Loading...
1998-12-21 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 21, 1998 7:07 P.M. MTG #68 RES 480-503 BOH 60-62 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR FRED CHAMPAGNE COUNCILMAN RICHARD MERRILL COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER COUNCILMAN DOUGLAS IRISH COUNCILMAN PLINEY TUCKER TOWN COUNSEL MARK SCHACHNER BEN PRATT PRESS: G.F. Post Star TOWN OFFICIALS Paul Naylor, Highway Superintendent Chris Round, Executive Director of Community Development Dave Hatin, Director of Building & Codes Ralph VanDusen, Water Superintendent Helen Otte, Assessor Harry Hansen, Director of Parks & Recreation PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN IRISH Supervisor Champagne called meeting to order.... RESOLUTION CALLING FOR QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 480, 98 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Merrill RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and enters the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 21st day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Merrill, Mr. Turner, Mr. Irish, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT: None Queensbury Board of Health Public Hearing - Sewer Variance - David Dufresne Notice Shown 7:07 p.m. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-The first item is to open the public hearing on a sewer variance by David Dufresne. I don't know that I pronounced that correctly but whose here to speak and it looks like you Mr. Scudder. MR. SCUDDER-Yes, sir. Mr. Dufresne is with me. Do you want to come up, David? I don't know if you're Mr. President or Mr. Chairman but SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-You call me whatever you choose, how is that for openers? MR. SCUDDER-I did submit a fairly comprehensive statement. Do you want me to say some words or do you want to ask me some questions or? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I guess, David is there anything you wanted to add or questions you need to ask? I think we've had a copy of this for some time showing the, identifying the issues, part of the infiltrators system to be located beneath the small parking lot. MR. SCUDDER-Correct. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That's one of the variances we're asking for. MR. SCUDDER-Yes. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Absorption system four feet rather then ten feet from the property line. MR. SCUDDER-Yes. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That's the second and the third is the septic tank to be located five feet from the dwelling rather then the required ten feet. MR. SCUDDER-Which exists at the present time. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Which exists and yea, that stays. MR. SCUDDER-Right. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. Just give us a minute here to kind of look this over one last time. COUNCILMAN IRISH-We have a letter from the next door neighborhood too. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yea, we've got this letter. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-We've got two. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, do you want to read those letters, please into the record at this point? DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER read the following letters into the record: (letters on file in the Town Clerk's Office) Dear Dave, I was sorry to hear that you have had so many difficulties trying to improve your property. I want you to know that I have no objection to your installing an underground filtration system four feet from our common property line. Please let me know if you need any further written approval from me. Sincerely, Liane Brown Att: Town Clerk Re: Request for Sewage Variances by D. Dufresne I think it is an outrage that Public Hearing for interested parties be held when the people who have homes in the area, and are most affected by these too frequent requests for variances, are not able to be present and why do I always receive a notice of a public hearing after the hearing. I may not have an official residence in Queensbury but I pay Queensbury taxes of close to $5,000 and I live on the lake for 5 months so certainly have an interest in this matter. Ordinance is a sensible effort to preserve the lake and if an exception is made for Mr. Dufresne, how can you refuse any similar requests in the future. Why have a sewage disposal ordinance at all if variances are constantly granted. If I had been present at yesterday's meeting I would certainly have spoken against granting any more vanances. Rita H. Arnstein SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-How do you spell that? DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-A r s t e in. She got the notice and I think she was confused that the hearing was already held. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yea. MR. SCUDDER-We don't know who she is. She's not a next door neighbor, though. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-No, she's not adjoining the property. Does the board have any other questions? COUNCILMAN MERRILL-Well, I've reviewed your report here and it looks very thorough and it looks like it's very well engineered, recognizing that there are serious constraints because of the small lot size up there. The critical thing is the absorption field is more then a hundred feet, well more then a hundred feet from the lake shore and I think that's critical element in this. The others I don't think will have any affect on performance of the system and it's certainly an upgrade from what's there and that's, I think was important that you are upgrading your present facility and are to be commended for doing that and doing it properly. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I have to believe that we all read that into it, once we saw the design. I'm okay with it. Anything else from anyone else? Are we ready to vote? We need a motion. COUNCILMAN TURNER-I'll introduce it. COUNCILMAN MERRILL-I'll second it. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Any other discussion? We're ready to vote. RESOLUTION APPROVING SANITARY SEW AGE DISPOSAL VARIANCES FOR DAVID DUFRESNE BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 60, 98 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Merrill WHEREAS, David Dufresne previously filed an application for three (3) variances from provisions of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, such application requesting that variances be granted to allow: I.part of the infiltrator system to be located beneath the small parking area; 2.the absorption system to be located four feet (4') from the property line rather than the required ten feet (10') distance; 3.the septic tank to be located five feet (5') from the dwelling rather than the required ten feet (10') distance; and WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was given in the official newspaper of the Town of Queensbury and a public hearing was held in connection with the variance requests on December 21st, 1998, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk advises that property owners within 500 feet of the subject property have been duly notified, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, a) that due to the nature of the variances, it is felt that the variations will not be materially detrimental to the purposes and objectives of this Ordinance or to other adjoining properties or otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of any plan or policy of the Town of Queensbury; and b) that the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variances is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and that the variances granted are the minimum variances 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 Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health hereby grants the variances to David Dufresne to allow: I.part of the infiltrator system to be located beneath the small parking area; 2.the absorption system to be located four feet (4') from the property line rather than the required ten feet (10') distance; 3.the septic tank to be located five feet (5') from the dwelling rather than the required ten feet (10') distance; on property situated on Brayton Road, North Queensbury and bearing Tax Map No.: 11-1-24. Duly adopted this 21st day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Irish, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Merrill, Mr. Champagne NOES None ABSENT: None SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-We'll close that public hearing. Public Hearing Closed Public Hearing - Sewer Variance - John & Kathleen Salvador Notice Shown 7:12 p.m. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-All right, our next one is, we'll open the public hearing on John and Kathleen Salvador's sewer variance. So, with that said. JOHN SAL V ADOR- Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is John Salvador, I'm here tonight with my wife, Kathleen on our application for variances to the town sanitary code, Chapter 136 of the town code. You may recall that on November 2nd of this year, this board granted us a variance from specifications of Chapter 136 of the town code. Variance number 52-98 allows us to use a septic holding tank on tax parcel 4-1-11. This special use will now allow a septic holding tank to be used in lieu of a conventional or even alternate on-site sewage treatment facility. We're able to show that the relief granted was based on the facts that we have very poor soils and high seasonal groundwater at this site. We are going to restrict and can encumber this cabin to seasonal use only, less then nine months and that it is not a household residence or year round dwelling. In addition, the Queensbury Town Local Board of Health required the stipulation that no cooking and bathing facilities be allowed. With that and because of the extremely tight design standards of Section 136-llB, we appear tonight requesting seven additional variances for this septic holding tank. We need a variance from Section 136-11B3 requiring detennination of the high seasonal groundwater. One of the criteria for having been granted a variance to utilize a septic holding tank in lieu of a conventional or even an approved alternate system was that the high seasonal groundwater on the site, on the project site was at or above existing grade. So, I wouldn't think we'd have to detennine the high seasonal groundwater as is required in l36-llB3 . We need additional variances because Section l36-llB4 requires that holding tanks be installed above the one hundred year flood level which has been established at three twenty-two feet above mean sea level. Three twenty-one above mean sea level? COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yea. MR. SALVADOR-The general elevation of the project site is three twenty-two feet above mean sea level. This would mean that a holding tank greater then one foot in depth would require extensive filling of the lake front parcel within a fifty foot radius of the installation as required in Section l36-llB18 and I think we would encroach on the highway right-of-way with this fifty foot radius and we certainly aren't allowed to fill that area. We need a variance from Section 136-llB2 which requires a two thousand gallon minimum holding tank. We calculate that between every seven day anticipated pump out period that the occupants of a three hundred square foot hunting and fishing cabin will generate about a hundred gallons of wastewater. This is about fifteen gallons a day utilizing a one point five gallon per flush toilet and allowing about a half gallon for hand washing as a result of each use of the toilet, be about two gallons a flush, would allow us about eight flushes a day. Very, very generous. You know, how many people can occupy three square feet comfortably? Providing we can obtain variance relieffrom the requirements of 136-11B2, that is the capacity, 136-llB4, that's the hundred year flood level, 136-llB3, that's the high seasonal ground water and l36-llB 18, that requires the holding tank to be installed below finished grade, we would like to request additional relief from Section l36-llB5 that the septic holding tank meet the same setback requirements as a septic tank. That is ten feet from the dwelling. Since the three hundred square foot hunting and fishing cabin is precluded from having any cooking or bathing facilities, it is not considered a dwelling. So, that Appendix A of Section 136 does not provide for separation distance between a wastewater source such as a holding tank and a three hundred square foot hunting and fishing cabin. Although Appendix A does list the minimum requirements for the distance from all wastewater sources from a dwelling, as I mentioned before we do not have a dwelling and neither is a dwelling defined as a part of Section 136. We would like to install our two hundred gallon holding tank within the perimeter of our three hundred square foot hunting and fishing cabin and I think I attached the sketch or elevation drawing of the cabin showing the location of the holding tank. Finally, we would like relieffrom Section l36-llB 1 which requires that all septic holding tanks be of pre-cast reinforced concrete. We're doubtful we can purchase a pre-cast concrete element with the geometry that we're thinking of to do this job. We suggest fiberglass, stainless steel or some other non-corrosive material. I see for the first time tonight some comments by Rist-Frost on this variance addressed to Chris Round. Shall we go through them? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Why don't we wait until such time that we hear from others who may have some other comments, John. You may sit right there and let's see if there's other comments out there to be made by the public regarding this request for a variance for the Salvador's to, I believe there's seven variances, is that what you said? Seven different variances? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Is that your count, too, seven? MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-I see five on the SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I see five, on this MR. SAL V ADOR- Well, on your resolution and all, it's five but when you go through it kicks in other, I think we'd have to have a variance from other sections of the code if you agree to some of these. SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE-Oh, now wait a minute. We're going to have a second public hearing in order to deal with the other two? MR. SALVADOR-Well SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I mean, you, help me with that, I'm at a loss here because right now from our understanding unless someone has got some advice from what your requests are. You're requesting for five, that's what we're dealing with. MR. SALVADOR-All right, let's address the ones that I have mentioned tonight. COUNCILMAM MERRILL-Let's act on the five that we have here. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, that's fair. I just want to clarify, when you mentioned seven. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Anyone else from the public care to speak on this request for various variances? Yes, sir. Would you, John, you're going to have to make room there, he's going to have to come up and address. MR. GILBERT BOEHM-The name is Gilbert Boehm. I have a question relative to potential pump up due to floatation. Or is the cabin itself what's going to MR. SALVADOR -No, the holding tank is proposed to be installed underneath the floor of the kitchen, the toilet area. There will be an elevated floor going into it. MR. BOEHM-Oh, so it's, so it's actually hung. Hung? MR. SALVADOR -No, it will be above the structure, the floor structure of the building. MR. BOEHM-In any case, it won't float the building is what you're saying? MR. SALVADOR-No. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Anyone else? Chris, do you want to, I'd like to have Chris review the letter first and then John, you can respond to that. MR. SALVADOR-Sure. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-So, Chris if you would do that for us? MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-Would you like me to just read it into the record for you? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I believe it should be in the record, yes and then any other comment that either you or the board will stop you at any time if they may have questions. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-The Town Board asked me to forward the application to the town engineers because of the uniqueness of the request and the significance of the variance request. It says, Dear Mr. Round, we have reviewed the above referent application and have the following comments. Section 136-11Bl, tank material. If the board grants variances under other sections of the regulation permitting installation of the holding tank above grade or within the proposed building, it may be appropriate to consider alternative tank materials that will be waterproof and corrosion resistant such as the stainless steel or fiberglass proposed. Section 136-llB2, tank capacity. This section requires that the minimum holding capacity be 2000 gallons for a one bedroom facility. The required minimum capacities for various numbers of bedrooms are based on an anticipated pump out cycle of seven days. Figure 2 in Appendix G further requires twelve inches of freeboard above the inlet level. It is not clear if the applicant is proposing the twelve inches of freeboard. The 2'x2'x6' total volume proposed is less than 180 gallons. In Queensbury's holding tank regulations, fifty percent of the usable capacity is held in reserve above the high water alarm. This fifty percent is intended as a safety margin before the water supply is automatically shut off. As no variance was requested for these requirements, we assume that they will be met. With a 2'x2'x6' tank the effective fifty percent volume after twelve inches freeboard is removed is approximately forty-five gallons. No justification for the reduced size has been presented. Tanks smaller than those required will result in more frequent pump out cycles which could cause increased nuisance to neighbors. Section 136- llB3, field test for high groundwater. Visual observation of standing high water levels in the spring or the use of the one hundred year flood level is acceptable to this office in determining design high water levels for this project. Section l36-llB5, horizontal distance separation. If completely waterproof tank construction is used, we have no technical objections to this variance. Appropriate measures for freeze protection, sealing the tank to prevent gas vapors from entering the dwelling, and to provide access for maintenance purposes and pump out would be required. No justification for this variance is presented. Section 136-11B18, tank installation above grade. We have visual aesthetic concerns and freeze protection concerns regarding this request. Access for pump out and maintenance would have to be provided. No justification for the variance request was submitted. Collectively these variances if granted could result in a system being permitted that is far removed from present provisions for holding tanks in the Town of Queensbury which are in themselves a variance from the basic sewers and sewage disposal regulations. These variances could result in a system that is very similar to what would be found in a large motor home or recreational vehicle. Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Rist-Frost Associates, Bill Levandowski, PE, Senior VP. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-How do you want to take, John? I mean those, those are pretty strong implications, I would think that, if you want to try to respond to those, I'm open. MR. SALV ADOR-Oh, no problem. I would think, Section 136-llBl, tank material, there's no question. Section 136-11B2, tank capacity. Firstly, the town code is predicated and is measured by the number of bedrooms. We don't have any bedrooms. We can't use this facility over night. You know, toilet facilities are used most of the time when people first get up in the morning, I can tell you that from our own experience and late in the evening. So, we feel within a twenty-four hour period, we're going to be using this facility in a manner that's not going to require much use of the toilet facility. Again, you have predicated your requirements on the basis of a bedroom count. We have zero bedrooms. As far as shut off alarms and capacity and all that, we maintain a marina up there that has close to seventy-five boats docked in it. We have a holding tank for the bathrooms from that marina. We have a holding tank that takes the pump out from the boats. I can tell you we just don't have, we only have a thousand gallon tank and that gets pumped once a week, at most twice a week. If coming into the weekend it's got more then a third to a half capacity, we usually like to go into the weekend with an empty tank. So, the whole criteria for this belt and suspender's approach is the fact that you know, a homeowner is going to be operating this system. Maybe not, might not have much experience with it and so you have to have these sort of safeguards. We're going to have the freshwater feed, automatic shutoff. I don't see any reason for the fifty percent capacity above shutoff. I mean, nothing may go into the tank, we're not going to have any water reservoir. So, I think our two hundred gallons will do the job. It's not going to result in infrequent pump outs. And nuisance to the neighbors, what neighbors? I would think that our two hundred gallon COUNCILMAN MERRILL-John, for clarification. Is the dimension on the tank, 2x2x6? MR. SAL V ADOR- That's what I put on the COUNCILMAN MERRILL-Okay, then that is not two hundred gallons. MR. SALVADOR-Well, it's in the order of two hundred gallons. I don't know what's available on the market, to be honest with you. I don't know whether this thing has to be specially fabricated. I don't know whether you can go in and buy a tank that's got a certain dimension to it and it measures two hundred and fifteen gallons or a hundred and eighty-five gallons. I have no idea. That's something we'll have to look at. If the, you know, if the perimeters are going to be that tightly defined, then we'll have to come back for another variance. That's all. Let's see, so much for the capacity. High seasonal groundwater, I guess that's okay. Second page, Section 136-llB5, the horizontal separation distance. The first sentence reads, if completely waterproof tank construction is used, we have no technical objections to this variance. We have stated we're going to install a waterproof tank. Measure a freeze protection, that's self evident. We're limiting this dwelling to seasonal use. Probably would not be used during the freezing season. In any case, freeze protection can be accomplished with antifreezes. The ceiling of the tank to prevent gas vapors, that's a building code. We vent our holding tanks now, that's no problem. And I don't understand the last sentence, no justification for this variance is presented. It just would be a nice package unit to install it the way we've designed it, put it under the floor, an elevated floor in the building. It would be above the, the, it would be above the flood plain which is a requirement and we wouldn't have to fill the site which we might not get a permit to do, I don't know. Section 136-llB18, we have visual aesthetic concerns and freeze protection concerns as requested. No one will be able to see this tank, it would be fully within the walls of the building and above the main floor, the main structural floor. And freeze protection, I've addressed. We'll either drain it or put antifreeze in it. Certainly provide access for pump out. Collectively, these variances if granted could result in a system being permitted that is far removed from the present provisions for holding tanks in the Town of Queensbury which are in themselves a variance. I think what we're doing, what we're trying to say here is that the holding tank ordinance that you have is patterned around a residential dwelling. That's what it's patterned around and this is not. This is a recreation type use, a recreation home. These variances could result in a system that is very similar to what is found in large motor homes or recreation vehicles and what's wrong with those? I mean, I haven't heard that they're a problem. They're probably all built to some standard, install to some standard. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, does that generate any other concern on a part of the public? Town Board? COUNCILMAN MERRILL-Frankly, I have a problem with five variances upon a variance and within these five variances there are additional variances that would be required. MR. SAL V ADOR- Well, I say, this required because you have in affect, I mean, your ordinance, you've got a design manual. It's not a, you leave no flexibility. This is the way it's got to be or you can't build it. COUNCILMAN MERRILL-And there may be reason behind that, John for the protection of the health of the community. MR. SALVADOR - Well, fine but I'm saying that the way that, that ordinance is designed around single family residential dwellings, year round use and that is not what we're doing. And this is an allowable use, we didn't need a variance for the use of the, help me Dave? You help everyone else. DAVE HATIN, DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES-You're doing just fine, John, I'm going to let you keep going. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Where are you when I need you, Dave? MR. SALVADOR-He helps everyone else, I don't know why he doesn't help me. COUNCILMAN IRISH-John, I got to agree with Dick and, I mean I've got a real problem with you know going along with five variances on a project that's already come in with a variance and I jumped allover Dick the last time you were here because he was questioning you know, what you were going to do up there and called it basically a port-a-potty. But I mean, you know you look at these other five variances and I almost feel like I have to apologize for him because he almost called it, you know what it looks like it's going to be and I think until and unless the codes for holding tanks are changed, you know we have to go with what we have on the books is my opinion. You know, as far as granting variances, I think the Town of Queensbury grants more then what they should because really a variance should only be used if you have a hardship that's not self created. You can probably meet the requirements to build a conventional or to put in a holding tank of the design in the book, in the code book. Is it economically feasible or is it something you'd like to do? Probably not but until we do some revisions or add some chapters to cover hunting camps or recreational use, I mean I really don't, I couldn't go along with the granting of five variances on this project. MR. SAL V ADOR- Well the, the code says that the holding tank must be above the flood level. That's one foot above, that's one foot below the existing grade. Now, if I put in a conventional two thousand gallon, two thousand gallon pre-cast reinforced concrete tank, they stand close to six feet high. Okay? So, I can only put a one foot below the existing ground surface. What have I got to do, put five feet offill in? I mean, on the lake shore, is that what you want, within fifty foot radius of the tank? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Obviously John, I'm quiet and I'm only quiet because I don't quite know what to say. I understand where you're coming from. I know the property. I certainly have spent some time reviewing the plan but in all honesty until I have a more comfortable feeling then I have right now and you can appreciate that, this is like a whole new ultra unique arrangement that you're right, it doesn't fit a one bedroom, it doesn't fit a two thousand pre-cast concrete. You're along the shore up there and I can recognize that five feet of fill up there is really not what we're looking for but is there something between this and you know what we're talking about in terms of what does satisfy the code. I don't know. I'm sure you've spent considerable time looking at what might be out there. But this is, I mean a quad mar here, I just troubled. MR. SAL V ADOR-Mr. Irish is concerned about all these variances. It comes about because of the way you've patterned your ordinance. Your ordinance is a design. You've done the design and the design doesn't fit the use. We have, the first variance we got was for a use. Okay, a variance for a holding tank. Now we go into the ordinance, what do we have to do to accomplish the holding tank? COUNCILMAN IRISH-But the holding tank itself is a variance from MR. SALVADOR-But it's not a design, it's not a design type variance, it's a use. These are all design perimeters. I mean, the material of the tank. My God, we've got reinforced concrete. Sure, it's good material, it's probably the best but fiberglass is used frequently. Stainless steel can be used. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-If someone came in for a variance to use a fiberglass septic tank today, wouldn't that be acceptable to us or not? MR. HATIN, DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES-I would think so, yea. The ordinance was written eleven years ago. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yea, I mean, all I'm saying is, you're right and that needs to be changed. Certainly, I've read considerably on the fiberglass holding, or fiberglass septic tanks and it's the state of the art today. COUNCILMAN IRISH-WeIl I think that's, that's what I said to John was, until they, until we do those revisions, I'm not comfortable and you know SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Are you preceding with getting the approval, you know, from the, for the building itself? Are you underway with that while you're going through this? MR. SAL V ADOR- Well I submitted that but you know, I was told I needed the septic variance. COUNCILMAN MERRILL-Which you have on the holding tank. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Right. COUNCILMAN MERRILL-So you can proceed with that, John. MR. SALVADOR-Well, I still have to design the holding tank. That's not a part of what's been approved. The use of a holding tank has been approved. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Right. MR. SALVADOR-The design of that holding tank is what we're talking about now. COUNCILMAN MERRILL-No this is very, very non-conventional and any decision made here tonight would be precedent setting, John and because it is in a critical environmental zone, as you know. COUNCILMAN IRISH-And then we would be writing the code around an application. COUNCILMAN MERRILL-You're right. I think this is a very sensitive environmental area and I think we need to hold the standards very high here. MR. SALVADOR -You do that with conditions on all other applications, when you have concerns. There are conditions. The, an example of these conditions are the restriction you put on us, no cooking or bathing facilities. There's less water, less water then you would normally have going into a holding tank. No cooking and no bathing facilities. Most of the water comes from a shower. COUNCILMAN IRISH-You're, you said tonight that you're not, you don't have any sleep, any bedroom so that this doesn't meet the criteria of a dwelling. But when you came to ask for the original variance for the, to build it you said that people would be coming in and sleeping on the floor. So, basically isn't the entire building a bedroom? MR. SAL V ADOR-I said that, you know, people do that. COUNCILMAN IRISH-I know but MR. SALVADOR-They can bring a sleeping bag but COUNCILMAN IRISH-You can't, you know you can't have it work for you in one instance and then say, well, we didn't really mean that in the next instance. MR. SALVADOR-There will be no, we understand to be a bedroom, will not be a part of the three hundred square foot, three hundred square foot dwelling that has to have a bathroom and some kind of a wash basin. Okay? COUNCILMAN IRISH-I don't have any problem with number three but I couldn't go along with the other four. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Which one, number three? COUNCILMAN IRISH-Yea, I don't have any problem with the field test. Until we do something with the code, you know I wouldn't be comfortable in voting for the other four. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-What do I hear from the other members? COUNCILMAN TURNER-This is totally a different animal of a different color and species and everything. So, you know, I think we ought to pull our horns in and if this needs to be addressed then the town should take it by, take the issue and address it and come up with some kind of a regulation cause obviously, John probably might not be the only one. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-We ever had other requests of this nature, David? COUNCILMAN TURNER-No. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-This is the first go around. MR. HATIN, DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES-This is the first time we've had, from what I can remember, a request from the size. Everybody else has complied with the size. It's always been variances for setbacks for the use itself. But everybody has always complied with the size. I can't remember any for SIze. MR. SALVADOR-They've all had two and three bedroom homes, year round with bathing facilities. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, do you want to close the public hearing and research this further and vote later? Or do you want to close it and vote it? I'll take your advice. COUNCILMAN IRISH-WeIl I'd like to, I mean I don't want to just vote on this and drop it but I would like to see maybe Chris and Dave and whoever they need to get involved in this, to come up with some kind of addendum to the code or, I don't know if! want to say design. I don't know if we need to be in the design business as part of the code. MR. SALVADOR -You are. That is exactly what you're in. COUNCILMAN IRISH-But I don't, you know, we need to come up with some set of criteria that we can look at in a general sense and say, you know this will work or this won't work but to continually having people come in and say, I need a variance. The code is too strict, I need a variance. You know, I've sat in front of the ZBA myself so, you know, I think we need to look at doing something with that but I don't want to put it on the back burner. Is it something we can do in the next, you know first part of the year? MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-I'll defer to Dave on that one, how's that? MR. HATIN, DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES-The ordinance is based on seasonal use as well as year round use right now. That was all considered when that ordinance, I was the one that enforced that drafting of that ordinance and it was all based on seasonal and year round use and in the eleven years, it has not been a problem. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Right, but in eleven years technology has changed quite a bit, so. MR. HATIN, DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES-Right, I agree that we probably should change the type of tank, fiberglass or steel or whatever, John is right there. That was something that, back then they weren't popular, they weren't around but other then that, the criteria, no matter how you write an ordinance, it's going to be a design criteria. That's what a sewage ordinance is, a design criteria. You either can leave them or you can grant variances from them. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-If there's anything in here that troubles me most, I mean a lot of it troubles me but mostly, it's strictly the two hundred gallon capacity. It would seem to me that out there some place, there's a design that would allow you to go even five or six hundred gallons and something that's maybe less deep, stretched out width or MR. SALVADOR-Fine, tell us what you think is justifiable. That's all. If you can grant the variance with conditions. MR. HATIN, DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES-There's several MR. SAL V ADOR-I mean I can, believe me, I can design and build a tank, any capacity you want. That's no big deal. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-How about two thousand gallons. MR. HATIN, DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES-If the board wishes to grant a variance from the type of material for the tank, you can buy, you can do multiply one thousand gallon tanks out of Polly or fiberglass. There one piece, better then probably septic or better then concrete and I believe John can meet the intent of the ordinance through two thousand gallons. There are other ways to MR. SALVADOR-Will you allow filling of the site? MR. HATIN, DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES-I can't do that John, I'm not the Planning Board. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I guess my feelings are that we'll close the public hearing. I need some more time, we won't vote on it tonight. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Let's research it. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-And we'll get back to Dave and take a look at some other communities quite like ourselves that have the same type of shoreline that we have and see what they're doing with this. Because, I guess I can sense that more of this is going to be coming down the pike and I think we need to be prepared in the future to deal with it. But to be very honest with you, John, right now, I just need more time. MR. SALVADOR - I would request if you choose to do that, I would request you table it and not close the public hearing. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-No, I'd rather close the public hearing at this point and it's in the board's hands and we're going to have to make a decision. That would be my intent. COUNCILMAN MERRILL-This is too broad a departure for me to feel comfortable with from the existing ordinance. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Are you interested in closing the public hearing or do you want to leave it open and COUNCILMAN MERRILL-I'd close it. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Further discuss it. How about you? What do you want to do? COUNCILMAN IRISH-WeIl, I'd like to leave it open because if we come up with, we're going to have to have some conversation with John, if we come up with something that we think we can live with and MR. SALVADOR-The public might be interested. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Right. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-To change the ordinance, you've got to have a public hearing anyway, right, on changing the ordinance. So, there will be another public hearing on what you're talking about. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Yea but we're talking about coming up with a different type of tank and capacity and, as I understand it, and making that work and I think there maybe some public input once we do that and you probably ought to leave it open until that point. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I'm saying there will be a public hearing dealing just with that issue, moving that ordinance to accommodate the new design, whatever that may be. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-I think you would likely have to re-notify and re-advertise if it's SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Oh, positively, oh, absolutely. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-If it's substantially different from what the application is. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Well, that's my point. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Okay. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-So that, if you come to some kind of consensus about where you're SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-We're going to have to, we're going to have to COUNCILMAN TUCKER-The public hearing that you've got right now has served it's purpose. Correct? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I think so. COUNCILMAN MERRILL-Yea, and we're not willing to move on this tonight. I think it would be appropriate to re-notify people when and if this comes up again. This is certainly the first time that anything like this has come before the Town Board and I wonder if it isn't, I can't see it coming up again, either, really. It's pretty, very special. MR. SALVADOR-Please, don't change the ordinance for one project. COUNCILMAN MERRILL-Well, that's what you're asking us to do. MR. SAL V ADOR-I am not asking, I'm asking for a variance. I'm not asking you to change your ordinance and don't do it for one project. That is, that is, you talk about precedent setting. COUNCILMAN IRISH-I thought you liked being a mover and a shaker. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I'm just saying that, you know the potential is there. There's more then one John Salvador in Warren County, I'm sure. I know at least two. MRS. SAL V ADOR-Oh God, I hope not. SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE-I know at least two. I'm ready to close the public hearing. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Are you going to table this? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-And, yea, we'll table this for future reference and we'll get back to you, John whether or not we can do this, whatever time it's going to take working with Dave and Chris and anyone else that would like to steer this ship. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Mark looks befuddled. MR. SALVADOR-Can I have some commitment? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Wait a minute. Do you want something? Do you have something to say, Mark? COUNCILMAN SCHACHNER-Well, I guess I'm a little confused here. Mr. Salvador has applied for a series of variances from the Sanitary Sewage Ordinance. We've reviewed his application. You've noticed it for public hearing. You've had the public hearing. It's been opened, it's been closed. Under the town code provision, you have now thirty days from the time of the closing of the public hearing in which to issue your decision on his variance request. I also understand the board to be talking to staff in the persons of Chris Round and Dave Hatin about maybe coming up with some new ordinance revisions to accommodate this situation and situations similar. My own opinion, for what it's worth is you're not going to run into many situations similar and I think that the applicant makes one good point when he says, perhaps we should not be bending over backwards to rewrite our entire ordinance just for this one particular set of facts or circumstances. My legal advice to the board is only this. You can table this if you wish, that's perfectly appropriate. But I think tabling it indefinitely is not appropriate. I think the ordinance says, decide within thirty days and I would encourage the board to do that. COUNCILMAN IRISH-So, if we table this tonight and then we come up with a set of conditions for this variance, would be the way to go? COUNSEL SCHACHNER-That's certainly COUNCILMAN IRISH-As far as tank design and COUNCILMAN SCHACHNER-You certainly could do that. I mean, my own opinion is that an applicant bears a burden to demonstrate what the substantial hardships are that require him to get these variances, I'm speaking generically now, and show why he can not comply with the ordinance. My own opinion is those showings have not been made here but that's open to your decision, not my decision. Your options are certainly far more broad then only coming up with conditions for an approval. You can deny. You can approve. Or you can come up with approval with conditions. I'm really referring more to the procedural aspects of this. Tabling it is fine but tabling it indefinitely, I would counsel against. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-We can't do that and I think we recognize that but what I'd like to do is at least have thirty days, again for satisfying my concerns and certainly we need some counsel advice on the direction that this may have to go in the future and that's not what we have done to date and that's what I feel we need to do in order to proceed with this request. COUNCILMAN MERRILL-Well, I think Mark makes a point that the need has not been demonstrated, that the reason you can not comply with existing code, the variance that was granted. Also, you still have to go and get variance on setbacks. Correct, before you can proceed? MR. SALVADOR-Well, that's one of the reasons why we've, trying to get the tank incorporated within the perimeter of the building, then we don't have that setback from the roadside. That wouldn't eat up our setback from the road. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, do you want to close the public hearing and we'll table it, at least for thirty days and further analyze this? Is that okay? COUNSEL SCHACHNER-When you say at least for thirty days, no, I'm not comfortable with that. Thirty days would be the maximum. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Maximum, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I don't want to get in trouble with that. COUNCILMAN IRISH-John, would like you to go more then thirty but SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Why, does it automatically kicks in? COUNSEL SCHACHNER-No, no, that's not the case. There's no default approval but part of my role here is to prevent you from running into future possible litigation issues and that's why I'm telling you COUNCILMAN IRISH-John would never bring, never bring litigation. COUNSEL SCHACHNER-And that's why I'm telling you that I strongly advice that we make a decision within thirty days from the date of the closing of the public hearing. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-We will do that, guaranteed. How's that? MR. SAL V ADOR- What participation do you expect from us in this thirty day period? COUNCILMAN MERRILL-I think need has to be demonstrated. MR. SALVADOR-Is that a part of the hearing here? Or is that part of the COUNCILMAN MERRILL-It's part of the request for variance, to demonstrate need and you haven't. COUNSEL SCHACHNER-I'm going to have to chip in again. I'm confused, okay. The application has been presented and the public hearing has been closed. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That's correct. COUNSEL SCHACHNER-It would be my suggestion that the board has a complete application before you and it's now incumbent upon the board, not necessarily tonight but sometime within the next thirty days to make a decision based upon that application. If you want to reopen the thing and have the applicant submit additional information, then I think you're looking at a different scenario here where you don't close the public hearing, you don't start your thirty day clock and you don't have a complete application here yet and that's fine too, if you want to go that route. I just don't want you to confuse the two routes. COUNCILMAN MERRILL-Based on the information I have here tonight, I would have no problem voting on it tonight. MR. SALVADOR-All five? COUNCILMAN MERRILL-As one complete document. It's a request for five variances treated as a whole. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Ted, are you ready to vote? COUNCILMAN MERRILL-Not voting on each one individually, but as a whole. MR. SALVADOR-Yea, if it's because you don't have sufficient information, I'd like to know what more you need, that's all. I would like, because maybe we can furnish that information. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I guess as I sit here as a Supervisor it would be my hope, now that, I mean it's closed, we don't want to hear any more arguments for or against but it would be my hope that you and Dave could sit down together and try to come up with an answer that Dave could come in here and support this. Right now, I don't feel comfortable with their support for this particular project and I think if the vote were to be taken right now, I'd have to vote no. I'd have to vote no. I would like to be given thirty days to do whatever we need to do to bring this thing to a conclusion that I would feel better about to make my vote, even no, I'm not saying it will be yes but even if I vote no, I would at least be a little more in tune, if you will or a little more knowledgeable about really what you're attempting to do here and what other alternatives there may be out there to advice you to go in order to get the job done. That's where I'm at. I don't know. Pliney, tell us what you're thoughts are on this? Where do you want to go with it? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-He's asking for quite a bit of change in the variance. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yes he is. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-And I just don't want to deny it. I think that we should spend some time and see if we can work around and find a solution. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. Do I need to vote on tabling it? MR. SAL V ADOR-I would only ask COUNSEL SCHACHNER-The other thing you could do is you could seek a waiver of the thirty day provision from the applicant but if we seek that waiver, I would suggest that the board get that, not only on our tape on the record but also in writing from the applicant as well. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Let's take the thirty days, if we run out of trouble after thirty days and he wants an answer in COUNCILMAN IRISH-Before the end of thirty days. COUNSEL SCHACHNER-That's fine. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-And then if we need to extend it beyond, I'd like to get this through the pipes by then if we could. MR. SAL V ADOR-I would only ask, before we leave this table tonight, whether it's a question of additional information? Whether you think it's a question of our input. What do you expect from us? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-You've heard this man speak and I think maybe there could be some dialogue there. If you haven't gotten the message from what's coming back to you from this board, then we're all in trouble. I think you must get the sense that right now, sitting here tonight if this vote were to be taken, I'd have to tell you I'd vote no and I think I heard a couple of other nos. So, we're saying in thirty days this board would hope to come back here with further information, better understanding your predicament. Can we work and help you to get the job done or is that answer no and I need my twenty-five days or twenty-one days to work that through. That's where I'm at. COUNCILMAN IRISH-I don't, myself need any additional information but I need to know that Dave and Chris are comfortable with what we approve. I mean, we can approve anything but if it's not, if it's going to make their lives misery to try and enforce that, it doesn't make a lot of sense to do it. So, I think MR. SALVADOR-You're faced with this every day. I mean, just because something is difficult to enforce. I mean, that happens, you know. COUNCILMAN IRISH-But I guess what I'm saying is I only need to know that, you know we've worked out an arrangement where the makeup of the tank, the size of the tank. I don't have necessarily have any problem with the setback as I look at it. I don't, you know I don't have any real problem, people with sewer instead of septic, you know. MR. SALVADOR-As I look at the five variance requests, I'd have to say that the one you're really hung up on is the capacity of the tank. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Yea, I think probably you would be correct there as I read through them. I've got COUNCILMAN MERRILL-That's correct, yea. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-And I think John, after Levandowski sent this letter to us you have added, you know some of your responses to this letter. It has created some more thoughts, it's provoking some more thoughts on my part. I need to get back to Levandowski and you know, get a second response, second opinion I guess. So, if you give us that liberty, I think we'd work forward to make that work. MR. SALVADOR-Who is our contact? How do we, we want to, you know further this, we want to keep this moving. Whose at the other end of this? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Between Chris, between Chris Round and certainly, you know this board listens very attentively to their department heads and if you wanted to work with those two, that's where I would definitely start. MR. SALVADOR-It would be appropriate. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-And you have a council person from your particular ward that's very involved and interested and I have to be the Supervisor, I'd be more then happy to take a phone call andjot down my questions and we'll go from there. Okay? Thanks. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON VARIANCES FROM SANITARY SEW AGE DISPOSAL ORDINANCE FOR ROBERTBARODY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 61, 98 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Douglas Irish WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHEREAS, by law the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is also the Town's Local Board of Health and is authorized under Chapter 136 of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance to issue variances from the Ordinance, and WHEREAS, Robert Barody has applied to the Local Board of Health for four (4) variances from Chapter 136 of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, such application requesting that variances be granted to allow: I.the absorption field to be located fifty-three feet (53') from the Hudson River in lieu of the required one- hundred feet (100') setback; 2.the absorption field to be located five feet (5') from the front property line in lieu of the required ten feet (10') setback; 3.the absorption field to be located ten feet (10') from the dwelling in lieu of the required twenty feet (20') setback; 4.the well to be located five feet (5') from the property lines in lieu of the required fifteen feet (15') setback; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on January 4th, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, (reasonably accessible to persons with mobility impairment) 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, to consider Robert Barody's application for four (4) variances from the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance on property situated on Palmer Drive, Queensbury and bearing Tax Map No.: Section 144, Block 1, Lot 15, and at that time all interested persons will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish the Notice of Public Hearing and send a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing to neighbors located within 500 feet of the subject property, as required by law. Duly adopted this 21st day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Irish, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Merrill, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 62, 98 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Merrill RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns and moves into Regular Session of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 21st day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mr. Merrill, Mr. Turner, Mr. Irish, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT: None Regular Session Public Hearing - Proposed Local Law - "Coordinated Assessment Program" Notice Shown 8:00 p.m. COUNCILMAN MERRILL-Do we need to open the public hearing? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Where we're we, yea. We've got to open the public hearing on this one. Just to kind of give the public here some idea, I'll catch up here in just a moment when I get this other paper work squared away but just to bring the public up to speed on this. I think many of you have probably read in the paper that the Town of Queensbury and the City of Glens Falls is very interested in putting together what's known as this "Coordinated Assessment Program". Helen Otte, our Assessor and has been here for a number of years would actually serve a dual role working with the city. The city would in turn use her services along with adding staff down there to do what they need to do. There's a sense on the part of the council that there needs to be some updating of the assessment roles and it would appear that this is one approach to getting that accomplished. Second to that, there's a state incentive to move in this direction in terms of seven dollars a parcel, I believe it is. COUNCILMAN MERRILL-Seven dollars. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-So, that's a sizable chunk from the State Assessment Office or the State Real Property Office to both Queensbury and Glens Falls and both communities would benefit from this. In addition to that it would actually level out the assessments in terms of the equalization rate between the two communities and by all means, Glens Falls school system would certainly benefit from that as well as the Queensbury school system. And with that, I'll turn it over to Helen who is with us this evening to add anything further to what I've said. HELEN OTTE, ASSESSOR-I think you explained it very well, Fred. There's only one point that I want to make strongly in the description of this coordinated unit and that is that it's not in any way a take over of the Glens Falls Assessment Office. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Good point. MS. OTTE, ASSESSOR-By the Town of Queensbury. It's a, truly a cooperative effort, both municipalities will maintain their own offices with their staff and the most important part of that being is that the public can then continue to do all of their assessment business exactly as they've done it in the past in both places. Queensbury people will come here. Glens Falls residents will continue to go to City Hall and have all of their needs taken care of there. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I'm glad you mentioned that, I failed to do that. Thank you. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Helen, do you, in your mind have an idea how much of your time is going to be involved? MS. OTTE, ASSESSOR-Initially, I think that what I'll be doing is an overseeing job, an overseers job of a recollect of the data in the City of Glens Falls. Part of the agreement is putting on another person, a full time person in the city to actually be, in essence a Deputy Assessor in Glens Falls and that person will be doing a lot of field work and I would be overseeing the collection of the information on all the parcels in Glens Falls to be sure that it's done in a manner that's consistent with what we do here in Queensbury. Pliney, it might be a day a week. I might be down there some times, two days a week. After this is all done and we've recollected the data, it might be a half a day a week sometimes of the year. So, I think it will be very easy to schedule. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yea, we did get some correspondence, I believe from Scott Reid recently. Mark? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-I'm not aware of any correspondence since we last met but I've talked to him several times since we last met. The two issues we were, that remain to be discussed were in order, in paragraph 5 of the proposed agreement. There was a discussion as to, or we proposed a provision that said that the city would formally agree that it would be adding, or employing an assistant assessor and the city has agreed to do that for at least the first two years of the agreement. We requested that that person be employed at the annual salary of at least twenty-eight thousand dollars based on prior discussions with the city and the response from the city is they're comfortable with a provision in the agreement that references an annual salary of approximately twenty-eight thousand dollars. It seems a little silly to me to add the adjective. If you're not comfortable with that, I don't think we have to add the adjective. If you're comfortable that they'll be close enough, give or take a small amount, we can add that adjective. That's there request, in any event. The second issue references the idea that we would pay the city fifteen thousand dollars if the agreement is terminated sometime initially after the first two year period and they're response to us was only to change the wording so that instead of saying, if it's terminated, at the end of the first two years, if it's terminated effective any time during the third year. That's just a wording change that I have no trouble with. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Those modifications are in the latest version of the agreement that you were handed or that you received some time today and they're underlined and in bold print in paragraph 5 and 11. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-What fifteen thousand dollars are they talking about? Fifteen thousand dollars we get in one of the first two years? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-They will pay us fifteen thousands per year for the life of the agreement. We had discussed, they had requested based on their numerical or dollar projections as to what they would gain, what we would gain and what both municipalities would have to forfeit or reimburse to the state if the agreement was terminated after two years. They requested that we pay them back, if you will fifteen thousand dollars if we terminate the agreement at the end of the first two year period. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-And that fifteen thousand dollars is what they would owe the state? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-No, that's not equal to what they would owe the state. COUNCILMAN IRISH-They would owe more then that, right? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Correct. COUNCILMAN MERRILL-No, they've agreed to pay us a sum of fifteen thousand per year to partially defray our cost. If we cancel the contract, we'd have to give back that year. COUNCILMAN IRISH-It's a ten year agreement? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-It's a, yea, ten year agreement. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Ten year agreement. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Does that answer your question? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I have a little trouble with this. They're going to pay us fifteen thousand dollars a year and if we should terminate it in the third year, we just wouldn't receive the fifteen thousand dollars that we normally get. Why would we have to pay an additional fifteen or don't we? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-You do. Their belief is that, that they as a result of the number of parcels they have, their cost to employ the assistant assessor and to run their office in whatever manner they chose to do that and as a result of their reimbursement to the state because you know that the seven dollars per parcel gets refunded depending upon how long you last in the ten years of the agreement. If you last the whole ten years, zero gets refunded. Their belief is they would lose money, approximately fifteen thousand dollars if they agreement was terminated after the first two years. Once the agreement goes beyond two years, their belief is that they don't lose any money. Their belief is that the amount they would lose if it were terminated after two years is fifteen thousand dollars and that their request was that we make them whole in essence by giving them back fifteen thousand of the thirty thousand that they've paid up. COUNCILMAN IRISH-And this is only if we terminate it? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Correct. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Can I ask Helen a question? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Sure. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Helen, in 1992 and 93 didn't the Town of Queensbury do this same program and accomplish it in two years? This same reassessment program? MS. OTTE, ASSESSOR-Yes, but that's something differentPliney. That's a revaluation that the Town of Queensbury did. That didn't have anything to do with working in concert with another municipality. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-And you went out and hired, I think you hired an outside contractor to come in and do that for us if I remember correctly. COUNCILMAN MERRILL-Helen, to make this perfectly clear COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Oh, I know that but we got seven dollars and fifty cents a parcel somewhere as to what this program is going to be doing, isn't it? MS. OTTE, ASSESSOR-No, it wasn't that much. It was, there is a program to reimburse for revaluation and Queensbury did collect on it but it was not COUNCILMAN TUCKER-But it's a different program. MS. OTTE, ASSESSOR-Yes and we would be eligible for that again on top of this if we did a coordinated revaluation with the city in the future. COUNCILMAN MERRILL-But Helen, this is not a re-val of Glens Falls, is it? MS. OTTE, ASSESSOR-No. COUNCILMAN MERRILL-No. Want to make that perfectly clear, it is not are-val. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Or of Queensbury, correct. COUNCILMAN MERRILL-Or of Queensbury. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Correct. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Then what are we trying to accomplish here? COUNCILMAN IRISH-Wait, wait, before you, since you mentioned that or you mentioned that. Suppose Glens Falls decides to do a re-val in the first three years, how much of your time then would be taken up on this? And can they do that? MS. OTTE, ASSESSOR-I think, what we're talking about here is with my overseeing both municipalities, the decision to re-value in the future would be made jointly. So that, and one of the requirements of this unit is that, indeed they do simultaneous revaluation. So, if the city or the town decided to do re-val independently that in, of itself would break this agreement. You need to do them COUNCILMAN IRISH-Okay and the same would be true of the city? MS. OTTE, ASSESSOR-Yes. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Okay. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-But there would be another incentive on top of the seven dollars per parcel. COUNCILMAN IRISH-To do a joint re-val. SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE- To do the joint re-val. MS. OTTE, ASSESSOR-To do a joint re-val, yes. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I mean, so what are we doing here for the City of Glens? What are we doing? Getting their, their assessment rolls are all screwed up and you're going to fix them up, or what? COUNCILMAN IRISH-Look at John writing over there. You had to say that, didn't you? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Well, what are we doing? MS. OTTE, ASSESSOR-The SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Helen, let me try. MS. OTTE, ASSESSOR-Yes. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Let me, if I can Pliney. Several, I'm going to say a few years ago the city came to us and I think it's for the record that, you know, they've had some fluctuations down there with their assessors working within the department and they're looking to put some kind of consistency, if you will to their records. If, I don't, I forgot the term that you used but COUNCILMAN TUCKER-So in other words SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-They're in need of COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Their records are all screwed up. SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE- They're in need of some, you know professional assistance down there to bring there assessments up to standards in terms of where the State Real Property Office is at. And really, it's a working relationship between the town and the city. I think it's a positive stroke and I think that to get rid of the equalization rate between the two communities is a major plus and if I had to stick the needle right in the center of the bull's eye and say what real value is there to have a single assessor, I think that's it and I would like to see this expand throughout the county. I think the county needs to have a single assessor, if you will or a person who equalizes assessment throughout the counties, towns. I think Stony Creek is somewhere around twenty-seven percent. Johnsburg is around seventeen percent. I mean, it's atrocious throughout the county the way these equalization rates are established when it comes to divvying up the funds through sales tax or through school district taxation and I think this is a step to eliminate that. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-What you're saying sounds good but we were told that in 1992 and 93 that when we did a hundred percent re-val here in Queensbury it was going to be county wide. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Is that what you were told? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Oh yes, that's what we were told. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I didn't COUNCILMAN TUCKER-And then them boys from up north said, no, we're not going to do that. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. Amen. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-And I'm sure it will happen again. MS. OTTE, ASSESSOR-This past September the residences in the Town of Queensbury who are in the Glens Falls School District took a tremendous hit in an increase in their school tax rate because of the equalization process which is done by New York State. In this process, in a coordinated unit, that whole problem of equalization is removed and New York State uses our estimate of level of assessment between both municipalities and dealt away with their equalization process which caused this fluctuation in tax rates. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Well, then this must be something different then what we had back in 92 and 93. MS. OTTE, ASSESSOR-Yes. Yes, it is. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Because we were told that same thing would happen with the people that belonged to the Lake George School District and they got zapped something terrible. MS. OTTE, ASSESSOR-Yes, and that has gone up and down in every year since 1993 because of equalization, yes. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Some years they love ya, other years they hate you and John is here to tell you that. So is Gil. MR. SALVADOR-Every year we hate it. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Oh, every year we hate, I'm sorry. Okay. Hang on just a minute, Gil and we'll get right to you. Anything else from the board? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Nothing more. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Gil, sure. Thank you, Helen. Come right to the mic, please. MR. BOEHM-Gilbert Boehm. With two separate staffs, independent, what kind of authority does she have? Is that spelled out? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-As a single assessor. Helen, you know more about this then I do, I better let you do it. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Oh, I can do it if you want. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Or Mark, go ahead. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-The answer is, she's the assessor of both municipalities with the same statutory authority that she currently has in Queensbury and the exact same statutory authority that a New York State City Assessor has in the City of Glens Falls. She just happens to be the same person doing the job in both municipalities. MR. BOEHM -Okay but the two staffs have different opinions as to the valuation of property and which they in turn feed to her. How is she to determine whether or not that staff has done an equivalent job as to her own staff? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-She's an expert assessor, is the short answer. MS. OTTE, ASSESSOR-That's where, when I use the word overseer, that's my role in this that I would be, the valuations and the theory don't come from the bottom up in this case, they come from the assessor down and I would direct the staff as to how we collect data and do values. COUNCILMAN MERRILL-Yea, I think it's spelled out pretty clearly in the agreement here that Helen Otte shall be appointed assessor at both municipalities and then it says, the assessor shall be responsible for assessing all parcels in the Town of Queensbury and Glens Falls. So, I think the responsibility clearly is on Helen and it's spelled out quite clearly in this agreement. MR. BOEHM-Right, that sounds to me like there's going to be hit on Glens Falls. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-No, it's through delegation. I mean, it's, Helen has run the ship before here and during the re-assessment. I mean, there were busy times. She's not, she's not afraid, you know of fourteen hour days and Saturdays and vacation days. She's lived with that before. I see her here on Saturdays. MR. BOEHM-He's putting words your mouth. SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE-I use that because she's here on Saturdays. I mean, that will work itself out, Gil. I promise you that, that will come out okay. MR. BOEHM-The execution is what makes the difference and I have a lot of trepidation about that. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I can understand so. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Fred, the only other thing I would have to say is SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Where are you here with this? What page? COUNCILMAN IRISH-Page 3, and it's one of the comments that Scott had for Mark, paragraph 5. I see no problem with the way it's written right there and I see no reason to add the language that Scott talked to you about. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Meaning, approximately? COUNCILMAN IRISH-Yea, I think this is, this is what Helen asked us to put in the agreement and I think we all agreed that that's the way it should be stated and I think that we should fly with this. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Okay, when you say the language, I mean they agree with the whole sentence, it's just the one word. The question is whether you want the word approximately or not COUNCILMAN IRISH-No, I think you leave it TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-And your saying don't put the word approximately. COUNCILMAN IRISH-That's right. They originally agreed to that. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I think we had talked about approximately because we didn't feel that we could set an absolute twenty-eight thousand dollars. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Yea but then we agreed to leave it as is. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-That was certainly our discussion most recently. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Right. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-And that's why that's what I said to the city and what the city attorney's position was that they're are going to be around twenty-eight but they might be a little less. I didn't hear him say they might be a little more and they were asking us if we would, could live with the word, that adjective being added and I said I would present it to the board. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Tell them not to worry about the legal things and just do what it says, that's all. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-I tried that. They asked me to relay the request to the board none the less. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-We'll give her twenty-eight thousand, whoever she is or he. They will. SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE-I don't know, I guess I can't get hung up in, about or approximate. I mean, those are the kinds of words that COUNCILMAN IRISH-Or you can leave it the way it is, right? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-It's in there. COUNCILMAN IRISH-It doesn't make any difference to you, right? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-It really, if it makes a difference to them, I think I read into this that they don't, I mean, if they can find someone down there to do the job for twenty-five or twenty-six, maybe that's what they'll do. COUNCILMAN IRISH-AIl I want, you get what you pay for, you know. If you want to nickel and dime an assistant assessor and then we wind up not getting the job done up here because Helen is carrying the water down in Glens Falls. You know, I want to avoid that. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-We can shut it down. You know, we have the option to shut it down. COUNCILMAN IRISH-And pay them fifteen grand because they didn't want to pay somebody what their worth to do the job originally. I think this agreement is fine the way it's written, that's my opinion. COUNCILMAN MERRILL-And that was the original proposal. I think, up until tonight it was acceptable. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-So, we're taking out the word approximately, am I correct? COUNCILMAN IRISH-That would be my COUNCILMAN MERRILL-How approximate is approximately? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-That's why I don't, that's why I don't like it. COUNCILMAN IRISH-No, I, that's why, that's why I say you've got to take it out. COUNCILMAN MERRILL-Yea. Is twenty approximately twenty-eight? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-I understand the question. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-It says here at an annual salary, unless I've got a different copy here. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Annual salary of twenty-eight thousand. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-That's only for two years, though. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Correct. At least two years. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Huh? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-At least two years. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-And then she's going to spend the other eight years in this program, she may be doing it all by herself? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-That could be or you could opt out but their commitment is for two years. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-And pay the fifteen thousand dollars. COUNCILMAN IRISH-In the third year if they decide that they don't want to hire a twenty-eight thousand dollar assessor and they let her go and then we decide to get out of it, we're going to pay them fifteen grand because they, so they're going to save what, forty-three thousand dollars, right? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Rough number. COUNCILMAN MERRILL-I think the concern here is the bulk of the work is in the first two years and Helen wants to make sure she's adequately covered during those two years. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Them guys are running ten, Dick. COUNCILMAN IRISH-That's the state. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Come on. COUNCILMAN IRISH-That's the state. COUNCILMAN MERRILL-That's the state. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-That's the state statute. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Huh? COUNCILMAN IRISH-That's the state. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That's the state statute, we have no choice with that. That's state law. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Right. So, you were comfortable with the two year agreement for the assistant assessor? MS. OTTE, ASSESSOR-Yes. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Okay. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Anything else? So we're voting. Are we going to vote on it as it is? COUNCILMAN IRISH- Yea, our resolution doesn't TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Well you're not ready to vote yet. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Huh? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-You're not ready to vote yet unless you've had a public hearing that I've missed. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-So we've just explained it now, let's go back and, I guess the real question in my mind is, do you want the, maybe we need to know whether approximate is going to be in there or out of there. I hear you say it needs to be in there. COUNCILMAN IRISH-No, I don't want approximate in there. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, you're out of there, excuse me. Pliney? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I really don't care what you put in there. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Don't tell him that he'll put it in. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I don't care, I'm voting against the God Danm thing anyway. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-How about you, Dick? COUNCILMAN MERRILL-Leave it as written. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-As written. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Leave it like it is. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-When you say as written SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-As is, no new word. COUNCILMAN MERRILL- Twenty-eight thousand. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Ours does not have approximate in it. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Then you got some tonight that you don't have yet, but okay, fine. SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE-I don't have approximate written in mine. COUNCILMAN MERRILL-Yea. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Okay, fine, fine. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. COUNCILMAN MERRILL-And this is from discussions with Helen and really she's the person whose got to carry this through so, I'm supporting her in this request. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. Anyone have anything to add to what's already been said? Okay, we'll close the public hearing and vote it. Public Hearing Closed 8:23 p.m. RESOLUTION TO ENACT LOCAL LAW NO.: 9 OF 1998 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 24 ENTITLED, "COORDINATED ASSESSMENT PROGRAM" RESOLUTION NO. 481,98 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Douglas Irish WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Merrill WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury wishes to enact a Local Law to amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury by adding a new Chapter 24 entitled, "Coordinated Assessment Program" which Chapter shall authorize participation by the Town of Queensbury in a coordinated real property assessment program with the City of Glens Falls, and WHEREAS, such legislation is authorized pursuant to ~579 of the New York State Real Property Tax Law, and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Local Law has been previously presented to the Town Board, and WHEREAS, on December 21st, 1998, a public hearing regarding this Local Law was duly conducted, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby enacts the proposed Local Law to Amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury by adding a new Chapter 24 entitled, "Coordinated Assessment Program," to be known as Local Law No.: 9 of 1998, the same to be titled and contain such provisions as are set forth in a copy of the proposed Law presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to file the Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and acknowledges that the Local Law will take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State. Duly adopted this 21st day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Merrill, Mr. Turner, Mr. Irish, Mr. Champagne NOES Mr. Tucker ABSENT: None LOCAL LAW NO.: 90F 1998 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 24 ENTITLED, "COORDINATED ASSESSMENT PROGRAM" WHICH CHAPTER SHALL AUTHORIZE PARTICIPATION BY THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY IN A COORDINATED REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM WITH THE CITY OF GLENS FALLS BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Statutory Authority. This Local Law is enacted pursuant to Section 579 of the Real Property Tax Law. SECTION 2. Purpose. A The Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury is hereby empowered to enter into an agreement with the City of Glens Falls pursuant to Section 576 of the Real Property Tax Law, providing that one Assessor shall be appointed to hold the office of Assessor in both participating assessing units in the coordinated assessment program. B. The cooperative assessment agreement shall provide for the joint selection of the Assessor and that the appointment of the Assessor must be approved by a majority of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury and the Common Council of the City of Glens Falls. In addition, the agreement shall provide for the compensation of the Assessor and for the allocation of expenses between the participating assessing units. C. Upon the expiration of the term of the appointed Assessor, or in the event that the Assessor so appointed resigns or is otherwise unable to remain in office, one individual shall be appointed to succeed him or her in the participating assessing units. D. Effective with the first assessment roll produced in cooperation with the participating assessing units in the coordinated assessment program, all real property shall be assessed at the same uniform percentage of value in each assessing unit participating in the coordinated assessment program throughout the term of this cooperative assessment agreement. E. The dates applicable to the assessment process in each participating assessing unit, including taxable status date, and the dates for the filing of the tentative and the final assessment rolls, shall be the same for each assessing unit participating in this coordinated assessment program. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon its filing with the Secretary of State and the Secretary to the State Board of Real Property Services. Public Hearing - Petition for Zone of Change - Properties on Quaker Road Notice Shown 8:25 p.m. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-We're ready to open the public hearing on the Petition for Zone Change, properties on Quaker Road. Anyone, see, how do we want to do this? Chris, do you want to introduce it? MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-Sure, I'll introduce it. I think most of you are aware, we introduced a zone change for multiple properties at the point located where Dix Avenue meets Quaker Road. It's duplex point, or it's been referred to as commonly as a couple of different things. There's existing, most existing enterprises on this particular property are Highway Commercial related uses. The property is zoned Light Industrial and the majorities of the properties obtain variances to conduct the businesses that they currently conduct. Any time anybody, anyone of the businesses goes to expand, modify their business, they have to go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals for use variance to modify it depending how significant the modification is. This proposed zone change is consistent with the current uses and will alleviate the business owners from having to attend a Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to continue on with their business. The Planning Board and the Warren County Planning Board both made recommendations to support the zone change. The business owners are in support of the zone change and with that, I'll turn it back to the board. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. Thank you. Anyone from the public care to speak on this zone change? Quaker Road, at the corner of Quaker and Dix? Most of those properties in there now are Light Industry, is that what we're moving from? MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-That's correct, with the exception of one property, it's currently zoned PClA and it would be an allowed use in a HClA, it's just to make it an uniformed area, we chose the HClA zone. And just for your, to help, to maybe help the public is that the Garvey, PSM Auto Body, Kia dealership is located on that property. The Hertz Barrett Rental Lease business is on that property, is part of this proposal. The, now the names COUNCILMAN IRISH-Is Nemer Chrysler part of that? MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-Nemer Chrysler is on. COUNCILMAN IRISH-The car wash. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-The car wash. So, that's the area. The Hess, the new Hess gas station is located on here. There's, the Car Essentials type plaza. There's COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yea, on the other side. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-On the other side, on the Dix Avenue side of the property. So, those are the kind of businesses, there's a vacant property that's owned by the, Roger Hewlett, the late Roger Hewlett and so those are the properties that we're looking at. It does not include the federally owned reserve property or access property that's up for auction. That is still Light Industrial, so there's about a five acre parcel that's not included. So, that's the area. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That's still Light Industry in there. COUNCILMAN IRISH-That's up for auction? MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-That's still zoned Light Industry because we are sensitive to maintaining Light Industry properties available. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Surplus property. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-I think the Army Corp. of Engineers is the, owns it and it's up for auction in January. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-January, yea, surplus property. It's been identified as surplus property. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Open auction or just municipality? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That is yet to be determined but it could become open. They have to go through a number of different levels of government and different agencies before they open it but it could happen. How about the environmental assessment form, do we need to go through that on this one or no? MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-Is the public hearing SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yea, I'm just asking. MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-Okay, yea, we've got to complete, there's a short from attached for that purpose. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, anything more from the public on this issue? Yes. MR. SHAWN GARVEY-Good evening, my name is Shawn Garvey, I own and my brothers own Garvey Kia on Quaker Road. We're here tonight because there's a conflict between the present land use and the uses allowed under Light Industrial. Out of the ten parcels that are in this eastern corridor of Quaker Road, six are auto related, eight are non-conforming. The board knows there's no real significant change in the overall character between type II uses and Highway Commercial and Light Industrial. For example, in Highway Commercial type II auto body and repair and auto sales are allowed but under Light Industrial type II, truck repair, heavy machine repair, heavy equipment sales and passenger limo and bus terminal uses are allowed and therefore I would ask the board accept the recommendations of the Zoning Board. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Anyone else? DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-I have two letters here. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-Are these the wrong ones? MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-Yea, that's the wrong one. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Wrong one. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-Sorry, I have the wrong one. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-That's the next one. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Do we have one for this? We do have one. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-No. SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE-Oh yes, you're right. Okay. I just, I had mine under Evergreen, I just moved it back. Okay. Are we ready to move forward with this one? COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yea, close the public hearing. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yea, close the public hearing. Public Hearing Closed 8:32 p.m. Mr. Round, Executive Director lead the board through the Short Environmental Assessment Form, Part II: A, Does action exceed any type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.4? NO B, Will action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 6l7.6? NO C, Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: Cl, Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? NO C2, aesthetic, agriculture, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? NO C3, Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? NO C4, A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use of intensity of use of land or other natural resources? NO C5, Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? NO C6, Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C l-C5? NO C7, Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? NO D. Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a CEA? NO E, Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? NO Mr. Round, Executive Director-You're onto part III, it says determination of significance and that's part of your resolution. RESOLUTION AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTIES FROM LI-lA (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL - ONE ACRE) AND PC-lA (PLAZA COMMERCIAL - ONE ACRE) TO HC-lA (HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL - ONE ACRE) RESOLUTION NO. 482, 98 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering a request for an amendment to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and Map by the applicant Town of Queensbury to rezone properties bearing Tax Map No.'s: 110-1-1.23,110-1-1.29,110-1-1.30,110-1-1.31,110-1-1.32, 110-1-1.26, 110-1-1.25, 110-1-1.24, 110-1-1.28, and 110-1-1.21 located along Quaker Road and Dix Avenue in the Town of Queensbury from the current zoning of LI -1 A (Light Industrial - One Acre) and PC-lA (Plaza Commercial- One Acre) to HC-lA (Highway Commercial- One Acre), and WHEREAS, on or about November 2nd, 1998, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury adopted a Resolution authorizing submission of the rezoning application to the Town's Planning Board for report and recommendation, and WHEREAS, on or about November 17th, 1998, the Queensbury Planning Board adopted a Resolution recommending approval of the Petition for Change of Zone, and WHEREAS, on or about November 5th, 1998, the Warren County Planning Board also recommended approval of the Petition for Change of Zone, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury duly conducted a public hearing concerning the proposed rezoning of the properties on December 21st, 1998, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, as SEQRA Lead Agency, has reviewed an Environmental Assessment Form to analyze potential environmental impacts of the proposed rezoning, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has considered the conditions and circumstances of the area affected by the rezoning, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby determines that the proposed rezoning will not have any significant environmental impact and a SEQRA Negative Declaration is made, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby amends the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and Map to rezone properties bearing Tax Map No.: 110-1-1.23, 110-1- 1.29,110-1-1.30,110-1-1.31,110-1-1.32,110-1-1.26,110-1-1.25, 110-1-1.24, 110-1-1.28, and 110-1-1.21 located along Quaker Road and Dix Avenue in the Town of Queensbury from the current zoning ofLI-lA (Light Industrial- One Acre) and PC-lA (Plaza Commercial- One Acre) to HC-lA (Highway Commercial - One Acre), and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to arrange with a surveyor to update the official Town Zoning Map to reflect this change of zone, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director of Community Development to send a copy of this Resolution to the Warren County Planning Board, Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury Planning Board and any agency involved for SEQRA purposes, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, in accordance with the requirements of Article XIII of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and ~265 of the Town Law, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to publish a certified copy of the zoning changes in the Glens Falls Post-Star within five (5) days and obtain an Affidavit of Publication, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this amendment take effect upon filing in the Town Clerk's Office. Duly adopted this 21st day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Irish, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Merrill, Mr. Champagne NOES None ABSENT: None Public Hearing - Petition for Change of Zone - Evergreen Bank Notice Shown 8:35 p.m. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, we'll open the public hearing on the Evergreen petition, Evergreen Bank petition for zone change. Anyone here to speak from the public? Chris, do you want to? MR. ROUND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-I see the applicant's agent is here, would you like him to make the presentation? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I would like very much to do that if he feels comfortable with that. COUNSEL LAFPER-Of course. I didn't know if you wanted anything else on this. I'm happy to present it and Matt Steves is with me also. Matt did all the survey work, laying out all the adjacent parcels to show that it's all commercial and industrial. Since we were here last when you forward this to the Planning Board for their recommendation, both the County Planning Board and the Town Planning Board unanimously recommended it. At the Town Planning Board, the adjacent, the only adjacent neighbor that's zoned residential to the back not only supported it but said that he had had prior discussions with members of either this or prior Town Board and thought it would be appropriate to have that parcel rezoned as well and I see that they're here also and I expect that they'll put in an application for that. The way the parcel lays out, it's surrounded in the back by DEC designated state wetlands. So, there's really nothing that can be built back there so there's always going to be a buffer between this property and anything else to the back. We didn't ask for a rezoning of the parcel that runs along wetlands so that it's only the parcels that you see right from Quaker Road that would be rezoned which would be suitable for development of a commercial business and because of what's on the site right now, is kind of a use that's been around for twenty or thirty years. It's not very attractive, the site, in the back where we're asking to be rezoned has been cleared many years ago but it's just sitting there. There's not a lot of vegetation or landscaping along Quaker Road or Everts Road. So, this is a parcel that is right for rezoning and for redevelopment at some time once the bank sells it so that somebody can come in and build a project that would conform to the newer projects on Quaker Road that would be landscaped and the site plan would be developed in accordance with the new town standards rather then what people could do twenty or thirty years ago. I think it's appropriate that this be rezoned and the bank's requesting that you grant it. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, thanks John. Anyone else from the public? Do you want to read the, your, do you have something to say Mark? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Only that the speaker, I note the speaker failed to identify himselffor our record. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Excuse me. COUNSEL LAFPER-John Lapper. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-John Lapper. Thank you. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-I wanted to hear his whole identification but I guess that's it. COUNSEL LAFPER-Ofthe Glens Falls Law Firm. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Now we have a letter that needs to be read into the. Oh excuse me. Sure. Why don't you give him the chair, John? MR. RUSS MYHRBERG-My name is Russ Myhrberg and the two properties he was talking about are on Everts Avenue. I own the two properties next to him and I would like to change the, from the Single Family Residential to Commercial. We talked about it last time but I was just SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, that's not COUNCILMAN IRISH-The properties you own? COUNCILMAN TURNER-That's not this property. MR. MYHRBERG-My properties, yea. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yea, he's got to petition just like they had to. COUNSEL LAFPER-They have to apply. COUNCILMAN TURNER-They have to apply. MR. MYHRBERG-We haven't applied yet. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Oh, okay. UNKNOWN-No, we haven't applied, we just wanted to know if we could do it. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, okay, sure. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Sure, yea. MR. MYHRBERG-And the two next door have been empty for quite a while so I think it would be a, you know it's good idea. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Give me an exact location, I'm kind of trying to identify. MR. MYHRBERG-From the Cadilac garage there's two houses behind it. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yes. MR. MYHRBERG- That's, those two there, mine are the next two. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. MR. MYHRBERG-Next two properties. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. UNKNOWN-Do you have a copy of this? Do you know which ones he's talking about? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yea, we do have a copy of that. UNKNOWN-Okay. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yea, we got that. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yea, I'm with you now. Okay, sure, make application and UNKNOWN-Okay. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-You know the procedure, right? MR. MYHRBERG-Yea. UNKNOWN-Yea. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay, let's get back to the letter now, if you will. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER read the following letters into the record (letters on file in the Clerk's Office): Queensbury Town Clerk Re: Tax Map # 108-1-31 and 108-1032 In regard to the above tax map #'s and the rezoning request by Evergreen Bank, I do any objection to the request for rezoning. Of course, I would be interested in knowing what the plans are for development of the named lots. I am sure this will up at a later hearing. not have be taken Sincerely, Sydney R. Hochman D. C. Tax Map # 107-1-2.5 Town of Queensbury Zoning Board: Please be advised that my property borders on the property mentioned in the attached page. It is my strong concern that any additional noise, lights and traffic will disrupt my neighbors and myself. The 15 acres that I own is virtually an all natural habitat for local wildlife, it virtually IS a natural sanctuary for birds, deer, fox, raccoons, ecetera. I feel very strongly that the overall composition of our neighborhood should be protected from any additional disruption. I am sorry that I am not able to convey my feelings in person, so please except this letter as my strong opposition to rezone to HC-lA (Highway Commercial- One Acre). Please feel free to call me at home 798-8484 or at my place business 793-3431. Respectfully, William E. Fitzgerald III SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. Okay, is there anything more to be added to the public hearing? Why don't we close the public hearing and we'll jump right into the SEQRA. Public Hearing Closed 8:40 p.m. Mr. Round, Executive Director lead the board through the Long Environmental Assessment Form, Part II: FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, PART II IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will the proposed action result in physical change to the project site: NO Examples that would apply to column 2 Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 1O%. Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Construction that will continue for more then 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. Construction in a designated floodway. Other impacts: 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.) NO Specific land forms: IMPACT ON WATER 3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? NO Examples that would apply Developable area of site contains a protected water body. Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from chamIel of a protected stream. Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. Other impacts: 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? NO Examples that would apply A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. Other impacts: 5. Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? NO Examples that would apply Proposed action will require a discharge permit. Proposed action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action. Proposed action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system. Proposed action will adversely affect groundwater. Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. Proposed action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. Proposed action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. Proposed action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. Proposed action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. Proposed action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. Other impacts: 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? NO Examples that would apply Proposed action would change flood water flows. Proposed action may cause substantial erosion. Proposed action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Proposed action will allow development in a designated floodway. Other impacts: IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? NO Examples that would apply Proposed action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. Proposed action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. Other impacts: IMP ACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? NO Examples that would apply Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. Other impacts: 9. Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? NO Examples that would apply Proposed action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. Proposed action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. IMP ACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? NO Examples that would apply The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) Other impacts: IMP ACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? NO Examples that would apply Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. Other impacts: IMP ACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOCIAL RESOURCES 12. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? NO Examples that would apply Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. Proposed action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. Other impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? NO Examples that would apply The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Other impacts: IMP ACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 14. Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14 (g)? NO List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA. IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? NO Examples that would apply Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. Other impacts: IMP ACT ON ENERGY 16. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? NO Examples that would apply Proposed action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of energy in the municipality. Proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. Other impacts: NOISE AND ODOR IMP ACTS 17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? NO Examples that would apply Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. Other impacts: IMP ACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 18. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? NO Examples that would apply Proposed action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. Proposed action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other flammable liquids. Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. Other impacts: IMP ACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 19. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? YES, SMALL TO MODERATE Examples that would apply The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. Proposed action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) Proposed action will set an important precedent for future projects. Proposed action will create or eliminate employment. Other impacts: HARMONIZE ZONING WITH THE EXISTING AND ADJACENT USES. 20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? NO RESOLUTION AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTIES OWNED BY EVERGREEN BANK FROM SFR-20 (SINGLE F AMIL Y RESIDENTIAL - 20,000 SQUARE FEET) TO HC-lA (HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL - ONE ACRE) RESOLUTION NO. 483, 98 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Merrill WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Douglas Irish WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering a request for an amendment to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and Map by the applicant Evergreen Bank, N.A. to rezone properties bearing Tax Map No.'s: 108-1-31 and 108-1-32 located adjacent to the Queensbury Motors parking lot, Everts Avenue, Queensbury from the current zoning of SFR-20 (Single Family Residential- 20,000 Square Feet) to HC-lA (Highway Commercial- One Acre), and WHEREAS, on or about October 19th, 1998, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury adopted a Resolution authorizing submission of the rezoning application to the Town's Planning Board for report and recommendation, and WHEREAS, on or about November 24th, 1998, the Queensbury Planning Board adopted a Resolution recommending approval of the Petition for Change of Zone, and WHEREAS, on or about November 16th, 1998, the Warren County PlamIing Board adopted a Resolution recommending approval of the Petition for Change of Zone with the condition that the former power transmission corridor be left as greenway, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury duly conducted a public hearing concerning the proposed rezoning of the properties on December 21st, 1998, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, as SEQRA Lead Agency, has reviewed an Environmental Assessment Form to analyze potential environmental impacts of the proposed rezoning, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has considered the conditions and circumstances of the area affected by the rezoning, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby determines that the proposed rezoning will not have any significant environmental impact and a SEQRA Negative Declaration is made, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby amends the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and Map to rezone properties bearing Tax Map No.: 108-1-31 and 108-1-32 located adjacent to the Queensbury Motors parking lot, Everts Avenue, Queensbury from the current zoning of SFR-20 (Single Family Residential - 20,000 Square Feet) to HC-lA (Highway Commercial - One Acre), and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to arrange with a surveyor to update the official Town Zoning Map to reflect this change of zone, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director of Community Development to send a copy of this Resolution to the Warren County Planning Board, Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury PlamIing Board and any agency involved for SEQRA purposes, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, in accordance with the requirements of Article XIII of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and ~265 of the Town Law, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to publish a certified copy of the zoning changes in the Glens Falls Post-Star within five (5) days and obtain an Affidavit of Publication, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this amendment take effect upon filing in the Town Clerk's Office. Duly adopted this 21st day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Irish, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Merrill, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES None ABSENT: None Correspondence Deputy Town Clerk Barber read the following letter into the record (letter on file in the Clerk's Office) TO: Mr. William Remington, County Superintendent of Public Works FROM: NYS Department of Transportation RE: Speed Limit Request, Corinth Road In response to your request dated September 23, 1998, we have completed an investigation of Corinth Road and have determined that a change in the regulatory speed limit is justified. A Notice of Order has been written for a 45 MPH speed limit from 200 plus or nnnus feet east of Big Bay Road to West Mountain Road, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles. As soon as you receive this Order, which is now being processed by the Secretary of State, please arrange to have the appropriate agency install the speed limit signs in accordance with the New York State Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Bill Vazal of this office at 474-6377. Sincerely, William E. Logan Regional Traffic Engineer Town Councilmen's Committee Reports Councilman Tucker reported that he went to the Town of Luzerne the other night and was involved in a public hearing on the Moreau Lake expansion... it appears to me that the people in charge are people friendly and are going to make it work for the folks... if! understand everything correctly, all the land that's involved in the Town of Queensbury is remaining on the tax rolls... two things I brought up that they said they would take a look at is the big fence that they left at PCB site, about taking it down and they're looking at allowing a boat launch in that particular area to open up the Sherman Island basin. Open Forum Resolutions Barbara Bennett referred to resolution 6.15, "Resolution Authorizing Renewal of Directors & Officers Insurance Policy for the Queensbury Economic Development Corporation" and questioned what insurance policy it was? Mr. Hess, Controller noted that QEDC has always maintained liability policy insuring the liabilities of it's officers and directors and the decisions they make and that's up for renewal today. Ms. Bennett-It doesn't have anything to do with health insurance. Supervisor Champagne-No. Mark Hoffman, Fox Hollow Lane referred to resolution 6.3, "Resolution Adopting Comprehensive Land Use Plan" and noted that he recently submitted a correspondence to the board regarding this issue... concerned that if the town adopts this plan, we're setting the wheels in motion for major environmental impacts... a tremendous of work went into this plan and the volunteers that worked on it deserve a lot of credit, it's a very extensive plan that has a lot of good ideas but it's not the committee's comprehensive land use plan, it's the Town Board's and you have a responsibility for everything that's in it, it's your vote. Questioned whether there were any significant changes currently in the plan as compared to what was presented at the time of the public hearing particularly in reference to Neighborhood 6? Mr. Round, Executive Director noted, there's no substantive changes... made a change in the format of the document, included and identified every single recommendation within the plan, changed any recommendation that had a specific zoning designation and changed it to a generic designation keeping the intent of the advisory committee's recommendation. Dr. Hoffman noted, would like to remind the board, according to what I've read, the single most important issue that was brought up by residents in the meetings that began this was preservation of open space. Mr. Salvador referred to the environmental aspects of the comprehensive land use plan and made recommendation to the board to do an environmental impact statement particularly in North Queensbury where this plan makes no provision for a future wastewater management facility in North Queensbury... referred to resolution 6.2, "Resolution Accepting Dedication of parcel owned by Carl & Barbara DeSantis" and questioned what land is being accepting in dedication and for what purpose? Councilman Irish noted, they've donated more of the park land down at Hudson River Park. Mr. Salvador questioned whether the billboards were to remain? Councilman Irish noted, they're keeping the billboards. Councilman Tucker-And we can't plant trees to block them. Mr. Salvador-Have you accepted this land with that kind of encumbrance? Councilman Irish-Yes. Mr. Salvador-That's not a gift. Councilman Irish-They own that part of the land, that part of the land is not part of it. Mr. Salvador-When you accept land in dedication with conditions, it's not a gift. Councilman Merrill-I think it would be good to get legal clarification on this issue. Town Counsel Schachner-There's nothing to clarify, the statement is legally incorrect. Councilman Merrill-What is the correct statement? Town Counsel Schachner-Mr. Salvador's statement is that if you condition a gift, it's not a gift and that statement is not legally correct. Mr. Salvador referred to resolution 6.6, "Resolution Authorizing Transportation Agreement between City of Glens Falls and Town of Queensbury" and questioned what the agreement entails? Supervisor Champagne noted, that entails the transit system busses that travel throughout the town and the city that we are a part of where we pay the city who is the lead agency with that service and we pay our portion of it which is forty-five thousand dollars a year. Resolutions RESOLUTION OF TOWN BOARD ORDERING DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL OF STRUCTURE LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY OF DARRELL AND PAMELA RUSSELL, 67 OHIO AVENUE, QUEENSBURY RESOLUTION NO. 484, 98 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Douglas Irish WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, after holding a hearing on September 21st, 1998 and by Resolution No.: 352,98 determined that the structure located on property owned by Darrell and Pamela Russell at 67 Ohio Avenue, Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 127-5-3) was unsafe and dangerous and ordered the Russells to demolish and remove the structure within sixty (60) days after service of the Resolution and in the event that the Russells did not comply with the Town Board's Resolution that the Town Board would authorize the Director of Building and Codes Enforcement to make arrangements for demolition and removal of the structure, and WHEREAS, the Director of Building and Codes has advised the Town Board that the notice of hearing and Resolution were served on the property owners in accordance with ~130(16) of the New York State Town Law and Chapter 60 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, and he has further advised that the Russells have not demolished and removed the structure, and WHEREAS, the Director of Building and Codes Enforcement solicited four (4) bids for the demolition and removal work and has made a hiring recommendation to the Town Board, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the Director of Building and Code Enforcement to engage the services of Kruger Concrete, Inc. to perform the demolition and removal work specified in this Resolution for an amount not to exceed $2,800 and to take such further steps as may be necessary and appropriate to accomplish demolition and removal of the building, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs Town Counsel to institute an action to collect the cost of the demolition and removal, including legal expenses, if necessary, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Director of Building and Codes Enforcement to send a copy of this Resolution by registered mail to the property owners. Duly adopted this 21st day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Tucker, Mr. Merrill, Mr. Turner, Mr. Irish, Mr. Champagne NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF PARCEL OWNED BY CARL AND BARBARA DE SANTIS RESOLUTION NO.: 485,98 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Douglas Irish WHEREAS, Carl and Barbara DeSantis have proposed dedicating to the Town of Queensbury a 7.87 acre parcel ofland located south of Big Boom Road which is a part of Tax Map No.: 145-1-4 in the Town of Queensbury as shown on a "Map of Lands of Carl R. and Barbara W. DeSantis," dated November 21, 1986 and revised December 1, 1998 by Coulter & McCormack, Licensed Land Surveyors, Glens Falls, New York and filed in the Warren County Clerk's Office (the "Parcel"), and WHEREAS, the Parcel is proposed to be used by the Town of Queensbury for park and recreation purposes, and WHEREAS, the Parcel abuts the 44 acre Town property known as Hudson River Park and would be a valuable addition to the Park, and WHEREAS, Town Counsel has reviewed the proposed deed for the parcel and has determined it to be in a legally acceptable form, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury wishes to authorize acceptance of the property and execution of the deed, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby accepts and authorizes the dedication of the 7.87 acre parcel ofland from Carl and Barbara DeSantis, contingent upon the Town's receipt of evidence of title in form acceptable to Town Counsel, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury approves the recording and filing of a Warranty Deed and further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute all documents necessary to complete the recording of the Deed on behalf of the Town of Queensbury, affix the seal of the Town to any documents and take such other and further action as may be necessary to record the Deed with the Warren County Clerk's Office. Duly adopted this 21st day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Merrill, Mr. Turner, Mr. Irish, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Champagne NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY RESOLUTION NO. 486, 98 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Douglas Irish WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Merrill WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering adoption of the 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Town of Queensbury (Plan) presented at this meeting, which Plan presents recommendations to guide land use in the Town of Queensbury for the next five to ten years, and WHEREAS, the Plan was prepared by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Advisory Board with the assistance of the Town of Queensbury Community Development staff, input from citizens and elected officials and various information sources were also utilized, including published materials, interviews and reports generated by local study groups and committees, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury held a public informational meeting concerning the Plan in August of 1998 and conducted a public hearing on November 9th, 1998, and WHEREAS, the Plan was forwarded to the Warren County Department ofPlamIing and the City of Glens Falls for their comments and no negative comments were received, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, as SEQRA Lead Agency, has reviewed an Environmental Assessment Form to analyze potential environmental impacts of the Plan, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby determines that adoption of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Town of Queensbury will not have any significant environmental impact and a SEQRA Negative Declaration is made, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adopts the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director of Community Development to send copies of this Resolution and Plan to the Warren County PlamIing Board, Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury Planning Board and any agency involved for SEQRA purposes, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this Plan shall take effect upon filing in the Town Clerk's Office. Duly adopted this 21st day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Irish, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Merrill, Mr. Champagne NOES None ABSENT: None DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE: Councilman Irish-I would like to talk about Neighborhood 6 and I made a little speech the last time we talked about this before when we opened the public comment period about not rezoning that area until it's sewered or something is done to alleviate any concerns with septic over there and another thing I would like to bring up about it is that presently I think everybody is aware that the developers for Indian Ridge and the Citizens for Queensbury and Pliney and myself are engaged in some discussion about the, trying to bring a plan together to develop that property that everybody can live with and really we're looking at it from the standpoint of three acre zoning at this point even though they have a PUD, it was never signed off on. So, everybody's aware that they're dealing with three acre zoning at this point and it kind of seems, I don't know if I want to say premature but I don't think we necessarily need to go and address that piece of property in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to reduce the zoning to one acre. I think we can work out something that's agreeable to all parties based on three acre zoning the way it sits right now, that's the way it looks. There's been a lot of positive comments from the developers on behalf of Matt Jones. I'd like to think we can move forward with it and leave the zoning the way it is. Town Board held discussion, agreed to make the following changes: Neighborhood 6, page 4, recommendation 6.2 (strike all of recommendation 6.2 (whole paragraph) and in the paragraph above recommendation 6.2, change the last sentence to read: Being situated near a wetland calls for careful siting of development and compliance with wetlands regulations., and then add the following two sentences: This is a particularly sensitive area for which any rezoning recommendation would likely be very controversial. Further study of the various environmental characteristics is suggested prior to any substantial change in density. ASSESSMENT FULL ENVIRONMENTAL FORM, PART II IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will the proposed action result in physical change to the project site: NO Examples that would apply to column 2 Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 1O%. Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Construction that will continue for more then 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. Construction in a designated floodway. Other impacts: 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.) NO Specific land forms: IMPACT ON WATER 3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? YES, SMALL TO MODERATE Examples that would apply Developable area of site contains a protected water body. Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from chamIel of a protected stream. Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. Other impacts: THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN INCLUDES RECOMMENDATIONS TO STRENGTHEN EXISTING WATER QUALITY PROTECTION MECHANISMS. 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? YES, SMALL TO MODERATE Examples that would apply A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. Other impacts: THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN INCLUDES RECOMMENDATIONS TO STRENGTHEN EXISTING WATER QUALITY PROTECTION MECHANISMS. 5. Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? YES, SMALL TO MODERATE Examples that would apply Proposed action will require a discharge permit. Proposed action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action. Proposed action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system. Proposed action will adversely affect groundwater. Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. Proposed action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. Proposed action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. Proposed action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. Proposed action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. Proposed action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. Other impacts: THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN INCLUDES RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE SURF ACE AND GROUNDWATER QUALITY. 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? YES, SMALL TO MODERATE Examples that would apply Proposed action would change flood water flows. Proposed action may cause substantial erosion. Proposed action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Proposed action will allow development in a designated floodway. Other impacts: THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN SUPPORTS THE DEVELOPMENT OF A STORMW ATER MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE. IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? NO Examples that would apply Proposed action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. Proposed action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. Other impacts: IMP ACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? NO Examples that would apply Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. Other impacts: THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN CAT ALOGUES THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND INCLUDES MEASURES TO ENHANCE THEIR PROTECTION. 9. Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? NO Examples that would apply Proposed action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. Proposed action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. IMP ACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? NO Examples that would apply The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) Other impacts: IMP ACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? YES, SMALL TO MODERATE Examples that would apply Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. Other impacts: THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN RECOMMENDS DEVELOPMENT OF GREENWAY AND OPEN SPACE PROTECTION PROGRAMS. IMP ACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOCIAL RESOURCES 12. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? YES, SMALL TO MODERATE Examples that would apply Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. Proposed action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. Other impacts: THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN IDENTIFIES MEASURES TO ENHANCE PROTECTION AND ENJOYMENT OF LOCALLY IMPORT ANT HISTORIC RESOURCES. IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? YES Examples that would apply The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Other impacts: THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN SUPPORTS DEVELOPMENT OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND DEVELOPMENT OF OPEN SPACE PROTECTION PROGRAM. IMP ACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 14. Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14 (g)? YES List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA. SEE SECTION 3.6 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN. THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN RECOMMENDS EXAMINATION OF THE CRITERIA BY WHICH EXISTING CEA'S HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED. IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? YES Examples that would apply Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. Other impacts: THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN SUPPORTS LOCAL AND REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING EFFORTS DESIGNED TO MITIGATE EXISTING AND FUTURE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS. IMP ACT ON ENERGY 16. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? NO Examples that would apply Proposed action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of energy in the municipality. Proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. Other impacts: NOISE AND ODOR IMP ACTS 17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? NO Examples that would apply Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. Other impacts: IMP ACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 18. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? NO Examples that would apply Proposed action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. Proposed action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other flammable liquids. Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. Other impacts: POSSIBLY ENHANCE IMP ACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 19. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? YES Examples that would apply The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. Proposed action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) Proposed action will set an important precedent for future projects. Proposed action will create or eliminate employment. Other impacts: THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN IS THE COMMUNITY'S VISION FOR ENHANCING THE CHARACTER OF THE TOWN. 20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? NO (vote taken at this time for Resolution Adopting Comprehensive Land Use Plan) DISCUSSION AFTER VOTE: Councilman Merrill-I think it's worth noting that has been five years of effort into this plan and I would just like to acknowledge the contributions that the members of the committee over the years and the professional planning staff that was made to this plan and really thank them for an outstanding effort in preparing the document. I'll point out this document was prepared entirely by volunteers and by staff at no cost to the town, we did not employ consultants in this effort. It only cost us paper and we did go through a lot of that. And I'd like to commend Chris for taking a lead in formulating a plan of action to take the recommendations in this document forward. And we recognize the plan isn't perfect, it never will be but it does provide a good base to work from and to build upon. So, I think five years of effort completed tonight. Councilman Irish-When will these be printed? Executive Director, Mr. Round-As soon as we can perform that. I ask that anybody that has a bound copy, return it to the town and we'll replace that with the final document. We have drafted an implementation plan and the implementation that was introduced at the public hearing that was conducted was basically the skeleton of an implementation plan. It identified all of the recommendations. We've revised that. We've identified key role players in implementation. There will be a brief introduction to that in the newsletter that will be published sometime in January and that hopefully, I'm shooting for February to make a formal presentation of an implementation plan, an actual strategy to how to implement some recommendations and part of that, the big part is prioritization and then allocation of resources whether they're financial or human resources to making some of those recommendations come alive. Supervisor Champagne-I guess the hurdle now is to get over some of the major events that goes into the rezoning of some of the properties throughout the town, talk about transportation and some of the problems that we're facing and identify ways and means to correct that. So, there's a major project down the road and I think that if we can put a plan in place, that which gets written gets done and we'll proceed from there. So, I just want to, again add to what Dick has said. Chris, I want to complement you for bringing this thing to a closure and again, you've got our support, I feel that the board is a hundred and ten percent behind this effort and it's due time. I think the town is in need of this and I would hope that we can extend it from the land use plan right into a visionary look at where this town is and where it will be ten, fifteen, twenty-five years down the road. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF CONVENIENT MEDICAL CARE, P.C., TO PERFORM SUBSTANCE TESTING SERVICES FOR THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY RESOLUTION NO.: 487,98 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Douglas Irish WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury wishes to engage the services of Convenient Medical Care, P.C. to perform substance testing services for the Town for 1999 in accordance with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR), and WHEREAS, Convenient Medical Care, P.C., has offered to provide these services in accordance with the terms and provisions of their agreement presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, the agreement is in form approved by Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves and authorizes the engagement of Convenient Medical Care, P.C., to perform substance testing services for 1999, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the agreement with Convenient Medical Care, P.c. presented at this meeting and costs for the substance testing services shall be paid for from the appropriate accounts. Duly adopted this 21st day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Irish, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Merrill, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPOINTING CHARLES VOSS AS SENIOR PLANNER RESOLUTION NO. 488, 98 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Merrill WHEREAS, by previous Resolution the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury established the position of Senior PlamIer and appointed Susan Cipperly to the position, and WHEREAS, Ms. Cipperly recently resigned from the Senior PlamIer position, and WHEREAS, the Executive Director of Community Development posted availability for the vacant Senior PlamIer position, reviewed resumes and interviewed interested candidates, and WHEREAS, the Executive Director has made a hiring recommendation to the Town Board, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby appoints Charles Voss to the position of Senior PlamIer effective January 11th, 1998 on a provisional basis until such time as he passes the Civil Service exam for the Senior PlamIer position and also subject to a six month probation period, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that Mr. Voss shall be paid a salary of $35,000 per amIum to be paid on a prorated weekly basis, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor and/or Town Controller are hereby authorized and directed to complete any forms necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 21st day of December, 1998 by the following vote: AYES Mr. Tucker, Mr. Merrill, Mr. Turner, Mr. Irish, Mr. Champagne NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF GLENS FALLS AND TOWN OF QUEENSBURY RESOLUTION NO.: 489,98 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Merrill WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Greater Glens Falls Transit has submitted to the Queensbury Town Board a Transportation Agreement providing for the delivery of regular, public transportation service to, through, and among the corporate limits and locations of the Town of Queensbury, City of Glens Falls and other adjacent municipalities, and WHEREAS, the Transportation Agreement is for a period from January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2000 and provides for payment by the Town of Queensbury of$4l,432 each year for two years for the period January 1, 1999 through December 31,2000, and WHEREAS, the Town Board believes that this public transportation service benefits and serves the public interest of Town residents, and WHEREAS, a copy of the Agreement has been presented at this meeting and is in form approved by Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the Transportation Agreement between the City of Glens Falls and the Town of Queensbury presented at this meeting and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Agreement and take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that payment for the transportation services shall be paid for from the appropriate account. Duly adopted this 21st day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Merrill, Mr. Turner, Mr. Irish, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Champagne NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AWARDING BID FOR MAINTENANCE PRODUCTS RESOLUTION NO. 490, 98 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Douglas Irish WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Town's Purchasing Agent duly advertised for bids for the continuous supply of maintenance products on a demand basis for use by all Town Departments for the year 1999 in accordance with previously submitted bid specifications, and WHEREAS, Sofco, Inc., submitted the lowest and only bid for the maintenance products for the amount of $4,762.28, and WHEREAS, the Town Facilities Manager has recommended that the Town Board award the bid to Sofco, Inc., NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby awards the bid for the continuous supply of maintenance products on a demand basis for use by all Town Departments for the year 1999 to Sofco, Inc., for an amount not to exceed $4,762.28, to be paid for from the appropriate departmental account( s). Duly adopted this 21st day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Irish, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Merrill, Mr. Champagne NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO AMEND 1998 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 491,98 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Douglas Irish WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Merrill WHEREAS, certain Town Departments have requested fund transfers for the 1998 Budget and the Chief Fiscal Officer has approved the requests, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the funds be transferred and the 1998 Town Budget be amended as follows: ASSESSMENT: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 01-1355-4080 (Advertisement) 01-1355-2010 (Office Equipment) 54. 01-1355-4090 (Conference Expense) 01-1355-2010 (Office Equipment) 227. 01-1355-4120 (Printing) 01-1355-2010 (Office Equipment) 50. 01-1355-4220 (Training/Education) 01-1355-2010 (Office Equipment) 505. 01-1355-4400 (Misc. Contractual) 01-1355-2010 (Office Equipment) 1,000. ASSESSMENT: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 01-1990-4400 (Contingency) 01-1355-1079 (Prop. Tax Ser. Asst. PT) 550. 01-1990-4400 (Contingency) 01-1355-1730 (Assist. to Assessor) 3,350. BUILDING & GROUNDS: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 01-1620-2060 42. (Tools) 01-1620-2001 47. (Misc. Equipment) 01-1620-4400-24 550. (Misc. Contractual) 01-1620-4400-0022 (Misc. Contractual) 01-1620-4400-0022 (Misc. Contractual) 01-5132-4500 (Fuel Oil Nat. Gas) 01-5132-4500 01-1620-1002 600. (Fuel Oil Nat. Gas) (Misc. Payroll) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 01-3620-4030 01-3620-1070 75. (Postage) (Clerk, Part-Time) 01-8020-1620 01-3510-4760 5,269. (Planning-Sr. PlamIer) (An. Control-Vet. Services) 01-8020-1620 01-8020-2001 50. (Planning-Sr. PlamIer) (Planning-Misc. Equip.) 01-3620-2020 01-1680-2031 2,250. (Safety Insp.-Vehicles) (Computer Hardware) CREMATORY: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 02-1990-1002 02-8810-1800-0021 565. (Misc. Payroll Contingency) (Crematory Overtime Earnings) ENGINEERING: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 01-1990-4400 01-1440-4400 3,575. (Contingency) (Engineering) HIGHWAY: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 01-5010-4090 01-5010-1320 300. (Conf. Expense) (Conf. Admin. Sec.) 01-5010-4060 01-5010-1320 500. (Service Contracts) (Conf. Admin. Sec.) 04-5110-1450-0002 04-5130-4480 3,000. (MEO OT) (Tires) PARKS & RECREATION: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 01-7020-1910-0000 01-7110-1460-0002 151. (Sr. Typist, FT) (Mechanic-Overtime) 01-7020-1910-0000 (Sr. Typist, FT) 01-7020-4040-0000 (Serv. Contracts) 2,190. 01-7020-1910-0000 (Sr. Typist, FT) 01-711 0-411 0-0000 (Veh. Rep. & Maint.) 600. WATER: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 40-8310-1500 (Deputy Supt.) 40-8310-4003 (Fiscal Agent Fee) 8,300. PAYROLL: Fund Dept Item Project Location Budget Adj. From: 1 1990 1002 -17,322.48 To: 1 1620 1060 884 1 1620 1060 2 1.2 1 1620 1230 844.8 1 1620 1230 2 10 1 1620 1400 3,616.00 1 1620 1400 2 220 1 1620 1470 1,128.00 1 1620 1470 2 280 1 1620 1530 966 1 1620 1530 2 100 1 3510 1640 917.76 1 3510 1640 2 68 1 3620 1060 838 1 3620 1060 2 4 1 3620 1070 7.6 1 7110 1400 1,823.52 1 7110 1400 2 60 1 7110 1460 1,125.60 1 7110 1460 2 60 1 7110 1470 1,137.60 1 7110 1470 2 80 1 8010 1915 1,047.96 1 8010 1915 2 4 1 8020 1910 962.48 1 8020 1910 2 96 1 8020 1915 1,035.96 1 8020 1915 2 4 From: 2 1990 1002 -5,370.16 To: 2 8810 1400 835.8 2 8810 1400 2 56.76 Fund Dept Item Project Location Budget Adj. 2 8810 1440 1,035.24 2 8810 1440 2 14.6 2 8810 1450 927.64 2 8810 1450 2 55.2 2 8810 1470 1,149.56 2 8810 1470 2 64.72 2 8810 1800 1,171.00 2 8810 1800 2 11 59.64 From: 4 1990 1002 -11,299.20 To: 4 5110 1440 2,058.48 4 5142 1440 2,060.00 4 5142 1450 7,180.72 From: 32 1990 1002 -2,000.00 To: 32 8110 1910 964 32 8120 1560 1,036.00 From: 40 1990 1002 -21,108.00 To: 40 8310 1180 1,180.00 40 8310 1320 964 40 8310 1910 964 40 8320 1002 24 40 8320 1400 908 40 8320 1510 4,040.00 40 8320 1510 2 1,280.00 40 8320 1520 1,100.00 40 8320 1520 2 280 40 8320 1530 1,030.00 40 8320 1530 2 30 40 8320 1780 1,112.00 40 8320 1780 2 40 40 8320 1841 1,392.00 40 8340 1400 1,372.00 40 8340 1460 1,104.00 40 8340 1580 1,960.00 40 8340 1590 2,328.00 Fund Dept Item Project Location Budget Adj. From: 910 1990 1002 -3,345.64 To: 910 8160 1440 3,165.64 910 8160 1440 2 180 Duly adopted this 21st day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Irish, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Merrill, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INTERMUNICIPAL AGREEMENT WITH THE TOWN OF MOREAU FOR THE SALE OF WATER RESOLUTION NO.: 492,98 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Merrill WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has a water treatment plant which currently has capacity in excess of its residents' use, and WHEREAS, the Town of Moreau wishes to obtain water from the Town's facility, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury wishes to supply the Town of Moreau with water from its facility, and WHEREAS, the Towns of Queensbury and Moreau have negotiated terms for an Intermunicipal Agreement for the sale of water, and WHEREAS, on December 8th, 1998, the Town of Moreau adopted a Resolution approving the Intermunicipal Agreement, and WHEREAS, a copy of a Draft Intermunicipal Agreement for the sale of water has been presented at this meeting and the Town Board has determined that such Agreement would be in the best interests of the Town, its residents, and its Consolidated Water District, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves of an Intermunicipal Agreement with the Town of Moreau, substantially in the form presented at this meeting, which Agreement shall be modified to incorporate a provision specifying that this project is not subject to and is exempt from the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) because it is being taken pursuant to an environmental enforcement action in United States District Court and judicial decree in that action, for the sale of water from the Town's water treatment facility, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute an Intermunicipal Agreement in form approved by Town Counsel and take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 21st day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Tucker, Mr. Merrill, Mr. Turner, Mr. Irish, Mr. Champagne NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WAGE & SALARY STRUCTURE Councilman Tucker requested that resolution 6.10, "Resolution Authorizing Wage & Salary Structure" and resolution 6.11, "Resolution Adopting Non-Union Salary & Wage Schedules Effective January 1, 1999" be pulled so that they could be discussed in Executive Session. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT OF BIDS FOR BITUMINOUS P AVER FOR THE TOWN HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 493,98 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Douglas Irish WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Highway Department wishes to advertise for bids for the purchase of one (1) 1998 or newer Self-Propelled Bituminous Paver (Rubber-Wheeled Type) which would also include a trade-in of one (1) 1983 PF 120 Blaw Knox Paver presently owned by the Town Highway Department, and WHEREAS, the Highway Department has prepared the necessary bid specifications, submitted them to the Town Clerk and copies of the bid specifications have been presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, ~103 of the General Municipal Law 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 bid documents presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish an advertisement for bids for one (1) 1998 or newer Self-Propelled Bituminous Paver (Rubber-Wheeled Type) for the Town Highway Department in the official newspaper for the Town of Queensbury and make bid documents available on December 26th, 1998, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to open all bids received at the Town Clerk's Office at 2:05 p.m., January 8th, 1999, 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 of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 21st day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Merrill, Mr. Turner, Mr. Irish, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Champagne NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION 434.98 REGARDING TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT OF CONFIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY IN THE TOWN HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT AND AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY SECRETARIAL SERVICES RESOLUTION NO.: 494,98 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Douglas Irish WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury previously adopted Resolution 434.98 which approved the temporary appointment of Gail Root to the position of Confidential Administrative Secretary in the Town Highway Department to replace Rebecca Bernard while Ms. Bernard is on maternity leave, and WHEREAS, Ms. Root has advised the Town Board that she is no longer interested in the temporary position, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to therefore rescind Resolution 434.98 and authorize the engagement of the services of Heber Associates, Inc. to provide temporary secretarial services during Ms. Bernard's maternity leave, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby rescinds Resolution No.: 434.98 and authorizes and directs the engagement of Heber Associates, Inc. to provide temporary secretarial services in the Town Highway Department while Rebecca Bernard is out on maternity leave, such temporary secretarial services to begin December 22nd, 1998 so that the secretary may complete training for the position before Ms. Bernard begins her maternity leave sometime during 1999, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that payment for the temporary secretarial services shall be in the amount of $12.50 per hour to be paid from the appropriate Town account, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Controller to complete any forms and take any and all action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 21st day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Irish, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Merrill, Mr. Champagne NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPOINTING RESIDENTS TO ATTEND PUBLIC INFORMATION/SCOPING MEETINGS ON THE DRAFT MASTER PLAN FOR SPIER FALLS ADDITION TO MOREAU LAKE STATE PARK RESOLUTION NO. 495, 98 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Douglas Irish Councilman Tucker withdrew motion. Councilman Irish withdrew motion. RESOLUTION APPOINTING RESIDENTS TO ATTEND PUBLIC INFORMATION/SCOPING MEETINGS ON THE DRAFT MASTER PLAN FOR SPIER FALLS ADDITION TO MOREAU LAKE STATE PARK RESOLUTION NO.: 495,98 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Douglas Irish WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation has notified the Town of Queensbury of public information/scoping meetings concerning the Draft Master Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Spier Falls Addition to the Moreau Lake State Park and has invited participation at the meetings from all interested persons, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury wishes to appoint three (3) Town of Queensbury residents to participate at the public meetings, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby appoints Pliney Tucker, Linda White and Donnie Monroe as Town of Queensbury residents to participate in public information/scoping meetings concerning the Draft Master Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Spier Falls Addition to the Moreau Lake State Park. Duly adopted this 21st day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Irish, Mr. Merrill, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mr. Tucker RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RENEWAL OF DIRECTORS & OFFICERS INSURANCE POLICY FOR THE QUEENSBURY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (QED C) RESOLUTION NO.: 496,98 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Douglas Irish WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHEREAS, the Queensbury Economic Development Corporation (QED C) Directors & Officers Insurance Policy is due to expire in December, 1998, and WHEREAS, the Town Controller has requested Town Board authorization to pay the renewal premium of $1,275 from Fund 013, the Town's Economic Assistance Fund, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves of the renewal of the Directors & Officers Insurance Policy for the QEDC in the amount of $1,275 from Fund 013, the Town's Economic Assistance Fund, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Controller and/or Town Supervisor to prepare any necessary applications or forms and take any other action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 21st day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Tucker, Mr. Merrill, Mr. Turner, Mr. Irish, Mr. Champagne NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INTERMUNICIPAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND THE CITY OF GLENS FALLS REGARDING COLE'S WOODS PROPERTIES RESOLUTION NO.: 497,98 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Merrill WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the City of Glens Falls is the owner of certain properties located in the Town of Queensbury generally known as Cole's Woods, which properties consist of several parcels constituting approximately 90.4 acres which are generally utilized for public open space and recreational purposes, and WHEREAS, the City commenced formal, legal amIexation proceedings to amIex the Cole's Woods properties by modifying the municipal boundary line between the Town and the City such that the Cole's Woods properties would be located in and become part of the City and no longer be located in the Town, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury opposed the amIexation proceedings, and WHEREAS, trial of the amIexation proceeding began on September 14, 1998 before Appellate Division Referees Dominic Viscardi, Charles Lewis and Arnold Proskin, and WHEREAS, the Town and City share the common goal of preserving the public open space and recreational use of the Cole's Woods properties and preventing development of the properties or uses inconsistent with public open space recreational uses, and WHEREAS, during the trial and with the assistance of the Referees, the Town and City have negotiated terms for settlement of the amIexation proceeding including discontinuance of the amIexation proceeding by the City and the Town's agreement to eliminate the City's taxes on the properties for forty (40) years, and WHEREAS, an Intermunicipal Settlement Agreement has been proposed by the City and presented to the Town Board before and at this meeting, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize the Town Supervisor to execute the Intermunicipal Settlement Agreement for the mutual benefit of constituents and residents of both the Town and City, and WHEREAS, the Intermunicipal Settlement Agreement is in form approved by Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves of the Intermunicipal Settlement Agreement with the City of Glens Falls regarding the Cole's Woods properties substantially in the form presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Intermunicipal Settlement Agreement in form approved by Town Counsel and to take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 21st day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Merrill, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES Mr. Irish, Mr. Tucker ABSENT: None DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE: Counsel Pratt-The agreement parrots almost exactly the stipulation that was entered into in court, the day we were in court which I think was the fifteenth of September. It does not have any of the bells and whistles in it that we talked about earlier that we're not substantive but were things, in discussions, there was a desire to have in the agreement. This is a bare bones agreement which sets forth just the material and the stipulation. Councilman Tucker-Is this the one that we were going to send them to see if they accepted it? Counsel Pratt-I don't believe that's the one that's attached. The one that's attached that does not have the additional material in it that you sent on October 21 to the city. Councilman Irish-This one doesn't have that in it? Counsel Pratt-This one does not have that material in it. Councilman Irish-So, the bike trail access is not in here? Counsel Pratt-There's nothing specifically. There's a reference to biking as one of the functions of the recreational use of that property. There's not a specific provision that says there will be biking access from the mall, for example. Councilman Tucker-They still could tell you that they don't want to sign this thing, right? Counsel Pratt-The answer to that is technically yes but as a practical matter, this is the agreement that their counsel has said to us they will sign. Until the council actually votes, you don't know that but we believe that to be the case. Supervisor Champagne-My discussion with the Mayor, also he would be receptive and I think the council would be receptive to a side letter regarding the bike trail connection. Councilman Irish-The only comment that I would make with regard to this is that, I don't think that there was any authority to enter into this agreement based on the last conversation we had as an entire Town Board before this negotiation took place and I think the town didn't lose a whole lot in the deal but I think they've lost, in my mind they should have at least gotten taxes for the special districts and I can't support this agreement. (vote taken) RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HIRING OF PART-TIME CLERK TO WORK IN TOWN CLERK/TAX RECEIVER'S OFFICE RESOLUTION NO. : 498, 98 INTRODUCED BY : Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Merrill WHEREAS, Darleen Dougher, Town ClerklTax Receiver, recently advertised for a part-time Clerk to work in the Town ClerklTax Receiver's Office, and WHEREAS, Ms. Dougher reviewed resumes, interviewed candidates and has made a hiring recommendation to the Town Board, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs Darleen Dougher, Town ClerklTax Receiver, to hire Nancy Dwyer as a part-time Clerk to work in the Town ClerklTax Receiver's Office, subject to a six-month probation period, effective Tuesday, December 22nd, 1998 at the hourly wage of $9 to be paid for from the appropriate account, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Controller to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 21st day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Irish, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Merrill, Mr. Champagne NOES None ABSENT: None Discussions Supervisor Champagne referred to Special Town Board Meeting scheduled for the 29th of December at 11 o'clock and requested to invite the Eddy Group to join them... board agreed. Mr. Hess, Controller gave financial update on EMS and Fire Company contracts.... Noted the meeting held today with the auditor that covered a number of issues. One of those is the amIual end of year for the town and January 19th, 20th and 21st will be doing the early closing of the books at that point and will have some preliminary reports to give you regarding fund balances... will have the audit itself on premise in early May and the audit report published in July. Open Forum 10:20 p.m. Barbara Bennett, Queensbury noted there's been talk regarding a five lane highway on Main Street near Exit 18 and floating a bond for it... Supervisor Champagne-I don't see it as a town cost, it's a county road... there's a segment of the population that's arguing that a five lane road is what should go there. I think from everything that we have heard this far, it's a three lane with a center lane for turning at a cost of around five and a half to six million. To do the five lane we're upwards to twelve, thirteen, fourteen million dollars. Councilman Tucker-The federal government is appropriating eighty percent of the money and they have declared that a three lane highway will solve the problem. Councilman Irish-The only expense to the town would be if we put a sewer line down through there. Ms. Bennett -Questioned, in general what the requirements for floating a bond, when does the town have to have a referendum? Town Counsel Schachner noted, it's hard to answer this question in abstract. Very few financing decisions have mandatory referendums. Many financing decisions have what's called a permissive referendum. Dennis Brower questioned the status of Queensbury Forest? Councilman Tucker noted that he's supposed to have his work done in four weeks, it's been two or three. Open Forum Closed 10:35 p.m. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 499, 98 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Merrill WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Douglas Irish RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and enters in Executive Session to discuss personnel matters, contractual matters and an attorney/client privilege matter. Duly adopted this 21st day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mr. Merrill, Mr. Turner, Mr. Irish, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO RECONVENE RESOLUTION NO. 500, 98 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Douglas Irish WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Merrill RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Executive Session and enters Regular Session. Duly adopted this 21st day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mr. Merrill, Mr. Turner, Mr. Irish, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION REVISING WAGE AND SALARY STRUCTURE RESOLUTION NO.: 501,98 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Douglas Irish WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Merrill WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury by Resolution No. 123,96, adopted a Wage and Salary Structure (Structure) for the Town of Queensbury as part of the Salary Administration Program in Section 10 of the Town's Employee Management System Handbook, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 184.98, the Town Board revised the Wage and Salary Structure, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to again revise the Structure as proposed in the two (2) documents presented at this meeting entitled, "Town of Queensbury Non-Union Position/Grade Schedule" and "Town of Queensbury Non-Union Salary Structure," as revised by the Town Controller on December 21st, 1998, and WHEREAS, these documents shall supercede the previous updates dated May 4th, 1998, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the revisions to the Town of Queensbury Wage and Salary Structure as presented at this meeting and authorizes and directs the Town Controller to enter these revisions as new pages 25 and 26 of the current Salary Administration Program in Section 10 of the Employee Management System Handbook. Duly adopted this 21st day of December, 1998 by the following vote: AYES Mr. Merrill, Mr. Turner, Mr. Irish, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Champagne NOES None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mr. Turner (Karen O'Brien, Deputy Town Clerk #2 & John O'Brien, Building & Code Enforcement Officer) RESOLUTION ADOPTING NON-UNION SALARY & WAGE SCHEDULES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1,1999 RESOLUTION NO.: 502,98 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Douglas Irish WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury wishes to adopt new salary and wage schedules for management, non-management/non-union, and part-time/unclassified employees for 1999, and WHEREAS, these salary schedules shall supercede all previously adopted salaries for these positions, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the new salary and wage schedules for management, non-management/non-union, and part-time/unclassified employees for 1999 as follows: MANAGEMENT POSITION NAME Superintendent Water/Wastewater Controller Executive Director Community Development Assessor Deputy Superintendent/Chief Water Plant Operator Ralph VanDusen $ Henry Hess Christopher Round Helen Otte Bruce Ostrander POSITION NAME Deputy Highway Superintendent Director Parks & Recreation Deputy Superintendent Wastewater Michael Shaw Director Buildings & Grounds Perley Rice Cemetery Superintendent Rodney Mosher Director of Solid Waste Operations James Coughlin Assistant DirectorlRecreation Steven Lovering Richard Missita Harold Hansen 1999 SALARY 58,800 56,417 48,300 52,080 45,961 1999 SALARY $ 45,305 42,285 41,236 38,450 37,270 40,720 29,360 NON-MANAGEMENT - NON-UNION POSITION NAME 1999 SALARY Code Compliance Officer Craig Brown $ 31,000 Director Building & Codes David Hatin 41,447 Senior PlamIer Computer Technology Coordinator William Shaw 30,000 Maintenance Supervisor - Water Timothy Burch 37,657 Planning Assistant Laura Moore 27,074 Data Collector/Appraiser Sharon Meade 30,000 Principal Account Clerk Kathleen DuBois 33,993 Fire Marshal Clifford Grant 32,256 Deputy Town Clerk #1 Caroline Barber 30,757 Court Clerk Karen Stockwell 29,847 Confidential Legal Secretary Pamela Martin 30,285 Confidential Secretary to Supervisor Kim HeunemamI 29,119 Building & Code Enforcement Officer John O'Brien 31,430 Building & Code Enforcement Officer Joel Clugstone 29,440 Senior Coordinator Kathleen Kathe 25,255 Confidential Secretary to Highway Superintendent Rebecca Bernard 25,043 Confidential Legal Secretary (30 hours per week) Carleen Sawyer 19,385 Deputy Court Clerk # 1 Carol Finamore 28,052 Senior Account Clerk Marilyn Hammond 26,347 Deputy Town Clerk #2 Karen O'Brien 25,915 Real Property Tax Service Assistant Mary Winslow $ 25,381 Deputy Court Clerk #2 Kerrie Lewis 22,516 POSITION NAME 1999 SALARY Records Clerk Joann Hicks 25,498 Deputy Receiver of Taxes Judy Fish 24,609 Account Clerk Connie Gebo 24,461 PART-TIME & UNCLASSIFIED POSITION NAME 1999 WAGE/STIPEND Assistant to Assessor Pamela Stoddard $ 10.53 Clerk - Part-Time Barbara Howe 10.85 PT Real Property Tax Service Asst. Elizabeth Dybas 12.04 Cemetery Secretary Gail St. Clair 9.84 PT Senior Account Clerk Donald Chase 10.23 Court Officer - hourly rate James Gerrard 10.45 Court Officer - service fee James Gerrard 18.00 School Traffic Officer- - 1 st two hours Charles Ruggerio 11.67 - after two hours Charles Ruggerio 8.49 School Traffic Officer- - 1 st two hours Rebecca Robertson 11.67 - after two hours Rebecca Robertson 8.49 PT Tax Clerk - Experienced Betty Eggleston 14.33 1 Temporary and Part-Time Clerks Various 9.00 Tax Receiver Darleen Dougher 5,464 2 Purchasing Agent Darleen Dougher 3,278 Health Officer Robert Evans 3,100 Historian Marilyn VanDyke 3,590 Duly adopted this 21st day of December, 1998 by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Irish, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Merrill, Mr. Champagne NOES None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mr. Turner (Karen O'Brien, Deputy Town Clerk #2 & John O'Brien, Building & Code Enforcement Officer 1 New wage classification 2 This part-time position to be abolished upon hiring full-time Purchasing Manager RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN MEETING RESOLUTION NO. 503, 98 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Douglas Irish RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourn it's regular meeting. Duly adopted this 21st day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Irish, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Merrill, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT: None No further action taken. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK TOWN OF QUEENSBURY