2004-11-01 MTG51
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 520
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING Mtg #51
ST
NOVEMBER 1, 2004 Res. #531-548
7:07 P.M. BOH Res. #31
LL#10, 2004
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC
COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR
COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER
COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH
COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER
TOWN COUNSEL
BOB HAFNER
TOWN OFFICIALS
Jennifer Switzer, Budget Officer
Marilyn Ryba, Executive Director of Community Development
Mr. David Hatin, Director Of Building & Codes
Ralph VanDusen, Water/Wastewater Superintendent
PRESS: Glens Falls Post Star, TV-8
SUPERVISOR STEC called meeting to order…
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH
RESOLUTION NO.: 531, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED IT’S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourn Regular
Session and enter as the Queensbury Board of Health.
st
Duly adopted this 1 day of November, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
BOARD OF HEALTH
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Sewage Disposal Variance Application Of Steve And Debby Seaboyer
Notice Shown
7:09 P.M.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, and is Mr. and Mrs. Seaboyer and or their agent present? I’ll just ask
that you state your name for the record please.
COUNSEL MIKE O’CONNOR-Gentlemen, I’m Mike O’Connor from the Law Firm of Little and
O’Connor and I’m at the table here with Tom Center who is the Engineering Consultant for the
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 521
applicants and Steven Seaboyer, the applicant is also here with us. We have submitted plans to you,
I think they’ve been here two or three times. They’ve tried apparently from what I could see by the
file to listen to the comments and suggestions that were made and as Dave Hatin came in, he handed
us a sign-off letter as to the engineering for CT Male, I don’t know if you have that in your packet
or not. Do you have that?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-What’s the date of that letter?
st
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-November 1.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Don’t have that.
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-I’ll give you the official one.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Why don’t we ask Caroline to read that into the record, please Caroline. The
last correspondence we had had for today, Mr. O’Connor just a letter to Mr. Hatin dated October
th
18, and then we did get a, I guess we got handed to us this evening, this might be it right here, a
st
letter dated November 1 also from C.T. Male.
DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER read the following into the record:
(letter on file in the Town Clerk’s Office)
November 1, 2004
Dave Hatin
Director of Building Enforcement
Town of Queensbury
742 Bay Road
Queensbury, New York 12804
Re: Septic System Variance
Seaboyer Residence, 83 Rockhurst Rd.
Dear Mr. Hatin:
We have received and reviewed the revised plans for the Seaboyer Residence and have also
reviewed a response letter from the applicant dated October 25, 2004.
Based on the information provided, we find the revised plan to be acceptable given the site
constraints. The applicant satisfactorily addressed our comments in our letter dated October
18, 2004.
We have no further comments in regard to this project.
Sincerely,
James R. Edwards, P.E.
Project Manager
C.T. Male Associates, P.C.
th
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-And there was a letter of October 25 from Nace Engineering.
th
COUNCILMAN BREWER-October 18, I got.
th
COUNCILMAN BOOR-October 18 is the last correspondence we have as a Board.
SUPERVISOR STEC-From C.T. Male.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-From C.T. Male, from anybody.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I found, I’ve got a letter from Nace.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 522
th
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I’ve got one October 25, 2003.
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-From Nace to C.T. Male.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-2003?
MR. TOM CENTER-That would be an error in the year. I did hand deliver enough copies for the
entire Board to Mr. Hatin’s Office last Monday, a week in advance.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yea, we’ll just get it on the record, it is 2004.
MR. CENTER-Yes.
th
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, good catch. Alright, if I can try to recap, at the 18 meeting we had
thth
asked for, I think it was the 18 meeting, maybe it was the 4, we had asked for additional
information and we had sent this to C.T. Male for their comment and they provided us a letter dated
thth
the 18 and then the Nace Engineering letter on the 25 is a response to that. And then tonight, just
tonight, Dave Hatin handed us a correspondence back from Nace, the Town’s Engineer that was just
read into the record. So, I think that straightens it out and I’m seeing Mr. Hatin is nodding his head
that that is correct. So, with that, I’ll turn it to the applicant if you have any further comment or
explanation.
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-If you have further questions, we’d be glad to try and answer them.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Can I just mention one other letter or maybe I missed it when you
went through it, we have a letter from the Highway Superintendent.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Oh, I did not mention it, I’m sorry.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-I think that it should be part of the record. I don’t know who you
want to read it in, it’s short.
th
SUPERVISOR STEC-Why don’t we ask Caroline to read that in as well and that was dated the 29.
DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER read the following into the record:
(letter on file in the Town Clerk’s Office)
October 29, 2004
Nace Engineering
169 Haviland Avenue
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attn: Tom Center
Dear Mr. Center:
At this time, I will allow curbing to be put in front of Mr. Seaboyer’s property on 83
Rockhurst Rd with the understanding that he accepts all responsibility of maintaining this
curb. Also, if at any time this becomes a problem for the Town of Queensbury maintaining
the roadway (i.e. plowing, drainage, etc.) that it would have to be removed.
If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Richard A. Missita
Town of Queensbury
Highway Superintendent
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 523
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-The applicant has no problems with those comments and whatever the
town thinks is necessary we will do.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay and we had left the public hearing open but before we resume that, are
there specific questions from Board Members that we should start asking first? Roger.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-My question would be to, unfortunately our own engineer who is not here
because it was the instructions of this Board that they review this project and the site and when I
th
read the letter to Mr. Hatin dated October 18 it says, as per the request of the Town Board, we have
reviewed the site plan, details and application submitted for a septic variance for the Seaboyer
residence located on 83 Rockhurst Road. Based on our review of the information provided, we
offer the following comments which leads me to believe that they never actually went to the site and
that they relied on information that you gave them which is not really what I had hoped for. And
probably to drive this point home, I’ll go to item number 3 and it says, as a general comment, given
the property slope and area constraints we concur that the replacement system is located in the best
available sites. Details or notes should be added, however, that address the disposition of the
existing failed septic system. The problem is, there isn’t a failed septic system here so it’s obvious
to me that our engineer was given faulty information to go with to begin with. So, I’m not sure how
relevant anything that C.T. Male has done would be.
MR. CENTER-I did speak with them about that comment in particular and I told them that it was a
holding tank currently, that there was no failed system. I did make it clear on this submission that I
sent in that it is a thousand gallon holding tank and that’s the existing system, to clear up that
comment and we spoke about that, he had no additional comment.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right, but to add to what Roger’s asking though, he’s, I mean I understand
that, the question is, is that if they had that misconception at that beginning, did they have other
misconceptions about what they reviewed or looked at. I mean, and I don’t know and maybe Dave
Hatin had a, you know a conversation with them or has more information regarding whether or not
he’s convinced that they had a thorough knowledge or understanding or maybe he knows whether
or not they went there to the site because it’s not clear whether or not they did but I can understand
how it’s not clear.
th
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-In the letter of October 25 which was in response to the comments that
they had, the Nace Engineering specifically said the existing system consists of a pump station built
of block and a thousand gallon holding tank. These structures will be removed as shown as the
proposed site plan.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-It still does not give me the feeling that C.T. Male actually went to the site
and had a first hand view of everything that was there and I think
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-I can’t tell you whether they went to the site or not, Roger.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I know and I guess that’s where I have a problem because it was, I thought
we made it clear that we wanted them to go to the site, look at the site, look at the situation and
apprise us if in fact this was something that was appropriate or better then what they had now and I
th
don’t, from all of the literature that you’ve given us including the Memo dated the 25, it’s still not
clear if our engineer actually went to the site. It appears that they went by the applicants
engineering which sort of tells me why bother to pay for an engineer if we’re just reviewing another
engineer’s work. I want them to go out and actually do the field testing, look at the site.
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-I don’t think typically that’s what your Town Engineers are doing on
applications. We submit something that’s signed, sealed by a licensed engineer and they review that
to determine whether or not there needs to be improvement to it or whether the system as designed
will work and then they either sign off on it or make comments. And then typically the applicant
addresses the comments and then they respond whether or not the comments have been addressed
appropriately.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s valid but I don’t think it addresses my concern that our engineer
actually saw the physical site itself and understood completely the issues at hand.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 524
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, I want to ask Dave Hatin, Dave do you have any information that
would clear this up or can you tell us what was communicated to C.T. Male back when we had
referred this to an engineer as far as did we specifically ask them to look at that, to visit the site? I
mean, I know what was said at the meeting but what was communicated to them and do you know
whether or not they were at the site?
MR. DAVE HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-What was communicated to them was the
concerns of the Board. They were not specifically asked to go to the site, no. It was my
understanding that was going to be left up between Mr. Seaboyer’s engineer and Jim Edwards as to
whether he felt he needed to visit the site. As Mike O’Connor said, it’s typically not the job of the
engineer to visit the site, they review drawings. If you would like to table this and have him do that,
I can certainly relay that message.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I would be more comfortable with that.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Alright and that’s not a problem.
SUPERVISOR STEC-And Dave, while we’ve got you at the microphone and before we take any
additional public comment, your, I mean obviously you followed from the last Town Board
Meeting, you followed the process from then until now.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Correct.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Then can you share with the Board you’re take on the addresses that were
referred to the engineer. I mean obviously we can read what was sent but I mean you were the point
man on the discussions so I thought I’d ask you your take on what their observations were and the
remedies.
MR.HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Well I think the engineer has, you know reviewed Tom
Center’s work to make sure it’s consistent with the design of the system. As Jim Edwards said to
me today when I, after I, before I talked to you, he felt it was the best possible situation given the
constraints of the site as he put it in his letter. You’re not going to get a better design here if you
want a system on this lot.
SUPERVISOR STEC-So, the question, I mean I don’t want to put words in your mouth but are you
saying that the choices would be then this as a system or a holding tank.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Yea, the problem you’re going to have is if you go to a
different type system other then this, you’re going to require more variances because it is going to
push it closer to the lake, it’s going to push it closer to something obviously to make it bigger. This
is the smallest type system you can put on this lot for the applicable number of bedrooms and the
design and I believe this is or designed somewhat for the number of bedrooms and perhaps Tom
Center can speak to that more direct.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Questions from the Board to Dave while we’ve got Dave in the chair?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, I know that the last time we granted Mr. Seaboyer the ability to put
in a three thousand gallon holding tank and it was my understanding that’s what you were going to
do so I was a little bit surprised when you came back with this revised plan. Tom Center requested
it specifically and we said yes, you can go with a three thousand gallon holding tank and I can
produce those minutes if there’s a problem with that.
SUPERVISOR STEC-No, I recall that general, not all the details but that general.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I think that was brought up as an option, I don’t think that was brought
up as that’s what he was going to do, I think
COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, he could keep it just the way it is, you know, he could keep
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, that’s the other question, failed or not failed? Not failed?
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Not failed.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 525
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, I want to make sure we’re clear on that.
MR.HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-As far as all the information that’s been provided to me,
no there’s no failure here.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Dave, now we’ve gone through this before, our Town Code which is
superceded by the other one but I don’t think in this instance I don’t remember reading in the other
one where anything superceded this, our Town Code suggests that you try and locate and I know
this isn’t always possible, seasonal high groundwater during March, April, May and June.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Correct.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Because that’s when it most likely be the highest and you want to
look at it in the worst case scenario. In this case, they did two tests, one in August 2003 and one in
February of 2004 and they did come up with a three foot, you know, groundwater at three foot
below surface situation which at the times when they did it, it seemed that the groundwater table
would be lower then it might be a some other points of the year. Is that a concern?
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Well I think if you look at the test pit data you’ll see
mottling and mottling is more a stain in the soil which typically represents the highest water level
obtained in that area during a particular time of year, it’s a stain caused by high groundwater. I’m
not an expert in it and don’t profess to be but I know Tom Nace is one of the engineers that was
approved several years ago by a Town Board Resolution to determine this by our Ordinance out of
season. Alright and Tom does have the authority to do that.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And the only reason why I say three feet and mottling here is the
Taylors who did theirs at a different time of the year and did find the water table at three feet. So,
and they’re not far from here so I’m going to assume that the general conditions remain similar.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Well ironically, the Seaboyer residence is quite a bit of
elevation difference between water level of the lake and his actual ground level where the Taylor
residence is located fairly close to the ground or fairly close to the lake when you look at elevation
wise. So, there’s a big difference in road elevation I guess would be the best, simplest way to put it.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yea, but water table follows elevation anyways.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Right, it will vary, right and it depends on soil
conditions within that area so but the lake elevation just alone, there’s a big difference in these two
properties.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-One is greatly elevated over the lake thus the twenty percent or greater
slope.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Correct, right.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, anything else for Mr. Hatin before we reopen or resume the public
hearing?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Just one question to their engineer, Dan.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Do we have a response from you to C.T. Male telling them how you’re
going to fix all these things?
th
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-Dated October 25.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yes.
th
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I don’t have that I don’t think. I’ve got October 18, November 1.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 526
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-The Nace letter.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, at this time, I’ll ask if there’s any members of the public that would
like to comment on this public hearing and again it’s a continuation of an earlier public hearing that
we took no action on, just raise your hand. Yes, Mr. Navitsky.
MR. CHRIS NAVITSKY-Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. I have a comment letter if I
could submit that in, I have copies for the Board and one for the applicant if that’s
SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s fine.
MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening, Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. I just had a couple of
comments on the proposed system and then I’ll read the letter. The first point is, although the Eljen
system is an approved system by the New York State Department of Health, it does not provide any
additional treatment more then a standard absorption system. It’s really a gravelliest system that
limits the length of system required after a septic tank. In addition the installation of new code
compliant plumbing fixtures does not reduce the biological load to the system. Another alternative
would be that would improve wastewater treatment would be an aerobic treatment unit which
increases the biological activity within the septic tanks and reduces the transfer of organic material
and levels of microbial parameters which is basically the Giardia, Cryptosporidium, Coliform
Bacteria to the absorption field. These are your areas of concern regarding impacts to drinking
water. This will be critical in this particular application where relief is being requested and
separation to drinking water which is Lake George. And I do have concerns about the maximum
allowable existing ground surface slope for built up systems which the ordinance claims, says it
should be ten percent and the existing grade is twenty percent. And the third question I had was
necessity for the replacement of the system, was the existing situation failing, is there a holding tank
and was this based on an economic decision? Based on these concerns I feel the level of treatment
should be provided at a higher level to minimize the impacts to the lake and that’s my comments.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Question. From the, a couple of the seminars that I’ve gone to, Lake George
Watershed Conference some of which you’ve attended, the aerobic system that you mentioned in
your first point, I’m told that they’re comparable in costs, installation costs to an Eljen system or
your typical current frontline septic technologies.
MR. NAVITSKY-Yes.
SUPERVISOR STEC-That they’re comparable cost wise.
MR. NAVITSKY-They’re comparable cost wise, there is a operational component to the aerobic
treatment to upkeep the, provide electricity to so there’s a little electrical component but it’s similar
to a light fixture and then there’s a contract to maintain those systems also, make sure the aerobic
unit is working properly and that does allow, it does provide a secondary level of treatment much
greater then what the standard system is from a septic tank to an Eljen system. An Eljen system
really is beneficial because that reduces impacts to the soils when they bring in fill and instead of
having dump trucks and whatnot that come over and can pack the soils due to dumping gravel in the
area, this actually is a much easier system to go in, the Eljen but it doesn’t give you a higher level of
treatment. So, that’s one of the benefits on the Eljen but to get back to your one question, the
aerobic system is comparable, it’s basically a septic tank with an aerobic unit in it to provide oxygen
to the bugs that work and help digest the waste.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Does it, spacely, does it require more or less room then an Eljen on an
orange for orange basis?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Surface area.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yea, surface.
MR. NAVITSKY-It doesn’t require any more and the
SUPERVISOR STEC-It’s deeper though right? I mean, surface area doesn’t require as much as the
Eljen but it goes deeper, it sits down into the ground deeper.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 527
MR. NAVITSKY-No, it’s basically, you mean the septic tank itself?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea, as opposed
MR. NAVITSKY-A septic tank might, might be a little deeper but not, I mean you’re talking a foot
or so, nothing comparable that would really throw costs difference significantly between the two.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Does it, the ultimate effluent after it’s been (quasi-art?) or whatever, after
it’s been mixed with the oxygen, does it go into an Eljen type field?
MR. NAVITSKY-It could go into an Eljen system, it could go into a standard absorption system but
it’s going in a much cleaner effluent, there’s a much, the risk of developing the biomat which is a
sludge layer in the absorption field is reduced because a lot of the biological treatment has been
taken out in the septic tank by providing the oxygen and the treatment that would be going on in an
absorption field where you get the oxygen and the aeration going into the absorption system has
already taken place because that’s been provided by the aeration unit in the septic tank.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-The other question would be as far as monitoring and maintenance, if a
system like this is not maintained will it still allow a user to put untold quantities into it?
MR. NAVITSKY-This, I’m sorry, Mr. Boor could you
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, in other words, I have seen one of these and it seemed to be a great
system. My question is, if you get and certainly this isn’t a reflection on Mr. Seaboyer, if you have
an owner who has one of these things but fails to maintain to the manufacturer’s specifications, can,
will this person be able to still put untold gallons into it and yet not get the benefit of the system?
MR. NAVITSKY-What will happen if the system is not maintained that this will basically become
a septic tank. With these type of systems come with a maintenance contract, if that contracts not
kept up, they will turn into basically a septic system, a septic tank because that’s what it is, it’s a
septic tank with an aeration unit. If that is not kept up and the maintenance kept up, it will basically
turn into a septic tank. That is one of the items of debate that the onsite wastewater system, New
York State Department of Health is going through an upgrade to 75A, there’s a committee of
professionals looking at the regulations, the same committee that allowed a reduction in length for
Eljen systems. The committee has not given any credit for reduction of substantial field length to
the aerobic systems because without a guarantee that the system will be maintained it basically is a
septic tank. So, there has to be a maintenance
COUNCILMAN BOOR-In, as far as if something like this was to be instituted would it require a
wastewater management district in order to maintain, how would it be monitored and who would be
responsible, how could that be assured?
MR. NAVITSKY-There, my, Town may not like this but if there’s a septic permit given for an
aerobic system, there should be a permit requirement for upkeep on that and there is, with an
aerobic system there’s typically a annual maintenance contract that comes with that and that would
be part of a submission of any plan requirement to the town or the governing municipality. So,
there is with the aerobic system there is a maintenance that’s important.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-And does one need to be licensed to install this system?
MR. NAVITSKY-One does not need to be licensed, no.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-So, how do we assure this maintenance contract is kept up? I mean, in
other words, if it was a maintenance contract where there was a fee involved by a licensed
contractor and if somebody didn’t do it, the contractor could go to the municipality and say, hey,
you know what, I installed this system about two years ago and they haven’t called me back and I’m
wondering if this is being maintained. In that instance, there would be some mechanism by which
there would be an incentive for the contractor to go to the authority and say hey, you know what,
this isn’t being met. I know this is a fairly new system that you’re talking about, I’m just wondering
the logistics of monitoring and assuring that it’s maintained and utilized in the fashion that it’s
supposed to.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 528
MR. NAVITSKY-What the municipality could have is again, have conditions tied to any permit
that if they receive such a notification from a contractor that the applicant is put on notice that they
are in noncompliance with their permit requirements that were placed on the approval and I think
that can be similar to any number of conditions that are placed on any approval that if they don’t
meet the requirements and upkeep of their system or similar things such as with stormwater
maintenance agreements that are placed on subdivisions or land development projects, if they don’t
keep up with their agreement for maintenance and upkeep of the stormwater basins or such, then
they’re also held in noncompliance with their approval.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-So it would be, a code officer essentially could go out, a code enforcement
officer.
MR. NAVITSKY-That could, you know again, that could just be conditioned a permit that the
supplier or contractor who installs that and has the annual maintenance agreement does not, is not
being paid for his work or is not up-keeping that, they are to notify the town and they as part of their
installation, that is part of their specifications and criteria that go along with this type of system and
that could be put into specifications that are submitted with the application and be a condition of
approval. Again, similar to a maintenance agreement that is on private roads or stormwater systems
or something along those lines.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Is this a New York State approved system similar to the Eljen?
MR. NAVITSKY-Yes, yes this is
COUNCILMAN BREWER-It is approved?
MR. NAVITSKY-There is, again, this is a system that they place under their alternative systems.
The Eljen system has gone through that alternative system and received these approvals from New
York State Department of Health. The aerobic systems are an approved alternative system by New
York State Department of Health also.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And Chris, when you say septic tank you mean the same thing as a
holding tank?
MR. NAVITSKY-No, septic tank is a apparatus that is set into the ground to hold solids that come
in and allow a liquid affluent discharge. Holding tank allows no effluent discharge.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Okay.
MR. NAVITSKY-So, a holding tank simply holds everything that comes in. Septic tank with it’s
baffles permit water to come in and with it’s baffles hold the solids and allow them to settle out, has
a level that keeps that greases and the oils on the top level and then there are baffles cut in the
middle that allow the liquid to flow through.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-So, the septic tank we add, we introduce oxygen to it to get aerobic
digestion?
MR. NAVITSKY-Yes.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-As opposed to anaerobic digestion.
MR. NAVITSKY-That’s correct.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And is there an exhaust component because if there’s an oxygen
input there’s got to be some kind of exhaust component?
MR. NAVITSKY-There is, that is through the outlet of the tank and out into the field. There can
be, with a typical septic tank you have a gas deflector which prevents that escape but with this type
of system, you allow that gas escape cause you’re inducting gas in there and it allows the treatment
to go on.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-So, it’s just a more efficient system.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 529
MR. NAVITSKY-It provides a higher degree of treatment, I mean, you’re basically turning your
two stages of treatment in this typical septic tank an absorption system to a tertiary level by adding
that aerobic digestion.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Okay.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Any other questions for Mr. Navitsky? Okay, thank you Mr. Navitsky. Any
other comment from the public regarding this variance request? Okay, I’ll ask the applicants to
come back and I think the question, at least that I have and I think Mr. Hatin helped us, to conclude
is the key question is the, and further brought forth by Mr. Navitsky’s letter is the need to get away
from a holding tank that were on now to go towards any system, the proposed one or the proposed
one plus an aerobic unit or whatnot, the reason to deviate from the current system?
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-Typically holding tanks aren’t encouraged around the lake and if you can
find a system that will work they are encouraged by most of the regulatory agencies and that is
certainly something that we would like to do. Obviously, there is an economic impact but I think as
you’ve seen the applicant try to make efforts to get an approval and listen to the comments that have
been made by the Board and by others, trying to come into compliance as much as possible, it’s not
strictly just economic. Rather then have, you know you talk about maintenance, you talk about how
you’re sure it works, typical holding tank puts an alarm system in it and the alarm system has to
work, maybe the same as this other system works that there would be some type of check and
st
balances. This is the first that we’ve seen of Mr. Navitsky’s letter which is also dated November 1,
and I’m not sure if, where you were as far as whether you were satisfied with whether or not you
thought C.T. Male had done everything that you wanted them to do. If you were going to table the
application to assure yourself whether or not they had done what you thought they were going to do,
I think we’d be willing to look at this system that has just been suggested and see whether or not we
can incorporate that. Basically what we have right now is a septic system that goes into an Eljen
system absorption field.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-What you’re proposing.
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-That’s what we’re proposing.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-What you’re proposing, not what you have.
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-No, that’s what we’re proposing.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-What you have, does no pollution, right?
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-If this is a way that works and maybe makes the effluent that goes into
the Eljen system better, it would make the, you know we would have a system that would last
longer ourselves and it’s something that we would look at.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Speaking for myself, I’m happy to hear that. I really, I don’t like tabling and
carrying along applications, prolonged as I’m sure no applicant does and I know that we’ve kicked
this one around a little bit. We did get some submissions today, one from our engineers C.T. Male
and the other one of course from Mr. Navitsky and so I apologize to the applicant for that but
certainly I think that you know, the little bit that I’ve learned about these aerobic systems I think that
they are going to be a new trend on Lake George. I think that the Waterkeeper is going to be
pushing for that but I think that that is where the technology is going for the lake and certainly in
North Queensbury short of sewering North Queensbury, I think that looking for ways to do all we
can to protect whatever’s going into the lake to treat it to the maximum extent is great. So, I’m sure
that, I don’t want to speak for the Board but I’m gathering that they’re also interested in pursing this
aerobic portion to your system but I’ll be curious to hear what the rest of the Board has to say.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, yea, I’m on the fence. I was opposed to this vehemently until ..
the expanded the system which he upgraded and expanded the system, Tom
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-I think we’re now at a hundred and thirty-eight percent of what the code
requires as far as absorption fields.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 530
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And I’ve talked about this with other Board Members too and can we
condition it that it stays two bedroom and there is the reality that Mr. Seaboyer may or may not rent
his docks out. If he does, then he has to avail his bathroom facilities to those people renting those
docks and it’s the summer crowd but this is a little bit better and it put me on the fence and I don’t
know which way to go. I mean, I do have questions about the curbing and the Highway Department
has the question about the curbing but if the applicant were to go the extra measure and produce a
more efficient system, add the aerobic component then I think I would fall on the side of the
applicant in this case.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Ted, Roger?
COUNCILMAN TURNER-I’d rather see him go ahead and research the newer system right now
and get all their ducks in a row and then come back and not deal with it here tonight well we’re all
just looking at it.
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-Well we’re not prepared to do that Mr. Turner.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-You’re not?
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-We’re not prepared to deal with it tonight.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-No, I know you’re not. Okay, that’s fine.
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-It’s news to us, we don’t know the cost of it, we don’t know the
availability of contractors to do it and everything else.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-I know you don’t and I wasn’t suggesting that.
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-Okay.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-I just said, get it off the table, go and do what you’ve got to do with the
new proposed system Mr. Navitsky just talked about and see what you come up with and then come
back.
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-Okay, the new system that he proposed though will still require the same
setback variances.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Correct.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-I understand that.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea, I think we understand that.
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-Okay.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Roger?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I think I made my point clear multiple times. Rockhurst is a problematic
area, I was very disappointed with the County, I had hoped and I had gone to Mr. Champagne and
Bill Lamy in hopes that we could do a pilot program with a wastewater management district on
Rockhurst, it’s a straight line, it would certainly give an addiction of what it would cost to actually
sewer to the extent that the big government project was going to be and it would have alleviated
these types of applications for us. If sewer ever did come to that area you could do your connection
and all of those homes would be hooked up. That’s not a reality, I understand that, I’m disappointed
that it was their way or no way. Having said that, I’m always in favor of a holding tank, it’s a rarity
that a holding tank’s in place, I think there are properties on the lake that should be on holding tanks
but there are laws that make it difficult to retrofit with holding tanks. I do think this is an economic
decision, I think it’s much easier to not pay attention to how many times you flush or if you have
guests, how much water you should use and that’s problematic. We did grant you the ability to put
in a three thousand gallon holding tank as I said earlier, apparently that’s not really what you want
to do and I can understand that also. I would consider this new system as an alternative but I will be
right up front with you, I’m very disappointed that our engineers did not visit the site. I don’t think
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 531
that just one engineer handing their paperwork over to be corrected or to be reviewed is what this
Board intended and it really serves this Board very poorly. I don’t want to be paying for our
engineer to review work of another engineer because it all depends on how your data was gathered.
If you have bad data, it doesn’t make any difference who reviews it, we’re not going to come up
with the right answer so it would have been my hope that our engineer would have gone to the site,
done his own tests and I would have been more comfortable with the results of that. That didn’t
happen. I would be comfortable with our engineers going to the site, reviewing it and also looking
at this new aerobic system and if, I would be more comfortable with the aerobic system. I think if
it’s a tertiary type of byproduct coming in, it affords greater protection of the lake. I don’t think
your property’s suited for what you have brought to this Board tonight. I know that you, Mr. Center
has said in the past that, well, neighbors have done it but that’s not, you know that’s how we get
into these problems and that’s how the lake quality diminishes is because well, they did it, well they
did it, well they did and you go right down the line and eventually you’ve got major water quality
problems so I want to avoid that and I want to be a little tougher and avoid the problems that we’ll
create in the future which will be much more expensive. So, without going any further, I would be
interested in our engineers looking at the system proposed by Mr. Navitsky and with all due respect,
I’m not really concerned with what it costs. If it costs a lot, that’s a choice you have to make. You
know, it’s the water quality that’s important, that’s what this Board is here for, this is the Board of
Health, we’re here to protect public health. We’re not here to make sure that this is less expensive
or that this is more expensive or this costs this much or this doesn’t, we’re here to protect the public
health and the lake and I think that’s what we need to do and if C.T. Male reviews this new system
and it says, yes, it’s an improvement then I would probably be leaning towards saying that that
would work for me.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Tim?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I have no problem with the applicant looking at this system, not
binding him to any consideration that we say here tonight but I think in fairness to the applicant and
us, Roger, if we want the engineer to go look at the site, we ought to be telling them to go look at
the site. I think all we did was tell him to review what was submitted and give us comments. I can’t
remember the exact words that were said, I don’t think any of us can recall that but I think we have
to be more specific if we anticipate an engineer is going to go to the site, then we ought to make
sure that we tell him to do that.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I think that in the future that’s mandatory. I don’t want
COUNCILMAN BREWER-And that’s fine.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-An engineer just reviewing numbers, I’m sure the math is correct, I’m sure
he did a wonderful job with the math, that’s really not the issue.
SUPERVISOR STEC-And I will call Jim Edwards tomorrow and convey that desire to him on the
Board’s behalf. I can tell you that, again, I want to reiterate, I do think that these aerobic systems
are going to become more prevalent, this will be the direction I think a lot of lake communities will
go. The Watershed Conference, I can tell you they are trying to, they’re doing a regulatory review
of all the municipalities along the lake and they’re trying to see where the common ground is and
try to steer municipalities along the lake to be more uniform and consistent because obviously I
mean, if a Queensbury resident has to put in a lot of effort and a lot of resources into doing an A+
job and another community, you know C+ is getting approved, obviously the A+ guy shares the
same water as the C+ guy does. So, and the last thing about the, you know where the County stands
and also the Watershed Conference, I do think that one of the things that were likely to consider at
the County and the County will certainly involve the Town and I don’t know if it’s imminent but I
would guess sometime next year or so, a septic management district where there’s some sort of
regulated inspection program that we know that every septic system is getting inspected and
pumped every X years at the homeowner’s expense you know, sort of situation but something that
regulates to make sure that you know you don’t have nine homeowners that are doing everything
right and one homeowner that’s ignoring the system and polluting all of the neighbors water. So, I
think that that’s probably the direction because I was frustrated too and I heard an explanation and
I’m not sure everyone on the Town Board would have agreed with the analysis that was done but
there was some consideration but perhaps not enough given to, you know the feasibility of a
localized collection management district. So, if you’re willing to do that and again I do, with all of
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 532
that said, I don’t like stringing along applicants like this but I think in this case, you know certainly
you’ve indicated you’re willing to consider this.
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-Well, we have a chance to improve our application and I think you’ve
been fair, most of you have indicated that you’d be more comfortable if we can get into this system.
I’m presuming that I could argue that the effluent from that is probably equal to a hundred foot
typical system because it comes into the absorption area cleaner and I think that’s maybe where
Chris is trying to drive us to.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, not to put him on the spot but he is nodding his head and I don’t know
if it’s just a nervous thing or if he’s, I think
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-I don’t want him to tell me it’s drinkable though. I want to know if it’s
drinkable.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I think that the Waterkeeper is indicating that that might be a real possibility.
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-Okay. My question I guess would be, in part, the exploration business is
what is going to be sufficient for your comfort level as to maintenance. Certainly somebody whose
going to make the investment in the system, I don’t think is going to intentionally let it go astray but
it’s not something, if I understand what was said about the system here, something that operates on
the basis of water level where you can easily put alarms in and whatnot.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, it’s filters, there’s filters that need to be changed and
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, I would think two things. One as Mr. Navitsky noted, this is going to
have a maintenance contract between the owner and the installing company that there’s a
maintenance agreement. I would think that the Town would want a copy of that on file and then the
other avenue would be, I would think that you would need to have a discussion with Dave Hatin or
Dave Hatin and the Community Development Department would have to consider how are they
going to want to track that that agreement is getting followed and I don’t have a solution tonight but
that’s something that I think that you would have to work out.
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-Okay, what I’m thinking is that I’d like to have that done if we can before
we come back so that we don’t end up with an issue on that that we don’t have the necessary control
over.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right. I mean you wouldn’t have a problem with filing a maintenance
contract with us?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I think
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right, that would be my question, that would really be, you’re right, that’s
our issue and our problem. So you, as long as you wouldn’t have a problem maintaining according
to manufacturers specifications and you would, right, is that correct?
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-Yes, we would not have a problem with that.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay.
SUPERVISOR STEC-You need to investigate what that requirement is before you sign off on that
but assuming that it’s reasonable.
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-Yea, well assuming the system is
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right that it’s something you’d pursue.
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-Assuming also the system works and is advisable to use. I’ve heard
other Boards have disputes with Mr. Navitsky, they don’t necessarily agree with everything that he
suggests to them and he would recognize that from time to time.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I sometimes have that same problem myself.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 533
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-In other municipalities where I have appeared with
COUNCILMAN BOOR-It happens.
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-Okay, so he’s made a good suggestion that we’re willing to fully explore
and see if it’s workable. And you’re going to table?
SUPERVISOR STEC-I would propose to the Board and to the applicant, if you’re comfortable with
it, we will leave the public hearing open and continue it until a later date that you had a chance to
work this out with your engineer, that your engineer passes it to C.T. Male and that we have, we
both have receipt of something from C.T. Male that indicates that they reviewed not only the
submission and the site.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-And I would like them to at least go to the property and have an
understanding.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I’m going to make that call tomorrow and you know, ask that and once we
st
have that then, so, hopefully a December meeting. It’s November 1, I would think, I would hope
the December meeting should be adequate time. Hopefully that timeline will work for you Mr.
Seaboyer.
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-The other comment is general in nature, I think, I understand Mr. Boor’s
idea of having C.T. Male go to the property but unless you’re going to develop a system where C.T.
Male oversees the actual perk test and groundwater test, they’re driving by the property or looking
at the property, it’s going to leave you pretty much where you are tonight.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Probably but as Tim pointed out, maybe it was vague, I don’t think it was
but certainly I do not want to pay an engineer just to do, just to correct. I want, when we hire an
engineer to review a project, I anticipate him to be on the site, to look at test pits and if we even
have to dig test pits, dig test pits. We’re not going to require engineering on every project or review
on every project but I think we don’t, we are served very poorly by our engineer if they do not see
the site in question and I don’t see and we’re going to be passing a resolution tonight, just for your
benefit where the cost will be born on you, the applicant from now. So, I would want to think that
you knew what the engineer was doing and that he was looking at the project also because I believe
that if the resolution passes, those costs will now be borne by the applicant.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Not this particular application though Roger.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Not this, I’m talking in the future.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well I think we have, us five, have to determine what we want. I think
in some instances an engineer ought to go to the property but I don’t want to pay an engineer to
have
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well we wouldn’t. His point is, we wouldn’t.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-We’re not, we’re not.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Test pits redone. Pardon me?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea, he’s saying we wouldn’t be, the applicant would and I think you’re
saying
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I understand that.
SUPERVISOR STEC-If you were the applicant, you wouldn’t want to.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Exactly.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I know, you’re both correct.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 534
COUNCILMAN BREWER-What I’m saying is if an engineer designs this
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-I’m going to leave the table before I get involved in this thing, okay.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I think you better.
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-It sounds like you’re talking about a Town Board issue.
SUPERVISOR STEC-We’ll table this.
COUNSEL O’CONNOR-But as a taxpayer, I will object to you giving engineers a blank check.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yea, exactly.
SUPERVISOR STEC-But what Mr. Boor, you’re correct
COUNCILMAN BOOR-We’re not going to.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right, the applicant would be paying for this.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Right and I don’t want engineers to
SUPERVISOR STEC-And actually tonight we’re just setting a public hearing but I understood your
point. We’ll leave that public hearing open.
PUBLIC HEARING LEFT OPEN
PUBLIC HEARING
Sewage Disposal Variance Application Of Ronald and Jo Ann Taylor
Notice Shown
7:56 P.M.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, is Mr. or Mrs. Taylor or their applicant here, or their agent?
COUNSEL JON LAPPER-They are here as well. For the record, Jon Lapper. What we have here
is a similar but different application. The Taylor’s have an existing system which is noncompliant
in terms of design because it certainly doesn’t meet the minimum separation distance to seasonal
high groundwater and what is proposed is compliant in every regard with the exception of
approximately ten feet from the hundred foot separation from the lake. We’ve got eighty-nine point
ten inches proposed.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Feet.
COUNSEL LAPPER-I’m sorry, feet but the raised mound in this case compared to other
applications that you’ve seen is only two feet so it’s not something that would affect the neighbor’s
visually and it’s a significant upgrade from what they have now which is no more then one foot
from seasonal high groundwater. It is an Eljen system.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay. Mr. Hatin, do you have anything you’d like to add? I will declare this
public hearing open by the way and I will ask Mr. Hatin for his input, please.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Just so that the Board is aware, this is a replacement
system for new construction that’s proposed on the site, that’s the reason for them being here. The
Zoning Ordinance requires that they upgrade septic system when they build a new dwelling on this
property which is proposed for this property. So, I just want the Board to be aware that’s what’s
driving this application.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay and has this been to the Zoning Board yet or are we before the Zoning
Board?
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 535
COUNSEL LAPPER-You first.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Us first.
COUNSEL LAPPER-We’ve submitted to the Zoning Board.
SUPERVISOR STEC-You’ve submitted to the Zoning and I know we had this discussion last time
but I know that there’s still and it doesn’t happen that often where but it happens every now and
then whether or not we’d like to see this first or the Zoning Board wants to see it first. I know that
we’ve
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-I think historically the Zoning Board has gotten it after the Town
Board.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right, and I think that’s how we got to here tonight but and we had
previously discussed this at a meeting I think two weeks, when ever we set the public hearing for
this. So, you have not gone to the Zoning Board yet?
COUNSEL LAPPER-No, we’ve applied to the Zoning Board, we’re here first. This is really the
more critical issue.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Just aside, and maybe for Counsel cause I know that there’s concerns by both
Boards I’m sure but if somehow in the next week or so, sometime before this becomes an issue
again, if we can somehow communicate with Marilyn Ryba’s Office and Zoning Board Chairman
Stone to make sure that we’re on the same page, who should get this first and going forward. I
mean, I think this application, we set the public hearing tonight, we may or may not act on it but I
think we need, it doesn’t come up that often but when it does, we always will have this same
conversation, should we hear it first or should the Zoning Board hear it first and maybe it’s
something that we could just have a quick sidebar with Planning Staff and the Zoning Board.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Sure, I’ll talk with Marilyn and Lew Stone and report back to you.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And while we’re on that topic and I know we’ve talked about it
before but refresh my memory will you Bob, can we condition these septic systems to limitations
such as the septic system will apply to only a three bedroom house? Or do we send the message
that, to the Zoning Board that would they condition the application that this would
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-I mean the septic system that’s proposed as far as certain number of
bedrooms, that’s how
COUNSEL LAPPER-Yea, in this case
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-That’s all that would be authorized. If they did more they would
have to come back and do a new permit.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Yea, they’re going from four bedrooms to two bedrooms in this case.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yea, but I’m saying the size
COUNCILMAN BOOR-But the size is for a three bedroom.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-The size of the septic system, in theory could accommodate four
bedrooms. It’s larger then it needs to be. I want to make sure that a four bedroom just does not ever
happen, it’s going to be a three bedroom period or less.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-We are granting a
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Do you understand that?
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-I do.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 536
COUNCILMAN BREWER-We’re granting a variance on the system he’s putting in, we can’t
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Right.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-No but
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Predicate that on how many bedrooms he has in the house.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well that’s the question.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s how it’s sized.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-That’s the question.
SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s the question.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s how it’s, that’s how it’s done.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-That’s how it’s sized and
SUPERVISOR STEC-But if it’s oversized, let’s say you oversize it and it’s large enough.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-No, I understand that but not to say that in the future he’s never going
to put another bedroom on.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s what we’re saying.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I don’t think this is, it’s not
COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s the point.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-It’s not suitable for another bedroom.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-If that’s an issue, I can check into it.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea, I think that’s a question worth, if you could get us a memo on that, Bob.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-I mean it’s usually the application is
COUNCILMAN BREWER-We’re granting the variance as to what it is, right? Not what it could
be.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-The application is for a certain size.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Right.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-And it goes to the standards that the state sets.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s going to be demolished and rebuilt, Tim.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Right and if we
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-And if they come in with something that’s bigger then that can
handle, they’ll have to come back in.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Right.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-But what it can handle is set by state standards not over-sizing it’s
standards.
SUPERVISOR STEC-So, I think the question is if we have, if there’s currently a three bedroom
house and somebody comes in for a variance and we grant them a variance for a system that will
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 537
accommodate four, and then sometime in the future they want to add a bedroom there’s nothing that
would stop them at that point if we, if they’ve sized it, if they were granted a variance from us for a
system that’s sized for four
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Correct, that’s what I believe but I’ll check into seeing if there’s
anyway that this
SUPERVISOR STEC-I think that’s the question that the
COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s the question.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-This Board can
SUPERVISOR STEC-Because that would enter into the Board’s train of thought when they granted
an oversized system if you’re granting an oversized system.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Then they would have to come back though wouldn’t they?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well they wouldn’t if we give them a big enough one.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-There would be no reason to deny an addition if the septic was
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And as I pointed out before, one of the reasons why I like an
oversized system is because the normal requirements for a system, take in a normal household, not
the kind of household that this house gets treated as during the summer.
COUNSEL LAPPER-During the peak summer season.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-As you know, yea, every weekend this place is loaded with people.
COUNSEL LAPPER-It’s good to have redundancy.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-All the relatives and the kids and the people renting the boats and
their kids.
COUNSEL LAPPER-This one doesn’t have
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-These places are loaded.
COUNSEL LAPPER-This doesn’t have boat rentals like the last one but
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-No but it could.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Yea but it’s a camp.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And we have to look at it, is that potential.
COUNSEL LAPPER-This is clearly a four bedroom house now going to a two bedroom house and
that’s what the application is for.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Two or three?
COUNSEL LAPPER-Two. Two.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-And what’s the size of the septic?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-The plan says three.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Three, the size is for three.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 538
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Three?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-That says three on the map.
COUNSEL LAPPER-It’s two.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Yea, I understand your issue and I
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Alright so it’s going to be a two bedroom which is even better.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Yup.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I’m more comfortable with that.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Yea, the system is for three, the house is two.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And again, I see you’ve got sixty feet, linear feet of Eljen bed
systems and that’s based on an eight to ten minute perk rate which is a more of a worse case
scenario.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Right, for design purposes.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-The native soil tested out one and a half to three or something I think
and so they’re putting this system designed on a worse case scenario.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Right.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-So, that makes me feel more comfortable. And it’s all going to be
raised with curbing.
COUNSEL LAPPER-That’s right.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-So that all that curbing around it is going to prevent anybody from
parking over this area.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Correct.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Because that’s another thing that you see in the Rockhurst and
Cleverdale area, everyone’s looking for every square inch to park on the weekend.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Yea that causes compaction and that’s a bad result.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And you count your blessings if you do find a parking spot. So, the
curbing should deter anybody from parking into this area.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Yea, it’s a two foot increase.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-So, I like that aspect as well, you know and I saw that with the
Seaboyer also had to keep curbing but it was really close to the road.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Can I ask a question while you’re talking about the curbing?
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yea.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-The application we just had we got a letter from the Highway
Superintendent.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s cause they’re two feet from the road, that was a road curb. This is
just a
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 539
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yea, that was right, abutted right up to the road.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Okay, so we don’t need to, we’re not concerned about the same.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, this isn’t a highway curb, this is a
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Okay. Okay, when I think of curbing I’m thinking next to highway.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-No, this is four feet from the edge of the road.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, this is a curb for the elevated system.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Four feet three quarter inch.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Okay.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Alright now, I see the test pit, do you want me to go into questions or
did you want to open this up to the public?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Go ahead, you’re on a roll.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-The test pit data which I just, you know covered some of the perk rate
but I don’t see the date when the test pit was done, it maybe on there, I didn’t see it. I had to get out
my magnifying glasses to see it.
COUNSEL LAPPER-It was a licensed engineer certainly that did the, Ron Taylor is telling me that
it was March or April.
SUPERVISOR STEC-This year?
COUNSEL LAPPER-Yes, yes.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Alright, did they put, you know add to their plans?
COUNSEL LAPPER-Certainly.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-You know I read them over and I just didn’t see it but. And again,
we’ve got a situation here that you know the bed’s three feet above the water table which is by code
okay and especially if you read that water table in, because if you look at diagram B2 it shows you
that, which you know is allowed but it is minimum. And you also have the notation that no vehicle
or traffic will pass over any portion of this disposal field which is good.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Any other questions?
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-No.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Mr. Hatin, anything more you’d like to add?
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Just for the record, Caroline has three letters to read
into the record tonight pertaining to this application for the Board’s concern.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, do you have anything at this time?
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-No, they have provided the information that is required
for submission. I’m sure there will be questions coming up later that the Board will want answered.
The only thing I would ask the Board is if you do want this passed on to the engineer, that you let
me know whether, I think you want him to go to the site, do you want him to perform any tests or
not, I need to know that for his marching orders.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 540
DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER read the following into the record:
Queensbury Activity Center
742 Bay Road
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attention Town Clerk:
I hereby request a 30 day postponement of the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health
st
in conducting a public hearing previously scheduled for November 1 , 2004 to consider the
application of Ronald & Jo Ann Taylor for a sewage disposal variance.
This postponement will give me a brief period to review & investigate the implications and
impact of this variance on my adjoining property on Waters Edge Road. For addition I had
planned to vote in the Presidential Election less than a day later some 180 miles distant from
Queensbury.
Sincerely,
J. George Russo, M.D.
Waters Edge Road
Cleverdale, NY
(Letter on file in Town Clerk’s Office)
October 30, 2004
Queensbury Activities Center
742 Bay Road
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attention Town Clerk:
In addition to my fax dated October 28, 2004, I now request a 30 day postponement of
granting variance to Ronald Taylor in his sewage disposal matter. This would allow time to
seek necessary counsel in adjudicating the following:
1. Legally establishing the actual Lake George shoreline of the Taylor property. I
understand the matter is still in question with various state agencies. The
“setback” from the shoreline is the matter in question.
2. The “setback” of the permanent elevated structure for variance from it’s very
close proximity to both the westerly and southerly Russo property line and the
same proximity to the easterly P. Moynihan property line.
3. The independent establishment of the actual ground water level in the Taylor
proposal.
4. Ecological questions regarding the frequent flooding of this same area. Having
spoken to Mr. Dave Hatin, I will deliver to him on or about November 3, 2004
color photographs supporting the above concerns.
5. Additional aesthetic concerns.
6. Consideration of alternative sewage structures.
Sincerely,
J. George Russ, M.D.
(Letter on file in Town Clerk’s Office)
Telephone call on 11-1-2004
By: Mr. J. Philip Moynihan
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 541
Taken by Town Clerk Dougher
Re: Application of Ronald and Jo Ann Taylor, Tax Map 227.17-1-28
I am vehemently opposed to an installation of an Eljen System.
In the application literature he wants to go 89 feet 10 inches from the lake when he
Measures from a sea wall that was put into the lake against the law. A Judge has
ruled that it is against the law and has been fined for putting the wall into the lake
and he has to remove it.
For the Town to consider this application I think they are entering into an area of
legal liability. I am against the whole application based on erroneous information.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Can we get copies of those letters, Dan?
SUPERVISOR STEC-You should have this one.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-I gave you copies.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I’ve got this one.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Yea, you should have copies.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I don’t have the other two.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-But I don’t have the Moynihan one.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Caroline, if you could just get them in everybody’s boxes tomorrow, please.
DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-Yes.
COUNSEL LAPPER-If I could just briefly respond to that. Not surprising that someone on the lake
that has neighbors that don’t like them, we see that all the time but there’s no noncompliance issue
whatsoever on the shoreline and we have a certified map that shows what the distance is to the
seawall. So, there’s no dispute as to it being eighty-nine feet ten inches.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Is the seawall legal?
COUNSEL LAPPER-Yes, and we’ve been working with Craig Brown, there were some minor
issues that had to be cleared up with their deck on the property and that was taken care of a year
ago, they’re completely in compliance.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-And there’s no pending litigation?
COUNSEL LAPPER-No, everything’s past history.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Question for Dave. Is this, in your opinion, an improvement, a significant
improvement to what, or to what degree of an improvement if any do you think what the proposed
system is?
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Well obviously based on the information Jon provided
to you tonight about the existing system, this would be an improvement. I don’t think it takes a
rocket scientist to figure that out. The question becomes, you’re building a new structure on the
property, small piece of property. The system is oversized for the number of bedrooms.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Why is it oversized?
COUNSEL LAPPER-Just because it’s smart design to make sure that you don’t have a problem
with the system. What they’re
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 542
SUPERVISOR STEC-If the system were smaller, would you need as much relief? I mean, I’m not
saying it’s a lot of relief, I’m just saying if it was a smaller system, would you need a variance at
all?
COUNSEL LAPPER-Yes because of the, in order to comply with the setback from the road and the
setback from the side property lines.
SUPERVISOR STEC-And the setback from the road is what, the setback requirement?
COUNSEL LAPPER-Ten feet.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Cause I would
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yea, I’d be more inclined to give you relief on the road.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right and that’s we’ve done before, we’ve been given, I mean, who cares if
there’s no drinking source or swimming source of water in the road, the road is just an arbitrary
human structure. I would rather put the system farther from the lake and infringe on a road setback
then on the lake setback. And again, you know not that, I mean not that ninety feet
COUNSEL LAPPER-Well, ninety feet is generally not considered a problem.
SUPERVISOR STEC-We’ve approved a lot less then ninety feet. So, I’m not saying that the
eighty-nine ten is out of, you know is completely out of but if we can make it ninety-five feet by
pushing it closer to the road, you know, I think that’s, in my opinion that’s a superior design and if
it’s oversized and if it was made a little slower you could push it even farther from the lake and that
would, I’d rather grant two feet of relief then ten but that’s just me. But that’s historically what this
Town Board and previous Town Boards have done. So, I don’t know if it is oversized and if you
sized it more appropriately or more in consistent with the proposed house, I think that goes to the
Town Board’s concerns that we heard a few minutes ago that that large system encourages future
expansions on the structure and certainly heavier use.
COUNSEL LAPPER-We’re talking about a thirteen hundred and fifty square foot house so this is,
this is
COUNCILMAN BOOR-But that’s now. I guess the concern of the Board is if we size this for a
third bedroom, I’m not sure that we could disallow a third bedroom to be built at a later date
because you would already have a system that would accommodate a third bedroom.
COUNSEL LAPPER-There’s only so much that can fit on this lot but I guess
COUNCILMAN BOOR-But I mean, is that correct or no?
COUNSEL LAPPER-You could certainly, any condition could always be changed if somebody
came back and asked for a modification. So one way or another, I don’t think that that’s a problem,
they’re only asking for two bedrooms, I don’t anticipate that they’ll ever ask for any more because
of the size of the lot. But, I mean if you wanted to condition that it’s going to be two bedrooms,
that’s not a problem.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I would be more comfortable with the over-sizing because when I see this
it, being in the construction industry that tells me at a later date another bedroom is going in.
COUNSEL LAPPER-And I would say, you have kids and grandkids visiting and it’s just smart not
to have, build a system that could fail, it’s better to have it oversized just in terms of design capacity.
SUPERVISOR STEC-It’s not clear to me the distance to the road right now. I see the number that
you read Jon, four foot three quarters inch, is that the road or I mean because
COUNCILMAN BOOR-It looks like you’re ten feet.
COUNSEL LAPPER-That’s the property line.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 543
COUNCILMAN BOOR-To the curb.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Yea.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-But to the actual leach field, you look like you’re twenty feet or so, aren’t
you?
COUNSEL LAPPER-But you have to measure from
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well it’s another twelve feet three quarter inch so add the four feet, so
it’s sixteen feet and four inches.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I see it, yup. No that twelve three and quarter is the total distance from road
to the edge of the bed, John.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Oh, to the edge of the property.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea, it’s seven foot nine from the curb. I mean I, could you push the system
closer to the curb? I mean, you’ve got seven feet nine inches to play with and you know, I mean if
you moved it seven feet farther, now we’re talking a three foot variance, I don’t think a whole lot of
people would have a great deal of difficulty with the three foot variance.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Or does it have to do with the slope?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right. I mean is there a reason?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Being more radical as you get closer to the curb.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Well, this is a unique type system, you don’t see these
built to much, you’re actually taking a retaining wall and building the lot up and then putting the
system in. Typically we go to the toe of the mound, there is really no toe here to start at ten foot.
So this is a little unique, the engineer may have a different view of this and that’s, if it was referred
to him I’m sure I’ll ask him that question.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-The other question I asked I think when your other attorney was here last
time is, what system is here now? It was unclear if there’s a septic system, a seepage pit or a
holding tank.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Yup and we’ve investigated that and there is a septic system but it’s a septic
system that’s very close to ground water.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-But it’s not a holding tank?
COUNSEL LAPPER-No.
SUPERVISOR STEC-And I see it looks like the height of the bed here above grade is about two
and a half feet, two feet six inches.
COUNSEL LAPPER-About two feet. It crowns a little bit at the top but yea, it’s
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-The crown is two feet six inches.
COUNSEL LAPPER-It’s mostly two feet.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I mean is that something that you would be willing to explore, is moving it,
you know even another, even half that release sought away from the lake?
COUNSEL LAPPER-Sure, yea.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I would rather grant two variances, one of which is from the road and have a
much, you know even another five or six feet from the lake, you know it’s better.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 544
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Just to clarify, where it says Waters Edge Road, that’s
not really a road, that’s a grass area. There’s a driveway that comes in which will be at the bottom
of this where you see the gravel, or grass drive, there’s actually a driveway that comes into that
grass drive and the backside of the property is actually a grass field.
SUPERVISOR STEC-If you could locate the system so that you don’t need any relief from the lake
and only relief from the property line from the road
COUNSEL LAPPER-I don’t think we can get it down to zero but we can
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well the closer the better in my opinion.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-And the other thing is, Dave just for clarity, it is a grass drive, right?
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-I think it’s gravel, if I remember right, I haven’t been
up there in a while but it’s gravel, yea.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Cause it says grass on ours.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yea.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-I think it’s gravel, gravel and grass.
COUNSEL LAPPER-It’s a mix.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-And the other, I’ll ask this out of ignorance, as far as code, could
somebody pave up there without a permit?
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Pave his driveway?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yea.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Well, that’s a permeability issue.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s exactly what I’m getting at. In other words, I’m looking at the size
of the property and I’m looking at the size of the field you’re putting it in and then I’m thinking, I
hate to think at a later date somebody would come in and put a huge asphalt drive in cause then
you’ve got drainage issues, stormwater and
COUNSEL LAPPER-Well, my good answer there is that after we get through this Board and the
Zoning Board, because it’s on the lake, it requires Site Plan Approval so we would be dealing with
all of those issues at Planning Board ultimately.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-But that, but my question goes back to Dave, I want to clearly understand,
people can not pave without a permit?
MR.HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-No, no that is not the understanding. No, they could
pave here if they got through the approvals and met the permeability requirements and this area was
shown that it could be paved and still meet the permeability requirements.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay but, okay so
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-People don’t come to us for driveways, when they pave
their driveways.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I know but I mean, let’s say they get all these things and they don’t ask for
a paved driveway, they get all their approvals, the project is done and then a year later can they pave
that, legally?
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-If it, when it was reviewed by Site Plan Review
through the Planning Board and that was found to be a non permeable area, yes they could. If there
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 545
was a condition or a representation made to the Planning Board that this was going to be permeable,
then no they couldn’t.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right, cause, if we approve this, I would like to make sure that we
maintain the proper percentages of permeability on this.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, won’t they have to maintain that at Planning Board, that they’ll
have to prove that on their map anyways, right?
COUNSEL LAPPER-Yes, and we’re not seeking any permeability variances.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay. Alright, the public hearing is open, if there’s any members of the
public that would like to address the Town Board on, the Board of Health on this application? Yes,
sir.
MR. ED ZIBRO-I’m Ed Zibro and this is Dr. Kirkpatrick, we’re adjoining property owners and I’ve
got three issues here. A year ago, you people granted the Ends a variance to put in a Eljen mount
system. I was never contacted, the road that they drive in is on my property, they were given a five
foot, a relief to come back to the road. It is four and a half feet from the road at this point
completed, I had a survey done. They didn’t address what to do with the normal runoff of the water
that came down on the eastside of that road. Now, all that water comes onto my property because
the water drainage was not addressed. I think the same thing is going to happen in this piece of
property because mine abuts it.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-What is your name sir?
MR. ZIBRO-Ed Zibro.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yea and what was the property that we granted the variance?
MR. ZIBRO-Ends, Bob and Patricia Ends.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-How do you spell it?
MR. ZIBRO-E n d s.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Are you to the east in abutting this property?
MR. ZIBRO-I am to the southwest. There’s a map here, do you want to see it?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Sure.
MR. ZIBRO-This is my property right here, this is the property in question right here and this is
where you granted the easements to the Ends.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-This is your property?
MR. ZIBRO-Yes.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-What is the right-of-way you’re talking about?
MR. ZIBRO-This right-of-way here, this road is on my property.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-That’s five feet?
MR. ZIBRO-My property and they were allowed to build within five foot of this road way?
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Oh, the Ends.
MR. ZIBRO-Yea but they’re four and a half feet, we had it surveyed. They had all the room in the
world to place this out here without even effecting a variance and now all this water that comes
down here, comes down the road over my property and floods my property.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 546
COUNCILMAN BREWER-On Seeley Road.
MR. ZIBRO-This is Seelye, this is Seelye Road North right here. So, all this water that used to run
off over through here to the lake because it was a natural French drain put in here by Walter
Mooney. There’s a drain across here, in fact his drain was even … with concrete to stop the water
from coming on his property…
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yea, wasn’t there a development up here?
MR. ZIBRO-I don’t know.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Before the Planning Board a year ago and some of these issues were
brought up.
MR. ZIBRO-I don’t know.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Isn’t there a drainage that goes down through here?
MR. ZIBRO-I don’t know, I know there was a normal French drain that came across here to the
north.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Alright so what’s that got to do with Taylor’s?
MR. ZIBRO-Well, my concern is here when they do this with Taylor’s, all the that water runs off…
Taylor’s property, Russo’s property and come back on my, where’s the water going to go from this
property?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-That’s a Planning Board issue that it will be addressed at that particular
point.
MR. ZIBRO-But you did grant the Ends the go ahead to put this system in without addressing the
water that now comes on my property from the Ends.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I don’t recall that particular application but.
MR. ZIBRO-Yea, that was a year and a half ago and I never received notification of it.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-So, if they put a drainage area on the
MR. ZIBRO-Somewhere they’ve got to
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-On the eastern curbing between the grass drive and the
MR. ZIBRO-Something has to be done with water drainage.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, we will ask the applicant those questions. You said you had three
things though.
MR. ZIBRO-Okay.
DR. KIRKPATRICK-I know that I heard tonight there’s concern about building another house, that
you have to be twenty feet from the side, from the side of the house so you’ve got twenty foot from
the right and twenty foot from the left, you only have a fifty foot width lot. How can you build a
house in there?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well that’s why they’re before the Zoning Board.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-They’re going to the Zoning Board.
DR. KIRKPATRICK-Okay.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 547
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well that’s for the Zoning Board and they may or may not grant that.
DR. KIRKPATRICK-Okay. What else?
MR. ZIBRO-I think that was it.
DR. KIRKPATRICK-So, they’re requesting a variance
COUNCILMAN BREWER-For the setback
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Separation from the lake.
DR. KIRKPATRICK-For a setback from the road and also from the sides?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, no, just from the lake.
SUPERVISOR STEC-No, right now before us is the application for their septic system from the
lake cause that’s our purview as the Board of Health. The rest of any variances they need from
sidelines for their construction of the home or permeability that’s the Zoning Board of Appeals.
And what we’re suggesting is that if they put the system farther, that we as a Board of Health would
prefer to give less relief from the lake for their septic system and relief from the road because again,
people aren’t swimming and drinking the road, they’re swimming and drinking the lake. So, what
we’re saying is we would prefer him to move that further to the south towards the road and to
minimize the amount of, although all be it the, that ten feet out of a hundred feet based on the
history or what we’ve seen, at least myself for the last five years is not a lot of relief but it’s our job
to try and minimize the amount of relief that’s granted and if, it’s very easy to say put it farther from
the lake and closer to the road unless there’s a ledge there or some other reason why it can’t be
done, that’s where we’ve encouraged the applicant to consider doing. But the other, you know the
side setback for the structure or whatever, those are Zoning Board issues.
DR. KIRKPATRICK-The drainage is a big problem. And the other question I had for you is, if
your property is a hundred foot deep and to stay ten foot off the property line, and you have to be a
hundred foot back from the lake for this system to begin with
SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s why we have a lot of
DR. KIRKPATRICK-what is the width of this system that’s going to fit in that?
SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s why, on Lake George, this is a very common, we have a lot of
undersized lots that are
DR. KIRKPATRICK-Yea, so it has to be closer then eighty-nine feet to the lake.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well it says the length of the lot is a hundred and twenty-eight feet.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right.
MR. ZIBRO-Is that right.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yea.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well it’s actually a parallelogram.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-One is one o eight and one twenty-eight.
SUPERVISOR STEC-One is one o eight and the other is one twenty-eight.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-The furthest distance.
DR. KIRKPATRICK-One o eight and one fifteen.
SUPERVISOR STEC-One twenty-eight.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 548
COUNCILMAN BOOR-One twenty-eight and one o eight, that’s we have on the official.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-That’s what we have on our map.
DR. KIRKPATRICK-Well, our map it’s a little different, mines says a hundred and fifteen and a
hundred.
MR. ZIBRO-This is a town map that says a hundred on the right, east side and a hundred and fifteen
on the west side.
DR. KIRKPATRICK-Now what is the width of the system from the lake southward? How big
would the system be?
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-You mean, towards
DR. KIRKPATRICK-From the beginning of the system to the road?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-To the road?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-The system or the mound, that’s the other thing, there’s
DR. KIRKPATRICK-Well the mound is the system. I mean, say it’s twenty feet, it was twenty feet
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea, I think we just said it was twelve and, twelve feet and change.
DR. KIRKPATRICK-Then you’re, is that the eighty-nine feet that you’re talking about from the
lake? That was the
SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s the other side, from the other side of the system to the lake is eighty-
nine feet.
DR. KIRKPATRICK-The beginning of the system
COUNCILMAN BREWER-To the lake.
DR. KIRKPATRICK-has to be eighty-nine feet.
SUPERVISOR STEC-The closest point of the system to the lake right now as proposed is eighty-
nine ten. And we’re trying to
DR. KIRKPATRICK-Right, okay that’s the best that they can
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, we’re trying to ask them to move it farther from the lake closer to the
road.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-We’re trying to get them to push it back towards the road.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Because right now they’ve got twelve feet.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Which may or may not work for you.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well there really, there isn’t a road there though. I mean, are we
getting conflicting information?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well to the, to his property line that would front the road.
MR. ZIBRO-There is an asphalt drive.
DR. KIRKPATRICK-Comes across the back.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Waters Edge Road.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 549
SUPERVISOR STEC-Waters Edge Road.
DR. KIRKPATRICK-Waters Edge Road comes down and there’s an asphalt drive that goes over,
that’s Russo’s.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right and he’s twelve feet from that road boundary.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-That would be this right here, John, right?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right here John, he’s twelve feet here.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Alright and that road that’s in back of them actually services
DR. KIRKPATRICK-That’s George Russo’s property, that’s his own blacktop, yea.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-That’s property to the west.
DR. KIRKPATRICK-Well, it’s a right-of-way too, isn’t Ed?
MR. ZIBRO-Yea.
DR. KIRKPATRICK-They both use it.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Okay.
DR. KIRKPATRICK-The thing is this property, this property that Ed Zibro’s discussing on this
map doesn’t have any lake frontage. There’s a water line that goes across my other property down
to the lake. What happens if I want to put a well on my property and get rid of that line to the lake?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-You’d have to have all your properties looked at.
SUPERVISOR STEC-You’d need to be a hundred feet, you’d be looking at a relief too.
DR. KIRKPATRICK-It would have to be a hundred feet from any septic system.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right.
SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s why all these postage stamp lots on Lake George become problems
for municipalities because
DR. KIRKPATRICK-Well, this isn’t a postage stamp, this is a full acre.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Sure.
DR. KIRKPATRICK-This is a full acre.
SUPERVISOR STEC-But you’re surrounded by postage stamps.
DR. PATRICK-Yea but what happens, where am I going to put a well?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-You’d probably, you may have to come to this Board to get a variance.
SUPERVISOR STEC-To get a variance because you’re too close.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-And it may not having anything to do with the one we’re, before us now.
I can’t,
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right, it may be another one on your property.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-You know, we don’t know the other adjoining properties to the property
you’re referring to.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 550
COUNCILMAN BREWER-You would have to identify the other septics, right.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Or where your septic is.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Or where his is.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Or your own septic.
DR. KIRKPATRICK-Right but mines listed on this thing here too, yea.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Okay, now yours is what property?
MR. ZIBRO-Is on the other side, Dr. Kirkpatrick.
DR. KIRKPATRICK-Well, my own property that Ed’s talking about, that Ed owns currently.
MR. ZIBRO-Right, he’s buying my property.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Oh, okay, Ed Zibro’s property, Dr. …
MR. ZIBRO-Dr. Kirkpatrick, yes. And I know that, what that system that was put in for Ends has
created a big problem, I’ve been able to mow the lawn maybe three times all summer where I could
mow it once a week.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, Mr. Zibro you’re currently taking water from the lake?
MR. ZIBRO-Oh, yea.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And you have a right-of-way through somebody else’s property?
MR. ZIBRO-Comes right across through Dr. Kirkpatrick’s other house.
DR. KIRKPATRICK-Yes he has an easement on my property.
MR. ZIBRO-Yea.
DR. KIRKPATRICK-Now what, what will be the size of the new building? Are they talking about
the same size of what’s there?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Is it thirteen hundred? Thirteen hundred
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Thirteen hundred square feet I think, Mr. Lapper said.
DR. KIRKPATRICK-And they’re going to go upwards, is that what they’re going to do?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-We really don’t have plans for the home.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-We don’t have any, that’s not in front of us.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-That’s the ZBA.
DR. KIRKPATRICK-You’re just here for the Board of Health, just that.
SUPERVISOR STEC-For the septic, correct.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-And that’s why other questions were raised though with regard to the
sizing of the septic.
SUPERVISOR STEC-And who should see this first, whether us or the Zoning Board because if we
grant the relief, I mean there’s the chicken and the egg thing.
DR. KIRKPATRICK-Okay.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 551
MR. ZIBRO-Yea, I’ve been to Mike about the water drainage, I’ve talked to Dave about it, it’s a
real serious and I’m going to talk to John about because my daughter is doing a house over, back
over further on the road and water drainage has been a serious problem, that’s …
DR. KIRKPATRICK-From what you see now, do you see any reason why you would not approve
this if it, it’s built the way that you
SUPERVISOR STEC-I want to ask the applicant some drainage questions because you’ve asked us
to but beyond that, let’s put it this way, it’s less common that we see ten feet sought on a hundred
and more common that thirty or forty feet is sought on a hundred and we’ve approved a lot more
then ten feet in the past. Every situation is different, this lot is thirteen hundredths of an acre big.
MR. ZIBRO-That’s right.
SUPERVISOR STEC-It’s really hard for us to tell somebody that’s got a preexisting approved lot,
that’s thirteen hundredths of an acre big it’s un-build able. That’s what today, hopefully we
wouldn’t create a lot this but this lot is existing and somebody’s been paying taxes on it and they’ve,
you know I mean
COUNCILMAN BOOR-There is a building on it.
SUPERVISOR STEC-There’s a building on it, so
DR. KIRKPATRICK-Why would you, why wouldn’t you just require they put a holding tank, a big
holding tank in there?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, in general and Dave has better language then, I mean the State does,
Board of Health is discouraging holding tanks.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s a last resort.
DR. KIRKPATRICK-Yea, I understand that but it’s such a small lot and wants to put in this
building.
SUPERVISOR STEC-The language in the code does not, does not encourage
DR. KIRKPATRICK-Well on the last case you do approve a three thousand gallon tank, why
couldn’t you approve it on this?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Totally different.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-We suggested it, we didn’t approve it.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea, I don’t know if we actually approved it.
DR. KIRKPATRICK-Oh, I thought you approved it. I thought you said you approved it.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-No.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-No, we did not.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-We said
COUNCILMAN BREWER-No we didn’t.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-We, look at it, we said that we would allow it.
DR. KIRKPATRICK-That sounds like approval.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And we have approved holding tanks in situations where there just
wasn’t any place on the property to put another filtration bed, there just wasn’t.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 552
DR. KIRKPATRICK-See I have holding tanks on my property.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-The one that’s an acre?
DR. KIRKPATRICK-No, I’m right next to it.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Oh, okay.
DR. KIRKPATRICK-I’m right next to it, I have four thousand gallon and it works fine and it’s very
economical compared to the money that will be spent on putting a system in here.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you, thank you both. Is there anyone else from the public that would
like to address the Board on this application? Yes sir, Mr. Salvador.
MR. JOHN SALVADOR-Good evening, thank you. I think we should appreciate that we’re
mixing design standards. When we set separation distances of a hundred feet from the lake and
three feet from high seasonal groundwater, it was based on a conventional system, not an Eljen
system. We don’t know what the affect of an Eljen system discharging to the groundwater is going
to have on other separation distances. That’s got to be determined. You’re fitting, you’re taking
two different design standards and you’re trying to mesh them together and you really don’t know if
it’s going to work. The other thing is the practicality of a two bedroom dwelling on Lake George
just doesn’t ring. There’s just no, no practicality to that and we talk about bedrooms, the Public
Health Code talks about living quarters. There’s a difference. I certainly don’t think that and by the
way, DEC has a design standard for wastewater treatment works in the Lake George Basin and right
up front they say, designed for present needs only. You’re not allowed to build more then you need
and then at a later date you expand into it, that’s the idea of having these constraints that we don’t
get a sprawl up there. I think you should really take a hard look at how you’re mixing a treatment
system that I don’t think really fits with other separation distances, they’re two different standards.
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you. Anyone else from the public like to address the Board on this
application? Alright, I’d ask that the applicant come back forward and Dave want to you, maybe
joint them and if you could I’d like you to address the drainage concern that was expressed, please.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Yea, we’re not changing the permeability at all from what’s there now and I
believe that the neighbor’s issues with his neighbor on the other side have to do with the fact that the
other neighbor is draining onto his property and he’s lower then the Taylor’s property. I’m sorry,
the Taylor property is lower then him so it’s not going to be an issue. All of that would be a Site
Plan issue for the Planning Board in terms of drainage. What we’ve got here, just to get this back to
very simple terms, the location is the location of where the existing leach field is, this is just a better
design that does comply and what Mr. Salvador is saying about what the standards should be,
doesn’t address what the standards are and the standards for an Eljen system, the three foot
separation is what’s required and that’s what’s proposed. I just spoke with Mr. Taylor and we can
definitely come back with a design that moves it closer to the rear property line, farther from the
lake. It may only be three or four feet different but it certainly going to be less of a variance then
the ten feet that we’re asking for now and that’s a
SUPERVISOR STEC-What about a smaller system, that could be moved farther away?
COUNSEL LAPPER-The standards require that you have to have replacement area anyway, when
you build a system that you have to have a replacement area so building it to include that is just a
way to add redundancy that’s required, there’s nothing
SUPERVISOR STEC-So you’re telling us that is the smallest that that system can be.
COUNSEL LAPPER-No it can be a little smaller but if you did it smaller, you’d still have to leave
extra area to replace it later so it’s not going to
COUNCILMAN BOOR-But I would, just as a personal, I would rather see you leave it aside so that
you would have to come back if you wanted to add a bedroom. The way we’re doing this now is
you essentially can put a three bedroom on there if we grant you this.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 553
COUNSEL LAPPER-Well the simple answer may just be to condition it that it, that we won’t add a
bedroom.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, that’s, that was the question that we had.
COUNSEL LAPPER-But I mean, again, you know whatever the Board prefers. They’ve got a
system now that needs to be upgraded and whatever it takes to make the Board happy is the answer.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay, and one more comment. Unfortunately, as Mr. Salvador pointed
out, what we call a bedroom and what is a living quarter are two different things and we’re sizing it
essentially for more people on a very small lot and that’s my problem.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Remember
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I mean it’s like somebody sleeping on the hideaway couch, you know and
in the summer time that could be the case.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Well we’ve got a four bedroom housing existing so
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I know you do.
COUNSEL LAPPER-And the house is being, the proposed house, I didn’t really get into this but
it’s proposed to move farther from the lake from where it is now, the new house, farther from the
side property line where the Dr. Russo is. So, I mean, they’re doing what they can based upon what
they have here.
SUPERVISOR STEC-And that’s great for the Zoning Board.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Correct.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Any other Board Members, comments or questions at this point.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, I’m just looking for someone to explain to me, if we’re going to
make Mr. Seaboyer look into the aerobic system because it’s more efficient, why are we not asking
the same thing in the name of consistency in a similar situation? Why are we not asking the same
thing of the Taylors?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Can I have a crack at that?
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yea.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Because I think an easier way would be to downsize it and maybe we
wouldn’t need a variance at all and I think that’s where I’m trying to go. Now, if we’re going to try
and keep it this big, maybe we do want to do what Seaboyer’s been asked to look at but my issue is,
it’s an extremely small lot. Yes, there’s a four bedroom there now but that certainly wouldn’t be
allowed in this day and age and you know, I have no problem with a two bedroom there but I just
have to believe that this system is so that essentially more then a two bedroom occupancy is going
to be enjoyed.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea, I’d rather see it the minimum size and the maximum distance from the
lake.
COUNSEL LAPPER-The applicants have no problem with that, we will go back to the drawing
board a little bit and come back and see if we can ask for less relief. I don’t think we can eliminate
the relief.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Get close though, yea.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Is there any other marching orders we want to give the applicant before we
table this?
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 554
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well would they, are we going to ask them to respond to the concerns
of Mr. Moynihan and Mr. Russo?
COUNSEL LAPPER-Stormwater, you mean?
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well the stormwater issue but
SUPERVISOR STEC-But what I was going to do is
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-At least address that. It doesn’t appear to be a problem for this
property but I don’t know, Mr. Russo, I mean maybe there’s nothing to his points, maybe there is. I
mean, let’s not just leaving it hanging, let’s clean it up.
SUPERVISOR STEC-You’re talking about Dr. Russo’s letter where he’s concerned about where
the shoreline is with regard to your seawall.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And Caroline read a letter from a guy name Moynihan too.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-But don’t we, don’t these things have to be looked at when they submit
them? I mean, just because this fellow is saying the seawall is illegal and it’s not the proper line,
does that make, that doesn’t make it so.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Yea, Craig Brown is looking
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-No, it doesn’t.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Correct.
COUNSEL LAPPER-We met with Craig Brown before we submitted, he’s looked at everything.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I want to tie the loose ends together.
SUPERVISOR STEC-And what I would propose
COUNCILMAN BREWER-And he said he talked with Craig Brown about that.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yea, okay, well fine.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Maybe we get a letter from Craig, Jon, maybe you can do that.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I mean, if that’s what you’re going to do Jon you’re, Jon, you’re
going to come back with a plan that’s a little bit smaller septic system, a little bit more in
compliance?
COUNSEL LAPPER-Yes.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And in the mean time, clean up the rest of what needs to be cleaned
up, and maybe it will be okay.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Jon, when are you scheduled to go to the Zoning Board, do you have a
date yet?
COUNSEL LAPPER-We would be on this agenda this month but I don’t know which meeting.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Later this evening, the Board is going to, I believe be considering a
th
resolution that would reschedule the December 6 meeting because I will be out of Town and
unable to attend that meeting at that date to the last Monday in the, in November which would be
th
the 29, that’s twenty-eight days from today and I would propose that we table until that date. That
should give everyone plenty of time to get their ducks in a row and come back in here, leave the
public hearing open until the date and then, you know again, you can address the Board’s concerns
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 555
and anticipate based on the correspondence you heard tonight, making sure that you have very good
answers to those questions, however you need to do that with Craig Brown, you know Town Staff
or whatever other evidence that you need and bearing in mind, yea, the drainage, the only question I
had about the drainage, I mean I understand what you’re saying that the permeability is all the same
but we are creating a mound and a wall, you know a big wall around that. So, I would like to make
sure that, you know that you can show maybe some elevations or something that will really clarify
that drainage will not be a problem here.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Got it.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Is there any other
COUNCILMAN BREWER-And if there is a new map, Jon you’ll get it to us a week ahead of time
or so.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Yup.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-I just had one question, right now, the only variance is
for a setback from the lake, if we push it farther back that will require variances from the property
line.
SUPERVISOR STEC-And that would be Zoning Board.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-No, this would be for a septic variance so this requires
a new submission, I believe, right and re-advertisement?
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yea. Yup.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Because those variances are not requested right now.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Because it’s from the side.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-From the side and rear property lines or rear property
line.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Yes.
SUPERVISOR STEC-And then we got twenty-eight days to do that so do we need to set a public
hearing on the, at our next regular?
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-At our next meeting we’ll have to have, we’ll have to set it for the
th
29.
thth.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea, set a public hearing on the 15 for the 28
th
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-29.
th
SUPERVISOR STEC-29, correct.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Yes.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Does that work for you guys?
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Pardon me?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Will that work, Jon?
COUNSEL LAPPER-Yes.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-You’ll be able to get us that information, Jon.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Yup.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 556
DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-So therefore you’ll close this public hearing or no?
SUPERVISOR STEC-So, yea, Bob in that case do I close this public hearing?
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Yea, we’ll close this.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, I will close the public hearing with the anticipation of setting a public
thth
hearing on the 15 for the 29 of November to consider what we discussed tonight.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Certainly.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-And will or won’t this go to our Town Engineer?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I don’t have a, I don’t think it needs to.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I don’t think it needs to either.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Because I don’t think you’re going to be looking for the kind of relief
from the lake that you are now and if the system is smaller, we don’t have to worry about other
issues.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Very good.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, thank you very much.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
8:44 P.M.
Supervisor Stec noted that Mr. Hatin requested that Board of Health Resolution 1.3 be pulled.
RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN BOARD OF HEALTH
BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 31, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED FOR IT’S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns and enters Regular
Session of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury.
st
Duly adopted this 1 day of November, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
REGULAR SESSION
CORRESPONDENCE – NONE
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 557
INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS FROM THE FLOOR - NONE
OPEN FORUM
MR. DAVE JONES, 41 Boulevard-Questioned Resolution 6.10, ‘Resolution Authorizing
Intermunicipal Agreement For Emergency Water Services Between Town Of Queensbury And City
Of Glens Falls’ as to whether there’s any payments involved.
SUPERVISOR STEC-No payment. This resolution is essentially a renewal of an Intermunicipal
Agreement for emergency water services between the Town of Queensbury and the City of Glens
Falls. The existing one that we had expired about a year ago, it is essentially a renewal of the terms
as a result of the work between the Town Attorney and the City Attorney as well as Ralph
VanDusen. The per gallon cost is the same as it has been and it’s a twenty year agreement that can
be terminated with a hundred and eighty days notice after five years of the agreement, in case
something changes.
MR. DAVE KENNY, 131 Equinox Drive-Questioned what direction the Town is going with
regards to Site Plan Review in reference to existing projects. I received this, I guess this latest
article and it says here, any project requiring a building permit and is listed a Site Plan Review Use
in Article 4, requires Site Plan Review, period. That’s the scope of the sentence. I’ve been before
the Town, one issue was having a roof put on, I was told it definitely is Site Plan Review. I consider
that an Architectural Review Board, I mean if the town is going that way, I just have to know that.
The other instance, I just leased a space to a tenant, it was a retail space, it’s been retail and
restaurant use for the last twenty years possibly… The new tenant, it was also a golf store there at
one time, came in and was told he needed Site Plan Review to open up his store, which happened to
be selling golf equipment and he has some machines he put in there where you can hit the ball.
Which I was unaware of, I was never told. I go in to the Zoning Officer and he says, well, it was a
change in use therefore it needs Site Plan Review. That’s not what this says, this says everything
needs Site Plan Review if it requires a building permit. Are there exceptions in it? I don’t read any.
I said what happens if a new tenant comes to me tomorrow. He said, well if you’re replacing the
space with a like tenant, selling the same stuff, you won’t need Site Plan Review, I can tell you that.
I said where does it say that in the code? If I need a building permit which I would need to replace a
tenant, this here says I need Site Plan Review, he’s saying I don’t. So, I guess I’m wondering where
are we at? Are we just making more and more regulations and everything that comes before the
Town go to Site Plan Review. I have to know this because I have to let tenants know…
SUPERVISOR STEC-I don’t believe that that is the case that if you change a tenant that we’re
requiring Site Plan Review because I talked with Craig Brown too and he told me that that is not
how it’s being applied.
MR. KENNY-But that’s not what it says.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I’d have to defer to Counsel or Marilyn Ryba.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-For the record, what are you reading from?
MR. KENNY-What he gave me, Article 179-9-020, Applicability of Site Plan, about the fourth or
fifth line down, any project requiring a building permit and that is listed as a Site Plan Review Use
in Article 4, requires Site Plan Review. No where does it say any exceptions. You need a building
permit, it triggers Site Plan Review… Another issue that I don’t know where the Town is going
with, the tent sale issue…
SUPERVISOR STEC-We’re not prepared to discuss this in detail tonight, I think this is the kind of
thing that we’re going to have to have a workshop on in the near future, both of those items… I will
follow this up with staff tomorrow.
MS. MARILYN RYBA, Executive Director-Recommended that Mr. Kenny put this in writing to
the Planning Ordinance Review Committee, it’s a very appropriate venue for review.
MR. PLINEY TUCKER, 41 Division Road-Questioned Resolution 6.11, ‘Resolution Authorizing
Town Supervisor To Sign First Amended Stipulation And Order Of Settlement In Connection With
Sale Of Water To Town Of Moreau’.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 558
SUPERVISOR STEC-We’ll address that during resolutions.
MR. TUCKER-Questioned when the Main Street Corridor Project was to take place.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Sometime next Fall, was the last estimates that I heard from the County
project end.
MR. TUCKER-Referred to the Underground Utilities Local Law.
SUPERVISOR STEC-We had already done that and this actually is just an action to validate that. It
did get sent to the Planning Board for their recommendation. They did recommend and so we are
going back and we are retroactively reaffirming that.
MR. TUCKER-When Chris Round was here he was working on funds to put the electrical
underground and get relief for all the people along the right-of-way, is that still happening?
MS. RYBA, Executive Director-We’re working on it, is all I can tell you at this point and we’re
looking for special funding from our legislators. In fact I made a phone call this morning but the
person was on vacation.
MR. TUCKER-From my experience, that will be quite costly. If we don’t find the funds, this thing
still going to go?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes, the Town’s committed to it and we have options a, b, and c and I think
Marilyn is trying to avoid discussion what b and c are but a is certainly that we passed a local law
that we are going to require that in certain corridors power when its relocated is underground.
MR. TUCKER-Referred to the land deal west of the Water Plant, thanks Tim for making the phone
call. I went to VanDusen and Steves and they do not have the map.
SUPERVISOR STEC-They told me what they gave you and they gave our Counsel that and my
next question would be for Counsel, where do we go from here now that we identified the map that
you asked us to locate?
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-We wrote and I gave you a copy tonight of the letter that I sent
today. I didn’t get the map until Friday afternoon, I didn’t get a chance to look at it.
MR. TUCKER-Where do we go from here?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-As I understood it, NIMO at some point lost the map that they were
supposed to have had, we were supposed to get the map from VanDusen and Steves and forward it
to NIMO so that they could put it in their file and then deed the property to us or whatever they had
to do. As I understood it, the map has to go to NIMO now so that they can verify that’s the property
and then deed it to us.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Yes. There’s two pieces of property that we’re talking about, one of
them is on the other side of the Water Plant and it’s a property that seven years ago approximately
the Town Board entered into a contract with Niagara Mohawk to buy, I forget, I think it was
nineteen acres. They could not transfer all of the property to us at that time because of certain
Federal Regulations that deal with power plants and property along the rivers. We bought the
portion that we could back then. There’s a portion now that we are waiting for them to send us the
documents and we’ll finish that contract that the Town Board signed back then. The second part is
the one that Pliney is also talking about which is on the other side of the Water Plant and it’s
property that is part of the Hudson Point PUD they were required to give us approximately five to
five and half acres for recreational purposes, it was part of their development, they promised that
they would do so and that they would transfer it but they couldn’t transfer it until they got
permission from FERC, the Federal Agency that controls the property along rivers where there’s
power plants. They got that FERC approval about seven months ago, I believe it was earlier this
year and we got a copy of that and then we started trying to get them to send us documents. They
said they’re going through the process on the part that we’re going to purchase, we haven’t seen
anything, they keep telling us the same thing, it’s not moving forward at all that we can see but they
say they’re doing the internal things necessary to sell us the parcel. On the other property they’re
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 559
having trouble finding a map that exactly describes the five or five and a half acres that the Town is
supposed to get. We’re very frustrated with this but we have tried to work with them so that we can
finalize this… I wrote him again today saying, we’ve got to move this forward, the Town Board is
getting frustrated, please review this, call us about how you’re going to expedite this.
MR. TUCKER-I’ve got the agreement and Saratoga Associates were involved.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-And I wrote him and told him to contact them. It’s their obligation,
their requirement, they should provide the map and the description.
SUPERVISOR STEC-We’re going to work on it.
MR. JOHN SALVADOR-Referred to the Independent Auditor’s Report and read regarding the
subject of un-deposited bail. The audit report says, during our audit we noted an instance in which a
bail was received but not deposited into the bail cash account. The auditor goes onto say, the
Queensbury Justice Clerk confirmed the bail check was kept in the safe, and kept in the safe for a
period of three years. The Auditor was under the impression from a discussion with the Court Clerk
that there was one check involved. Miss Maxam paid her bail on two different occasions in two
different ways. She paid a twenty-five hundred dollar bail in cash for which she has the receipt. At
another time, she paid another twenty-five hundred dollars bail in the form of two cashier’s checks.
There was not one check. Now, since receiving this audit report we have gotten copies of the
cancelled checks from the bank, the issuing institution and it shows that, whatever check was in the
safe for three years it wasn’t Miss Maxam’s check because the checks that she turned over to the
Court for her bail were cashed three days after she turned them over. So, I think the question is still
out there, what happened to her five thousand dollar bail sum. I noticed that you have paid the
auditor in full for their services, nine thousand dollar, you’ve got a nine hundred dollar credit. Some
follow up has got to be done here, this is not complete and I think Miss Maxam has notified you of
this so that needs to be followed up on…. The Town of Lake George has signed onto in some way
or supports the Lake George Watershed Conference. You participate in their meetings and that sort
of thing, is there any kind of financial? There is, well, I want you to know that the Lake George
Association had a golf tournament and they put an ad in the Chronicle listing all of their sponsors. I
guess sponsors mean you contribute to the event so that they can give prizes for this golf tournament
and the Lake George Watershed Conference is one of the sponsors of this. Now, I don’t think that
that’s what we’re trying to do is support that sort of thing. There are other not-for-profits on here
that get State funding and are contributing to a golf tournament. Totally inappropriate…. Mr.
Kenny’s point are well, well taken. The reason that your Planning Board is so overworked is there
in this circle of Site Plan Review, it’s nothing but project review, that’s all it is. And that Zoning
Ordinance of ours is nothing but a design manual… There was an article in this morning’s paper
about the hotel market becoming saturated and this is a problem we’re going to have in our
community also and it’s not only hotel rooms, it’s office space, it’s apartments, it’s condo’s, it gets
saturated but adding to this problem is Warren County which has come out with a program to
advertise the availability of this extra capacity… The County is fostering a program for the lodging
industry where you go on this website and depending on what’s available you get a room for
nothing and that is going to feed right into the subject of this article in the morning paper. As you
saturate the market with rooms, the price goes down, the competition goes up, the service
degenerates and the whole community suffers.
OPEN FORUM CLOSED
9:12 P.M.
TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Please everyone remember to vote tomorrow, the polls are open six to
nine.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-The five Fire Departments and the three EMS Squads are still looking
for volunteers so please volunteer.
COUNCILMAN BOOR spoke to the Town Board regarding Adelphia Media Services, the future in
Digital Televising and the consideration of the Town building an antenna and providing a service
for the community at large where the town could contract with networks and other broadcasters, the
town would get the signal and broadcast over the airways to residents thereby perhaps saving a lot
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 560
of money…. I think it’s something that we need to look into because the cable costs are getting very
expensive. I think to better cover ourselves we should be looking at alternatives available and I
think this one we could perhaps make some headway with.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Dave Hatin, what can we do about the Salvation Army?
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-It’s a difficult situation, they’re not creating the
problem, the public is. They’re diligent in cleaning it up every day. I mean, you go out there on
Monday morning, they’re out there and it’s hard pressed to take issue with somebody that’s trying
to maintain it.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Can we write the Sheriff a letter and ask them to post somebody there
and make an issue out of it?
SUPERVISOR STEC-I’ve had a conversation with the Sheriff, I’ve had several conversations and
emails with Bill Remington, DPW because he’s going to do some additional signage. He’s
contacted and called the people at Salvation Army and you know Dave has been in the loop the
whole time and you guys have been copied on most of those emails.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Signs are not working. This is a disgrace to this Town. We ought to
be able to ask the Sheriff to spend two lousy hours on a Sunday afternoon, whatever, Saturday
afternoon, Saturday night whenever it is that people are dumping there and catch these people and
make an example out of them. Fine them two hundred dollars, put it in the paper, then when people
see it, they won’t be doing it.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I’ll contact the Sheriff again and I will specifically ask him to do that and I
will also follow with a letter because I did not send a letter and I will copy everybody… Three brief
ones, don’t forget to vote tomorrow… I want to thank Glens Falls National Bank and TV8 for
sponsoring these productions… Just want to get the word out for the town’s website, a great
resource with a lot of information and that’s www.queensbury.net.
OPEN FORUM CLOSED
RESOLUTIONS
9:24 P.M.
MS. RYBA, Executive Director lead the Town Board through the following Part II of the Full
Environmental Assessment Form:
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, PART II
IMPACT ON LAND
NO
1. Will the proposed action result in physical change to the project site:
Examples that would apply to column 2
Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length),
or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%.
Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet.
construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles.
Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing
ground surface.
Construction that will continue for more then 1 year or involve more than one phase
or stage.
Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural
material (i.e., rock or soil) per year.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 561
Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill.
Construction in a designated floodway.
Other impacts:
2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes,
NO
geological formations, etc.)
Specific land forms:
IMPACT ON WATER
NO
3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?
Examples that would apply
Developable area of site contains a protected water body.
Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream.
Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body
Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland.
Other impacts:
NO
4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water?
Examples that would apply
A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a
10 acre increase or decrease.
Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area.
Other impacts:
NO
5. Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?
Examples that would apply
Proposed action will require a discharge permit.
Proposed action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to
serve proposed (project) action.
Proposed action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per
minute pumping capacity.
Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system.
Proposed action will adversely affect groundwater.
Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist
or have inadequate capacity.
Proposed action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day.
Proposed action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of
water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions.
Proposed action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater
than 1,100 gallons.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 562
Proposed action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer
services.
Proposed action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or
expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities.
Other impacts:.
NO
6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff?
Examples that would apply
Proposed action would change flood water flows.
Proposed action may cause substantial erosion.
Proposed action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns.
Proposed action will allow development in a designated floodway.
Other impacts:
IMPACT ON AIR
NO
7. Will proposed action affect air quality?
Examples that would apply
Proposed action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour.
Proposed action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour.
Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source
producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour.
Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial
use.
Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development
within existing industrial areas.
Other impacts:
IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
NO
8. Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?
Examples that would apply
Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the
site, over or near site or found on the site.
Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat.
Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for
agricultural purposes.
Other impacts:
NO
9. Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species?
Examples that would apply
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 563
Proposed action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish,
shellfish or wildlife species.
Proposed action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over
100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation.
IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES
NO
10. Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources?
Examples that would apply
The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes
cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.)
Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land.
The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural
land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural
land.
The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land
management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or
create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to
increased runoff)
Other impacts:
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
NO
11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources?
Examples that would apply
Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp
contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural.
Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources
which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities
of that resource.
Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of
scenic views known to be important to the area.
Other impacts:
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOCIAL RESOURCES
12. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological
NO
importance?
Examples that would apply
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to
any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places.
Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site.
Proposed action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites
on the NYS Site Inventory.
Other impacts:
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 564
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
13. Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or
NO
recreational opportunities?
Examples that would apply
The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity.
A major reduction of an open space important to the community.
Other impacts:
IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
14. Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical
NO
environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14 (g)?
List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA.
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
NO
15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
Examples that would apply
Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods.
Proposed action will result in major traffic problems.
Other impacts:
IMPACT ON ENERGY
NO
16. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply?
Examples that would apply
Proposed action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of
energy in the municipality.
Proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or
supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a
major commercial or industrial use.
Other impacts:
NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS
NO
17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action?
Examples that would apply
Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility.
Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day).
Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise
levels for noise outside of structures.
Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 565
Other impacts:
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
NO
18. Will proposed action affect public health and safety?
Examples that would apply
Proposed action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances
(i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset
conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission.
Proposed action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form (i.e.
toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.)
Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other
flammable liquids.
Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet
of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste.
Other impacts:
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
NO
19. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community?
Examples that would apply
The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located
is likely to grow by more than 5%.
The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by
more than 5% per year as a result of this project.
Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals.
Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use.
Proposed action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of
historic importance to the community.
Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools,
police and fire, etc.)
Proposed action will set an important precedent for future projects.
Proposed action will create or eliminate employment.
Other impacts:
20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse
NO
environmental impacts?
RESOLUTION ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO.: 10 OF 2004 TO AMEND
QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 179 “ZONING” TO CONVERT
ALL PARKLAND/ RECREATION ZONES – TEN ACRES (PR-10) TO
PARKLAND/ RECREATION ZONES – FORTY-TWO ACRES (PR-42)
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 566
RESOLUTION NO.: 532, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: 10 of 2004 to
amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179 entitled “Zoning,” to convert all Parkland/Recreation –
Ten Acre Zones (PR-10) to Parkland/Recreation – Forty-Two Acre Zones (PR-42), and
WHEREAS, this legislation is authorized in accordance with New York State Municipal
Home Rule Law §10 and Town Law Article 16, and
th
WHEREAS, on or about October 19, 2004, the Queensbury Planning Board considered the
proposed rezoning and adopted a Resolution recommending approval of the proposed rezoning, and
th
WHEREAS, on or about October 13, 2004, the Warren County Planning Board considered
the proposed rezoning and also recommended approval, and
WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Local Law has been presented at this meeting and is in
form approved by Town Counsel, and
th
WHEREAS, the Town Board duly held a public hearing on October 4, 2004 and heard all
interested persons, and
WHEREAS, as SEQRA Lead Agency, the Town Board has reviewed a Full Environmental
Assessment Form to analyze potential environmental impacts of the proposed Local Law,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board, after considering the proposed Local Law,
reviewing the Full Environmental Assessment Form and thoroughly analyzing the Local Law for
potential environmental concerns, determines that the Local Law will not have a significant effect
on the environment and the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to
complete the Full 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 and/or Community Development Department to file any
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 567
necessary documents in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the Department
of Environmental Conservation, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby enacts Local Law No.: 10 of 2004 as
presented at this meeting to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179 entitled “Zoning,” to
convert all Parkland/Recreation – Ten Acre Zones (PR-10) to Parkland/Recreation – Forty-Two
Acre Zones (PR-42), and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town
Clerk to file the Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the
provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and acknowledges that the Local Law will take effect
immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State.
st
Duly adopted this 1 day of November, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
LOCAL LAW NO.: 10 OF 2004
A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND CHAPTER 179 “ZONING” OF
QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE TO CONVERT ALL
PARKLAND/RECREATION ZONES – TEN ACRES (PR-10) TO
PARKLAND/RECREATION ZONES – FORTY-TWO ACRES (PR-42)
BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY AS FOLLOWS:
§
SECTION 1.
Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179, “Zoning,” 179-3-040 entitled
"Purpose and establishment of zoning districts" is hereby amended as follows:
§ 179-3-040. Purpose and establishment of zoning districts.
The zoning districts established by this chapter, subject to future amendment, including an
aggregate of all of the area of the Town, are and shall be as follows:
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 568
A. Residential Districts.
(1) Land Conservation LC-42A and LC-10A. The LC Districts encompass
areas where land has serious physical limitations to development or unique
characteristics that warrant restricting development to very low densities.
(2) Multifamily Residential MR-5. The MR-5 District is intended to provide for
an anticipated increase in demand for high density, multifamily housing and
professional office buildings in areas located near commercial services.
es
(3) Parkland Recreation PR-42A and PR-10A. The PR Districts encompass
areas where lands are controlled by municipalities and are set aside for the
protection of natural resources or recreational activities and which can
support minimal development or low-impact land uses of very low densities.
SECTION 2.
Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179, “Zoning,” Table 1 entitled "Summary
of Allowed Uses in Residential Districts" is hereby amended as attached and made part of this Local
PR-10AParkland/Recreation
Law, to delete “” under the section entitled “.”
SECTION 3.
Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179, “Zoning,” Table 4 entitled "Summary
of Dimensional/Bulk Requirements" is hereby amended as attached and made part of this Local
PR-10A
Law, to delete the section and references pertaining to “.”
SECTION 4.
The Town Zoning Map of the Town of Queensbury shall be changed so that
all properties currently zoned Parkland Recreation PR-10A shall now be, as of the effective date of
this Local Law, Parkland Recreation PR-42A.
SECTION 5.
The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph or provision of this Local
Law shall not invalidate any other clause, sentence, paragraph or part thereof.
SECTION 6.
All Local Laws or ordinances or parts of Local Laws or ordinances in
conflict with any part of this Local Law are hereby repealed.
SECTION 7.
This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing in the Office of the
New York Secretary of State as provided in New York Municipal Home Rule Law §27.
(tables 1 & 4 on file in the Town Clerk’s Office)
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 569
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING POSTING OF NO TRESPASSING SIGNS
ON TOWN PROPERTY LOCATED IN VICINITY OF JENKINSVILLE AND
MUD POND ROADS
RESOLUTION NO.: 533, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury’s Highway Superintendent has recommended the
posting of “No Trespassing” signs on Town property located in the vicinity of Jenkinsville and Mud
Pond Roads, abutting Town property that was formerly the Town’s Landfill, and
WHEREAS, the Town is concerned that public safety may be endangered by persons
trespassing on such Town property, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has management, custody and control of all Town lands in
accordance with Town Law 64(3) and lands may be protected from unauthorized use by the
§
posting of notices, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has determined that the posting of signs prohibiting
trespassing is necessary to protect the safety, health and well-being of the public,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town
Highway Superintendent, in his discretion, to purchase and post “No Trespassing” signs on Town of
Queensbury property located at located in the vicinity of Jenkinsville and Mud Pond Roads,
abutting Town property that was formerly the Town’s Landfill, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes the Town’s Budget Officer to arrange for
payment of such signs from the appropriate account, including any budget transfer or amendment to
the Town’s 2004 Budget, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Highway
Superintendent, Budget Officer and/or Town Supervisor to take any and all actions necessary to
effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 570
st
Duly adopted this 1 day of November, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO.: 518,2004 REGARDING
RELEASE OF ESCROW FUNDS IN CONNECTION WITH FARR LANE IN
INDIAN RIDGE SUBDIVISION
RESOLUTION NO.: 534, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 518,2004 the Queensbury Town Board authorized the
return of escrow funds to Tra-Tom Development, Inc., in connection with the dedication of the
remaining portion of Farr Lane in Phase III of the Indian Ridge Subdivision, which sum was the
amount of $20,000 plus any earned interest, and
WHEREAS, the Town’s Accounting Office has advised that there were still funds
remaining in escrow in connection with the dedication of a portion of Farr Lane in Phase II of the
Indian Ridge Subdivision in the amount of $17,840, and
WHEREAS, the Town’s Deputy Highway Superintendent has advised that the Developer
has completed to the Highway Superintendent’s satisfaction the top coat of the roads in both Phase
II and Phase III, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to amend Resolution No. 518,2004 to provide for the
return of escrow funds to Tra-Tom Development, Inc., in connection with the dedication of the
both Phase II and Phase III
portions of Farr Lane in of the Indian Ridge Subdivision, which total
is $37,840 plus any earned interest,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby amends Resolution No.: 518,2004 to
authorize the return of escrow funds to Tra-Tom Development, Inc., in connection with the
dedication of the portions of Farr Lane in both Phase II and Phase III of the Indian Ridge
Subdivision, in the sum of $37,840 plus any earned interest, and
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 571
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby affirms and ratifies Resolution No.: 518,2004 in
all other respects.
st
Duly adopted this 1 day of November, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING 5K RUN TO BENEFIT CAMP COMFORT
RESOLUTION NO. 535, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, the Adirondack Runners has requested authorization from the Queensbury
Town Board to conduct a 5k road race/walk to benefit Camp Comfort as follows:
SPONSOR : Adirondack Runners
EVENT : 5k Road Race/Walk
th
DATE : Saturday, December 11, 2004
TIME : 9:00 a.m.
PLACE : Beginning and ending at Hiland Golf Club
(Letter delineating course is attached);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby acknowledges receipt of proof of
insurance from the Adirondack Runners to conduct a 5k Road Race/Walk within the Town of
th
Queensbury to benefit Camp Comfort on Saturday, December 11, 2004, and
BE IT FURTHER,
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 572
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.
st
Duly adopted this 1 day of November, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ESTABLISHMENT OF RETIREMENT
CONTRIBUTION RESERVE FUND
RESOLUTION NO.: 536, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, in July of 2004, Governor Pataki and the State Legislature passed changes
to Chapter 260 of General Municipal Law, affecting a change in the payment due date for
pension contributions, various financing options for these payments, and establishing a new
retirement contribution reserve fund, and
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to establish a retirement contribution
reserve fund for the purpose of financing retirement contributions, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has available 2004 appropriated unexpended
retirement funds in the General, Cemetery, Highway, Wastewater, Water and Landfill funds, as
st
of November 1, 2004 which the Town Board wishes to utilize to establish the retirement
contribution reserve fund,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the establishment of a
retirement contribution reserve fund for the purpose of financing future retirement contributions,
and
BE IT FURTHER,
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 573
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Accounting Office
to transfer $334,000, $28,000, $122,000, $20,000, $128,500, and $21,300 to the General,
Cemetery, Highway, Wastewater, Water and Landfill Funds, respectively, to finance the
retirement contribution reserve, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Budget Officer to
transfer funds, amend the 2004 Town Budget and take such other and further action necessary to
effectuate the terms and provisions of this Resolution.
st
Duly adopted this 1 day of November, 2004 by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES : None
ABSENT : None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF PENFLEX, INC.
SERVICE AWARD PROGRAM SPECIALISTS TO PROVIDE
ADMINISTRATION AND SUPPORT SERVICES FOR 2004/2005 AND
PROVISION OF 2004 STANDARD YEAR END SERVICES
RESOLUTION NO.: 537, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to engage the services of PENFLEX,
INC. Service Award Program Specialists to provide administration and support services during
2004/2005 and the 2004 standard year end administration services for the Town of Queensbury’s
Volunteer Firefighter Service Award Program as outlined in PENFLEX’s Service Fee Agreement
presented at this meeting, and
WHEREAS, PENFLEX will provide these services for the estimated cost of $9,200,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves and authorizes the
engagement of PENFLEX, INC. to provide administration and support services during 2004/2005
and the 2004 standard year end administration services for the Town of Queensbury’s Volunteer
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 574
Firefighter Service Award Program at the estimated cost of $9,200 to be paid from the appropriate
account, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to
execute the agreement with PENFLEX, INC. presented at this meeting and take any other action
necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
st
Duly adopted this 1 day of November, 2004 by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
ABSENT : None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REMITTANCE PROCESSING
AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND EVERGREEN
BANK PROVIDING FOR LOCK BOX SERVICES
RESOLUTION NO.: 538, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 472, 2004, the Queensbury Town Board authorized a
Billing Service Agreement between the Town of Queensbury and Iliant Medbill, Inc. to provide for
third party billing in an effort to reduce the Town EMS tax, and
WHEREAS, such Billing Service Agreement stipulated that the Town of Queensbury open
and maintain a lock box and bank account for the sole purpose of receiving checks, other forms of
collections and explanation of benefits from government and third party payor entities for accounts
receivables billed by Iliant, and
WHEREAS, the Town’s Budget Officer has recommended that the Town open and
maintain such lock box and bank account at Evergreen Bank and has presented the Town with a
Remittance Processing Agreement for such lockbox services, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to enter into the Remittance Processing Agreement
with Evergreen Bank as recommended by the Town Budget Officer, substantially in the form
presented at this meeting,
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 575
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves and authorizes the
Remittance Processing Agreement between the Town of Queensbury and Evergreen Bank
substantially in the form presented at this meeting contingent upon receiving a Schedule A to such
Agreement in form acceptable to the Town Supervisor, Town Budget Officer and Town Counsel,
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to
execute the Remittance Processing Agreement and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor,
Budget Officer and/or Town Counsel to take such other and further action necessary to effectuate
the terms of this Resolution.
st
Duly adopted this 1 day of November, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE:
Councilman Boor recommended removing the words and eliminate in the first WHEREAS… Town
Board agreed and Councilman Brewer and Councilman Boor approved as amended… (vote taken)
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SETTLEMENT OF PENDING
ARTICLE 7 REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CASES
COMMENCED BY FRANK J. PARILLO
RESOLUTION NO.: 539, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, Frank J. Parillo (Parillo) previously commenced Article 7 Real Property
Assessment Review cases against the Town in 2003 and 2004 concerning assessments on properties
located on Corinth and Big Bay Roads, Queensbury (Tax Map Nos.: 309.13-2-2; 309.13-2-3;
309.13-2-4; 309.13-2-6; 309.13-2-7; 309.13-2-8; 309.13-2-9;), and
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 576
WHEREAS, the Town Assessor has recommended a settlement proposal to the Town Board
and the Town Board has reviewed the cases with Town Counsel, and
WHEREAS, the Board of the Queensbury Union Free School District has approved the
proposed settlement,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the settlement which will
result in the revised assessments for both 2003 and 2004 as set forth in the following schedule:
Applicable
Current Revised Assessment
Tax Map No. Address Assessment Assessment Years .
309.13-2-2 199 Corinth Road $308,000 $300,000 2003 & 2004
309.13-2-3 203 Corinth Road $ 98,000 $ 40,000 2003 & 2004
309.13-2-4 Corinth Road $ 25,000 $ 15,000 2003 & 2004
309.13-2-6 Big Bay Road $ 17,000 $ 9,000 2003 & 2004
309.13.-2-7 Big Bay Road $ 16,600 $ 9,000 2003 & 2004
309.13-2-8 Big Bay Road $ 16,800 $ 9,000 2003 & 2004
309.13-2-9 Big Bay Road $ 33,500 $ 18,000 2003 & 2004
TOTAL: $514,900 $400,000
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs payment of any and all refunds
without interest to Parillo within forty-five (45) days from the date that a Demand for Refunds is
served upon the Town, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor,
Town Assessor, Budget Officer and/or Town Counsel to execute settlement documents and take any
additional steps necessary to effectuate the proposed settlement in accordance with the terms of this
Resolution.
st
Duly adopted this 1 day of November, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner
NOES : None
ABSENT : None
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 577
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL
LAW NO. __ OF 2004 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE
CHAPTER 136 “SEWERS AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL” ARTICLE IV,
“ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS”
RESOLUTION NO. : 540, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: __ of 2004 to
amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 136 entitled “Sewers and Sewage Disposal,” Article IV,
“Administrative Provisions,” to add a provision that should the Town of Queensbury’s Local Board
of Health refer a sewage disposal variance application to a professional consultant for expert review
and recommendation, any costs incurred in such review shall be paid to the Town by the applicant
before any granted variance becomes effective, and
WHEREAS, this legislation is authorized in accordance with New York State Municipal
Home Rule Law §10 and Town Law Article 16, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to set a public hearing concerning adoption of this
Local Law,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall meet and hold a public hearing at the
th
Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury at 7:00 p.m. on November 29, 2004 to
hear all interested persons and take any necessary action provided by law concerning proposed
Local Law No.: ___ of 2004, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town
Clerk to publish and post a Notice of Public Hearing concerning proposed Local Law No. __ of
2004 in the manner provided by law.
st
Duly adopted this 1 day of November, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 578
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INTERMUNICIPAL AGREEMENT
FOR EMERGENCY WATER SERVICES BETWEEN TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY AND CITY OF GLENS FALLS
RESOLUTION NO.: 541, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury (Town) and City of Glens Falls (City) maintain water
systems and provide water to users within their respective borders, and
WHEREAS, the City also supplies water to users on Fort Amherst Road in the Queensbury
Consolidated Water District, on Western Avenue in the Town and to Town residents in other areas,
which users are billed directly by the City at rates in excess of those charged to City residents, and
WHEREAS, the City owns certain property located in the Town of Queensbury in an area
generally known as Cole’s Woods, and
WHEREAS, the Town previously installed a 20” water connection pipe between the
Town’s 24” water main and the City’s 20” water main at the City’s lower junction in proximity to
the water tanks constructed on the Cole’s Woods properties, and
WHEREAS, with existing piping, the interconnection will accommodate a regular flow of
about 2.5 million gallons daily, and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the interconnection project is to provide an emergency
interconnection back-up system between the two municipalities, and
WHEREAS, the Town and City wish to extend and continue their spirit of cooperation for
the mutual benefit of Town and City constituents and residents by entering into a short term mutual
contract for the provision of emergency water service, and
WHEREAS, a proposed Intermunicipal Agreement for Emergency Water Services has been
presented at this meeting and the Town Board and Water Superintendent feel that such Agreement
would be in the best interests of the Town, its residents and the Consolidated Water District,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 579
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the Intermunicipal
Agreement for Emergency Water Services with the City of Glens Falls substantially in the form
presented at this meeting, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to
execute the Intermunicipal Agreement for Emergency Water Services and authorizes the Town
Supervisor, Water Superintendent, Budget Officer and Town Counsel to take such other and further
action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
st
Duly adopted this 1 day of November, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TOWN SUPERVISOR TO SIGN FIRST
AMENDED STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT IN
CONNECTION WITH SALE OF WATER TO TOWN OF MOREAU
RESOLUTION NO.: 542, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 492,98 the Queensbury Town Board entered into an
Intermunicipal Agreement with the Town of Moreau for the sale of water, and
WHEREAS, such Intermunicipal Agreement was contingent upon the Town of Moreau
achieving a settlement with General Electric of its federal and state court lawsuits and its creation of
a new water district for the Town of Moreau’s affected area, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Moreau achieved a settlement with General Electric, designed and
constructed and operates and maintains a water system connected to the Town of Queensbury’s
water supply, and complied with the terms of the settlement with General Electric, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Moreau still has an unexpended balance in its Escrow Account
from settlement funds it received from General Electric, and the Town of Moreau and General
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 580
Electric wish to enter into an Amended Stipulation and Order of Settlement to set forth the terms of
how the Town of Moreau may use unexpended funds to cover operation and maintenance expenses
of its water system or water improvements, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Moreau has presented the Town of Queensbury with such First
Amended Stipulation and Order of Settlement (Stipulation) as it must also be executed by the Town
of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, such Stipulation does not affect the Town of Queensbury in any negative way,
and
WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Stipulation has been presented at this meeting and is in
form acceptable to the Town’s Water Superintendent and Counsel,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the First Amended
Stipulation and Order of Settlement referred to in the preambles of this Resolution and as presented
at this meeting, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to
execute the Stipulation and take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of
this Resolution.
st
Duly adopted this 1 day of November, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE:
Town Counsel Hafner-The Town of Queensbury entered into a contract with the Town of Moreau
to provide water to them some years ago, as they needed to have water from us because of problems
with the water that they said was due to GE polluting the water. They had to put in their own water
district and we were the source of water. We entered into that agreement, part of their financing for
that and for other water infrastructure things in the Town of Moreau was GE, they got I think, it was
five million dollars from GE, they got a bunch of rules on how they could spend it. Part of the
settlement with GE was a requirement that we signed, as part of the stipulation only to the fact that
we had sufficient water to meet our obligations under the contract. That was not a big issue, we
wouldn’t have signed the contract if we couldn’t meet our obligation. That’s the only part that we
were involved in that stipulation, we had no obligations at all except to say that we had water that
we could provide them. That contract as most contracts have, have a provision that it can not be
changed without all the parties who signed it agreeing. So, now the Town of Moreau wants to get
the last million dollars from, of their money and they are going to use it to expand their water
districts inside the Town of Moreau. We hope, and I was talking with Ralph, we hope that that’s
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 581
going to lead to increased water use for the Town of Queensbury but as far as I see it, it’s purely a
thing between GE and the Town of Moreau but officially we have to also sign because of, we were
involved in the last stipulation. This promises nothing. The only thing we do is sign that we agree
that we’re signing and we agree that they should be able to do that…. (vote taken)
MS. RYBA, Executive Director lead the Town Board through the following Part II of the Short
Environmental Assessment Form:
NO
A, Does action exceed any type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.4?
B, Will action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?
NO
C, Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the
following:
C1, Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels,
existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion,
NO
drainage or flooding problems?
C2, aesthetic, agriculture, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural
NO
resources; or community or neighborhood character?
C3, Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or
NO
threatened or endangered species?
C4, A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use
NO
or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?
C5, Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by
NO
the proposed action?
C6, Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1-C5?
NO
C7, Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of
NO
energy)?
D. Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the
NO
establishment of a CEA?
E, Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?
NO
RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
AND REAFFIRMING ENACTMENT OF LOCAL LAW NO. 6 OF 2004 TO
AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 179 “ZONING” TO
CREATE AN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES OVERLAY DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO. 543, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 582
th
WHEREAS, after duly conducting a public hearing on July 26, 2004, the Queensbury
Town Board, by Resolution No. 364, 2004, enacted Local Law No. 6 of 2004 to amend Queensbury
Town Code Chapter 179 entitled “Zoning,” Article 4 entitled "Schedule of Regulations" by adding a
new section 179-4-110 entitled “Underground Utilities Overlay District,” to create an Underground
Utilities Overlay District in the Town of Queensbury (Local Law), and
WHEREAS, such legislation is authorized in accordance with New York State Municipal
Home Rule Law §10 and Town Law Article 16, and
WHEREAS, the Executive Director of Community Development forwarded copies of the
Local Law and Resolution to the Warren County and Town of Queensbury Planning Boards for
review and recommendation, and
th
WHEREAS, on or about October 26, 2004, the Queensbury Planning Board considered the
Local Law and adopted a Resolution recommending approval of the Local Law, and
th
WHEREAS, on or about September 8, 2004, the Warren County Planning Board also
considered the Local Law and recommended approval, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to conduct a State Environmental Quality Review Act
(SEQRA) environmental review of the Local Law, and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Local Law and Short Environmental Assessment Form have
been presented at this meeting and are in form approved by Town Counsel,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board, after considering Local Law No. 6 of 2004
to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179 entitled “Zoning,” Article 4 entitled "Schedule of
Regulations" by adding a new section 179-4-110 entitled “Underground Utilities Overlay District,”
to create an Underground Utilities Overlay District in the Town of Queensbury, reviewing the
Environmental Assessment Form and thoroughly analyzing the Local Law for potential
environmental concerns, determines that the Local Law 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 Local Law
will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 583
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, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby reaffirms enactment of Local Law No. 6 of 2004
to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179 entitled “Zoning,” Article 4 entitled "Schedule of
Regulations" by adding a new section 179-4-110 entitled “Underground Utilities Overlay District,”
to create an Underground Utilities Overlay District in the Town of Queensbury as presented at this
meeting, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town
Clerk to file the Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the
provisions of the Municipal Home Rule.
st
Duly adopted this 1 day of November, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
LOCAL LAW NO.: 6, OF 2004
A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND CHAPTER 179 “ZONING” OF
QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE TO CREATE AN
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES OVERLAY DISTRICT
BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179, “Zoning,” Article 4 entitled "Schedule
of Regulations" is hereby amended by adding a new section 179-4-110 as follows:
§ 179-4-110. Underground Utilities Overlay District.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 584
A. Purpose and Findings. The Town of Queensbury is currently experiencing
significant new construction and reconstruction in developed areas which
involve either installation or relocation of electric, telephone, cable television
and telecommunication utility lines. Placement of these utilities
underground would improve the safety and welfare of Town residents and
visitors for several reasons. A multitude of utility poles close to the street
constitutes a traffic hazard by increasing visual clutter and the likelihood of
accidents related to the resulting distraction as well as by presenting a
collision obstacle for vehicles which leave the lane of travel for any reason.
Utility poles and overhead utility lines also pose a threat to public safety as
they are vulnerable to being downed by ice and wind storms. Finally, the
appearance of the major arterials in the Town contributes significantly to the
overall impression of the community held by residents, visitors and
commuters. Placing utilities underground will improve this general
perception and positively impact the appeal of the community. This Local
Law is intended to provide these benefits by requiring the placement of
electric, telephone, cable television and telecommunication utilities
underground within the overlay district.
B. Definitions.
“Utility Lines” shall mean transmission, trunk and lateral distribution lines,
including electric, telephone, cable television, telecommunication and
all other wires and cables.
C. Creation of Overlay District. An overlay district is hereby created to be known as
the Underground Utilities Overlay District which include all properties
located within 125 feet of the centerline of the following roads:
1. Warren County Route 28 (Main Street) from Exit 18 of the Adirondack
Northway (NYS Route I-87) to the City of Glens Falls municipal boundary;
2. NYS Route 9 from NYS Route 149 to the City of Glens Falls municipal
boundary;
3. All of Quaker Road (NYS Route 254) lying within the Town; and
4. Aviation Road (NYS Route 254) from west of the bridge over the Adirondack
Northway (NYS Route I-87) to NYS Route 9.
D. Undergrounding Required. Any utility lines within the Underground Utilities
Overlay District which are required to be relocated in connection with any
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 585
construction project and any new utility lines to be installed within the
Overlay District shall be installed underground. Utility companies shall
obtain all necessary approvals and permits prior to commencement of
construction. Wherever practicable, trenches through utility easements shall
be occupied jointly by electric and telecommunication utility lines.
Whenever main distribution and trunk utility lines are located or relocated
underground, lateral distribution lines from those lines to individual
structures shall also be located or relocated underground. All new or
relocated lateral distribution lines shall be located underground whether or
not the main distribution and trunk lines are underground.
E. Removal of Existing Poles and Overhead Lines. The utility company which owns
existing utility poles and overhead utility lines shall remove such poles and
lines immediately following installation and activation of the underground
lines.
SECTION 2.
The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph or provision of this Local
Law shall not invalidate any other clause, sentence, paragraph or part thereof.
SECTION 4.
All Local Laws or ordinances or parts of Local Laws or ordinances in
conflict with any part of this Local Law are hereby repealed.
SECTION 5.
This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing in the Office of the
New York Secretary of State as provided in New York Municipal Home Rule Law §27.
RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2004 BUDGET
RESOLUTION NO.: 544, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, the attached Budget Amendment Requests have been duly initiated and
justified and are deemed compliant with Town operating procedures and accounting practices by the
Town Budget Officer,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 586
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town
Budget Officer’s Office to take all action necessary to transfer funds and amend the 2004 Town
Budget as follows:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT:
001-3620-2020 001-3620-4410 1,041.
(Vehicles) (Fuel)
HIGHWAY
FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT:
04-5130-2050 04-5130-4510 400.
(Radio Equipment) (Radio Repair)
WASTEWATER
FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT:
032-1680-2032 032-8110-4010 100.
(Computer Software) (Office Supplies)
032-1680-2032 032-8110-4030 100.
(Computer Software) (Postage)
032-1680-2032 032-8110-4105 200.
(Computer Software) (Mobile Communication)
032-1680-2032 032-8120-4110 200.
(Computer Software) (Vehicle Repair & Maintenance)
032-8120-4440 032-8120-2001 2,000.
(Sewer Line Maint.) (Misc. Equipment)
WATER
FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT:
40-8340-2899 40-8310-4791 2,930.
(Capital Const.) (Equip. Maint.)
40-8340-2899 40-8310-4400 2,000.
(Capital Const.) (Misc. Cont.)
40-1680-4791 40-8310-4190 750.
(Equip. Maint. Contr.) (Admin. Refunds)
VARIOUS
FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT:
001-1990-4400 001-1410-4080 2,000.
(Contingency) (Legal Ads)
004-9080-8080 004-5110-4620 5,000.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 587
(Vacation Accruals) (Paving)
001-1315-2032 001-1315-2001 102.
(Computer Software) (Misc. Equipment)
001-1315-1035 001-1315-2032 3,079.
(Comptroller) (Computer Software)
st
Duly adopted this 1 day of November, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS –
TH
ABSTRACT OF OCTOBER 28, 2004
RESOLUTION NO.: 545, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve the audit of bills presented as
thnd
the Abstract with a run date of October 28, 2004 and a payment date of November 2, 2004,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Abstract with a run
thnd
date of October 28, 2004 and payment date of November 2, 2004 numbering 24-483300 through
24-505000 and totaling $579,369.28, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Budget Officer and/or
Town Supervisor to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of
this Resolution.
st
Duly adopted this 1 day of November, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 588
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF WESTBERRY WAY AND
WOODSHIRE COURT IN PINE RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION
RESOLUTION NO. 546, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHEREAS, Burnt Hills, LLC has offered deeds to dedicate Westberry Way and Woodshire
Court in the Pine Ridge Estates Subdivision to the Town of Queensbury as described in a Survey
prepared by VanDusen & Steves, Land Surveyors, LLC, dated September 29, 2004, and
WHEREAS, the Town Highway Superintendent has inspected the roads, advised that the
roads are complete with binder and topcoat and has recommended their acceptance contingent upon
Burnt Hills, LLC completing the road proposed to be connected to the Schiavone Subdivision
st
within five years or by November 1, 2009, and addressing any necessary drainage easements, and
WHEREAS, the Town Highway Superintendent reviewed the subdivision map and
determined that there do not seem to be any necessary drainage easements for these two roads, and
WHEREAS, Burnt Hills, LLC has provided the Town with a $8,750 cash escrow to ensure
st
completion of the connector road to the Schiavone Subdivision by November 1, 2009, and
WHEREAS, the Town Water Superintendent has confirmed that installation of water mains
and appurtenances has been made in accordance with Town Water Department standards, and
WHEREAS, Burnt Hills, LLC has offered a deed to two parcels called “Avoidance Area”
and “Mitigation Area” to dedicate such property to the Town of Queensbury as described in the
Subdivision Plan/Survey prepared by Nace Engineering and VanDusen & Steves, Land Surveyors,
LLC, final revision date of March 17, 2004, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury plans to use some or all of such property for Karner
Blue Butterfly Habitat and to allow the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC) to clear all or part of such property for such purpose, and
WHEREAS, Richard Schermerhorn has agreed to remove three piles of garbage from the
Avoidance Area and Mitigation Area at his own expense when DEC is on such property for
construction and clearing, and
WHEREAS, the form of the deeds and title to the roads, Avoidance Area and Mitigation
Area offered for dedication have been reviewed by Town Counsel,
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 589
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby accepts and approves the deed(s) for
dedication of Westberry Way and Woodshire Court in the Pine Ridge Estates Subdivision, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute,
sign and affix the Town seal to any and all documents necessary to complete the transaction
including an Escrow Agreement in form acceptable to Town Counsel and the Town Budget Officer,
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs Burnt Hills, LLC to record
the deed(s) in the Warren County Clerk's Office, after which time the deed(s) shall be properly filed
and maintained in the Queensbury Town Clerk’s Office, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to add the
roads to the official inventory of Town Highways as follows:
Name: Westberry Way Road Number: 545
Description: Beginning at Upper Sherman Avenue and continuing a distance of 2300 feet
and .435 hundredths of a mile and ending at a dead end.
Feet: 2300’ and .435 of a mile .
Name: Woodshire Court Road Number: 546
Description: Beginning at Upper Sherman Avenue and continuing in a southerly direction
a distance of 1125 feet and .213 hundredths of a mile and ending at
Westberry Way.
Feet: 1125’ and .213 of a mile .
st
Duly adopted this 1 day of November, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
ABSENT: None
NOES : None
Regular Town Board Meeting, 11-01-2004, Mtg #51 590
TH
RESOLUTION RESCHEDULING DECEMBER 6, 2004 TOWN BOARD
TH
REGULAR MEETING TO NOVEMBER 29, 2004
RESOLUTION NO.: 547, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, the Town Supervisor wishes to reschedule the Town Board’s Regular Meeting
thth
presently scheduled for December 6 to November 29, 2004,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the rescheduling of the
thth
December 6, 2004 Regular Town Board Meeting to November 29, 2004.
st
Duly adopted this 1 day of November, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN TOWN BOARD MEETING
RESOLUTION NO.: 548, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED IT’S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns it’s Regular
Town Board Meeting.
st
Duly adopted this 1 day of November, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
No further action taken.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
DARLEEN M. DOUGHER
TOWN CLERK, TOWN OF QUEENSBURY