Loading...
2006-03-20 MTG10 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 648 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#10 TH MARCH 20, 2006 RES#154-176 7:00 P.M. LL#3 TOWN BOARD MEMBERS SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR COUNCILMAN RICHARD SANFORD COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER TOWN OFFICIALS HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, RICHARD MISSITA WATER SUPERINTENDENT, BRUCE OSTRANDER WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, MIKE SHAW PRESS TV 8, POST STAR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR SUPERVISOR STEC-Opened meeting noted the Proclamation that will be presented tonight would occur later in the meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARING – AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 28 ESTABLISHING THROUGH HIGHWAYS AND STOP INTERSECTIONS IN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, COUNTY OF WARREN OPENED NOTICE SHOWN SUPERVISOR STEC-Right now there are three locations that the Town Board after some discussions with residents of various parts of the Town and then following a workshop that we had a couple of workshops ago there are three locations in the Town that we are currently tonight considering and will take public input on. I’ll read them briefly. To make a three-way stop intersection at the intersection of Tee Hill Road and the western intersection of Upper, I’m sorry of Country Colony Road that Upper is incorrect it should read the intersection of Country Colony Road the western intersection. th The second location is a four-way stop intersection at the intersection of Caroline and 5 Streets. The third one is a four-way stop intersection at the intersection of Hudson Pointe Boulevard and Hyde Court so those are the three locations. The Town Board will take public comment this evening. We will probably have a discussion amongst ourselves. Just so the people know what the process is the way this is written we can accept any, none, or a combination of these three. It isn’t an all or none we can accept or approve any one, two, three or none of what is proposed. With that said if there is anyone from the public that would like to address this public hearing just raise your hand and I’ll call you. We will ask you to come to the microphone state your name and address for the record. MR. STEVEN SADY-Tee Hill Road, Queensbury. I’m here to speak in support of the proposal to make western entrance of Country Colony and Tee Hill a three-way intersection stop. This issue is important because the intersection as it presently exists is extremely unsafe for those of us that reside on Tee Hill and Country Colony Road. This proposal has also received support from the Warren County Traffic Safety Bureau; I have a letter from them supporting it. The Upper Country Colony or western Country Colony has a serious site distance problem as evidence, which I gave Roger some photos in an envelope that I’ve taken as provided. We don’t have adequate view of traffic traveling REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 649 from the Moon Hill direction from vehicles traveling on Tee Hill Road cannot see a vehicle leaving the western Country Colony until they are almost at the intersection itself. I have presented documentation also it confirms the average between a hundred and a hundred and fifty vehicles per hour travel Tee Hill Road. This means that a vehicle enters this intersection approximately every thirty seconds. There are also a couple of other factors to be considered. First, the school buses stop pick up and discharge students at the western Country Colony and at Hall Road intersections. When the buses at the western Country Colony you can see, only the roof from the windows from the Hall Road direction the right side of the bus is obscured by a tree line. When the bus stops at Hall Road the traffic coming from Bay Road has about three car lengths after they crest the top of the hill to make a stop. This is difficult sense the majority of the vehicles traveling in excess of a 30 M.P.H. posted speed limit. The other factors that concern those residents who reside on either side of the hill is it nearly impossible to get in and out of your driveway due to the large number of vehicles on this rural residential road, Tee Hill is used as a short cut between Moon Hill and Bay Road. The Sheriffs Department has been conducting a number of speed details on this road recently, which would indicate there is a serious speed problem there; too they have been there for quite a while. Concerns have been raised about the possible impact of a three-way stop in this area it would have on emergency vehicles, fire trucks, and ambulances. Considering I do not have the numbers on how many times, they have had to travel that, but I’m going to be generous to say six. The times that they have gotten through considering this intersection is used a hundred and fifty times a hundred to hundred and fifty times an hour verses the six times a year that the emergency vehicles would be using it hopefully this would be a minimal concern. The option is Moon Hill Road its wider it has a 40 M.P.H. speed limit has better site distance and it’s wider that’s always a possibility if they need to make time. Tee Hill traffic has grown tremendously because the number of vehicles on the road in the Town of Queensbury has grown and it is time to upgrade these roads and make them a safer place to commute through our residential areas. If anyone has any interest in reviewing any of the information I have I will gladly provide it and that’s all I have. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you Mr. Sady. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this public hearing this evening? PAUL H. NAYLOR, DIVISION ROAD, WEST GLENS FALLS-As far as four-ways, and three-ways, or two-ways, I don’t like them that’s how somebody is going to get killed. They ain’t done it in years then all of a sudden, somebody comes along and realizes they are halfway through it because they see a cop car they ram them in the backside. We can’t get them to stop for right on red you ever see anyone slow down for a red light on red go right down here on the Quaker Road. Go down in Glens Falls watch them they go right through No Turn on Red so how do you expect them to stop for a stop sign shot them that’s about all you can do. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thanks Mr. Naylor we will take that under advisement. Anybody else this evening, Mr. Missita. I should recognize Mr. Naylor as our retired former Highway Superintendent. HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, RICK MISSITA, TOWN OF QUEENSBURY-In regards to the proposed stop sign. One I could almost justify the other two I can’t justify th at all. Caroline and 5 Street, I know, Tim and I had a conversation about that. I think if the tree was removed and if you look at the intersection the way its setup the thought process is that you are halfway out in the intersection before you know it. When you are th going westbound coming up 5 Street from Thomas Street that’s a drainage shoulder down through there paved swale down through there it’s not actually part of the road it’s part of the shoulder. The only thing is that yeah, you do have a little bit of a problem th coming in a northerly direction on 5 Street when you, excuse me Caroline when you th intersect with 5 Street that one is not totally within the realm. I mean if we are using it for speed I sent you guys the form from the Uniform Traffic Control Manual speed is not something that you are suppose to use to control traffic or stop sign for speeders that’s the law that’s the responsibility of the law. On Hudson Pointe Boulevard and Hyde Court, I was over there today to make measurements. When you are on Hudson Pointe going in an easterly direction approaching Hyde Court you have a distance of six hundred and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 650 eighty two feet site distance that you can see that intersection on the approach. Going in a westerly direction, you have almost five hundred feet, four hundred and eighty feet. The most distance you actually need according to the Uniform Traffic Control Manuel is three hundred feet site distance in either direction we are well over exceeding the distance to see that. When the school bus it mentions in here about school kids setting out on the corner. That would almost like in front of my house across the street from my house is Lester Drive and making somebody stop on West Mountain Road in front of my house to make it a three-way stop because kids standing on the school bus. When the bus stops the bus turns its lights on you have a four-way stop. People aren’t suppose to drive by the bus once the lights are on. Once the kids are out on the corner the bus stops you already have a four-way stop just by virtue of the bus turning its lights on. Tee Hill, it’s been determined that Meadowbrook Road at Haviland is a dangerous intersection and that’s why we had Rich Schermerhorn when he put his subdivision in on the north side of Haviland Road made him come up with the plan to extend Meadowbrook three hundred feet west so the road intersects across from each other because of the site distance coming up the hill. On that hill going up from Haviland onto Meadowbrook Road, you have almost three hundred feet site distance. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-It would be three hundred feet east wouldn’t it. HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, MR. MISSITA-Yes, excuse me. You have that distance before you get to the intersection. On Tee Hill with the hill coming up there you have a hundred and seventy feet site distance before you break up the hill going in an easterly direction before you get to Country Colony. You can’t see the gentlemen back here is saying that’s one of the reasons why you should have the stop sign. To me, if you can’t see the stop sign as you are getting almost on top of it your stopping distance between the thirty mile speed if you are doing thirty your distance to stop is not adequate before you are all of a sudden on top of that stop sign. It is just not an adequate situation to put the people into you are putting it more in harms way by putting the stop sign there than you would by not having it there. The Uniform Traffic Control Manuel is what we have to go by. The general rule of the control device is that each device should fulfill a need, command attention, and convey a clear simple meaning, command respect to road users and give adequate time for proper response. The basic considerations to insure that these requirements are met five factors should be considered in the application of each device their design, placement, operation, maintenance, and uniformity. The Design. Is basically the color of the unit of the signs is what we follow. Placement. Devices should be placed so that they are within the intended viewer’s field of vision to attract his or her attention. They should be properly position with respect to the point object situation to which they apply to aid and conveying the proper meaning. Good location combined with suitable visibility and legibility should allow a driver travel at normal speed adequate time to make a correct response. By putting this sign at the top of that hill, you are not going to have adequate time to respond because you only have a hundred and seventy feet that you can see this stop sign and have braking time. Orderly Flow of Traffic. Safety and ability of the highway to accommodate an adequate number of vehicles with the minimum delay and inconvenience is largely dependent on the orderly traffic flow. Stopping traffic on a main highway is not something that is going to control the adequate flow of traffic it is just going to hinder the way they go. Most Motorist Response. The majority of motorists drive in an orderly and safe manner provided they are given adequate information and reasonable regulation. The public does not react favorably to unreasonable direction or control. Disrespect and lack of obedience must be expected when insufficient attention and thought has been given to the design and use of traffic control devices. Proper Placement. Adherence to sound in general accepted principals, establishment, and regulations in selection installation and operation of traffic devices is the highest importance. Misapplication besides wasting funds may have affects contrary to the intended purpose causing delay and confusion and promoting disrespect for other traffic control devices. When the public has been put into a position where they don’t want to have to stop for something that they don’t feel its necessary then they are going to have the road rage and you are going to have somebody speeding more in my opinion, speeding more. Once they make the stop and want to take off again because you have inconvenienced them and they are going to be flying down through there more than they are now. Engineering Judgment. Decision on use of traffic control devices should be based on engineering studies. While this manual provides standards REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 651 for design and application of traffic control devices it is not intended to preclude the use of sound, traffic engineering judgment. However, careful study and analysis will minimize the extent which judgment must be relied upon. I guess what I’m trying to say is I don’t think the two signs are justifiable. If they want a school bus ahead sign that’s something that could be put over there in, Hyde Court in that area to let people know that there is a school bus stop ahead I don’t feel it is justifiable for a stop sign. I don’t believe that the one over on Tee Hill is justifiable based on the fact that we feel that it’s unsafe over on Haviland Road and we’ve got twice the distant that we have over on Tee Hill or just about. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Rick you are saying though that the second one a four-way th stop at Caroline and 5 perhaps makes sense. HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, MR. MISSITA-To a point not totally Rich. I don’t believe that there is a four-way stop justified anywhere. Of the three here that would be the only one that would make sense based on the site distance that you don’t have going in a northerly direction on Caroline Street. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I lost you when you said something about a tree. HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, MR. MISSITA-There is a tree growing at the intersection on the property owner’s property within the right-a-way. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Southeast corner. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-You are recommending that should be removed. HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, MR. MISSITA-Yes. th COUNCILMAN SANFORD-That’s over by Caroline and 5? HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, MR. MISSITA-Yes, sir. SUPERVISOR STEC-Anything else Rick? HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, MR. MISSITA-No. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Do you agree with the stop signs at the Hudson Pointe Boulevard and Hyde Court. HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, MR. MISSITA-No, I do not. COUNCILMAN BREWER-He doesn’t agree with any stop sign. SUPERVISOR STEC-Of the three the one he is saying he can justify Caroline. HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, MR. MISSITA-Just to keep you up to date. The ones that we already installed that you approved they are still running according to what they did before we put the stop signs up there are still no accidents there. We have had no accidents prior to them being put up and we have no accidents since they’ve been put up. I just don’t think they are justifiable in the respect the way people are looking at them to control the speed. COUNCILMAN BREWER-On the same hand Rick we have a flashing yellow sign on Luzerne Road thousand feet of site distance West Mountain Road and Luzerne Road a thousand feet of site distance flashing yellow light. HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, MR. MISSITA-Red light. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Red, big stop signs and they run it all the time. Your justification for the site distance I think is a mute point. They can see for a thousand feet and they still don’t stop. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 652 HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, MR. MISSITA-You’ve answered your own question Tim. COUNCILMAN BREWER-No, I’m just saying… HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, MR. MISSITA-You can’t control the person behind the wheel. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I understand that. HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, MR. MISSITA-No matter how many signs you put up. COUNCILMAN BREWER-But, that’s not a reason to disagree with stop signs Rick because somebody breaks the law doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t implement it. HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, MR. MISSITA-So what’s the justification to putting one up then? COUNCILMAN BREWER-Because it’s unsafe. There are people pulling out all the time. There are cars going 30 or 40 M.P.H. this way speed limit is twenty this way and there is no stop this way they are pulling out in front of the people. HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, MR. MISSITA-There is no twenty per miles and hour speed limit. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Twenty or thirty whatever it is. HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, MR. MISSITA-There is a difference Tim between twenty and thirty for stopping distance. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Do you know what it is? HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, MR. MISSITA-Over in that area? COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yeah. HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, MR. MISSITA-30 M.P.H. SUPERVISOR STEC-In the Town you can’t go lower than thirty right. HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, MR. MISSITA-Only very few roads that are twenty miles per hour or twenty-five. School Zone is twenty-five. Assembly Point, Cleverdale are twenty. Most roads are thirty miles per hour other than your main highways that was set up by the State of New York not by us. SUPERVISOR STEC-You are saying of the three the one that you can make a case for is the Caroline and 5th, other two definitely you don’t think so. HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, MR. MISSITA-No. The ones at Hyde Court and Hudson Boulevard you’ve got five hundred feet plus in each direction that you can see that intersection when you are approaching almost seven hundred on the one approach. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-You are also saying if the tree was removed, you might not even need that. HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, MR. MISSITA-Exactly. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I disagree with that. Again, Rick because like we talked th when you pull out from Caroline up to 5 you are in the road. The road is not marked and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 653 its blacktop and people pull out and they are past the stop sign now your car in this far into the road half of your car so I don’t know you can say that it’s safe. HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, MR. MISSITA-Because you are trying to control the person behind the wheel of the vehicle Tim by making a stop sign there. COUNCILMAN BREWER-So we shouldn’t have any signs is that what you are saying Rick? HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, MR. MISSITA-No, Tim. What I’m saying is if they stop at the stop sign, they could see they don’t have to stop out past the stop sign. That’s why the stop bars are at these intersections in different places and its traffic control. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I disagree with you. If you stop at the stop sign there, you couldn’t see around the corner. HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, MR. MISSITA-Which direction. COUNCILMAN BREWER-To the right or to the left. HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, MR. MISSITA-Going which way though Tim. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Going from Main Street going up Caroline. You’ve got the turn coming up the hill you can’t see down around that hill if you are back at the stop sign, no way. HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, MR. MISSITA-If I was looking towards the City down towards Thomas Street from Caroline, yes you can I was there today. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Okay. I was over there, too. HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, MR. MISSITA-You can’t see coming from the other direction because of the tree, but other than that, you have the site distance. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-On Tee Hill Road are there any other traffic calming techniques that you can think of that might work to slow traffic down a little bit. HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, MR. MISSITA-Police. John the Uniform Traffic Control Manuel allows us to put up tons of different signs to regulate what’s out there. On the curves going up the State of New York doesn’t allow to lower the speed limit on the mountains. The mountain speed limit is 55 M.P.H. they suggested you use curve signs with suggested speed limits on them to make the curve in areas like that they don’t lower the speed limit. You can’t control the individual who is driving the vehicle. If we are going to put stop signs three-way, four-way out there in different locations just because there might be an accident we have to put one at every intersection in the Town of Queensbury because there might be an accident someplace, somewhere, sometime we can’t control people who drive the vehicles. I can put up all the signs I can legally put up, but I can’t control the person behind the wheel and that’s the bottom line. We put the traffic lights out here at Bay and Haviland because it was a necessity they felt because of the accidents. Probably statistically we had as many accidents since the lights been there as we did before the accident. I’m sure Bay Ridge and Queensbury Central and the boys could answer that question. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thanks Rick. Anyone else on this public hearing. RALPH SCINTA, 46 TEE HILL ROAD, QUEENSBURY-I don’t know his remarks but the gentlemen’s remarks about controlling them, but if a guy is breaking the law goes through a stop sign then he’s going to get another ticket. I’ve noticed repeatedly motorcycles going in excess easily of 50 M.P.H. maybe even sixty. There was a gentlemen on or street or area that has clocked these people with responsible radar type equipment he has notice sixty four I was only estimating these speeds. There are a lot of REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 654 forty miles an hour plus, forty to fifty miles per hour. He is saying we can’t do that what can be done to slow this down. SUPERVISOR STEC-The option here is law enforcement and that’s what we are talking about the Sheriff issuing tickets pulling people over. MR. SCINTA-I see them there a lot that’s true. SUPERVISOR STEC-He has been there a lot lately I get a lot of calls from people and I saw him there, too at least in the Tee Hill section. It’s one of those things it’s a big County and there are thousand of intersections in the County it’s a squeaky wheel thing. He will go as long as he can and try to fix the problem then go he comes back. The other option here is the law enforcement option. Our Highway Superintendent just read that it is right in the Traffic Code that stop signs aren’t suppose to be used for speed enforcement if it’s a speed issue it really is a law enforcement issue. That’s not to say that there aren’t stop signs that have been placed in the world that originated as a speed thing. What the Highway Superintendent is accurately pointing out is that the code says that is not the method that should be used for speed control. MR. SCINTA-They are using that as a cutoff. Maybe they need to localize it more or something I don’t know what can be done in that regard. Speed bumps probably not it is too dangerous. SUPERVISOR STEC-Anyone else tonight on this public hearing. CHRIS HUNSINGER, 82 TEE HILL ROAD-Good evening Supervisor, Members of the Board. I did provide a letter and I did have some comments in there. As a resident of Tee Hill Road, I would be opposed to a stop sign there are a number of reasons why. I’m not trying to upstage Mr. Missita but I, too looked up the Uniform Traffic Control Device Manuel published by the United States Department of Transportation. Generally, for stop signs you already heard it said tonight, stop signs should not be used for speed control. Stop signs should be installed in a manner that minimizing the number of vehicles having to stop. A stop sign should not be installed unless justified by a Traffic Engineering Study. The manual further states the criteria that should be considered when considering a stop sign. When you read that criteria I think it would be pretty clear to everybody here that a stop sign on Tee Hill Road would not be justified. The first criteria is where you are considering a traffic control signal and you put in a four-way stop as a interim measure. The second is where there is a crash problem as indicated by five or more recorded crashes in a twelve-month period again; I don’t think that’s the case. Finally, they talk about minimum traffic volumes. The traffic volume entering the intersection from the major street that being Tee Hill Road averages at least three hundred vehicles per hour for any eight hours of an average day. The combined vehicle pedestrian and bicycle traffic entering from the minor street that being Country Colony Drive averages at least two hundred units per hour for the same eight hours. They also go on to say there should also be an average delay. I don’t think anyone here can say that there is a delay of traffic pulling out from Country Colony Drive onto Tee Hill Road. In fact, the vast majority of the times when I drive up and down Tee Hill Road I don’t see another car. I didn’t see one this morning on the way to work. I didn’t see one this evening on the way home from work and that’s pretty typical for me I do leave a little earlier than many people. I do know that speeding has been a problem, but since the Sheriff’s Department has had a much greater presence on our street, I think the speeding has been reduced fairly significantly. I did want to add, as many of you know I work for the State of New York in Community Development. One of our communities the City of Ithaca has a tremendous problem with cut through traffic going from their major arterial up to Cornell. What they have implemented is some traffic calming devices that have been successful. I would not have believed that if I hadn’t seen them myself at work. Basically, one of them is to raise an intersection and you only raise it about three or four inches and there is a gradually incline on all sides, but its also been stripped and colored so as you are approaching it the visual impact causes you to slow down. As we stood there on this, it is just a straight shot right up the hill to Cornell. You could see cars hitting their brakes as they approach that intersection even though there is no signal, no stop sign, no yield sign. Just the existence of that raised speed bump would cause people REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 655 to slow down. It’s not like a normal speed bump like you would see like in a driveway or parking lot where if you don’t slow down you are going to damage your car it’s a very gradual incline. They have been tested in many communities and they have been somewhat successful. I guess if the issue here and I suspect that it is is one of traffic speed I think the Town would be wise to research some of those options rather put in an unwarranted stop sign. I, too share the concerns that our DPW Director mentioned about the line sight coming up the hill to Country Colony Drive. I didn’t take the measurements, but it would be my opinion that the site is also inadequate for a stop sign. If there were a car stopped at the stop sign, I wonder if there would be enough time for you to stop without rear-ended them. I think all you are going to do is increase the opportunity for more accidents rather than less. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you Mr. Hunsinger. Anyone else. SHERRY BOHLMAN, 50 CAROLINE STREET, QUEENSBURY-I am the one that actually started a petition in my neighborhood for the four-way stop. I’ve almost been hit coming out of my driveway. We have taken a poll of how many children under the age of eleven, which is twenty within the four-way corner within an eighth of a mile. There is no stopping from the light that is on Main Street and Richardson they go right straight th down Richardson right down 5 and all the way down to Staple Street without stopping. There is no sidewalk for the children to play so they ride their bikes in the road. You th come around 5 take a right onto Caroline and you cannot see any children that are in the road. The same thing coming up the hill from the sharp corner, which is suppose to be 15 m.p.h. ninety five percent of the people take it on the left hand side of the road coming around I’ve personally almost been hit. I’ve had Lieutenant Lemery do patrols over there I don’t know how many times I have asked him to send reports to the board on his findings and what he has had for pulling people over for speed. To me it is a dangerous intersection you cannot see you have to keep creeping up to be able to see what is coming in the other directions. People do not stop or slow down coming around either corner. We’ve had two high-speed chases through there. We’ve had two animals that have been killed where people do not stop and that could be a child the next time. With twenty, some children under the age of eleven that to me is just right there enough to put stop signs in to slow people down and make them realize that this is a neighborhood. The proposed construction that is going to start at Exit 18 is going to increase the traffic pushing it over towards our area so they do not have to go down the man street. They put a four-way stop in on the corner of Fourth and Caroline last year, which is a good thing, th but it has also increased the traffic on Caroline Street and 5 Street actually coming in that area. I don’t know how many times I need to call Lieutenant Lemery to come down and patrol the area. Now, with summer coming up and the children that are going to be out in the streets I cannot have a cop and he will not have a cop sitting there twenty-four seven to patrol the area. I have complained to him as much as I can complain without being a nuisance myself. Tim Brewer has been down there to look at the situation himself. He knows where we are coming from; from the whole neighborhood, I like you to definitely take the petition into consideration. If Lieutenant Lemery has sent over the records, I have asked him to send over to also look at those. To me it’s more concern for the children in our neighborhood than it is for some teenager that wants to go 90 M.P.H. and try to kill himself that’s his business. But, you know personally for me I’ve got a daughter that is going to be a year old I don’t want her killed because somebody doesn’t want to slow down or take the time to stop at a stop sign. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you very much. JOHN JACKSON, 3 COUNTRY COLONY ROAD-I live on the corner of Country Colony and Tee Hill Road, which happens to be a bus stop. Although there is a speed problem and I understand that the problem with stop sign and trying to control speed or it’s not suppose to control speed I believe there is a life safety issue. I live on that corner and every morning a bus stops anywhere from ten, fifteen kids get on that bus. Many times, I’ve heard people come across that hill on Tee Hill locking up their brakes trying to stop to avoid a collision with a bus. The other day they said there is no traffic I take umbrage with that I think there is a lot of traffic on that road at different times. The other day, I’m talking two or three days ago, there happen to be a tree service that was taking down some trees on Tee Hill Road. There were three trucks and they just parked right on REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 656 the shoulder, which there is no shoulder by the way it’s about six inches, on the road just over the hill. I think I heard more shrieking the brakes in that one incident than I’ve ever heard before. I mean there was no way to get by these trucks the school buses were jammed; I mean it was a mess. I think there is a speeding problem, but I think there is a life safety issue here. Beyond that trying to get in and out of either one of the Country Colony is what do you call the north or the south whatever it is, is something you have to be very careful in doing. If you are heading towards Bay Road and you are trying to make a right onto Country Colony you better do it very quickly. There are many times that I’ve had people come right up on my back I make a right hand turn signal to go into Country Colony a lot of people I think assume that I’m going on Bay Road, but I’m not. This is about two hundred maybe two hundred yards between Bay Road and Country Colony. Believe me when you are trying to turn and somebody thinks you are going to turn on Bay and you are turning on Country Colony it get a little hairy. If you couple that with the fact there maybe a bus sitting there or coming down there it becomes extremely dangerous I think so that’s my comment about it I think its not only speed, but I think there is a life safely issue here. Thank you. MR. SADY-I have a few questions for Mr. Missita. SUPERVISOR STEC-We will ask you to direct your comments to the board, but he will hear them. MR. SADY-I was under the understanding that stop signs are a regulatory sign, which means if it is necessary for a stop sign to be there its there. As far as your site distance, I was also under the impression that stop signs have no site distance requirements. The only requirement is the stop ahead sign has to be for a 30 M.P.H. speed limit it is suppose to be three hundred and fifty five feet prior to the stop sign. The other option and again he is citing site distance problems. The end of Tee Hill where it meets Bay Road if you come down you can’t see the stop sign on your right because it is obscured by brush. There is a stop sign on the left that’s the one that gets your attention until you make that corner. It is I think its Section 211.3, Section 2, says that the standard location may be supplemented by an additional stop sign on the left side of the roadway or suspended overhead under some conditions such as wide throated intersections, multi-lane approaches or one-way roadways supplemental signs may be particularly useful. Obviously, on both ends of Tee Hill they run twin stop signs where it meets Moon Hill and where it meets Bay Road so obviously they are used. If you place on the Hall Road side of Country Colony if you place twin stop signs your site distance for the sign on the left becomes approximately eight hundred feet verses the hundred and seventy that he is saying because of the opening up of the intersection. Same way on the other side if that’s an issue you can see all the way to Bay Road from the opposite side of the road. You could run twin signs and have adequate site distance. The distance between and I paced this off and calculated this way this is between Upper Country Colony and Hall Road it is three hundred and sixty feet. You are not going across the intersection with your stop ahead sign, which is mandated that it be used. I may be wrong, but this is what I received from the fifteen-year veterans of the sign crew. DOUGH AUER-Traffic seems to be getting a better problem in Queensbury. There have been some good suggestions over the past years. Paul Abess several years ago talked about traffic calming similar to what Chris Hunsinger just spoke about now. Some of the thing you can do very easily. You can narrow the lanes we don’t need to have lanes stripped as wide as they are that slows things down people automatically drive slower. One of the things that I think we should invest some money in is these radar devices and I talked to John about this some time ago. I see some of my neighbors here and I’m sure they will agree. A couple years ago, they had one on Sweet Road it’s a radar device and it says you are going this fast the minute you go over the speed limit it is very effective. They can couple those because I’ve done some research on it with a camera they can data log the information so if need be you don’t necessarily have to have a cop there. If we invested in a couple of this things and if the data log information indicates that this is a problem we put a camera in it or maybe there is a camera in it and start taking pictures and send the people a letter. It is always tough for Sheriff Departments to give tickets to somebody and I know myself when that thing went up on Sweet Road we never look at the speedometer you drive at what’s comfortable. You drive at a speed very seldom you REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 657 look at the speedometer in a car you kind of get into a grove. This is something that lets you know that you are going to fast. On the occasion, that it was there it made me aware of it. Every time I go down Sweet Road, I’m thinking about that sign that would flash at me. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Mr. Auer actually this summer on Tee Hill Road they had exactly what you are talking about. MR. AUER-We should invest in a couple of these things. COUNCILMAN BREWER-We have one. MR. AUER-We have one. COUNCILMAN BREWER-We have one we don’t own it. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I don’t know who put this one here but it caused me to slow down. MR. AUER-Sure there is a bunch of things. Chevrons in the road will slow you down. I’ve driven in parts of the country where they do this sort of thing they put chevrons in the road and there is staccato effect that takes place when you go over this your eye sees this and it…..it slows you down. Our vision is what drives us we are visual creatures so we need to be reminded reinforced; I think that it is money well spent. There is no question that you can’t put a stop sign at every corner it’s insane. It causes problems in the wintertime it is not good. Certainly if we did these kinds of things, we keep track of the information how fast people go then you can quantify this. As Einstein once said, if I had an hour to save the world I first determine what the first fifty-five minutes what the problem is the last five minutes the solution is simple. Please this is not rocket science folks. SUPERVISOR STEC-Anybody else on this public hearing. THTH MIKE JARVIS, 208 5 STREET ON THE CORNER OF CAROLINE AND 5 STREET-I have to apologize because I’m not really prepared for this. I didn’t think I’d be speaking tonight and my public speaking is not that great about the stop sign matter. Like the one fellow that just talked, he lives on the corner of Tee Hill and he sees it th everyday just like I see what’s goes on, on the corner of 5 Street and Caroline Street every single day I believe it’s a problem Mr. Brewer came over I checked it out I don’t head south on Caroline Street very often. He brought it to my attention if you come south on Caroline Street you have a stop sign. You proceed through the stop sign and by the th time you can tell if any cars are coming up the hill headed west on 5 Street you are already into one lane by half a car length. Now, as far what Rick said about the flow of traffic. You put a sign on the corner of 4th and Caroline last year and I believe if you th look in your records I don’t think anybody reported a traffic jam at the corner of 4 and Caroline after that sign went up and I don’t believe you are going to have one on the th corner of 5. I also want you to take into consideration that next year or the year after there is going to be a big undertaking on Corinth Road and that is going to divert all of the traffic. What street are they going to use they are going to use the one without the stop sign on it because it’s free flowing like my neighbor said. There has been a big development down towards Haviland Cove area in the City of Glens Falls there have been a lot of houses put up there. Like she said you come off Corinth Road, you stop at th the red light at the corner of Corinth and Richardson Street, and you take 5 Street you don’t have to stop until you get all the way to Staple Street its one big continuous flow. Also, the corner in front of my house is not a ninety-degree corner. Every time the Town repaves the road, they put a wider apron in, a wider apron, and a wider apron. A ninety- degree turn will slow somebody down, but this is more like a NASCAR track. It has a real easy bend so they can come right around there. You take a ninety-degree turn with your vehicle you really got to slow down to make it or you are going to end up on your roof not in this corner it’s a real smooth transition. One minute you are headed east and the next minute you are heading south at a blink of an eye and you can do that at a relatively quick pace. Now, not to long ago there was a car accident a pretty good car REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 658 accident and the two fellows got hurt really bad. Now, the way I look at it is if you put a stop sign there, you are going to decrease the chances of a car accident by fifty percent. What are the chances that somebody is going to run both the stops signs at the same exact time? Now, that particular day I bet you I don’t have any hard facts and I don’t have any fancy numbers to go along with it, but if there would have been a four-way stop that day that would have been one car accident that wouldn’t of happened. I would be willing to bet that they both wouldn’t have run the stop sign at the same exact time. I think by putting the stop sign on there you are going to reduce the chance of a car by fifty percent. I just hope that it’s not going to be after somebody gets killed at that intersection so just take that into consideration if you would, I would appreciate it. Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Anybody else on this public hearing. Karen why don’t you go ahead and read the correspondence we have on this public hearing, please. DEPUTY CLERK, O’BRIEN-Read the following into the record. The first one letter is from Charles T. Mellon, Jr. 11 Martindale Road, Queensbury March 20, 2006 Supervisor Dan Stec Councilman Tim Brewer Councilman Roger Boor Councilman Richard Sanford Councilman John Strough Dear Town Board Members: Due to a prior commitment, I am unable to attend tonight’s meeting. I am writing to express my concerns and opposition to the proposed stop sign to be constructed at the intersection of Tee Hill Road and Country Colony Drive. The intersection is situated at the crest of a hill and will create additional dangers to motorists during wintry or icy conditions with vehicles having to stop and start on a hill. Both Queensbury and Lake George Schools have bus stops on this road, and the potential for an accident involving these buses loaded with children will be increased by installation of an unnecessary stop sign. I spoke with Lake George Central School District Transportation Supervisor Ron Service about this and he has similar concerns. Regarding the site visibility for this proposed stop sign location; it is my understanding that the minimum site requirements cannot be met. Two recent examples where intersection have being realigned or eliminated by the Town Board due to unsafe sight distances are: #1. The elimination of a second entrance to the Bay Ridge Fire Station from Old Bay Road. This was removed at the recommendation of Creighton Manning Engineering, a firm that specializes in traffic engineering. #2. The realignment of the intersection of Haviland and Meadowbrook Roads. Both of these locations had better sight distances than the Tee Hill Road intersection in question. Also, it is my understanding after discussing this issue with some local law enforcement officers that the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Laws do not allow provisions for the installation of traffic control devices to slow vehicular traffic. I also spoke with Queensbury Highway Superintendent Richard Missita and he has many of the same concerns as well. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 659 In closing, as a lifelong resident of the Glen Lake area, I can remember very few accidents that have occurred on Tee Hill Road, and none of those occurred at the Country Colony Drive intersection. As a parent of children that ride Lake George School buses on Tee Hill Road, I respectfully urge you to reject this needless proposal. Sincerely, Charles T. Mellon, Jr. 11 Martindale Road Queensbury March 20, 2006 Supervisor Daniel Stec Councilman Roger Boor Councilman Richard Sanford Councilman John Strough Councilman Tim Brewer Dear Town Board Members: We would like to state for the record our opposition to the proposed stop signs for the intersection of Country Colony Drive and Tee Hill Road. We feel that with the lack of site distance, location of such on the crest of a hill could be very dangerous, and more than likely cause accidents rather then prevent them. We have spoken with Rich Missita, the Queensbury Highway Superintendent regarding said sign placement and he has expressed similar concerns. As residents of Hall Road for the past ten years and frequent travelers of Tee Hill, we can’t imaging the need for such an action by this Town Board. We hope that you take our thoughts into consideration and not support this proposal. Respectfully, Caroline H. Barber C.Richard Barber March 20, 2006 Supervisor Daniel G. Stec Councilman Timothy Brewer Councilman Roger Boor Councilman Richard Sanford Councilman John Strough Re: Proposed Stop Sign – Tee Hill Road and Country Colony Drive Dear Town Board Members: As Town residents and homeowners residing on Tee Hill Road for the past five years (and Pam having resided directly off Tee Hill Road prior to 2000 for her entire life), we are writing to voice our strongest opposition to the proposed stop sign at the intersection of Tee Hill Road and Country Colony Drive. The installation of a stop sign at this location is not warranted, will impede proper traffic flow and will create undue safety hazards. The US Department of Transportation publishes a Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, defining the standards used by road managers nationwide to install and maintain REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 660 traffic control devices on all streets and highways. In this manual DOT provides the following guidance: STOP signs should not be used for speed control. STOP signs should be installed in a manner that minimizes the numbers o vehicles having to stop. A STOP sign should not be installed unless justified by a traffic engineering study. In Section 2B.07 Multiway Stop Applications, the manual further states: “The decision to install multiway stop control should be based on an engineering study. The following criteria should be considered in the engineering study for a multiway STOP sign installation: A.Where traffic control signals are justified, the multiway stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal. B.A crash problem as indicated by 5 or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction by a multiway stop installation. Such crashes include right -and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions. C.Minimum volumes: 1.The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (Tee Hill Road, total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day, and 2.The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (Country Colony Drive) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor-street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour… Unless an engineering study clearly establishes that a stop sign is needed, one should not be installed. In this particular case, not only are none of the warrants met, but such a control device will seriously disrupt traffic flow. Neither traffic volumes nor delays are sufficient to justify the installation of a stop sign, the incidence of traffic accident do not suggest a safety concern exits, and the installation of the proposed sign will maximize the number of vehicles stopping, rather than minimize the number of stops. In addition, the location of the proposed stop sign will create an additional safety hazard. Automobiles traveling east on Tee Hill Road do not have adequate site distance to the intersection of Country Colony Drive, there will not be enough time to stop if another vehicle is already stopped at the intersection. (It is very likely that the current 30 miles per hour speed limit was instituted due to the limited site distance at this intersection.) Locating a stop sign in the proposed location will increase the potential for accidents, especially during wintry driving conditions. We recognize many motorist use Tee Hill Road as a short cut around Glen Lake traveling north to the outlets or Lake George. Although speeding along the road may have been an issue in the past, it is much less so since the County Sheriff’s Office began patrolling more frequently. Again, according to the DOT Traffic Control Manual, stop signs should not be used for speed control. Other communities across the state have had success installing “traffic calming” measures to slow traffic including raised intersections, speed bumps and other measures. If the Town Board is concerned about excessive speed one of these “calming” measures REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 661 should be investigated, not the placement of a stop sign that will only increase safety hazards and disrupt traffic flow. Thank you for you consideration. Sincerely, Pamela A. Hunsinger Chris A. Hunsinger SUPERVISOR STEC-Is there any other public comment on this public hearing? Hearing none, I’ll close the public hearing and the Town Board will discuss what we like to do. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED SUPERVISOR STEC-Anybody want to start. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-With the new information that we’ve got and the information that I’ve heard from the public I would like to take a re-look at these intersections, re-look at the traffic law. It doesn’t mean I’m saying no or yes, it just means I want to take a longer look at this a more in-depth look at this and Mr. Supervisor I would feel more comfortable if I have that. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I don’t have any question in my mind I respectfully disagree th with Rick he knows that. I think Caroline and 5 is more important to me than Hudson Pointe, but I would still say when the kids get out of the bus they don’t all live on the corner they disperse they walk across, they play. For the sake of a stop sign and hopefully saving maybe one life does it really matter that’s how I feel about it. I think they work if we put the flashing signs out certainly that helps as well, but they are there for a week and then they are gone. These are there and they are there permanent and everyday when somebody drives down that road they know they have to stop there. th COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I like to move forward with one sign on Caroline and 5 Street. I thought the comments were compelling and our Highway Superintendent felt that of the three that had the most validity. On the other two, I would just as soon not move forward with them at this time, but that would not preclude further research and revisiting that later. My recommendation would be to go forward and pass the number two suggestion. SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, Roger. COUNCILMAN BOOR-A lot of interesting comments tonight. Obviously, for those that live in the neighborhoods I can appreciate where they are coming from. I live on a county road and I have zero chance of ever getting a stop sign anywhere near me. I would be willing to bet that the speeds on the road that I live on far exceed any of the people that have commented tonight. However, having said that I think that there is probably some remediation that can be obtained on these. It is not clear to me if in fact the stop signs are the best. I can understand the Highway Superintendents point of view I can also see where the residents are coming from. I have to believe that there has to be some kind of a solution that in fact addresses what we really are talking about here and I truly believe it is speed. Short of Queensbury having its own Police Department, which it had some time ago we currently have to rely on the Warren County Sheriff. I think it’s been stated quite clearly and I noticed the presence myself recently on Tee Hill it’s been quite effective, but we can’t expect that the Sheriff’s Department is going to be there forever. As also pointed out by Mr. Auer the signs that show your current speed they are effective for a while, too. Also, if they are left in one place to long they become just sort of a common site and it is almost an amusement after a while. Although they are good in short periods, I don’t think they are effective either. I would like to review all three of these perhaps looking at methods suggested by Mr. Hunsinger, I like to have some further comments. I haven’t actually talked to Mr. Missita at all on any of these. I would like to see if there is something, we can do with the Highway Department. Now, understand that a lot of things that are done at west and in other states are easier because they don’t have REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 662 snow removal and plows. There are a lot of types of bumps that are put, not speed bumps, but things that get your attention out west. Whether they are centerlines that have raised reflective, I don’t know what cups they have things on the sides of the roads. That is not quite as practical here when we run plows, but I have to believe there is something we can do physically to our roads that will reduce speeds that would be considered legal and appropriate. Before I would move on any of these I’d like to have some more discussions with Mr. Missita and perhaps other that isn’t to say that I’m abandoning an effort to correct what has been very clearly stated by residents. I think maybe the stop signs are going to be the best or maybe the locations aren’t the best so until such time as I have some more discussions I would just assume pull or table or whatever is appropriate. SUPERVISOR STEC-I will add my two cents in. Again, a lot of really good comments tonight we appreciate the Highway Superintendent and the retired Highway Superintendent lending us some of their wisdom. I too noticed that the Sheriff’s Department when we first started getting complaints and concerns on Tee Hill Road of the three of these the one that I think for most of the Town Board that was the most visible was Tee Hill because we were hearing about that from a lot of different people. I personally drive that road quite frequently back and forth from here to the County Building. We certainly appreciate there was a lot of homework that went into collecting data about what the speeds and what’s going on Tee Hill Road. I do know that the Sheriff’s Department had a big presence there and they put a lot of effort in. I think they were getting some results, but as Roger correctly points out they won’t be there forever over time it will be somewhat forgotten. I do agree also with some of the other comments that were made about calming and the speed wagon as I think Dennis used to refer to it as. The Sheriff again, I want to thank Sheriff Cleveland for his response in this. As we’ve had these speed limit issues, stop signs issues, and we’ve had a lot of discussions about speed limits changing a speed limit in the Town and the State of New York requires action from the New York State Department of Transportation. It is not something that is covered by home rule it is not something that a local municipality has control over. It is very frustrating for people when you tell them that and most people don’t understand it so they often blame it as it’s an unresponsiveness by local government. The Sheriff sensitive to that he has lent us on a semi-permanent basis a speed wagon so certainly board members and the public should be aware that we do have access to at least one of these devices right now. As other speed or stop sign these three or others throughout the Town become an issue just know that it’s a resource that’s available to us. I’ve got some concerns about some of these; as well, I’m not sure that I’m ready tonight on all three of them. However, I will explain to the board what are options are as Bob explained them and I kind of alluded to them earlier. We can take action of any, none, or all of these tonight. If we take action of some but not all tonight and we want to come back and reconsider the other two or the other one or whatever we don’t act on tonight that will require setting another public hearing. Basically, if we vote on any of these tonight it will terminate this public hearing. Myself personally and certainly after listening to Rick Missita, but also of the three of these I think the one that th is the easiest for me also to go with is on Caroline and 5 Street. Again, I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, but I don’t have a problem if there are three board members that would say let’s act on one of these tonight and then consider mulling the other two over that’s fine. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I’ll move that for… SUPERVISOR STEC-If some would say no let’s wait on the whole thing and come back to this that’s okay to. I think being familiar with all three of these intersections and having as close to a green light as we get from our Highway Superintendent on one of them I too think of the three the one that is the easiest for me to say that’s a good idea is th the one on Caroline and 5. The other two I’d like to mull over the need there as well. I could support that one I heard Richard say the same thing. Again, it would preclude us from coming back for the other two in a month from now, two months from now, or whenever we are ready. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Take a breath and I’ll introduce the resolution. COUNCILMAN STEC-You are introducing what exactly? REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 663 COUNCILMAN BREWER-The resolution to approve the stop sign a four-way stop sign th at the intersection of Caroline and 5 Street. That would read we would come back take a second look at the other ones. I don’t know if that’s necessary to be in the resolution. SUPERVISOR STEC-That doesn’t need to be part of your resolution. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I’ll second that. SUPERVISOR STEC-That is seconded by Richard Sanford. Any further discussion by Town Board members, hearing none let’s go ahead and vote. RESOLUTION ENACTING AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 28 ESTABLISHING THROUGH HIGHWAYS AND STOP INTERSECTIONS IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, COUNTY OF WARREN, NEW YORK RESOLUTION NO. 154, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has in effect Ordinance No. 28 - Ordinance Establishing Through Highways and Stop Intersections in the Town of Queensbury, County of Warren, New York, and this Ordinance lists the stop intersections and signs located within the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to consider amending Ordinance No. 28 by adding a stop intersection at the following location: th ? a four-waystop intersection at the intersection of Caroline and 5 Streets; and WHEREAS, the Town Board duly conducted a public hearing concerning the th proposed Amendment to Ordinance No. 28 on March 20, 2006 and the Town Board now wishes to enact the Amendment to Ordinance No. 28, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby enacts the proposed Amendment to Ordinance No. 28 presented at this meeting by adding a stop intersection at the following location: th ? a four-waystop intersection at the intersection of Caroline and 5 Streets; REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 664 and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to enter the Amendment to Ordinance No. 28 in the minutes of this Town Board meeting, publish the Amendment to Ordinance No. 28 (or a summary or abstract) once in the Glens Falls Post Star, file an affidavit of the publication in the Town Clerk’s Office, and the Amendment to Ordinance No. 28 shall take effect ten (10) days after publication. th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: Mr. Boor ABSENT:None ABSTAIN:Mr. Strough AMENDMENT TO TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ORDINANCE NO. 28 ESTABLISHING THROUGH HIGHWAYS AND STOP INTERSECTIONS IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, COUNTY OF WARREN, NEW YORK SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 28 of the Town of Queensbury Establishing Through Highways and Stop Intersections in the Town of Queensbury, County of Warren, State of New York, is hereby amended to add a stop intersection as follows: ? Stop sign(s) shall be erected to make a four-way intersection at the intersection of th Caroline and 5 Streets. SECTION 2. This Amendment shall take effect 10 days after its publication, posting and compliance with §1683(a) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 665 PUBLIC HEARING – ENACT LOCAL LAW TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 179 “ZONING” ARTICLE 16 ENTITLED “ADMINISTRATION” CONCERNING ALTERNATE MEMBER POSITIONS OF TOWN PLANNING BOARD AND TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OPENED NOTICE SHOWN SUPERVISOR STEC-This one is pretty harmless. The Town Board back in two thousand the Town Board created in accordance with the allowances of New York State Law the positions of alternate members to the Planning Board and alternate members to the Zoning Board of Appeals. We have in fact had that practice since two thousand and it continues to this day. However, in a printing of a section of the code when it we did a town wide rezoning a couple years ago the section that was amended to allow for the alternates was inadvertently omitted. I do believe it is the Town Board intention tonight and it is required to actually re-pass the local law that we previously past. The purpose of this would be to reinstate under law the positions of Zoning Board of Appeals alternates and Planning Board alternates. With that explanation, I’ll open this public hearing. If there are any member of the public that would like to comment on Planning Board or Zoning Board alternates the creation of those positions just raise your hand. NO PUBLIC COMMENT SUPERVISOR STEC-I didn’t think so. Any Town Board discussion? Any correspondence, Karen? DEPUTY CLERK O’BRIEN-No. SUPERVISOR STEC-I didn’t think so. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I didn’t underline it, it’s nothing serious. SUPERVISOR STEC-Again, anybody from the public. COUNCILMAN BOOR-You know what it was. COUNCILMAN BREWER-In the law itself Roger? COUNCILMAN BOOR-There is one section of it help me out here guys it has to do with here’s where it is I just want to make sure its clear. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Page, Roger. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Page 1, Section B the last sentence. The chairperson shall now we are on page 2, shall alternate appointment of the two alternate members so that the alternate members have approximately equal opportunities to serve on the Planning Board to the maximum extent possible. That’s great, but in the real world, my concern there is when we have a large application let’s say a Great Escape a Home Depot I’d like to see continuity. SUPERVISOR STEC-I think that’s been practice right. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I just want to make sure that it is understood there is leeway here and that they are mandated to always alternate. I think it’s appropriate for the Chairman to keep an alternate on a particular to follow through. SUPERVISOR STEC-To follow through I agree with you. I do think that it’s the practice. I read that just to I guess we are peppering the record right now, but I do read this as it says to the maximum extent possible. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I guess if nothing else, I would like maybe a memo we don’t have staff here. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 666 SUPERVISOR STEC-To communicate that I’ll do that. COUNCILMAN BOOR- A memo that goes to the Chairman of Zoning and Planning. SUPERVISOR STEC-I will do that tomorrow and copy the board on that. I will probably do it by email. I will copy it and it will be in the record. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Thank you. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I can speak first hand on that. That’s the practice it has been used on those types of applications that may have three or four hearings the same alternate is encouraged to stay on for that reason. SUPERVISOR STEC-Is there any public comment, hearing none I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO.: 3 OF 2006 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 179, “ZONING” ARTICLE 16 ENTITLED, "ADMINISTRATION" CONCERNING ALTERNATE MEMBER POSITIONS OF TOWN PLANNING BOARD AND TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION NO. 155, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 67,2000, the Queensbury Town Board enacted Local Law No. 1 of 2000 which Local Law created alternate member positions for the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals so that an alternate member may substitute for a regular member in the event of a conflict of interest or other factor such as illness, vacation or other absences, and WHEREAS, such legislation was authorized in accordance with New York State Municipal Home Rule Law §10 and was specifically intended to supersede the provisions of §§ Town Law 267(11) and 271(15) that restrict substitution of alternate members of Zoning Boards of Appeal and Planning Boards to instances of conflict of interest, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk advised that such Local Law was duly filed with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and that by such filing, the Local Law took effect immediately, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk further advised that such Local Law No. 1 of 2000 was inadvertently omitted from the Queensbury Town Code when the current Zoning Law was adopted, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 667 WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to reaffirm such Local Law No. 1 of 2000, but to do so, the Town Board must adopt a new Local Law, and WHEREAS, the Town Board therefore scheduled a public hearing concerning adoption of Local Law No.: 3 of 2006 to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179, Article 16 entitled, “Administration,” which Local Law would reaffirm and readopt a Local Law to create alternate member positions for the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals, and th WHEREAS, the Town Board duly held a public hearing on March 20, 2006 and heard all interested persons concerning the proposed adoption of Local Law No.: 3 of 2006 as presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby enacts Local Law No.: 3 of 2006 to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179, Article 16 entitled, “Administration,” which Local Law reaffirms and readopts a Local Law to create alternate member positions for the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to file the Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and acknowledges that the Local Law will take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State. th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT:None LOCAL LAW NO.: 3 OF 2006 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND CHAPTER 179, "ZONING" OF QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE ARTICLE 16 ENTITLED “ADMINISTRATION” REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 668 BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179 "Zoning," Article 16 “Administration” is hereby amended at Section 179-16-020 as follows: § 179-16-020. Planning Board. § A.Pursuant to 271 of Town Law, the Town of Queensbury has created a Planning Board. Said Board consists of seven (7) members appointed by the Town Board in such manner and for such terms as provided in the Town Law. The Planning Board shall have all the powers and perform all the duties prescribed by statute and by this chapter. The Planning Board shall have original jurisdiction for all matters pertaining to this chapter pursuant to § 274-a of the Town Law (site plan review). The Town Board shall appoint two (2) alternate members of the Planning B. Board to substitute for any regular member in the event of a conflict of interest or other factor such as illness, vacation or other absences. The alternate member(s) shall be appointed by Resolution of the Town Board for a term of seven (7) years. The chairperson of the Planning Board shall designate an alternate member to substitute for a regular member whenever any regular member is unable to participate in an application or matter before the Board. The chairperson shall alternate appointment of the two (2) alternate members so that the alternate members have approximately equal opportunities to serve on the Planning Board to the maximum extent possible. When so designated, the alternate member shall possess all of the powers and responsibilities of such regular member. Such designation shall be entered into the minutes of the initial Planning Board meeting at which the substitution is made. All provisions relating to Planning Board member training and continuing education, attendance, conflict of interest, compensation, eligibility, vacancy in office, removal and service on other Boards shall also apply to alternate members, with compensation provided to the alternate members only for meetings at which they actually serve on the Board. SECTION 2. Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179 "Zoning," Article 16 “Administration” is hereby amended at Section 179-16-030 as follows: § 179-16-030. Zoning Board of Appeals. A. § Pursuant to 267 of the Town Law, the Town of Queensbury has created a REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 669 Zoning Board of Appeals consisting of seven (7) members appointed by the Town Board in such manner and for such term as provided in the Town law. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall have all the powers and perform all the duties prescribed by statute and by this chapter. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall have appellate jurisdiction for all matters pertaining to this chapter. Pursuant to the procedures described in §267, Subdivision 11 of the Town Law, alternate members may be established for the Zoning Board of Appeals. See Article 14, Variances. B. The Town Board shall appoint two (2) alternate members of the Zoning Board of Appeals to substitute for any regular member in the event of a conflict of interest or other factor such as illness, vacation or other absences. The alternate member(s) shall be appointed by Resolution of the Town Board for a term of seven (7) years. The chairperson of the Zoning Board of Appeals shall designate an alternate member to substitute for a regular member whenever any regular member is unable to participate in an application or matter before the Zoning Board of Appeals. The chairperson shall alternate appointment of the two (2) alternate members so that the alternate members have approximately equal opportunities to serve on the Zoning Board of Appeals to the maximum extent possible. When so designated, the alternate member shall possess all of the powers and responsibilities of such regular member. Such designation shall be entered into the minutes of the initial Zoning Board of Appeals meeting at which the substitution is made. All provisions relating to Zoning Board of Appeals member training and continuing education, attendance, conflict of interest, compensation, eligibility, vacancy in office, removal and service on other Boards shall also apply to alternate members with compensation provided to the alternate members only for meetings at which they actually serve on the Board. SECTION 3. This Local Law is adopted in accordance with Municipal § Home Rule Law 10 and is specifically intended to supersede the provisions of Town Law §§ 267(11) and 271(15) that restrict substitution of alternate members of Zoning Boards of Appeal and Planning Boards to instances of conflict of interest. SECTION 4. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph or provision of this Local Law shall not invalidate any other clause, sentence, paragraph or part thereof. SECTION 5. All Local Laws or ordinances or parts of Local Laws or ordinances in conflict with any part of this Local Law are hereby repealed. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 670 SECTION 6. This Local Law shall take effect upon publication as required by § New York State Town Law 265 and filing in the Office of the New York Secretary of State. DISCUSSION HELD SUPERVISOR STEC-At this point I will move the Proclamation there was a similar Proclamation brought forth at the Warren County Board of Supervisors Meeting last week presented this Proclamation to Lisa Saxes. 2006 PROCLAMATION Queensbury Town Board WHEREAS , adults who provide alcohol to those below the legal drinking age of 21 are placing those youth at risk for health, safety and legal problems, and WHEREAS , alcohol kills 6.5 times more young people than ALL other illicit drugs combined, and usage among teens often accompanies traffic fatalities and other high risk behaviors such as unsafe sexual activity, tobacco and other drug use, and contributes to illegal activity such as vandalism and theft, and WHEREAS , alcohol use by young people is dangerous, not only because of the risks associated with acute impairment, but also because of the threat to their long-term development and well-being, and WHEREAS , it is illegal to give or allow teens other than your own, to drink alcohol in your home, even with their parent’s permission, and WHEREAS, anyone found guilty of providing alcohol to youth can face up to a $1,000 fine and one year in jail, in addition to any civil action that can be brought as a result of damages or injury related to the offense, and WHEREAS , any citizens who are aware of underage drinking at teen house parties are responsible to report such activity to their local law enforcement agency by calling Warren County Sheriff’s Office or the New York State Police and WHEREAS , adults have the authority and responsibility to our youth to provide them with alternative opportunities by creating alcohol free activities, and WHEREAS, CAN (Caring, Awareness, Nurturing), the Town of Queensbury chapter of the Communities That Care organization, sponsors the Parents Who Host, Lose The Most Campaign provides the educational materials to raise community awareness regarding this illegal and unhealthy practice, and WHEREAS, parents and the community must take responsibility to give teens the clear message that there is no safe way to drink alcohol, and WHEREAS , the Town of Queensbury encourages residents to refuse to provide alcoholic beverages to underage youth and to take the necessary steps to discourage the illegal and unhealthy practice, including the reporting of underage drinking by calling your local police, and NOW, THEREFORE , be it resolved that the Town of Queensbury not only discourages the use of alcohol by those below the legal age of consumption but also exhorts all residents of Town of Queensbury to refuse to provide alcoholic beverages to those underage youth, and will continue to take the necessary steps to discourage this illegal and unhealthy activity. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 671 NOW, THEREFORE , we, the Town Board of Queensbury, State of New York do hereby proclaim, the month of April, 2006 to be: Parents Who Host, Lose the Most Month 2006. _____________________Daniel G. Stec, Town Supervisor _____________________ Roger Boor, Ward 1 Councilman _____________________ Richard Sanford, Ward 2 Councilman _____________________ John Strough, Ward 3 Councilman _____________________ Tim Brewer, Ward 4 Councilman HEARINGS JOSEPH PATERSON’S APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE/WAIVER REQUEST FROM SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION REQUIREMENT CONCERNING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 QUEENS WAY SUPERVISOR STEC-Actually all three of these hearings are very similar and we’ve done them many times before. Our code allows people to gain an extension in order to make their sewer connection in our sewer districts. It doesn’t allow them to avoid paying their fair share of the capital costs so there is no financial incentive. Certainly if there is a user a would be user for a variety of reasons there is a convenience of construction or to tie in that we do allow them to delay the actual tie in, but they still are on the hook to pay. We do authorize them to apply for either a one or two year extension. In this case, we have gotten a couple of these in the past they left it up to us as a one or two year. I think in the past we have gone in the direction of granting a one-year. They can come back and ask for a second year. I don’t know if Mr. Patterson is present tonight if there is anyone representing him. Typically, these things are done easily. Are there any Town Board comments? Is anyone opposed to the one-year extension? COUNCILMAN BREWER-No. I’ll introduce it with one year Dan. SUPERVISOR STEC-One year introduced by Councilman Brewer. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I’ll second it. SUPERVISOR STEC-Seconded by Councilman Strough. RESOLUTION APPROVING JOSEPH PATERSON’S APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE/WAIVER REQUEST FROM SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION REQUIREMENT CONCERNING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 QUEENS WAY RESOLUTION NO.: 156, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board is authorized by Town Code Chapter 136 § to issue variances from 136-44 “Connection to sewers required” which requires Town property owners situated within a sewer district and located within 250’ of a public sanitary REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 672 sewer of the sewer district to connect to the public sewer facilities within one (1) year from the date of notice, and WHEREAS, Joseph Paterson has applied to the Town Board for a variance/waiver § one year from Town Code 136-44 for a extension of the Town’s connection requirements to connect his 1 Queens Way property to the Town of Queensbury’s Route 9 Sewer District due to the cost of connection and the property’s current septic tank with leech field is functioning, as more fully set forth in the Applicant’s application, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk’s Office mailed a Notice of Hearing to the Applicant and the Town Board conducted a hearing concerning the variance/waiver request on March th 20, 2006, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a) due to the nature of the variance/waiver request, the Queensbury Town Board determines that the variance/waiver would not be materially detrimental to the purposes and objectives of Queensbury Town Code Chapter 136 and/or adjoining properties or otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of any plan or policy of the Town of Queensbury; and b) the Town Board finds that the granting of the variance/waiver is reasonable and would alleviate unnecessary hardship on the Applicant; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby approves Joseph Paterson’s application § for a variance/waiver from Queensbury Town Code Chapter 136, 136-44 “Connection to th sewers required” and grants a 1 year extension of time or until March 20, 2007 in which to connect his property located at 1 Queens Way, Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 296.69-1-5) to the Town of Queensbury’s Route 9 Sewer District, provided that if there is any increase in septic use or additional bathroom facilities added, then such variance shall immediately terminate unless the Queensbury Town Board review and approves a new application for a variance/waiver, and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 673 RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes the Town Supervisor, Wastewater Director and/or Budget Officer to take any actions necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2006 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES: None ABSENT:None C.J. BECKOS AND GEORGIA BECKOS WOOD’S APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE/WAIVER REQUEST FROM SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION REQUIREMENT CONCERNING MONTCALM RESTAURANT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1415 STATE ROUTE 9 SUPERVISOR STEC-I’m not sure if Mr. Beckos or Mrs. Beckos is present, but certainly, if you are and you want to add anything to this you are welcome to. Again, like I said before this one they did apply for a one-year extension. It is for the Montcalm to delay tying in to the Route 9 Sewer District. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I’ll introduce the resolution. SUPERVISOR STEC-Introduced by Councilman Brewer. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I’ll second it. SUPERVISOR STEC-Seconded by Councilman Strough. Any further discussion, let’s go ahead and vote. RESOLUTION APPROVING C.J. BECKOS AND GEORGIA BECKOS-WOOD’S APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE/WAIVER REQUEST FROM SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION REQUIREMENT CONCERNING MONTCALM RESTAURANT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1415 STATE ROUTE 9 RESOLUTION NO.: 157, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board is authorized by Town Code Chapter 136 § to issue variances from 136-44 “Connection to sewers required” which requires Town property owners situated within a sewer district and located within 250’ of a public sanitary sewer of the sewer district to connect to the public sewer facilities within one (1) year from the date of notice, and WHEREAS, C. J. Beckos and Georgia Beckos-Wood (Applicants) have applied to § the Town Board for a variance/waiver from Town Code 136-44 for a one year extension of REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 674 the Town’s connection requirements to connect their Montcalm Restaurant property to the Town of Queensbury’s Route 9 Sewer District, as the Applicants state that there is a change of use issue pending on the property, the current sewage disposal system is working fine and it is regularly maintained, as more fully set forth in the Applicants’ application, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk’s Office mailed a Notice of Hearing to the Applicants and the Town Board conducted a hearing concerning the variance/waiver request on March th 20, 2006, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that c) due to the nature of the variance/waiver request, the Queensbury Town Board determines that the variance/waiver would not be materially detrimental to the purposes and objectives of Queensbury Town Code Chapter 136 and/or adjoining properties or otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of any plan or policy of the Town of Queensbury; and d) the Town Board finds that the granting of the variance/waiver is reasonable and would alleviate unnecessary hardship on the Applicants; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby approves C. J. Beckos and Georgia Beckos-Wood’s application for a variance/waiver from Queensbury Town Code Chapter § 136, 136-44 “Connection to sewers required” and grants a one year extension of time or th until March 20, 2007 in which to connect the Montcalm Restaurant property located at 1415 State Route 9, Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 288.-1-52 and 288.1-53) to the Town of Queensbury’s Route 9 Sewer District, provided that if there is any increase in septic use or additional bathroom facilities added, then such variance shall immediately terminate unless the Queensbury Town Board review and approves a new application for a variance/waiver, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes the Town Supervisor, Wastewater Director and/or Budget Officer to take any actions necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2006 by the following vote: REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 675 AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT: None CUMBERLAND FARMS, APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE/WAIVER REQUEST FROM SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION REQUIREMENT CONCERNING THE CUMBERLAND FARMS CONVENIENCE STORE PROPERTY LOCATED ON KENDRICK ROAD/STATE ROUTE 9 REPRESENTATIVE ROB STANTON, BOLER ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR STEC-This is the third and final one this evening. Again, it’s for the Route 9 Sewer District the Cumberland Farms. They did actually apply for a two-year extension. I’m not sure if there is anyone representing Cumberland Farms tonight that would like to comment to the board. COUNCILMAN BOOR-My says one Dan doesn’t it. COUNCILMAN BREWER-It says in the first paragraph one. SUPERVISOR STEC-The first page I see a two-year extension and then it’s blank on the second one. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Mine says one. COUNCILMAN BREWER-My resolution says one year on the first page. On their application, it says two years. SUPERVISOR STEC-They are asking for a two-year extension. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Where do you see that. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-The second paragraph. SUPERVISOR STEC-The first whereas says they are on the hook to tie in within one year they all say that the meat is the second one where they are asking for the extension. They all say that they are required to tie in within a year. If they want an extension, they can get a one or two year you go with the second paragraph. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Are we going with this one two years Dan? SUPERVISOR STEC-According to the resolution the applicant has asked for a two-year extension. Do you care to introduce yourself please? MR. STANTON-That’s correct it is definitely a two-year request that we are making on this. We want to improve the property similar to what we’ve done on Main Street. A couple of the other facilities in the area here we feel the time frame is necessary to get those plans in order and get this construction underway. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-That’s fine, but I thought I recalled last meeting where Mr. Brewer suggested that we just eliminate the one, two, and make them all one. I would urge us to do that as fast as we can. SUPERVISOR STEC-I remember we talked about that I couldn’t remember if we had done that if it comes in ambiguous if it’s one or two if we did decide make them all one that doesn’t bother me either. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Its’ not that big of an issue for anybody to come back to us and we really have never said no. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 676 COUNCILMAN SANFORD-This one is fine, but in the future let’s just make them all one year. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I agree. SUPERVISOR STEC-Mike if you wouldn’t mind filing that. We are allowed to go two, but I can’t recall my memory isn’t perfect, but I can’t recall if we had said because some of these do come in one or two. We said let’s go with one if you want to make them all one….. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I think actually what we said was if the applicant came before us and made a pitch for two that we would consider it. If the applicant wasn’t here, it would default to one year. SUPERVISOR STEC-I agree with you. COUNCILMAN BOOR-He is here, but I’m trying to tell you as I remember the discussion how I thought it went. SUPERVISOR STEC-Like I said, I couldn’t remember exactly but I do remember we did talked about it. COUNCILMAN BOOR-And he is here. SUPERVISOR STEC-You saw how these go. Coming back here might not be a big deal, but you are here. MR. STANTON-We may get our stuff in order and get through the Town Board here in the time frame anyway, but we would just like to have the comfort of two years. SUPERVISOR STEC-What’s the pleasure of the board. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I don’t have a real big issue with it. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s fine if he’s here. SUPERVISOR STEC-Do we have a motion yet? DEPUTY CLERK, O’BRIEN-No. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I’ll move for two years. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I’ll second it. RESOLUTION APPROVING CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC.’S APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE/WAIVER REQUEST FROM SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION REQUIREMENT CONCERNING THE CUMBERLAND FARMS CONVENIENCE STORE PROPERTY LOCATED ON KENDRICK ROAD/ STATE ROUTE 9 RESOLUTION NO.: 158, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board is authorized by Town Code Chapter 136 § to issue variances from 136-44 “Connection to sewers required” which requires Town REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 677 property owners situated within a sewer district and located within 250’ of a public sanitary sewer of the sewer district to connect to the public sewer facilities within one (1) year from the date of notice, and WHEREAS, Cumberland Farms, Inc., (Applicant) has applied to the Town Board § for a variance/waiver from Town Code 136-44 for a two year extension of the Town’s connection requirements to connect the Cumberland Farms Convenience Store property to the Town of Queensbury’s Route 9 Sewer District, as the Applicant states that it will likely remodel the building in the next one to two years and therefore would prefer to spend money once and the property’s current septic system is functioning, as more fully set forth in the Applicant’s application, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk’s Office mailed a Notice of Hearing to the Applicant and the Town Board conducted a hearing concerning the variance/waiver request on March th 20, 2006, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that e) due to the nature of the variance/waiver request, the Queensbury Town Board determines that the variance/waiver would not be materially detrimental to the purposes and objectives of Queensbury Town Code Chapter 136 and/or adjoining properties or otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of any plan or policy of the Town of Queensbury; and f) the Town Board finds that the granting of the variance/waiver is reasonable and would alleviate unnecessary hardship on the Applicant; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby approves Cumberland Farms, Inc.’s § application for a variance/waiver from Queensbury Town Code Chapter 136, 136-44 th “Connection to sewers required” and grants a two year extension of time or until March 20, 2008 in which to connect the Cumberland Farms Convenience Store property located at Kendrick Road and State Route 9, Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 296.13-1-69) to the Town of Queensbury’s Route 9 Sewer District, provided that if there is any increase in septic use or additional bathroom facilities added, then such variance shall immediately terminate unless the Queensbury Town Board review and approves a new application for a variance/waiver, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 678 BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes the Town Supervisor, Wastewater Director and/or Budget Officer to take any actions necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2006 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: None CORRESPONDENCE DEPUTY TOWN CLERK O’BRIEN-Supervisor’s Report for Community Development and Building & Codes Department for the month of February on file in Town Clerk Office. INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS FROM THE FLOOR NONE PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR KATHY SONNABEND-55 CEDAR COURT-Spoke to the board regarding Warren Washington Counties proposal to build a multi-million dollar Fire School and multi-story Burn Training Facility noting her concern for the location of the site. It is important for the public to get good information and that we have open government. Attended the County meeting on Friday noting it is upsetting that we had three Warren County Supervisors present that night who all spoke after the presentation and none of them corrected the fact that it was not set at ACC. We did get it confirmed Mr. VanNess, Chairman of the Committee did know it and did acknowledge it. Questioned if the board has received a copy of the Power Pointe Presentation requested by Councilman Boor? COUNCILMAN BOOR-I haven’t received it. MRS. SONNABEND-Has anyone from the board received it? COUNCILMAN BREWER-I have not. MRS. SONNABEND-Foiled it last Monday. When I get the presentation tomorrow if any of you would like to see it would be happy to make a copy for you. Other than open government also concerned, whether the counties have done a good thorough job of evaluating this project because it is going to be an expensive one to build and to maintain and operate. Currently we send firefighters outside of our county to get training so that is definitely a consideration. The cost of that tuition is probably a whole lot less than operating our own facility. We like to see that the counties do a good job of evaluating that. If it turns out that, we really do need this facility in our area then it has to be in an industrial location. Even having ACC still under consideration is of great concern for quite a few of us in the public. This is going to be a big facility has potential for noise, light, visual, ground, air, water pollution. It has no business being next door to residential areas. We would like to see some consideration made of industrial locations such as the y Ceba Geig property the county owns perhaps the Warren County Airport. If the question is having a fire school, the classroom part at ACC shouldn’t be any problem with that. You can separate the burn part of it, which is the problem area from the actual fire school. Realizes that Queensbury doesn’t have the requirement to approve the project it is a government project so we have no say. If we speak up now we are much REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 679 more likely to have influence and get the kind of project that really makes sense both from a taxpayer dollar standpoint as well as from the quality of life for the people who have to be near this, we don’t want it near residents. Thank you. LOANNE LAAKSO, 22 OAKWOOD DRIVE-Spoke to the board regarding her concern about a transformer installed by National Grid in her neighborhood. Presented board members with a packet with pictures regarding transformer. (On file Town Clerk’s Office) Noted she has spoken tonight to Bill Flaherty he is going to try to get back to me. Asked the board to also speak with him noting their concern for this transformer. SUPERVISOR STEC-Called Bill Flaherty this morning left him a voice mail. If there is something that can be done, I’m sure that I can twist his arm for you to try and get this resolved. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Has spoken with Mike McCarthy still haven’t received report from him. He did tell me he did do a test, to test the decibels was told it does fall within their standards. MRS. LAAKSO-He ordered one that omitted that sound. COUNCILMAN BREWER-What they ordered is what they got and that’s what they are using. MRS. LAAKSO-Why? COUNCILMAN BREWER-I can’t answer that I can only tell you what he told me. MRS. LAAKSO-That’s what he told us, but it was the inexpensive way to go I don’t think it’s appropriate. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Would not be opposed to having a letter drafted that the Town Board signs. SUPERVISOR STEC-I have no problem doing that either. MRS. LAAKSO-Appreciates that. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Asked Mrs. Laakso to send board members an e-mail with Mr. Flaherty’s phone number. PLINEY TUCKER, 41 DIVISION ROAD, WEST GLENS FALLS-Spoke to the board regarding the approval of the ladder truck for Queensbury Central there was talked at that time some of the board members were requesting that Queensbury Central contact the Great Escape to see if they were going to come up with some money. SUPERVISOR STEC-Will follow-up on this matter will let you know. MR. TUCKER-Spoke to the board regarding the Rescue Squad Building. Questioned if the fire tower and training center have any bearing on the size of the rescue squad. SUPERVISOR STEC-No. MR. TUCKER-Asked if the squad building is going out to bid? SUPERVISOR STEC-It already has they took care of it on their end. MR. TUCKER-Asked if they have a contractor? SUPERVISOR STEC-I don’t know if they finalized that or not. COUNCILMAN BREWER-They did go out to bid, they did get bids, and they did I’m pretty sure select one. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 680 COUNCILMAN SANFORD-They were trying to negotiate the margins with the low bidder. MR. TUCKER-Asked if there is going to be a Clerk of the Works on this job to protect the taxpayers noting his concern for asking this is the squad buildings that Bay Ridge and West Glens Falls occupy now they had a lot of problems because there wasn’t somebody with the knowledge to see how the work was done. SUPERVISOR STEC-I don’t think there has been any talk about that, that’s not to say that it is not a good idea. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It will certainly go through the inspection process. If you are talking about the Town having a paid Supervisor for the job that’s not something that I don’t think we have ever done. SUPERVISOR STEC-Right. COUNCILMAN BREWER-It is not up to us it is not our building. MR. TUCKER-Spoke to the board regarding Resolution Authorizing Riverside Park Expansion and Improvement Project #158 and Withdrawal from Capital Reserve Fund #64 asked how much money is in there. SUPERVISOR STEC-About 2.6 million. MR. TUCKER-Spoke to the board regarding Resolution Designating Town Board as Lead Agency and Adopting Determination of Non Significance Regarding Main Street Gateway Plaza Improvements and Resolution Authorizing Extension of Contract with Barton & Loguidice P.C. Consulting Engineers in Connection with Queensbury Gateway Treatments Project asked the board to explain what they are doing with this. SUPERVISOR STEC-The first one makes the Town Board the Lead Agent in the SEQRA for the Gateway Plaza. That plaza is going to be located just about in the back of the old EMS building on the west side of the connector road. We will be taking action tonight to declare that there is a negative SEQRA. Resolution 7.11 extends our contract with Barton & Loguidice through the end of next year this doesn’t involve any more money. MR. TUCKER-Spoke to the board regarding Resolution Authorizing Change Order No. 1 and Increase in Contract Cost to C.T. Male Associates P.C. for Engineering Services Related to Meadowbrook Road Area Water Main Replacement Project asked to have this explained. SUPERVISOR STEC-The Town Board discussed this in our last workshop. The water project that we are going down Meadowbrook Road we decided after meeting with Bruce Ostrander last Monday night it would be a good idea to tie in the loop. There is a dead end right now on Ridge and a dead end on Meadowbrook this extra money is to tie that together. MICHAEL STERN, WARD 2, DISTRICT 4-Read a paragraph from Ann Fleming’s book The Spy Who Loved Me (1962) noting that it describes this area. Spoke to the board regarding an the resolution pertaining to Hovey Pond noting it is a jewel except there is no pedestrian access I’m thinking about the Landing on Glenwood. You are talking about putting a parking lot just to get more traffic to go there. The bike trail you can’t get there you can’t walk there. Let’s not just cause more traffic to go there. Asked if they could figure out a way that somebody could get from the bike trail there instead of more cars. SUPERVISOR STEC-It is about thirteen more spaces. COUNCILMAN BOOR-We had a workshop discussion on it. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 681 SUPERVISOR STEC-This is one of the first resolution noting there will be plenty of opportunity left to comment. COUNCILMAN BOOR-These are internal improvements. MR. STERN-I think the Landing is one of the progressive care centers. I can imagine people from there it would be like a whole day hike to Hovey Pond and back it would be great for them. Spoke to the board regarding the Resolution Adopting Zero Tolerance Policy for Theft and Dishonesty and Amending Employee Handbook noting he is all for proactive, reactive type of legislation; it is proactive you have hiring practices. You have Town employees I don’t know how many of them you make take an Oath of Office that used to mean something that is kind of my wishful thinking if we could get people that way. SUPERVISOR STEC-Our Attorney strongly recommended this it provides added protection for the Town. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Noted the only problem he has is the dishonesty not sure it is a legal term. MR. STERN-Complimented the board on the way they are working together now. BERNARD RAHILL, 37 WINCREST DRIVE-Spoke to the board regarding traffic asked Supervisor Stec to ask the Sheriff to send a report to the Post Star or ask Ken Tingley at the Post Star to write a report on the number of traffic accidents in Warren County. Six months ago, there was a report on TV 8 about there being an up tick in traffic accidents in Warren County. Sent an email to Mr. Tingley asking this, he said send it to a reporter and a reporter would write something on that and no one has written anything about it. Spoke to the board regarding the Authority. We don’t know who is proposing the Authority, whose idea it is. We don’t know who is going to make money on it. What the purpose of it is, how is it going to improve the area? Thinks they have the right to know who the players are in this Authority what the Authority is going to do before any decision is made about the Authority. Thinks this is very important also, information is important to all of us. TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Spoke to the board regarding a website TV4US. They have a website, which is wewantchoice.com. Ninety six percent of Americans do not have a choice in their cable TV, lack of choice cost consumers 8.2 billion each year. March of 2007 we will have to have a new franchise agreement. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Thanked Kathleen for going the extra mile in going to the County Meeting noting he also went to that meeting and was very shocked and surprised when he heard the Chairman of The Board of Supervisors inform us that no decision had been made on the site location. It no uncertain terms on a number of occasions at our last meeting representations were made that it was a done deal at ACC that was very concerning so I do appreciate your efforts to get at the truth. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Spoke to the board regarding a phone call received from people in Ward 4, one on Michaels Road somewhere near Queensbury Forest. Apparently, Upper Sherman has been paved or some roads have been recently paved over there. It is the belief of some of the residents that this has caused a great amount of water to go under their cellar. Some of these are homes that have never experienced issues with water before. We learned the hard way several years ago that there are some issues over there with groundwater. It appears that something is resurfacing there would like to have Rick Missita comment on this and maybe have an engineer look at a couple of these homes. Spoke to the board regarding putting a resolution together for the next meeting to amend a practice that the Town currently undertakes. It does not comply with the State we grant certain privileges to certain engineers to do test pit data out of season would like to bring us in compliance with the State and not accept at the Planning Board, Zoning REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 682 Board or Town Board level test pit data that is done out of the time frame. Spoke to the board regarding the fire departments contracts during the negotiations it was made very clear that the Town Board was going to hold the line if things occurred that showed a need for more funding that at that point we would entertain that type of funding. North Queensbury was the only fire department that actual came in with a budget less than the previous year the board even reduced it more. I believe we are all in receipt of a letter relative to the cost associated with the most recent storm they roughly shelled out about ten thousand dollars. It would be my hope that this board honors our word that when things come up we will take a good hard look at it. I hate to seem them have to take that out of another budget line item when they came in under budget. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Asked if the board is going to discuss this further in a workshop. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Would like to. SUPERVISOR STEC-Currently four out of five companies have signed. I did talk to the President of North Queensbury both before he sent us the letter and as recently as last week. Both communications I had with him certainly I emphasized to him the importance to lay out what have they shelled out that they feel is unusual expense due to that storm. That, I would first attempt to get County, State, or other aid sometimes for events like this there is aid available that is my preferred route. If we don’t hear anything in the next couple of weeks from anybody and it looks like it will not be forthcoming from anywhere else then certainly we can talk about that. Spoke regarding the fire- training center. As a member of the ACC Committee this has not come before the ACC Committee that was communicate Friday at the Board of Supervisors. The only committee that it had been discussed in is the Fire Prevention Committee, which I’m not a member. Agrees certainly until that point has been represented while not set in stone certainly that is where a majority of the people would like to see go. The Chairman of the Board did say its not set in stone certainly nothing is set in stone until we start shelling out money. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-My concern was that a lot of people from Waverly showed up and they left thinking there is nothing they can really do about it the decision has been made. Mr. LaFlure left that impression and yet three County Supervisors, Bill Van Ness, and Nick were right here who could have clarified it. What, I learned when I went to the County is no decision is made until the Board of Supervisors at the County vote on it. All three of you knew you didn’t vote on it you should have just said that’s the committee’s inclination, but it is not definite at this point in time. SUPERVISOR STEC-Wanted to point that out exactly where they stood so that we are all clear on the record that it isn’t set in stone yet. Although, I do think it is more than certainly still in consideration. In all fairness and honestly I do think it is a lot of peoples first pick at the County. It is not to say that they won’t change their mind or that they couldn’t change their mind. I wasn’t in a position to know because again, I wasn’t on the Fire Prevention Committee. I will do the best I can with the Authority language, who is involved, how did this come to be. The bottom line is that a lot of County Supervisors for a long time have been mulling over the possibility of locating a Convention Center. This has been discussed before I was on the County Board when they created the bed tax. One of the things that they were thinking that a bed tax would be used for is to round out the non-summer season you can only book a room once a night. If you got ten times more people come in the month of July than you have rooms for that doesn’t really do you a whole lot of good. The idea behind the occupancy tax was to round out the shoulders season, round out the off-season and try to promote that. One of the items that they recognized again this is years ago this is not original with my tenure on the County Board is that a Convention might be something to look at. It is my understanding with the availability now of the Gaslight Village property that the County started researching the possibility of locating a Convention Center there the County getting this started using occupancy tax money. The legal research at the County determined that the only lawful means to move forward if the County wanted to promote this project was to create an Authority that the County itself directly could not legally pursue this. As far as what else is involved in the Authority at the strong recommendation of our Senator, she strongly REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 683 encouraged an Authority also look to include the Civic Center. Right now, the entities and the language is written very broadly so that things could be added. But it is essentially being written as an Entertainment/Recreation Authority that could be funded by occupancy tax, could not be funded by general fund money no, where in the law does it say that it has to be funded by any of these things. The Board of Supervisors present one and those in the future would have options available to them as to what level to fund the Authority or not to fund the Authority. As far as what private businesses are involved in this Authority right now to my knowledge I cannot think of any other, other than who are looking at possibly buying property. The County did rehire to amend an earlier study, which is known as the PinnacleStudy, Pinnacle is the name of the company. The County did authorize thirty five thousand dollars to update. I don’t know how many year old study it is to include data about the Civic Center. I, think there are a lot of misunderstandings and misconceptions out there on what an Authority is, what the law says. We had people that came here very adamant wrote very flowery letters to the editors about what the law says about an Authority and unfortunately their very public comments were not legally accurate. In that, Authority’s are subject to the rules of foil and are subject to the Open Meetings Law. That is not to say that there aren’t’ examples of Authority’s out there where they have not followed these things religiously those are the things that we read about in the newspapers around the State from time to time. Assuming that the law is followed and that is how I operate then the Authority would be subject to foil and Open Meetings Law all the financials and everything has to be available for the public. Where is it now? The draft has gone to the State Legislature. When we request any legislation it goes to the State Legislature, they will come up with a draft and they present the draft of the legislation back to the County. The County will look at it make comments on it before it becomes final. If they created an Authority, again, it doesn’t require funding, it doesn’t mandate funding, it allows for a mechanism for the County to provide funding. However, again, I’ve seen the draft legislation and it does not allow general fund money to be used. It only allows potentially, but it dosen’t require occupancy tax. Of course, an Authority is supposed to be generating a certain amount of its own revenue as well. It is a long way from being a reality it is several months away from being a reality. I’m not sure if Bernie is still here or not, but he stepped out so he will watch us at home so that’s what I can tell you about the Authority. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I think Dan a lot of the concern is the perception at least is that these revenues from the occupancy tax will be funneled to provide essentially a bailout of the Civic Center. In that, regard its basically shortchanging some of the other communities from having the benefit of those dollars. They are seeing this Authority as a device if you will to accomplish things well beyond promoting tourism basically assisting the City of Glens Falls. That may not be the worse thing in the world I don’t know if the dialogue has taken place or is the full discussion happened on that. SUPERVISOR STEC-I can tell you that in addition obviously the County Supervisors have been involved and the County Attorney. Senator Little and her office, Assemblywoman Sayward and her office, and Mayor Akins and his office, and Mayor Blaise and his office have been very involved in things to date that I’m aware of the meetings that I’ve been present at and certainly I share your concerns.. I’ve been not often accused of being overly generous with Queensbury money to the City of Glens Falls. As a matter of fact, there are people sitting at this table that have criticized that. I assure you that I’m not looking to provide anybody a handout. Certainly as I have said many times, on the record before if, there is an advantage to the Town and to the rest of the County every Town and City is represented at the County Board if there is an advantage to doing this from a financial perspective we will pursue it, if there isn’t then we won’t. Are we going to run into a situation where one community might benefit marginally more than another it happens. I just rather see every community benefit to some level than to have one or two communities benefit at the expense of all other. I can assure you that the other Town Supervisors up there on the board are equally protective of their Town. Spoke to the board regarding Halfway Brook noting he walked it with George Hilton, and Warren County Soil and Water, walked it from Quaker Road all the way to the Glens Falls Cemetery inspecting the drainage. It took about two hours to do that George took GIS with him plotted dimensions marked where everything was on GPS, took digital pictures to put something together for the board. The biggest choke point that we have is the Adelphia lot the one that we looked at that day. Everything REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 684 upstream of that is actually in better shape it looks like its bigger stuff. I would be pushing, as I’m sure you are Richard to make sure we are trying to hustle that along. COUNCILMAN BREWER-The Tire Warehouse they did fix that where it caved in. Asked if they did any repair to the culvert that goes underneath? COUNCILMAN SANFORD-That’s the issue. From Quaker Road to the Adelphia we don’t even know much about what’s down there because it was done some forty years ago. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Asked if it was a three-foot culvert that goes underneath the driveway. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Two twenty four’s. When you get a bad rain situation, the water will actually go above it you know there is something that is obstructed. COUNCILMAN BREWER-When they fixed where they fixed where it goes into the swale there did they inspect further back into that culvert? COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Unfortunately there is really no way you can inspect it. SUPERVISOR STEC-We are going to have to wait until it dries out warms up. Thanked Glens Falls National Bank and TV 8 for sponsoring our meetings. Spoke regarding the Town website www.queesnbury.net. RESOLUTIONS ORDER SETTING PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED CENTRAL QUEENSBURY QUAKER ROAD SEWER DISTRICT EXTENSION NO. 10 - BAY ROAD RESOLUTION NO. 159, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to establish an extension to the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District to be known as Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District Extension No. 10 – Bay Road, and WHEREAS, a Map, Plan and Report has been prepared by C. T. Male Associates, P.C., engineers licensed by the State of New York, regarding the proposed Sewer District Extension to be installed along the western side of Bay Road, from Walker Lane to Blind Rock Road, a length of approximately .95 miles to include The Cedars Senior Living Community and the proposed BRB Group development with the following tax map parcels: 289.19-1-15; 296.7-1-15.1; 296.7-1-15.2; 289.19-1-23 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 685 289.19-1-24 289.19-1-25 289.19-1-26 289.19-1-27 289.19-1-28 289.19-1-29 289.19-1-30 289.19-1-31 289.19-1-32 289.19-1-33 289.19-1-34 as more specifically set forth and described in the Map, Plan and Report, and WHEREAS, the Town Board accepts such Map, Plan and Report as the Map, Plan and Report for the proposed Sewer District Extension and such Map, Plan and Report has been filed in the Queensbury Town Clerk's Office and is available for public inspection, and WHEREAS, the Map, Plan and Report delineates the boundaries of the proposed Sewer District Extension, a general plan of the proposed sewer system, a report of the proposed sewer system and method of operation, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to establish the proposed Sewer Extension in accordance with Town Law Article 12A and consolidate the Extension with the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District in accordance with Town Law §206A, and WHEREAS, Part I of an Environmental Assessment Form has been prepared and presented at this meeting and a coordinated SEQRA review is desired, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The Queensbury Town Board shall hold a public hearing to consider establishment of the previously described proposed extension to the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District to be known as Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District Extension No. 10 – Bay Road. 2.The boundaries of the proposed Extension and benefited areas of the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District are as set forth in the Map, Plan and Report previously described in this Order and as follows: REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 686 All that certain tracts, pieces or parcels of land situate, lying and being in the Town of Queensbury, County of Warren, State of New York, lying generally Westerly of Bay Road, generally Northerly and Southerly of Blind Rock Road, and being more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point at the intersection of the Southerly boundary of Blind Rock Road with the Westerly boundary of Bay Road and runs thence from said point of beginning in a generally Southerly direction along the Westerly boundary of Bay Road 1,140± feet to its intersection with the Southerly boundary of Town of Queensbury Tax Map parcel No. 289.19-1-23; thence in a generally Westerly direction along the Southerly boundary of Tax Map Parcel Nos. 289.19-1-23 and 289.19-1-24, a distance of 630± feet to its intersection with Easterly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 289.19-1-26; thence in a generally Southerly direction along the Easterly boundary of Tax Map Parcel Nos. 289.19-1-26 and 296.07-1-15.1, a distance of 200± feet to its intersection with the Northerly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 289.19-1-15; thence in a generally Easterly direction along the Northerly boundary of said tax map parcel 600± feet to its intersection with the Westerly boundary of Bay Road; thence in a generally Southerly direction along the Westerly boundary of Bay Road 60± feet to its intersection with the Southerly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 289.19-1-15; thence in a generally Westerly direction along the Southerly boundary of said tax map parcel 540± feet to its intersection with the Northeasterly boundary of said tax map parcel; thence in a generally Southeasterly direction along the Northeasterly boundary of said tax map parcel 200± feet to its intersection of the Southerly boundary of said tax map parcel; thence in a generally Westerly direction along the Southerly boundary of said tax map parcel 110± feet to its intersection with a Southeasterly boundary of said Tax Map Parcel No. 289.19-1- 15; thence in a generally Southwesterly direction along the Southeasterly boundary of said tax map parcel 320± feet to its intersection of the Southerly boundary of said tax map parcel; thence in a generally Westerly direction along the Southerly boundary of said Tax Map Parcel No. 289.19-1-15, a distance of 200± feet to its intersection with the Easterly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 296.07-1-15.2; thence in a generally Southerly direction along the Easterly boundary of said tax map parcel 270± feet to its intersection with the Southerly boundary of said tax map parcel ;thence in a generally Westerly direction along the Southerly boundary of Tax Map Parcel Nos. 296.07-1-15.2 and 296.07-1-15.1, a distance of 975± feet to its intersection with the Westerly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 296.07-1-15.1; thence in a generally Northerly direction along the Westerly boundary of said tax map parcel 170± feet to its intersection with the Southerly boundary of said tax map parcel; thence in a generally Westerly direction along the Southerly boundary of said Tax Map Parcel No. 296.07-1-15.1, a distance of 580± feet to its intersection with the Southeasterly boundary Blind Rock Road; thence in a generally Northeasterly direction along the Southeasterly boundary of Blind Rock Road 170± feet to its REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 687 intersection with the Northerly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 296.07-1-15.1; thence in a generally Easterly direction along the Northerly boundary said tax map parcel 500± feet to its intersection with the Westerly boundary of said tax map parcel; thence in a generally Northerly direction along the Westerly boundary of said tax map parcel 460± feet to its intersection with the Northerly boundary of said Tax Map Parcel No. 296.07-1-15.1; thence in a generally Easterly direction along the Northerly boundary of said tax map parcel 690± feet to its intersection with the Westerly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 289.19-1-26; thence in a generally Northerly direction along the Westerly boundary of Tax Map Parcel Nos. 289.19-1- 26 and 289.19-1-27, a distance of 1,290± feet to its intersection with the Southeasterly boundary of Blind Rock Road; thence in a generally Northeasterly and Easterly direction along the Southeasterly and Southerly boundary of Blind Rock Road 1,200± feet to the point or place of beginning. 3. The proposed sanitary sewer facilities for Sewer Extension #10 will consist of a gravity sewer main along Bay Road from Walker Lane north to Blind Rock Road, a distance of approximately 5,000 feet. The gravity line will be 8” from Blind Rock Road to a location halfway between Canterbury Woods and Olde Coach Manor. Due to the flat topography between Walker Lane and Canterbury Woods, the gravity main will increase to 12” to convey the wastewater flows. The total length of gravity sanitary sewer line is 1,300 LF of 12” PVC and 3,700 LF of 8” PVC. The proposed gravity sanitary sewer will connect to an existing manhole at the intersection of Walker Lane and Bay Road to match the invert of the existing 4” HDPE line from Walker Lane. Wastewater from such proposed Extension will flow by gravity from the Walker Lane connection to the Willowbrook Pump Station located at the low point of service on Bay Road along Old Maids Brook. This station is a duplex suction lift design located in above ground housing, installed during the construction of CQQRSD Extension #7. This project proposal for installation of a new sanitary sewage system will collect the wastewater flow generated by the properties and transport the flow to the City of Glens Falls Wastewater Treatment Facility which ultimately provides treatment for the Town of Queensbury wastewater. The proposed flow fits within capacity limits the Town has already contacted for from the City of Glens Falls. All such Sewer Extension improvements are more specifically delineated in the Map, Plan and Report. The cost shall include a buy-in to the City of Glens Falls Wastewater Treatment Plant in the amount of $4,500 ($1.00 per gallon fee x 4,500 gpd for The Cedars Phase 1. Since BRB Group property is undeveloped at this time, the buy-in cost is zero) due at the time of initial hook- up. 4. All costs of construction, legal and engineering fees shall be the responsibility of the two developers/property owners and those costs are not intended to be shared by other users within the Sewer District in accordance with a formula delineated in the Map, Plan and Report. The improvements shall be constructed and installed in full accordance with the Town of Queensbury's specifications, ordinances or local laws, any REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 688 State laws or regulations, in accordance with approved plans and specifications and under competent engineering supervision. . 5. The estimated cost of hook-up fees to each property will be $3,000 The estimated annual cost of the District for the first year of operation to the typical property is $478. There is no estimated annual cost for a typical one or two family home in the proposed Sewer District Extension since (1) there are no one or two family homes currently located in the proposed District and 2) the zoning of the parcels located within the proposed District prohibit the construction of a one or two family home. The aggregate estimated cost of the District to The Cedars (Phase 1) is $3,198.75 for the annual benefit tax plus $4,486.80 for the estimated operation and maintenance cost. The aggregate estimated cost of the District to the properties owned by the BRB Group during the first year of operation is $2,443.50. 6. In accordance with Town Law §206-a, all future expenses of the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District, including all extensions included heretofore or hereafter established, shall be a charge against the entire area of the district as extended. 7. The Map, Plan and Report describing the improvements, area involved and a detailed explanation of hook-up fees and cost of the District to the typical property, and, if different, the typical one or two family home, is on file with the Queensbury Town Clerk and is available for public inspection. 8. The Town Board shall meet and hold a public hearing at the Queensbury rd Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, April 3, 2006 to consider the Map, Plan and Report, hear all persons interested in the proposal and take such other and further action as may be required or authorized by law. 9. The Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to duly publish and post this Order not less than ten (10) days nor more than twenty (20) days before the public hearing date, as required by Town Law §209-d, and complete or arrange for the securing of two (2) Affidavits of Publication of Notice and two (2) Affidavits of Posting of Notice of the Public Hearing required hereby and to file a certified copy of this Order with the State Comptroller on or about the date of publication. 10. The Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town of Queensbury Community Development Department to prepare a report on any environmental impacts that should be considered at the time a SEQRA review is conducted. 11. The Town Board further authorizes and directs the Community Development Department to send a copy of this Resolution, Part I of the Environmental REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 689 Assessment Form presented at this meeting and a copy of the Map, Plan and Report to all potentially involved agencies and to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and New York State Department of Health together with all documentation to be sent out with a letter indicating that the Town Board is about to undertake consideration of the project identified in this Resolution, that a coordinated SEQRA review with the Queensbury Town Board as Lead Agency is desired and that a Lead Agency must be agreed upon within 30 days. th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr.Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT:None DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE: COUNCILMAN BOOR-I’ll move it with one amendment. Page 6, Item 5, I would like to have that stricken. For the board members but more importantly for the public no public funds are being used for this. To limit what a private contractor wants to spend to do this makes no sense so I think we should strike that. SUPERVISOR STEC-I’m getting an agreement from Mike Shaw its good to see us going in that direction Roger. Is that the only changes just to delete paragraph five. Tim are you fine with that amendment. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I think I understand exactly what the intent is and its fine. On page 5, item 4, all costs of construction, legal and engineering fees shall be the responsibility of the two developers/property owners and are not intended to be shared by other users within the Sewer District. I’m sure that means the costs aren’t intended to be shared rather than the Sewer Extension being shared. I think we can just insert a word, and those cost are not intended to be shared by other users. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Richard you are right it’s missing a comma after owners and before and. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-It really not a very important point because I believe the intent is pretty clear. It is almost like throw the horse over the fence some hay; you have to think about it. Here, I would like to have, shall be the responsibility of the two developers/property owners and those costs are not intended to be shared by other users. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RIVERSIDE PARK EXPANSION AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #158 AND WITHDRAWAL FROM CAPITAL RESERVE FUND #64 RESOLUTION NO.: 160, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 690 WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously established a Capital Reserve Fund known as the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Fund No. 64 for future capital projects, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to withdraw and expend moneys from such reserve account in the amount of $60,500 for specific capital improvements for the Riverside Park Recreation Area Expansion and Improvement Project to consist of: 1.development of a Park Master Plan; 2.development of a park entrance and related signage; 3.establishment of parking area; 4.establishment and development of walking and hiking trails; and 5.professional services for all of the above; and § WHEREAS, in accordance with New York State General Municipal Law 6(c), the Town Board is authorized to withdraw and expend funds from Fund #64 subject to permissive referendum, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the recreation project known as the Riverside Park Expansion and Improvement Project and authorizes expenditures in the total amount of $60,500 for the work described in the preambles of this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the establishment of a separate capital project fund for such Project – Riverside Park Project Fund No.: 158, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes a transfer from Fund No.: 64 in the amount of $60,500 to fund such Project, such funds to be placed into the Capital Project Fund No.: 158 to be established in accordance with this Resolution and the Town Board further directs that in the event there are funds remaining in such capital project fund after completion of the Project or in the event that the Project is not undertaken, the moneys in the capital project fund shall be returned to the capital improvement fund, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 691 BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby establishes initial appropriations in Expense Account No.’s: 158-7110-4403 in the amount of $12,000 – Professional Services; and 158-7110-2899 in the amount of $48,500 – Capital Construction; and estimated revenues in Account No.: 158-0158-5031 in the amount of $60,500, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby finds that the withdrawal and expenditure for the Riverside Park Expansion and Improvement Project is an expenditure for a specific capital project and items of equipment for which the reserve account was established, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this Resolution is subject to a permissive referendum in accordance with the provisions of Town Law Article 7 and the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to publish and post such notices and take such other actions as may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2006 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INCREASE IN HOVEY POND PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #146 AND WITHDRAWAL FROM CAPITAL RESERVE FUND #64 RESOLUTION NO.: 161, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously established a Capital Reserve Fund known as the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Fund No. 64 for future capital projects, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to withdraw and expend moneys from such reserve account in the amount of $75,888 for specific capital improvements and certain items of equipment for the Hovey Pond Park Improvement Project to consist of: REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 692 6.improved/expanded sitting areas; 7.formulating and instituting a park landscaping plan; 8.walkway resurfacing and drainage repairs; 9.constructing additional parking areas; and 10.professional services for all of the above; and § WHEREAS, in accordance with New York State General Municipal Law 6(c), the Town Board is authorized to withdraw and expend funds from Fund #64 subject to permissive referendum, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the recreation project known as the Hovey Pond Park Improvement Project and authorizes expenditures in the total amount of $75,888 for the work described in the preambles of this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes a transfer from Fund No.: 64 in the amount of $75,888 to fund such Project, such funds to be placed into the Capital Project Fund No.: 146 and the Town Board further directs that in the event there are funds remaining in such capital project fund after completion of the Project or in the event that the Project is not undertaken, the moneys in the capital project fund shall be returned to the capital improvement fund, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby increases appropriations in Expense Account No.’s: 146-7110-4403 in the amount of $12,000 – Professional Services; and 146-7110-2899 in the amount of $63,888 – Capital Construction; and estimated revenues in Account No.: 146-0146-5031 in the amount of $75,888, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby finds that the withdrawal and expenditure for the Hovey Pond Park Improvement Project is an expenditure for a specific capital project and items of equipment for which the reserve account was established, and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 693 RESOLVED, that this Resolution is subject to a permissive referendum in accordance with the provisions of Town Law Article 7 and the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to publish and post such notices and take such other actions as may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2006 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES: None ABSENT:None DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE : COUNCILMAN BREWER-I would recommend that we take the minutes where the discussion was made about improvements to the park and forward them to the Recreation Commission. SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s a good idea. RESOLUTION APPOINTING SCOTT BURNARD AS GIS UTILITIES TECHNICIAN ON A PERMANENT BASIS RESOLUTION NO. 162, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 180,2005, the Queensbury Town Board authorized and directed the appointment of Scott Burnard as the GIS & Utilities Location Technician in the Town’s Water Department on a provisional basis until such time as he passed the Civil Service exam for the position and successfully completed an eight month probation period, and WHEREAS, the Warren County Department of Personnel and Civil Service has advised that Mr. Burnard successfully passed the Warren County Civil Service exam for the position, and WHEREAS, the Town’s Water Superintendent has advised that Mr. Burnard also successfully completed his eight (8) month probation period and therefore has recommended that the Town Board appoint Mr. Burnard on a permanent basis, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 694 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby appoints Scott Burnard to th the position of GIS Utilities Technician on a permanent basis effective March 20, 2006, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Water Superintendent and/or Budget Officer to complete any forms necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2006 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION APPOINTING THOMAS MATTESON AS WATER MAINTENANCE FOREMAN ON PERMANENT BASIS RESOLUTION NO. 163, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 294,2004 the Queensbury Town Board authorized and directed the promotion of Thomas Matteson from Water Maintenance Man to the Civil Service competitive position of Water Maintenance Foreman on a provisional basis until such time as Mr. Matteson met all Civil Service requirements for the position, and WHEREAS, the Warren County Department of Personnel and Civil Service has advised that Mr. Matteson successfully passed the Warren County Civil Service exam for the position, and WHEREAS, the Town’s Water Superintendent has therefore recommended that the Town Board appoint Mr. Matteson on a permanent basis, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby appoints Thomas Matteson th to the position of Water Maintenance Foreman on a permanent basis effective March 20, 2006, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 695 BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Water Superintendent and/or Budget Officer to complete any forms necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2006 by the following vote: AYES : Mr.Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION SCHEDULING PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING GF LABELS (GLENS FALLS BUSINESS FORMS, INC.)’S REQUEST TO SHIFT OPERATIONS TO WASHINGTON COUNTY EMPIRE ZONE RESOLUTION NO.: 164, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr Daniel Stec WHEREAS,GF Labels (Glens Falls Business Forms, Inc.) currently operates at 834 Bay Road, Queensbury, New York, and , WHEREAS GF Labels has decided to construct a new facility on Lot #12 Fergerson Lane in Kingsbury, New York, and , WHEREAS GF Labels expects to apply for Qualified Empire Zone Enterprise (QEZE) status through the Washington County Empire Zone in connection with such relocation, and § WHEREAS, in accordance with New York State General Municipal Law 959 (a)(iii), GF Labels must secure the approval of the Town of Queensbury in order to obtain QEZE certification, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to schedule the required public hearing concerning GF Labels’ proposed relocation and QEZE certification, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall meet and hold a public hearing at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 696 rd April 3, 2006 to hear all interested persons concerning the proposal by GF Labels (Glens Falls Business Forms, Inc.) to shift its operations from 834 Bay Road, Queensbury to lot #12 Fergerson Lane, Kingsbury and its proposal to apply for Qualified Empire Zone Enterprise status through the Washington County Empire Zone, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish and post a Notice of Public Hearing at least ten (10) days before the Hearing as required by law. th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2006 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT:None DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE : COUNCILMAN BOOR-Questioned if this has to be done at the County level. The reason, I ask this is typically when we get Planning Board recommendations we usually wait, what if Warren County says no. SUPERVISOR STEC-Not sure exactly how it works. I will keep this one aside and ask tomorrow. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF LOFTUS ROSS LLP, CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS TO AUDIT TOWN OF QUEENSBURY FIRE COMPANIES AND EMERGENCY SQUADS RESOLUTION NO.:165, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to authorize engagement of the services of Loftus Ross LLP to audit the statements of financial position and related statements of activities, functional expenses and cash flows, of the Town of Queensbury’s Fire Companies and Emergency Squads records, and also prepare the Federal Return of the Organizations Exempt From Income Tax (Form 990) and appropriate State Tax Returns, for the years ended 2005, 2006 and 2007, and WHEREAS, Loftus Ross LLP has offered to provide these services for a sum not to exceed: REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 697 ? $16,100 for the year ended 2005; ? $16,900 for the year ended 2006; and ? $17,700 for the year ended 2007; st as more specifically set forth in its letter-proposal dated January 31, 2006 and presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes engagement of the services of Loftus Ross, LLP, CPA’s to audit the Town’s Fire Companies and Emergency Squads records and provide tax services for the years ended 2005, 2006 and 2007 for an amount not to exceed: ? $16,100 for the year ended 2005; ? $16,900 for the year ended 2006; and ? $17,700 for the year ended 2007; st as more specifically set forth in Loftus Ross LLP’s January 31, 2006 letter-proposal presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that payment for these services shall be paid for from Account No.’s: 005-3410-4401-4980 and 005-3410-4401-4981, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town st Supervisor to execute the January 31, 2006 letter-proposal provided that should a consolidation or reduction in the number of entities to be audited occur (i.e. consolidation or districts) that this rate will be renegotiated and further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Budget Officer to sign any documentation and take any and all action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES: None ABSENT:None DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE : COUNCILMAN STROUGH-While they are reviewing Fire and Ems and they are getting familiar with the budgets we had asked them if they could come up with what they REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 698 suggest as a standardized budgeting format for Fire, Ems being a separate kind of entity asked Supervisor Stec to follow-up on this. SUPERVISOR STEC-Sure will very good point. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Let’s assume that we go to fire districts and it gets reduced to three districts. In the years 2006, 2007 are we tied to those at those costs. SUPERVISOR STEC-Asked Jennifer that question and she did not seem overly concerned. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I would just ask that we have a clause in it that should reduction in the number or consolidation take place that we revisit the cost in the future. SUPERVISOR STEC-I would add in the last Resolved insert language. Provided that should a consolidation or a reduction in the number of entities to be audited occur (i.e. consolidation or districts) that this rate will be renegotiated. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Just a precautionary note I’ll go along with that. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING TOWN OF QUEENSBURY POLLING PLACES AND AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT OF ELECTION DISTRICT LINES IN WARDS 2 AND 4 RESOLUTION NO. 166, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor § WHEREAS, in accordance with New York State Election Law 4-104, the Queensbury Town Board must submit a listing of the Town’s polling places for each Election District to the Warren County Board of Elections, and WHEREAS, each location is accessible to the physically handicapped in accordance § with Election Law 4-104-1-a, and WHEREAS, in addition to the Town Board submitting a list of the Town’s polling places for each Election District, the Warren County Board of Elections has also recommended that the Town Board amend Election District lines in Wards 2 and 4 as depicted in the map presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes an amendment of the Town of Queensbury’s Election District lines in Wards 2 and 4 as depicted in the map presented at this meeting, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 699 BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby designates the following locations as the Town of Queensbury’s polling places for each Election District: WARD/ELECTION DISTRICT LOCATION 1/1 North Queensbury Firehouse 1/2 Bay Ridge Firehouse (Bay Road) 1/3 Bay Ridge Firehouse (Bay Road) 1/4 Warren County Municipal Center 1/5 Bay Ridge Firehouse (Bay Road) 1/6 Warren County Municipal Center 2/1 South Queensbury Firehouse 2/2 Queensbury Activities Center 2/3 Queensbury Central Firehouse (Lafayette Street) 2/4 Queensbury Activities Center 2/5 Warren County Municipal Center 2/6 The Glen at Hiland Meadows 3/1 Queensbury 4/5 School Gym 3/2 Queensbury 4/5 School Gym 3/3 Queensbury 4-5 School Gym 3/4 Kensington Road School 3/5 Queensbury 4/5 School Gym 3/6 Queensbury 4/5 School Gym 4/1 West Glens Falls Firehouse (Luzerne Road) 4/2 West Glens Falls Firehouse (Luzerne Road) 4/3 West Glens Falls Firehouse (Luzerne Road) 4/4 West Glens Falls Firehouse (Luzerne Road) 4/5 West Glens Falls Firehouse (Luzerne Road) 4/6 West Glens Falls Firehouse (Luzerne Road) 4/7 West Glens Falls Firehouse (Luzerne Road) 4/8 West Glens Falls Firehouse (Luzerne Road) 4/9 West Glens Falls Firehouse (Luzerne Road) 4/10 West Glens Falls Firehouse (Luzerne Road) and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to forward a copy of this Resolution and map to the Warren County Board of Elections. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 700 th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ADOPTING ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY FOR THEFT AND DISHONESTY AND AMENDING EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK RESOLUTION NO.: 167, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to adopt a Zero Tolerance Policy for Theft and Dishonesty and accordingly amend its Employee Handbook, and WHEREAS, a proposed Policy has been presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby adopts the Zero Tolerance Policy for Theft and Dishonesty presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to distribute a copy of this Policy to all Town employees and amend the Employee Handbook accordingly. th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2006 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION DESIGNATING QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY AND ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE REGARDING MAIN STREET GATEWAY PLAZA IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT PIN NO.: 1756.27 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 701 RESOLUTION NO.: 168, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 587,2004, the Queensbury Town Board authorized engagement of the engineering services of Barton & Loguidice, P.C. (Barton) for the provision of engineering, planning and landscaping architecture services in connection with the proposed Main Street Gateway Plaza Improvements Project (Project) referred to as Project PIN No.: 1756.27, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 606, 2004, the Town Board reaffirmed and authorized such Project, and WHEREAS, the proposed Project is an unlisted action in accordance with the rules and regulations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and WHEREAS, the Town Board is duly qualified to act as lead agency for compliance with the SEQRA which requires environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments and in accordance with the coordinated review procedures of SEQRA, the Town of Queensbury Town Board wishes to be designated as the SEQRA Lead Agency for the proposed Project, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 433,2005, the Town Board indicated its wish to be Lead Agency for SEQRA review of the Project and authorized and directed the Town Clerk and/or Executive Director of Community Development to send a copy of the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I and certified copy of the Resolution stating the Town Board’s intention to be declared Lead Agency, to any and all communities or agencies that it is necessary to give written notice to in accordance with New York State Town Law, and WHEREAS, the Executive Director has advised the Town Board that the communities or agencies were notified as required, and 30 days have passed without any opposition from the involved agencies including, but not limited to the New York State Department of Transportation, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation and therefore, the Town Board may now declare the Town of Queensbury as Lead Agency for environmental determination of significance for this unlisted action, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 702 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby declares that the Town of Queensbury be designated as Lead Agency for the environmental determination of significance for the Main Street Gateway Plaza Improvements Project PIN No.: 1756.27 (Project), an unlisted action in accordance with the rules and regulations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that upon reviewing the Short Environmental Assessment Form and thoroughly analyzing the Project for potential environmental concerns, the Town Board hereby determines that the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration is made, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to complete the Short Environmental Assessment Form by checking the box indicating that the proposed Project will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board approves of a Negative Declaration and authorizes and directs the Town Clerk and/or Executive Director of Community Development to notify each of the involved agencies that a Negative Declaration has been made and file any necessary documents in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation. th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT:None ABSTAIN:Mr. Sanford DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE : EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MS. RYBA-This particular resolution designates the Town Board as Lead Agency or State Environmental Quality Review purposes because there are a number of involved agencies including New York State Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Organization that you will get funding from. We asked all of those organizations that were involved if they would allow the Town to be Lead Agency they all have said yes. The second part of this is for the Gateway Treatments that is one of the grants that we received for the Main Street Program there are three parts to that. One is the Park & Ride Facility that will go next to the West Glens Falls EMS Project. The second is creating a bikeway within the existing right-a-way from Richardson Street down to the Feeder Canal Trail. The third item is the Gateway Plaza, which is an information Kiosk REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 703 that will be located on the west side of the connector road the southwestern side of the connector road. We have gotten signoffs from the different environmental organizations I feel pretty secure that the negative declaration is what is proposed. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Asked if they could take lead agency and do the SEQRA next time. Speaking for myself here and using my past experience on the Planning Board I don’t take a SEQRA lightly. To be honest with you I haven’t looked at traffic studies associated with this and I believe you probably have them. If, I was to approve a SEQRA on this tonight it would be that I was going with the flow on it. It wouldn’t be based on my knowledge of the project. What I would like to do if the rest of the board is agreeable is to accept the lead agency and then do the SEQRA two weeks from now. If there is not a extremely compelling reason to do it. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I have no problem myself with doing SEQRA because it is on the Gateway Improvements. Specifically the Park & Ride, the Gateway Plaza, and the bicycle lane I don’t think I need a traffic study for either of those. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-The Park & Ride when we looked at it at the Planning Board there was some issue I thought in terms of what it might mean in people exiting and entering at particular times and traffic flow things of that nature. I remember at that time on the Planning Board we got this thrown in our lap and I abstained from doing the SEQRA because I didn’t have enough information now that’s just me. If the rest of the board feels comfortable with moving, forward with it you will probably get your votes and I will merely abstain on the vote. That’s fine too; if I had a couple of weeks, I would look over the material and develop a comfort level that’s all I’m saying. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I would agree John. No reflection on you Richard, but we’ve had this for years. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-It has been at the Town level and I haven’t been at the Town level for years so that’s fine. COUNCILMAN BOOR-The Park & Ride Facility we are referring to is the one at the EMS building or the one at the corner on Main Street. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MS. RYBA-There is one Park & Ride Facility, which is the one next to the EMS building. The Town does have the lead agency status the information attached to this did include the information from the other organizations. In terms of next step once this goes forward, it gets included into the Draft Design Report, which becomes a Final Design Report for the New York State Department of Transportation. Then once that is received, the bidding can progress and get the project underway. SEQRA PART II IMPACT ASSESSMENT A, Does action exceed any type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.4? NO B, Will action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part YES 617.6? C, Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1, Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential NO for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? C2, aesthetic, agriculture, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural NO resources; or community or neighborhood character? C3, Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant NO habitats, or threatened or endangered species? REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 704 C4, A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change NO in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? C5, Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be NO induced by the proposed action? C6, Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1- NO C5? C7, Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of NO energy)? D. Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the NO establishment of a CEA? E, Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental NO impacts? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MS. RYBA-This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Town of Queensbury Town Board as Lead Agency has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant environmental impact and a Draft Impact Statement will not be prepared. Name of Action is the Main Street Gateway Treatments (PIN 1756.27) SEQRA status is unlisted. Conditioned Negative Declaration, no. Description of the Action. The Main Street Gateway Treatments project will include the development of a Gateway Plaza; a Park 7 Ride Facility and Bikeway Linkage to the Feeder Canal Trail via Richardson Street. Reasons Supporting this Determination. The draft design report for this project describes conditions, deficiencies, engineering considerations, and needs. All the Town Board members did get a copy of the Draft Design Report. Design criteria have been investigated against various federal, state, and local criteria and codes and outlined for compliance purposes. Alternatives have been considered and described. The social, economic, and environmental considerations and consequences have been assessed. Since this project is federally funded, NEPA review has also taken place. The draft design report is part of the record for this project. Other involved agencies include the NYS DEC, NYS SHPO, and the FHWA. Information concerning agency approvals is attached. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXTENSION OF CONTRACT WITH BARTON & LOGUIDICE, P.C., CONSULTING ENGINEERS IN CONNECTION WITH QUEENSBURY GATEWAY TREATMENTS PROJECT(S) – PIN NO.: 1756.27 TO DECEMBER 31, 2007 RESOLUTION NO.: 169, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board authorized establishment of the Main Street Gateway Plaza Improvements Capital Project” (Project) PIN No.: 1756.27, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 587,2004, the Town Board authorized engagement of Barton & Loguidice, P.C. for the provision of engineering, planning and landscaping architecture services to complete a TEA-21 funding application in connection with the Project, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 705 WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 606,2004, the Town Board authorized a Supplemental Agreement for Federal Aid on behalf of the Town with the New York State Department of Transportation (NYS DOT) for the advancement of the Project and extended the Project Phase Completion Date to December 31, 2007, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury’s Executive Director of Community Development has recommended that the Town Board authorize an extension of its contract with Barton & Loguidice, P.C. authorized by Resolution No.: 587,2004 to December 31, 2007, to be consistent with the extension granted to NYS DOT, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs an extension of its contract with Barton & Loguidice, P.C. authorized in accordance with st Resolution No.: 587,2004 to December 31, 2007, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Executive Director of Community Development and/or Budget Officer to execute any needed documentation and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SETTLEMENT OF METTEL CLAIMS RESOLUTION NO.: 170, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr .Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr Daniel Stec WHEREAS, Bilateral Credit Corp., on behalf of MetTel Corp., asserted that the Town of Queensbury owes MetTel Corp. the amount of $52,172.05 for cancellation fees related to phone services, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 706 WHEREAS, Town Counsel, consistent with direction received from the Town Board, has negotiated a settlement of this matter in the amount of $7,500 subject to approval of the Town Board, and WHEREAS, Town Counsel has requested Town Board authorization to settle this matter on the negotiated terms, thereby avoiding further litigation, trial and expense, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs Town Counsel to settle the claims of Bilateral Credit Corp., on behalf of MetTel Corp., in exchange for a full release from Bilateral Credit Corp., on behalf of MetTel Corp., of any and all claims it has or might have arising from an alleged contract to provide telephone services to the Town, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury agrees to the settlement amount of Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($7,500), and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to issue a settlement check in such amount made payable to “Bilateral Credit Corp., on behalf of MetTel Corp.” in satisfaction of the Town’s negotiated settlement amount, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that funds for such settlement shall be paid from the appropriate account as will be determined by the Town’s Budget Officer, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to sign a Settlement Agreement and General Release in form approved by Town Counsel and/or any other settlement documents and take any action necessary to settle this matter and effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 707 NOES : Mr. Strough ABSENT :None RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2006 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 171, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHEREAS, the attached Budget Amendment Requests have been duly initiated and justified and are deemed compliant with Town operating procedures and accounting practices by the Town Budget Officer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer’s Office to take all action necessary to transfer funds and amend the 2006 Town Budget as follows: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 001-1420-4130 001-1010-4130 50,000 (Legal Retainer) (TB Legal) 001-1420-4130 001-1220-4130 29,400 (Legal Retainer) (Supervisor Legal) 001-1420-4130 001-1315-4130 5,300 (Legal Retainer) (Accounting Legal) 001-1420-4130 001-1430-4130 17,000 (Legal Retainer) (Personnel Legal) FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 001-1420-4130 001-3410-4130 100 (Legal Retainer) (Fire Marshal Legal) 001-1420-4130 001-3620-4130 17,945 (Legal Retainer) (B&C Legal) 001-1420-4130 001-5010-4130 3,000 (Legal Retainer) (Highway Legal) 001-1420-4130 001-7020-4130 7,500 (Legal Retainer) (Parks Legal) 001-1420-4130 001-8010-4130 5,400 (Legal Retainer) (Zoning Legal) REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 708 001-1420-4130 001-8020-4130 30,000 (Legal Retainer) (Planning Legal) 001-1420-4130 001-1345-4130 2,500 (Legal Retainer) (Purchasing Legal) 001-1420-4130 001-1355-4130 2,000 (Legal Retainer) (Assessor Legal) 001-1420-4130 001-1410-4130 2,000 (Legal Retainer) (Clerk Legal) 001-1420-4130 001-1620-4130 2,000 (Legal Retainer) (B&G Legal) 001-1420-4130 001-3510-4130 500 (Legal Retainer) (Animal Control Legal) 001-1420-4130 001-1680-4130 500 (Legal Retainer) (IT Legal) th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT OF BIDS FOR 2006 COMBINATION DUMP BODY WITH SNOWPLOW AND HYDRAULICS FOR TOWN HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 172, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Highway Superintendent wishes to advertise for bids for the purchase of a 2006 Combination Dump Body with Snowplow and Hydraulics as specified in bid specifications to be prepared by the Highway Superintendent and/or Purchasing Agent, and WHEREAS, General Municipal Law §103 requires that the Town advertise for bids and award the bids to the lowest responsible bidder(s) meeting New York State statutory requirements and the requirements set forth in the Town’s bidding documents, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town’s Purchasing Agent to publish an advertisement for bids for a 2006 Combination REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 709 Dump Body With Snowplow and Hydraulics for the Town Highway Department in the official newspaper for the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Purchasing Agent to open all bids received, read the same aloud and record the bids as is customarily done and present the bids to the next regular or special meeting of the Town Board. th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF ONE (1) 2007 INTERNATIONAL TANDEM TRUCK MODEL 7600 6X4 CAB AND CHASSIS FOR USE BY TOWN HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 173, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Town’s Deputy Highway Superintendent has advised the Town Board that he wishes to purchase one (1) 2007 International Tandem Truck Model 7600 6x4 Cab and Chassis for use by the Town Highway Department, and WHEREAS, the Town’s Fleet Committee approved this vehicle purchase request and such proposed purchase has been budgeted for in the 2006 budget, and WHEREAS, New York State Bidding is not required as the purchase is under New York State Contract No.: PC62176, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the Highway Superintendent’s purchase of one (1) 2007 International Tandem Truck Model 7600 6x4 Cab and Chassis from International Truck & Engine Corporation in accordance with New York State Contract #PC62176 for an amount not to exceed $96,434.45 to be paid for from funds budgeted in the current year from Heavy Equipment Account No.: 004-5130-2040, and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 710 RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Highway Superintendent, Deputy Highway Superintendent and/or Budget Officer to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS – TH WARRANT OF MARCH 20, 2006 RESOLUTION NO.: 174, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve the audit of bills th presented as the Warrant with a run date of March 16, 2006 and a payment due date of st March 21, 2006, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Warrant with a thst run date of March 16, 2006 and payment due date of March 21, 2006 and totaling $649,709.24, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Budget Officer and/or Town Supervisor to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND INCREASE IN CONTRACT COST TO C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 711 P.C. FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO MEADOWBROOK ROAD AREA WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT RESOLUTION NO.: 175, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 493,2005, the Queensbury Town Board authorized engagement of C.T. Male Associates, P.C. (CT Male) for engineering and survey services concerning the replacement of water mains along Meadowbrook Road, Sargent Street, Wilson Street and Cline Avenue (Project) for a total cost not to exceed $57,260, and WHEREAS, the Water Superintendent has advised that a Technical Services Change Order is needed for engineering services outside the original Scope of C.T. Male’s Services for Contract Agreement dated November 1, 2005, due to Project changes consisting of the Town’s proposal to 1) extend the water main installation along Meadowbrook Road, south of Cline Avenue a distance of 250’ to facilitate water service installation and maintenance; 2) eliminate a dead end water main along Meadowbrook Road; and 3) extend an 8” water line 300’ northeast to connect into an existing main on Ridge Road, and WHEREAS, Town Board approval is required for C.T. Male’s Technical Services Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $10,700 as follows: The survey, design and construction phase services will be amended as follows: ? Survey, design and construction administration: $ 6800 lump sum ? Construction Observation $ 3900 Estimated Hourly ? Net Change in Contract Price Due to this C.O.: $10,700 ? $67,960 New Contract Price Including this Change Order: NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes Technical Services Change Order No.1 and the $10,700 increase in spending for engineering and survey services performed by C. T. Male Associates, P. C. for work outside the original Scope of C.T. Male’s Services for Contract Agreement dated November 1, 2005 as set forth in the Technical Services Change Order No. 1 presented at this meeting and as set forth in the preambles of this Resolution, bringing the new total Contract Price for REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 712 engineering and survey services to be performed by C. T. Male Associates to $67,960, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs that payment in connection with Change Order No. 1 in the amount not to exceed $10,700 shall be made through the transfer of $10,700 in funds from Transfer to Capital Project Account No.: 40- 9950-9030 to Water Administration Engineering Services Account No.: 040-8310-4710, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to amend the 2006 Town Budget, transfer funds and/or take any action necessary to provide for such payment, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes the Town Supervisor to execute Change Order No. 1 and further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Water Superintendent, Budget Officer and/or Town Counsel to take any actions necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO. 176, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Regular Town Board Meeting. th Duly adopted this 6 day of March, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES: None REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-20-2006 MTG#10 713 ABSENT:None On motion meeting adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk Town of Queensbury