2006-10-16 MTG41
712
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG. #41
OCTOBER 16, 2006 RES. 472-502
7:00 P.M. BOH 26-27
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC
COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR
COUNCILMAN RICHARD SANFORD
COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH
COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH
TOWN OFFICIALS
SENIOR PLANNER, STUART BAKER
BUDGET OFFICER, JENNIFER SWITZER
WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, MIKE SHAW
PRESS
TV 8
Supervisor Stec opened meeting.
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH
RESOLUTION NO. 472, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves into the
Queensbury Board of Health.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of October, 2006 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Stec, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH
PUBLIC HEARING ON SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE FOR
ANDREA PEEK
NOTICE SHOWN
PUBLICATION DATE: October 6, 2006
Supervisor Stec- I will open this public hearing and just to refresh some people’s
memories, this was considered; we had a different application by the same applicant a
couple of weeks ago. The feedback that the Town Board gave to the applicant then was
that we felt that this might be a better opportunity for a holding tank situation. We
encouraged them to re-apply seeking a holding tank, they have done that, we set this
public hearing a couple of weeks ago to consider a holding tank. Again, the property is
713
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
located at 108 Rockhurst Road in Queensbury. So, with that the public hearing is open. If
there is anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this application I ask you to
raise your hand and I will call people one at a time. Mr. Salvador.
John Salvador- Is the applicant going to make any presentation?
Supervisor Stec- I’m not… Is the applicant present?
Keith Manz, Engineer - Yes.
Supervisor Stec- I’m sorry. Do you want to say anything first before I open it to the
Mr. Manz- We can just state it is 3500 galloons worth of storage holding tanks for 108
Rockhurst Road residence commensurate with your regulations 136-11.
Town Clerk Dougher- And your name?
Mr. Manz- Keith Manz, P.E., representing engineer for Brett Peek or Andrea Peek
technically, Brett’s here with me this evening with me.
Supervisor Stec- Alright, thank you Mr. Manz. Again, the public hearing is open. If there
is any members of the public, Mr. Salvador, that would like to address the Board on this
public hearing.
John Salvador- Good evening, my name is John Salvador, I’m a resident of North
Queensbury.
Supervisor Stec- Good evening.
John Salvador- As you gentleman of the Board know, I filed a notice of appeal relative to
this application. Because I believe the application fails to address the applicable holding
tank code requirements of Chapter 136, and corresponding variances have not been
requested. In addition, the application is incomplete and erroneous to the extent that this
Board will be unable to make the findings necessary before granting the permitted
request. One of the prologues to this application dealt with a ZBA hearing, where the
applicant proposed a 117 square foot addition and reconstruction of a 2,805 square foot
single family dwelling. This in spite of the fact that the Town Assessors Office has
records going back to 1958, showing this to be a 1,954 square foot seasonal use dwelling.
Until sometime there after 1958, when central heat was installed, was converted to a
year-round dwelling. At the time of the ZBA hearing the planning staff also overlooked
that the project was also located in a Critical Environmental Area. Coupled with
subdivision plat and subsequent deed encumbrances which are valid to this day. In a
four/three split decision, the project was approved by the ZBA with the following
conditions: 1) The Planning Board would approve a site plan, and I believe they had it
thought in their mind that the site plan would be the total site, not just one little portion of
it. 2) That the Local Board of Health would approve a variance for a septic system, there
was no mention of a holding tank. These are the conditions of the ZBA approval. Next,
the Planning Board found that because the project is in a CEA it required a preparation of
a major storm water management plan. However, the most significant finding that the
Planning Board made was that this project constituted new construction. Now the issue of
new construction was not before the ZBA. It was a modification, it was a renovation. I
don’t know if you can tell from the information before you, but the extent to which this
building is going to modified is its going to be, the structure is going to be completely
demolished. The foundation somehow is going to be preserved and an additional course
of block is going to be put on top of the existing foundation so they have more head room
in the lower level. That’s how it was portrayed before these other two Boards. The Board
should take note that the applicant’s certified Short Environmental Assessment Form,
question number five, could you please turn to that if you have the application before
you. Question number 5 states that this action, your approval, is a modification/expansion
not new construction.
Councilman Boor- We just have the septic, I just have the septic variance application.
714
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
Councilman Brewer- No we’re not doing
Mr. Salvador- That’s the one I’m referring to.
Councilman Boor- Number five says replace existing septic leech field with new septic
system.
Mr. Salvador- The Short Environmental Assessment Form
Councilman Brewer- We don’t do SEQRA again. SEQRA’s already been done.
Councilman Sanford- We don’t have the SEQRA Form.
Councilman Boor- We don’t have the SEQRA Form.
Mr. Salvador- The application that I picked up
Councilman Boor- That’s six that I read you.
Supervisor Stec- I think this is what he is reading. The very last page. That’s what he is
reading, this box is checked.
Councilman Sanford- Okay.
Councilman Brewer- Proposed action, modification.
Mr. Sanford- There is a Short Environmental Assessment Form attached, that’s a
requirement.
Councilman Sanford- It’s different than our Planning Board typical SEQRA Forms. This
is specific for Board of Health septic variance SEQRA Assessment Form.
Councilman Boor- Different form than I think you are referring to.
Councilman Sanford- But we do have it here in the application John.
Mr. Salvador- This is typical short form SEQRA; it’s just got a title.
Councilman Boor- Number five says modification and you’re saying that it may
eventually be modification. We’re not approving it for new construction. We’re not
approving this for new construction you are absolutely correct, okay.
Mr. Salvador- The applicant has an approval from a Planning Board based on the fact that
it’s new construction.
Councilman Boor- That’s not what we’re doing, because in our form
Mr. Salvador- Are you saying you’re nullifying the Planning Board’s approval?
Councilman Boor- No. We’re not being asked the same questions that the Planning Board
was being asked.
Mr. Salvador- It’s the same project.
Councilman Boor- Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. We’ve never received a drawing for new
construction John. We’re not here to approve for new construction, we’re here to approve
for a failed system.
Mr. Salvador- Okay, let me continue.
715
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
Councilman Sanford- Yeah but let me make one point of clarification. I think I
understand what you are trying to say. You are trying to say that they traveled down a
road completely changing fundamental conditions of what the representation were in
front of the ZBA and in front of the Planning Board. Now they’re in front of us for a
holding tank instead of a septic system. I think it begs the question whether or not the
ZBA determination and/or the Planning Board determination are still applicable in this
case, or is this the beginning of a new process? Receiving approval for a holding tank,
they then have to go and seek the other kinds of approvals for the construction. I think
that’s your question. You’re at least touching upon that in your statements.
Mr. Salvador- I’m suggesting that if that’s the case than maybe these other Boards should
be revisited.
Councilman Boor- We’re only the Board of Health.
Mr. Salvador- Okay, let me continue. Whereas previous variances that were granted for
this project have been of the area type; they have been area type variances. The variance
application before you tonight, is in fact, that of a use variance. We are, what the
applicant is attempting to do here is to get a variance from the requirement that they have
a standard septic system, on-site septic system that conforms to appendix 75A of the
Public Health Code and Town Code Chapter 136. They can’t, for some reason can’t, do
that, they’re seeking a variance. The variance is in the form of a use. It’s a different kind
of a system. The application doesn’t address this. The application is not filled out to
address this issue.
Councilman Brewer- So, what you’re saying, the criteria used for a variance to the
Zoning Board is the same that it is for us?
Mr. Salvador- Um, they tried to make it the same but don’t think it applied. The form that
they have been asked to fill out has not been properly crafted for the type of variance
they’re seeking.
Councilman Brewer- They are asking for a variance from the septic code for the septic
system.
Mr. Salvador- The code requires
Councilman Brewer- They’re not asking for an area variance or a use variance, they’re
asking for a variance from the septic code.
Mr. Salvador- There are two kinds of variances, what we call an area variance and there’s
a use variance.
Councilman Brewer- Right, they don’t apply to the Board of Health though, John. We’re
here just for the septic system.
Supervisor Stec- A septic variance.
Mr. Salvador- Yeah, okay, good.
Councilman Boor- Period, not the same criteria.
Supervisor Stec- Not the same Board.
Mr. Salvador- And I maintain, that their application for a system other than a standard,
acceptable system, okay, is a type of use variance.
Councilman Brewer- No, no, no that’s semantics John, you’re playing with words; in my
opinion.
Mr. Salvador- Um, Queensbury Town Code Chapter 136-11 outlines the design criteria
for holding tanks only in the case that one can be permitted. If in fact, a holding tank is
716
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
going to be permitted, these are the criteria outlined in section 11 of our code. Appendix
75A however, of the Public Health Code, allows holding tanks only, only if it is not for
new home construction with a temporary occupancy permit. Holding tanks are not
allowed in year-round use. So, it seems to me, that if a holding tank is going to be
permitted it’s got to be conditioned on the fact that it’s not year-round use. Because it’s
not allowed otherwise.
Councilman Boor- John, if I could just interrupt, you’re absolutely correct and at the
previous meeting the applicant said it was seasonal use; you’re accurate. But the other
thing is we’re not granting this for new construction, we’re granting it as it is right now. I
don’t know what’s going to happen when they go back to these Boards. This Board is
only for the Board of Health. They’ve got a failed system and we’re trying to give them
relief as the law allows.
Mr. Salvador- The variance runs with the land, okay, it runs with the land.
Councilman Boor- Right.
Supervisor Stec- John, this is not the Zoning Board of Appeals. I think you’re confused.
Councilman Sanford- John, I think what you’re suggesting is you’re making the
assumption based on your earlier comments
Councilman Boor- That they can move forward.
Councilman Sanford- That everything that they’ve done in the past is signed, and sealed
and delivered and now once they get this they are all set. What we are somewhat
speculating on here is that we’re dealing with this in a very unilateral manner. We’re
dealing with whether or no to grant them a holding tank. Then the questions are out there
and they remain what do they do next? It may very well be when it’s researched, they
have to go back, if they choose to do construction and get various approvals and
variances from the ZBA and the Planning Board. I don’t necessarily believe that those
prior approvals are applicable now since they are coming in front of us for a holding tank
which can only be granted in the case of, I think you pointed out in your appeal; they
have to be deprived of reasonable use of the land. That means they have to have a failed
system. It can’t be in contemplation of new construction and all of those matters. They
don’t get just thrown out the window. So, I don’t know if your premise is correct. Again,
I’m not making that determination. That would be obviously something that probably the
Zoning Administrator, whose not here, would have to address. I think those are valid or
fair points you are raising.
Mr. Salvador- My concern is they might not. Unless, you condition this approval, this
might slide under the radar. Because it’s only the enforcement officials’ determination
that would send them back to these other Boards.
Councilman Sanford- That’s a fair point.
Mr. Salvador- Years ago, the Town went through this debate on holding tanks, you know
that. We finally, after a number of years, received a letter from the DOH saying if we
wanted to take this route we should seek a waiver, we should seek a waiver from the
Public Health Code. The best of my knowledge, we’ve never done that. We still kind of
keep going on our way doing this thing. But, in any case, that is still an unanswered issue.
If in fact, this variance is granted there are certain design criteria that have to be met
according to our code. Premier, amongst those, is the issue of sizing the design flow of
the holding tank system, the design flow. It is fundamentally predicated on the number of
bedrooms. I’d like to speak on this.
Supervisor Stec- Briefly John.
Mr. Salvador-(showed floor plan) This floor plan that they have submitted in previous
applications before the ZBA and the Planning Board illustrated what they intend to do
with the new construction. What I’ve done here is color code the ground floor, the
717
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
basement floor. The applicant has gone through a number of gyrations to keep the, what
we call the living space, to a minimum so that they could meet the floor area ratio
parameter of our code; which is probably the most limiting as far as developing a small
lot. In the area shaded in black, is something they call storage. Because there is no heat
contemplated in this area, it’s not considered living space. It has an exit to the exterior on
the lake-side and it has no windows. It’s a storage area; it doesn’t count for living space.
Now, if that storage area were on the second floor, just a bunch of closets they wouldn’t
have any heat in them either, they wouldn’t have any windows in them either; but we
would count them as living space. The way they’ve done it here, it’s not counted as living
space. So they slide under the floor area ratio parameter. The next area, and by the way it
wouldn’t be to hard to cut heat into that at a later date, see that fireplace right there you’d
just have to orient the heatalator a little bit and you could dump some heat into that area.
The other thing that you should notice is above that storage area, that non-heated storage
area, is the kitchen area. Imagine all the plumbing going to those kitchen fixtures,
running through an unheated area. Don’t know how their going to do it but that’s what
they will have to figure out. The next area I code there in orange is something they call a
playroom and that playroom has also not been counted as living space because it doesn’t
have a second exit. However, if you look carefully at that full bathroom, to the left of that
play area you’ll notice that it has a very, very strange layout in that it has two entrances.
One you enter from the play area and the other you can enter from the exterior of the
building. Now just imagine two people with explosive diarrhea on their hands trying to
get into that room at the same time.
Supervisor Stec- John, you’re trying my patience certainly. Is there a point here?
Mr. Salvador- Yes.
Supervisor Stec- This is a very simple, this is as simple as it gets John.
Councilman Boor- This is a septic variance but
Supervisor Stec- I don’t understand where you are going to but you have about two
minutes to wrap it up.
Mr. Salvador- The next area is that blue shaded area and you’ll see the darker blue, are
two closets. That’s a very, very large bedroom, the blue area. What is it, a 19 x 16
bedroom with two closets and two entrance doors? You notice the symmetry of the room
it wouldn’t be to hard to cut a partition in there later and have two bedrooms. So, my
point is that we should take into consideration the fact that this might be more than just a
three bedroom dwelling; particularly considering the fact it has three full size bathrooms.
Councilman Boor- John, John
Mr. Salvador- Yes.
Councilman Boor- Good presentation but we are contemplating a variance as the house
exits now.
Supervisor Stec- Like Roger said ten minutes ago.
Councilman Boor- I mean, your points are great. But, we’re not granting a variance for
this drawing.
Mr. Salvador- But this is what they have
Councilman Boor- This is what they, we’re granting a variance I believe for what has
been characterized as a failed system. We’re offering/providing a means by which no
pollutants will enter the lake. This system of holding tanks is very expensive to the owner
if they abuse it. If they bring a lot of people into this place and they create a lot of
wastewater they are going to pay for it. Now, your points are well taken as far as what
this does with regards to the things granted by the Planning Board and Zoning Board.
They may very well have to go back. I don’t know the answer to that. But, we’re not here
to discuss that.
718
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
Mr. Salvador- Good. I’ll bring my presentation to a close if you can give me assurance
that there will be some mechanism in your approval that remands this back to those two
Boards, that’s all, for their approval. Not that we rely on staff to make a determination
that that’s necessary; because I can tell you their not going to do it.
Supervisor Stec- Thank you Mr. Salvador. Is there anyone else that would like to address
the Board on this public hearing? Alright, if the applicant’s agent would like to come
back and perhaps the Town Board may have some questions. Do you have anything you
would like to add to the Town Board for our consideration before perhaps we ask you
some questions?
Mr. Manz- Yes, We’d like to mention the history of this project from the beginning. Our
first stop was in front of this Board for a septic variance, in fact Tom Frost, to my left,
may want to go into that history. The intent was we were sent away going to all the other
Boards to get the variances for the site from the Zoning Board of Appeals. After that to
the Planning Board for site plan approval and they condition it on going back to this
Board as the very last step. I agree with what Roger Boor said as far as we’re getting
septic variance for holding tanks for the situation as it exists right now. The system has
failed. We feel there is no way it was intended to go back to any Boards after the building
was constructed. This was our last step and we feel there should be no condition put in
that approval based on that. Staff can handle it if indeed that turns out to be the case. But
we don’t feel it is. It will be a seasonal use house under the current layout of the holding
tanks, 3500 gallon holding tanks. Then, if down the road the sewer comes in, obviously
they’ll hook into the sewer and then they will use it as a year-round residence potentially.
Councilman Sanford- Just so we are clear, then you contradicted yourself in that you said,
this is a, you are looking for an approval for the site as it exists now. Then you are
basically stating however, you believe you have already lined up all your approvals for
new construction.
Mr. Manz- Correct.
Councilman Sanford- I believe
Brett Peek- Can I just say, it’s not new construction. It’s not new construction; it wasn’t
put forth as new construction.
Councilman Sanford- Well
Councilman Boor- By Town definition it is.
Councilman Sanford- Actually, that is a point that is widely discussed increasingly so
lately. Basically, the bottom line is, at least in my interpretation of reading all this, when
you do what you are contemplating doing it is in fact new construction. So, it does beg
the question, we are prohibited from granting this on new construction. Now, if you want
to keep your dwelling the way it currently is and you want to put this holding tank in
that’s not an issue. So again, I hate to say it, but it’s starting to sound an awful lot like a
catch 22. You have no, what I just heard you say- are you the attorney?
Mr. Manz- No, I’m the engineer that designed the system.
Councilman Sanford- Oh, the engineer, you basically have stated for the record you have
no intention of carrying this application to any place else providing you receive the
approval tonight. I guess you’re going to go right to construction.
Mr. Manz- Well, that’s what the other approvals were conditioned on, us coming back
and getting a septic variance from this Board. It didn’t say a septic variance based on a
particular type of septic system. In fact, we tried to go with the system that the Planning
Board recommended last meeting then you directed us that you preferred holding tanks in
this scenario and then we’ve come back tonight for that.
719
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
Councilman Boor- The other thing that’s important, is as you stated at your last meeting
this is seasonal use and it’s going to have to stay seasonal use for this holding tank to be
granted.
Mr. Manz- Yes.
Councilman Boor- So, I thought I heard you say that you plan to turn it into a year-round.
We can’t grant a holding tank for that.
Mr. Manz- When and if we have a sewer
Councilman Brewer- Sewer system
Councilman Boor- Oh, okay. Okay so we are clear on that. One of the questions I had
with regards to the system itself, now it’s going to have alarms on it correct?
Mr. Manz- Right.
Councilman Boor- Now will they also have a solenoid to shut off the water? I would
prefer that that be part of it. So that not only does the alarm sound but you can’t keep
pumping water into a tank that won’t handle it. I don’t think it is very expensive to do
and I would be more comfortable with that also.
Mr. Manz- No problem with that at all. We can add that if it’s not already on there. We
did put all the notes
Councilman Boor- It may be on there but we’ve got so many applications that I’m not
sure
Councilman Sanford- Did we, I’m sorry are you done?
Councilman Boor- Yeah.
Councilman Sanford- Did we receive any new material subsequent to our last discussion
that we had which indicated the specifications and the design of the holding tank or; in
other words one of the things we’re attempting to do more and more and we are
encouraging the Planning Board to do is upon completion of a project to have it stamped
by the engineer certifying that it is built to “as design” specifications. In other words,
there’s not a variance between what was approved and what was actually done. I don’t
believe that following our last meeting, and I may be wrong that’s why I’m asking the
question, that you resubmitted essentially the same plan but substituted in a holding tank
with all the bells and whistles and alarm and the things that Mr. Boor was referencing, so
that we had a copy of it. I don’t believe we have that representation from you and if we
don’t how can we, if we choose to move forward and say okay we will give you an
approval provided it is certified by you to “as built” specifications, we don’t have the
drawings to reference.
Mr. Manz-You should have a revised set of drawing showing only the 3500 gallon
holding tank.
Councilman Boor- The two tanks, two holding tanks.
Mr. Manz- Two holding tanks, in series.
Councilman Brewer- That’s this here?
Mr. Manz- Yes.
Councilman Strough- That’s this here.
Councilman Sanford- I’m looking, this is it?
720
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
Mr. Manz- That’s half of it; turn it over the other half. The other half has all of the
standard notes from your section 136-11, which has all of the design criteria on the
pumps the alarm, I believe the solenoid is in there but we will add that if it’s not.
Councilman Boor- Here it is here.
Supervisor Stec- That is it.
Councilman Boor- It’s showing us here, here’s the two tanks but
Mr. Manz- So it’s totally revised plan.
Councilman Sanford- Bear with us for a second.
Mr. Manz- Yep.
Councilman Boor- Where on this does it have the solenoid, does it? I see the control
release shall be general purpose… high tank level, the tank shut off level. I don’t see that
it actually shuts off the water here. It would be somewhere around 12 to 15; a relay is 8-
16. Relays
Mr. Manz- I know number 9 mentions the shut off level of the solenoid.
Councilman Boor- The shut off level is for water coming into the house?
Mr. Manz- We will have a shut off so no more water goes into the tank and we can shut
off the water supply as well.
Councilman Boor, Well whatever, you know what we want.
Mr. Manz- Yeah, we are in an agreement with that, what I am saying is I believe it’s in
these standard notes which are from your specs
Councilman Boor- Okay
Mr. Manz- And if not we’ll agree to that
Councilman Boor- It’s a little bit of grey when they say shut off. I don’t know what they
are shutting off?
Supervisor Stec- Tank shut-off
Mr. Manz- Correct. We will agree to that as part of a condition.
Supervisor Stec- It says right here the solenoid valve and the main water line will
energize and close.
Councilman Boor- Okay so no more water, it is the water, yes.
Supervisor Stec- So it is the water shut-off. Any other questions from Town Board
Members?
Councilman Strough- Yes.
Supervisor Stec- John
Councilman Strough- You got your approval from the Zoning Board, you got your
approvals from the Planning Board with the condition that we approve the septic system,
what ever system it may be. Last time you were before us, I and some others certainly
gave you the impression that if you went to a holding tank we would feel more
comfortable with it, and I do. So I don’t want to pull any punches on you there. But, I am
721
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
looking at that one bedroom the 16x19 that has two entrances and I see two different stair
ways.
Mr. Manz- That’s a mirror
Councilman Strough- It’s not necessarily that one of those entrances is going to be an
entrance to the bedroom. Would you explain that to me, because it’s not that clear
because you have two stairways one goes up to an attic?
Mr. Peek- No. That side of the house is not on the same level as the other. That was a
garage that was built I don’t know when, a few years later.
Councilman Strough- Right.
Mr. Peek- There are five or six steps going down into that garage and there are three or
four steps going up into the master bedroom. So it looks like two sets of stairs going
down; ones going up to the master bedroom that’s there already, ones going down to the
garage which is going to be a bedroom.
Councilman Strough- So it’s not like two separate entrances to the same bedroom.
Mr. Peek- No. The one stairs go up to the master bedroom that only has
Councilman Strough- And that’s kind of what I thought by looking at this but I wanted
Mr. Peek- If you look at the house it is like this.
Councilman Strough- I just wanted you to verify that, that’s what I thought.
Tom Frost- My name is Tom Frost
Councilman Strough- Yes, Mr. Frost go ahead.
Councilman Brewer- You need the mic. Tom.
Darleen Dougher- Can you use the mic.
Councilman Brewer- Tom, you need the mic.
Mr. Frost- The blue bedroom which is in the current garage is roughly at a landing level
between the playroom level and the main floor up above. So if someone from the blue
bedroom were trying to get to the playroom, if we didn’t have that lower stair on the
drawing, which gets them directly to the playroom, they’d go up the stairs to the first
floor over to the other set of stairs at the front of the house and all the way back down to
the playroom. So we put in that second means of exit from the bedroom so those people
could go directly to the playroom/bar, whatever it is, rather than go all the way upstairs
and all the way around that’s why it’s there. I know John sees evil developers behind
every tree, but he has no desire to make this into more than three bedrooms. Unless, you
are planning to put an assembly tent in the backyard and have people come in that outside
door to the bathroom downstairs.
Councilman Boor- I think what’s important here is that the contemplation is for a holding
tank because I think Mr. Salvador’s comments would be germane if this was a leech field
because a 19x16 bedroom in a house this small is a little hard to figure. It’s obviously
gonna, it shows two beds, I mean…. My point being I don’t think it’s an outlandish
characterization. The beauty of it is you are on a holding tank, if you abuse it that truck
will be out there more often than your wallet can handle. So the Lake gets protected and
the owner makes a choice of how much money he wants to spend enjoying the residence.
If this were a leech field I’d have a very different view of that bedroom that Mr. Salvador
pointed out.
Mr. Peek- Can I just say something
722
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
Mr. Frost- Let me ask why that is?
Councilman Boor- Because this is in a Critical Environmental Area
Mr. Frost- You assume that someone’s going to, as soon as your back is turned, you
assume it’s going to be changed?
Councilman Boor- Look at, when I see two beds on the drawing I believe that two people
are going to sleep there.
Mr. Peek- Yeah there are my two boys.
Councilman Boor- Well, so my point is when we size rooms there for an individual on
how much gallons of water they use. All these basis’ are on human consumption and
elimination; and that’s what things are designed for.
Mr. Frost- Then lets find out how many people he has in his family. Maybe we should
base it on that instead of bedrooms.
Councilman Boor- Make no mistake and most of the people in this room are here because
of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the Zoning which will follow. You may be the
last application that gets in under this bedroom design for determination of flow. So be
thankful, because it’s something that has been abused in the past and in Critical
Environmental Areas where this Board is responsible as a Board of Health to protect the
quality of Lake George we take it seriously. There isn’t anybody sitting at this table that
hasn’t gone up to Rockhurst in the middle of summer and seen ten cars in front of a
residence. Now the notion that there just there for a couple hours may be the case but we
know that those systems receive a lot of use in the summer and they were never designed
for that type of use. That’s what we are trying to do; we are trying to protect it. It is a
critical environmental area this is not out in the middle of the desert somewhere.
Mr. Peek-Can I just say something about that bedroom, the reason that bedroom is that
size is because that is what the size of the garage was. I turned that into a bedroom
instead of trying to add another floor onto the house because it is there and I do not need
it if I have the storage underneath the right side of the house. I do not have cars up there
that I store, I do not have vehicles, so that is the reason that bedroom is the size that it is.
Councilman Sanford-Lets move on, my suggestion to this Board, I do have an
appreciation for Mr. Salvador stated, but I also agree with what Mr. Strough stated we
have been down this road, we have been beating this thing forever. I would be prepared
to support moving forward with an approval on this provided that the engineer certify that
this project has been built to the specifications, put the stamp of approval of course
subject to whatever inspections we do as well, but I want your stamp on that, to make
sure that it is done as specified with all the bells and whistles on the holding system.
Other than that I am not sure if there is anything additional that we would need.
Councilman Strough-Well, I never finished, I got interrupted several times but I never
finished.
Councilman Sanford-I did not interrupt you.
Councilman Strough-Back to the holding tank what height are they going to be Mr.
Manz?
Mr. Manz-They will be the height of a normal septic tank, would probably a foot of cover
on top of it.
Councilman Strough-Six foot, I just want to make sure that you are going to be able to
get the whole thing buried underground that we are not going to get into a problem when
we start to put the tanks in and we hit ledge.
723
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
Mr. Manz-We have dug deep enough to verify that it will not be a problem, they are
going to be based on roughly the existing grade there, they are going to be to the south of
the driveway so you will have access from a pump truck and there will be six inches to a
foot of cover over the top of the cover and the top of the tank.
Councilman Strough-So, you are reassuring me that there is enough loose sub-straight
without bedrock to put both these tanks in.
Mr. Manz-Yes. I have done that by verifying with a test pit.
Councilman Strough-Ok, That was my last question, thank, you.
Supervisor Stec-Are there any other questions from the Town Board Members?
Councilman Boor-I will make a motion
Supervisor Stec-We have not closed the public hearing yet, is there anymore public
comment? I will close the public hearing and I will entertain a motion.
Councilman Boor-I will make the motion that we adopt it with the amendment that if it is
even considered an amendment that the solenoid shut offs and everything be intact and
that the engineer sign off that the ultimate product is exactly what is shown on the
drawing and in the specifications.
Seconded by: Councilman Strough
Supervisor Stec-Just so we are clear, although it does show on your sketch or design that
the water shut off will be tied to the alarm and that you will submit a certification that it
was built according to plans for the town’s file here to the building department down
stairs.
Mr. Manz-Yes I will submit a certification and an as built.
Supervisor Stec-Ok, any other discussion amongst Town Board Members? Hearing none
lets go ahead and vote.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOLUTION APPROVING SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL
VARIANCE FOR ANDREA PEEK
RESOLUTION NO.: 26, 2006 BOH
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, Andrea Peek filed an application for a variance from provisions of the
Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, Chapter 136 to install new,
Code-compliant sanitary holding tanks on property located at 108 Rockhurst Road in the
Town of Queensbury, and
724
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
WHEREAS, the Town Clerk’s Office published the Notice of Public Hearing in the
Town’s official newspaper and the Local Board of Health conducted a public hearing
th
concerning the variance request on October 16, 2006, and
WHEREAS, the Town Clerk’s Office has advised that it duly notified all property
owners within 500 feet of the subject property,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
1.due to the nature of the variance, the Local Board of Health finds that the
variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes and objectives of this
Ordinance or other adjoining properties nor otherwise conflict with the purpose
and objectives of any Town plan or policy; and
2.the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variance is necessary for
the reasonable use of the land and is the minimum variance which would
alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health
to affect the applicant; and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the solenoid shut offs and everything be intact and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that their Engineer sign off that the ultimate product is exactly what is
shown on the drawings and
BE IT FUTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health hereby approves the application of
Andrea Peek for a variance from the Sewage Disposal Ordinance to allow installation of
new, Code-Compliant sanitary holding tanks on property situated at 108 Rockhurst Road in
the Town of Queensbury bearing Tax Map No.: 227.9-1-11.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of October, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
725
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH
RESOLUTION NO. 27, 2006 BOH
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
RESOLVED,
that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns and moves into the
Town Board of the Town of Queensbury.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of October, 2006 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Stec, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
REGULAR SESSION
PUBLIC HEARINGS
REVOCABLE PERMIT TO LOCATE A MOBILE HOME OUTSIDE OF A
MOBILE HOME COURT FOR DONALD HUNT
NOTICE SHOWN
PUBLICATION DATE: October 6, 2006
Supervisor Stec-I will open this public hearing, this property is located at 466 Luzerne
Road, it is looking to replace a single wide 1965 model with a 2006 double wide model.
Is there anyone from the public or is the applicant or the owner present? Yes, Sir, do you
have anything that you want to add to what I just said? Ok. Is there any public comment
on this public hearing? Any at all, any discussion amongst Board Members? Ok.
Hearing none I will close the public hearing.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVOCABLE PERMIT TO LOCATE
A MOBILE HOME OUTSIDE OF MOBILE HOME COURT FOR
DONALD HUNT
RESOLUTION NO.: 473, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHEREAS, in accordance with Queensbury Town Code §113-12, the Queensbury
Town Board is authorized to issue permits for mobile homes to be located outside of mobile
home courts under certain circumstances, and
726
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
WHEREAS, Donald Hunt filed a Town of Queensbury “Application for Placing a
Mobile Home Outside of a Mobile Home Court" revocable permit to replace his 1965
singlewide mobile home with a 2006 doublewide mobile home on property located at 466
Luzerne Road, Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board held a public hearing concerning this application on
th
Monday, October 16, 2006 and heard all interested persons,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the issuance of a
revocable permit to Donald Hunt in accordance with the terms and provisions of
Queensbury Town Code §113-12.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of October, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED CONNECTOR ROAD- CAPITAL PROJECT FUND #161
NOTICE SHOWN
PUBLICATION DATE: October 6, 2006
Supervisor Stec-I will open this public hearing, this public hearing was set at the Town
Board Meeting a couple of weeks ago, as I think everyone in Town is aware, the Town is
moving forward along with the County and the State on improvements to Main Street,
basically from the Exit all the way to the City line. Among those or part of that or related
to that is a Connector Road project. The Connector Road will be built between Main
Street and Luzerne Road and part of that required some property acquisition which has
taken place. This resolution is really more an accounting function than anything else.
Because the property has been acquired and paid for this will allow the Town to basically
use the Capital Reserve to pay three hundred and four thousand dollars for this property
that we used in order to acquire and get ready and go out to bid for the Connector Road,
which should be cleared. They are going to clear the property in the next month or so
and lay a gravel base and then next year the Connector Road will be completed hopefully
early in the spring, just for those that are curious about the Connector Road. In addition
to that project there will be more cost than the three hundred and four thousand dollars
that this resolution talks about. At that point when it is appropriate the Town Board will
come back and add additional funds to this Capital Project Fund #161. But, what we are
considering tonight is establishing that fund and putting an initial three hundred and four
thousand dollars into it so that we can in turn use that three hundred and four thousand
dollars to cover what the General Fund paid for the Connector Road. Jennifer is that
adequate?
Budget Officer Switzer-Yes.
727
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
Supervisor Stec-All right, so, is there any members of the public that would like to
comment on the Connector Road Capital, yes, Mr. Tucker.
Mr. Pliney Tucker-41 Division Road, Queensbury that has been going to a long time but
originally when this was proposed wasn’t the City to share?
Supervisor Stec-And they still, two hundred thousand dollars, that will get flushed out as
we move forward with the actual construction, absolutely it is still there.
Mr. Pliney Tucker-Thank you.
Supervisor Stec-You are welcome. Any other comments on the Connector Road public
hearing, again for the creation of a Capital Project Fund. Ok, hearing none I will close
the public hearing.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ESTABLISHMENT OF
CONNECTOR ROAD CAPITAL PROJECT FUND #161
RESOLUTION NO.: 474, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, the Town Board received a request from the Town’s Budget Officer
to establish the Connector Road Capital Project Fund #161, and
WHEREAS, such proposed Project shall not exceed the amount of $304,000 and
is requested to be a part of the Capital Improvement Plan and financed through the
Capital Reserve Fund, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Town’s revised Capital Improvement Plan
Policy (CIP), the Town Board must conduct a public hearing before approving any
specific Capital Project listed on the CIP, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board scheduled and duly held a public hearing on
th
Monday, October 16, 2006 concerning establishment of the Connector Road Capital
Project Fund #161, and
§
WHEREAS, in accordance with New York State General Municipal Law 6(c), the
Town Board is authorized to withdraw and expend certain funds subject to permissive
referendum,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
728
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the
establishment of a Capital Project Fund to be known as the Connector Road Capital
Project Fund #161 which Fund will establish funding for expenses associated with this
Project, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs that funding for
such Capital Project shall be by a transfer from the Town of Queensbury Capital Reserve
Fund #64 in the amount of $304,000 to transfer to Connector Road Capital Project Fund
#161, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED that the Queensbury Town Board further authorizes and directs the
Town Budget Officer to take all action necessary to establish the following accounts for
such appropriations and revenues as necessary:
?
Revenue Acct No. – 161-0000-55031 (Interfund Revenue) $304,000; and
?
Expense Acct No. – 161-1940-2799 (Purchase of Land - Capital
Acquisition) $304,000; and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town
Budget Officer to amend the 2006 Town Budget, make any adjustments, budget
amendments, transfers or prepare any documentation necessary to establish such
appropriations and estimated revenues, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town
Supervisor and/or Town Budget Officer to sign any necessary Agreements or
documentation and take any and all action necessary to effectuate all terms of this
Resolution, 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
729
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
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 16 day of October, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford
NOES : None
ABSENT : None
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF CAPITAL RESERVE FUND NO. 66 FOR
CONSTRUCTION/RECONSTRUCTION OF TOWN-WIDE DRAINAGE
NOTICE SHOWN
PUBLICATION DATE: October 6, 2006
Supervisor Stec-This is the other Capital Reserve Fund related to item. The Town Board a
few years ago, just by way of additional explanation relevant to the last resolution as well as
this one, created a Capital Reserve procedure, it was self created, self imposed rules for the
Town Board to follow to basically make sure that any Capital expenditures which are
typically larger ones the public has an opportunity, a greater opportunity then normal to
participate and ask any questions of significant expenses. Probably the best example the
largest of recent history was the whole discussion centered around the Community Center.
But, we use these kinds of Capital things, for things like the State Police Barracks and other
projects. So, that requires a public hearing, our own procedures require these public
hearings. So, this public hearing was set a couple weeks ago and this year we have had a lot
of storm related events a lot of drainage related events some have been resolved some
haven’t. A couple of them in particular involve significant funds more than the typical
operations where the Highway Dept. will go out and clear a ditch or replace a culvert pipe
on a small road these were actually a couple of larger drainage related projects some of
which were caused by storm events some of which were not. But, the Town Board again
wanted to consider the opportunity to use the Capital Reserve instead of the Highway Dept.
operating budget to cover these significant expenses. So, what we are proposing here is to
create and there already exists a Ward I drainage Capital Fund and what we are going to do
is we are going to tonight authorize the creation of a Town Wide Drainage Fund and then at
a later date sometime in November there will be a resolution that will basically take some,
take the money that is in the Ward I Drainage Fund and use that to seed town wide. So, it is
again it is more of house keeping kind of procedure than anything else. Is there any
members of the public that would like to comment? Mr. Naylor
Mr. Paul H. Naylor-Former Highway Supt. Division Road, West Glens Falls I hear you
talking about money in-house, when I was in charge of this I hear double dipping all the
time, every time I used to charge the Board for drainage somehow it got lost and it never got
back in the till. You are telling me tonight that you are going to pay the Highway Dept.
back for everything it has done.
Supervisor Stec-Actually we have been paying them, that problem left when you left office.
Mr. Naylor-It did? When Fred Champagne left you mean.
Supervisor Stec-Your successor is tougher than you or something, I do not know.
730
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
Mr. Naylor-You guys always rob me every time I did though.
Supervisor Stec-Actually the Board, previous Boards previous to me being Supervisor
really, really around the time that you left and I am not …
Mr. Naylor-I know you are not.
Supervisor Stec-I would never do that
Mr. Naylor-You need my vote.
Supervisor Stec-That is right, the but Jennifer would back up that, like snow removal on
sidewalks that was another area
Mr. Naylor-The same thing.
Supervisor Stec-The Town Board and the Highway
Mr. Naylor-Double dipping it was called by Mr. Champagne.
Supervisor Stec-I have never held back on signing a voucher the general fund has been, the
Highway Dept. has their own budget and there is a love hate relationship at budget time
between the Town Board and
Mr. Naylor-Sure is.
Supervisor Stec-Highway, because all these elected officials and too many in the room
Mr. Naylor-That is the biggest problem you got now, you guys are in charge of the drainage
by law
Supervisor Stec-Right, yes.
Mr. Naylor-You are the guys that are supposed to pick it out and tell us what to do.
Supervisor Stec-And we do. Rick would tell you that.
Mr. Naylor-You have got to hire engineers and everything to tell you water runs down hill.
Supervisor Stec-Yea, it is a shame, but
Mr. Naylor-All the drainage that we did when we in, we paved swales and everything I did
all the while I was in was pertaining to drainage that is why it is right here with me and
drainage. Come a long ways but there is a long ways to go.
Supervisor Stec-We have a drainage line that the Highway Dept. charges against, it is a
smaller one for the road side, kind of the small incidental stuff, this year we had a couple big
ones. For those in the audience familiar with it, there was some significant work done on
Thunderbird Drive and some equally significant work down on Potter Road all where
Halfway Brook crosses they were in there a couple of times this year. They were
significantly more in dollars than the average and the General Fund covered that as it is
supposed to. But, what this will do it will create a Capital Reserve so that heaven forbid we
have another major event where we have got to go spend ten thousand dollars on one
drainage project…
Mr. Naylor-The Highway will get paid back.
Supervisor Stec-The Highway, this money is used to pay the Highway.
Mr. Naylor-That is all I care.
Supervisor Stec-You are welcome.
731
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
Mr. Naylor-Thank you.
Supervisor Stec-You are welcome. Is there anyone else that would like to comment on this
public hearing, any discussion amongst Board Members?
Councilman Sanford-Just a clarification, for those who might read into this a little bit
perhaps more than they should, Jennifer is this not just a segregation of General Fund dollars
in that the Board can at our pleasure add to this and subtract from this but what it really
comes down to is a planning mechanism because we are earmarking funds for what we
perceive is a need? Isn’t that what this really is?
Budget Officer Switzer-Yes. The only thing you have to be careful of is to expend money
from this because it is a non specific reserve it requires Board approval.
Councilman Sanford-Right, so by Board resolution money comes in money goes out, it is a
good way to plan for what we perceive as a need, but it is my no means a commitment
necessarily.
Budget Officer Switzer-Correct.
Councilman Sanford-It is not like if we funded three hundred in this someone is going to say
the Town just spent three hundred thousand, it is not necessarily so, it is a good planning
device.
Supervisor Stec-Correct.
Councilman Brewer-It is not a commitment to anyone particular project.
Supervisor Stec-It is a reserve for us to use through Town Board approval for the next,
probably what we will fund it with will probably last six or seven years. Any other public
comments? I will close the public hearing.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ESTABLISHMENT OF CAPITAL
RESERVE FUND NO.: 66 FOR
CONSTRUCTION/RECONSTRUCTION OF TOWN-WIDE
DRAINAGE
RESOLUTION NO.: 475, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to establish a Capital Reserve
Fund for Town-Wide drainage in accordance with New York State General Municipal Law
§6(c), and
WHEREAS, the Town Board duly conducted a public hearing concerning the
th
establishment of such Capital Reserve Fund on Monday, October 16, 2006,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
732
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the
establishment of a Capital Reserve Fund for the purpose of construction/reconstruction of
Town-Wide Drainage as follows:
1.The Capital Reserve Fund shall be known as “Town-Wide Drainage Fund
#66” which Fund will establish fund expenditures for
construction/reconstruction of Town-Wide Drainage;
2.Initial Funding for the Town-Wide Drainage Reserve Fund #66 shall be by a
transfer of unexpended funds from the Ward I Drainage Reserve Fund; and
3.No transfers shall be made from Town-Wide Drainage Reserve Fund #66
except by Town Board Resolution in accordance with General Municipal
Law §6(c); and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town
Accounting Office to establish Town-Wide Drainage Reserve Fund #66 in accordance with
General Municipal Law §6(c), transfer funds, amend the 2006 Town Budget and take such
other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms and provisions of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of October, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARING
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
NOTICE SHOWN
PUBLICATION DATE: October 6, 2006
Supervisor Stec-I have talked to a few people in the room here tonight and we have
mentioned it at previous Town Board meetings and I think it is safe to say that it is the Town
Board’s full intent tonight to take as much public comment as we want to take but leave the
public hearing open and come back in November for perhaps the second round. People can
go back and collect their thoughts digest a little bit of what has been said go through the
Plan a little but, so if anyone is concerned that you know if I don’t stay until ten o’clock
tonight when they close this public hearing I’m going to wake up in the morning and read
the newspaper and find out if it was approved or not approved. I think our intent is to take
public comment, leave it open, continue to take any written comment that anyone may want
to submit via e-mail or via written letter to the Board, Stu will get into that in a minute.
733
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
That’s what we are intending on doing this evening. With that, I will introduce the Town’s
Senior Planner, Stuart Baker, who has been sheparding the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
for the last couple of years through a couple dozen meetings that were sporadically attended,
in my words, my opinion, my observations, on an off over the last couple of years. Despite
repeated Town Board announcements, advertisements, newspaper editorials and what not.
We are delighted to see so many people here and interested in this tonight, the public
hearing. It has been about eight years since the last one was adopted; an awful lot of effort
went into that last one that served us well over the last eight years. Most consultants or most
people in the planning profession will tell you eight years is about the window, the shelf live
of an existing plan and usually that’s about when you are due for another one. That’s what
we have been working on for the last couple of years. But, Stu I will turn it over to you and
then we will start taking some public comment.
Stuart Baker- Okay, thank you very much. I apologize, I intended to have a presentation up
on the screen this evening but we ran into some technical difficulties. I will have my
presentation available on the Town website tomorrow. I will give you that address in a few
minutes. Paper copies will also be available from the community development department
for those who would like those. I wanted to talk a little bit about the process and actually
limit my comments to that. How did the Town get to this point, where the Town Board is
putting this document forward for a public hearing? Back in August of 2004 the Town
Board by resolution created the Planning Ordinance Review Committee, it was originally
composed of four Planning Board Members and four Zoning Board Members and they were
assigned the task of reviewing and revising the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the
subdivision regulation and the zoning regulations. Working with the Planning Ordinance
Review Committee is our consulting team from Saratoga Associates in Saratoga Springs, as
well as myself and others from the Community Development Department Staff. The
Comprehensive Plan process really began in earnest in September of 2005 when the
consultants came on board and the committee really dug into their work. They began by
looking at the current state of land uses in the community, gathering information so they had
a solid understanding of what was going on currently, looking at community likes and
dislikes as well as assets and measuring concerns. That was done primarily through the
public meeting process. They then looked at, again through a process of working with the
consultants and various public meetings, discussing what does the community want for its
future and what is the vision for the future of Queensbury. The process continued through
the development of the Comprehensive Plan which is really a tool that outlines the vision of
the Town as well as outlines programs, policies and tools that can be used to implement that
vision. Comprehensive Plans in New York State are adopted by the Town Board after a
required public hearing and that’s what we are here for this evening. Since September of
2004 the Planning Ordinance Review Committee has been meeting regularly, at least once a
month. Since September of 2005 those meetings have been working specifically on the
document under review tonight, the draft Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the committee
held a number of public workshop meetings; I believe nine in all, from October of 2005 all
the way through the committee’s public hearing on the document which was held this past
July. Of course, the public participation opportunities continued this evening with the Town
Boards public hearing. The draft plan contains, as I’ve mentioned, visions and goals as well
as some discussions and recommendations broken up by, discussion of neighborhoods, the
natural environment, commercial corridors and residential neighborhoods. The Plan also
incorporates through appendices two previous planning documents that have been created
and adopted by the Town Board and that’s the Open Space Vision Plan, which was adopted
in July 2003 and the Affordable Housing Plan, which was adopted in December 2003.
Those are both included by appendix in this document. The vision statement that the
committee came up with and actually has been reviewed and amended slightly by the Town
Board currently reads as follows: the Town of Queensbury is a beautiful community in the
foothills of the Adirondack Mountains with panoramic mountain views, a thriving business
base and independent citizens who live in harmony with nature, value open space and
welcome visitors who come to recreate. A good place to live the Town offers an excellent
quality of life for families that features public safety, clean water, pure air a variety of
housing options, excellent schools, a growing library, state of the art health care facilities,
community minded businesses of all sizes from all sectors, parks, bike paths and an
impressive array of museums, arts, organizations and historic preservation initiatives. As a
community we strive to protect and encourage neighborhoods that promote relationships,
healthy life styles and community involvement. We endeavor to balance the needs of our
734
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
growing community with local and regional economic development initiatives, which can
support our Town-wide goals. Everything included in Plan is intended to really follow-up
and support that stated goal. The Plan recommendation map which is included in the draft
document and is also posted over there essentially broke the Town up into geographic
regions. The Plan goes on to discuss those specific areas, the current status as well as desired
future and recommendations for action. One of the things that the committee wanted to do
from the start in an effort to simplify the code was simplify the plan. Hence, we have a plan
recommendation map that has a much smaller number of geographic regions than the 1998
plan and could result in a revised zoning code with a much smaller number of zoning
districts. In the plan commercial districts are broken up into heavy commercial areas shown
on the map in the red and lighter commercial areas which are shown in a pinkish color and
they extend primarily up Bay Road north of Quaker and east along Quaker from the Bay
Road area. The residential neighborhoods were broken up into three areas for the purposes
of this plan, and that was neighborhood residential which is shown as the light-brown area
immediately adjacent to the city, moderate residential which is depicted on that map in the
brighter yellow, and rural residential which is the much lighter yellow area that dominates
the rest of the community. The next steps are after this evening’s public hearing, the Town
Board does need to finalize their work on the draft. At their last workshop on the current
draft they acknowledged that they’ve got quite a bit of work that needs to be done in terms
of editing still, so that remains to be done. As the Supervisor stated they intend to continue
the public hearing. The document also needs both Adirondack Park review and County
Planning Board review before the Town Board can take final action on it. It also requires a
review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. I’d like to remind everyone that
the work of the Planning Ordinance Review Committee is also continuing. They are
currently working on proposed changes to both the zoning and subdivision codes, the PORC
meets the third Thursday of every month here in this room at 7pm and all are welcome to
attend. Any proposed code changes that the committee recommends will require a public
hearing by the Town Board as well. It’s important to point out though, while the committee
is working on recommended code changes. The subject of this evenings meeting is the
Comprehensive Plan and not those proposed code changes. Thank you.
Supervisor Stec- Thank you Stuart. With that we will be happy to answer any other
procedural or otherwise questions as we go. As a side note for myself, and I know that Stu
Baker is going to be taking copious notes as we move forward this evening. Certainly all
comments are welcome general or specific. I just want to point out that specific comments
or specific areas to look at are certainly going to help laser guide where we may look.
General comments are certainly helpful too but if there are specific things that you want to
address please don’t hesitate to be specific. With that said I will open the public hearing and
again I will call people one at a time. I just ask that you raise your hand these microphones
not only amplify but they also record for the purpose of the record. So, I would just ask you
that I call you one at a time to come to the microphone and speak your peace. Who would
like to go first? Mr. Wild
Mike Wild- 11 Blackberry Lane here in Queensbury I am going to make some comments
today that are based on my opinion as well as the opinion representing the Builders
Association in the region. So, if I may I will present to the Board some of my written
comments (passed out written comments)I will try to be brief but my comments really
address multiple area within the plan itself so I really have to try to organize some of the
thoughts. So, if you do not mind I would like to kind of go through all of these pages. And I
think it will highlight some of the areas of concern, open up discussion for clarification just
in case I miss some areas. I would like to begin. On the bottom of page one there is a slide
that is called background and I titled it items of concerns it was really some of the
background information that was used to develop the plan. These comments are really
related towards the affordable housing option. The New York State Affordable Housing
Corporation identified Warren County as a high cost area. Basically the homes are two
times plus higher in price than what the average median income is to be able to support
those, payments on those homes. Another point of interest is the build out study. It said
there was actually seventy five hundred and seventy eight potential dwelling units available
still to be built out. So, if those numbers are correct it is not that the Town is limited in land
and limited in available development. It seems like there is quite a bit of opportunity to
grow. In the affordable housing statement I think on that third bullet the very last one, we
note that none of these have been adopted as part of the Town of Queensbury’s
735
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, I took that quote right off the web site with the affordable
housing strategy. So, I think it is really important that the Town consider what we do with
affordable housing. What has happened with the land values in Queensbury and the prices in
Queensbury for the homes themselves, they have really sky rocketed people have benefited
from that. But, at the same time we have children and our children we would like to keep in
the area and have opportunities for them to be able to live here. Now, apartments, now I am
not saying that there is something wrong with apartments but typically apartment is a
stepping stone to homeownership and in the Town of Queensbury that is very difficult to do
to make that step. I have also heard comments that maybe it is through some of the
workshops that affordable housing should be considered on a regional basis. I have heard
and I am going to speak from just second, third hand opinions but I have heard that there is
actually requirements with the State and Federal Governments that said that each
community has to have affordable housing plan. If we are going to push our affordable
housing off on our neighborhood communities, neighboring communities I think it makes
sense to be able to get them to sign off on taking that responsibility for us. So, I see it as a
whole, I don’t really have a suggestion for you I really kind of want to make that comment
that I find a lot of holes I did my best to find solutions but, I think it is really the Board and
the Planning Committee that will really define how do we write some of this and add if
necessary. If I move forward, in the next state of the presentation I have really taken
sections out of the plan and put some comments next to it that I thought were based on
interpretation it might lead some people to think that there is some problems to put it mildly.
On the top of page two there is a section of neighborhoods that said different people require
different housing types and that the plan should encourage diversity in terms of unit size,
and prices. Now, as you look through the plan the rezoning is really restricting the amount
of affordable land to build. I guess what I am trying to say is, you have taken some areas
that were zoned one acre and now they are two acre or ten acre zone which really stresses
the ability for people to build affordable housing on and also for the ability for these
landowners to realize the value that they may have once had prior to this plan being adopted.
Obviously, as a developer and I am not a major developer in town but I have gone through
the process before it is an economic decision for developers. You look at how many piece
of property that you can subdivide this into you look at your margins, what kind of profits
can you realize. When you take your profits you subtract all your costs what is left is what
you are willing the landowners for their property. The more restrictions the Town places
upon the land means that you are restricting available profits that the landowners are able to
realize from their property, not just the developers. So, if I go on, the bottom of that page,
page two I guess the concerning part here is the little room for planning area for new large
scale development so a lot of the recommendations point to individual home constructions.
If you read a little bit further down they talk about existing street patterns should be
strengthened in the neighborhood residential planning area. The affect for those who haven’t
read the plan, it’s making sure there is connections between streets. If you happened to have
a lot that isn’t developed that would make a natural connection to a neighborhood you may
or may not be able to develop that piece of property. The big concern is how do you
compensate land owners that might have this property used for a connection by not allowing
them to develop it, because what the plan is saying you have to allow for those connections.
Maybe it wasn’t the intent but that’s how the plan read. The next page, top of page three,
this is the sidewalk recommendations. It says that all new constructions and major
renovations to require sidewalks in front of every home, it can occur over time by requiring
new homes and those undergoing major renovations to provide them. Sidewalks may not
link to one another as the installation takes place but it’s acceptable because they will fill in
over time. It seems kind of like a loose plan, basically to have sidewalks to no where. If we
are putting restrictions upon the neighborhood I understand it’s great to have sidewalks and
a higher density area where there might be traffic; but there are other areas within Town
where people just walk along the side of the street because there is not a lot of traffic. So
what we are doing is basically adding cost to homeowner, landowners, to the developers, to
the ultimate purchasers of those properties that may not see a benefit from such a regulation.
Going forward, require the developer to provide parks, trails connections and other
greenway features and other significant subdivisions, and this again is the neighborhood
residential planning area. Reading down a little bit further this green space could range from
one half to two acres in size. If you don’t have a lot of room for development and you are
saving a half to two acres for basically for what you say are not necessarily ball games and
parks but it’s the benches and gathering spaces. A half or two acres seems like an awful lot
of land just to reserve for a couple of park benches. So the recommendation would be more
736
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
specific see if you can go through some tracks of land within the Town that this might apply
to and actually show how you would like to reserve some land. And again, I would like to
go back a little further to one of the ultimate goals of this Comprehensive Plan was to make
it easier for developers to understand what rules and regulations they had if they wanted to
get a project approved. Without some more specifics, without graphical representations the
words make it quite difficult to understand what the Board and what the Planning
Commissions are looking for. Going on to page four, and I must say there are only- I think
there is only nine so I’m trying to go fast through this so I don’t take too much time and
allow other people to comment. In a moderate density residential planning area, this also
applies to individual home constructions and it talks about the adjacent properties and
making connections and to reserve right-of-ways. And also a statement that talks about
adopting an official map marking existing and future streets. So the comments that I have its
good to have the regulations to allow connections but the implementation of the right-of-
way causes some concerns or you are going to force connections at specific locations.
Maybe you want to fairly restrict landowners by eliminating their design options and
adjacent landowners? Will the development be on hold until the official map is complete?
So if we don’t have a map and you are saying you should really look at the connections
defined by an official Town map, is that giving license to restrict development until such
Town map is completed. If you are going to require the right-of-ways, who funds the
purchase if you remove right-of-ways or remove development rights from individual
homeowners/landowners who funds them? Now is the Town going to purchase those right-
of-way rights that might preclude someone from actually developing a track of land?
Bottom of page four also talks about sidewalks again, but this is in a moderate density area, I
believe that’s one unit per two acres. Developers are required to provide sidewalks in all
new developments and the Town should install sidewalks as it rebuilds roads in moderate
density residential area. That’s in the code. One of the questions I have is how do you define
a new development as the number of units, gross area of land, how close to the houses
together, does it really make sense to have sidewalks in some locations when the traffic is
low. Moving on, section, actually it’s a recommendation A-7 on page 20 in the plan
moderate density. Under residential subdivisions, should require to be a conservation
subdivisions. What that means is environmentally sensitive areas such as wetland or steep
slopes will not be counted in the project density. At a minimum these open space
conservation areas should comprise 50% of the entire subdivision and be largely contiguous.
To me it’s a good idea and I realize the Planning Ordinance Committee has had a real tough
job to try to make some balance and I agree that we should try to reserve some open space.
At the same time taking 50% of developable land away from a specific landowner seems
somewhat harsh. The comment that I have and suggestions would be: should we be more
specific about examples, can we pick some tracks of lands and actually show what might
happen to a specific track if we did do that conservation subdivision. On top of it, with the
eliminating of wetlands and steep slopes, it may be much more than 50% that’s reserved, it
could be 70, 80, 90% of their property is now undevelopable; which could severely strip the
landowners of their right to use their property to develop their property. Again, I would
suggest that we take some parcel, some tracks and draw some maps to show this is what
could be possible this is what could not be what is possible. But I think it would go a long
way in terms of what this plan is really directed at trying to accomplish. The bottom of page
five, excuse me just a minute, in recommendation A-7 on page 21, there was a really
troubling comment in the draft, and these conservation lands the 50% or when you get into
the rural density areas, the two thirds of the land that needs to be conserved as open space,
there a comments there that these lands could be conveyed to or managed by the Town. To
me that seems and I don’t know any other way to put it, it sounds like a land grab. In order
for a developer or a landowner to subdivide their land to get it approved, it would appear as
though, based on the wording in this draft, that they have to convey that other one half or
two thirds to the Town in order to get it approved.
Councilman Brewer- It says, conserved areas could be conveyed to and managed by the
Town, or could be managed by a homeowners association.
Mr. Wild- If that’s true who owns the liability specifically if you ask as part of the draft
recommendations is to allow public access for these conserved lands. So what you are
saying is that you want the public to be able to use them, and again to me, it sounds like a
land grab. I may be wrong and it may be a harsh way of stating it but it definitely appears
that you have a chunk of land, you have only half of which you can develop the other half
737
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
you should give to the Town. Maybe it can be fixed with wording but to me it appears as
though, and especially when you get into the rural density area is though the Town’s sole
motivation is to increase their holdings of undeveloped land.
Councilman Brewer- I disagree with that. I think if you read the whole paragraph going
back to your page. I’m sorry to interrupt you but, go back to page 20 they are talking about
steep sleep slopes and undevelopable area they are not talking about taking developable
land.
Mr. Wild- That’s true
Councilman Brewer- In my opinion
Mr. Wild-That’s true, they are saying that when you do that 50% conservation, you can’t
include in your … calculations steep slopes and wetlands. So.
Councilman Boor- Right, you can’t now
Councilman Boor- You can ‘t
Mr. Wild- Hold on just a second, if you have 20% of your land that is steep slopes/wetlands
that means now areas down to eight acres. If you started with ten 20% you have eight acres.
Now half of that needs to be reserved for the conservation, so it’s an additional four. So you
are conserving much more than 50% of your total area, you are now conserving 60%, if my
math is correct.
Councilman Boor- I think that probably the thing that Tim is trying to say is it’s already like
that. That’s not new.
Councilman Brewer- Right
Councilman Boor- That’s not used in formulas
Mr. Wild- No, I understand, I understand totally.
Councilman Boor- It appears the people in the audience might think this is something new
that’s being proposed. Currently, you can’t count wetlands and slopes in your formula. The
other thing that is important when you look at the type of development you are talking about
is you get to build more homes, you just don’t put it on a big of piece of property which
ultimately as a developer you would know with less infrastructure costs and can actually
make your cost go down and profits go up and allows a greater amount of area to be utilized
for open space.
Mr. Wild- I understand if you read closely and it’s a matter of interpretation. You can read
this in one way; you can read it in another way. That’s my point of bringing this up, is it’s
not defined clearly enough; because I understand that wetlands and steep slopes are not
involved in your density calculations today.
Councilman Boor- Did you see the picture on page 21.
Mr. Wild- But today, you’re not required to conserve half of your land or two thirds of your
land.
Councilman Sanford- Alright. Two things, and that’s a fair point, we are talking about
cluster verses non-cluster as a desired end goal in those areas. I think the intent of the section
that you references which is to be conveyed and managed by the Town or to be managed by
a homeowners association. The intent there is certainly not to grab land it’s to make sure that
there is an understanding to everybody including developers that there are alternative ways
in which to set up conservation areas.
Councilman Brewer- Right
738
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
Councilman Sanford- One way of doing it could be for the Town to own it and also
maintain it or to have homeowners. The idea is that they are desirable and I think that it is a
real stretch to read into that any other way.
Mr. Wild- Mr. Sanford I was part of those discussions and I remember how those were
developed and I understand your point. The point is how this draft is written and how it can
be considered because once this draft is completed it goes to zoning. The Planning
Ordinance Review Committee will interpret this to develop the zoning.
Councilman Boor- But you also
Mr. Wild- So I would think you would make it very clearly what the intent is, and right now
it’s not.
Councilman Boor- The conservation easement is permanent though. So the notion that it’s a
land grab assumes that you are grabbing value. It’s a permanent conservation easement. The
Town can’t do anything with it either it’s not like we can sell it or the homeowners
association can’t sell it, can’t develop it. It’s permanent easement. So it’s not the value, it’s
to those people that live in that cluster development and know that perpetuity forever they
will have that view. That’s the value.
Mr. Wild- I understand. I have some concerns about the value, the individual house value
when you cluster them together verses having more space around and trees. It depends on
the lot and it depends on a lot of different factors, but the point is that today there are certain
ways that you can develop that property; with the new plan you’re restricted in terms of
what you can do. I believe the density that you are going to be able to, the number of
building lots that you are going to be able to draw off of that same amount of property is
going to be significantly less. My own personal opinion, I’d much rather be on three acres or
five acres or ten acres and have it be my property that I can roam and say it’s mine verses
being on a one acre lot saying that across the street behind my neighbors back yard is area
that I can use whenever I choose. There is a big difference in terms of value. But its personal
value right.
Councilman Sanford- Sure. I appreciate that and we don’t really wish to hold you up. You
have about five more pages. I assume after you’re done you will want to discuss this a little
bit.
Mr. Wild- We can definitely do that.
Councilman Brewer- I didn’t mean to bog you down, I just wanted to make that one point
out.
Mr. Wild- I understand that and my intent was really to kind of convey that it can be
interpreted in different ways. The hope is that we really solidify the intent and make sure the
landowner value doesn’t appear or isn’t being reduced by the way the plan is written.
Councilman Brewer- I will say one more thing and then I will try to keep my mouth shut. I
think the intent of listing different types of subdivisions is to give an option. I don’t think
anybody is saying you have to do a conservation subdivision or cluster. You can do a
conventional subdivision; you can do anything you want with what you have or your land.
It’s not like anybody is telling you that you have to do that. It’s an option, as I see it.
Mr. Wild- It is but there are incentives. There are incentives, if you do the conservation and
get twice as many houses.
Councilman Brewer- There’s gives and takes on everything.
Mr. Wild- So that’s kind of telling me that if I do this, this is the way I have to do it, to get
any value out of the property.
Councilman Brewer- Okay
739
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
Mr. Wild- So I thought that was some what of a controversial, and I kind of expected some
responses from the Board on that and I appreciate that, but my intent wasn’t to say that I
believe the Board is trying to do a land grab. Let’s look at how it’s written and really kind of
work at defining those specifics. Moving on to page six, we talk about recommendation 8.8
on page 21. This is the density calculations again. I was really somewhat confused by this. It
says maintain a moderate density of one unit per every two acres. On a sub bullet that I have
here it somewhere else within that recommendation it says one unit for every two net
developable acres where public sewer and water are not present. So in some of the existing
zoning you have one acre you have one acre zoning. Now in the new plan, the way it is laid
out over here that one acre is going to go to two acre zoning. So, in effect we are limiting
what the landowners can now do by their property by a factor of two. We’re dividing by a
factor of two what they can do with their property. If I’m wrong, I apologize but the way I
read the plan and the way I look at the maps it appears as though that we are severely
restricting what landowners can do with their property. You also talk about providing a
density bonus to developers who connect their projects to public water and sewer and
developers will pay to run the sewer. I kind of looked at the plan maps and there is not that
many areas where that comes into play. Developers can’t afford to run a three mile sewer
line. It’s basically uneconomical to try to accomplish something like that. So I understand
that the plan we are trying to create density where the infrastructure can handle it but at the
same time I’m really concerned about what is going to happen with some of the landowners
if they don’t read this closely they may find that it is a factor of two that they cannot split
their land up into as many parcels as they thought they could. There are many landowners
that may feel they’ve seen the growth in Queensbury; they’ve realized the potential that their
land has. So we need to be careful to protect those rights of those landowners. On the
bottom of page six, in the rural residential planning area, it talks about one house per ten
acres. When I looked at the current zoning map I saw a good chunk of property that was five
acre and three acre zoning and it looks like you’re striping those rights from those property
owners and now making it ten acre zoning. Again, it talks about the conservation
subdivision plan where it talks about density bonuses for conservation but at the same time
now it’s not one half of the land that has to be conserved it’s two thirds. So I’ve never really
tried to go through the map and draw how a parcel could be subdivided and still get the
same amount of developable units out of this conservation plan but it makes sense if you’re
reserving two thirds of the land for conservation. Again, you have to subtract out wetland
and steep slopes, there may not be much land left to develop upon. The point is, can we go
through some graphical examples and create some clauses there to protect some of the
existing rights. I apologize; I’m taking much longer than I thought I would.
Councilman Sanford- That’s fine
Mr. Wild- Page seven, recommendation A-11 on page 23 requires conservation subdivision
for multi-unit projects. Again, it’s to retain that two thirds of the property. I guess I just on
that on my last comment. The bottom of page seven talks about minimizing the visual
impact of buildings on page 24, with roof-lines that should follow the slope of the terrain
and avoid creating a silhouette. Two comments on this: One is that there may very well be
specific lots that don’t amend themselves towards following the recommendations that are
here, I have one myself although it’s not in rural residential area, I could not afford to build a
house of any kind of size or magnitude to make my roof-lines follow the slopes. So I guess
what I am looking for is some relief, some other considerations and some flexibility in this
writing to allow for specific lot geometries that may preclude them from doing this as well
as people pay for views. Landowners can get a lot more for a piece of property on a ridge
that they can sell to someone with great views. Look at Chestnut Ridge and the property
values that are happening over there verses making them put their houses down in the
hollow. We are also restricting what the landowners could do with their property. Page
eight, planning recommendations B-2, page 27, establish an open space preservation
program. Basically, who will fund this activity, is it out of the general fund, is the
landowners/developers, additional taxes? It talks about recommendation B-3 considering the
creation of a Town fund for open space conservation. My only comment is that if any new
taxes are going to be employed to fund this it should really go through a public referendum
and have the public vote instead of having some kind of plan that just slaps another tax on
real estate transfers. It may not be a bad idea to do, but
Councilman Brewer- Not our intent at all.
740
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
Mr. Wild- Okay. Bottom of page eight, planning recommendations on the natural
environment is as I read section B.9 said to require all new and replacement lights to
conform to dark sky standards. I’ve been through a lot of the meetings, John and I know that
this is something that you are very proud of in terms of some of the lighting restrictions. The
problem is that it appears that every landowner that has up-lights on the side of their house
and might do landscaping lighting or might have a lamp post in the front of their house, they
might be considered to change other lights also.
Councilman Strough- I think if you read this it refers to commercial.
Mr. Wild- I just saw it natural environment, it didn’t say commercial or industrial.
Councilman Strough- No, it said commercial. It’s very similar to what we already have.
Mr. Wild- Alright, then I take this back because I just had an issue with residential and
having to spend hundreds of dollars to replace my lights. Page nine, again natural
environment, green policies; I guess the thing that jumped out me is this LEED certified.
LEED is green building certification, if this is just for commercial and industrial I can
understand but as I read the plan also it seemed like it was for residential and rehabilitation.
LEED is a very expensive program to implement, although you save money in the long run,
it’s placing some significant burdens on landowners, builders, property owners in
implementing LEED standards. They go all the way down to the level of choosing the type
of carpet you can use in your house, the finishes you can use, the material used on the
exterior. So I employ the Board to really consider and to look deeply into what these green
building standards mean and the cost implications to the Town. In conclusion, you guys
have a tough job. It’s not an easy task to try to balance the way the Town is growing, I
understand that but I’m asking you to strengthen the wording to preserve landowners rights
and to remove and eliminate costs burdens that might impact the economic viability of
affordable housing- somewhere. Compensate landowners for loss of development rights at
today’s values not at future values, past plan. I know somewhere in the draft talks about
compensating and purchasing developing rights. Make sure you calculate the development
rights based on today’s standards and what it would be worth if they sold it today or before
this plan is adopted verses after. I would really like to see an analysis of the before and after
build out, if there is truly seven thousand units that could be added to the Town of
Queensbury with that existing build out study, how many new units would be available
based on the existing plan. My sense, it would be significantly less, but I’m just curious if
the Town has considered that. And also as a last point, final point, consider providing an
economic impact study of the plan. I know everyone talks about bringing industry and
business to town. There is a lot of discussions about a book store, a lot of that is based on
economics, do we have people who can support a book store. Do we have the residents that
can support that, do we have affordable residents so that if we did bring industry into town
they could afford to staff their employees, so it’s just a comment? If you could consider
doing that I think there would be great value. I’m done, thank you.
Supervisor Stec- Thank you.
Councilman Strough- Thank you Mr. Wild and it was clearly was the intent in the very
beginning, your right that whatever we do develop for a community plan is that developers
and residents are on the same page. That everything is more clear to both parties, not that
they’re in an adversarial relationship, we’re working together, but I think what we wanted
was a clear direction. I’m looking forward to working with you. You and I are both new
members on this PORC committee and so I’m looking forward to working with you.
Mr. Wild- Thank you
Supervisor Stec- Likewise Mike, thank you. Anyone else? Yes, Mr. Shimkus.
Todd Shimkus- President, Adirondack Regional Chamber of Commerce. Before I begin I
just want to say I really appreciated the mission or vision statement the Town has but I think
I can summarize it one sentence. We like to do that in the business community, shorten it up.
That’s that is you move here, live here or work here you get to live like you’re on vacation.
741
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
We really think that is an accurate assessment of what it is like to be here in Queensbury and
throughout the region that we serve. You should be commended for that. I want to make
brief comment and then a couple that will serve as an example of some of the comments I
am going to make later on and I will be brief. The one comment is item B-10 talks about
buying renewable power and how the Town ought to take a look at that as part of its
program here for the long term. Even though and the report it points this out it may cost
more. Just so you are all aware the Town of Queensbury right now has over a hundred
accounts that it runs through the Chambers Energy Alliance Program as do many of the
communities in this region and businesses. The desired goal of that program is to actually
reduce costs and to save you money so that you can pass that savings along to taxpayers. I
think item B-10 talking about buying renewable power at a higher cost flies in the face of
what this Town Board has done for years, that working to protect the taxpayers. That’s the
example that I want to use, I would hope that you would focus a little bit more time on this
study on what it might cost to implement. It seems to me a lot of the recommendations like
buying renewable power sound good in theory but when you cost them out they may not
actually work for the communities benefit. So you’ve done the benefit analysis of some of
these but doing a cost analysis, whether its looking at parks may be nice, but the cost to
build them, the cost to maintain them over the long term may not be sustainable. Lights may
cost money to retrofit; it would be nice to know how much those are going to cost. New
Roads sound great as connectors but they certainly cost the Town to plow and maintain
those roads and for the taxpayers over the long term. New sidewalks again sound great and
may be perfect, again there’s long term cost to maintain and keep those up to speed.
Transfer taxes may sound like a neat way to fund open space preservation but that has a cost
both to home buyers and home sellers. In other words, what I’m really suggesting is that
when you’re buying this cart load of groceries that you make sure there is a price tag
associated with each of the items that you put in that basket. Queensbury is a desirable place
to live. You’ve been able to keep taxes low here in this community that makes it even more
attractive, you deserve credit for that. However, one of the things that has I believe that has
allowed you to do that in this community to be healthy from a fiscal sense is that you’ve got
a nice balance of commercial, residential, and industrial growth. I don’t know what the
percentages are, I’m sure somebody here does. If you have achieved that nice balance on the
cost side, on the tax side, chances are those are percentages you want to maintain. One other
thing that I was struck by is in this report in section E it talks a lot about industrial land and I
think it makes the comment that the upstate economy is transitioning away from traditional
manufacturing. One of the things that attracted me to this area, to this job and I think makes
us stronger is the fact that a lot of companies that are here still make things. We still
manufacture goods right here in Queensbury and throughout this region. What I would like
to see is a more specific goal in terms of allowing existing companies, manufacturers in
particular to be able to expand and to make sure this Town protects and preserves some land
for industrial development and expansion of industrial development, because at the end of
the day if you are going to have residential growth you want to have the counter balance of
commercial and industrial growth to make sure that taxes don’t need to be raised some time
in the future.
Councilman Strough- And Todd let’s make it clear to the public, a big emphasis of this
Comprehensive Plan is to preserve, maintain and build further light industrial, middle
industrial. Actually a new industrial zone that would allow a more diversified industry, so
let’s make clear what we are advertising. What you’re saying is what this plan is saying as
well. So you are in agreement.
Mr. Shimkus- It would be neat if it spelled that out in terms of the percentage of land that is
now currently for industrial and the percentage afterwards, because it does talk a least in a
couple of places of phasing out industrial land in certain sections of the community. It does
also talk about taking waterfront for recreation. I’m not saying those are bad things, I’m
saying spell out specifically that we want to have no net loss and in fact you want to have a
net gain of industrial property.
Councilman Strough- And I’m in agreement.
Mr. Shimkus- The final item is that it doesn’t speak in here, as far as I could see and I’d love
to be corrected, we’ve got AMD and Luther Forest going on just of the South of here. It is
really going to require all of the communities in this area to think more regional in terms of
742
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
planning. Certainly, a development project in Glens Falls is going to Impact Queensbury
and vice versa. Again, it would be neat if this Plan also encouraged this community and its
leaders going forward over the next few years to think regionally as to how you can connect
some of these zoning areas with your neighboring communities to have one set of rules and
regulations that everybody could abide by. I would point to Colorado Springs as and area of
high growth area that was desirable community to move to. They had a number of
municipalities that got together there and found a way to create a real regional alliance that
has worked well for preserving open space, preserving affordable housing, at the same time
has been acceptable to the business community; because of the fact that the rules and
regulations are well spelled out. They are also regional in nature of benefit to everyone
involved. I think this document could go a lot further and its call for regional solutions to the
issues and challenges that we face here in this region so I would add that as the forth
comment. The Fifth
Councilman Brewer- I think Todd one step in that directions, I think we did that with
Veterans Field didn’t we? We applied our standards with the City’s standards with Veterans
Field so it’s a small piece of forty acre parcel but those standards are applied there.
Mr. Shimkus- Again, I think you’ve done a good job of that. I’m saying here that it could be
more explicit. It could be a call to action on the part of this community and put you in a
leadership position in terms of moving us towards regional solutions. The last comment is
that what I’ve certainly found in my line of work is that the business community is more
suited to attending meetings that are actually during the business day. That we have a far
easier time of getting people out for an 8 o’clock meeting than we do for a 9 o’clock
meeting at night. So if this Board was interested we would be thrilled to work with you to
put together some type a public hearing or public meeting for the business community to
meet with you during the day at time that might be more convenient for that particular sector
of the economy. Thank You.
Supervisor Stec- Thank you very much. Anybody else this evening? Mr. Brandt
Mike Brandt- Hi
Supervisor Stec- Good evening Mike.
Mr. Brandt- Mike Brandt, I live at West Mountain Ski area. The Town of Queensbury taxes
everybody who builds a house for recreation. The Town seems to think that recreation is a
very important thing enough so that it taxes to provide it. For forty-five years we’ve been
providing recreation at West Mountain with no tax subsidy what so ever. In fact, all we do is
pay taxes for the privilege of providing recreation. I put together West Mountain and have
been doing it for forty-five years and still am there and still working at it. I don’t think what
many of you understand what forty-five years of work is. I don’t think you can. I put
together about six hundred acres of land in Queensbury for this purpose, a total plan. When I
look at the brains of our community looking at my land they say its rural residential. On that
particular area there’s about forty homes but at West Mountain we have one thousand
children a day, seven days a week, coming to us from schools for recreation during the
winter when there is damn little recreation around. On weekends, we have another thousand
to two thousand people a day coming from places from Staten Island, Long Island, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania and Saratoga County and even a few from here. We would like to be a
ski area twenty years from now and thirty years from now and to do that we need to
something that the new Plan talks about and that’s mixed use zoning. For West Mountain to
succeed as a ski area and to make proper use of its land it needs to put a lift on the back side
of the mountain to tie into Luzerne so that it can do a development there. It needs hotels, it
needs restaurants, it needs limited commercial, it needs attached housing and most of this
will be on the summit of West Mountain. Now most people think a mountain is a ridge, but
West Mountain has a lot of plateaus on it. There is a hundred and fifty acres of very
developable land and while I have no qualms about restricting what we do on that mountain
looks from the valley, in fact, if you look at a previous approval that was done in 1990, we
were the ones who suggested that that be done. I personally have been offered many times to
sell land to people who wanted to build a house that looks down at the community and I’ve
stayed away from that because I want to do it right when we do it. We need the zoning to do
it. Now is the time to zone it so it can work. So why look at a town and say the only mixed
743
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
use you can do is near the highest traffic highways you have. You’ve put me on the Board to
make recommendations on this and I certainly will tell you what I think of what has been
done so far. I think it’s horribly flawed for a lot of technical reasons and I will be glad to
share that with you, but we will start on that Thursday. Meanwhile, I’m only speaking from
my land and at West Mountain. I will not represent my interests when I’m on that Board but
today I can and my interests are to build a lasting, good ski area that we can keep upgrading
as we have for forty years and maybe in an accelerated way. I would like to have that zoning
in place if you see fit. Thank you.
Supervisor Stec- Thank you Mr. Brandt. Anybody else this evening? Yes in the back, yes
sir.
Victor Macri- I’m from Dartmore Drive in Queensbury. I have actively watched the
development of the Comprehensive Plan and had done so with some enthusiasm in that it
was my understanding when we started on this road that there would be a clear
understanding for developers in pursing projects that would also be a way to start smart
growth within this community which seemed to me to be a good thing. It also, one of the
things that was brought up in the beginning of the process, was that there would be an
expedited process for everyone as they approach a project. What concerns me about what I
read in the Comprehensive Plan and what I see developing, I know we are not suppose to
talk about zoning, is that we’re making everything a little more convoluted and it’s going to
be more difficult if anything to be able to allow staff to approve projects without multiple
Boards reviewing them, multiple variances and things of that nature. I have said that there
should be more reliance on staff as a general thing for the Town and there doesn’t appear to
be, especially when you come in front of the Zoning and Planning Boards. That’s always
been a problem. You have a great Planning and Building Department here, they know there
job and should be allowed to do it and they shouldn’t be allowed to be managed by the
Boards. Certain things I would like to talk about, specifically is the local and regional
development issues that this plan could affect. It would appear to me that what we want to
do, specifically, in areas where we have developed empire zones the State has become more
friendly. We work to develop a better economic status for the community, which would
bring in other things besides retail developments and things that we have seen over the
years. It’s great to have hotels and it’s great to have Mike’s project hopefully flourish but we
do need to bring in a little more sophisticated industry to the area. I get very concerned with
a lot of the things within the plan, specifically where it’s going to cost the municipality. You
talk about sidewalks, you talk about various things. These things need to be looked at; I
think that was brought up earlier. That’s an issue. I know affordable housing is an issue
everywhere and I would agree with that. I would like to make a correction in the Plan,
specifically on page 20. In the last paragraph it talks about in 1993 about a zone change, a
light industrial Dix Avenue and specifically talks about properties along Quaker Road that
have been allowed to develop and the lack of development there and the fact that the army
core of engineers put a stop to a lot of development there. That really wasn’t the case. I think
that that’s been confused by a lot of people in Town. That was the issue that came up was a
commercial subdivision that was developed by a predecessor company of mine who ran into
a little problem with the core of engineers and I personally agreed with the core until we
have a specific development for the property we would not present any plans for
development for the property. We have sat on the property for almost, well since 1993, for
almost fifteen years now working on a plan that would be workable. I know this was in the
previous Comprehensive Plan too, it’s just incorrect. There was an agreement between
myself and Chris Mallory of the Core of Engineers in New York City and I want to make
sure that everybody understands that that is the only reason that that area has not flourished
is because we have to wait for the right time for it to be economically feasible to develop
that property. New York State is now a friendly community; people are looking to New
York State for economic development. We’ve got Empire Zones, we’ve got various things
that entice other businesses to the area and that wasn’t the case fifteen years ago.
Councilman Sanford- That section of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan has been removed.
Councilman Boor- Page 20
Councilman Sanford- You’re working off of an older draft that had the neighborhoods in the
beginning and what’s happened is the first twenty some odd pages of that Comprehensive
744
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
Land Use Plan have been removed and are going to be supplemented with a much more
comprehensive town wide inventory section; which we will probably discuss in greater
detail at the next public hearing. The page 20 you are referencing is from an obsolete
version that’s not in there any longer.
Mr. Macri- Alright, I must have just grabbed the wrong copy. The other thing that I have a
concern with within the plan are specifically the lighting standards and the seven year
moratorium which I know the Town has had it’s hustles and bustles with Niagara Mohawk
but is that going to be in every light standard within the town, that every light within the
Town is going to have to be replaced in seven years by Niagara Mohawk in order to meet
the Town’s lighting standards? I don’t know if anybody has ever considered that.
Councilman Strough- And I don’t know what you are referring to but part of the process is
listening to you and the others who have spoken and to take a look at what we are planning
and see if we have to define it better. A lot of your criticisms are well taken by members of
this Board. I think you and I have also talked on the side, the PORC committee to this point
has suggested and I support them in this, the potential for redevelopment of South
Queensbury; what we call South Queensbury, probably more apt to call it East Queensbury,
right. That area, given the Warren Street redevelopment program that is currently going on
by the City could be carried into this area and you have Hudson Falls and its redevelopment
programs, Route 4, access to Vermont and Quaker Road taking a right to exit 19 is an area
that might be right for redevelopment and it mixed use type of redevelopment at that, if it’s
done right. I think there is general consensus and agreement to that. We can even see multi-
story buildings there because it does has the infrastructure already. So I’ve said to you, and I
will say it again, to bring your proposal to us on the Town Board or to the PORC committee,
you haven’t to date. Let it be analyzed. I think it might be analyzed well in light of what we
are planning for East Queensbury but we don’t know that until we see it.
Mr. Macri- Don’t get me wrong, I’m not here to criticize what’s been done. I think what’s
been done is great work.
Councilman Strough- No, and I didn’t take it as criticism but I’m saying
Mr. Macri- I’m not here to self promote my particular project. I’m specifically not.
Councilman Strough- What I am saying to you what you might be proposing might be a fit
for what we’re proposing.
Mr. Macri- I believe it is and I believe there will be a time that we will bring the plan
forward and we are working on doing that. But I’m specifically concerned about overall
plan how it’s going to affect tax base, how it is going to affect the future of economic
development within the Town, throughout the Town, how it’s going to affect the cost to the
municipality to maintain whatever gets put in here, how it’s going to affect individual
property owners who will have to change things according to what’s required by this plan
and how it will affect everybody who ever has to get a variance, go to the Planning Board or
do anything and do it in a expeditious manner. It is an arduous process; it is an expensive
process in this Town. I’m in the construction business and we go to a lot of planning boards,
I talk to a lot of engineers and I hear from everybody, Queensbury is one of the worst to get
a project through. If anything, through this whole process if we alleviate those problems,
concern ourselves with future costs in a municipality I think we will have a good plan. I’m
all in favor of what is being done here. I just have concerns.
Supervisor Stec- Thank you
Councilman Strough- And I think we agree with you that we do want to make a process that
doesn’t allow for greater number of variances, we want pure variances.
Mr. Macri- Well, the way I see things going right now, you are going to need three or four
zoning boards.
Councilman Sanford- Just a quick comment, certainly the approval process has become
longer and perhaps a little bit more troublesome for developers. But also please keep in
745
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
mind that Queensbury has grown rapidly over the last ten years and the remaining property
that is out there is much more marginal in terms of the types of characteristics that define
that land. Namely, a lot of wetlands exist out there and it’s more troublesome to get through
the approval process. You go back in time when Queensbury had a lot more vacant land to
develop, I imagine the process was quicker and easier than it should be. Right now we have
much less desirable land to be developed with many developers still wishing to develop it
because of the profit motive and it’s problematic. Again, I appreciate your concerns but we
don’t apologize for it, we’re trying to do what’s right here at the Town and make sure that
Queensbury grows in a smart and proper way.
Mr. Macri- And I’m all for that. I used to be a planning board member, I know the process. I
think our Board started to restrict more and to start that whole thing and it’s carried on. It
was a great thing for the Town, but understand thirty years ago most of Queensbury was
wetlands and it was filled and it was developed, okay. Times have changed, rules have
changed, things are different today. But, my criticism of the process is that it takes so long
because we don’t allow staff to make the decisions, the decisions get made on Board level.
If this plan is going to do what it needs to do, it needs to be specific, needs to allow
everybody the opportunity to know what they have to do before they present their plans. It
appears to me there will be a lot of confusion.
Councilman Strough- No, but I agree with you it needs more work.
Mr. Macri- Yes, definitely
Supervisor Stec- Thank you sir. Anybody else this evening? Yes sir.
Peter Weidman- Bardin Drive in Queensbury. I’m a builder. I’ve been a builder in
Queensbury for over twenty years. I’m also President of the Builders and Remodelers
Association of Northern New York, a local building trades association here. We represent
the builders, developers, associate businesses, who support the building industry Mike Wild
is on our Board of Directors. I would like to commend Mike on the effort he has put forth in
the presentation he made tonight. He has put a lot of time and effort and I know that Mike
will stay on top of things and work with you guys and keep us informed as to what is
happening in our community. You do have a big job this community has grown
tremendously I am witnessed to it I have helped create some of that, but I say so proudly. I
just like to make a couple of comments about a couple of areas that I felt that particularly so
of hit a spot with me. One of the biggest complaints that I’ve heard and some of the public
information that you’ve gathered was the traffic situation the traffic in Queensbury being
probably one of the major or the largest complaint that you might hear in our community.
My concern is that this plan makes no provisions to rectrofy any of the traffic problems that
we have. What are we doing? What can we do to eliminate some of the problems we have?
Councilman Boor- That’s a great question. One of the things that many communities do and
something that I would like to encourage is that when we have developers that do substantial
projects that they pick up the costs for the traffic mitigation. If it requires an additional lane
for right turns and if it requires a light I think the developer should pick up the cost and not
the taxpayer. I think that’s one way that we can improve the traffic conditions. There has
only been a handful if that of development that has occurred in the Town of Queensbury
where the developers have picked up the cost for traffic mitigation. I think that’s one of the
things that got me started on in the whole arena was a large project that has created a
nightmare even though it’s been reduced from a hundred and ninety units to seventy five
units anybody that tries to get out of Farr Lane on Aviation and Dixon realizes that
developer should have been made to mitigate that traffic situation. To answer your question
is what we do is rather than have the taxpayers pick up the cost we say to the developer here
is what our traffic study shows, our traffic study, not theirs. This is what we think needs to
be done to mitigate that situation. I think that would go a long ways in alleviating the types
of problems you are referring to.
Councilman Strough- And another thing that’s not been available to you is that there is
going to be a part B to the philosophy, this part A that we have all been talking about and we
all agree needs more work is part A. Part B talks in a more encyclopedia manner the various
assets, resources and sites in Queensbury. Not only does it discuss and give a history and a
746
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
background it also talks in terms of cross referencing. Now let’s give one example, Warren
County has done a Bay Road Access Management Plan; which covers Bay Road from
Quaker Road to Blind Rock, Havilland, that stretch of Bay Road. Often times in the
planning process on behalf of both the developers and the Planning Department that study
goes ignored, because people forgot about it, didn’t know about it. This part B brings in all
these other studies; even affordable housing into the study and it incorporates them. It
summarizes what they say and it also gives you a cross reference. You can’t put the whole
study in there but it will say “Bay Road from Quaker Road to Blind Rock Road, if you are
thinking about developing here please to refer to the Warren County Access Management
Study” and it will give you a brief summary of what the study was about. Now if those kinds
of things that we need to do more of to make sure that everything is integrated when we are
looking at our community.
Mr. Weidman- I am probably not referring so much to additional traffic flow via further
development. I’m talking more along the lines of the existing problems that have been
created over the last twenty years due to our high desirability as a retail area, as a tourist
area. We’re bringing in huge numbers of people. We’re in an area where we have a huge
volume of flow through traffic coming from Vermont, heading to Albany and whatever.
Those are the type of things that I am talking about that we need to alleviate. Our local
development is only adding to that problem minutely.
Councilman Brewer- I think Peter, if you look at 9 and 254 there’s an example of what we
are doing right now. Main Street is another example of what we are going to be doing.
These types of things take time certainly. We went to the State, many things happen and we
talked with the State about 9 and 254, Kubricky is not far from finishing it and that will
alleviate some of the problems. Don’t know for sure, but we are looking at each individual
problem that we see as a major problem. So those things are being done. Stu, I think you
said on the Glens Falls Transit Authority, or Marilyn use to, I know Dan, I don’t know if
you’ve been to some of the meetings as well. So there’s an effort out there to try to alleviate
some of these problems. It just takes time.
Councilman Strough- And there is an effort. Going along with what Tim says, for example,
the connector road. When I was on the Planning Board, working on Veterans Field, which
was called Veterans Field Industrial Park at the time, I proposed an alternate road for traffic
next to exit 18 that would take truck traffic more directly to the industrial field. Also not
impact in a negative manner the residential streets like Richardson and others that go off
Main Street. There will be one street, it is a connector road. We haven’t got a name for it
yet, but it will be dedicated to the truck traffic going to serving the industrial areas. We are
working at that. Could we do better? Yeah! Do you have suggestions? We want to hear
them.
Mr. Weidman- Okay. I’m just making some comments. I’m throwing things out on the table
that seem to bother me.
Councilman Boor- One more quick thing
Councilman Sanford- The first gentleman who spoke was part of your same organization;
which is the Builders Association.
Mr. Weidman- Yes, the Builders and Remodelers
Councilman Sanford- You’re part of that as well. He did a very nice job arguing on a few
occasions for greater density. Well traffic’s a function of population to some degree.
Population is a function density. If you allow more dense housing, you’re going to have
more people living in your community, you’re going to have a greater population, you’re
going to have greater traffic problems. He’s from your organization arguing for us to
encourage greater density; you’re here concerned about traffic. It doesn’t seem like you’re
too congruent in your approach.
Mr. Weidman- I’m here to advocate that we need to find ways to make traffic flow better.
We have some severe bottle necks in this Town and if we were able to come up with a plan.
747
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
It just doesn’t seem like from a resident’s point, I don’t see what’s going on behind the
scenes, you guys are working at it.
Councilman Sanford- Good point.
Mr. Weidman- But we need to correct some of the major bottle necks and then I don’t think
that additional density is going to be such a big issue.
Councilman Boor- I think we have to take our hats off to you, the Queensbury Planning
Board, and I say that because of what’s going on probably seven years worth of
negotiations, working with the Great Escape and by any standard they had done a great job
of mitigating traffic. They are a private industry that brings in the very thing that you
commented earlier on, people from out of the area that are here. Not necessarily even
residence. They’ve put an overpass in, they put hundreds of thousands dollars into a light at
the corner of Glen Lake and Route 9. So it’s not inconceivable or inappropriate or
uncommon in many areas for private industries to help pay for the impacts that they cause
on communities. I think the Great Escape has done a wonderful job. Granted there was a
little teeth pulling and stuff, but working with the Planning Board it provides an excellent
example of how the taxpayers were spared a considerable cost. I think anybody knows now
that it’s a better situation as far as traffic flow on Route 9. It moves more quickly and I
believe it is a safer situation for the hundreds of thousands of guests that go to that facility
every year; which is good for Queensbury. It increases our tax base. Private industry does do
that and I think they set a good example of that.
Mr. Weidman- Just one final comment along that line. It seems as though the developers
and contractors kind of get blamed for the traffic situation that we have today. I’m just
trying to make the comment that it’s not all our fault and there are a lot of other factors and
we are moving towards correcting some of those problems recently and I’m glad to see that.
A couple of other things that I wanted to just make a point is some of the economic impacts
of what is being proposed here. Certainly, with larger parcels we’re adding to the cost of the
average home. We are already at a very high level in Queensbury, if we keep adding costs to
the homes that we’re building who will be able to live here? Again, we say affordable
housing; I’m just looking at the “average Joe” housing. Will the “average Joe” be able to
live in Queensbury or be able to come to Queensbury to live here for whatever reason?
Councilman Sanford- Just a quick comment on that because I do appreciate it and the other
individual from your organization spoke about affordable housing as well. I don’t think that
anybody disagrees with the point that housing is beyond the reach of many people living in
the area. There is a lot of things that can be done. One is to encourage, as your organization
suggests, lower priced housing. The other, which I think is perhaps something that I think is
neglected and I believe the plan is trying to encourage, is to provide better employment
opportunities and career opportunities for people who live in this area. I think that that is
probably the best solution if you can be successful in executing that kind of a strategy for
solving the affordable housing project. To have people that are making good incomes and
doing well within this area instead of working almost exclusively within the service
industry, not being able to make enough wages to support the housing. That has been
somewhat neglected I think for some time. I think that this Board at least is very much
aware of the need to bring in good, viable employment opportunities to the area.
Councilman Strough- Not only that, along with what your saying Richard to is we’re not,
we can’t solve everything. I build houses too, okay and plywood used to be $8 for a half
inch sheet and it was $55 a square foot to build a house, okay. Now what is it? Okay, now
it’s what, a $110, $120?
Councilman Boor- More than that.
Mr. Weidman- More than that
Councilman Strough- Okay, look at the price of materials since Katrina. But the income
levels of the average wage earner haven’t probably increased as fast as building supply
materials have. So it’s not our fault. Sometimes you can’t create affordable housing unless
somebody is willing to subsidize the price of materials and make it more affordable.
748
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
Mr. Weidman- But by making parcels larger we are in fact increasing the cost of every
house that’s built, whether it be a lower income house or whether it be a multi-million dollar
mansion. Every time we’re adding to the accumulative problem. Material cost are going to
go up and down. They went up severely, they are fortunately right now coming back down
and they may come back to a more reasonable level some time in the near future. Once you
establish acreage size limits that’s permanent, it’s done. You no longer can go back to a one
acre or a half acre whatever. So you’re making a permanent additional cost to every house,
or every home that would be built in Queensbury. I understand what you are trying to do;
you are trying to preserve portions of the Town that are still available. I’m sure that there is
a way that it can be done. I’m not convinced that making people, requiring people to live on
a two acre parcel or a ten acre parcel is the way to do it.
Councilman Strough- Lets keep this in perspective too. I mean are we down playing
density? Maybe in some areas where the water table is at the surface or a foot from the
surface and the soils are the silty kind and it’s just not good for building high density
housing on. We also got a Main Street redevelopment program that will allow higher
density. I just spoke about South Queensbury, actually East Queensbury allowing higher
density multi-story. The infrastructure is there, okay, you’ve got water and sewer in both
locations. So that is where you want to encourage your dense development where it is most
likely to have it. You have the street and everything else. So to say something that’s all
prevailing that we got watch our density, yeah we do have to watch our density. Do we have
to allow high density in areas that will not accommodate high density? No we can’t and I
think you will agree with that.
Mr. Weidman- No, I do agree with that. There are areas where you don’t want a house on
every half acre because especially without sewer systems. But that is not also saying that we
need to have two acres for everybody. If this same philosophy was put into play ten years
ago would we be where we are today? Queensbury has become a successful as it is because
of its growth. Because of its growth, people want to come here and establish their businesses
here because we have growth. I believe that when a business is looking at an area where
they might desire to locate themselves, one of the first things they look at is what is the
growth of the community and if the community is going down or is stagnant they don’t
really want to go there. They want to go to communities that are growing and show a growth
pattern because there is future potential for them. My concern is that Queensbury seems to
be heading leveling off or potentially even dropping off. Will we be as desirable ten, twenty
years from now as we are now?
Councilman Boor- Are you referring to housing or industrial and commercial when you say
dropping off?
Mr. Weidman- In housing. One of the other factors that a major business will be looking at
when they are coming to a community is where will our people live? Where will they be
able to live? Is there places near by for them to live or do they have to travel, twenty, thirty
miles in order to find a place to live. I think that’s another important factor that they look at.
We do have growth coming our way from down at Malta; we do know that that is going to
affect our area. So, something that I just think that we need to continue to look at. I didn’t
come here to tie up a lot of your time but I just had a couple other things that I wanted to
make mention of. Less development means less jobs. I have a job because there is a place
for me to build homes in Queensbury. Without that I have to elsewhere; which is primarily
where I’m at right now because we have such limited places to build in Queensbury. We are
going else where to build out homes. So that mean that I employ are going else where also.
And what happens down the road if it becomes very difficult for me to make a living in
Queensbury I’m going to go somewhere else where there is potential for me to grow. Those
jobs will go with me. There are several economic factors that are related to the housing
industry that are being affected by what you’re doing or what you are planning to do.
Councilman Sanford- Something that hasn’t been mentioned tonight and I think it is
important to keep in mind too is the taxes that people pay that live in Queensbury. I don’t
know if you are aware of it but residential housing does not support itself. In other words the
dollar you pay as a taxpayer for your property taxes and what have you is really not going to
support what it takes for the governments and the infrastructure to basically maintain that
749
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
property; increasingly so in the lower income housing. So if you build a whole lot of houses
on half acre lots you are going to incrementally cause a tax increase. If you build higher end
housing it will neutralize that. I’m talking about things like the burden on the schools, you
name it the plowing the roads, all this stuff. The argument that has been made by many on
this Board is that if we shifted and encouraged more employment opportunity types of
constructions projects like manufacturing, that kind of a thing. It would be better for the
taxpayers of the community rather than to continue this encouraging of building residential
housing and continue to build out that way. You need to have an appreciation for that as
well because the numbers are there and the studies have been done. Residential housing
costs leads to higher taxes.
Councilman Strough- Well I think to supplement what you are saying Richard, you are
talking about the COCS kinds of community services. The average household, residence,
cost the community between $1.29 and $1.50 for every dollar that they put in for taxes. In
other words, for every house that goes in there is an average of $0.29 to $0.50 deficit. Well
that’s balanced by you commercial and industrial development, where there on the average,
I forgot the spread, but the average was $0.39. All they demand from us, the community, is
$0.39 in services for every dollar they put in. So, you know, I’m not advocating one or the
other but it is important that you have a balance of commercial and industrial and residential
in creating a tax situation that is for favorable for the average tax payer. You have to have a
balance zoning, you have to have a balanced community. So balance is important, I think
you’ll agree.
Mr. Weidman- I’ve heard that argument before and I’ve lived in Queensbury for almost
thirty years now. I know that my taxes have stayed very stable. We have an excellent tax
base. We’ve had huge residential growth. My feeling is that if your theory is correct, why if
we have such a huge increase in residential construction over the last ten years why has that
not negatively affected the taxes?
Councilman Sanford- You’re saying your school taxes have stayed stable over the last ten
years?
Mr. Weidman- Our school taxes
Councilman Sanford- Check your school tax records.
Mr. Weidman- I urge you to check the school taxes of other communities around us and see
how we compare. We are far, far less than most other communities around us.
Councilman Boor- And that is because we have a tremendous commercial base. You take
the other side of the river where the paper companies aren’t there anymore, where GE isn’t
there anymore and what they’ve been left with is a lot of infrastructure and a lot of
residential but no tax generation and that’s why if you go over that other county line you’ll
see your taxes are right through the roof because they don’t have the commercial, the
industrial component that Queensbury has. As far as Warren County goes, Queensbury is a
wonderful place and it’s because of the retail, it’s because of the tax generation. It’s not
because we have a lot of houses. It’s because we generate taxes, we don’t even have a local
Town tax. I don’t know of many communities that can say that.
Councilman Strough- And when I go door to door, as I did 2,300 door last election cycle,
you know how many times I heard “what can you do to reduce my taxes”?
Mr. Weidman- That’s correct.
Councilman Strougth- Yeah
Mr. Weidman- I’m the advocate that slowing growth means more taxes, and that’s just my
theory.
Councilman Strough- I don’t think it’s fast or slow, it’s balanced balanced growth.
750
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
Mr. Weidman- We need a balance. I kind of think that we are swinging beyond a balance
here, that’s just my opinion. One last thing that I would like to comment about is the parks
and green space theory to your plan. If you are advocating that 50% of a parcel be put aside
for green space and park space or whatever you want to call it and maintain that that
property be accessible to the public. I have a problem with that. If I’m living in a community
and there’s a hundred acres of vacant space around me I don’t want anybody and everybody
coming on that property because it’s considered public. That means that anybody can come
on that property. Who’s to say where the barrier is, where your property stops and that green
space starts. So that means you could have people wandering around your back yard that
you don’t want to have there. So I would much rather see the Town just say we need five
acre zoning period, that will give you the green space. It will be permanent once it’s zoned
five acres its permanent. You can’t do anything with that five acre parcel. I just don’t like
the idea of having public access to residential area. I just think that lead to some real
problems. Even if, I’ve lived in subdivisions, homeowners associations, who have common
property and my property backed up to that space. So that meant that anybody could
basically come up on my property. They don’t know where my property stopped and
started. I’m just, I would much rather just say you need to have X number of acres or
whatever and forget this. What you are trying to do is just preserve some green space, I
understand that. But, I would rather see you do it in a different way.
Councilman Strough- Well I think what they are doing is offering developers an option that
I think many developers would find lucrative. I mean, you take a parcel of property and you
could put fifteen houses on it and basically use the whole parcel. Or plan B: we’ll allow you
to squeeze those fifteen houses into smaller lots, that’s going to cost you a lot less money for
road, it’s going to cost you a lot less money in infrastructure, and it’s going to increase the
density of your housing. So you will have the same number of houses, and a matter of fact,
maybe a density bonus for doing this, in the meantime you will leave that green space. Now
whether that green space is publicly accessible or not that’s another discussion. We can
discuss that, I don’t think anything is written in stone here. The concept is that conservation
zoning can be just as viable of an economic product for a developer.
Mr. Weidman- I understand your viewpoint from a developer’s stand point. I’m trying to
make a point from the homeowners stand point. The people that you are going to sell that
piece of property to. You’re going to sell them a two acre parcel and they are going to have
this vacant space behind them that anybody can have access to. That’s my concern.
Councilman Strough- And some people prefer that. You’re saying don’t exclude those
options.
Mr. Weidman- Yup. I thank you for your time.
Supervisor Stec- Thank you sir.
Mr. Weidman- Keep up the good work.
Supervisor Stec- Thank you. Anybody else this evening, on this public hearing? Yes, Mr.
Kruger.
Don Kruger- I live in Glen Lake. I think I agree with Mr. Sanford. It’s kind of a hard line but
housing actually does cost the Town money. My office is next to John Burke apartments.
You want to see density go over and look at that. In the last ten years I could write in the
encyclopedia about what that density has cost the taxpayer in this area. There isn’t a day of
the week you don’t see the police there, on and on and on and on and on. That’s another
thing, basically what I wanted to talk to you was about the light industrial. I see you got the
purple splotches on the map there and that’s wonderful. But, my question is how flexible are
you going to be on that?
Councilman Strough- Don you are looking at me, this is the first time I’ve ever seen that
map in my life.
Councilman Boor- We haven’t seen this ahead of time, just so you know, okay.
751
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
Mr. Kruger- Okay because I have light industrial land as you know and I have a thing there
that we are trying to get the zoning changed on it. If you tell me that, hey Don, you’re in a
purple area, live with it. I can’t live with it because you can’t light industrial to build big
metal can buildings in Queensbury really doesn’t work. That sounds strange but if you go, if
you’re industrial developer and you go down to Johnstown, Montgomery or Fulton County
whatever it is, they will pay you to put a building up there. They will put a DMZ where
there is a tax free zone. I poured a concrete strip, it was sixteen foot wide and a thousand
feet long and they put containers on there. When your container that came from China that
sits on that DMZ its tax free. We don’t have that in Queensbury. You can’t compete with
that. Look around at some of the buildings you’ve got over in your area. You’ve got their
northern industrial development. So that proves subdivisions from 1988 then. Jeff Schwartz
has been over there trying to build, he’s got thirty thousand feet, he’s allowed to build forty-
two thousand feet more. He’s tearing his hair trying to get an approved building on an
approved lot because he’s just stonewalled. Somewhere in the bowels of the building over
here, between Planning and developing and building, he can’t get anything straight. As a
matter of fact Dan, I think he even told you he wanted to move to California, right.
Supervisor Stec- I think so.
Mr. Kruger- I could become very real. It’s very difficult to build large industrial buildings,
our commercial base is wonderful. But make no doubt about it, our industrial base isn’t
there. Between our costs and our high electric bills and our lack of incentives, we can’t
compete with some other areas. I’m not promulgating moving to Johnstown, don’t
misinterpret me, but I’m saying that if you are going to build a big metal building, you can
do far better in some of those areas where they are begging you to go there. You go down to
… they would do anything the world to get you to move there.
Councilman Strough- Well it has been mentioned several times tonight Don, that if Luther
Forest takes off the Nano Technology Park between exits 11 and 12, we are in their first fear
of influence. That means that all the secondary industrial growth that occurs, another words
the industries that feed the primary industry the Nano Technology Industry, the chip making
industry are going to be locating, desiring to locate here. One of the reasons is obvious,
we’re right next to the Northway. Carey Park, the park you are referring to, I don’t think is
going to have those problems. Could we accommodate people who want to expand in that
park in a little bit better manner, make it shovel ready? We could work on that.
Mr. Kruger- Well, I’ve tried for twelve years to market my property as light industrial with
absolutely zero results. I just want to know how flexible we are going to be on it and if there
is a chance I can get a mixed use there so we can put something useful on that property.
Councilman Brewer- This Town Board Member, yes Don. This is a draft, it was a plan put
together by eight or nine or ten different people. We have to have a starting point and that’s
the way I’m looking at it.
Mr. Kruger- John, I’m an optimist too and I hope the Nano Park does go through.
Councilman Strough- Well, so do we.
Mr. Kruger- But it hasn’t happened yet, hopefully it will.
Councilman Boor- Don, just so it’s clear, are you, I follow exactly what you are saying with
respect to the competitive nature of different areas and the incentives they might hold, but
you are not suggesting that we get rid of light industrial zoning are you?
Mr. Kruger- No, I’m asking you how flexible you are going to be on it.
Councilman Boor- Okay
Mr. Kruger- In my case, my property is right next to the UPS along the Northway there. So I
go from Big Boom Road to the interstate. There is a visibility factor there. My opinion,
chain motel would do a whole lot more revenue for the Town than a big metal building that
I can only rent out for paper storage if the paper mill still exists. Plus I’ve got to compete
752
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
now with the City of Glens Falls who has their park down the street and their going to have
some incentives there. I don’t have incentives other than visibility, and light industrial does
not need visibility from the interstate, mixed use does.
Councilman Strough- I think from the discussions I’ve heard and have been party to, I think
the form of industrial zoning that you are going to see come out of this, I hope is more
accommodating to you. Is more open and allows more flexibility for example. Some of the
things just don’t seem to make sense. If it was somebody who manufactured a product and
he wanted to have a showroom and sell his product, he wasn’t allowed to; you are not
allowed retail sales. Well, if the primary industry is manufacturing and secondary almost
incidental part of that is retailing, why shouldn’t we allow it. So I think there is a discussion
of allowing a more flexible industrial zoning. So that might be more accommodating to you
and others like you.
Mr. Kruger- My questions was on the flexibility.
Councilman Strough- Yeah.
Mr. Kruger- I just don’t want to be stuck in a purple area if I don’t have to be.
Councilman Boor- We can change the color.
Supervisor Stec- So long as it’s not too purple right. You don’t want it to be too purple.
Mr. Kruger- Thank you gentleman.
Supervisor Stec- You’re welcome. Anybody else this evening? Dr. Hoffman.
Mark Hoffman- Fox Hollow Lane. Just wanted to emphasize a few point and maybe
respond to a couple of comments that were made. I wanted to just emphasize and I’ve said it
before but it never hurts to repeat things. I happen to be one that believes that maintaining
and creating public open space at this point in time in the Town of Queensbury is extremely
important now than ever because this is going to be our last opportunity. If we wait until
every last bit of Queensbury is built out there will be no opportunities left. One of the
reasons perhaps why there hasn’t been a strong push for public open space, such as park
land other types of protected open spaces is that we’ve always had a huge abundance of
private open space that people could make use of . But that’s progressively disappearing. So
this will be the last opportunity that we can set areas aside for the enjoyment of the
community to create a more esthetically appealing community, a more healthy community
for our children, some place they can go and play instead of spending their days in the
basement on video games. The comment was made, “why do we need so much space for
these pocket parks that are only going to have a few park benches”. I happen to agree with
that and I think that the mention in the draft plan about pocket parks should be modified to
indicate that we’re not necessarily limiting parks in the higher density residential areas to
small parks but there may be areas where larger recreation opportunities can be used also.
The comment was made about people being concerned that publicly available open space
adjacent to their property will result in people trespassing and so forth. I suppose that is a
possibility, it’s a possibility right now without. People trespass all the time, I don’t think that
necessarily having, in fact, it may reduce the amount of trespassing if you have designated
open spaces that the public can use. Furthermore, in terms of the property value, my
experience just looking around Town the most valuable properties are those that are adjacent
to public parks. If you go to Crandall Park, you know the streets that are adjacent to that
have the most valuable houses. I think you will find that any community that you go to the
availability of public open space enhances the value of the property. I wanted to, I don’t
want to be negative about this plan because there has been some negativity already and I
want to keep it positive, but I do think there does need to be a little bit more thought about
these mixed use areas. I think that, I think that it is being worked through and some
modifications may be forthcoming. But, first of all, we need to look at the impacts and we
need to ask if we’re, as this plan seems to imply, every single commercial area, current
commercial area is going to be converted to mixed use then it seems to me we are going to
have a net decrease in commercial activity in the Town; which means we are going to have a
net decrease in tax generating properties. Now that, there are probably ways of getting
753
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
around that, but nevertheless, it seems that at least some of properties, some areas need to be
designated as more traditional commercial type properties. Certain types of commercial
activities are just not going to be compatible with mixed use. I would not want to live
upstairs from an automobile showroom or upstairs from a garage or a car wash or an
amusement park. So we need to look at the reality that there are certain types of businesses
that we should continue to have in town that are prospering and functioning and paying
taxes and we need to have some sort of accommodation for them. And by the same token,
when we do create mixed use areas, we want to make sure those areas are really designed to
be friendly to residences; which generally I would think means lower intensity types of
businesses that generate less traffic, that are smaller that generate less noise and so forth. So
I think maybe we need to look a little more careful at the mixed use issues. I also just
wanted to comments that I think that it has been stated that this map is just a basic outline
and that the zoning map will be more detailed. So far from what I’ve seen preliminarily I’m
not seeing that there’s a whole lot more thought going into the preliminary’s on the zoning
map than what went into this. I think this is very much broad brush and before we start
rezoning certain areas we need to look at the old zoning and ask the question why was it
zoned the way it was zoned? Even if it means going property by property is there a reason
why it was zoned the way it was zoned and are we sure we want to change that. For
example, there has been a lot of talk about making properties less dense in the newer zoning.
I would just comment, at this point, that the decrease in the density to some of the rural
residential going to ten acre, in reality if the conservation zoning has followed is still going
to be five acre zoning so it is really not that drastic of a change. There are areas for example
just for tonight the first time tonight I looked at the old zoning map and this plan and one of
the drafts of the new zoning map there are areas around Glen Lake, which previously was
zoned three acres. If we go by this plan here, which would make that whole area moderate
density at two acres it will drop down to two acres and potentially even one acre depending
on availability of sewer. We have to look at those areas not immediately on Glen Lake, but
near Glen Lake. A lot of it has hilly terrain and other resources and water and so forth and
ask the question is it appropriate to rezone that area and that’s just one example. This map
also it pushes the commercial zoning the highway commercial or high intensity commercial
zoning a little bit over to the west side of the Northway on Aviation Road, which it slightly
does now, but expands that a little bit more. Do we really want that given the traffic
problems that we have in front of the school right now? Again, it’s just some things that
need to be thought through more carefully I think. Also, looking at this map it gives the
impression that this new Bay Road zone is going to be very thin and just run along the Bay
Road Corridor. It appears to me that it is basically unless its changed that the new Bay Road
zoning that’s being talked about will basically be more or less the same area that is
encompassed by the Professional Zone, which it a much wider swath of land then what
seems to be depicted on that map there regarding Bay Road. I have to say, I apologize I
only got through the forty pages of Mr. Strough’s work.
Councilman Strough-It not meant to be read….
Mr. Hoffman-I can see that it wasn’t completed even though it is a hundred eighty pages. It
is preliminary I just wanted to make a couple of comments about that. Obviously it needs to
be kind of integrated into what is currently there and make sure that everything is consistent.
I kind of skimmed through some of the history and so forth because there is so much time in
a day. The vision and some of the zoning recommendations look seem very appropriate.
There were a few recurring things that were brought out in that especially I wasn’t sure with
regard to the seventy five foot right-a-way on each side of the major roads in Town that
seemed rather large amount of ….
Councilman Strough-That’s already in place.
Mr. Hoffman-What exactly does that mean?
Councilman Strough-A building for example Bay Road. You see how the buildings are set
back from Bay Road.
Mr. Hoffman-Not seventy five feet.
754
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
Councilman Strough-Yeah they are. The ones that are going up now not the preexisting
ones.
Mr. Hoffman-The news one. On Route 9 for example you would want a seventy five foot…
Councilman Strough-I also have a supplement called professional office you talk about that
zone. I say you can’t take one type of zoning and it doesn’t apply not in this Town to all
areas each one has its own character each has its own needs. If you want professional
offices and sometimes you are going to take that zoning type and describe it. I offered three
types of professional offices Type A, Type B, Type C, depending on what environment it’s
in. That again is just a draft and it is just a suggestion it hasn’t been incorporated into this
plan. They are using a Bay Road mix use okay rather than a professional office. I don’t
know what we are going to end up with, but the seventy five setback is what you referred to
already preexists.
Mr. Hoffman- I just want to respond to a few of the I certainly have no complaints about any
of the statements that were made in regard to promoting economic activity and industrial
growth and so forth. I do have a little bit of problem with some of the points that were made
with regards to residential development. I think you already answered some of the issues
and I’ve touched on it briefly. In terms of affordability it seems like I’m not sure that there
is really a coherent statement from the critics in the crowd that are talking from the
homebuilder’s perspective. On one hand we are saying we want affordability, but on the
other hand we are saying we don’t want conservation zoning, we don’t want clustering, we
want to have the five acre zoning, which is going to be much more expensive to build and is
going to result in bigger homes. It doesn’t seem like there is a coherent rationale behind
saying on the one hand you want affordability and on the other hand you are opposed to
clustering and conservation zoning. Also the comment was made that apartments aren’t the
answer. Maybe they are not the whole answer, but you know that is certainly affordable
housing to the extent that it exists. I also would agree that a lot of the issues with
affordability are well beyond the ability of this board to solve. They have to do with
national economic trends, income tax policy, build costs, energy costs; they have to do with
the desirability of our community. The more desirable our community the higher the costs
are going to be so you are not going to solve all those problems just by changing the zoning.
In terms of whether conservation zoning is a land grab whether it goes to a Homeowners
Association or it goes to the Town it’s the homeowners that are benefiting it’s to their
benefit really for the Town to take it because it takes the responsiliblity off from them. If
they rather have a Homeowners Association that’s fine, but I don’t see it as a land grab by
the Town. I think it’s a question of trying to make what opportunity remains for us in that
the little remaining developable property to try to do the best possible job we can to make
those development opportunities as desirable for the future residents as desirable for the
Town itself as economically viable as possible. I don’t think that conservation zoning
constituents’ a land grab it is certainly a method of zoning that’s been adopted by many
forward looking communities around the country and I see no reason for us not to proceed
with that. I also want to echo the issue about affordability and taxes. Taxes have a lot to do
with affordability, certainly as much as the cost of housing and to the extent that we don’t
over build and put stresses on our school system on our road, on our other public services
that require higher taxes. We’ll be doing a lot to promote affordability. In terms of whether
it’s appropriate for a developer to put trails in his property or connectivity with other
neighborhoods, I guess you could say the same that is it appropriate for a developer to put a
road in his development. I mean, its just something that’s necessary to build a good
development and for a pedestrian to be able to safely access other neighborhoods or for a
child to be able to get safely to school without going on a major road, that certainly is
important as building a road or putting in some other type of infrastructure. So I’ll stop at
that, thank you.
Supervisor Stec- Thank you doctor. Anybody else this evening on this public hearing?
Kathleen Sonnabend- 55 Cedar Court. A number of comments. I’d like to see Queensbury
grow smartly not fast. I grew up in a community just south of San Francisco in the 50’s
when it was growing very quickly. It was a desirable place because of its location but it
didn’t turn out to be a very attractive community. In fact, they carved a lot of houses into the
coastal mountains. Some of those houses have been threatened since then by significant mud
755
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
slides. As our environment changes I hope nobodies considering allowing development on
the steep slopes and I think it’s wonderful that we have the vistas of the mountains without
seeing a lot of houses peeking through there. I definitely agree that we don’t want to give up
our light and industrial and professional office zoning because as already been stated, homes
cost a lot more than they contribute in terms of taxes and our school system just can’t afford
to have that many new homes built in this area. Even seven thousand new units sounds like
quite a strain. And if our current campus can’t accommodate it then we are going to be
seeing another school or series of schools built elsewhere; which is going to be very, very
expensive and increase taxes. The conservation zoning or clustering concept is a tremendous
concept and where it’s been used in different parts of the country where it’s been done well
the value is actually higher. The developers have made more money off it and the people
living there have enjoyed and increase in their property values. There’s one area not to far
from my family lives, in the suburbs of Chicago, that has taken this approach and it’s a very
affluent area because people wanted to live in that kind of environment. As far as affordable
housing is concerned, I agree that we need to try to attract more good jobs instead of the low
paying retail jobs like the Wal-Mart jobs. But we could also look at the housing stock on a
regional base, Hudson Falls, Glens Falls. There’s lots of communities not to far away where
public transportation or a short commute will allow people to still work here and find homes
that they can afford. I don’t mean to be elitist about it but I think we have to consider that
too in the equation. Someone mentioned earlier if it’s at all possible to take more of a
regional planning approach to this we would probably see a much more successful result for
ourselves and our neighboring communities. I am concerned about what is going on with
Bay Road and I don’t quite understand what the current position is and maybe it hasn’t been
firmed up but that whole corridor was envisioned as a professional office zone and that’s the
way it’s been developed very successfully. If we are going to go to mixed use; which sounds
to me like it will include a lot of dense housing we got to think very hard about that corridor.
Already the traffic is quite significant. I understand that sidewalks do add cost but you need
sidewalks along roads like that or if you are going to have that much density. There has to
be a way for elderly people and kids to be able to get out and walk around. It would
certainly reduce the impact on traffic if we could safely get someplace on foot and it would
certainly be healthier too. It adds some costs to the community but it could reduce costs in
terms of the health care costs that we have to bear for people who don’t have healthy
lifestyles. When I lived in New York City everybody walked and you didn’t see many
overweight people. When I first moved up here I was really surprised, because I just
assumed since this was a rural area with lots of countryside around that people would be out
there walking around and enjoying it. Instead, you have to get in your car to go places
because it is so spread out or it’s too dangerous to be walking along the side of the road
when cars are going by at 50, 45, 50 miles and hour. So I would encourage sidewalks
especially in the mixed use areas that are being planned for South Queensbury because that
is one way of even if we have a dense enough situation it’s a good place for sidewalks. As
far as the more rural areas that are more spread out having a trail system would be
absolutely fabulous. I live in a community where it’s a townhouse community and we have
common area. Nobody complains about people intruding on the common area and it gives
us a nice vista. I would think it would be wonderful to have a trail system that would
connect my community with other communities around. As it is now we end up having to
go out on Bay Road; which is not that pleasant to walk on with the cars whizzing by so
quickly. Thank you.
Councilman Strough- And I think there is general agreement even amongst the developers
that the higher dense areas sidewalks are necessary. But in the moderate or lower dense
areas over in Europe the is a Dutch word I think its “woonerf” where they are using
techniques whereby some of the less dense areas are accommodation of pedestrian friendly
as well as vehicle friendly. They actually have designed them to be copasetic.
Ms. Sonnabend- That’s great.
Councilman Strough- So that is another thing we should look into.
Ms. Sonnabend- Yeah, I remember the first time I traveled in Europe
Councilman Brewer- I think we should take a trip over there and see how they work.
756
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
Mr. Strough- There you go.
Ms. Sonnabend- I remember the first time I traveled in Europe being very surprised at how
much open space there was because I heard about how popular those countries were. They
basically have done clustering from the beginning. The town or the villages were very dense
areas and the people would go out from there to work the fields around them and they’ve
kept it that way. There is a way of enjoying the Country in a nice more rural life but also
having the conveniences and the easy transportation of living in a dense center.
Councilman Strough- Well I’ll have to bring this article in and we’ll share it.
Ms. Sonnabend- Yeah, that would be great. Thank you.
Supervisor Stec- Mr. O’Connor.
Mike O’Connor- I reside at 546 Glen Street. I have a number of comments. I’m not sure of a
comment that was made. I took this copy off the web page last week and its dated draft
thth
September 19 but many of the pages go back to July 20 of 2006. Is that what you were
looking at at this time or were you looking at something else?
Stuart Baker- That is the current draft.
Supervisor Stec- That’s what I have in front of me.
Mr. O’Connor- Okay and these first twenty pages still apply?
Councilman Brewer- Yes.
th
Supervisor Stec- Yes, July 20.
Supervisor Stec- In that draft that’s correct yes.
Mr. O’Connor- Okay.
Councilman Brewer- You’re not going to comment on every page are you.
Mr. O’Connor- No, I’m not. I have some questions and I’ll put them out as comments or
questions, however you want to take them. I think, and maybe I feel that there is a sense
within this draft that you really don’t have any faith in your present rules or regulations. I
really think that your present rules and regulations are quite comprehensive as far as actual
planning. Densities are a different issue. I think that somebody else spoke about it earlier,
about the time or delay. You’ve got a good staff.
Supervisor Stec- Can we get that in writing. I’m just kidding.
Mr. O’Connor- I’ve said it at a number of meetings okay. I think you are going in the right
direction where you are trying to hire a town engineer. I think a lot of your Boards are very
troubled with engineering issues that maybe they shouldn’t have to be dealing with. They
should have on staff engineer that says yes or no. An on staff engineer that developers or
people that have property can communicate with and get a yes or no. I don’t think you will
find most developers actually argue with the engineering opinion when they come back to
them. The biggest problem we have is being able to get a concise opinion as to what should
be done or shouldn’t be done and they work it out. I come into a lot of meetings in this town
and other towns and advocate on behalf of applicants. I don’t try to argue the engineering
issues. I mean I shouldn’t be trying to do that. The engineers should resolve that probably a
long time before we get there. Most other communities they do. But a lot of our agenda time
is taken up because of engineering issues and I think it is a waste of the Town’s efforts, a
waste of Town Money. I think you would be well off in the long run, even from and
economic point of view, to have on staff engineer that you would accept and you would
have your Boards accept as their opinion. My comments are, I didn’t see anything in the
neighborhood residential planning area for density. So I don’t know what your proposed
density was or what they were suggesting was going to be the density in that particular zone.
757
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
You divided the Town into three residential zones. Beginning on page 14 on where you talk
about neighborhood residential I didn’t see that. I have a concern about all new construction
and major renovations in the neighborhood residential density area requiring sidewalks.
What’s the definition of a major renovation? I know that some of this is nuts and bolts as
opposed to the general concept of this. I think you’ve got to be aware of and careful that you
somehow define some of the terms that you use in here so that we can go forward and have
an understanding of it. Again, I think the goal here is to have a document that tells people
what they can do and what can’t do. Some of the terminology I have some problems with.
The pocket parks I also have a problem with. I look upon a pocket park as being just a silent
tax to small developments. If you are going to have a pocket park, you’re going to have a
homeowners association that has an annual expense that these people are going to have to
pay out of pocket. If you’re going to have pocket parks and that’s something that you desire,
that you think is desirable I think you ought to make a decision as to whether or not the
Town is going to be responsible for them and maintain them, either that or come up with
something where as opposed to those people paying at least at the initial part of it a
recreation fee that the pocket park stands in place of the recreation fees. Those people are
going to pay for that homeowners association forever and they are not cheap when people
have homeowners associations. Page 18, when you are talking about I think this is moderate
density or might even be neighborhood moderate density. You are talking about keeping
streets narrow and providing traffic bumps. That’s something that developers have always
tried to get approved and never have been able to get by your highway department. So
you’ve got to coordinate what your goal is here with what your street design rules and
regulations are. I think they’ve always talked about having problems with snow plowing and
what not. I think it’s a good goal and it would make the areas much more residential. But
they’ve never approved street bumps, at least not this highway superintendent that I’m
aware of and probably the last two highway superintendents that I’ve dealt with over the
years.
Councilman Strough- And there are other traffic calming things that we can do. There is a
whole list of traffic calming things that we can do, make the road curvy, don’t make it
straight.
Mr. O’Connor- Well, then you get the guy with plow that goes straight.
Councilman Strough- Yeah, but you don’t get the speeding cars.
Mr. O’Connor- I agree. But, somebody is going to take this as being the bible.
Councilman Brewer- No.
Mr. O’Connor- I’ve had past Comprehensive Plan, not this one necessarily, but whatever
you come up with is going to be the bible that we are going to follow. That is going to be the
justification for whatever comes forth. So I think you’ve go to be a little bit careful when
you adopt the bible whatever it is.
Councilman Strough- Well this is just a draft and we’re doing just what we are supposed to
do, talk about it.
Supervisor Stec- And this is just the New Testament.
Mr. O’Connor- Okay. I didn’t read the whole book, did you?
Supervisor Stec- You need to read the whole book.
Mr. O’Connor- Page 20, there you are talking about moderate density and you’ve got a
clause which I would think you would look at. It says all new residential subdivisions
should be required to be conservation subdivisions. I think there is a great merit in
conservation subdivisions but some of the subdivisions we have are fill-in subdivisions and
the parcels just don’t accommodate a conservation. When you use all new, I get worried that
that’s going to be the bible and somebody’s going to throw it out and say you’ve got to do a
conservation easement, or conservation subdivision even though the facts and circumstances
don’t fit that thing. The other thing is philosophical on the same page, and I think you have
758
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
to spell this out to people so that they fully understand it. When you talk about having goals
of 50% open space. My reading of this, you’re saying 50% of the developable land on the
site has to be devoted to open space. You say as stipulated in the current Town rules,
environmentally sensitive areas such as wetland or steep slopes will not be counted in the
projects density calculation; which is the present rule. You say at a minimum these open
space conservation areas should comprise 50% of the entire subdivision and be largely
contiguous. Now you are saying 50% of the entire subdivision or are you saying 50% of the
net; which would make a big difference.
Councilman Boor- I think the net but I don’t know.
Mr. O’Connor- Well I would suggest or offer that you ought to give some credit,
particularly on the slope plans towards the open space. If you’re going to preserve all the
slope land as open space they should have some credit for it under whatever formula you
adopt, whether it is 50%, 2/3 or whatever. Don’t simply write it off and say we’re not going
to count it. I think that is one of the goals is to try to preserve the hillsides and the steep
slopes. If I understood the rural residential, I get into where you’re talking, and I’m not sure
if I understand this at all I guess, you’re talking about two thirds of the property is
permanent open space?
Councilman Boor- What page are you one Mike?
Mr. O’Connor- Page 22. If you are talking, if you are in a three acre zone right now and you
had a fifty acre parcel you might have seventeen units or sixteen units. If you go to the five
acre calculation you obviously have ten, if you go to the ten acre you have ten units. Then if
you need to keep thirty three acres of it as open space, it sounds like you want those ten
units or five units on the seventeen acres that’s left. I don’t know if that formula works? So I
think you need to take a look at that and decide a formula that is easily understood and one
that works. You also use in that portion of the document multi-unit developments. I would
take that to mean you’re talking about multi-lot, this is not multi-family. A unit is usually
used in a sense of a multi-family and where that’s applicable. On page 32 you talk about the
goals in a waterfront residential zone and again I think I heard somebody say really what
you are going to do in the future is take an inventory. One of the things that’s bothersome
here, in waterfront residential zones you already limit height beyond what you do in normal
subdivisions; principle dwelling is twenty eight feet. You also limit the floor area ratio in a
waterfront residential zone that you don’t in a standard subdivision. I’m more familiar with
Glen Lake than others but you are talking about protecting a view of the Lake. I don’t think
there is a view of the Lake. The only place there is a view of the Lake from any public
property is by the Docksider. The rest of the configuration by land or whatever, there is no
back up land view of the Lake that you are talking about. That is kind of misleading to have
that stuck in there the way that it is stuck in there.
Councilman Boor- They might be referring to people, the public using the Lake.
Mr. O’Connor- There is a separate section on view from the Lake.
Councilman Boor- Okay.
Mr. O’Connor- And I had a problem with that because they talk about protecting the public
view from the Lake of clutter. They really don’t, they have no definition of clutter. Are big
houses clutter? That seems to be the inference.
Councilman Strough- I don’t, you know, I don’t know Mike.
Mr. O’Connor- Okay, I didn’t raise it
Councilman Strough- I mean, I think we’ve got to work at our Lakeside and CEA’s. I think
you will agree with this, the fund for Lake George, the Lake George Association and the
Lake George Conference all seem to be heading in the same direction on having some storm
water patrols and some visual recommendations; you know, and some vegetation
recommendations. For example, trying to get some natural vegetation in a band along the
759
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
Lake that if you are going to have your lawn have it a little bit away. There is all kinds of
things that we can look at and maybe incorporate into this.
Mr. O’Connor- You’re Planning Board has now determined that anything within the CEA is
a major storm water project and people that are making applications are complying with
that. That’s per the rules of the Lake George Association or Lake George Park Commission.
They also are already requiring people to put a natural buffer; they are not allowing anyone
who redevelops a lot to run their lawn right to the Lake or to the retaining wall.
Councilman Strough- And I haven’t heard too much screaming about that.
Mr. O’Connor- No, we’re doing that and this is not something that is created here.
Councilman Strough- No and I agree, that’s why I am suggesting it should be.
Mr. O’Connor- The other thing that which I have a problem with in the lake shore area is
page 36. I don’t have the full sentences, “to require some kind of septic system test at the
time properties and critical environmental areas are transferred from one owner to the
other”. So you should be defining what test you are talking about and you should be
defining about the consequences if the property doesn’t pass the test. I understand what you
are saying but I don’t know if what you have there works? I have a couple others but I”ll…
Page 51 you are talking about securing public access to the waterfront as owners change in
industrial areas. I think one of the good recommendations of this proposal is that you’ve
probably consolidate some of your industrial zone so that you have basically light industrial
and heavy industrial. Probably the majority of your river frontage is in a heavy industrial
zone. I don’t think public access works on those sites. You are talking about Ciba-Geigy or
you are talking about Lehigh Northeast. I’m not aware of other frontage that you have. But
that is very problematic to mix public access and that type of activity. I just have a problem
with that, I know it’s in there not necessary as something cast in stone, it’s a
recommendation but it’s something that may create some problems. I think in one of my
prior applications before one of the Boards, had made some recommendations even as to set
backs in the heavy industrial. That’s something, this is only what, ten percent of the story,
ninety percent of the story is the zoning regulations that you are going to adopt that come
behind this thing. The other comment which I would take exception to is page 58.
Somebody is saying that the Zoning Board needs to remember variances set precedent. Well
I don’t think they do set precedent. Variances are granted on an individual basis. That’s a
misstatement of fact, or misstatement of law. The other misstatement in here that says that,
and I’m not sure because I don’t know of all your densities, you didn’t have anything in
there for the neighborhood densities. But in the other two zones you have probably created
more non-conforming lots than conforming lots. You actually have created a requirement
for probably more variances than eliminated the need for variances with what you’re
proposing. This book in part is like a lawyer’s relief act. Everybody is going to be looking
for a variance. Average lot on Glen Lake is probably fifty to sixty feet width, probably two
hundred feet in depth. You are talking about two thousand square feet. You’re now going to
two acre zoning, there is only a small portion of Glen Lake on the frontage, or frontage on
Glen Lake that’s three acre zoning. It’s all one acre now; you’re now going from forty three
thousand square feet to eighty six thousand square feet for the average lot that’s twelve
thousand square feet. So you do need to do an inventory and I do think you do need to take a
look at different neighborhood and maybe you are going to treat them differently.
Councilman Strough- Well that’s what I suggest.
Mr. O’Connor- Okay, I would hardly endorse that. Is this a more complete set? This here?
Councilman Brewer-Yes
Mr. O’Connor- Can I take this
Supervisor Stec- Yes you may
Mr. O’Connor- Thank you very much for listening.
760
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
Supervisor Stec- You’re very welcome. Anybody else this evening on this public hearing.
Mr. Salvador.
John Salvador- I’m a resident of North Queensbury. I’d like to speak particularly to that
neighborhood. I think it’s kind of a step-child in this whole plan.
Councilman Boor- Which neighborhood John?
Mr. Salvador- Well we used to call it neighborhood one. It’s North Queensbury, lets say
north of the blue line.
Councilman Boor- Okay, okay, I didn’t know that, alright.
Mr. Salvador- Okay. I can’t tell you how many of these meetings I’ve come to on the coat
tails of Mike Brandt, speaking about the needs for mixed zoning. We definitely have this
need in North Queensbury. The whole shoreline of Lake George is zoned residential. There
are commercial activities going on and everybody has to exist as a non-conforming use.
This, I believe the residential zoning in a major portion of North Queensbury along the
shoreline where marina activity have existed from the beginning of time, long before zoning
in this Town. It has to exist as a non-conforming use. Where else would you locate it but on
the shoreline. It’s all zoned residential. We definitely have need for mixed use zoning of a
recreation nature and commercial. You’re talking about the need for light industrial; you
know a marina is nothing but a light industrial activity. Try to convince a Workmen’s Comp
Board that you’re not light industrial; you’re employees are not, that that’s a category they
would not want you in. Try to convince them. As I said the question arises should the
infrastructure precede the zoning or does the infrastructure follow the zoning. We have
residential zoning in North Queensbury to the point where we are approaching urban
densities. You see it in this project we spoke of earlier tonight, three tenths of an acre we’re
putting a three thousand square foot dwelling on it and it doesn’t include the garage, a
garage. That’s the kind densities we’re doing. We don’t have infrastructure, we don’t have
roads, we don’t have sewer, we don’t have water, we don’t have lighting, fundamental
residential zoning amenities. So which one drives the other? As long as we don’t have a
review process that is going to take a comprehensive look at these permit applications and
you see the failure of the system tonight, its like the three blind men feeling the elephant, the
ZBA looks at it one way, the Planning Board looks at it another way and you don’t really
have an understanding of what it is. So these are problems that are going to continue. This
holding tank we talked about is just the beginning. There are eighty five properties on that
peninsula, you watch them standing in line. How are we going to do this? What’s it going to
lead to? We have in this area along the shoreline; we have a lot of commercial activity that’s
going on. It ranges from Class A Marinas, Class B Marinas and transient rentals. Now
many, many of these dwellings in North Queensbury are being used for these, what I call
transient rentals. This is how I pay the taxes. First thing they’ll do and this applicant did the
same thing, a “u” shaped dock, they got a permit for a “u” shaped dock and you know what
that means three boats. How many boats does a homeowner need? So you are going to have
rentals there and these are sliding under the, they are not part of the review process. Again
commercial activity going on in a residential zone and its not being recognized, it’s not
being permitted, it’s not being properly permitted. We have one property in North
Queensbury that has thirteen, thirteen Class B Marinas on it. Now, how many Class B
Marinas together does it take to make a Class A Marina? The plan as I read it speaks about
APA, APA jurisdiction, APA land use planning and all and nary a word about the Lake
George Park Commission, nary a word. Your zoning ordinance requires special use permits
in accordance with 6NYCRR part 645 and 646. That’s the Park Commission Regulatory
Program not mentioned in the plan. This Town together with other political subdivisions of
the transportation department and the DOT have entered into memorandums of agreement
on road maintenance and nobody knows anything about it. It’s not talked about, it’s not
enforced. The Lake George Park Commission has a sign ordinance, how does it work with
ours? It takes precedent. They have storm water; they have a storm water model ordinance
which we have adopted. It’s only in recent months that this has come to the surface and is
being seriously considered. Mr. O’Connor mentioned the fact that now the Planning Board
is considering all storm water projects in the Critical Environmental Area to be major storm
water projects. The significant thing about a major storm water project is the plan must be
filed in the Warren County Clerk’s Office and become an encumbrance on the deed. I don’t
761
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
think people have gotten the message yet. This is a heavy, heavy burden. As far as
recreation opportunities, we should never forget that the Town owns over two acres of land
on beautiful Sandy Bay. There must be a way to provide a recreational opportunity, an
affordable recreation opportunity. I know, I hear it’s landlocked. No, it can be unlocked
because you have the powers of eminent domain. What better purpose than a park. The
green area at the top there is often referred to in the plan as wetlands, APA wetlands; never a
mention of the forest preserve. Those lands are in the forest preserve and you don’t need
zoning. There not forty two acre zoning there no kind of zoning. There not to be developed,
there not to be used, there not to be anything.
Councilman Strough- John, what you haven’t seen is part B.
Mr. Salvador- Pardon me?
Councilman Strough- What you haven’t seen is part B. The Lake George Forest, the Lake
George Park Commission, its all there.
Mr. Salvador- In B
Councilman Brewer- Yes
Councilman Strough- Yeah
Mr. Salvador- Okay
Councilman Brewer- Later to be released
Mr. Salvador-Okay, I’ll get to it. By the way, I might mention, be careful be of the band
who compliments you on the quality of your staff. It kind of reminds me of a guest of mine
complimenting me on the fact that I had a good bartender. I’d like to find out for myself that
I’ve got a good bartender. One thing I think we’ve got to come to consider in our planning
and zoning is a new land use category. I’ll refer to it, for a lack of a better term, as a luxury
vacation home. This is what in fact is springing up around the Lake. This is what in fact we
were talking about in the first public hearing tonight. It’s nothing more than a luxury
vacation home. It’s characteristic of people who are building it, who are non-resident here
and are not likely to ever become resident here. It is truly a luxury when you can pay two
and a half times the access value of a piece of property, an accessed value after reval., two
and a half times you pay for the property you pay to knock it down. That costs money and
you build a three thousand square foot dwelling that’s got to cost at least two hundred bucks
a square foot and you’re talking well over a million and a half bucks. That’s a luxury, that’s
not a residence. Their primary residence is someplace else and I think we’ve got to
distinguish between these two, both in our zoning and in our classification for tax purposes.
There’s talk, you read in papers, there’s talk about our legislatures trying to get our tax relief
for the natives, if you will, by taxing the transients more. Some recognition of the luxury
aspect of what these people are doing. I think it has to somehow brought into our planning,
our zoning and I think that might balance things a little bit. Don’t compare these people and
what they have put into their property with the fellow next door who may have the same size
lot the same water frontage, if you will, and tell him his property has that value. It’s only if
somebody comes along and recognizes it as a luxury and not a residence. So I think some
kind of distinguish, somehow we’ve got to distinguish between the person who is truly
resident, that’s where he lives, that’s where he votes from, that’s where he pays his taxes
from as opposed to the person who is just using it in a luxury sense. As far a terms, it’s
always extremely confusing and that’s why we got into this whole planning and ordinance
review. We got into it because there was so much discussion of definition of terms. In fact
that was one of the first activities the Board undertook. I think this can be simplied if you
just refer to the way the State of New York has defined all of these things we talk about,
there in the codes. All we got to do is refer to them. It’s quite clear what you call what. The
uniform building code of the State of New York has page after page of definition. All we
got to do is read it and adopt it. It’s done for us, we don’t have to invent our own dictionary
and that’s how we get so confusing. And the work is done for us. They have really when
you think about it, they have preempted this arena. You can’t change the State definition
with your own. You just can’t do it. So there was a comment made earlier about the
762
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
highway department requiring the roads to be a certain width, developers would rather have
them narrower. Developers can keep them narrower if they want to keep them private, but if
you got to turn them over to the taxpayer then they got to be a certain width, they got to be
built to a certain specification. But I would suggest that they keep them private. Keep the
cost down, but take care of them yourself don’t put them on the backs of the taxpayers. As
far as these mini-parks, homeowners association parks, once again, if the developer wants to
take this land and develop it in a certain and reek the advantages of it, by god, the set aside
land keep it private and make those people pay for its upkeep. Don’t put the burden on the
taxpayer in the Town. It’s a known fact that the government at all levels is a lousy protector
of the environment. You never have the time, you don’t have the money, you don’t have the
staff, all the excuses we hear. The private individual, it’ll take care of it. Thank you.
Supervisor Stec- Thank you Mr. Salvador. Anybody else this evening on this public
hearing? And again, it will be left open until our second meeting in November; we will
come back to it, we will also take written comment between now and whenever we close the
public hearing. Is there anyone else that would like to comment tonight on this public
hearing?
Councilman Strough- Well there is no law restricting us on when we close it.
Supervisor Stec- Correct.
Councilman Strough- So we could leave it open six months.
Supervisor Stec- Correct until we’re finished with it. But I figured we would come back and
advertise and take some more comment in November and see where we are then and either
continue it again or close it. But, is there anyone else. Okay then I’m going to leave this
public hearing and move to correspondence.
3.0 CORRESPONDENCE
Building and Codes monthly report September 2006
4.0 INTRODUCTIONS OF RESOLUTIONS FROM THE FLOOR
NONE
5.0 PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
John Salvador- Attended the public hearing for the Library budget suggested that the Board
should think twice before putting a budget on a ballot.
6.0 TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS
Councilman Strough-
?
Getting more and more feedback from his Emergency Services Vehicle Apparatus
Needs Assessment. This is to try and ensure that the Town Board does a thorough
and comprehensive analysis before making a decision concerning the purchases of
new apparatus. It is meant to factor regional mutual aid inventories into the
assessment, its meant to reduce emergency services costs or at least eliminate
unneeded costs and reduce the politics in the decision making process. Thanks all
the volunteers for that input.
Councilman Brewer-
?
Submitted to the Town Clerk a petition for a stop sign over on Garner and Caroline
Street to be talked about it at the workshop next week.
Councilman Sanford- None
Councilman Boor- None
763
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
Supervisor Stec-
?
Thanks Glens Falls National Bank and TV8 for sponsoring/televising the Town
Board Meetings.
?
The Town Website www.Queensbury.net – there is a lot of information on this
website
?
The Route 9 and 254 road project is moving right along. Today was another bad
traffic day today.
?
The County did vote to rescind our request of the State Legislature for home rule
legislation that would enable an authority; so that effectively killed the authority. All
the Queensbury Supervisors that were present voted to rescind. Understandably,
most of the Glens Falls Supervisors wanted to proceed because in the authority was
an awful lot of language that was very important to the financial situation of the
Civic Center.
7.0 RESOLUTIONS
TH
RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING OCTOBER 29, 2006 CHANGE YOUR
CLOCK, CHANGE YOUR BATTERY DAY IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
RESOLUTION NO. 476, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS
, each day an average of nearly three children die in home fires, and
WHEREAS
, eighty percent of fire deaths involving children occur in homes without
smoke detectors, and
WHEREAS,
by providing an early warning and critical extra seconds to escape, smoke
detectors double a family’s chances of getting out of a home fire alive but only if they
work.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED
, that the Queensbury Town Board, the Town of Queensbury Fire Marshal’s
Office along with the Bay Ridge, North Queensbury, Queensbury Central, South
Queensbury and West Glens Falls Fire Department wants to remind all Town of
Queensbury Citizens to change the batteries in their smoke detectors when they change
th
their clocks on October 29.
AND BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVEDOCTOBER 29, 2006
, the Town of Queensbury hereby proclaims
Change Your Clock, Change Your Battery”
As “day in the Town of Queensbury.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of October, 2006 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
764
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2006 BUDGET
RESOLUTION NO.: 477, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
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:
002-8810-2001 002-8810-4230 416.00
(Misc. Equip.) (Pur.-Water & Sewer)
002-8810-2001 002-8810-4410
1,800.00
(Misc. Equip.) (Fuel for vehicles)
Duly adopted this 16th day of October , 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PROMOTION OF KEVIN
MONETTE FROM LABORER TO WATER PLANT OPERATOR
TRAINEE AT TOWN WATER TREATMENT PLANT
RESOLUTION NO. 478, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
765
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury’s Water Superintendent and Civil Engineer
have recommended that the Town Board authorize the promotion of Kevin Monette from
Laborer to the existing, vacant position of Water Plant Operator Trainee at the Town’s
Water Treatment Plant as Mr. Monette was one of five eligible people from a list supplied
by the Warren County Department of Civil Service and he has the required job experience,
and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize the requested promotion,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the
promotion of Kevin Monette from Laborer to Water Plant Operator Trainee at the Town
th
Water Treatment Plant effective on or about September 11, 2006 at the rate of pay
specified in the Town’s CSEA Union Agreement for the position for the year 2006, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that in accordance with the Town’s Agreement with CSEA, such
promotion shall be subject to a 90 day trial (probationary) period, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town
Supervisor, Water Superintendent, Civil Engineer and/or Budget Officer to complete any
forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of October, 2006 by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PROMOTION OF KEVIN
MULCHAEY FROM LABORER TO WATER MAINTENANCE Man
II AT TOWN WATER DEPARTMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 479, 2006
766
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury’s Water Superintendent and Civil Engineer
have recommended that the Town Board authorize the promotion of Kevin Mulcahey from
Laborer to Water Maintenance Man II at the Town’s Water Department as Mr. Mulcahey
has passed the departmental test for the position, has the required job experience and will
rd
have met all requirements for the position as of October 3, 2006, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize the requested promotion,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the
promotion of Kevin Mulcahey from Laborer to Water Maintenance Man II at the Town
Water Department effective October 16, 2006 at the rate of pay specified in the Town’s
CSEA Union Agreement for the position for the year 2006, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town
Supervisor, Water Superintendent, Civil Engineer and/or Budget Officer to complete any
forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of October, 2006 by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 453.2006 ENTITLED
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF BARTON & LOGUIDICE,
P.C.., FOR PROVISION OF SEPTIC-RELATED DEEP HOLE AND
PERCOLATION TESTS
RESOLUTION NO. 480, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
767
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
RESOLVED
, that the third RESOLVED of said resolution be reworded as follows:
witnesses
RESOLVED, that after Barton each septic-related deep hole and percolation
test, Barton shall forward its findings to the Town Board for Town Board review and if
the Town Board is satisfied with such findings, then the Town board will notify and
authorize the Town’s Director of Building and Codes Enforcement to proceed with the
standard process for issuance of either a building permit or new septic system, or for
application and/or issuance of a septic variance, and
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of October, 2006 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF
STREET LIGHT ON THE CORNER OF
PEGGY ANN ROAD AND MCECHRON LANE
RESOLUTION NO.: 481, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to arrange for placement of a
street light on National Grid Power Corporation Pole #28 on Peggy Ann Road, at the corner
of Peggy Ann Road and McEchron Lane in the Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, such light would be located within the boundaries of the West
Queensbury Lighting District,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves installation of a
100 watt high pressure sodium lamp on National Grid Pole #28 on Peggy Ann Road, at the
corner of Peggy Ann Road and McEchron Lane in the Town of Queensbury with payment
for the lighting to be billed to the General Fund Account No.: 001-5182 4305,and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town
Supervisor’s Office to make all necessary installation arrangements with National Grid
768
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
Power Corporation and take any other action necessary to effectuate the terms of this
Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of October, 2006 by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT OF BIDS FOR A
STEEL METAL BUILDING AT THE LUZERNE ROAD TRANSFER
STATION
RESOLUTION NO.: 482, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Foreman for the Transfer Station Department
wishes to advertise for bids for the installation and purchase of a Steel Metal Building at the
Luzerne Road Transfer Station as specified in bid specifications to be prepared by the
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 Steel Metal Building
for the Town’s Luzerne Road Transfer Station 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 16 day of October , 2006, by the following vote:
769
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION APPROVING REVISION TO GRANT AWARD IN
CONNECTION WITH THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM IN
CONNECTION WITH THE NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
RENEWAL HOME PROGRAM
RESOLUTION NO.: 483, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford
, the Town of Queensbury has established a Housing Rehabilitation
WHEREAS
Program which provides grants up to 100% of the cost of rehabilitation, up to a maximum
of $20,000 per unit whichever is less, and
, a single family property Case File # has been determined to be
WHEREAS5401
eligible for rehabilitation grant assistance and the owner of the property has requested
such assistance, and
, the Town of Queensbury has approved a rehabilitation grant in the
WHEREAS
amount of , and
Nine thousand two hundred ninety dollars and no cents ($9,290.00)
, property rehabilitation specifications have been revised to include
WHEREAS
additional work, and
, the revised cost to complete the work specified is:
WHEREASNineteen thousand
and is still the lowest
eight hundred ninety five dollars and no cents ($19,895.00)
acceptable cost, and
, that the Town of Queensbury approves a grant for
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
Case File #, Queensbury, New York, in the amount not to exceed:
5401Nineteen
and authorizes and
thousand eight hundred ninety five dollars and no cents ($19,895.00)
directs either the Town Supervisor or Town of Queensbury Executive Director of
Community Development to execute a Grant Award Agreement and take such other
and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION APPROVING GRANT AWARD IN CONNECTION WITH
THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH
THE NEW YORK STATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CORPORATION
AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
RESOLUTION NO.: 484, 2006
770
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
, the Town of Queensbury has established a Housing Rehabilitation
WHEREAS
Program which provides grants to cover 100% of the cost of rehabilitation up to a
maximum of $20,000, whichever is less, and
, the Town has received grant funds from the New York State Affordable
WHEREAS
Housing Corporation Affordable Home Ownership Development (AHOD) Program to
cover 60% of eligible project costs with a maximum grant not to exceed $10,000, and
, a single family property Case File has been determined to be
WHEREAS#5423
eligible for rehabilitation grant assistance and the owner of the property has requested
such assistance, and
, property rehabilitation specifications have been provided to three (3)
WHEREAS
qualified contractors for bid, and
, the low bid cost to complete the work specified is
WHEREASSeventeen thousand
, and
eight hundred fifty dollars and no cents ($17,850.00)
, Shelter Planning & Development, Inc. has overseen the grant process
WHEREAS
and has verified that it has been followed in this case and recommends approving this
grant, and
, a lien will be filed against the property for the benefit of the Town for a
WHEREAS
period of five years from the completion of the rehabilitation,
, that the Town of Queensbury approves a AHOD Grant
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
for Case File , Queensbury, New York, in the amount not to exceed:
#5423Ten thousand
and authorizes and directs either the Town Supervisor or
dollars and no cents ($10,000.00)
Town of Queensbury Executive Director of Community Development to execute a Grant
Award Agreement and take such other and further action as may be necessary to
effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October2006, by the following vote:
,
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION APPROVING GRANT AWARD IN CONNECTION WITH
THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH
THE NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF SMALL CITIES
HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM
RESOLUTION NO.: 485, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford
, the Town of Queensbury has established a Housing Rehabilitation
WHEREAS
Program which provides grants to cover 100% of the cost of rehabilitation up to a
771
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
maximum of $20,000, whichever is less, and
, the Town has received grant funds from the New York State Governor’s
WHEREAS
Office for Small Cities Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) to cover of
eligible project costs, and
, a single family property Case File has been determined to be
WHEREAS#5423
eligible for rehabilitation grant assistance and the owner of the property has requested
such assistance, and
, property rehabilitation specifications have been provided to three (3)
WHEREAS
qualified contractors for bid, and
, the low bid cost to complete the work specified is
WHEREASSeventeen thousand
, and
eight hundred fifty dollars and no cents ($17,850.00)
, Shelter Planning & Development, Inc. has overseen the grant process
WHEREAS
and has verified that it has been followed in this case and recommends approving this
grant, and
, a lien will be filed against the property for the benefit of the Town for a
WHEREAS
period of five years from the completion of the rehabilitation,
, that the Town of Queensbury approves a CDBG Grant
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
for Case File , Queensbury, New York, in the amount not to exceed:
#5423Seven
and authorizes and directs
thousand eight hundred fifty dollars and no cents ($7,850.00)
either the Town Supervisor or Town of Queensbury Executive Director of Community
Development to execute a Grant Award Agreement and take such other and further
action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October2006, by the following vote:
,
AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION APPROVING GRANT AWARD IN CONNECTION WITH
THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH
THE NEW YORK STATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CORPORATION
AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
RESOLUTION NO.: 486, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
, the Town of Queensbury has established a Housing Rehabilitation
WHEREAS
Program which provides grants to cover 100% of the cost of rehabilitation up to a
maximum of $20,000, whichever is less, and
, the Town has received grant funds from the New York State Affordable
WHEREAS
Housing Corporation Affordable Home Ownership Development (AHOD) Program to
cover 60% of eligible project costs with a maximum grant not to exceed $10,000, and
, a single family property Case File has been determined to be
WHEREAS#5424
eligible for rehabilitation grant assistance and the owner of the property has requested
such assistance, and
, property rehabilitation specifications have been provided to three (3)
WHEREAS
qualified contractors for bid, and
772
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
, the low bid cost to complete the work specified is
WHEREASSeventeen thousand
, and
nine hundred ninety five dollars and no cents ($17,995.00)
, Shelter Planning & Development, Inc. has overseen the grant process
WHEREAS
and has verified that it has been followed in this case and recommends approving this
grant, and
, a lien will be filed against the property for the benefit of the Town for a
WHEREAS
period of five years from the completion of the rehabilitation,
, that the Town of Queensbury approves a AHOD Grant
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
for Case File , Queensbury, New York, in the amount not to exceed:
#5424 Ten thousand
and authorizes and directs either the Town Supervisor or
dollars and no cents ($10,000.00)
Town of Queensbury Executive Director of Community Development to execute a Grant
Award Agreement and take such other and further action as may be necessary to
effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October2006, by the following vote:
,
AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION APPROVING GRANT AWARD IN CONNECTION WITH
THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH
THE NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE FOR SMALL CITIES
HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM
RESOLUTION NO.: 487, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
, the Town of Queensbury has established a Housing Rehabilitation
WHEREAS
Program which provides grants to cover 100% of the cost of rehabilitation up to a
maximum of $20,000, whichever is less, and
, the Town has received grant funds from the New York State Governor’s
WHEREAS
Office for Small Cities Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) to cover
eligible project costs, and
, a single family property Case File has been determined to be
WHEREAS#5424
eligible for rehabilitation grant assistance and the owner of the property has requested
such assistance, and
, property rehabilitation specifications have been provided to three (3)
WHEREAS
qualified contractors for bid, and
, the low bid cost to complete the work specified is
WHEREASSeventeen thousand
, and
nine hundred ninety five dollars and no cents ($17,995.00)
, Shelter Planning & Development, Inc. has overseen the grant process
WHEREAS
and has verified that it has been followed in this case and recommends approving this
grant, and
, a lien will be filed against the property for the benefit of the Town for a
WHEREAS
period of five years from the completion of the rehabilitation,
773
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
, that the Town of Queensbury approves a CDBG Grant
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
for Case File , Queensbury, New York, in the amount not to exceed:
#5424Seven
and authorizes and
thousand nine hundred ninety five dollars and no cents ($7,995.00)
directs either the Town Supervisor or Town of Queensbury Executive Director of
Community Development to execute a Grant Award Agreement and take such other
and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
Duly adopted this 16 day of October, 2006, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION APPROVING GRANT AWARD IN CONNECTION WITH
THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH
THE NEW YORK STATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CORPORATION
AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
RESOLUTION NO.: 488, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
, the Town of Queensbury has established a Housing Rehabilitation
WHEREAS
Program which provides grants to cover 100% of the cost of rehabilitation up to a
maximum of $20,000, whichever is less, and
, the Town has received grant funds from the New York State Affordable
WHEREAS
Housing Corporation Affordable Home Ownership Development (AHOD) Program to
cover 60% of eligible project costs with a maximum grant not to exceed $10,000, and
, a single family property Case File has been determined to be
WHEREAS#5425
eligible for rehabilitation grant assistance and the owner of the property has requested
such assistance, and
, property rehabilitation specifications have been provided to three (3)
WHEREAS
qualified contractors for bid, and
, the low bid cost to complete the work specified is
WHEREASEleven thousand
, and
three hundred thirty five dollars and no cents ($11,335.00)
, Shelter Planning & Development, Inc. has overseen the grant process
WHEREAS
and has verified that it has been followed in this case and recommends approving this
grant, and
, a lien will be filed against the property for the benefit of the Town for a
WHEREAS
period of five years from the completion of the rehabilitation,
, that the Town of Queensbury approves a AHOD Grant
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
for Case File , Queensbury, New York, in the amount not to exceed:
#5425Six thousand
and authorizes and directs either the
eight hundred one dollars and no cents ($6,801.00)
Town Supervisor or Town of Queensbury Executive Director of Community Development
to execute a Grant Award Agreement and take such other and further action as may
be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
774
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
RESOLUTION APPROVING GRANT AWARD IN CONNECTION WITH
THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH
THE NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE FOR SMALL CITIES
HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM
RESOLUTION NO.: 489, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
, the Town of Queensbury has established a Housing Rehabilitation
WHEREAS
Program which provides grants to cover 100% of the cost of rehabilitation up to a
maximum of $20,000, whichever is less, and
, the Town has received grant funds from the New York State Governor’s
WHEREAS
Office for Small Cities Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) to cover of
eligible project costs, and
, a single family property Case File has been determined to be
WHEREAS#5425
eligible for rehabilitation grant assistance and the owner of the property has requested
such assistance, and
, property rehabilitation specifications have been provided to three (3)
WHEREAS
qualified contractors for bid, and
, the low bid cost to complete the work specified is
WHEREASEleven thousand
, and
three hundred thirty five dollars and no cents ($11,335.00)
, Shelter Planning & Development, Inc. has overseen the grant process
WHEREAS
and has verified that it has been followed in this case and recommends approving this
grant, and
, a lien will be filed against the property for the benefit of the Town for a
WHEREAS
period of five years from the completion of the rehabilitation,
, that the Town of Queensbury approves a CDBG Grant
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
for Case File , Queensbury, New York, in the amount not to exceed:
#5425Four thousand
and authorizes and directs either
five hundred thirty four dollars and no cents ($4,534.00)
the Town Supervisor or Town of Queensbury Executive Director of Community
Development to execute a Grant Award Agreement and take such other and further
action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION APPROVING GRANT AWARD IN CONNECTION WITH
THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH
THE NEW YORK STATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CORPORATION
AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
775
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
RESOLUTION NO.: 490, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
, the Town of Queensbury has established a Housing Rehabilitation
WHEREAS
Program which provides grants to cover 100% of the cost of rehabilitation up to a
maximum of $20,000, whichever is less, and
, the Town has received grant funds from the New York State Affordable
WHEREAS
Housing Corporation Affordable Home Ownership Development (AHOD) Program to
cover 60% of eligible project costs with a maximum grant not to exceed $10,000, and
, a single family property Case File has been determined to be
WHEREAS#5426
eligible for rehabilitation grant assistance and the owner of the property has requested
such assistance, and
, property rehabilitation specifications have been provided to three (3)
WHEREAS
qualified contractors for bid, and
, the low bid cost to complete the work specified is
WHEREASTwenty one thousand
, and
one hundred twenty five dollars and no cents ($21,125.00)
, Shelter Planning & Development, Inc. has overseen the grant process
WHEREAS
and has verified that it has been followed in this case and recommends approving this
grant, and
, a lien will be filed against the property for the benefit of the Town for a
WHEREAS
period of five years from the completion of the rehabilitation,
, that the Town of Queensbury approves a AHOD Grant
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
for Case File , Queensbury, New York, in the amount not to exceed:
#5426Ten thousand
and authorizes and directs either the Town Supervisor or
dollars and no cents ($10,000.00)
Town of Queensbury Executive Director of Community Development to execute a Grant
Award Agreement and take such other and further action as may be necessary to
effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION APPROVING GRANT AWARD IN CONNECTION WITH
THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH
THE NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE FOR SMALL CITIES
HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM
RESOLUTION NO.: 491, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
, the Town of Queensbury has established a Housing Rehabilitation
WHEREAS
Program which provides grants to cover 100% of the cost of rehabilitation up to a
776
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
maximum of $20,000, whichever is less, and
, the Town has received grant funds from the New York State Governor’s
WHEREAS
Office for Small Cities Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) to cover
eligible project costs, and
, a single family property Case File has been determined to be
WHEREAS#5426
eligible for rehabilitation grant assistance and the owner of the property has requested
such assistance, and
, property rehabilitation specifications have been provided to three (3)
WHEREAS
qualified contractors for bid, and
, the low bid cost to complete the work specified is
WHEREASTwenty one thousand
, and
one hundred twenty five dollars and no cents ($21,125.00)
, Shelter Planning & Development, Inc. has overseen the grant process
WHEREAS
and has verified that it has been followed in this case and recommends approving this
grant, and
, a lien will be filed against the property for the benefit of the Town for a
WHEREAS
period of five years from the completion of the rehabilitation,
, that the Town of Queensbury approves a CDBG Grant
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
for Case File , Queensbury, New York, in the amount not to exceed:
#5426Ten thousand
and authorizes and directs either the Town Supervisor or
dollars and no cents ($10,000.00)
Town of Queensbury Executive Director of Community Development to execute a Grant
Award Agreement and take such other and further action as may be necessary to
effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
Duly adopted this 16TH day of October, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION APPROVING GRANT AWARD IN CONNECTION WITH
THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH
THE NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE FOR SMALL CITIES
HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM
RESOLUTION NO.: 492, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
, the Town of Queensbury has established a Housing Rehabilitation
WHEREAS
Program which provides grants to cover 100% of the cost of rehabilitation up to a
maximum of $20,000, whichever is less, and
, the Town has received grant funds from the New York State Governor’s
WHEREAS
Office for Small Cities Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) to cover
eligible project costs, and
, a single family property Case File has been determined to be
WHEREAS#5433
eligible for rehabilitation grant assistance and the owner of the property has requested
such assistance, and
, property rehabilitation specifications have been provided to three (3)
WHEREAS
qualified contractors for bid, and
777
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
, the low bid cost to complete the work specified is
WHEREASSix thousand two
, and
hundred twenty five dollars and no cents ($6,225.00)
, Shelter Planning & Development, Inc. has overseen the grant process
WHEREAS
and has verified that it has been followed in this case and recommends approving this
grant, and
, a lien will be filed against the property for the benefit of the Town for a
WHEREAS
period of five years from the completion of the rehabilitation,
, that the Town of Queensbury approves a CDBG Grant
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
for Case File , Queensbury, New York, in the amount not to exceed:
#5433Six thousand
and authorizes and directs
two hundred twenty five dollars and no cents ($6,225.00)
either the Town Supervisor or Town of Queensbury Executive Director of Community
Development to execute a Grant Award Agreement and take such other and further
action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION APPROVING GRANT AWARD IN CONNECTION WITH
THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY HOUSING REHABILITATION
PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE NEW YORK STATE
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL HOME PROGRAM
RESOLUTION NO.: 493, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
, the Town of Queensbury has established a Housing Rehabilitation
WHEREAS
Program which provides grants to cover 100% of the cost of rehabilitation up to a
maximum of $20,000, whichever is less, and
, a single family property Case File has been determined to be
WHEREAS# 5346
eligible for rehabilitation grant assistance and the owner of the property has requested
such assistance, and
, property rehabilitation specifications have been provided to three (3)
WHEREAS
qualified contractors for bid, and
, the low bid cost to complete the work specified is
WHEREASEighteen thousand
, and
nine hundred dollars and no cents ($18,900.00)
, Shelter Planning & Development, Inc. has overseen the grant process
WHEREAS
and has verified that it has been followed in this case and recommends approving this
grant, and
, a lien will be filed against the property for the benefit of the Town for a
WHEREAS
period of five years from the completion of the rehabilitation,
, that the Town of Queensbury approves a grant for
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
Case File , Queensbury, New York, in the amount not to exceed:
#5346Eighteen thousand
and authorizes and directs either the
nine hundred dollars and no cents ($18,900.00)
Town Supervisor or Town of Queensbury Executive Director of Community Development
to execute a Grant Award Agreement and take such other and further action as may
778
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AWARDING BIDS FOR PURCHASE OF WATER
CONNECTION MATERIALS FOR USE BY
TOWN WATER DEPARTMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 494, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, the Town’s Purchasing Agent duly advertised for bids for the purchase
of water connection materials for use by the Town’s Water Department, and
WHEREAS, the Purchasing Agent and Water Superintendent have reviewed all
received bids and have made their bid award recommendations to the Town Board,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby awards the bids for the
purchase of water connection materials for use by the Town’s Water Department to the
lowest responsible bidders in each category and from the respective accounts as follows:
ITEM AND SUCCESSFUL BID ACCOUNT
SPECIFICATION NO. BIDDER AMOUNT TO FUND
PURCHASE
1. Copper Ferguson Waterworks $3,314.20 40-8340-
4320
2. Curb Boxes & Lids Ramsco $1,409.00 40-8340-4320
3. Hydrant Parts Ferguson Waterworks $1,739.55 40-8340-
2899
4. Brass Ferguson Waterworks $5,843.00 40-8340-
4320
5. Valves Vellano Bros., Inc. $2,597.00 40-8340-
2899
6. Cast/Ductile Fittings Blair Supply Corp. $ 2,130.70 40-8340-
2899
779
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Purchasing
Agent, Water 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 16 day of October, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BARTON & LOGUIDICE, P.C., TO
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES IN
CONNECTION WITH MAIN STREET INFRASTRUCTURE AND
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN – UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION AND MAIN STREET PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION
RESOLUTION NO.: 495, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, by previous Resolution(s), the Queensbury Town Board authorized
engagement of Barton & Loguidice, P.C. Consulting Engineers (Barton) for the provision of
engineering, planning and landscaping architecture services in connection with the proposed
Main Street Infrastructure and Redevelopment Plan, and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 140,2005, the Town Board authorized Barton to
provide additional engineering services and technical support in connection with the
Utility Undergrounding Plan and Main Street Plan implementation, and
WHEREAS, Barton has met with the Town Board concerning the need for Barton to
provide additional engineering services beyond the scope of services authorized by earlier
agreements and the Town Board deems it necessary for Barton to provide such additional
th
engineering services as delineated in a copy of Barton’s September 20, 2006 letter proposal
presented at this meeting,
780
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs
engagement of Barton & Loguidice, P.C. for the provision of the additional engineering
services in connection with the Utility Undergrounding Plan and Main Street Plan
implementation referenced in the preambles of this Resolution and as delineated in
th
Barton & Loguidice, P.C.’s September 20, 2006 letter proposal presented at this meeting,
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes an additional $25,000 for such
additional engineering services and assistance in implementing the utility undergrounding
and Main Street Project initiatives through the first quarter of 2007, and further
authorizes an additional $8,500 for continued coordination efforts for September –
December 2006, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes appropriations in the
amount not to exceed $33,500 for these engineering services and directs that payment for
such services be paid from the accounts 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 and/or Budget Officer to execute any documentation and take such other and
further action necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SETTLEMENT OF PENDING
ARTICLE 7 REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CASE
781
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
COMMENCED BY RICHARD H. MEYER, Jr., JEAN T. MEYER,
RICHARD H. MEYER III, JOAN P. REINMUTH, MARTHA M.
NOORDSY
RESOLUTION NO.: 496, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, Richard H. Meyer, Jr., Jean T. Meyer, Richard H. Meyer III, Joan P.
Reinmuth, Martha M. Noordsy (“Petitioners”), previously commenced an Article 7 Real
Property Assessment Review case against the Town in 2005 concerning the assessment
on property located at 245 Cleverdale Road, Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 226.16-1-11)
and
WHEREAS, the Petitioners have made a settlement proposal which the Town
Assessor finds acceptable and has recommended to the Town Board, and the Town Board
has reviewed the case with Town Counsel, and
WHEREAS, the Board of the Queensbury Union Free School District has
approved the proposed settlement,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the settlement,
which will result in a revised 2005 assessment as follows:
Current Revised
Applicable
Tax Map No. Address Assessment Assessment
Assessment
Year
226.16-1-11 245 Cleverdale Road $2,107,400 $1,900,000
2005
and
BE IT FURTHER,
782
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs payment of any and all
refunds with interest, as provided by law, to Petitioners within sixty (60) days from the date
that a Demand for Refunds is served upon the Town, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that in accordance with Section 727 of the New York State Real
Property Tax Law, the assessment on the parcel (Tax Map # 226.16-1-11) shall remain at
$1,900,000 for the subsequent three tax years (2006/07, 2007/08 and 2008/09) unless the
Town performs a Town-wide revaluation or some other exception provided for under
Section 727 becomes applicable to the assessment rolls for those tax years, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town
Supervisor, Town Assessor, Budget Officer and/or Town Counsel to execute settlement
documents and take any additional steps necessary to effectuate the proposed settlement in
accordance with the terms of this Resolution.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION CORRECTING PAY
FOR KEITH SHEERER
RESOLUTION NO.: 497, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHEREAS, Keith Sheerer, landfill equipment operator, accepted additional
responsibilities at the Town of Queensbury landfill transfer stations upon the retirement of
James Coughlin; and
WHEREAS, Keith Sheerer began performing such additional responsibilities on
January 30, 2006 but inadvertently it appears his increased pay for such duties did not begin
until April 17, 2006, after the Town Board Resolution promoting him; and
783
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
WHEREAS, his 90-day probation period has passed and the Town Board wants to
make sure he is paid the increased hourly wage he is entitled to for the work performed
beginning on the date he assumed such duties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes Keith Sheerer to
receive such increased salary for the period of January 30, 2006 to April 17, 2006, which is
estimated to result in $1,614.43 in additional pay; and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor and the Town Budget Officer are authorized
to take all actions necessary to effect this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of October, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION REJECTING BIDS FOR
MEADOWBROOK ROAD WATER MAIN
REPLACEMENT BIDS
RESOLUTION NO.: 498, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury sought and obtained bids for the
Meadowbrook Road area water main replacement project; and
WHEREAS, the bids were opened on Friday, September 8, 2006 and were higher
than expected as detailed in the Town’s Map, Plan and Report; and
WHEREAS, the Town Water Superintendent and the Town’s Engineer, C.T. Male
Associates, P.C., recommend rejecting all such bids and re-bidding the project in 2007; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
784
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby rejects all bids submitted for
such project; and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Water Superintendent is authorized to take all actions
necessary to effect the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of October, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION APPROVING SEWAGE-WORKS CORPORATION IN
CONNECTION WITH THE SURREY FIELDS SUBDIVISION
RESOLUTION NO. 499, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, the Surrey Fields Homeowner’s Association, Inc., (“Surrey Fields”)
has advised the Town Board that the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation requires the formation of a Sewage-Works Corporation to own and maintain
the Surrey Fields Development’s on-site sewer collection system (the “sewer works”); and
WHEREAS, Surrey Fields requested that the Town Board consent to the formation
of a Sewage-Works (or “Transportation”) Corporation to be known as the Surrey Fields
Waste Water System, Inc., (the “Corporation”) which will own and maintain the entire
sewer collection line, pump station and force main system located within and adjacent to the
Surrey Fields Homeowner’s Association, Inc., property as shown on plans submitted by
Surrey Fields to the Town’s Wastewater Director; and
WHEREAS, the maps and specifications of the sewer works to be owned and
operated by the Corporation have been filed with the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation which has indicated that the plans have been approved solely
to allow the Town to consent to the formation of the Corporation; and
WHEREAS, C. T. Male Associates, P.C., the Town’s Engineer, has examined the
plans and specifications of the sewer works and provided a written report to the Town Board
785
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
finding the information complete and the facilities acceptable and gave certain suggestions
to the Town’s Wastewater Director; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has agreed to waive any requirement for payment and
performance bonds for completion of the construction of the sewer work based on the fact
that connection to the Town’s wastewater system will not be permitted until such time as the
Town Wastewater Director is satisfied that the sewer works has been constructed
satisfactorily and in accordance with Town specifications; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has received a guaranty from the owner of the
Transportation Corporation (i.e. Surrey Fields) of payment of all costs of operation and
maintenance of the sewer works and this payment obligation constitutes sewer rents payable
to the Town secured by a lien on all the real property in Surrey Fields; and
WHEREAS, the stock of the Corporation will be placed in escrow providing that
title will pass to the Town in the event of certain occurrences pursuant to an Escrow
Agreement provided to the Town; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has satisfied itself that it has received all materials it
needs to issue its consent, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to issue its consent to the creation of such
Sewage-Works Corporation in accordance with New York State Transportation
Corporations Law Article 10, “Sewage-Works Corporations”.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and issues its
consent to the Sewage-Works Corporation required by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation and as requested by the Surrey Fields Homeowner’s
Association, Inc. in connection with the Surrey Fields Subdivision property, such consent
being in accordance with New York State Transportation Corporations Law Article 10,
“Sewage-Works Corporations”; and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board retains the continuing right to review the
adequacy of the security provided in connection with the sewer works to determine whether
it should be modified on the basis of fiscal performance or other conditions; and
BE IT FURTHER,
786
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to
forward a certified copy of this Resolution to the Surrey Fields Homeowner’s Association,
Inc. and/or the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and/or the New
York State Department of Health and take such other and further action as may be necessary
to effectuate the terms of this Resolution; and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that in the future, should the Town Board engage new Town Counsel,
then assignment of the Escrow Agent’s responsibilities shall be transferred from current
Town Counsel Miller, Mannix, Schachner and Hafner, LLC to the Town’s new attorney of
record in accordance with the escrow agreement.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING OUT-OF-DISTRICT SEWER
AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND
SURREY FIELDS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
OR ITS TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION
RESOLUTION NO.: 500, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has established and created several Sewer
Districts as follows:
1.Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District;
2.Hiland Park Sewer District;
3.Pershing-Ashley-Coolidge Sewer District;
4.Queensbury Technical Park Sewer District (District);
5.Reservoir Park Sewer District;
6.Route 9 Sewer District; and
7.South Queensbury – Queensbury Avenue Sewer District;
and
787
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
WHEREAS, at times some Town residents wish to obtain sanitary sewer service
from one of the Town’s Sewer District facilities but their properties are located outside the
Sewer District boundaries; and
WHEREAS, the Town’s Wastewater Director has received a request from the
Surrey Fields Homeowners Association, Inc. (the “HOA”) to obtain sanitary sewer service
from the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District’s facilities; and
WHEREAS, the HOA is installing significant wastewater facilities and
infrastructure to deal with the subdivision’s wastewater needs; and
WHEREAS, the HOA is forming a transportation corporation to own, maintain and
operate such wastewater facilities and wishes to connect to the Town’s sewer lines; and
WHEREAS, the HOA knows it cannot hook-up to the Town’s sewer lines until the
sewer line for the Sewer District Extension #10 to Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer
District is completely installed, inspected and approved; and
WHEREAS, Surrey Fields subdivision is located outside such District’s boundaries;
and
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury wishes to supply Surrey Fields with such
sanitary sewer service in accordance with Town Law §198(1); and
WHEREAS, the Town’s Wastewater Director suggests that the Town enter into an
out-of-district contract for sanitary sewer service with the HOA or its transportation
corporation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the Town
Wastewater Director to enter into an Out-of-District Agreement, in form acceptable to the
Town Wastewater Director and to Town Counsel, between the Town of Queensbury and
either Surrey Fields Homeowners Association, Inc. or its transportation corporation for
sanitary sewer service to serve the Surrey Fields subdivision off Bay Road as shown on
plans prepared by Nace Engineering and reviewed by New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation and C.T. Male Associates, P.C.; and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes the Wastewater Director to
make all necessary arrangements, including collection of any fees from Surrey Fields
788
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
Homeowners Association, Inc. or its transportation corporation and signing the Agreement,
in accordance with Town Law §198(1), to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of October, 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 OCTOBER 17 2006
RESOLUTION NO.: 501, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve the audit of bills
presented as the Warrant with a run date of October 10th, 2006 and a payment due date of
October 17th, 2006,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Warrant with a
th
run date of October 10 , 2006 and payment due date of October 17th, 2006 and totaling
$227,433.91, 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.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION ADJOURNING REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING
789
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-16-2006 MTG #41
RESOLUTION NO. 502, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford
WHO MOVED 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 16 day of October, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Respectfully Submitted,
Darleen M. Dougher
Town Clerk
Town of Queensbury