mr. Paul Naylor, Mr. Mack Dean, Mr. Ralph VanDusen PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY SUPERVISOR WALTER MEETING OPENED 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING Proposed amendments to the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance 7:45 P.M. Notice Shown SUPERVISOR WALTER-Asked for comments concerning the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. MR. RICHARD NASON-Operation Manager for the Woodlands Dept. of Finch Pruyn...I am concerned about the zoning changes in regard to clear cutting. The change from twentyfive acres to one acre threshold is very restrictive. Clear cutting is not bad and could be used as a tool. When you reduce to one acre in any forest management system, any harvesting would require a site review plan which is detailed—and a lot of paper work for. landowners. Example: You could have a stand with five or six hundred trees per acre under six inches with five or six large trees in there and if you went in and cut those trees you would actually be doing a clear cutting under your present definition of clear cutting. Questioned if the Planning Board received any technical advice in regard to clear cutting and how it is used and what effect it has on the forest industry and landowners? I would like to see the definition of clear cut follow the definition of the APA. And secondly have an ad hoc committee sit down with the Planning Board with professionals to draw guidelines. I feel that cutting this down to one acre would be very difficult to administrate and basically, harvesting would have to have a site review which would make a lot of work for the planning board and I do not think it will accomplish what that Town wants to accomplish. I would recommend that this be tabled and that the board look at a new definition based on the Park Agency definition and then set up a committee to work with the Planning Board. Present APA Definition of Clear Cutting:Any cutting of trees over six inches in diameter breast height over any ten year cutting cycle where the average residule base in area of such trees after such cutting is less than thirty square feet of base area measured with the area harvested ...where regeneration is issuant by standing conditions after such cutting the average residual base of the trees at least one inch in diameter at breast height and at least thirty square feet per acre measured within the area harvested. A clear cut may not be deemed taken place unless the average residual base of the trees over six inches in diameter at breast height is less than ten square feet of basial area. COUNCILMAN EISENHART-You are saying that the proposal for a site plan review is laborious? MR. NASON-Yes...there is a lot of paper work etc... COUNCILMAN EISENHART-Are you opposed to any site plan review? MR. NASON- No. COUNCILMAN EISENHART-How large should it be? NR. NASON-I could go along with fifteen acres...one or two acres does not constitute clear cutting. Another problem is with disease...we would have to come in for a sanitation cut... MR. MACK DEAN-I believe that the Planning Board agrees that the definition should be changed and that the definition would be worked together with the APA's definition...I believe that the Planning Board felt that this should be tabled for further information. The Board went from ten acres down to one. The main reason being that there are a few critical areas that were cleared cut and totally destroyed... MR. MIKE BRANDT-I would like to make a comment on clear cutting too, I think it is very restrictive for West Mountain Corp. in its operation of West Mountain Ski Center. Very often you have to change a ski trail and one acre is pretty hard to see when we got three hundred acres of ski trails. I am not afraid of twenty, twentyfive acre change that is reasonable to go through the process I am not sure it serves anybody a great deal of purpose. I do not see a great deal of problems in the Town of Queensbury from clear cutting causing erosion. I question whether there is a need for this since there has not been a history of problem in our area at least, that I am aware of. ...Comment on construction on slopes 15% grade...The rules are clear when you make a subdivision you must comply with site plan review and it is an expensive process, you have got to make contour maps, you have to show what you are going to do and a surveyor involved. When that plan is approved it seems to me not to serve a good purpose, it does not serve the town a purpose to ask the residents within that approved subdivision who may want to build a little addition to the house or little garage or something to go though a site plan review of their lot which is essentially is duplicating what has already been done in the initial approval process. I think it is an expensive burden you would be putting on individual homeowners and I do not think it is necessary or serves much of a purpose for the Town or the individual. COUNCILMAN OLSON-You are saying that you would be opposed to this? MR. BRANDT-I am not opposed to it for the development, if I am coming in for a new development it make sense but once the people in Northwest Village who own there, if they would like to put on a solar complex on their house they would have to give you a coutour map with their site, make a map, it is a very expensive process. When you are making a whole subdivision, fine, you have to have mapping anyhow, it is relatively small cost in the total cost of the subdivision. For a homeowner to do it just for a small thing on their home it is very expensive, I do not think it serves any purpose. I think it creates a lot of paper work for the Town to handle and a lot of processing that they do not want either. In regard to wetlands...We have some boggie areas along Quaker Road and there is movement to declare those wetlands undevelopable and if you look at where most of the commercial development is along the flats of Quaker Road it was all bog at one time or the same ground level as what is now bog. That has been filled in by various sources of fill and we have made a very nice commercial area which is a very essential part of our tax base. I would be very careful at stopping that because we already have a concentration of public monies in the road system that serves that and you will have to widen and fix that road and you need that tax base. In the future you will have to provide some kind of sewage system in there so if you have more of a concentration of development, I think it serves the Town and the people better than if you reserve that for the critters. There are six million acres in the park which is adjacent to us within our town, or part of it, that is reserved for all of Gods critters, I would like to see some reserved for us. COUNCILMAN EISENHART-Do we have any control over what is called a wetland? MR. BRANDT-I think you can push pretty hard in one direction I think that there -- are practical considerations whenever the process of government on the State level turns. If it is an undue hardship for the Town to be restricted from development I think that is taken into consideration. From my own observations here I believe that the sanding of the roads that we have done over the years in that route _ 1 9 Quaker Road Area has silted that drainage basin quite a bit and probably raised the ground water table, the stream beds and caused more of that water to accumulate so it may be some of our own doing that the lands got wetter than it was. Perhaps the answer would be to dredge out the streams back to its original Pvel and make a few catch basins and try and catch the silt that we bring in,... MR. BILL MORTON-9 Meadow Drive-I think that the Town Board has the obligation 119 and the responsibility to protect the natural resources in the Town on behalf of the people. As I understand it, there is a move to provide a buffering along the streams by preventing hardtopping within 50' of a stream. I think that is a step in the right direction, I do not think that it goes far enough and I would propose to do is send some additional information to the Town Board or Planning Board on some concepts in stream corridor management, which I think that the Town should look at and consider. The Town has a number of streams, the community should view these as an asset, they are a natural resource and they do provide a variety of benefits. I think that it is incumbent upon the Town to take every opportunity that we have to retain and propetuate them and keep them in good condition, for our generation and future generations. In regard to wetlands...We have Federal and State policies which are trying to protect the nation it would be incumbant upon the Town Board to also be consistent with Federal and State Policies and try to protect the wetlands in the Town. In the northern part of Queensbury what you have, in the Adirondack Park, is the bulk of the wetlands are in land conservation zones these are either land conservation 42 acres or 10 acres. To my way of thinking this is good but in the southern part of the Town there are numerous wetlands that do not receive that kind of protection, so what we have here are policies from the Federal and State levels working at cross purposes with policies at the local level. When the local government zones the land, a wetland and allows for one acre lot size that sends a certain set of signals and ground rules to a developer to encourage the developer to develope those wetlands consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The State and Federal policies are trying to protect the wetlands, so you have the different levels of government working at cross purposes...it would be better to have consistent relationship between Federal, State and Local Levels and try to have consistant policies so there is a partnership between the Federal, State and Local Governments, to protect the wetlands, so the developer is working with the same set of ground rules. I would hope that consideration would be given to zoning the wetlands in the southern parts of the Town and at least land conservation... MRS. SHIRLEY SHENK-Resident of Northwest Village-Regarding Construction on Slopes...We bought a lot and built a house in Northwest Village seven years ago we are above the 15% grade. We have no problems with water, West Mountain has drained much of the mountain to go into the snow making pond so as far as water runoff there is none...My point is we knowingly bought into an approved subdivision (30 lots) and now if thirty families want to make any change in their driveway or addition, it is not something that we expected to happen it is very costly we just do not have the problems in the neighborhoods that would seem -- to me to take up your time or ours to duplicate what a building permit authorizes us to do. If I want to put an addition on my house do I have to come for a site plan review under this proposal? SUPERVISOR WALTER-Yes, that is what it does say. MRS. SHENK-It is not just Northwest Village there are other people who live on a hill more than 15% grade...I can foresee a lot of problems in trying to resell a house... SUPERVISOR WALTER-For the purpose of public information, the Planning Board had discussed these changes, the changes were for problems that they had had with dealing with the zoning ordinance. They presented them to the Town Board we made no changes in them but rather set them up for a public hearing. I think that in last nights session (with Planning Board) they looked at what they had done, as we talked about the section on cutting restrictions, they requested that the Board hold up on that section...we also talked about construction on slopes and, I know about that proposed construction on a privately owned driveway the idea was to cut that slope back to 10%... MRS. SHENK-I do not know what that means? You cannot construct a private driveway on your property on a slope of 10% or more? SUPERVISOR WALTER- No, you can do that if the Planning Board looks at the site and approves of it... COUNCILMAN OLSON-Under Section 7.012 and the comments from the public that we need a better definitions... MR. DEAN-The main concern was accelerated run off created by driveways that are too steep... MRS. SHENK-I would make the suggestion that consideration be given to existing 120 subdivisions that have been approved by the Town be exempt from this...be grandfathered out... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Once you have changed something that has been approved then the first approval is not valid. They have only approved certain cuts in certain slopes when you go to change it, it negates their work. COUNCILMAN OLSON-When we give this back to the planning board might be existing houses in approved subdivisions would be grandfathered but new construction... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-you have missed my point, they have approved a driveway to be put in at a certain angle and level, I am talking about a subdivision, you got a house up there you put a driveway in one way that was the approved way, the minute you start monkeying with that any which way you can change the whole water course for the subdivision, so you can't grandfather people that --t are already there. COUNCILMAN OLSON-I think that the Planning Board was looking at major construction. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-They have had changes just from driveways and driveway levels changing up and down on the road and what it is doing to the guy across the road. MR. BRANDT-When a subdivision is approved, the roads are approved the lots are approved but not the surface driveways going to the house, they do not have approvals or disapprovals, that is up to the builder, it does not get involved with Town government. People that build on steep slopes are building for a view, they are building a fairly expensive home and what I feel that they are very aware of erosion, they have a lot to lose if they lose their soil. Most people build retaining walls and a lot of nice work is done, I question whether government has to protect an individual or the people down below them. If someone above my house causes erosion and it comes down on my land, I can go after them...I am not sure the government should protect me, I can handle it myself. MR. GEORGE STEC-Butler Pond Road-I would like to voice my objection to 6.012 construction on slopes also, there are many people in the Town of Queensbury ....some of Queensbury is remote and wooded and much of the land is owned r by private individuals with small holdings, ten, twenty, one hundred acres and their ingress and egress is through old roads many times they might travel over ---' peoples property to get there, I am not familiar with site plan review, the number of pages that are involved but I can see it is restrictive....If I own land I would want access to that land...if I want the timber harvested and use that roads to get to it, knowing well that if the construction I do or have done causes someone else damage I am liable. I do not see where it is necessary for local government to say you can or cannot put a driveway in to your house or woodlot I think it is restrictive, it will lose the land value...in regard to clear cutting I believe that one acre is too restrictive. MR. STEVE MACKEY-Conservation Chairman of the Adirondack Mountain Club-I wanted to speak on the wetland issue...We need the open spaces, we do not want to live in an urban society where everthing is paved over, it is nice to have woods and wild life around. The wetlands are the most productive area that there are, more productive than the ocean or woodlands or marsh. The are productive of biomass, vegetation and wildlife. Wetlands filter water, water that comes through from storm drainage, it also replenishes the ground water it also prevents flooding...50% of the wetlands in N.Y. have been filled in just one wetland here is no big deal but when you just keep filling them in pretty soon we will be in trouble. It is a matter of having foresight and plan instead of waiting for a crisis, now is the time to rezone these areas or go ahead with the site plan review... COUNCILMAN EISENHART-Have you given this information to ENCON, they are the ones that set the maps...? MR. STEVE MACKEY-They have done the maps for Warren County...the Town has not reacted at all, there are smaller areas in the Town...the problem with the zoning along Quaker Road being Industrial... COUNCILMAN OLSON-We know we have streams in this Town...maybe some of the wetlands on Quaker Road are over runs of streams... MR. STEVE MACKEY-I was under the impression that it was wetlands from here 121 to the Mountain on the east side of Lake George not so long ago... MR. JOHN CAFFRY-TEE HILL ROAD- I think that it is good that the Town .is considering site plan review over the wetlands so they can have some control over how they are used, while we still have a chance to protect them. The proposed ordinance changes are good but I think that they could be strenghtened to make them easier to enforce, in particular the section on site plan review requirements 5.070 it has a list of nine factors, but none of them mention protecting wetlands or other ecological values. If that was written into the site plan review it would be easier for the Planning Board to apply its new power and carry out site plan review on wetlands and give them something to go by to make it more enforceable. i SUPERVISOR WALTER-Many of the projects that are going to be approved would have to have SEQRA Environment Impact Statement under that, would this then ` be in addition to? MR. JOHN CAFFRY-I do not know if SEQRA provides the mechanism for the Town to review the plans and impose some conditions on them like they can do under site plan review. Requested that the Board rezone some of the important wetlands. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Under Article Z Section Z.OZO Definitions Junk Automobile it should delete "intended or" the purpose of this is to give more teeth to the Building & Zoning Dept. to enforce that section... Also Article 7 Section 7.076 frontage upon a public street...we put in frontage at 40 feet and such frontage shall provide actual physical access to and from the lot to be built upon for purposes of ingress and egress to the lot by emergency vehicles such as fire trucks and/or ambulances...Question to Counsel-Why are we concerned with emergency vehicles getting to the lot? You want your building to abutt on a public street you want the driveway also to front on a public street, the reason I am bringing this up is that the Planning Board took exception to that and did not feel that, that was necessary. They felt that if you had your house on a public street, that your driveway could go out on a non-public street. COUNCILMAN OLSON-I disagree with the Planning Board, that is a problem that the Highway Dept. has come into. The problem is that we have people that buy lots, that only have ten to fifteen feet that fronts on a Town Road and they legally can get a building permit. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-The problem is that it does not come out on a public highway and you have to get into it... SUPERVISOR WALTER-They felt that emergency vehicles could pull up at the front door they do not have to go up the driveway... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-What are you going to do about a house that sets back one hundred feet? SUPERVISOR WALTER-For the purposes of the public the Junk Automobiles and Frontage on a Public Street were changes that the Town Board wanted...but the Planning Board is having a problem with Frontage on a Public Street. COUNCILMAN OLSON-We have had problems with people who have purchased a lot that was half way up an undeveloped road, that has not be approved by the Town and ran a driveway three hundred feet to a Town Road...the road could not be accepted by the Town for legal reasons... The Planning Board is not the Board that gets the calls in the middle of the winter, its the Highway Dept. -- UNKNOWN-Requested that the Town Board not take action, requested time to review the statements of Mr. Stec. and Mr. Nason... TOWN COUNSEL-The justification originally by the State of New York was to say that you cannot build unless you front on a public street, the rational for that was that emergency vehicles could get to your house, that was a time when people were probably in subdivision where they were closer to the road and did not have the concerns of being back. I think that, that judicial rational has not changed, I think that all this does is carry it forward if there is to be change in another direction it has to come from someplace other than the Town Board. It sure does not make any sense to me if you are saying that the reason you cannot build there is that the fire trucks cannot get there, to be able to say that the fire trucks can get to your lot but cannot get to your house. 122 SUPERVISOR WALTER-We can change the wording-to say that the required frontage will be 30 feet, frontage shall provide actual physical access to and from ie. the driveway will be on the public road... MR. HOWARD FISHER SR.-North Queensbury-Fishers Marina-Spoke on the system that the fire companies use in getting to houses off the main roads...questioned if anyone thought about using something other than salt on the road...use coal in some areas..voiced his complaint about the conditions of some areas of Ridge Road..junk vehicles etc. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I have a problem with the ShoreLine Fill-we should exempt gravel...if gravel is not replaced you can have muck coming in... i SUPERVISOR WALTER-Would you put a limitation on that? i" COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes...a load... COUNCILMAN MORRELL-You cannot build seawalls? -� SUPERVISOR WALTER-It does not say you can't it says you are under site plan review if you want to do that.... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Again, if we are going to put half the Town under site plan review at the rate we are going, we will have a Planning Board that never gets their work done. I would like some clarification on 4.020-as far as restaurants are concerned...if we are talking about a bar that is disguised as a restaurant, I will have a problem with that...because it is open all hours of the day and night, the noise etc. all the permitted uses in that zone are of the type that are not open 24 hours except fire stations. SUPERVISOR WALTER-Most small shopping areas have a sandwich shop ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-A restaurant is ok but not a bar operating under the name of a restaurant...could we define opening and closing hours? SUPERVISOR WALTER-Asked for further comments, hearing none the public hearing was closed. 9:03 P.M. { PUBLIC HEARING 9:04 P.M. Mobile Home Application of Darwin A. Williams Jr. of 71 Briwood Cir. to locate a mobile home on Ogden Road, owner of property Ernestine Bovee-Mr. & Mrs. Williams were present...Notice Shown...approved by the Building and Zoning Dept. COUNCILMAN EISENHART-There is only one mobile home on this street at the moment, next to the Faith Bible Church, the Building Dept says it is compatable with other residences, but the other residences are homes... MR. WILLIAMS-presented the Town Board with signatures from residents in the area stating no objection to the placement of a mobile home on the street... Noted that there is another double wide mobile home in the area... SUPERVISOR WALTER-Asked for public comments... COUNCILMAN EISENHART-I was going to vote no on this but when he brings the names in here I cannot kick on the thing if the people around there do not mind it, it is alright with me. COUNCILMAN OLSON-You have nine people that signed the petition, how many other people on the street? i MR. WILLIAMS-That is just about the whole street...There are twelve houses on the street, one is ready to fall down... SUPERVISOR WALTER-Asked for further comments, hearing none the public hearing was closed. 9:07 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING 9:10 P.M. 123 Mobile Home Application of Charles and Donna Lozo of John Burke Apts. to locate a mobile home on the corner of Eisenhower and Ralph Road...Owner of property Ralph and Geneva Elmore...Notice Shown...Approved by Building and Zoning Office...Mr. Lozo was present... COUNCILMAN EISEN HA RT-Questioned where Ralph Road was... MR. LOZO-That is not a Town Road... COUNCILMAN EISENHART-We have approved another mobile home on Eisenhower Avenue and it fits in with the area... MRS. ELMORE-Showed the Board a copy of a map of the area... MR. LOZO-I am purchasing the land...contingent upon getting approval to place a mobile home... SUPERVISOR WALTER-Asked for further comments, hearing none the Public Hearing was closed...9:11 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING 9:12 P.M. Mobile Home Application of Olive T. Green of East Drive to locate a mobile home on Sanders Road...Owner of Property Stanley Phillips...Notice Shown...Approved by the Building & Zoning Dept....Mrs. Green was present... MR. PHILLIPS-Presented a paper to the Town Board regarding the ownership of the property...Mrs. Green is now the owner...have signatures of neighbors, no opposition to the placement of a mobile home... COUNCILMAN OLSON-This certainly meets the criteria of a hardship... SUPERVISOR WALTER-Asked for further comments, hearing none the Public Hearing Closed 9:13 P.M. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MINUTES RESOLUTION NO. 122, Introduced by Dr. Charles Eisenhart who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Daniel Morrell: RESOLVED, that the Town Board Minutes of April 23, 1985 be and hereby are approved. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Olson, Dr. Eisenhart, Mr. Morrell, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent:None RESOLUTION OF APPOINTMENT RESOLUTION NO. 123, Introduced by Mr. Daniel Olson who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Daniel Morrell: WHEREAS, there is a vacancy for Town Health Officer in the Town of Queensbury, due to the resignation of Dr. John G. Dier, Jr., and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury wishes to appoint a Health i Officer for the Town of Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT �— RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby appoints Robert Evans D.O. of Assembly Point, Queensbury as Health Officer for the Town of Queensbury, term to begin on May 13, 1985 through December 31, 1987 and be it further RESOLVED, that compensation for this position will be set at Five Thousand ($5,000.00) Dollars per year. 124 - Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Olson, Dr. Eisenhart, Mr. Morrell, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent:None SUPERVISOR WALTER-Dr. Evans is in Family practice with Dr. Tedesco, he is a resident of the Town of Queensbury, he is Board certified with the American Academy of Family Physicians...he has shown a lot of interest in this position and we certainly do need a Health Officer. i RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUPERVISOR TO SIGN EASEMENT AGREEMENT RESOLUTION NO. 124, Introduced by Mr. Daniel Morrell who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Daniel Olson: WHEREAS, the Town is interested in properly maintaining and controlling slopes adjacent to town highways, and WHEREAS, the owners of property, David and Jayme Harvey and Top of the World Corp. desire that certain slopes located on the southerly side of Lockhart Mountain Road be maintained and controlled by the Town, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor be and hereby is authorized to sign an easement agreement for control of slopes on the southerly side of Lockhart Mountain Road, Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Olson, Dr. Eisenhart, Mr. Morrell, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent:None MR. PAUL NAYLOR-HIGHWAY SUPT.-We are having a bad erosion problem on Lockhart Mountain, trees, rocks falling down into traffic, we need to do somenting fast... RESOLUTION OF PETITION RESOLUTION NO. 125, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Daniel Olson: WHEREAS, County Route 254, known as the Quaker Road, is a main east-west artery in the Town of Queensbury carrying heavy commercial and industrial traffic and WHEREAS, current traffic flows have taxed the limitation of the road design and surfaces and WHEREAS, Route 254 is not a Town Road under the jurisdiction of the Town of Queensbury Highway Superintendent but is a County Road and WHEREAS, Warren County has been reluctant to face this unsuitable and potentially dangerous problem to this point in-time and WHEREAS, the Glens Falls Urban Transportation Council has postponed any activity, however.primary, for several years, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby petitions the County of Warren to commence redesign of Route 254 in cooperation with the Glens Falls Urban Transportation Council immediately enabling widening and resurfacing to take place before a prolonged amount of time to avoid possible tragedy, and be it further RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution be sent to: DOT Commissioner James L. LaRocca, Senator Ronald Stafford, Assemblyman Robert D'Andrea, Sterling Goodspeed, Chairman of Warren County Board of Supervisors, Mayor Edward Bartholomew, Chairman Glens Falls Urban Transportation Council and Fred Austin, D.P.W. Chief, Warren County. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Olson, Dr. Eisenhart, Mr. Morrell, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent:None I \� RESOLUTION OF REAPPOINTMENT TO BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW RESOLUTION NO. 126, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Frances Walter: RESOLVED, to reappoint Leslie Rymkewicz of Chestnut Ridge Road Queensbury to a three year term on the Board of Assessment Review, term to expire 12/31/87. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Olson, Dr. Eisenhart, Mr. Morrell, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent:None SUPERVISOR WALTER-The Town of Queensbury has had an Industrial Development Agency and we have not been active. About five months ago we were looking at doing some kind of business through our Industrial Development Agency, finding out that because we were inactive and it was created in 1974 that there was an expiration of 1984. What we have asked that State Legislature to do is to give us legislation that will amend the General Municipal Law and allow us to continue our Industrial Development Agency. This is a Home Rule request its been drafted, the copy of the bill is S-6018 it will be introduced by Senator Stafford, in order to get this on the floor we need to have a resolution authorizing me to sign a Home Rule Request. This extends Industrial Development Agency as it is so we can do business within the Town and hopefully that will be another tool for us to bring some industry into this Town as other areas are doing. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUPERVISOR TO SIGN A HOME RULE REQUEST RESOLUTION NO. 127, Introduced by Dr. Charles Eisenhart who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Daniel Morrell: Resolution forthcoming from Town Counsel, to be found on page DuIy adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Olson, Dr. Eisenhart, Mr. Morrell, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent:None RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMEN'T'S TO LOCAL LAW NUMBER 2 OF 1983 REGULATING TRANSIENT MERCHANTS AND SOLICITORS IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY RESOLUTION NO. 128, Introduced by Dr. Charles Eisenhart who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined the need to clarify certain provisions of Local Law Number 2 of 1983 regarding license fees, exemptions, and general regulations for transient merchants and solicitors, and to regulate persons leasing space to groups of transient merchants and solicitors, and 126 . WHEREAS, proposed amendments to Local Law Number 2 of 1983 licensing of Transient Merchant and/or Solicitor Markets and clarifying certain provisions regulating transient merchants and solicitors, a copy of which is hereto annexed, has been prepared and WHEREAS, the proposed local law is worthy of consideration for legislative action, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that a public hearing be held concerning the proposed adoption of said local law and that said public hearing be held at 7:30 P.M. in the meeting room of the Town of Queensbury Office Building, Bay & Haviland Roads in the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York on th 28th day of May, 1985 at which time all persons interested in the subject thereof will be heard, and -.. be it 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. Olson, Dr. Eisenhart, Mr. Morrell, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent:None RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE PERMIT FOR MOBILE HOME RESOLUTION NO. 129, Introduced by Mr. Daniel Morrell who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan: WHEREAS, Mr. Darwin A. Williams Jr. has made application in accordance with paragraph 2 (c) Section 4, of an ordinance of the Town of Queensbury entitled; ORDINANCE FOR THE REGULATION OF MOBILE HOMES AND MOBILE HOME COURTS IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, WARREN COUNTY, NEW YORK, to locate a mobile home at property situated 407 Ogden Road, and WHEREAS, this Town Board has conducted a public hearing in connection with ., said application and has hard all persons desiring to be heard in favor of or against said application, and WHEREAS, it is hereby determined that the facts presented in said application and at said public hearing are sufficient to authorize the issuance of the permit requested by said application, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to the provisions of the above mentioned ordinance, permission is hereby given to Mr. Darwin A. Williams Jr. to locate a mobile home at property situated at 407 Ogden Road and that the Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to issue such permit in accordance with the terms and conditions of said ordinance. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Olson, Dr. Eisenhart, Mr. Morrell, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent:None RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE PERMIT FOR MOBILE HOME RESOLUTION NO. 130, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan, who moved for its -- adoption, seconded by Mr. Daniel Olson: WHEREAS, Charles and Donna Lozo have made application in accordance with paragraph 2 (c) Section 4, of an ordinance of the Town of Queensbury entitled; ORDINANCE FOR THE REGULATION OF MOBILE HOMES AND MOBILE HOME COURTS IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, WARREN COUNTY, NEW YORK, to locate a mobile home at property situated on the Corner of Eisenhower Avenue and Ralph Road, and 127 WHEREAS, this Town Board has conducted a public hearing in connection with said application and has heard all persons desiring to be heard in favor of or against said application, and WHEREAS, it is hereby determined that the facts presented in said application and at said public hearing are sufficient to authorize the issuance of the permit requested by said application, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to the provisions of the above mentioned ordinance, permission is hereby given to Charles and Donna Lozo to locate a mobile home at property situated at the corner of Eisenhower Avenue and Ralph Road and that the Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to issue such permit in accordance with the terms and conditions of said ordinance. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Olson, Dr. Eisenhart, Mr. Morrell, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent:None RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE PERMIT FOR MOBILE HOME RESOLUTION NO. 131, Introduced by Mr. Daniel Olson who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan: WHEREAS, Olive T. Green has made application in accordance with paragraph 2 (c) Section 4, of an ordinance of the Town of Queensbury entitled; ORDINANCE FOR THE REGULATION OF MOBILE HOMES AND MOBILE HOME COURTS IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, WARREN COUNTY, NEW YORK, to locate a mobile home at property situated at Sanders Road, and WHEREAS, this Town Board has conducted a public hearing in connection with said application and has heard all persons desiring to be heard in favor of or against said application, and WHEREAS, it is hereby determined that the facts presented in said application and at said public hearing are sufficient to authorize the issuance cf the permit requested by said application, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to the provisions of the above mentioned ordinance, permission is hereby given to Olive T. Green to locate a mobile home at property situated at Sanders Road and that the Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to issue such permit in accordance with the terms and conditions of said ordinance. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Olson, Dr. Eisenhart, Mr. Morrell, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent:None DISCUSSION HELD IN REGARD TO AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE COUNCILMAN EISEN HART-Requested that the Planning Board look again at what was questioned tonight...it was decided that the following sections would be brought before a vote tonight...7.011,7.011A, 7.074, 4.020h&g, 6.040, 7.010, 2.020 and 5.070...no action will be taken at this time on the remaining changes Article 7 Section 7.076 Section 7.011B, Section 7.012, Section 7.063 RESOLUTION TO AMEND QUEENSBURY ZONING ORDINANCE RESOLUTION NO. 132, Introduced by Dr. Charles Eisenhart who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Daniel Morrell: WHEREAS, the Queensbury Planning Board presented the Town Board with several amendments to the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board set a public hearing on May 14, 1985 128 at 7:30 P.M. on the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, and WHEREAS, the Public Hearing was held at the specified time and place and all interested parties were heard on the proposed amendments to the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and WHEREAS, certain amendments were tabled for further comments from the Planning Board, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the following amendments be added to the Queenbury Zoning Ordinance: ARTICLE 2 Section 2.020 Definitions #50 "Junk Automobile" Delete "intended or" 4.020 Schedule of Regulations (addition) 1. Restaurants In PC (4.020-h )#15 Restaurant In RC (4.020-g) Under Site Plan Review II #8 Restaurants, Taverns, Refreshments and other incidental facilities for patrons. Z. In RC zones 4.020-g Minimum yard setbacks Side Yard-sum of side yards equals 30' or more with a 10' minimum Add to Appendix C New Heading: Regional Project Review and Site Plan Review Criteria Section 6.040 New Heading Regional Project Review and Site Plan Review Criteria a) The prinicpal aspects of a project site to be considered in completing regional project review are found in a supplementary document titled Regional Project Review and Site Plan Review Criteria - Appendix C for the Town of Queensbury. Add to --• Section 7.010 Purpose of Shoreline Regulations New Purpose of Shoreline and Wetland Regulations Section 7.011 Shoreline Regulations New Shoreline and Wetland Regulations Section 5.070 Requirements for Type I and Type II Site Plan Review In order to approve any Type I and Type II Site Plan Review use the Planning Board shall find that: a) The use complies with all other requirements of this ordinance, including the dimensional regulations of the zoning district in which it is proposed to be located and that there has been compliance with the provisions of the Queensbury Subdivision Regulations, the Queensbury Sewage Ordinance, the Queensbury Sign Ordinance, and other state and local codes as applicable. b) The Planning Board review of the Site Plan shall include, as appropriate, but not limited to the following general standards: 1) Location arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. 2) Adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. 3) Location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. 4) Adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and over all pedestrian convenience. 5) Adequacy of storm water and drainage facilities. 6) Adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilites. 7) Adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other landscaping constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands including the maximum retention of existing vegetation. 8) Adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. 9) Adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. c) In making the determination hereunder, the Planning Board shall consider those factors pertinent to the project contained in the development considerations set forth herein Section 5.071 of this Ordinance and in doing so the Planning Board shall make a net overall evaluation of the project in relation to the development objectives and general guidelines set forth in Section 6.040 of this Ordinance. SECTION 7.011 A. 2) Docks. In all residential and recreation commercial zones, docks may be constructed on any legal size building lot, subject to number, size, configuration and setback restrictions and for which a building permit has been issued. (ADD) Further, no vessel shall be moored, berthed, tied or otherwise attached to any dock or shoreline if such vessel may encroach more than one (1) foot beyond adjacent property line as projected on a perpendicular line from shore at a distance not exceeding the furthest point of projection from shoreline of dock in question, unless consent of adjacent property owner(s) is obtained. SECTION 7.074 Accessory Structures CHANGE HEADING TO READ Accessory Structures and Uses ADD 7.074 B. Trash Receptacles 1. Trash/garbage receptacles, containers and other devices intended for temporary holding for removal from site of waste material shall be placed in such manner that said receptacle is not visible from public rights of way, which may be accomplished by means of one or more of the following: I a) Totally hidden behind building it serves b) Screened by foliage or solid fencing c) Contained within a structure suitable for such use 130 2. Trash/garbage receptacles shall be secured at all times to prevent any waste material deposited or intended to be deposited in such receptacles from being spread about by natural or other causes. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Olson, Dr. Eisenhart, Mr. Morrell, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent:None -_- COMMUNICATIONS Bid Opening- Capital Improvement Project-Opened at 2:00 P.M. 5-14-85 Items Bid 85-8 Ductile Iron Pipe 85-9 Wedge Gate Valve 85-10 Cast/Ductile Iron Fittings 85-11 Valve Boxes 85-12 Hydrants 85-13 Butterfly valves 85-14 Valve Box Extensions Griffin Pipe Prod., Florence, New Jersey 85-8 $97,260.00 Non Col. attached Atlantic State Cast Iron Pipe Co., Phillipsburg, New Jersey 85-8 $96,100.00 Non Col. attached. Clow Corp., Albany, N.Y. 85-9 $3,540.45 85-12 $13,282.60 85-13 $5,600.36 Non Col. attached. 1 1 United State Pipe & Foundry Co., Latham, N.Y. 85-8 $97,900.00 Non Col. attached. Vellano Bros. Inc., Latham, N.Y. 85-9 $2,775.00 85-10 $2,735.00 Ductile or $2,435.80 Cast 85-11 $1,525.00 85-12 $10,100.00 85-13 $4,400.00 85-14 $250.00 Non Col. attached. LeValley McLeod Inc., Schenectady, N.Y. 85-9 $2,998.50 85-10 $450.00 (partial quote) 85-12 $10,360.00 85-13 $4,657.20 -Ltr. of recommendation-Ralph VanDusen, Deputy Supt.85-8 Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe 85-9 -10-11-12-13-14 Vellano Bros. Inc. RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT BIDS RESOLUTION NO. 133, Introduced by Dr. Charles Eisenhart who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Daniel Olson: WHEREAS, Thomas Flaherty, Water Supt. for the Town of Queensbury did recommend that we advertise for bids for Capital Improvement Projects and WHEREAS, Six Bids were submitted and received and opened at the specified time and place by the Director of Purchase/Town Clerk Donald A. Chase, and such bids were then turned over to Mr. VanDusen, Deputy Water Supt. for his recommendation, and WHEREAS, Mr. VanDusen by letter has recommended that the bids be awarded as follows: 85-8 Ductile Iron Pipe - Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Co., Phillipsburg, New Jersey in the amount of $96,100.00 85-9 Gate Valves - $2,775.00 85-10 Iron Fittings - $2,435.80 85-11 Valve Boxes - $1,525.00 85-12 Hydrants - $10,100.00 13-1 85-13 Butterfly Valves - $4,400.00 85-14 Valve Box Extensions —$250.00 -Vellano Bros. Inc. of Latham. N.Y. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby accepts the bids as mentioned above and be it further RESOLVED, that the financing for such materials is in the 1985 Water Dept. Budget. Duly adopted by the following vote: l Ayes: Mr. Olson, Dr. Eisenhart, Mr. Morrell, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent:None SUPERVISOR WALTER-Received a request from Assembly Developers and Tectonics representing Bay Road Presbyterian Church...to refund the building fee for their the Bay Road Church addition... DISCUSSION HELD-It was the consensus that the Board will formulate a rule on who refunds will be made for... RESOLUTION TO REFUND BUILDING FEE RESOLUTION NO. 134, Introduced by Dr. Charles Eisenhart who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Daniel Olson: RESOLVED, that the Building Permit Fee for an Addition to the Bay Road Presbyterian Church, Bay Road, Queensbury in the amount of Four Hundred and Forty Dollars ($440.00) be and hereby is refunded. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Olson, Dr. Eisenhart, Mr. Morrell, Noes: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Absent:None SUPERVISOR WALTER-Announced that Mr. Rick Bolton, Assistant Building Inspector has requested permission to attend a N.Y. State Training Program for Building Code Officials-Warren County Municipal Center-on May 28th through 31st. RESOLUTION TO ATTEND CONFERENCE RESOLUTION NO. 135, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Dr. Charles Eisenhart: RESOLVED, that permission is hereby granted to the Assistant Building Inspector, Rick Bolton to attend a New York State Training Program for Building Officials on May 28th through the 31st. 1985,at the Warren County Municipal Center, Lake George Road, New York and be it further RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes all reasonable and necessary expenses. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Olson, Dr. Eisenhart, Mr. Morrell, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent:None -SUPERVISOR WALTER-I received a letter from Mr. Jim Mills of the Zoning Board of Appeals, resigning from such board position...to be effective immediatly. -For the Board,Councilman Olson and Councilman Eisenhart from the lighting committee, Nimo has been talking about relamping some of the streets, that 132 • now have completed one District and they are in the process of changing other lights in the Town, you will be noticing that we will be going to sodium lighting... it will be cut down on the expenses of the Town... -The Town Board has received a Loyalty Day Award from the Veterans of Foreign Wars...plus an American Flag which is now flying... -The Auction that was held recently netted $18,000.00 in sales... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-The League of Women Voters are holding a debate on May 15th 1985 at 7:30 P.M. at the Mohican Grange Hall-Debate to be on the Proposed Ward System. . REPORTS j Town Clerk's Monthly Report for the month of April 1985 on file... �..J Building & Zoning Monthly Report for the month of April 1985 on file... OPEN FORUM 10:03 P.M. -UNKNOWN-Questioned the status of the proposed water district on Clendon Ridge? -SUPERVISOR WALTER-We met with the Engineer this evening, he has been working on a district, we made some determinations tonight so he could make his caculations...Mr. Steves has been retained to do the mapping of the district—we are hoping to have a public hearing which will give you the costs in June. UNKNOWN-Member of the Twicwood Association-Questioned the Status of the purchase of the Round Pond Property... SUPERVISOR WALTER-We had a meeting with some people last evening that also were interested in the project, we told them was Mr. Russo was firm in his price, and most all of us after reviewing the situation felt that the land on the water was not big enough to develop, that we would need additional land and that we have been trying to put together parcels that might be acceptable. We have had communications with Mr. Russo's Accountant on Monday...we are still talking... MR. PAUL NAYLOR-HIGHWAY SUPT.-Thanked the Board Members for taking the tour of the Town Highways ... -- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AUDIT OF BILLS RESOLUTION NO. 136, Introduced by Mr. Daniel Morrell who moved for its adoption, seconded by Dr. Charles Eisenhart: RESOLVED, that Audit of Bills as appears on Abstract No. 85-5B and numbered 757 through 957 and totaling $152,765.85 be and hereby is approved. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Olson, Dr. Eisenhart, Mr. Morrell, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Walter Noes: None Absent:None On motion the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Donald A. Chase, Town Clerk