2003-02-10
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING
FEBRUARY 10TH, 2003
MTG # 8
RES. #103-122
7: 05 P.M.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DENNIS BROWER COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR
COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER COUNCILMAN DANIEL STEC COUNCILMAN TIM
BREWER
TOWN COUNSEL BOB HAFNER
TOWN OFFICIALS Ralph VanDusen, Water/Wastewater Superintendent Henry Hess, Comptroller Chris
Round, Executive Director of Community Development Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator
PRESS: Glens Falls Post Star
Supervisor Brower called meeting to order....
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER
PUBLIC HEARING - Proposed Local Law - Amending Town Code Chapter 179 " Zoning" To Revise
Language Concerning Special Use Permits And Establish Setbacks For Mixed UseIMain Street Zone
Notice Shown 7:06 P.M.
MR. CRAIG BROWN, Zoning Administrator-The two items on the public hearing for tonight, the first one
is a mixed use zone setback along Main Street and I think Chris is going to get into that a little bit more in
detail after the next item on which is a proposed change to the special use section of the zoning ordinance.
It's the changes to the special use section of the ordinance are broader then we'll probably get to tonight but
the attention is, I think tonight is going to be focused on the marina uses and one of the goals of the changes
to allow for a grandfathering clause, if you will for marinas that can establish a history of the use being on
the property, the proposed changes are going to allow for that to be recognized. The special use section
doesn't really, it's not proposing any increases in boat uses or rental slips on the lake, it's a section of the
ordinance that was there in April 2002 when the ordinance was adopted and again, these proposed changes
tonight are just to allow for grandfatheringof uses that can be substantiated, I guess.
MR. CHRIS ROUND, Executive Director-We introduced to the board, Craig and I attended a brief
workshop with the board about the changes. Marinas have been in existence for a considerable time on the
lake. The April 2000 changes to the Zoning Ordinance was an attempt to acknowledge those uses as well
as some other sensitive land uses so we adopted a special use permitting process. Basically, it's site plan
review with some additional teeth to it that allow the Planning Board to impose particular conditions and
hours of operations, those types of elements. The other sensitive land uses that are subject to this reg., are
gas stations, junk yards, kennels, outdoor concerts. Our old ordinance didn't recognize any of these things
that do exist in the town and so this was seen as a means to regulate those, as Craig said, we're adding to the
regulation now as a means for identifying grandfathering. So, there's no change to the regulations other
then acknowledging grandfathering and providing that process so thatsomebody who does have a pre-
existing use, can go through a documentation process and receive a permit. I know that the LGA has
proposed something other then what's proposed in front of you tonight and I'm sure that they'll address you
but we regulate the construction of docks through amount of shoreline that is available to a property owner
and dependent on the amount of shoreline and Craig can jump in here, you're allowed a particular number
of docks and linear footage of docks and particular formations. We use letters to denote the configuration
of a dock, E shape, F shape, L shape, I shape docks and we regulate the dock area through a permitting
process. The Lake George Park Commission regulations are similar or identical to our regulations. So,
again, no change proposed to those. I think, we have information tonight and I guess tonight is to hear
from the public. I understand that the board doesn't propose to take any action on the marina section nor
the mix use setback section so you're going to har comment tonight from interested parties. The mix use
section as we noted last week, there's not currently a setback in our mixed use zone and our mixed use zone
can be found in, on Main Street, it can be found on the Boulevard and some smaller areas along Western
Avenue and the setback proposes something that we've conceptually proposed to all right along, we had not
codified that setback, I think it's forty-two and a halffeet, is our setback line in that area. We hadn't
codified that because we were hopeful that the engineering plans for Main Street would have progressed as
our Zoning Ordinance. It hasn't gotten to the point where they know exactly where the road is going to be
so we need to address the setback regardless of where the engineering project is because we are receiving
applications and we think it's a very good, it's our best guess, it's a conservative build to line so that we will
have buildings fronting on Main Street at a consistent location up and down Main Street. So, those are the
wo items before you and I guess we'll turn it back over to you Dennis so that you can open the public
hearing.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-At this time, I'd like to open the public hearing for any members of the public
that are here this evening and would like to comment on the proposed action, changing our zoning code as
clarified by Craig Brown and Chris Round. Yes, sir, if you'd come to the microphone please and simply
state your name and address for the record and we're here to listen to you tonight.
MR. DOUG SMITH-Thank you. My name is Doug Smith, property owner in Wamer Bay. I guess came
tonight for clarification with what the town is proposing and wondered how it specifically affects my
situation. My family and I have owned a hundred and ten feet of lake front in Wamer Bay since 1948 and
we have since 1948 had two camps on this lot that we used to rent one and reside in the other one and due
to property tax escalation, we found it necessary to rent both camps and we have a dock for both camps and
have for a number of years. We, the family have moved close to the lake but off the lake and we maintain
the lake front property by renting it and I feel as though the lake is more or less turning into a situation
where the old family residents' are forced out by escalating property taxes, inability to rent our properties
and we eventually lose them and in comes the big money, down comes the old camps and up go the great
big mansions and I'm concerned that we're going to fall victim to that. Is what th town, I'm asking, is the
town proposing in my situation limiting my ability to rent two camps with two dock spaces?
SUPERVISOR BROWER-I can't speak for your specific situation, I can tell you that there is an article in
here that
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-Dennis, if! might. Again, the changes tonight are nothing, the
significant changes occurred in April of 2002 and that was inclusion of a special use permit process for
acknowledging marinas as allowed land uses on the lake. Marinas previously were not identified as
allowed land uses. The difficulty gets, is the application of the definition of what a marina is and there's,
our definitions are consistent with the Lake George Park Commission's Regulations definitions. There's
Class A and Class B Marinas and when we say marina, it automatically, a notion comes to mind that all
marinas provide gasoline services and all marinas provide rental of boats or provides sales of watercraft
and that's not the case. Class A Marinas do include residential facilities that rent two boat slips so you may
be regulated as a marina for your current activities. Our regulations don't propose to ratchet down or
further limit how many boat slips you can rent, it just provides for a process by whih you need to obtain a
permit. Again, we can't speak to your particular situation cause we'll be, will have a number of particular
situations and it's not fair to you or to the public to try to walk through yours. If you have a particular
concern about something new that you're proposing, we'd be happy to make an appointment with you and
sit down and walk you through the process.
MR. SMITH-The card that I received specifically says that what they're suggesting is limiting one boat slip
per and it says, residential lot.
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-Right.
MR. SMITH-Now, I have one residential lot.
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-If you read the card, the card is from the Lake George Association. The
Lake George Association is not affiliated with the town, there's no proposal to limit one dock rental per one
residence, that's a proposal by the Lake George Association, not a proposal by the town and it's not
proposed in tonight's legislation. So, just to make sure that that's clear and I appreciate you bringing that
up.
MR. SMITH-Thank you.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you.
COUNCILMAN STEC-Chris, perhaps you could just review the grandfathering. I think that, I think most
of the concerns you're going to hear tonight are going to be in that vein and I think if you just summarize
what the grandfathering procedure would be, I think a lot of people would probably be put at ease.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Well, I actually was going to do that. It basically calls for preexisting non-
conforming uses. Substantiated preexisting non-conforming uses shall be exempt from a comprehensive
planning board review. To substantiate that a use qualifies for this exemption, the property owner shall
submit a site plan review application together with information demonstrating that the structures associated
with the use, we're constructed according to the permitting procedures which were enforceable by the town
at the time of construction, that the use of the property and associated structures has been continuous to
date without interruption since prior to 1981 for marinas and prior to 1967 for all other uses. Consistent
seasonal use may qualify for a continuous use. The Zoning Administrator shall upon finding the
substantiating evidence valid, complete and satisfactory issue the applicant an administrative special use
permit. An administrative special use permit shall be considered a permanent permit ad may be modified
only upon review and approval by the Planning Board. An administrative special use permit shall serve to
document the existing status of the project. So, I think that may help answer some of your questions but
there is, Chris, do you want to?
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-Sure, all that's proposed now is to include this in the way we regulate
marinas, is allow for grandfathering and we're going to repeat this a couple of times so bear with me. But
the Lake George Park Commission and the town both regulate marinas and a Class A Marina is, again, is a
facility that provides services or berthing for more then one boat for somebody that does not live on the
property and I apologize because this is a, we've mirrored the Lake George Park Commission's regulations.
A Class A Marina again, is any facility that provides services or berthing places for vessels by engaging in
any of the following activities, and I think what most people are concerned about tonight are just the,
strictly residential type of character uses. So, I'll just skip over some of these things but, the operative
section of this regulation would be, the storage, berthing or mooring of two or more motorized vehicles and
or non-motorized vessels eighteen feet in length and more not regitered to the owner of the property,
regardless of whether you're doing that for profit or whether you're doing that out of the goodness of your
heart. So, if you have a residential, if you have a piece of property and you're renting two or more boat
slips, you're operating a marina. That's always been the way the Park Commission regulates it, that's the
way we regulated it April 2002, that's the way we regulated tonight. All we're looking to do is include or
provide for a system to document those folks who have been doing it as Dennis said, at some point in
history so that they don't have to go through, so they don't have to go through the documentation process
that they're starting a new use. So, what we're trying to do is provide for a process for people with, what I
would consider all types of marinas but specifically residential marinas, allow them a process where they
can obtain a permit without going through a cumbersome process as it would be applied to a new
commercial facility. But I think, whatwe want to do is hear the public comments and then, if we're not able
to respond directly to all the questions that are raised tonight, we will produce some informational
materials. We'll take your name and your location and we'll try to get you back information that's
responsive to your inquiries. But I think a lot of the confusion tonight is because the Lake George
Association proposes something other, as the first gentleman spoke, they propose, they would ideally like
to see limiting of boat usage on the lake and ideally they see the means to do that, is to restrict all properties
to only rent one boat slip. That's not proposed by the town, that's not being heard tonight and if you have
comments and concerns regarding that, you could direct them to the Lake George Association, I know
there's several members and some officers here tonight. Again, back to you Dennis.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. I'd like to invite anyone else who'd like to comment on the
proposed zoning change to come forward and just state your name and address for the record, any public
comment you might have regarding the proposed zoning ordinance.
MR. CHRIS NEVITSKY-Good evening, my name is Chris Navitsky with the Lake George Waterkeeper
program. I have just some comments, I've got copies I can pass them out but I'll just run down them quick.
Some of our comments on the proposed revisions, number 1, although the special use permit would allow
quote, unquote allow commercial use in residential districts, this special use permit we recommend should
not be conveyed with the transfer of property or ownership and should be classified as a renewable or
temporary permit as defined under your section l79-1030-K. This would allow existing owners and/or
operators to continue their use but would allow the property to be brought into conformance with the
zoning ordinance in the future. Item 2, our opinion that all marinas should go through the special use
permit requirements due to the typically smaller lot size of lakefront properties, congestion and water
quality concerns. 3, I was confused regarding the special use permit in the Lake George Park
Commissiomeview. Will this special use permit, if granted for preexisting conditions, eliminate Lake
George Park Commission review or permit requirements if the applicant for the particular special use
permit can not produce a valid park commission permit? A condition for this special use permit should
require a valid park commission marina permit. And lastly, this more or less directs improvements or
modifications. We'd like one of the requirements for special use permits and site plan reviews for marinas
to incorporate installation of best management practices and water quality improvements. That meaning
either grass strips, water quality inlets, catch basin inserts, if they really do apply to the, to that type of
situation that they have present. (submitted copies to the Town Board, Planning Staff and Deputy Town
Clerk -letter on file in the Town Clerk's Office)
MR. JOHN MATTHEWS-John Matthews, resident and marina owner. I have a concern as to who or what
party will be the lead agency or the policing or the take charge the final documentation once it's passed?
And if perhaps you're rules and regulations say that a preexisting non-conforming use can be grandfathered,
what happens if the park commission passes rules saying that it can't and only one dock will be allowed? I
mean, whose going to be the big gun here?
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-I don't know if we're going to be able to answer that but we currently,
regulate docks, the park commission regulates docks so we're familiar with the process, both of us issue
similar or identical permits. The park commission has executive authority in New York State, we don't, so
we're going to, you know, it's likely that the park commission regulations are going to take precedent over
ours. We've done our due diligence in that our regulations are not inconsistent with theirs. They were
reviewed by the park commission, they've made changes and all the changes that were suggested were
made. We get this in other areas, not besides marinas but I mean, DEC regulates wetlands, Army Corp of
Engineers regulates wetlands, the town regulates wetlands and we're able to manage the process and
without a lot of heartburn, depending who you talk to.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Would anyone else care to address the board at this time?
MS. HEATHER SHOUDY BRECHKO-Good evening, my name is Heather Shoudy Brechko and I'm with
the Lake George Association. First of all, we really appreciate all the time the Planning Board and Staff
have taken to come to the proposal that is the subject of this public hearing. We are pleased to see that the
language proposed adds some emphasis to spell out that existing marinas need to come in for review
process of the planning board by January 1st, 2004 and also sets up some structure for dealing with
preexisting non-conforming marina uses. In addition, we're pleased to see that once a marina operation
obtains a permanent special use permit that any modification or expansion would require modification of
special use permit. As you may know, the issue of marinas on Lake George is not a new one. Before the
Lake George Park Commission was established, marina regulations, established marina regulations on the
lake, the Lake George Association was the recipient of many complaints from citizens in Queensbury in
reerence to marinas, overcrowding, people cutting out into other people's right-of-way, parking issues,
septic, access and things of those nature. And while the Lake George Park Commission and the town have
regulations that regulate marinas on residential lots the issues of this type of use on residential lots has not
changed. Boat congestion and recreational capacity issues, over use and over development of the shoreline,
residential neighborhood character issues, the introduction of milfoils, zebra mussels and other exotic
aquatic species, parking and septic system capacity issues. These issues are complex and not easy to deal
with. This is why the LGA believe it important to do a public outreach effort informing the citizens around
the Lake George area and Queensbury about the issues associated with residential marinas to allow the
opportunity to have all voices be heard at the public hearing this evening and we hope we didn't cause any
confusion, it was meant to be informative. The LGA has heard from anumber of citizens in favor of the
LGA suggestions and others we have heard from are questioning the right approach to the situation. The
LGA is concerned about the overuse and the overcrowding of the shoreline and lake in reference to Class A
Marinas. Practically the whole shoreline in the Town of Queensbury on Lake George is zoned residential
with the exception of some LC42 areas. Allowing new Class A Marinas on residential lots changes and
impacts the character of these neighborhoods. Furthermore, according to the 1998 Comprehensive Plan,
the lots along the shoreline are typically sixty to a hundred and twenty feet wide and point 0 six to point
seven-seven acres. Based on these numbers, most of the lots don't meet the minimum area and dimensional
requirements in the zoning code that were set up to protect the lake. Therefore, the LGA is asking the town
to go beyond what is proposed and we recommend that each residential lot per season only be allowed to
have one boat slip available for use by a vesse that is not registered to the property owner. Here are some
strategies we're suggesting that the time frame for application be set as noted and the changes and if a
property owner does not come forward during the time frame that sets, the owner would lose the right to
operate this use without having to come forward for a variance. We think that the language should be
stronger in the section regarding preexisting non-conforming marina uses to provide substantial tangible
evidence that would, should include but should not be limited to a legal Lake George Park Commission
permit, receipts, Internal Revenue Service documents showing income and photographs to show that the
use has been continuous since before a certain date to be determined by the town. Secondly, that the
configuration and size of the docks must be shown to be conforming to what is registered with the town and
Lake George Park Commission, this is something that the planning board discussed extensively and that
any non-conformity needs to be corected before any decision or permit is issued. In addition, we believe
the, the LGA believes that the Planning Board should conduct the review and decision on the preexisting
non-conforming uses, not the Zoning Administrator as noted in the proposed changes. These types of use
call for review by the planning board and in addition some language could be added so that the planning
board would have the authority to ask the zoning board of appeals for a recommendation on each
application. In order to preserve the rights of commercial marinas, there should be some distinction made
regarding the two different types of Class A Marinas, commercial marinas and residential marinas. This
could be called a marina overlay zone and this could be used to be able to allow commercial marinas the
right to transfer ownership when it changes hands and these marinas provide essential services that are
needed in the community. In addition, a sunset provision could be implemented once a preexisting non-
conforming Class A Rsidential Marina has been officially established with the town, that use only goes
with the current owner. Once the property is sold to a new owner, that use is extinguished for the property.
What this means, is that a Class A Marina will eventually be limited to the commercial marina overlay
zone, this is something that could be phased in. We believe, the LGA believes that the one boat slip rental
per property should be permitted to Class B Marinas. This is something that the LGA almost didn't include
but thinks is reasonable to allow one boat slip rental per lot as long as enforcement and moderating can be
happen at an appropriate level, to allow that type of use to continue. We were thinking that it would be
ideal that education could be done about aquatic exotic species so each marina permit that's issued, could
automatically contain a condition to require signage and distribute literature about the prevention of the
introduction of zebra mussels, milfoil and other aquatic exotic species. We strongl believe, the LGA
strongly believes that the Town of Queensbury should continue to regulate marina uses, this is because the
town is better equipped to deal with neighborhood and planning issues associated with marinas then the
Lake George Park Commission, that was noted in a letter that we submitted in October to the planning
board which I think you have a copy of. In addition, some things that could be done to make sure that these
suggestions we're proposing are enforceable is to cooperate with the Lake George Park Commission. I
know the town has been in on-going discussions and has an open relationship with the Park Commission so
perhaps some kind of an agreement could be formed between the town and the Lake George Park
Commission to work together on enforcement issues related to marinas. So, and it's our understanding as
well that the property owner can not receive the Class A Marina permit from the Park Commission without
getting local approval first. So, what the LGA is proposing with one boat slip er residential lot would not
be cumbersome to their process because they honor the local government's decisions. So, we realize that
our suggestions are broad and go beyond what is proposed, what is currently required in the town and the
Lake George Park Commission regulations. However, allowing Class A Marinas on residential lots places
significant burden on the neighborhoods, shorelines, recreational resources and water quality of the lake
and you know, the thoughts that I've presented here are really meant to prevent the overuse of the resources
of Lake George and thank you for your continued consideration of our comments. (submitted to Town
Board letter with detailed comments - on file in the Town Clerk's Office)
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you.
MR. LEW STONE-Lew Stone, 192 Lake Parkway, Assembly Point, Queensbury. I'm speaking tonight
as a homeowner on a lakefront lot on Lake George. First of all, let me echo the thoughts that Heather
Shouty Brechko presented to you. Not so much as saying, everything she said I totally agree with, I don't
disagree with it but the important thing is and the point that I want to make is that this is a very important
issue. It is not a simple thing. I think you gentlemen are charged with a large responsibility in this
particular area. Lake George is an economic engine that drives our tourist economy, it can not be allowed
to be hurt by human progress and I put that in serious quotes, when I say human progress cause we are
hurting the lake in many ways and I think we have to be very aware that if Lake George goes downhill and
I'm not talking in all likelihood in my lifetime but I'm talking for the future. The future of younger people
who live in town, their children, their grandchildren and beyond. We must protet the lake. We must not
allow it to become a wall to wall boat playground and that's what can happen if we don't take this thing
very seriously. And I ask you and I charge you to look at this particular special use permit, this use of
marinas, one boat, two boat, whatever kind of marinas on the lake, I ask you to look at it in all respects. It's
a very serious problem. I recognize I think the point that Mr. Smith made at the beginning, yes, it is more
expensive to live on the lake then many homeowners once knew but that doesn't mean just because it's
more expensive that we should ruin the lake by allowing them a source of revenue which might, as I say,
harmfully impact the lake. So, I just ask you to look at all aspects of this thing, it's a, again I say it's not a
simple thing, it's very complex, there are many issues. The word legal, sometimes gets mentioned in
connection with this thing and the word legal can be very broadly defined like, do current marina, home
owned marinas, do they file taxes on teir revenues? Very simple, and I'm not proposing that we go into all
aspects of somebody's life but tax records are public records and we should know whether or not they are
conducting a legal business when they have a marina. Again, let me just ask you to be very diligent in
looking at this whole issue. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. Would anyone else care to comment? Yes, Mr. Vallaro.
MR. BOB V ALLARO-I'm Bob Vallaro, 7 Glen Court, Queensbury, New York. I also represent one ninth,
I guess, of the Planning Board including the two alternates that serve. I was going to go over the letter that
I know that most of you have read from Michael White which is the Executive Director of the Lake George
Park Commission. I am not an advocate of the Planning Board reviewing special use permits when they
concern docks and boat rentals. I understand our obligation as a town to review the upland section as far as
site plan is concerned but having read Mr. White's letter about three or four times and having looked at
certain things where it says in 1988 the responsibility for administration of the program was transferred by
law to the Lake George Park Commission. In addition the commission was conveyed a new responsibility
to regulate on lake recreation and on the shore construction activities. Now, what I would propose without
getting into a lot of the other stuff that's written in that letter, I assue most of you have read it so there's no
sense in me going over a lot of the issues. But what my proposal would be is that when a special use
permit is being requested by an applicant that the Lake George Park Commission issue to the Town of
Queensbury notification of such application. We would look and issue a revocable certificate of
compliance that says, this use is allowed in this zone and two, if a site plan is required that goes along with
the application, we would look at that as a Planning Board. But we would not get down on the lake and do
things that I don't know anything about. That's one of the problems I have. When you start issuing special
use permits, you've got, if you read this letter and the accompanying chapter 5 in here of all the things that
have to be done when you, you have to know something about when you're in the regulation business. I
would say, let the Lake George Park Commission issue the permit and let us look at the upland portion of
this site plan if necessary. But to hae two municipalities, essentially, of course the Lake George Park
Commission is not a municipality but to have two entities if you will, issue the same permit and have
people who go to apply for those permits have to go through two separate loops, I don't particularly see
that. The Planning Board has been struggling with this problem probably, what are we, six months into the
program here, roughly, marinas? Chris, I guess
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-Yea, I think we conducted some workshops as a result ofa couple of
applications in front of you, six or nine months but the issue was talked about as part of the 1998
Comprehensive Plan and then in different forms during the zoning drafting of the zoning ordinance. So,
there's a number of different positions of the board members, I know.
MR. V ALLARO- Yea, well, you know, in looking at what the Lake George Park Commission does and
what it has been doing and the body of knowledge that it's been enable to assembly over time seems to me
that they're the agency best suited to permit marinas on the water. Now, if we want to talk about regulating
the upland from the low water mark away from the beach, that's another question. The Planning Board has
that obligation in the Town of Queensbury and we would, in my opinion, from one ninth of the board, we
would take a look at that. So, that's all I'm saying and in answer to the other question, when you issue this
revocable certificate of compliance, it's revocable. If something comes up that that particular installation is
not, no longer in compliance, we can withdraw that certificate and talk to the Lake George Park
Commission about. So, I'm just trying to eliminate applications having to be put before two boards in a
sense for a special use permit. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you, Bob. Would anyone else care to address the board at this time? Mr.
Salvador.
MR. JOHN SALVADOR-I'm bringing my shot gun along.
MRS. KATHLEEN SALVADOR-Double team.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-And Mrs. Salvador.
MR. SALVADOR -You treat me with respect tonight.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Always, John.
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening, gentlemen of the board, my name is John Salvador and I'm here tonight
with my wife Kathleen in answer to the Town Board's invitation to participate in this public hearing. We
have a vested interested in the outcome of this hearing and appreciate your application of the town's
resources to better circumscribe the boundaries of authority vested in our zoning and planning officials and
boards. Weare owners of waterfront land zoned residential. Since the advent of zoning regulations within
the boundaries of the Town of Queensbury. We as well as our predecessors have used said land since at
least 1950 providing services or berthing places for vessels engaging in the storage, sale, lease or charter of
vessels not necessarily registered to us including but not limited to the operation of a boat launch, the
offering of boat rides, the offering of instruction for water based recreation as well as water based
recreation, all for the payment of a rental amount or a leasing fee. We operat our non-conforming use in
accordance with a Queensbury Town issued special use permit number 60 issued in 1976 as well as a DEC
permit 50-81-0071 MA issued in 1982 for the expressed purpose of allowing us to continue to operate a
marina on Lake George. Both of these operating permits were issued based on our affirmation that we
were duly authorized to conduct commercial activity. I think we have to come to grips with the fact that
marina activity, even at the low level you define, is commercial activity. You're not permitting a marina,
you're permitting commercial use in a residential zone, that requires a variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals, and you can't mask this approval with a site plan. You can't do it. Jurisdiction of federal, state
and local licensing agencies authorizes us to collect rents and fees for the offering of regulated goods and
services subject to the reporting of all rents and fees, some of which we are required to surrender according
to various federal, state and local tax laws and regulations. We are also required to withhold from
employees earnings and pay said withholdings over to state and federal agencis. Add to these
responsibilities the need to obtain New York State Sales Tax Vendor's License for the privilege of being a
state tax collector. The Town of Queensbury was noticed of the DEC's determination that our 1981
application for a commercial use in a residential zone was complete and the town was given thirty days to
comment. There are no comments on the record. The bottom line is that we are non-conforming because
we trade goods and services that is commercial use in a residential zone. Not because we own only one or
even a hundred docks. Not because our sales volume is a dollar or a million dollars. Not because we are
seasonal or year round. Not because we rent one boat or ten boats or make more then one berthing place
available for one motorized vessel eighteen feet in length or more not registered to ourselves. There is no
such thing as a little bit commercial. There is not a threshold between commercial and non-commercial. A
facility is or is not commercial. We could go on and comment n the regulations as they exist. We agree
they're flawed. We agree they are unworkable. But we really feel that what the town is trying to do with
these regulations is drive a square peg into a round hole and it ain't never going to fit. I have long been of
the mind that the solution to this problem, short of enforcement and believe me, if you did enforce the
regulations we have on the books, town, Park Commission, state regulations, we wouldn't have any
problem because I'll tell you something, unless somebody's got about ten docks they've got to the rent, it's
not worth your bother. It's not worth your bother. As a commercial entity, we are required to meet
standards different from the residential property owner. Our insurance costs us more. Our permits cost us
more. Commercial docks pay more then residential docks. Our utilities, we're, we get our power at a
commercial rate, not a residential rate. We pay commercial telephone bills rather then residential telephone
bills. We could go on and on ith this but the incidence of cost for a commercial operation is much greater
then that of a simple homeowner. As I say, if we enforce the rules, it just wouldn't pay, these small one and
two dock operations might evaporate, it just wouldn't be worth their while. Of late, we have been noticed
that of the pertinent OSHA Regulations that apply to marinas. We're sure we got that because we have a
Federal ID and an identification, that's how this stuff comes to you. We notice in your regulations, in your
site plan requirements, you now require handicap access. I can't tell you what that costs you. I can't tell
you what the insurance carrier's look for when they come to inspect your property. So, the long and short
of it is that if we enforce the regulations and we identify these operations as commercial entities, regardless
of remuneration as the regulations say, they will have a set of hoops to jump through that I guarantee you it
just isn't going to be worth their while. I believe the solution to our prblem, short of enforcing the
regulations, and that is also a solution, the solution to our problem is that of a mixed zone in North
Queensbury. No one came to North Queensbury in the early days for anything but recreation. It was not a
residential community. It is not a residential community today. The school buses drive by empty. We
don't have the infrastructure, we don't have water, we don't have the sewer, we don't have even decent roads
to classify us as a residential community. But recreation is more suited to what we do and what better place
to have a boat or a boat dock then on the shore of Lake George and I can tell you, from our experience and
you know our setup on Dunham Bay, we don't have a water pollution problem. We maintain one of the
cleanest beaches on Lake George, there's boats all around us. The largest boat sales north of Albany is
right next door to us, servicing boats day and night, big storage facility. We vend gasoline, we handle
wastewater, all these things, we don't have a polution problem. People are not objecting to swimming on
our beach and by the way, we have a prevailing northwest wind right in our face, it comes right down that
lake and everything floating on that lake winds up on our beach, I can tell you. But we're not cleaning up
pollution other then soda cans, plastic bags, these kinds of things. A mixed use zone that would allow
commercial, excuse me, would allow residential and recreation side by side, and then you could allow for
recreation commercial and with the same regulatory program you had and if these people can meet the
requirements of the code, if they can meet all the requirements of the code, why shouldn't they? That's
their property right. But I maintain that it will be extremely difficult if you enforce the rules. Mr. Brandt is
sitting here, he's the only one in town that enjoys this sort of privilege to have a mixed use zone, he
operates a West Mountain Ski Center in a residential neighborhood. It doesn't have the problems we have.
So, I really hink that the zoning in North Queensbury is not suitable for the land use that is going on, it's the
only natural thing to go on, it's the only thing you do and the town is not, is just, can't come to grips with
that mixed use zone on the shores of Lake George. You know just looking at the code the way it's written
now, the definitions are not crisp, it makes it extremely difficult. You know, if you read through the
definitions and you read through everything that's required, you can make the following statement. A Class
A Marina, for example is any facility within the town, you haven't restricted this special use permit to
certain zoning districts in the town, it applies allover. So, it's any facility within the town which provides
services or berthing places for vessels, and engages in the sale, lease or rental of vessels, offering of rides
on vessels, instruction involving vessels, or water based recreation involving vessels for a fee, such a
facility must obtain a special use permit including a site Ian approval. Now, parallel to this, you have a
definition of a vessel and it's every description of a watercraft. Every description of a watercraft is a vessel.
Consider these three businesses in the Town of Queensbury which are subject to the zoning ordinance
which either sell, service or lease watercraft for a fee. Will these need a special use permit, Boats By
George, it's located on Route 149, they sell and service vessels? Will they need a special use permit?
Eddie Gillis runs a boat repair, boat trailer assembly business at the Top of the World, services vessels, will
he need a special use permit? And the grand daddy of them all, the Great Escape operates the Splash Water
Kingdom, water based recreation for a fee. Our water based recreation involving rides on watercraft is
sales taxable, I read where theirs is not. Maybe this is a way to get them involved. But you see, without
crisp tight regulations, it's just so easy for people to
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Hey, we could almost tax Mike Brandt, water based recreation, right? MR.
SALVADOR-Snow is just frozen water, right. The other thing, I'd just like to share with you how easy it
would be to accomplish what you're trying to accomplish. We get annually from the Lake George Park
Commission, an invoice for our boat dock fees and that invoice, I have a copy of it here some place, that
invoice has the conventional name, rank and serial number and all that sort of thing and it asks for an
identification number. It asks for an identification number but the commission has very carefully put in
parenthesis underneath the line that you can write the number on, requested. Now, that's a violation of state
law. Section 5 of the State Finance Laws requires all state agencies that collect fees and taxes, to collect
them against an ID number. Now, there's the beginning. All these docks are registered with the park
commission, they've got a complete inventory, believe me. But if they were made to conform to the same
laws that they talk about, then we'd have a good start on getting this poblem under control. We received a
couple of weeks ago an inquiry from the US Census Department. The word must be out on marinas. This
is a report that we are required by law to complete and send in and we received this inquiry once every five
years. I presume everyone receives it and everyone that is that has a Federal ID and I don't see how you
can be in business today, in commercial business without having a Federal ID. Everyone that you deal with
wants your number and you're required to give it. In any case, previously this census bureau inquiry was a
very short simple, name, rank and serial number, location and a couple of questions about your gross sales.
That was about it. Now, they come out and it's seven pages long, eight pages long, very detailed and not
only we're we previously categorized as a business in the entertainment and recreation sector of their
survey, they have, they list there the categories that they're surveying and we fall into the entertainment and
recreation portion. In thre, they want to know what kind of recreation we're involved in and we're given a
bunch of choices. Had to check marina, the only one, you can only check one, we had to check marina.
From there on, they go on to ask questions about dock revenue, petroleum product sales, it's a total break,
boat rentals, everything. They want, this is the Census Bureau and you're required by law to complete this.
So, as I say, if we just enforce the laws we have on the books, all we have to do, I think this problem might
just go away. Short of that, a zoning change would be most appropriate and allow for recreation, that's all
that's going on up there. By the way, the park commission, you know, although they collect these fees and
that sort of thing, they're nothing but a giant recreation commission. They, that's what they do. They have
developed recreation uses regulations, that's what they have and there's another area that, for your benefit,
they have not reached their legislative intent. Their legislature authorizd, the executive branch of
government has authorized them to develop recreation uses regulations but they didn't say anything about
just commercial recreation uses regulations or residential, they said recreation uses regulations. But what
did the commission do? They developed the regulations okay, and they prohibited the use levels, okay.
But you've got to have a Class A Marina permit to have a recreation uses approval. Now, residential
property owners don't need this. There's a big discussion going on, on the lake now about personal water
craft, banning personal water craft. There are some what, six hundred personal water craft on the lake.
How many of them do you think are commercial? How many of them do you think are commercial? A
residential property owner could have a half a dozen personal water craft on his property. No problem at
all. So, I could go on and on but I think those are the, those should be the focus of your attention, a zoning
change and enforcement of the rules and I think, if nder the regulations believe me, if somebody can
qualify and meet all the requirements of the law, come join us.
MRS. KATHLEEN SALVADOR-I just have one comment, two comments really. John was speaking
about expenditures before, the one thing he didn't mention that he really doesn't take care of but it's kind of
in my bailiwick, we have twenty-four hour restrooms and showers at the waterfront. I would put this
restrooms up against any restroom in Warren County. These restrooms during the season are cleaned three
times a day. Off season, two times a day. If you know anything about cleaning services, you know how
costly this can be even for a seasonal operation. Also, Mr. Vallaro mentioned something before about the
permit that they issue might be a revocable permit. The park commission marina permits now are
revocable. They are a five year permit. After five years, you have to re-up and you might not get it so that
is in affect a revocable trust permit. Also, when the park commission was reconstituted back in the 80's,
everyone said, oh, great, now this is going to be one stop shopping. How have we gotten here, ith the park
commission and the town now wants to do this. It should be one stop shopping. Thank you.
MR. SAL V ADOR-I have one more comment I'd like to make. Part of the problem is the jurisdictional
boundaries that the commission operates in and the jurisdictional boundaries that the town operates in.
There's a state law, in state law section 7 A, local governments are prohibited from issuing permits beyond
the mean low water mark of navigable waterways. That's, was put into the law in 1958. Our building
department is continuously issuing building permits beyond the mean low water mark, coincidentally it
happens to beyond the town boundary and he's issuing building permits to construct buildings on state land.
Beyond his authority, beyond his authority to do so. Likewise, the Zoning Administrator would be limited,
the site plan, you can't map somebody else's land on your site plan, it ends at your property boundary. It
ends at a town boundary or a zoning district boundary. These have to be put on a site plan, that's the hang
up with the site plan and it has to be done by a professional. You don't mak your own site plan, not
commercial people. So, as I say, it's, if we tighten up you'll find that it's just not going to be worth the
bother.
MRS. SAL V ADOR- Thank you, gentlemen.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. At this time I'd like to ask anyone else who would like to comment
the proposed modification or change to our zoning ordinance? Yes, sir.
MR. JOE ROULIER-Joe Roulier, I live at 69 Brayton Lane, Assembly Point and I have a few comments to
make regarding the overall marina situation on Lake George. But first I would just like to address
something that John just brought up because I am going on record that I disagree with the comment he just
made. This past summer, it was in August I received phone calls from two different customers of mine
who had taken water samples both from the end of Cleverdale area and approximately halfway out on
Assembly Point. These water samples were taken down to the town water department, analyzed by our
department and the samples came back and they were pretty telling as to the direction Lake George is going
in. I can not tell you specifically all of the numbers, I don't have them in front of me right now but I do
know that they had high chloroform counts and if they were, if the culture was left for forty-eight hours, it
was turning into e-coli. Now, I don't know all of the specifics regarding the chemistry of al this but I would
have to say that, unlike John making the comment that the lake is not getting polluting, I think there's
definite evidence that the lake is getting polluted and I know that if you spoke to anyone from the water
department who does analyze these samples and I had spoken to the fellows over there in August, many
samples that they had reviewed were of similar indication as to what I'm telling you right now. Why I'm
here is for this reason, as we all know there's been a tremendous explosion in the boating traffic on Lake
George, but what concerns me most is the number of, the size of the boats that are on Lake George and the
number of either state rooms or bedrooms that are incorporated into those particular vessels. Most of these
vessels in the thirty foot to thirty-six foot range have at least two separate sleeping quarters, they all have
showers, some of them even have two showers. So, they're fully equipped as a camp or as a RV type of
structure. Most of the marinas on the lake and I'm amiliar with quite a few in the southern basin all have
holding tanks so this is not a major issue with most of the marinas. But I do know that the largest marina
on Lake George is allowed, currently allowed to separate their sewage into holding tanks and their gray
water which is the water from their, I believe their showers, their washer and dryers, anything other then
the toilet is allowed to be pumped over into an area on Assembly Point that was originally designed and
built approximately forty-five years ago when the marina at that time had approximately fifty boats in the
sixteen to eighteen foot range. The system that was designed and which is currently used was never
designed or intended for the purpose today. The area of concern is immediately adjacent to the swamp
backwash area in Harris Bay or Assembly Point. I think it's important that the board, if the board, and you
know when we go in front of the ZBA and we make out these applications, we're always putting down, is it
what's good for the wefare and the safety and health of our community and I think it's remiss if the board
doesn't put on the books that all marinas have to either be completely on holding tanks for all of their
sewage and bring that into conformity with a current code today. As you know, I'm a builder in town and
I'm in front of the ZBA and I'm in front of the site plan review and if we go in with a proposed project and
we want to increase a structure by one bedroom or two bedroom, the very first issue that's addressed is,
what will we be doing with the septic system. If we're not doing anything with it, ninety-nine percent of
the time the project will be turned down. But here we have a situation and I'll use for example, two
hundred boats at the Harris Bay Yacht Club with two bedrooms so we have four hundred bedrooms and yet
the septic system has not, no one has brought the entire septic system into conformity. I mean, I know you
can't every time they bring in a boat say, well, it's two more bedrooms, we have to change it. know that's
not possible. But what is possible is to get a current regulation saying that in six months or a year, in a
highly environmentally sensitive area, where that marina operates because it's essentially built on a swamp,
that they have to and other marinas in similar situation have to bring their septic systems up either to the
Town of Queensbury or to the health department standards and that's something that I would hope that this
board considers and that ultimately it does put something on the books to address that. I don't know if
there's ever will be or if anything ever can be done regarding the size of the boats on Lake George, I know
that it's a huge problem for many of my customers who have properties particularly on the west side of
Lake George, or west side of Cleverdale where boats leave the five mile an hour and then these huge three
and four foot wakes are now splashing in creating an enormous amount of soil erosion. I'm sure where Mr.
Stone lives on the west side of Assembly Point, its a similar situation and I know, to be perfectly honest
with you, I have to talked to some people affiliated with the marina business up there, who feel as though
there should be some size restriction put on Lake George. I think that that's something that the board
should look at and certainly consider because of the affect that it's having the shoreline. I just have two
other comments, if you don't mind. I don't know if there can ever be, I know that the five mile an hour
areas within the Town of Queensbury is regulated by the Town of Queensbury particularly in Harris Bay
and Dunhams Bay. I know I live in a five mile an hour area and it really makes it for a nice comfortable
area, quiet area. It keeps the jet skis and I know that you know it's becoming more of a problem but it does
keep the noise further out from the residential area. I don't know if the Town Board would consider
increasing the zones so that they were actually larger, pushing them further out into the bays. And I don't
know specificaly, I know that in, particularly Harris Bay right now, we have both the Lake George Boat
Company that operates and the Harris Bay Yacht Club and what's developing now is that we're getting a lot
of anchoring into a congested area already. People are coming out a half a mile, anchoring their boats and I
don't know if that particular area could be designated as a no-anchor zone only because they're currently
encumbering the channels that go in and out of these particular areas. So, that's it, I want to thank you for
the opportunity of speaking.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. Would anyone else care to address the board on this issue? Yes.
MR. LINC CATHERS-Good evening, I'm Line Cathers, a summer resident of 3325 Travis Point Way in
Kattskill Bay. I just wanted to, I guess, second the idea of one stop shopping, to use the park commission
as the one to administer these dock situations. If you look around the lake, you know Queensbury is just
one of the towns that are involved here. I made a quick list here, I think there's seven but maybe there's
eight or nine. Lake George is involved here, the Town of Lake George, the Town of Fort Ann, Town of
Bolton, Town of Hague, Dresden and Ti. There maybe one other, I'm not sure but how can we have
anything but consistent regulations on the lake and I sure do second the idea of one stop shopping. Thank
you.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. Would anyone else care to address the board this evening? No
more takers? In that case, I think what I'll do is leave the public comment period open for written
comments through this Friday, which would be the 14th of February and for those people that did not have
an opportunity to appear this evening but would like to comment on the record in any fashion.
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-Dennis, I think before you close the public hearing though, I think you
just want to acknowledge some written comments.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Well, I'm not actually closing the public hearing, I'm leaving it open for
written comment through the end of the week but if you'd like to read some written comments into the
record.
DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-I have received nine. I have two that are not in support of it, one
received from Timothy 1. Moriarty and the other one is from Joseph Koenig. The seven that are supportive
of this proposal is Peter Demboski, Lito Abrams, Jane Caffry Hawn, Susan Weber, John Caffry, Andy
Corona, Gracie Hanneford. They will all be made a part of the record, obviously.
Queensbury Town Board
Dear SirIMadam:
I am a seasonal resident of Lake George, owning property at 12 Honey Suckle Lane on Assembly Point.
After reviewing the Lake George Association "Suggested Changes" to the existing Town ordinances, as
outlined on its Website, and contacting the LGA for clarification of its position, I must respectfully
disagree with the Association's conclusions. I am unable to attend this evenings Town Board meeting, but
offer the following observations.
First, existing Town and Adirondack Park Agency restrictions currently limit dock use and construction
along the shore of the Town of Queensbury.
Second, if I understand the LGA's position, the suggested changes could unfairly penalize subsequent
landowners. For example, if Landowner A currently has a dock capable of accommodating 3 boats, he/she
is free to use the dock as he sees fit. If the land is sold to Landowner B, Landowner B is automatically
precluded from using one of the slips other than for his own use ( assuming that he uses one of the slips for
his own boat in the first instance). If Landowner B decides, for whatever reason, to forego boating, he
would then be restricted from the beneficial use of 2 of the 3 slips.
Third, any further restrictions of docks will further increase rental charged by existing commercial marinas
in the area.
Fourth, should the Town of Queensbury unilaterally, adopt the suggested changes as outlined by the LGA,
there are no assurances that the other Town Board's would be so inclined, leaving the affected Queensbury
landowners unfairly sharing the burden of the LGA's goals.
In conclusion, the LGA suggested changes are too zealous and would, in effect, unduly micromanage the
use of the landowners property.
Sincerely, Timothy 1. Moriarty 16 Mt. Laurel Dr. Clifton Park, NY 12065
Town Clerk
Sorry about the wording of the prior email. The LGA postcard implied the Town supported a limit on the
number of slips, when in fact it is the LGA's position. A reduction in the number of available slips would
certainly reduce the number of boats on the lake. But for longtime residents that won't leave it will only
serve to increase the annual dock rental cost.
As a property owner for over 40 years, I am dismayed by the town boards apparent lack offorethought in
considering a limit on the number of slip rentals per residential lot. We are not lucky enough to own
lakefront and therefore must rent a slip from a neighbor. We chose this solution over a large marina due to
convenience, the ability to walk vs. drive to our boat. I fully support improving the quality of the lake but
the primary outcome of this course of action will be to substantially increase the cost to locals like myself.
If! had a vote it would be NO.
Thanks to the Lake George Association for informing me of the importance of the upcoming meeting. I
have received no correspondence from the Town regarding this proposal, bit I did receive my tax bill so I
know you must have my address.
Please pass my concern on the board.
Joseph Koenig 10 Tuxford Road Pittsford, NY 14534 & 124 Seeley Road Queensbury
Town Clerk
We agree that limits should be imposed for one boat slip rental per residential lot. As waterfront
landowners in Harris Bay we agree wholeheartedly that all full-time/seasonal residences should be
consciously aware of the shoreline, recreational resources, water quality and neighborhood character. The
preservation and protection of the waters of Lake George should be everyone's priority.
We would also like to know the Town of Queensbury and LGA's position on a particular issue regarding an
empty, gutted boat hull with no motor or drive that is allowed to be docked in a residential area with no
intention of use or restoration. It is an eyesore to the community and poses a potential hazard to water
quality and our children swimming in the area.
We would be more then happy to provide you with specifics in our attempt to confirm that this boat should
not be allowed to be docked in the water again this Spring.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards, Peter & Wendy Demboski 108 Kingsland Road Boonton Township, NJ 07005 & (summer
residence) Russell Harris Road Lake George, NY 12845
Queensbury Town Board
Dear Sir or Madam:
We are writing regarding the proposed changes to the Special Use Permit requirements for marinas as
being examined and proposed by the Town of Queensbury. Currently we are owners of a cottage located in
Dunham's Bay, Town of Queensbury, are residents of the same town, and also have a yacht sales business
on Lake Champion. As life-long residents of the lake and as boaters on both Lake George and Lake
Champlain, we have broad knowledge of changes over the years and have talked to many regarding the
situation on Lake George at present.
We would like to see a change for residential rentals of slips to state that only one slip rental is allowed per
residence. Currently residences can attain marina status and can rent more then one slip.
As residents at a cottage in the bay, in the past we have had a quiet bay with minimal marina activity (my
ancestor painted a scene of the end of Dunham's Bay where there is only a road and wetlands beyond).
Today Dunham's Bay is paced all along the shoreline next to 9L with marina rental slips. The Perillo
marina up the creek has added more noise, incessant boat activity, and degradation of the shoreline as
renters and boaters putting in boats for the day ignore the five-mph speed limit. At times we have difficulty
even leaving our dock because of the activity. In fact, we have given up even considering boating on the
weekends during the summer as the bay and lake are a madhouse of activity. Adding more boats through
rentals of residential slips would only worsen all of these problems.
We urge you to move towards limiting any more adverse development in Queensbury lake property. Please
put in place a limitation for residences of only one slip rental. We do not need any more residences posing
as "quasi-marinas," further downgrading the quality of the water, shoreline, and neighborhood character.
Responsible land and water use policies can preserve what is truly a treasure for the future generations to
come.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely, Lito Abrams 202 Lockhart Mountain Road Lake George, New York 12845
To the Members of the Queensbury Town Board:
As I don't think I will be able to attend the public hearing to be held on February 10th, I would like
to convey my thoughts concerning marina permits by letter.
Because we are located on Harris Bay, we are already inundated with the sound of loud boats
going to and from the Harris Bay Marina. Many of these boats are unnecessarily large and too loud for
Lake George.
As Assembly Point is a residential zone, I am concerned about the possibility of any more rental
facilities at private docks. A near neighbor (about 110 feet away) has room for five boats at his docks. It
would be terrible for all the neighbors if he chose and was given permission to rent several of these docks
to power boat owners.
Numerous times I have said to my family, "Let's move to the north end of the lake to a quieter
place. "
I would also like to add the concern about safety when too many boats are close together in a
residential zone. I frequently find myself in the role of watchdog when family and friends are swimming as
not all boaters observe the 5 mile per hour zone.
It is unfortunate to have to set limits (in this case, no more than one rental space per dock in a
residential zone), but I think the time has come when it is necessary.
Sincerely, Jane Caffry Hawn 40 Bay Parkway Assembly Point, Lake George
Dear Queensbury Town Board Members:
I am a long-time resident of the east shore of Lake George within the Town of Queensbury. I've read the
proposed changes regarding Class A Marinas, and offer the following comments. Over the years, the use
of the lake has grown exponentially. The intensity of use has also increased greatly, as more larger, noiser
and more powerful speed boats have become common. There are more and more "residential" marinas in
Warner Bay, where I live. The shoreline is overdeveloped with boat slips. Neighbors of mine berth four or
five boats they do not own, on lots no more than 60 feet wide. The shoreline in Wamer Bay is wall-to-wall
boats. There is no enforcement of LGPC regulations regarding Class B marinas or boat noise. The
numbers of boats registered on Lake George have seen enormous increases over the past few years,
harming water quality, literally crowding out less intensive recreational uses - like canoeing and sailing,
and causing deterioration in the quality of the Lake George experience in general. The boat noise and
congestion on weekends, especially, is nearly unbearable at times. There are limits to how many boats can
and should be tolerated. These problems of over-use and unde regulation must be addressed now, before it
is too late. I favor careful consideration of any change of use or expansion of existing commercial marinas,
including evaluation of the impact upon the existing residential character of the neighborhood. I favor
strict regulation of residential marinas, and limiting non-owner berthing of boats to no more than one boat
per property. Residential marinas should be limited to those currently existing, and to only those which are
actually now permitted by the LGPC as Class B marinas. Unpermitted residential marinas should be cited,
and the practice should be ended. Those legitimately authorized pre-existing nonconforming marinas
should exist only under the current ownership, and should sunset when the property changes hands. No
new residential marinas should be allowed. I also support the comments by the Lake George Association.
I hope the Town is able to do what is necessary to protect the qualities we all value in the Lake, and upon
which our property values depend.
Very truly yours, Susan F. Weber Bean Road, Kattskill Bay
Dear Board Members:
I am a part owner of a camp on Assembly Point in Queensbury, on the Harris Bay side. I am
writing to support the proposed amendments to the Town Zoning Code that would restrict the use of
residential properties on Lake George for marina purposes. I also support the proposals by the Lake
George Association (LGA) to make the restrictions even stronger than the currently pending proposal.
Most of the waterfront lots on the Lake in Queensbury are small, with the homes close together.
With the existence of two or more large commercial marinas in each of the major bays, the area
experiences a lot of boat traffic. This boat traffic creates noise, makes swimming and small boat use
hazardous, and creates constant wave action, contributing to erosion of the shoreline. Thus, this part of the
Lake already suffers from overuse, and allowing people to rent out spots on their docks makes the problem
worse.
Specifically, I support a complete and immediate ban on the keeping of boats not registered to the
owner or the owner's immediate family, on parcels ofland zoned waterfront residential. If there is not a
complete ban, then such use should be limited to a single boat not owned by the property owner, and
existing rentals/marinas for more than one boat should be phased out, as suggested by the LGA.
In conclusion, the combination of the proposals already made by the Town, and the additional
proposals by the LGA would go a long way towards reducing congestion and overuse of the Lake and the
shorefront areas. I urge you to adopt both sets of proposals.
Sincerely, John W. Caffry
Town Clerk
Hi,
I will be unable to attend the meeting on 2/10/03 about the docking issue on LG.
As a property owner, Tax ID 227.18-1-13 and 14 I strongly feel that unless the land owner is a marina
permitted person that they should only have one tenant for pay at their dock.
Andy Corona
Town Board
Gracie Hanneford of Hanneford Road, Queensbury stated on phone on 2-10-2003 at 4:20 P.M. that she is in
support of what the Lake George Association recommendation is to have one slip per residential lot for
boat rental.
(all correspondence is filed in the Town Clerk's Office)
CORRESPONDENCE
Deputy Town Clerk Barber noted that the Town Clerk's Office has received and filed the following
monthly reports: Building & Codes January 2003, Landfill January 2003 and Town Clerk January 2003.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - 2002 Annual Report & 2003 Work Plan Presentation
MR. ROUND, Executive Director gave power point presentation of some activities that the Planning Office
undertakes, and what it's comprised of.... Planning Department, Zoning Department, Building and Codes
Office, Fire Marshal's Office and an Animal Control Office, with fourteen people. Largely what you see in
the public eye, are land use approvals, that's our site plans, subdivision variances and technical assistance
that we provide to the public, our Planning Board and our Zoning Board. Another key component is
construction permitting, our building permitting and inspection process. Code Enforcement is not a
department but it's an activity that several different offices are comprised in community development, a
function they perform. Our Fire Marshal performs code enforcement, our Animal Control Officer enforces
the Ag and Market's rules and regulations and we also do code enforcement of our land use regulations that
are generally referred to as our zoning, our garbage, our other regulations through reponses to complaints.
Last on the list but probably the most important thing in some of the issues that were brought up tonight,
are planning related issues. We stride to do long term planning and in the last several years, we've gotten
very much more active in capital projects and capital planning in administration. Here's our organizational
chart, from left to right, we mentioned fourteen people, briefly we have the Fire Marshal's Office, Building
and Codes, our Zoning Administrator who deals with the planning and zoning boards and our planning
department and we only have a single planner. We have a single planner whose involved in long term
planning. When most people say planning they're referring to the land use approval process and Craig
Brown is here tonight, Craig is our Zoning Administrator and Craig provides assistance and administers to
the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals. Land use permitting, that's technical assistance, the
volume of work that we do, our fourteen person office We provide technical assistance, and that may be a
response to an inquiry about the land use regulations, it may be as simple as what's my property zoned or
what is the permitting process. It may be as complex as, well, can I subdivide my property? Often people
call our office, I'm looking at property, I'm speculating on this, what's the system of regulations that might
be applicable if I were to undertake a project and that's a very broad question and we get that from real
estate agents all the time. Is this property sub dividable? That's not a question for our land use regulations,
that's a question for somebody experienced in real estate development and often the real estate sales people
are looking for us to provide them with technical consulting services and we instruct them that that's not
what we do here but we can identify categorically what you need to look at, wetlands, sitting of wastewater
disposal system, you need to look at who might you be involved with in the permitting process. So, we
rovide that kind of service and that's really not on our list of things to do but it's often a very time
demanding activity. The Zoning Administrator himself reviews over, reviews every building permit that
comes through our office, that's a monumental task, that's thousands of applications and permits. We
receive hundreds of inquiries, ten and twenty inquiries on a daily basis of our zoning and planning staff.
Our Zoning Administrator and his department is responsible for Planning Board administration, there were
thirty-three Planning Board Meetings this past year in 2002, that's thirty-three evening meetings that our
Planner or our Zoning Administrator has to attend to and provide services to. That means meeting minutes,
that means mailings to those some seventy-nine and eighty applications, those five hundred foot
notifications, so this is a significant operation that we maintain with a static budget when it comes to that
particular portion of our budget. Zoning Board of Appeals, twenty-four meetings, a hundred variance
applications this past year. The Planning Board projects can range from a Marina SUP, which is an
allowed use in our waterfront residential zone... We had significant project last year, Home Depot, the
Cedar's residential facility, very complex, multimillion dollar projects involving engineering of water and
sewer infrastructure that require technical review by our consulting staff. They run the full range of forms
of applications and approvals. Construction Permitting, nine hundred and fifty-nine building permits, that's
on par with previous years. Three building inspectors, our Director of Building and Codes and two
inspectors did six thousand seven hundred and forty-four inspection activities. There's two hundred and
fifty working days in the year, not counting vacation days and holidays, three people, do the math, that's a
significant number of activities by each individual building inspector. Fifty-eight million dollars in
construction, that was a pretty robust year last year. hundred and sixty-three single family homes and a
pretty significant number of townhouse units which was different in years past... Referred to graph,
showing single family building permits.. 1987, 1988 we had on the order of two hundred and fifty, almost
reaching three hundred permits in 1988 when the Town Board at that time issued a building moratorium
and drafting new zoning regulations. We've since drafted new zoning regulations back here in 2002. Last
year because of depressed economy, or because of 9/11, we had a little lull, there was only a hundred and
twelve permits. Referred to graph, residential versus commercial construction for the past ten years and
commercial construction in the last several years has represented a pretty significant portion of our
construction activity. Single Animal Control Officer, we have seventy-two square miles in town, hundreds
of miles of roads, we have twelve thousand parcels of land, we have twenty-six thousand residents, we
have a lot of dogs and that's all the nimal Control Officer does when it comes to enforcement and it does
include nuisance wildlife where we're get a rabies call, a dead animal call, one single person in the entire
town that does all this. There was thirty-six court cases involving dog complaints last year but that's a time
consuming process when you go to court. In all our code enforcement, we're seeking voluntary
compliance, we're seeking corrective action by the violator or suspected violator and if you're in court,
we're spending a lot of effort on a very little number of activities so that's not where we want to be. Code
enforcement, another function, land use and zoning. We do code enforcement through regular inspection
of our Planning Board approvals, we give a hundred site plans and nearly a hundred variances. We need to
go out at some point during the construction process and make sure that those facilities are being
constructed according to the approvals that were issued and so you've always got this rolling workload.
Not everythng occurs, starts and stops on the same schedule so we have a hundred and fifty to two hundred
open activities at any point that we have single person working on those particular categories. We have
three hundred plus land use complaints a year, at least one or two calls a day. Building and Codes, back to
construction activities, they receive complaints about illegal construction activities. They also administer
our septic, and as the board saw, a failed septic system and acted as the Board of Health to correct a failed
septic system. They also deal with junks and registering of junkyards. Code enforcement through the Fire
Marshal's Office, we're lucky to have two fire marshals, a Fire Marshal and a Deputy Fire Marshal. There's
over nine hundred commercial facilities in the Town of Queensbury. We administer the New York State
Uniformed Building Code and as part of that New York State Uniformed Fire Prevention and Building
Code, we're required on an annual basis to inspect certain occupancies, they clasify these as C5
occupancies, these are places of public assembly. We have over a hundred and fifty places of public
assembly, they include certain categories, restaurants, movie theatres, meeting halls. There's an X category
of facilities that there's a recommended inspection frequency and we try to inspect those on a three year
cycle, that's the other nine hundred business and that's anything from a multi family housing unit in
inspecting those common areas to make sure the fire suppression or fire alarm, fire detection systems are in
place. So, we perform those on a three year basis and we did a hundred and seventy-eight of those
inspections this past year. When you say annual inspection of a C5 or one of these other facilities, we go
and we work with Mike Brandt at West Mountain and inspect his facilities and that doesn't take you just a
day to go over a facility the size of West Mountain or a facility the size of the Great Escape. It's a multiple
day inspection project. Queensbury schools, multiple ays on that site in order to facilitate that inspection.
The Fire Marshal's Office also does fire prevention education, we did sixteen hundred students throughout
babysitter courses, through education the primary schools about fire prevention, during Fire Prevention
Week. They issued sixty-three solid fuel permits and they also administer the open burning regulations.
Planning, long term, this is what is really important for us to do and it gets very little public attention but
there's some significant things that we've done during the last year. A new zoning ordinance, that's a
milestone event, that was something that was recommended in our 1998 Comprehensive Plan and it took
eighteen months, two years to do, a significant public outreach components, volunteer boards, volunteer
members. Open Space Plan, that's something we've been working on the last eighteen months, a really
public involvement success. Our Open Space Plan, we're trying to look forward and try to preserve those
things that really make ueensbury an attractive place to be. We are also fortunate 2001 and 2002 to be able
to do some housing rehabilitation work in Ward 4, we're administering a rehab grant that we received in
200 I to rehab twenty some odd housing units that are substandard according to HUD. In the last part of the
year, we started some work on the Karner Blue Butterfly habitat. There's some other planning projects in
there, I can't mention them all but that's a couple of key ones that we've worked on in the last year. Capital
Projects, again, our office has gotten larger involvement in capital projects. The Main Street plan has
personally taken a significant amount of my time, as well as a number of town staff, I know Bob Hafner
has been working on that, I know Dennis has been very active when it comes to whether it's lobbying a
legislature, working with Warren County Planning or Warren County Department of Public Works, trying
to come up with ways to fund underground utilities which has been a significant amount of resource on that
and we will do so in 2003 and 2004. Just recently, at the end of the year we were looking at enhanced
lighting at Lake George outlets and some broader issues involved with our lighting policy. I personally am
a volunteer staff person to work for our Queensbury Economic Development Corporation, they don't have
their own paid staff, we contract for a minor amount of services but we administer that organization as
well. They meet on a monthly basis, they generate minutes, they generate activities and project themselves
so we're doing a significant amount of work in that realm. We provide technical assistance on a wide
number of inquiries but generally in support of, to other offices or to support to the Town Board. We
provide GIS services, we have a geographic information system and we have a person that has part time
commitment to providing just that service to work with the Rec Department to produce them a map, or
work with the Water Department or with the Town Board or with the Clerk. When we hve a public
hearing, we generate those notices that go out. So we provide a significant number of services that aren't
measured in one of our budget line items. We were involved with the Wastewater Treatment agreement,
we provide, environmental review services to the Town Board, preparing the SEQRA documentation.
Here's the big one and hopefully, will get everybody's attention, there was fifty-seven Town Board
meetings. This is only my third meeting this year but I was, not all of them, but these folks and fifty-seven
meetings, that's a lot of evening meetings. That doesn't count the Planning Board meetings that we're at, it
doesn't count the QEDC meetings, it doesn't count the Open Space Plan meetings. So, we spend a lot our
nights here providing a public service and we're not complaining about that, but we want to make it known
that we do work outside of the nine to five hours and most everybody that's on my staff that works in the
evening, works on a salary basis and they don't get overtime to be at meeting and they're doing that, and
we don't have a terrific flex time policy. So, those people are generally working more then forty hours a
week. I know my Senior Planner put in forty-eight hours last week, we generally, people who are
committed to their jobs, their profession and they here providing services to the public and to the board and
they're proud of it. Support to QEDC, Queensbury Economic Development Corporation, that's a 501C3,
it's a non-for-profit that is not directly affiliated with the town, but it provides services through a
contractual relationship with the town that are consistent with some town directed initiatives. Three things
that we've worked with QEDC is the Queensbury Industrial Park, we have plans for a small industrial park
on Queensbury Avenue that will be incorporated into the South Queensbury Sewer District and hopefully
that will be shovel ready within another twelve to eighteen months. Luzerne Road, we've done some
property acquisition on Luzerne Road potentially for business park and then we're completing right now
an update to our 1998 Strategic Plan, we have worked according to our plan, we've identified a series of
initiatives, six or eight by QEDC and we've had a tremendous amount of success. I think it's an
organization we're really proud to be a part of, they'll be making a presentation to you on their
accomplishments over the last three years. Issues affecting operations, 2002 has been a real year of change.
The new international building code, there was a uniformed code that every state was going to adopt by
New York had it's own desires and modify it, so it's the International Code with New York enhancements.
It requires that our three building inspectors do hundreds of hours of training in order to be informed about
what those code changes are and what it also has meant is for us to have to conduct public informational
sessions with the local builders to bring them up to speed because New York State doesn't throw a lot of
money at training all their builers, it's left to local government. Our office has been requested by other
adjacent communities to help them with training programs so we've seen fit to at least do some limited after
hours work with Saratoga County Association of Builders, with Warren County Association of Builders to
present informational sessions. So we're producing materials and training sessions for them to make this as
painless as possible... Our inspectors are well trained, they know what they're doing, it's reinforced and we
have a very difficult time, we're basically the hole in the donut, if you go to a rural community that doesn't
have the staff and a builder operates in that area then come to Queensbury, they say, well that's not the way
I do it in such and such community. Well, that's not the way they do it in such and such community and it's
just that the enforcement staff is not available in a rural community and we have the enforcement staff. I
think it pays dividends, you've seen it in a historical report, the MMA Consultng report on fire prevention
and fire protection services, it notes our low instances of fire loss in Queensbury. We have very low
instances of fire loss due to, a well staffed building inspection department and a fire marshal's office that
provides those inspection services to make things constructed according to the codes and we don't have
those losses but we also have an adequate fire protection services. Another thing that changed our
operations this year was new personnel, we had two new staff, some staff turnover and we had a new
zoning ordinance. While dealing with all that activity that I'm rambling through here, we've had significant
change that we've had to deal with here in our office and we've done a terrific job, I have to give myself a
pat on the back. 2002 highlights, we received nearly a half a million dollars, a T21 grant for the Main
Street Gateway Plaza project that's going to help build for redevelopment of Main Street into a pedestrian
friendly community. I mentioned the Ward 4 rehabactivities. There's several other activities on there,
Open Space Plan Progress I think is one of the highlights of the year. I note in the tagline, a heavy
workload in a time of change. We really have been able to sustain our workload activities and still some
longer term, some productive things. 2003, some goals, improve our customer service, we're always
looking for ways to improve our customer service. We are a customer service organization, largely what
we do is interact with the public, provide them with services, so we're always trying to improve that and
improve our public image. We want to improve our efficiency, we're fortunate to have terrific access to
technology here in the town, we're not always as well trained as we liked to be so that's something that
we're going to work on in 2003. A couple of projects we'll be continuing to work on, the Open Space Plan,
we're targeting a formal adoption of that plan, an April Town Board Meeting. Hopefully, at that time,
you'll hear about a landmark poject that we'll be undertaking that's been identified in that plan. Main Street,
you're going to see a significant level of effort over the next six months to establish the funding sources,
we've had a series of meetings with Assemblywoman Sayward, Senator Little, and we've just recently had a
meeting with the Department of Transportation, we have a number of inquiries out for funding sources and
for some creative strategies for collecting funds for those projects. Hopefully, we'll see some progress on
the Gateway Project. We talked last week that the connector road, a connector road between those, Main
Street and Luzerne Road will be underway in 2003. A couple more planned projects, we received a
twenty-five thousand dollar grant for an affordable housing strategy. We just sent out requests for
proposals and what we're hopeful to do, and this was identified in our comp plan, is we know intuitively
that there's an unmet need in Queensbury for entry level housing and for some other rental housing
facilites. Largely, the market dictates what is constructed in Queensbury, most of the homes that we've
seen constructed, are a hundred and seventy, a hundred eighty thousand dollars, that's an entry level home
in Queensbury. I myself on my salary couldn't afford to borrow and mortgage a hundred and eighty
thousand dollar home. So, we're pricing a large sector of the population out of housing and it's important to
have a wide variety of housing for a number of reasons but especially so that we have a diverse community
and a healthy community, so we're able to house our own workforce... The Routes 9 and 254 congestion
improvements, we just kicked that off, hopefully you'll see a plan solution, something that's going to have
public support. We also have a small project, we're fortunate to have a Regional Transportation Planning
Unit here and that's the Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council and we're looking to do some
things to improve our access management standards in our zoning ordinance... In 1998 weadopted a land
use plan that largely focused on zoning and property use issues and really wasn't a visioning document for
the future for the town. It did identify some problem areas and it did identify areas for additional work and
what we've been doing since 1998 is doing that additional work. In the last five years we have adopted a
Capital Improvement Plan with the involvement of the Comptroller's Office, the involvement of the Water
and Sewer Department. We're planning for physical improvements and the next step to that is a fiscal plan
to be linked with CIP, how do we fund all these projects, what will that mean to our tax rates in five and ten
years into the future, how to we use and leverage what revenue sources we have. We're working on our
new comprehensive plan today, these are all just different functional areas of a comprehensive plan... Our
open space plan for instance, will be adopted as an addendum to our comprehensive plan, our housing plan
will be adopted as an amendment to our comprehensve land use plan. So, these are good things that
hopefully with proper public involvement and proper political support that you will see items that are
identified in each of these plans being executed and being funded and come into fruition... I'm just trying
to give you a flavor for what we do in our office but there's some significant challenges ahead.... We're
dealing with growth pressures, significant development activities, we're going to be dealing with traffic
problems in Queensbury, we're going to be dealing with loss of open space, we're dealing with education
system, those are all quality of life issues and unless we take the time to plan and address those things
today, we're going to deal with those on the fly. We're building a brand new twenty-six million dollar
public safety building. Well, they're going to be filling that public safety building with crimes that occur in
Queensbury and Glens Falls and elsewhere in Warren County. There's other ways to address growth and
crime and quality oflife issues other then through enforcement of regulations and that's, it's all about being
a health community and there's things that we're going to need to do to affect those quality of life issues.
Two other things that I personally see as significant issues coming in, in the next five years, our economic
development activities, we know the paper industry has largely been the life bread of the greater Glens
Falls area, you know that you've seen the paper industries suffer significantly, that's only one industry
amongst many. Our largest employer in Warren County, the Glens Falls Hospital but the hospital doesn't
create the a terrific amount of wealth for the broadest level of community, there's a lot of doctors, there's a
lot of technicians, it's a terrific industry, provides terrific services. It does provide and create wealth in our
community but it doesn't employ everybody in the town. So, unless we do something to broaden our
economic development and our workforce and face those issues, we're going 0 be in for some significant
trouble ahead... The broader community needs to get involved, some of the things we talked about tonight,
housing, employment, these are all regional issues and the chamber tried to advocate a regionalism several
years ago. Supervisor Brower brought up the sharing of the public safety of a jail building between Warren
County and Washington County and that was dismissed without even so much a consider. But unless we
start working together across county lines, across municipal boundaries and focus on some of these
problems that are larger then ourselves, you're going to see, we've already seen the result of New York
State government imposing it's burden on the local taxpayer whether it's through social services and
welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, unless we all worked together we're going to be in a much tougher shape then
anyone of us would desire to be. So, there's really a need to look at this issues on a regional level. That's
our little presentation for you tonight and I apprciate your time and your attention and hopefully, you've
learned a little bit more about what our office does.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-I think Chris and his department is to be applauded. Certainly Chris does a fine
job leading his department and moving the town forward in a number of areas as you've just seen and we're
very proud of them and we acknowledge the fine job that he does. Craig Brown as Zoning Administrator is
also doing a very fine job as our Marilyn Ryba, the Senior Planner and all the departments staff, and it be
difficult to run town operations without such qualified people. I commend you for a fine presentation.
INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS FROM THE FLOOR - NONE
OPEN FORUM 8:55 P.M.
MR. MIKE BRANDT, 57 West Mountain Road, Queensbury-Noted that he operates the West Mountain
Ski Area and that he read in the paper over the weekend that the Town of Queensbury offered water to the
City of Glens Falls and questioned whether that was true?
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Yes.
MR. BRANDT -Questioned whether it was in writing?
SUPERVISOR BROWER-No, it was not in writing, it was a verbal agreement.
MR. BRANDT -Questioned the reported price of water of two thousand eight hundred fifty dollars for up
to three million gallons per day?
SUPERVISOR BROWER-The price you're talking about is in writing, it's a 1998 agreement, it's a
resolution of the Town Board in 1998 between Supervisor Champagne and Mayor Robert Regan, it covers
an Intermunicipal Agreement between the town and city where there's a cross connection near the Aviation
Mall where either municipality can supply water to the other municipality. The agreement is specifically
for two and a half million gallons although Queensbury does have the hydraulic capability of supplying
three million gallons to the City of Glens Falls through the connection. They city was to purchase the
meter for the connection and the town was to install it and that meter has never been purchased and never
been installed to date nor has the connection ever been used between the two municipalities to date. The
agreed upon price was a special price, it was ninety-five cents per thousand gallons which as you know, is
lower then the bulk water rate that you and the Great Escape benefit from. You pay a dollar ifty-two a
thousand gallons for the first four million gallons on a quarterly basis and ninety-five cents per thousand
gallons after that, as does the Great Escape and I believe that's on a quarterly basis, it starts over again
every quarter.
MR. BRANDT-I'd like to point out that the Great Escape and West Mountain are in the tax zone in the
Queensbury Water District, that means we pay taxes to build the buildings, the treatment plant and the
distribution system and it seems to me, to do business with an outside corporation that doesn't pay any of
that, they shouldn't get better rates then we do. I've written to you and asked you to please review your
rates because I think the cost of treating water for the Town of Queensbury has come down quite a bit... If
I got the rates Glens Falls got, this water bill would save me five thousand one hundred dollars.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-I appreciate your comment, however I might say that this was an emergency
water agreement, in the case of an emergency. It was designed to be a short term agreement and if the
situation went over a certain period of time and I don't have the agreement in front of me or I'd tell you
what that was but it was a period of months, then the municipalities would have to enter into a formal
agreement.
MR. BRANDT -Would you consider looking at that rate and seeing if the water department in fact makes
money at that rate? I suspect they do. As an industry, we provide a half a million dollars in payroll in the
winter time when unemployment is at it's highest, we provide a lot of recreational facilities for residents
and non residents, we bring in a lot of people that do business in the hotels, motels locally. We'd like you
to consider giving us the best rate you could so that we can keep doing that. One of the greatest
advantages we have in the ski industry is that we're next to the Hudson River, that gives us access to
unlimited to water. I want to remind you that in 1960 something we applied to the Federal Government for
a permit to get water out of the Hudson River and at that time the supervisor of Queensbury, Mr. Solomon
came to see us and asked us to withdraw our application so that it wouldn't confused the application the
town was making for water source for their proposed water treatment plant an at that time he told us that
the town would take very good care of local industry and ourselves in providing the water we need and I
think we pay quite dearly for our water. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you very much. Certainly, I think I should note that West Mountain is an
important industry in the Town of Queensbury and certainly offers recreational opportunities to not only
our citizens our tourists and we truly appreciate the business that you provide, Mike.
MR. BRANDT -We appreciate the water too but we'd like to get it at a better rate.
MR. SALVADOR-Questioned why the water meter is not installed?
COUNCILMAN TURNER-They were supposed to buy all the material for the connection and the town
would put it in.
MR. SALVADOR-Can we sell them any water without a meter?
SUPERVISOR BROWER-In speaking to our Water Superintendent, we could provide them water without
a meter but we'd have to estimate the usage that we were providing.
MR. SALVADOR-Questioned the cost of the meter?
MR. RALPH VANDUSEN, WaterlWastewater Superintendent-About ten thousand dollars.
MR. SALVADOR-Noted that the Planning Board recently approved the last twenty-five lots in the Indian
Ridge Planned Unit Development. I listened to the dissertation and concluded that there remains not a
single thread of unity in that development that would classify it, qualify it as a Planned Unit Development
and it's because of this town's policies with regard to Planned Unit Development that we don't have that
protection. Those people were allowed to develop at a density above that allowed by the town zoning
because they were going to do it in a fashion that would satisfy all the concerns of the community and this
was a Planned Unit Development... I think that's something that in a comprehensive manner has got to be
looked at.... Another subject, occupancy tax that the county is trying to institute. We hear late last week,
there's been some behind the doors meetings and a deal has been cut where by the so called cottages and
housekeeping units will not be required to collect an occupancy tax. This is ging to dramatically impact the
amount of money that they expect to collect through this taxing program. (submitted to the Town Board
and Town Clerk a letter from a neighbor on Diamond Point Road to Senator Betty Little who was a part of
this agreement expressing his displeasure - on file in the Town Clerk's Office)
RESOLUTIONS 9: 10 P.M.
(Councilman Boor left meeting room) RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF c.T. MALE
ASSOCIATES, P.c. FOR RE-EV ALUATION OF LANDFILL POST-CLOSURE MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS
RESOLUTION NO.: 103,2003
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury's Solid Waste Facilities Manager has recommended that the
Queensbury Town Board engage c.T. Male Associates, Inc., to prepare a request for re-evaluation of
landfill post -closure monitoring requirements in connection with the Ridge Road landfill in an effort to
reduce the landfill groundwater and surface water monitoring requirements, and
WHEREAS, c.T. Male has offered to provide these services for an amount not to exceed $3,600,
exclusive of miscellaneous reimbursables such as prints, mileage and faxes to be charged at cost, such
reimbursables not to exceed the total amount of $200, as delineated in C. T. Male's Proposal dated January
24th, 2003 and presented at this meeting,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the engagement of
C.T. Male Associates, P.c., to prepare a request for re-evaluation oflandfill post-closure monitoring
requirements in connection with the Ridge Road landfill, in an effort to reduce the landfill groundwater and
surface water monitoring requirements as delineated in C.T. Male's Proposal dated January 24th, 2003 and
presented at this meeting, for an amount to exceed $3,600, exclusive of miscellaneous reimbursables such
as prints, mileage and faxes to be charged at cost, such reimbursables not to exceed the total amount of
$200, to be paid for from Account No.: 910-8160-4002, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town's Solid Waste Facilities
Manager, Town Comptroller and/or Town Supervisor to execute any documentation and take such other
and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
Duly adopted this 10th day of February, 2003 by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower
NOES
None
ABSENT:
Mr. Boor
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO.: 74,2003 REGARDING PURCHASE OF DUMP
TRUCK FOR WATER DEPARTMENT
RESOLUTION NO.: 104,2003
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 74,2003 the Queensbury Town Board authorized the Water
Superintendent's purchase of a dump truck from Genesee Truck Sales in accordance with New York State
Contract #PC5842I for an amount not to exceed $24,902, and
WHEREAS, the Water Superintendent has advised that it is necessary to add a wire harness to the
truck and therefore the truck's purchase price will increase by $132, from $24,902 to $25,034, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to therefore amend Resolution No. 74,2003 accordingly,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby amends Resolution No.: 74,2003 such that
the purchase price for the dump truck to be purchased by the Water Department shall be for the amount of
$25,034, such purchase to be from Genessee Truck Sales and in accordance with New York State Contract
No.: PC58421, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby affirms and ratifies Resolution No.: 74,2003 in all
other respects.
Duly adopted this 10th day of February, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower
NOES
None
ABSENT:
Mr. Boor
(Councilman Boor re-entered meeting room)
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF FORD F-350 CREW CAB WITH DUMP BODY AND
HOIST FOR USE BY TOWN HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
RESOLUTION NO.: 105,2003
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously adopted purchasing procedures which
require that the Town Board must approve any purchase in an amount of $5,000 or greater up to New York
State bidding limits, and
WHEREAS, the Town Highway Superintendent has advised the Town Board that he wishes to
purchase one (1) light duty Ford F-350 crew cab with dump body and hoist for use by the Town Highway
Department, and
WHEREAS, New York State Bidding is not required as the purchase is under New York State
Contract No.: PC58421,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the Highway Superintendent's
purchase of one (1) light duty Ford F-350 crew cab with dump body and hoist from Genesee Truck Sales in
accordance with New York State Contract #PC5842I for an amount not to exceed $26,637 to be paid for
from funds budgeted in the current year, from the appropriate Highway Department account, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Highway Superintendent,
Town Comptroller and/or Town Supervisor to take such other and further action as may be necessary to
effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
Duly adopted this 10th day of February, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner
NOES
None
ABSENT:
None
(Councilman Brewer left meeting room)
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF 2003 NEW HOLLAND TRACTOR FOR USE BY
TOWN HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
RESOLUTION NO.: 106,2003
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously adopted purchasing procedures which
require that the Town Board must approve any purchase in an amount of $5,000 or greater up to New York
State bidding limits, and
WHEREAS, the Town Highway Superintendent has advised the Town Board that he wishes to
purchase one (1) 2003 New Holland Tractor for use by the Town Highway Department, and
WHEREAS, New York State Bidding is not required as the purchase is under New York State
Contract No.: PC59340, SB,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the Highway Superintendent's
purchase of one (1) 2003 New Holland Tractor from Buffalo Tractor and Implement in accordance with
New York State Contract #PC59340, SB for an amount not to exceed $25,911 to be paid for from funds
budgeted in the current year, from the appropriate Highway Department account, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Highway Superintendent,
Town Comptroller and/or Town Supervisor to take such other and further action as may be necessary to
effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
Duly adopted this 10th day of February, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec
NOES
None
ABSENT:
Mr. Brewer
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR TRACTOR-MOUNTED BOOM
FOR USE BY TOWN HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
RESOLUTION NO.: 107,2003
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Highway Superintendent wishes to advertise for bids for
the purchase of a tractor-mounted 17' Boom with heavy duty grass flail, 60", as specified in bid
specifications to be prepared by the Highway Superintendent and/or Acting Purchasing Agent, and
WHEREAS, General Municipal Law ~ 103 requires that the Town advertise for bids and award the
bids to the lowest responsible bidder(s) meeting New York State statutory requirements and the
requirements set forth in the Town's bidding documents,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town's Acting
Purchasing Agent to publish an advertisement for bids for a tractor-mounted 17' Boom with heavy duty
grass flail, 60", for the Town Highway Department in the official newspaper for the Town of Queensbury,
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Acting Purchasing Agent to
open all bids received, read the same aloud and record the bids as is customarily done and present the bids
to the next regular or special meeting of the Town Board.
Duly adopted this 10th day of February, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower
NOES
None
ABSENT:
Mr. Brewer
RESOLUTION SCHEDULING PUBLIC HEARINGS CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS THROUGH NEW YORK STATE SMALL
CITIES PROGRAM
RESOLUTION NO.:
108, 2003
INTRODUCED BY:
Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury wishes to apply for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
funds through the New York State Administered Small Cities Program for the purposes of community
development improvements such as housing, public facilities and/or economic development, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to schedule the required public hearings concerning the application
and use of CDBG funds,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall meet and hold two public hearings at the Queensbury
Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury at 7:00 p.m. on February 24th, 2003 and March 24th, 2003,
to hear all interested persons and take any necessary action provided by law concerning its application for
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds through the New York State Administered Small
Cities Program, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to
publish and post Notices of Public Hearings a minimum often (10) days prior to each scheduled public
hearing, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Community
Development Department to sign any documentation and take any other action necessary to effectuate the
terms of this Resolution.
Duly adopted this 10th day of February, 2003 by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor
NOES
None
ABSENT
Mr. Brewer
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADIRONDACK RUNNERS TO CONDUCT 17TH ANNUAL
SHAMROCK SHUFFLE ROAD RACE
RESOLUTION NO. : 109,2003
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, the Adirondack Runners Club has requested authorization from the Queensbury
Town Board to conduct its 17th Annual Shamrock Shuffle Road Race as follows:
SPONSOR
EVENT:
DATE
PLACE:
The Adirondack Runners Club
17th Annual Shamrock Shuffle Road Race
Sunday, March 16th, 2003
Beginning and ending at Glens Falls
High School and going through the Town of Queensbury
(Letter and map showing course is attached);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby acknowledges receipt of proof of insurance
from the Adirondack Runners Club to conduct the 17th Annual Shamrock Shuffle Road Race partially
within the Town of Queensbury, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby approves this event subject to approval by the Town
Highway Superintendent, which may be revoked due to concern for road conditions at any time up to the
date and time of the event.
Duly adopted this 10th day of February, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner
NOES
None
ABSENT:
Mr. Brewer
RESOLUTION APPROVING YEAR 2002 SERVICE AWARD PROGRAM RECORDS FOR
SOUTH QUEENSBURY VOLUNTEER FIRE CO., INC.
RESOLUTION NO.:
110, 2003
INTRODUCED BY:
Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously authorized engagement ofPENFLEX, Inc.,
to provide the 2002 Standard Year End Administration Services for the Town's Volunteer Fire Companies
Service A ward Program, and
WHEREAS, as part of the Service Award Program, it is necessary that the Town Board approve
each Fire Company's Year 2002 Service Award Program Records, and
WHEREAS, the Town Supervisor's Office has received and reviewed the records from the South
Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. and found them to be complete, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to approve these records,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the 2002 Volunteer Fire
Company Service Award Program Records for the South Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or
Town Comptroller to take all action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
Duly adopted this 10th day of February, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec,
NOES
None
ABSENT:
Mr. Brewer
RESOLUTION INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS AND ESTIMATED REVENUES AND AMENDING
2002 TOWN BUDGET TO ACCOMMODATE REIMBURSED ENGINEERING SERVICES
RESOLUTION NO.: 111,2003
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, there is a need to amend the 2002 Budget to address the additional amount of
reimbursed engineering services to be expensed for the remainder of the 2002 fiscal year, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Department has requested a budget amendment,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs amendment of the
Town's 2002 Budget as follows:
I) Increase Estimated Revenues in Account #001-0001-2116 (Technical Assistance) by the
amount of $4)00; and
2) Increase Appropriations in Account #001-8020-4711 (Planning - Reimbursable
Engineering Services) by the amount of $4)00; and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further approves, authorizes and directs the Town
Comptroller's Office to make any necessary adjustments, transfers or prepare any documentation necessary
to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
Duly adopted this 10th day of February, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower
NOES
None
ABSENT:
None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPOINTMENT OF MICHAEL GENIER AS CEMETERY
SUPERINTENDENT
RESOLUTION NO.: 112, 2003
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury's Cemetery Superintendent recently retired, and
WHEREAS, the Cemetery Commission advertised for candidates for the position, conducted
interviews and now recommends that the Town Board authorize the appointment of Michael Genier to the
position of Cemetery Superintendent,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the appointment of
Michael Genier as Cemetery Superintendent effective February 11th, 2003, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that Mr. Genier shall be paid an annual salary of $40,000 and shall be subject to a
six (6) month probationary period, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that such hiring is contingent upon Mr. Genier passing the pre-employment physical
required by Town Policy, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Comptroller and/or
Town Supervisor to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this
Resolution.
Duly adopted this 10th day of February, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor
NOES
None
ABSENT:
Mr. Brewer
RESOLUTION AND FINAL ORDER APPROVING CREATION OF ROUTE 9 SEWER DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO.: 113,2003
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, a District Formation Report (Map, Plan and Report) has been prepared by C. T. Male
Associates, P.C., professional engineers, concerning the proposed formation of the Route 9 Sewer District
and the construction of sewer facilities along both sides of Route 9 from Weeks Road up to State Route
149, such area including The Great Escape Theme Park, its proposed hotel and conference center, as well
as the Warren County Municipal Center, the Factory Outlet Stores and all other properties bordering Route
9, as more specifically set forth and described in the Map, Plan and Report, and
WHEREAS, the Map, Plan and Report has been filed in the Queensbury Town Clerk's Office and
is available for public inspection, and
WHEREAS, the Map, Plan and Report includes (a) the boundaries of the proposed Sewer District,
(b) a general plan of the proposed sewer system, (c) a report of the proposed method of operation, and (d)
all outlets and the terminus and course of each proposed main sewer or drain together with the location and
a general description of all sewage disposal plants, pumping stations and other public works, and
WHEREAS, on May 24th, 2002 the Town sent a copy of Part I of the EAF and the Report to all
potentially involved agencies including the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
and New York State Department of Health together with all required documentation and a letter indicating
that the Town Board would be undertaking consideration of the project identified in the Order, that
coordinated SEQRA review with the Queensbury Town Board as lead agency was desired and that a lead
agency must be agreed upon within 30 days, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board was duly designated lead agency for SEQRA review of the project,
and
WHEREAS, by previous Resolution, the Town Board determined that the project would not have
a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration was made, and
WHEREAS, the estimated annual cost to the "typical property" has been filed with the Town
Clerk and is made a part of the Map, Plan and Report, and
WHEREAS, on September 10th, 200 I subsequent to the filing of the Map, Plan and Report with
the Town Clerk, the Town Board adopted an Order (the "Public Hearing Order") reciting (a) the boundaries
of the proposed Sewer District; (b) the proposed improvements; (c) the maximum amount proposed to be
expended for the improvements; (d) the estimated cost of hook-up fees (if any) and the cost of the Sewer
District to the typical property and the typical one or two family home (if not the typical property); (e) the
proposed method of financing to be employed; (f) the fact that a Map, Plan and Report describing the
improvements is on file in the Town Clerk's Office; and (g) the time and place of a public hearing on the
proposed Sewer District, and
WHEREAS, copies of the Public Hearing Order were duly published and posted and were filed
with the Office of the State Comptroller, all as required by law, and
WHEREAS, prior to publication of the Public Hearing Order, a detailed explanation of how the
estimated cost of hook-up fees (if any) and the cost of the Sewer District to the typical property and typical
one or two family home (if not the typical property) were computed was filed with the Town Clerk for
public inspection, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed Sewer District was duly held on October 1st, 2001
and the Town Board has considered the evidence given together with other information, and
WHEREAS, Edward V. Curtin, Consulting Archaeologist, performed Phase I and Phase 2
Archaeological Surveys concerning the proposed Sewer District and has advised that as a result of the
Phase 2 Survey, no significant archaeological or cultural resources would be affected by the construction of
the proposed Sewer District, and
WHEREAS, on November 4th, 2002, by Resolution No.: 443,2003, the Queensbury Town Board
determined that (a) the notice of public hearing was published and posted as required by law and was
otherwise sufficient, (b) all of the property and property owners within the proposed District would be
benefited thereby, (c) all of the property and property owners benefited are included within the boundaries
of the proposed District and (d) the establishment of the Sewer District as therein described is in the public
interest, and approved the establishment of the Sewer District as the boundaries are set forth in the Map,
Plan and Report, subject to permissive referendum in the manner provided in Town Law Article 7, and
WHEREAS, the Town Clerk duly posted and published the notice required for resolutions subject
to permissive referendum and no such petition was filed within 30 days after the date of the Resolution, and
the Town Clerk has caused a certificate to that effect to be filed in the office of the County Clerk, and
WHEREAS, the estimated annual cost to the typical property is below the average estimated cost
threshold computed and provided by the New York State Comptroller's Office, so the approval of the State
Comptroller's Office was not required for establishment of the proposed Sewer District, and
WHEREAS, the Town wishes to adopt a Final Order creating the District,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS
ORDERED, that:
1. The Route 9 Sewer District be and the same is hereby authorized, approved and established in
accordance with the boundaries and descriptions set forth in Schedule A attached hereto and in the Map,
Plan and Report and construction of the improvement may proceed and service provided and subject to the
following:
A.
of Health;
the obtaining of any necessary permits or approvals from the New York State Department
B. the obtaining of any necessary permits or approvals from the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation;
2. The boundaries of the District shall be as set forth in Exhibit A;
3. The improvements set forth in Exhibit B, as further described in the Map, Plan and Report, shall
be constructed upon the required funds being made available or provided for;
4. The proposed improvements, including cost of rights of way, construction costs, legal fees and
other expenses, shall be financed over up to 30 years using bond anticipation notes and/or serial bonds. It is
hoped that the Town will receive Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC) financing for this project;
and
BE IT FURTHER,
ORDERED, that the Town Clerk shall make arrangements to record a certified copy of this
Resolution and Order in the Warren County Clerk's Office and send a certified copy of this Resolution and
Order to the State Department of Audit & Control at Albany, New York, the Town of Queensbury
Assessor's Office, Community Development Department and Wastewater Department, within 10 days of
the date of adoption of this Order.
Duly adopted this 10th day of February, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner
NOES
None
ABSENT:
Mr. Brewer
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION ROUTE 9 SEWER DISTRICT TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, COUNTY OF
WARREN, STATE OF NEW YORK
All that certain tract, piece or parcel of land situate lying and being in the Town of Queensbury,
County of Warren, State of New York, lying along US. Route 9 generally Easterly of the Adirondack
Northway and Northerly of Weeks Road and being more particularly bounded and described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point at the intersection of the Southerly boundary of the Town of Queensbury,
County of Warren, Tax Map Section No. 71, Block No. I, Parcel NO.2 with the Westerly boundary of said
tax map parcel and runs thence from said point of beginning along the Westerly boundary of Tax Map
Parcel No. 71-1-2, a distance of 920:1: feet to its intersection with the Southerly boundary of Weeks Road;
thence in a Westerly direction along the Southerly street boundary 150:1: feet to its intersection with the
Westerly boundary of Weeks Road; thence in a Northerly direction along the said Westerly street boundary
110:1: feet to its intersection with the Northerly boundary of Weeks Road; thence in a generally Easterly
direction along the Northerly boundary of Weeks Road 1,420:1: feet to its intersection with the Westerly
boundary of Tax Map Parcel No.: 70-1-8; thence in a generally Northerly direction along the Westerly
boundary of said tax map parcel 880:1: feet to its intersection with the Southerly boundary of Tax Map Pacel
No.: 73-1-13; thence in a generally Westerly direction along the Southerly boundary of said tax map parcel
1,040:1: feet to its intersection with the Westerly boundary of said Tax Map Parcel No. 73-1-13; thence in a
generally Northerly direction along the Westerly boundary of said tax map parcel 690:1: feet to its
intersection with the Southerly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No.: 73-1-11.3; thence in a generally Westerly
direction along the Southerly boundary of said tax map parcel and the Southerly boundary of Tax Map
Parcel No. 73-1-8.1, a distance of 520:1: feet to its intersection with the Easterly boundary of the
Adirondack Northway (1-87); thence in a generally Northerly direction along the generally Easterly
boundary of the Adirondack Northway (1-87), a distance of 9,290:1: feet to its intersection with the
Southerly boundary of Gurney Lane; thence in a generally Easterly direction along the Southerly boundary
of Gurney Lane and its Easterly projection crossing US. Route 9, a distance of 520:1: feet to a pointon the
Easterly boundary of U S. Route 9; thence in a generally Northerly direction along the Easterly boundary of
US. Route 9, a distance of 1,555:1: feet to its intersection with the Easterly projection of the Northerly
boundary of the Adirondack Northway 1-87 (Exit 20); thence in a generally Westerly direction along the
said Easterly projection crossing US. Route 9 and along the said Northerly boundary of the Adirondack
Northway 1-87, a distance of 460:1: feet to its intersection with the Easterly boundary of said Adirondack
Northway 1-87; thence in a generally Northerly direction along the Easterly boundary of said highway
2,390:1: feet to its intersection with the Northerly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 34-1-10; thence in a
generally Easterly direction along the Northerly boundary of said tax map parcel 640:1: feet to its
intersection with the Westerly boundary of US. Route 9; thence in a generally Southerly direction along
the Westerly boundary of US. Route 9, a distance of 230:1: feet to its intersection wih the Westerly
projection of the Southerly boundary of Farm-to-Market Road (NYS Route 149); thence in a generally
Easterly direction along said projection, crossing US. Route 9 and along the Southerly boundary of said
Farm-to-Market Road (NYS Route 149), a distance of 290:1: feet to its intersection with the Easterly
boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 36-1-35; thence in a generally Southerly direction along the Easterly
boundary of said tax map parcel, a distance of 310:1: feet to its intersection with the Northerly boundary of
Tax Map Parcel No. 36-1-34.2; thence in a generally Easterly direction along the Northerly boundary of
said tax map parcel and the Northerly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 36-1-34.3, a distance of 470:1: feet
to its intersection with the Easterly boundary of said Tax Map Parcel No. 36-1-34.3; thence in a generally
Southerly direction along the Easterly boundary of said Tax Map Parcel No. 36-1-34.3, a distance of 280:1:
feet to its intersection with the Southerly boundary of said map parcel; thenc in a generally Westerly
direction along the Southerly boundary of said tax map parcel 400:1: feet to its intersection with the
Southeasterly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 36-1-33.2; thence in a generally Southwesterly direction
along the Southeasterly boundary of said tax map parcel 330:1: feet to a point; thence in a generally Easterly
direction through Tax Map Parcel No. 36-1-27.1, a distance of 90:1: feet to a point, said point being the
Northeasterly corner of Tax Map Parcel No. 36-1-31; thence in a generally Southerly direction along the
Easterly boundary of said Tax Map Parcel No. 36-1-31, a distance of 340:1: feet to its intersection with the
Southerly boundary of said tax map parcel; thence in a generally Westerly direction along the Southerly
boundary of said tax map parcel 50:1: feet to its intersection with the Easterly boundary of Tax Map Parcel
No. 36-1-29; thence in a generally Southerly direction along the Easterly boundary of said tax map parcel
400:1: to its intersection with the Southerly boundary of aid Tax Map Parcel No. 36-1-29; thence in a
generally Westerly direction along the Southerly boundary of said tax map parcel and the Southerly
boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 36-1-28, a distance of 210:1: feet to its intersection with the Easterly
boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 36-1-27; thence in a generally Southerly direction along the Easterly
boundary of said tax map parcel 290:1: feet to its intersection with the Northerly boundary of Tax Map
Parcel No. 36-1-26; thence in a generally Easterly direction along the Northerly boundary of said tax map
parcel 210:1: feet to its intersection with the Easterly boundary of said tax map parcel; thence in a generally
Southerly direction along the Easterly boundary of said tax map parcel 130:1: feet to its intersection with the
Southerly boundary of said tax map parcel; thence in a generally Westerly direction along the Southerly
boundary of said tax map parcel 390:1: feet to its intersection with the Southeasterly boundary of Tax Map
Parcel No. 36-1-25; thence in a generally outhwesterly direction along the Southeasterly boundary of said
tax map parcel, a distance of 230:1: feet to its intersection with the Northerly boundary of Tax Map Parcel
No. 36-1-24; thence in a generally Easterly direction along the Northerly boundary of said tax map parcel
480:1: feet to its intersection with the Easterly boundary of said tax map parcel; thence in a generally
Southerly direction along the Easterly boundary of said tax map parcel 2,230:1: feet to its intersection with
the Northerly boundary of Glen Lake Road; thence in a generally Westerly direction along the Northerly
boundary of Glen Lake Road 880:1: feet to its intersection with the Northerly projection of the Easterly
boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 36-2-11; thence in a generally Southerly direction crossing Glen Lake
Road along said projection and along the Easterly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 36-2-11, a distance of
880:1: feet to its intersection with the Westerly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 36-2-3.1; thence in a
generally Northerly direcion along the Easterly boundary of said tax map parcel 650:1: feet to its intersection
with the Southerly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 36-2-13; thence in a generally Easterly direction along
the Southerly boundary of said tax map parcel 117:1: feet to its intersection with the Easterly boundary of
said tax map parcel; thence in a generally Northerly direction along the Easterly boundary of said tax map
parcel 150:1: feet to its intersection with the Southerly boundary of Glen Lake Road; thence in a generally
Easterly direction along the Southerly boundary of said road 210:1: feet to its intersection with the Westerly
boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 36-2-15; thence in a generally Southerly direction along the Westerly
boundary of said tax map parcel 150:1: to its intersection with the Southerly boundary of said tax map
parcel; thence in a generally Easterly direction along the Southerly boundary of said tax map parcel and the
Southerly boundary of Tax Map Parcel Nos. 36-2-16 and 36-2-17, a distance of 320:1: to its interection with
the Easterly boundary of said Tax Map Parcel No. 36-2-17; thence in a generally Northerly direction along
the Easterly boundary of said tax map parcel 150:1: feet to its intersection with the Southerly boundary of
Glen Lake Road; thence in a generally Easterly and Northeasterly direction along the Southerly and
Southeasterly boundary of Glen Lake Road 2,550:1: feet to its intersection with the Southwesterly boundary
of Ash Drive; thence in a generally Southeasterly direction along the Southwesterly boundary of Ash Drive
1,550:1: feet to its intersection with the Westerly boundary of the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation
right -of-way; thence in a generally Southerly direction along the Westerly boundary of lands now or
formerly of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 750:1: feet to its intersection with the Northerly boundary
of Tax Map Parcel No. 36-2-4.1; thence in a generally Westerly direction along the Northerly boundary of
Tax Map Parcel No. 36-2-4.1, a distance of 900:1: feet to its intersection with the Wsterly boundary of said
tax map parcel; thence in a generally Southerly direction along the Westerly boundary of Tax Map Parcel
No. 36-2-4.1, a distance of 1,120:1: feet to its intersection with the Southerly boundary of said tax map
parcel; thence in a generally Easterly direction along the Southerly boundary of said tax map parcel 940:1:
feet to its intersection with the Easterly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 36-2-3.1; thence in a generally
Southerly direction along the Easterly boundary of said tax map parcel 1,300:1: feet to its intersection with
the Northerly boundary of Round Pond Road; thence in a generally Westerly direction along the Northerly
boundary of Round Pond Road 1,270:1: feet to its intersection with the northwesterly projection of the
Northeasterly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 67-2-1.3; thence in a generally Southeasterly direction
along said projection crossing Round Pond Road and along the Northeasterly boundary of Tax Map Parcel
Nos. 67-2-1.3, 67-2-1.2, 68-1-2 and 68-1-15, a distance of 2,060 feet to its intersection with the Southerly
boundary of said Tax Map Parcel No. 68-1-15; thence in a generally Southwesterly direction along the
Southeasterly boundary of said tax map parcel and Tax Map Parcel No. 68-1-13.1, a distance of 260:1: feet
to its intersection with the Northwesterly projection of the Northeasterly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No.
68-1-10; thence through Tax Map Parcel No. 68-1-11 along said projection and along the Northeasterly
boundary of Tax Map Parcels Nos. 68-1-10 and 68-1-9 crossing Montray Road, continuing along the
Northeasterly boundary of Tax Map Parcel Nos. 69-1-1,69-1-29,69-1-28,69-1-27,69-1-26,69-1-25,69-
1-24, 69-1-20, 69-1-18 and 69-1-17 crossing Kendrick Road and along the Northeasterly boundary of Tax
Map Parcel Nos. 70-2-1, 70-2-2, 70-2-3 and a portion of 70-2-4, a distance of 2, 170:1: feet to its intersection
with the Northwesterly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 70-2-4; thence in a generally Northeasterly
direction along the Northwesterly boundary of said tax map arce1160:1: feet to its intersection with the
Easterly boundary of said tax map parcel; thence in a generally Southerly direction along the Easterly
boundary of said Tax Map Parcel No. 70-2-4, a distance of 180:1: feet to its intersection with the Southerly
boundary of said tax map parcel; thence in a generally Westerly direction along the Southerly boundary of
said tax map parcel 150:1: feet to intersection with the Easterly boundary of said tax map parcel; thence in a
generally Southerly direction along the Easterly boundary of said tax map parcel and the Easterly boundary
of Tax Map Parcel Nos. 70-2-6, 70-2-8 and 70-2-10, a distance 450:1: feet to its intersection with the
Southerly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 70-2-10; thence in a generally Westerly direction along the
Southerly boundary of said tax map parcel 65:1: feet to its intersection with the Easterly boundary of Tax
Map Parcel No. 70-2-11; thence in a generally Southerly direction along the Easterly boundary of said tax
map parcel 120:1: feet to its intersction with the Northerly boundary of Sweet Road; thence in a generally
Easterly direction along the Northerly boundary of said road 110:1: feet to its intersection with the Northerly
projection of the Easterly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 71-2-1; thence in a generally Southerly
direction crossing Sweet Road along said projection and along the Easterly boundary of said Tax Map
Parcel No. 71-2-1, a distance of 150:1: feet to its intersection with the Southerly boundary of said tax map
parcel; thence in a generally Westerly direction along the Southerly boundary of said tax map parcel 230:1:
feet to its intersection with the Easterly boundary of U S. Route 9; thence from the generally Southwesterly
direction crossing US. Route 9, a distance of 190:1: feet to a point, said point being at the intersection of the
Northerly boundary of Weeks Road with the Westerly boundary of US. Route 9; thence in a generally
Southerly direction along the Westerly boundary of US. Route 9, a distance of 170:1: feet to its intersection
wih the Southerly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 71-1-4; thence in a generally Westerly direction along
the Southerly boundary of said tax map parcel 380:1: feet to its intersection with the Westerly boundary of
said Tax Map Parcel No. 71-1-4; thence in a generally Northerly direction along the Westerly boundary of
said tax map parcel 120:1: feet to its intersection with the Southerly boundary of Weeks Road; thence in a
generally Westerly direction along the Southerly boundary of Weeks Road 540:1: feet to its intersection with
the Easterly boundary of Tax Map Parcel No. 71-1-2; thence in a generally Southerly direction along the
Easterly boundary of said tax map parcel, a distance of 930:1: feet to its intersection with the Southerly
boundary of said Tax Map Parcel No. 71-1-2; thence in a generally Westerly direction along the Southerly
boundary of said tax map parcel, a distance of 700:1: feet to the point or place of beginning.
EXHIBIT B
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Currently, properties within the proposed district dispose of their waste through the use of
subsurface disposal systems. These properties employ such disposal methods as septic systems and
injection wells. The impact of these systems to date has been mainly to limit the development of individual
parcels. As development continues, water quality may be adversely impacted.
This project proposal is for the installation of a new sanitary sewage system which will collect the
wastewater flow generated by these properties and transport the flow to the Glens Falls sewage treatment
plant. The proposed sanitary sewage system will consist of gravity collection sewers, a set of pump
stations, pressurized force main sewers and a gravity sewer to transport the flow to the Quaker Road Sewer
District and the Meadowbrook Pump Station. The wastewater is then pumped from the Meadowbrook
Pump Station to the City of Glens Falls for treatment.
This goal of this proposed sewer district is to eliminate any further contamination of the Glen
Lake region that may result from wastewater generated by Route 9 properties. Therefore, the project
intends to reduce environmental impacts on the soil, groundwater and surface water in the Glen Lake
region. The project will also address design concerns related to low flow conditions as well as consider
future expansion of businesses in the district.
(Councilman Brewer re-entered meeting room)
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF UP TO $5,170,000 IN SERIAL BONDS OF THE
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO PAY THE COST OF ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND
INST ALLA TION OF THE ROUTE 9 SEWER DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS; AND AUTHORIZING
THE ISSUANCE OF UP TO $5,170,000 IN BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES OF THE TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY FOR THE SAME PURPOSE
RESOLUTION NO.: 114,2003
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHEREAS, in accordance with New York Town Law, the Town of Queensbury (the "Town")
Town Board has duly ordered that the Town of Queensbury Route 9 Sewer District (the "District") be
established and the improvements described in the Map, Plan and Report be constructed and the service
within the District be provided upon the required funds being made available or provided for;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY, WARREN COUNTY, NEW YORK, AS FOLLOWS:
Section I. The specific object or purpose for which the obligations authorized by this Resolution
are to be issued is the acquisition, construction, and installation of a sanitary sewage disposal system for the
Route 9 Sewer District, including gravity collection sewers, pump stations, pressurized force main sewers
and a gravity sewer, and further including related preliminary and incidental costs (the "Project"), and, as
detailed in the Final Order establishing the District, such specific object or purpose is hereby authorized at
a maximum estimated cost of Five Million One Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($5,170,000.00).
Section 2. The plan for the financing of such maximum estimated cost is by the issuance of up to Five
Million One Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($5,170,000.00) in serial bonds or bond anticipation notes
of the Town on behalf of the District, hereby authorized to be issued pursuant to the Local Finance Law.
The proceeds of the bonds or bond anticipation notes may be used to reimburse expenditures paid by the
Town from other funds or otherwise on or after February 10,2003, the date of adoption of this Resolution.
The Town may submit applications for additional grants and/or low interest loans from the New York State
Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC) and/or the United States Department of Commerce Economic
Development Administration (EDA) and/or other funding source(s) and, to the extent that any such moneys
are received, may apply such funds to the payment of principal and interest on the bonds or bond
anticipation notes. Pursuant to Local Finance Law Section 107(d)(9), no down payment from curmt funds
is required.
Section 3. Consistent with the Final Order establishing the District, the Town Board hereby
determines that it is in the public interest to acquire and construct the Project.
Section 4. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the specific object or
purpose is forty (40) years, pursuant to Subdivision 4 of paragraph (a) of Section 11 of the Local Finance
Law. It is hereby further determined that the maximum maturity of the serial bonds herein authorized will
exceed five (5) years.
Section 5. The faith and credit of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, are
hereby irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of and interest on such obligations as they
become due and payable. An annual appropriation shall be made in each year sufficient to pay the
principal of and interest on such obligations becoming due and payable in such years. There shall annually
be levied on all the taxable real property of the District a fee sufficient to pay the principal of and interest
on such obligations as they become due and payable.
Section 6. For the purpose of paying the cost of the Project, including related preliminary
and incidental costs, there are hereby authorized to be issued serial bonds of the Town up to a maximum
amount of $5,170,000, the maximum maturity of which shall not exceed the forty (40) year period of
probable usefulness set forth above, and which shall mature on or before the date of the expiration of the
period of probable usefulness as measured from the date of the bonds or from the date of the first bond
anticipation note issued in anticipation of the sale of such bonds, whichever date is earlier.
Section 7. There are hereby authorized to be issued bond anticipation notes for the specific object
or purpose in an amount up to but not exceeding the $5,170,000 maximum amount of serial bonds
authorized to be issued, in anticipation of the issuance and sale of the serial bonds authorized, including
renewals of such bond anticipation notes.
Section 8. Any bond anticipation notes shall be payable from the proceeds derived from the sale
of the bonds or otherwise redeemed in the manner provided by Section 23.00 of the Local Finance Law.
The faith and credit of the Town are hereby irrevocably pledged for the payment of the bond anticipation
notes and the interest on them.
Section 9. There are no bond anticipation notes outstanding which have been previously issued in
anticipation of the sale of these bonds. Neither are the bond anticipation notes hereby authorized renewal
notes. These bond anticipation notes will be issued in anticipation of bonds for an assessable improvement.
These notes shall mature at such time as the Town may determine and may be renewed from time to time,
provided that in no event shall such notes or renewals extend more than one (1) year beyond the original
date of issue except as permitted in the Local Finance Law.
Section 10. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Resolution and of the Local Finance Law,
and pursuant to the provisions of Sections 30.00, 50.00 and 56.00 to 60.00, inclusive, of the Local Finance
Law, the power to authorize bond anticipation notes in anticipation of the issuance of the serial bonds
authorized by this Resolution and the renewal of these notes, and the power to prescribe the terms, form
and contents of the serial bonds and bond anticipation notes and the power to sell and deliver the serial
bonds and bond anticipation notes issued in anticipation of the issuance of the bonds is hereby delegated to
the Town Supervisor, the Chief Fiscal Officer of the Town. The Town Supervisor is hereby authorized to
sign any serial bonds and bond anticipation notes issued in anticipation of the issuance of the serial bonds
and bond anticipation notes issued pursuant to this Resolution by manual signature, and the Town Clerk is
hereby authorized to affix or impress or imprint a facsimile of the seal ofthe Town to any of the serial
bonds or bond anticipation notes and to attest such seal by manual signature. The Town Supervisor, as
Chief Fiscal Officer of the Town, is authorized to execute and deliver any documents and to take such other
action as may be necessary and proper to carry out the intent of the provisions of this Resolution.
Section 11. The exact date of issuance of the bonds and/or notes and the exact date upon which
they shall become due and payable shall be fixed and determined by the Chief Fiscal Officer, provided,
however, that the maturity of the notes or renewals shall not exceed one (1) year from the date of issue
except as permitted by the Local Finance Law.
Section 12. The Chief Fiscal Officer shall prepare the bonds and/or notes and sell them in
accordance with the provisions of the Local Finance Law including, but not limited to, the provisions of
Section 169.00, if applicable, and at such sale shall determine the interest rate to be borne by such bonds
and/or notes.
Section 13.
determined rate.
If issued, the notes shall be in registered form, and shall bear interest at the
Section 14. The Chief Fiscal Officer shall deliver the bonds and/or notes to the purchaser only
against a certified check or other immediately available funds. The proceeds of the sale of the bonds and/or
notes shall be deposited and/or invested as required by Section 165.00 of the Local Finance Law, and the
power to invest the proceeds of sale is hereby delegated to the Chief Fiscal Officer and the power to invest
in any instruments described in Section 165.00 is expressly granted.
Section 15. To the extent that it is permitted to do so under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended (the "Code"), the Town hereby designates the bonds and/or notes as "qualified tax-exempt
obligations" under Section 265(b)(3) of the Code. The Town hereby covenants that it will (i) take all
actions on its part necessary to cause interest on the bonds and/or notes to be excluded from gross income
for purposes of Federal income taxes and (ii) refrain from taking any action which would cause interest on
the bonds and/or notes to be included in gross income for purposes of Federal income taxes.
Section 16. The Town of Queensbury is a town partially within the Adirondack Park.
However, State lands subject to taxation within the Town's boundaries are assessed at less than thirty
percent (30%) of the total taxable assessed valuation of the Town, so permission of the State Comptroller to
issue the bonds and/or notes is not required under Local Finance Law Section 104.10(3).
Section 17. Miller, Mannix, Schachner & Hafner, LLC, Glens Falls, New York, is hereby
designated bond counsel.
Section 18. The validity of these serial bonds and bond anticipation notes may be contested only
if: (1) These obligations are authorized for an object or purpose for which the Town is not authorized to
expend money; or
(2) The provisions of law which should be complied with at the date of publication of this Resolution are
not substantially complied with, and an action, suit or proceeding contesting such validity is commenced
within twenty (20) days after the date of such publication; or
(3) Such obligations are authorized in violation of the provisions of the State Constitution.
Section 19. The full text of this Resolution or a summary thereof shall be published in the Glens
Falls Post Star, which has been designated as the official newspaper of the Town, together with a notice of
the Town Clerk in substantially the form provided in Section 81.00 of the Local Finance Law.
Section 20. The question of the adoption of this Resolution was duly put to a vote on roll call
which resulted as follows:
ROLL CALL AYES:
Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
The Resolution was declared duly adopted by a vote of not less than two-thirds (2/3) of the full
membership of the Town Board.
DATED: February 10, 2003
Mr. Round, Executive Director lead the Town Board through the following Part II Short Environmental
Assessment Form:
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 617.6?
YES
C, Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following:
CI, 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? YES, it's consistent with town's land use regulations and comprehensive land use plan.
C6, Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in CI-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 (State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION is attached)
RESOLUTION ADOPTING SEQRA DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE REGARDING
EXTENSION NO.8 TO CENTRAL QUEENSBURY QUAKER ROAD SEWER DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO.: 115, 2003
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to establish an extension to the Central
Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District to be known as Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District
Extension No.8, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board is duly qualified to act as lead agency for compliance with the State
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) which requires environmental review of certain actions
undertaken by local governments, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is an unlisted action in accordance with the rules and regulations
of SEQRA,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board, after considering the proposed action, reviewing
the Environmental Assessment Form and thoroughly analyzing the action for potential environmental
concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to complete
the Environmental Assessment Form by checking the box indicating that the proposed action will not result
in any significant adverse impacts, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board approves of a Negative Declaration and authorizes and directs
the Town Clerk's Office to file any necessary documents in accordance with the provisions of the general
regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation.
Duly adopted this 10th day of February, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer
NOES
None
ABSENT:
None
RESOLUTION APPROVING EXTENSION NO.8 TO CENTRAL QUEENSBURY QUAKER ROAD
SEWER DISTRICT - NORTHWAY PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER AND RAY SUPPLY COMPANY
RESOLUTION NO.: 116, 2003
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to establish an extension to the Central
Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District to be known as Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District
Extension No.8, and
WHEREAS, a Map, Plan and Report has been prepared by The LA Group, P.C., engineers
licensed by the State of New York regarding the proposed Sewer District Extension to serve a proposed
new Home Depot to be constructed in the Northway Plaza, as well as the Ray Supply Company, such
parcels bearing Tax Map No.'s: 296.18-1-46 (portion); 296.18-1-47; 296.18-1-46 (portion) and 296.17-1-
35 as more specifically set forth and described in the Map, Plan and Report, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board accepted such Map, Plan and Report as the Map, Plan and Report
for the proposed Sewer District Extension and such Map, Plan and Report has been filed in the Queensbury
Town Clerk's Office and is available for public inspection, and
WHEREAS, the Map, Plan and Report includes (a) the boundaries of the proposed Sewer District
Extension, (b) a general plan of the proposed sewer system, (c) a report of the proposed sewer system and
method of operation and (d) all outlets and the terminus and course of each proposed main sewer or drain
together with the location and a general description of all sewage disposal plants, pumping stations and
other public works, and
WHEREAS, on December 16th, 2002 subsequent to the filing of the Map, Plan and Report with
the Town Clerk, the Town Board adopted an Order (the "Public Hearing Order") reciting (a) the boundaries
of the proposed Sewer District Extension; (b) the proposed improvements; (c) the maximum amount
proposed to be expended for the improvement; (d) the estimated cost of hook-up fees (if any) and the cost
of the Sewer District Extension to the typical property and the typical one or two family home (if not the
typical property); (e) the proposed method of financing to be employed; (f) the fact that a Map, Plan and
Report describing the improvement is on file in the Town Clerk's Office; and (g) the time and place of a
public hearing on the proposed Sewer District Extension; (h) that all the expenses of the District, including
all extensions heretofore or hereafter established, shall be a charge against the entire area of the District as
extended; and
WHEREAS, copies of the Public Hearing Order were duly published and posted and were filed
with the Office of the State Comptroller, all as required by law; and
WHEREAS, prior to publication of the Public Hearing Order, a detailed explanation of how the
estimated cost of hook-up fees (if any) and the cost of the Sewer District to the typical property and typical
one or two family home (if not the typical property) were computed was filed with the Town Clerk for
public inspection, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed Sewer District Extension was duly held on January
6th, 2003 and the Town Board has considered the evidence given together with other information, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has considered the establishment of the Sewer District Extension in
accordance with the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and has adopted a Negative
Declaration concerning environmental impacts, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to establish the proposed Sewer District Extension as
detailed in the Map, Plan and Report in accordance with Town Law, Article 12-A and consolidate the
Extension with the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District in accordance with Town Law ~206-a,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby determines that:
1. Notice of Public Hearing was published and posted as required by law and is otherwise sufficient;
2. All property and property owners within the District Extension are benefited;
3. All property and property owners benefited are included within the limits of the District Extension;
4. It is in the public interest to establish, authorize, and approve the Central Queensbury Quaker Road
Sewer District Extension NO.8 to the existing Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District as
described in the Map, Plan and Report on file with the Queensbury Town Clerk;
5. In accordance with New York State Town Law ~206-a, it is in the public interest to assess all expenses
of the District, including all extensions heretofore or hereafter established, as a charge against the entire
area of the District as extended; and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby approves, authorizes and establishes the Central
Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District Extension No.: 8 in accordance with the boundaries and
descriptions set forth in the previously described Map, Plan and Report and construction of the
improvements may proceed and service provided subject to the following;
I. The obtaining of any necessary permits or approvals from the New York State Department of Health;
2. The obtaining of any necessary permits or approvals from the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation;
3. Permissive referendum in the manner provided in New York State Town Law Article 7; and
4. The adoption of a Final Order by the Queensbury Town Board;
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that this Resolution is subject to permissive referendum in the manner provided by
the provisions of New York State Town Law Articles 7 and 12-A and the Town Board authorizes and
directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to file, post and publish such notice of this Resolution as may be
required by law and to cause to be prepared and have available for distribution proper forms for the petition
and shall distribute a supply to any person requesting such petition, and if no such petition is filed within 30
days, to file a certificate to that effect in the Office of the County Clerk.
Duly adopted this 10th day of February, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower
NOES
None
ABSENT:
None
Mr. Round, Executive Director-Noted description of action: Establishment of Special Assessment District
for funding, construction and operation of wastewater collection system. Construction of 6250 linear feet
ofPVC sewer main and service laterals along Main Street/County Route 28 (alk/a Corinth Road);
establishment and discharge to City of Glens Falls Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant. The new
district will provide service to approximately 67 acres of residential and commercial properties
incorporating approximately 100 district users. We know Main Street corridor is largely developed with a
mix of commercial and residential uses and wastewater collection, and you took a similar position with the
Route 9 Sewer District formation, that wastewater collection and the construction of wastewater facilities is
not necessarily a negative impact in that they're going to provide for positive environmental benefits and
that the services aren't necessarily going to stimulate or cause uncontrolled growth to occu. When the
SEQRA regulations were drafted and I think some of the guidance that's provided to environmental review
consultants is that generally when you're talking about cumulative impacts or the potential to cause
subsequent growth, it's providing for facilities where there is no development currently place or there's no
land use regulations in place or you're not able to see that when you're constructing water transmission
facilities hundreds of miles across barren lands, that that some day may have the potential to stimulate
development. So, I think lack of municipal sewers and it's in our position that lack of municipal sewers in
this area hasn't hindered development, you see thriving commercial businesses in that area.
Mr. Round, Executive Director lead the Town Board through the following Part II Short Environmental
Assessment Form:
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 617.6?
YES C, Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following:
CI, 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 CI-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
(State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION is attached)
RESOLUTION ADOPTING SEQRA DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
REGARDING CREATION OF WEST QUEENSBURY SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO.: 117,2003
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to establish a new sewer district to be known as
the West Queensbury Sanitary Sewer District, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has been duly designated to act as lead agency for State
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review of the project for compliance with SEQRA which
requires environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is an unlisted action in accordance with the rules and regulations
of SEQRA,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board, after considering the proposed action, reviewing
the Environmental Assessment Form and thoroughly analyzing the action for potential environmental
concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to complete
the Environmental Assessment Form by checking the box indicating that the proposed action will not result
in any significant adverse impacts, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board approves a SEQRA Negative Declaration and authorizes and
directs the Town Clerk's Office to file any necessary documents in accordance with the provisions of the
general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation.
Duly adopted this 10th day of February, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor
NOES
None
ABSENT:
None
RESOLUTION APPROVING CREATION OF WEST QUEENSBURY SANITARY SEWER
DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO.: 118,2003
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury wishes to create a new sewer district to be known as the
West Queensbury Sanitary Sewer District, and
WHEREAS, a District Formation Report (Map, Plan and Report) has been prepared by Barton &
Loguidice, P.C., professional engineers, concerning the proposed sewer district formation and the
construction of sewer facilities along Warren County Route 28 (Main Street and Corinth Road) to service
the area between the City of Glens Falls and Big Bay Road, west of Interstate 87 (the Adirondack
Northway), as more specifically set forth and described in the Map, Plan and Report, and
WHEREAS, the Map, Plan and Report has been filed in the Queensbury Town Clerk's Office and
is available for public inspection, and
WHEREAS, the Map, Plan and Report delineates the boundaries of the proposed Sewer District, a
general plan of the proposed sewer system, a report of the proposed sewer system and method of operation,
and
WHEREAS, on December 16th, 2002 the Town authorized its Executive Director of Community
Development to send a copy of Part I of the EAF and the Report to all potentially involved agencies
including the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and New York State Department
of Health together with all required documentation and a letter indicating that the Town Board would be
undertaking consideration of the project identified in the Order, that coordinated SEQRA review with the
Queensbury Town Board as lead agency was desired and that a lead agency must be agreed upon within 30
days, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board was duly designated as lead agency for SEQRA review of the
project, and
WHEREAS, by previous Resolution, the Town Board determined that the project would not have
a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration was made, and
WHEREAS, the estimated annual cost to the "typical property" has been filed with the Town
Clerk and is made a part of the Map, Plan and Report, and
WHEREAS, on December 16th, 2002 subsequent to the filing of the Map, Plan and Report with
the Town Clerk, the Town Board adopted an Order (the "Public Hearing Order") reciting (a) the boundaries
of the proposed Sewer District; (b) the proposed improvements; (c) the maximum amount proposed to be
expended for the improvements; (d) the estimated cost of hook-up fees (if any) and the cost of the Sewer
District to the typical property and the typical one or two family home (if not the typical property); (e) the
proposed method of financing to be employed; (f) the fact that a Map, Plan and Report describing the
improvements is on file in the Town Clerk's Office; and (g) the time and place of a public hearing on the
proposed Sewer District, and
WHEREAS, copies of the Public Hearing Order were duly published and posted and were filed
with the Office of the State Comptroller, all as required by law, and
WHEREAS, prior to publication of the Public Hearing Order, a detailed explanation of how the
estimated cost of hook-up fees (if any) and the cost of the Sewer District to the typical property and typical
one or two family home (if not the typical property) were computed was filed with the Town Clerk for
public inspection, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed Sewer District was duly held on January 6th, 2003
and the Town Board has considered the evidence given together with other information, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to establish the proposed Sewer District as detailed in the
Map, Plan and Report in accordance with Town Law Article 12-A,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby determines that:
6. Notice of Public Hearing was published and posted as required by law and is otherwise sufficient;
7. All property and property owners within the Sewer District are thereby benefited;
8. All property and property owners benefited are included within the limits of the Sewer District;
9. It is in the public interest to establish, authorize, and approve the creation of the West Queensbury
Sanitary Sewer District as described in the Map, Plan and Report on file with the Queensbury Town Clerk;
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby approves, authorizes and establishes the West
Queensbury Sanitary Sewer District in accordance with the boundaries and descriptions set forth above and
in the previously described Map, Plan and Report and construction of the improvements may proceed and
service provided subject to the following:
5. The obtaining of any necessary permits or approvals from the New York State Department of Health;
6. The obtaining of any necessary permits or approvals from the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation;
7. Permissive referendum in the manner provided in New York State Town Law Article 7; and
8. The adoption of a Final Order by the Queensbury Town Board;
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that this Resolution is subject to permissive referendum in accordance with the
provisions of New York State Town Law Articles 7 and 12-A and shall not take effect until such time as
provided therein and the Town Board authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to file, post and
publish such notice of this Resolution as may be required by law and to cause to be prepared and have
available for distribution proper forms for the petition and shall distribute a supply to any person requesting
such petition and if no such petition is filed within 30 days to file a certificate to that effect in the Office of
the County Clerk.
Duly adopted this 10th day of February, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner
NOES
None
ABSENT:
None
Mr. Round, Executive Director-Noted description of action: Replacement of existing 8-inch water main
with 4,250 linear feet of 12-inch water main along Main Street/Corinth Road/County Route 28. System
improvements include additional interconnections to improve pressures/flows to current district users. We
wanted to take a conservative view in this, we could argue that it's a maintenance activity and that it's not
subject to SEQRA but we've taken a more, a broader view and said we'll go through the environmental
review process and make sure that we're doing our due diligence.
Mr. Round, Executive Director lead the Town Board through the following Part II Short Environmental
Assessment Form:
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 617.6?
YES C, Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following:
CI, 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 CI-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
(State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION is attached)
RESOLUTION ADOPTING SEQRA DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE REGARDING
WATER DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS ALONG MAIN STREET IN THE QUEENSBURY
CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO.: 119,2003
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to make certain improvements to the
Queensbury Consolidated Water District being the replacement of a water main along Main Street in the
Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has been duly designated to act as lead agency for State
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review of the project for compliance with SEQRA which
requires environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is an unlisted action in accordance with the rules and regulations
of SEQRA,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board, after considering the proposed action, reviewing
the Environmental Assessment Form and thoroughly analyzing the action for potential environmental
concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to complete
the Environmental Assessment Form by checking the box indicating that the proposed action will not result
in any significant adverse impacts, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board approves a SEQRA Negative Declaration and authorizes and
directs the Town Clerk's Office to file any necessary documents in accordance with the provisions of the
general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation.
Duly adopted this 10th day of February, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec
NOES
None
ABSENT:
None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WATER DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS ALONG MAIN STREET IN
THE QUEENSBURY CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO.: 120,2003
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to make certain improvements to the
Queensbury Consolidated Water District, such improvements being the replacement of a water main along
Main Street in the Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, a Map, Plan and Report has been prepared by Barton & Loguidice, P.c., professional
engineers licensed by the State of New York concerning the proposed Water District improvements as
more specifically set forth and described in the Map, Plan and Report, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board accepts such Map, Plan and Report as the Map, Plan and Report for
the Water District improvements and such Map, Plan and Report has been filed in the Queensbury Town
Clerk's Office and is available for public inspection, and
WHEREAS, the Map, Plan and Report describes exactly what work is proposed to be done, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize such improvements to the Queensbury
Consolidated Water District and the replacement of the currently obsolete, inadequate or worn-out water
main along Main Street, and
WHEREAS, on December 16th, 2002, subsequent to the filing of the Map, Plan and Report with
the Town Clerk, the Town Board adopted an Order (the "Public Hearing Order") reciting (a) the proposed
improvements; (b) the maximum amount proposed to be expended for the improvements; (c) the fact that a
Map, Plan and Report describing the improvements is on file in the Town Clerk's Office; and (d) the time
and place of a public hearing on the proposed Water District improvements; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed Water District improvements was duly held on
January 6th, 2003 and the Town Board has considered the evidence given together with other information,
and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize the proposed Water District improvements in
accordance with Town Law ~202-b, and
WHEREAS, on December 16th, 2002 the Town authorized its Executive Director of Community
Development to send a copy of Part I of the EAF and the Report to all potentially involved agencies
including the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and New York State Department
of Health together with all required documentation and a letter indicating that the Town Board would be
undertaking consideration of the project identified in the Order, that coordinated SEQRA review with the
Queensbury Town Board as lead agency was desired and that a lead agency must be agreed upon within 30
days, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board was duly designated as lead agency for SEQRA review of the
project, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has considered the proposed Water District improvements in
accordance with the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and has adopted a Negative
Declaration concerning environmental impacts,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that it is the determination of the Queensbury Town Board that:
1. The Notice of Public Hearing was published and posted as required by law and is
otherwise sufficient;
2. It is in the public interest to authorize and approve the improvements to the Queensbury
Consolidated Water District, such improvements being the replacement of a water main along Main Street
in the Town of Queensbury as described in the Map, Plan and Report on file with the Queensbury Town
Clerk; and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and approves the improvements to the
Queensbury Consolidated Water District as set forth above and in the previously described Map, Plan and
Report and construction of the improvements may proceed and service provided subject to the following:
1. the obtaining of any necessary permits or approvals from the New York State Department
of Health; and
2. the obtaining of any necessary permits or approvals from the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation.
Duly adopted this 10th day of February, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer
NOES
None
ABSENT:
None
Supervisor Brower noted that resolution 5.19 was pulled because the proposition received was not in the
best interest of the town and we're trying to see if we can do something that's more advantageous to the
town.
Town Counsel Hafner-Henry wasn't feeling well, so he asked, that he would have spoke up at this point to
have asked that the Town Board authorize either us as Town Counselor him as Town Comptroller to try to
contact NIMO to delay implementation of what they're proposing to do until the Town Board has a little bit
more time to try to come up with a plan for dealing with it.
Councilman Stec-I think that would be appropriate for your office to handle. Do we need a resolution?
Town Counsel Hafner-Consensus of the board would be fine.
Councilman Boor-That would be fine.
Councilman Turner-That's fine.
Councilman Brewer-That's fine with me.
Town Counsel Hafner-We'll be glad to do that and we'll work with Henry to make sure we get to the right
person at NIMO.
Supervisor Brower-Yea and I'd want to see both you and the comptroller involved in that.
TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS
Councilman Turner noted that he has a personnel matter for Executive Session
Councilman Brewer referred to fire companies' desire to host the fire convention for the year 2006 and
requested workshop session to discuss further how we can help financially support them, put a plan
together to save the funds otherwise they can't move forward with their plans. My recommendation would
be to put some money away every year. I'd like to know if everyone is committed to helping them?
Supervisor Brower-I would think an appropriate use of, if the occupancy tax is passed and there is a local
share to the communities which currently is in the, was in the preliminary plan, it would provide
approximately forty or fifty thousand to Queensbury to be able to host tourism related activities, I would
consider this a tourist related activity in that it will bring fifty thousand people to the region, filling hotel
rooms and spending money. I think that would be positive for the community and that would be a good use
of this local share of tourism promotion dollars. That was the proposal that I had the board and they felt
that was a pretty good idea.
Councilman Brewer-That's all well and good but what if?
Supervisor Brower-The bottom line is, we've still got 2004 and 2005, two budget years left and if it doesn't
go through this year, I'd be surprised.
Councilman Brewer-I understand exactly what you're saying and I support that but do we want to make
them go through a years' work not knowing if they're going to get any money? They've got to know if they
have support from this board, if they don't, they won't plan it.
Town Board held discussion, agreed that they support the idea of the convention and would discuss further
during budget time as to the appropriations of support.
Councilman Brewer noted that he spoke with Rick Missita regarding a vehicle that was proposed in his
budget that is now missing. I think it's in this vehicle budget recommendations that we approved. There
was a truck where the frame was cracked and he sold that at the auction, that was the one to be replaced.
He was getting ready to get the truck specs and it's not in his budget anymore.
Supervisor Brower-The fleet committee recommended the replacement of that vehicle, it was a one ton
truck as I recalled, it had a cracked frame. It was one that he didn't ask for originally in his budget, we
thought it'd be better to replace it then to try to repair the cracked frame. I do remember that because I sit
on the fleet committee, so I do remember that that discussion did occur.... Replacing an 82 single axle
dump truck, right?
Councilman Turner-Right.
Supervisor Brower-I don't think it's really appropriate at this Town Board meeting.
Councilman Brewer-I'm not asking you to take any action
Supervisor Brower-No, but Rick could have called but he didn't so I never knew anything about it to be
honest with you until you brought it up... We closed January 31st, the town officially closed on the Hole in
the Woods property, it was two hundred fifty thousand dollars, that's the property located across from the
Aviation Mall so that is complete. I received a subpoena along with Dave Hatin and others to appear at
Warren County Court this Friday in relation to shutting the water off to the house two weeks ago.
ATTORNEY MATTERS
Town Counsel Hafner-Announced that Cathy Radner has become a principal of our firm, Miller, Mannix,
Schachner and Hafner... Noted that he has a property issue matter for Executive Session.
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION
RESOLUTION NO.: 121,2003
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular
Session and enter Executive Session to discuss a property issue matter and a personnel matter.
Duly adopted this 10th day of February, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES:
Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer
NOES:
None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND THE REGULAR TOWN BOARD
MEETING
RESOLUTION NO.: 122,2003
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Executive
Session and enters Regular Session of the Town Board, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns it's Regular Town
Board Meeting.
Duly adopted this 10th day of February, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES:
Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
None
No further action taken.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY