Loading...
2004-03-15 MTG13 409 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG. #13 March 15, 2004 RES. 157-177 7:00 p.m. BOH. 5-6 TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC COUNCILMAN ROBER BOOR COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER TOWN OFFICIALS Town Counsel Mark Schachner Director of Community Development Chris Round Water/Wastwater Supt. Ralph VanDusen Sr. Planner Marilyn Ryba Assistant Director of Parks and Rec. Steve Lovering Director of Technology Bob Keenan PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC RESOLUTION CALL FOR QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 157. 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves into the Queensbury Board of Health. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2004 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: None QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE APPLICATION OF STEVE AND DEBBY SEABOYER RESOLUTION NO.: 5. 2004 BOH INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor 410 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board serves as the Town’s Local Board of Health and is authorized by Town Code Chapter 136 to issue variances from the Town’s On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, and WHEREAS, Steve and Debby Seaboyer have applied to the Local Board of Health for a variance from Chapter 136 to install a sewage disposal system 82.35’ from Lake George instead of the required 100’ setback on property located at 83 Rockhurst Road, Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury will hold th a public hearing on April 5, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, to consider Steve and Debby Seaboyer sewage disposal variance application concerning property located at 83 Rockhurst Road, Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 227.13-2-36) and at that time all interested persons will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish the Notice of Public Hearing presented at this meeting and send a copy of the Notice to neighbors located within 500 feet of Mr. and Mrs. Seaboyer’s property as required by law. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ADJOURING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 6.2004 BOH INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns its meeting. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2004 by the following vote: 411 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: None REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 2.1 PUBLIC HEARING –Application For Community Development Block Grant Funds Through New York State Small Cities Program NOTICE SHOWN Senior Planner Marilyn Ryba-Good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen and the Audience as well. Tonight is the first of two public hearings scheduled for an application for Community Development Block Grants funds through the New York State Small Cities nd Program. The second public hearing is scheduled for March 22. next Monday evening. The first one we are required to by the State Community, by the State Small Cities program to discuss the over all needs and priorities that we see in the community here as well as explain what is involved on the State level with these funds. How much total funding is available, the type of grants that we could apply for, who is eligible for the program and then the eligible activities. So, I will go through that first and then secondly I would like to discuss a little bit about what we are thinking and then hopefully get some takers from the audience who will also give us some ideas. On the general level there is fifty two million dollars available through the small cities program this year. These for non entitlement communities that means that we compete with usually about three hundred other municipalities in the State for this funding less, fewer than one hundred are funded each year. So, it is a competitive type of program. This is in contrast to entitlement communities of which Glens Falls is one so the City of Glens Falls automatically gets money through the Community Development Block Grant Program, Queensbury does not. About sixty percent of that money is for housing, public facilities, micro enterprise type programs, thirty five percent is for economic development programs and then five percent is used for technical assistance. We did receive some funding last year to put together an affordable housing strategy so that is very useful for us because since it is something that the State Community of, excuse me, State small cities program funded we get to point to that and say we have completed our study and our evaluation of the community and you funded this remember, so please fund us now in the future now that we have all of this identified. The types of grants that are available are single purpose grants we can apply for a maximum of one hundred thousand dollars which we intend to do. There is a maximum of six hundred thousand dollars if there is a joint application or for counties. The money can be used for housing, public facilities, economic development as I discussed earlier. Comprehensive applications can be for a combination of those activities. Eligibility, there are three broad national objectives, funds can be used for projects of at least fifty one percent of the beneficiaries are households that incomes eighty percent below the median income for the area. I do have copies available of what those latest income eligibility requirements are and they are at the front table and I think I attached those in your packages as well. Funds can be used for projects which address slums or blighted conditions and funds can also be used to address problems where there is an immediate threat to health and safety. Over all community program must allocate seventy percent of its money to persons to benefit persons of low or moderate income. So, typically that is what we have done in the past, we have only received one of these grants in the past that was in 2001 and we are just about completed with that program. What else can I tell you here, under housing eligibly activities include housing rehabilitation, new construction, direct home ownership assistance, in terms of counseling and home maintenance and that type of thing. Private water, wastewater system assistance, public facilities for things such as wastewater collection and treatment, floor control, storm water drainage but not for buildings for the general conduct of government. So, for example we could not build a new town office with any of these funds. Micro enterprise, that is to address businesses employing five or fewer people and then the comprehensive projects which could be a combination of those 412 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 things. So, that is the type of, or those or the types of activities that would be eligible for funding. What we are looking to do based on the affordable housing strategy is continue the home improvement program. We did identify that people who live in West Glens Falls and South Queensbury have the lowest income in the community based on 2000 census data so they would meet the eligibility of having incomes of less than 80% of the median for the Glens Falls Metropolitan Statistical Area. We did a couple of weeks ago put in an advertisement in the paper asking people, from those two areas to complete surveys. We have had a tremendous response, we have had almost one hundred inquiries based on that advertisement. In addition to the names of people that I have collected though out the past couple of years who have been looking for some kind of assistance but have not been able to fit into our current target area, which is very small. We did have a visit from the Deputy Director of the Small Cities Program a couple of weeks ago and I think he was very pleased. We showed him what we did do so that looks very favorable for us as well. I think that is about all I have, I do have some additional surveys here if anybody is interested. I do have an outline of what was discussed and then as I said the next public hearing we can get into some of the more specific items, regarding the application that we would like to have and have the Board agree to a resolution to forward it onto the Small Cities Program. The applications are due April thnd 5 , we intend to have ours completed April 2. Thank you. Supervisor Stec-Thank you. Town Board Members any questions for Marilyn? All right I will open the public hearing. Any members of the public that would like to speak on the Community Development Block Grant Fund Application as Marilyn is briefing? Anybody? I did not think there would be any. Anything from Town Board Members on nd it. Our next public hearing, the second of the two public hearings will be on the 22 which is next Monday night at a workshop meeting so we will have a workshop meeting then you would be looking for us to take action next Monday? I told you it would make him nervous. Councilman Brewer-I am not nervous at all. Supervisor Stec- You are not happy. Sr. Planner Marilyn Ryba-It is an advertised public hearing, so Supervisor Stec-I do not have a problem with it. Sr. Planner Marilyn Ryba- You could forward a resolution tonight unless Town Counsel states otherwise, that is a possibility. Supervisor Stec-I would rather not. I would rather not do that tonight I would rather have the second public hearing and take action. Sr. Planner Marilyn Ryba-All the resolution will do is authorize putting forth a grant application for assistance, it doesn’t specify the content. Supervisor Stec-I am sure we will entertain it and we have done it before, I know we normally try to avoid taking formal action on resolutions at our workshops but we have done it before, it is allowed it is certainly legal but as a general practice we don’t. Some board members are more concerned about that than others and with reason. I would just add that I would like to thank Marilyn and Chris and the Planning Department Staff for their effort that you all put in, not only on this particular application that you are working on but also the one that we received a few years ago that we are wrapping up funding. Saturday, Councilman Brewer and I were out touring the Town on a couple of other related matters and we did get a chance to talk to one person who is a beneficiary of the current program. I can tell you it is being very well received in the community both from a practical sense and also from how we are using these funds and how we are managing the grant that we have been awarded. I am hopeful that we are going to be competitive for our next, our next application but as you pointed out, it certainly isn’t a sure thing. Sr. Planner Marilyn Ryba-Regarding our current status we have less than fifty thousand dollars left which will be expended or committed within the next two weeks, so it is 413 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 st about finished up, we have until July 1 to complete it so we are well within the time frame. Supervisor Stec-All right thank you Marilyn. If there is no other comment we can move to our next public hearing. Marilyn do I leave the public hearing open or do I close it and we have to have two right? Town Counsel Schachner-There is another public hearing. Supervisor Stec-So, I will close the public hearing for now in anticipation of another public hearing a week from tonight on the same matter. 2.2 PUBLIC HEARING – Bill Bunting’s Performance Custom Trailers, Inc.’s Request To Shift Operations From the Town of Queensbury To The Warrensburg Industrial Park Located in The Warren County Empire Zone NOTICE SHOWN Supervisor Stec-Is Mr. Bunting or anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? I am not sure that it is necessarily required but, is anyone here representing this application, probably not. All right, this is an application, we have actually two of these tonight, we talked about them a little bit two weeks ago when we set the public hearing for tonight. This is concerning, each of these concerns a Queensbury business that is going to relocate outside of Queensbury to another part of Warren County that is also, they are also applying for the Empire Zone. In order to be eligible for the Empire Zone while moving within the same County, Queensbury has to essentially release them from the Town in order to leave the Town and get the Empire Zone within the County. This first one is regarding Custom Trailers which is on Lockhart Mountain Road would be leaving there to expand operations to Warrensburg. With that said, I will open the public hearing and if there is anyone that would like to comment on this zone in the audience on this particular move out of Queensbury to Warrensburg for Bill Buntings Custom Trailers Inc. please come forward. Anybody? Any comments from staff, Chris or Mark? Did I hit the nail on the head with those? Town Counsel Schachner-That is what is required, that is a perfect .. Supervisor Stec-Any comments or questions from the Town Board Members? No comment. Supervisor Stec-We have talked about this before and while we are sad to see a business leave Queensbury it happens to be under good circumstances so hopefully it will be good for the individual business and good for the County. With that I will close the Public Hearing. Entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING BILL BUNTING’S PERFORMANCE CUSTOM TRAILERS, INC.’S REQUEST TO SHIFT OPERATIONS FROM TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO WARRENSBURG INDUSTRIAL PARK LOCATED IN WARREN COUNTY EMPIRE ZONE RESOLUTION NO.: 158. 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer 414 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS,Bill Bunting’s Performance Custom Trailers, Inc., (Bunting) has manufactured trailers in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, Bunting currently has four (4) full-time employees, and WHEREAS, restrictions at Bunting’s current Town of Queensbury site prevent expansion and job creation due to the size and scope of its building, its proximity to a residential neighborhood and its need for a retail operation, and WHEREAS, Bunting has decided to relocate from its site on Lockhart Mountain Road to the Warrensburg Industrial Park as Bunting could not find a preferred space to conduct its business within the Town of Queensbury, and § WHEREAS, in accordance with New York State General Municipal Law 959 (a)(iii), Bunting must secure the approval of the Town of Queensbury in order to relocate to the Warrensburg Industrial Park located in the Warren County Empire Zone, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board duly conducted a public hearing and th heard all interested persons on March 15, 2004 concerning Bunting’s proposed relocation, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT § RESOLVED, in accordance with New York State General Municipal Law 959 (a)(iii), the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the proposal by Bill Bunting’s Performance Custom Trailers, Inc., to shift its operations from Lockhart Mountain Road to the Warrensburg Industrial Park located in the Warren County Empire Zone, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to sign any documentation and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2004 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec 415 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 NOES : None ABSENT : None Discussion held after vote: Councilman Boor-In the case of the Bunting’s he is leaving a non conforming use and there was some question at the last time we discussed this as to how long that, does that use stay with the property the non conforming aspect of it or is there time frame? Town Counsel Schachner-Yes to both. Yes the property has been utilized as a non conforming use that stays with the property but there is termination 18 months … 2.3 PUBLIC HEARING –TV-8’s Request To Shift Operations From The Town of Queensbury To The City Of Glens Falls Located In The Warren County Empire Zone NOTICE SHOWN Supervisor Stec-Is anyone from TV-8 here Mike Collins I know is one of the partners down there at TV-8. Operations staff is present tonight. Again, this is a similar resolution to the one before it. TV-8 on Quaker Road is going to, is requesting to leave Queensbury go to Glens Falls in the downtown area not too far from JE Sawyers and the Civic Center. They have got issues where the move would certainly help their, the strength of their transmission so it would improve their operations. They too are expanding and while the Town would miss them certainly it would be good for the area and good for the business. With that I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone that would like to comment about the Town releasing TV-8 from Queensbury to go and move its operations down to Glens Falls. Nobody? Anything from staff? Anything from Town Board Members? Ok. Again, so we certainly wish them well and success, it sounds like things are going well for them which is why they are growing and leaving. So, hopefully we will be able to bring somebody in, in their place and I am sure we will be able to do that. With that, I will close the public hearing and call for the vote, that is right, entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING TV-8’S REQUEST TO SHIFT OPERATIONS FROM TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO CITY OF GLENS FALLS LOCATED IN WARREN COUNTY EMPIRE ZONE RESOLUTION NO.: 159. 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS,TV-8 is an FCC-licensed, low power, Class A commercial television station located within the Town of Queensbury and serving Warren, Washington and Northern Saratoga Counties, and WHEREAS, TV-8 currently has four (4) full-time employees, and 416 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 WHEREAS, TV-8 has decided to relocate from its site on Quaker Road to the City of Glens Falls in order to: 1) be closer to the main downtown transmitter and Civic Center in order to improve its signal; 2) facilitate live, downtown programming; 3) improve its visibility; and 4) produce more local programs and improve current ones, thereby increasing employment, and WHEREAS, TV-8 could not find a comparable space to conduct its business within the Town of Queensbury, and § WHEREAS, in accordance with New York State General Municipal Law 959 (a)(iii), TV-8 must secure the approval of the Town of Queensbury in order to relocate to the City of Glens Falls located in the Warren County Empire Zone, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board duly conducted a public hearing and th heard all interested persons on March 15, 2004 concerning the Company’s proposed relocation, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT § RESOLVED, in accordance with New York State General Municipal Law 959 (a)(iii), the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the proposal by TV-8 to shift its operations from Quaker Road, Queensbury to the City of Glens Falls located in the Warren County Empire Zone, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to sign any documentation and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2004 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT : None 2.4 PUBLIC HEARING - Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Company, Inc.’s Proposal To Purchase American LaFrance Custom Eagle Tanker Truck 417 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 NOTICE SHOWN Supervisor Stec-I know that somebody is here to speak on behalf of this public hearing, Chief Mellon, I see you are bring you heavy artillery, Mr. Paul Pontiff Esquire. Unknown-They do not need heavy artillery. They do very well on their own. Supervisor Stec-I am sure I speak for the five us we can agree with that. Good evening Gentlemen. Attorney Paul Pontiff-I will introduce myself I am Paul Pontiff I am here representing Bay Ridge with respect to their application. I know most of the members here except I have not met everybody formally. Escentially I think the newspaper article this morning said pretty much everything that needed to be said. It indicated that the new tanker would cost $356,000 dollars, and that it was an intent by the Fire Company to replace a 1985 truck which is by the way standard geared and I do not know how many of you realize this but there are a lot of people that do not know how to operate a standard gear vehicle. This one is even more complex because of the way the thing is geared. So, it is helpful if you have an automatic. But, in addition to that the truck is a 1985 vehicle and certainly it is time to be replaced. The new truck would cost three fifty six as I indicated the fire company would take two hundred and twenty five thousand from it’s restricted vehicle account and apply that against the new vehicle. They would sell the old truck we do not at this point, I do not have any idea what it would go for but maybe Chip does and he could give us some insight into that. The balance then would be financed through a lease purchase arrangement. That is the guts of what we are talking about. Supervisor Stec-Chief Mellon, anything you would like to add before we open the public hearing? Chief Mellon-Paul highlighted most of the information about the truck, it is a 1985 it does have a manual transmission with a two speed rear axle which does make it very difficult to drive. At this point we have approximately twenty five percent of our members that can actually drive the truck because it is a manual transmission. The new truck would provide several of the features that this one doesn’t, the major factor being that it is an automatic transmission. It also would have an auxiliary braking systems a Jacobs Engine Brake, which provides extra braking power and due to the amount of water that is being carried on it the size of the apparatus it is definitely a safety consideration. It will conform to the modern NFPA regulations for fire apparatus, which is the National Fire Protection Association and also the standard on water supplies it will conform to that as well. Anybody that doesn’t know basically our district is composed of about twenty five percent hydranted and about seventy five percent of the district has no hydrants, so we are dependent of this to bring the water supply with us. I do not know how much you want me to get in if you want me to get into all the specifics or I can answer questions later on or whatever works for you. Supervisor Stec-I know the Town Board covered some of the specs with you I do not know. I do not think we necessarily need to hear you go through all the specs of the truck again. I think you could do a fair introduction of what we are talking about tonight. Unless you have anything else to add I would at this point probably move onto the public hearing and let you answer questions as they come up that might not be a bad idea if you want to stay near the front row and jot down what the questions might be and we will have you come back after we get some. With that I will open the public hearing, again we are talking about an engine tanker for Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Company replacing a 1985 tanker. I believe that most of the Town Board has been up to see the existing tanker and we have had a workshop with Bay Ridge on this and I am sure that we have had individual conversations between board members and leadership of the fire department. With that is there anyone in the public that would like to come up comment for or against, questions, answers. Yes, Sir, Mr. Ryan. How are you doing Mr. Ryan? Mr. George Ryan-Very Good. I am George Ryan, I would just like to support the truck and the fire department. If you guys take a look on the northern part of our town the houses are getting bigger there is more and more houses and this tanker is just not going 418 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 to be for this little part of the town. If there is a fire these guys are willing, they are waiting for it, I mean we are lucky to have a fire department like we have. These guys are there waiting. The truck is my no means a piece of junk truck and we say oh well lets sell it, maybe we could give it to one of the local communities next to us and if there is a fire they could fill it and bring it to us. Maybe we could help somebody else with the old one. I think that it is very important that they get the new tanker and we go on with the future. The Town is growing and we could really use it. Thank you. Supervisor Stec-Thank you Sir. Anyone else like to speak on the tanker, public hearing? Anybody? I wonder what everybody is here for? All right anybody, the public hearing on the tanker? Unknown-Could you answer a question, how many miles are on the tanker? Supervisor Stec-It would be better if you come to the microphone and I know that you are going to say it is the hours not the miles but I will let you, if you would just for the purpose of the record, your name and address for the record. Mr. Brian Granger-Brian Granger, 63 Wincoma Lane, Queensbury. Supervisor Stec-I did not get a chance to return your call today, I have been, a Granger called me, it was a different Granger, sorry. Mr. Granger-I was just curious how many miles or hours are on the one we are replacing and also I realize all of the fire departments got new buildings now I would kind of like to see the list of equipment that everybody has got and look at this in a little more in depth. Thank you. Supervisor Stec-Yes, Sir. If you want to field them as they come I don’t think we are going to have very many. Chief Mellon-The existing tanker has 11,000 miles on it and approximately 1300 hours, engine hours on it. Supervisor Stec-I know we have been through this before and not to make your case for you but it is the last four years we have talked about fire apparatus I understand that it is not necessarily miles as it is hours and certainly just twenty years of any sort of wear to heavy apparatus. But, your point is well taken too Mr. Granger. Any other public comments, questions or input on this proposed purchase? Board Members, discussion by the Town Board, maybe Paul and Chip if you want to come back up we will go through any questions. I know we had some questions when we talked about this in a workshop and also privately off line between different Board Members had some of the same questions. Board Member questions? Councilman Boor-I don’t really have any questions, I know Tim had just left when I arrived and John Strough was there at the same time and we actually got a tour of all the equipment up there and obviously we were specifically concerned with the truck that is being replaced and the one that is replacing it. It is a worth while investment and that is what it is, it is an investment, it is an investment in safety. The old truck is that, yes it looks like it is in great shape but in no way comparable to what the new truck is. We are in a rural community and if we could get some money for the old one that is great, but I was very pleased with all the explanations I received for any of the questions that I had. I will support it. Supervisor Stec-Ted, do you have any questions? Councilman Turner-No. I will just echo Roger’s comments, I did go look at it and it is true it is twenty years old and now is the time to get rid of it replace it with a newer truck because you are not going to get anything for it if you keep it much longer. So, that is where I am. Supervisor Stec-John? 419 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 Councilman Strough-Just a couple of questions. First of all I appreciate the tour of the fire house I was impressed at how well organized and neat and ready to go it was. I feel better with people like you behind the wheel so to speak. I appreciate you volunteer service. I got a couple of questions and now when you sell the current tanker, where will that funding go? Chief Mellon-Those funds will they typically go back to the restricted vehicle fund unless the Town Board has other requests for it. It is part of the lease purchase agreement that is pretty much cut and dry how we are going to pay for it but it is something certainly if you would like us to look into reducing the total cost that would probably be applied toward the lease purchase. But, other than that we plan on putting it back into restricted vehicle fund. Councilman Strough-Is there an regular routine? Councilman Brewer-It is in the resolution. It says it will be back into the restricted fund or will reduce the amount of debt if traded in. Supervisor Stec-But, Chief Mellon was correct we do have flexibility we could put it where ever we want but I thought it was in the resolution, normally we put it in the vehicle fund. Councilman Strough-We could put it back it into… Supervisor Stec-I suppose probably so. Councilman Brewer-I would prefer to put it back Supervisor Stec-On the loan. Councilman Brewer-on the debt. Supervisor Stec-We could probably do that. Is that it? Councilman Strough-The only other thing I have was, are there going to be any additional costs to equip it. I mean, the price that we have here does that include the light bars and … Councilman Brewer-lettering? Chief Mellon-Yes, that basically includes the vehicle when it drives it, it has the drop tanks on it, the lettering the striping, the lighting all the emergency warning systems all that is included in the price of the what you have there three fifty six nine ten. Councilman Strough-Then you are probably using the hoses and all the equipment from the old one and this new one has even more storage capacity and that is one of the benefits of it, isn’t it? Chief Mellon-Actually it has less storage capacity. We have, there are two large storage compartments on each side and a small storage compartment for like hydrant fittings and things like that in the rear of the truck. So, most of the equipment from the existing tanker will go on this but there is some more that we are going to have to look into that will come out of our regular annual equipment budget for those types of fire fighting equipment. Councilman Strough-This new one sits six, either firemen coming or if somebody needed a place for a safe haven so to speak or a warm spot it could supply a victim with that area. Chief Mellon-For rehabilitation purposes for firefighters it will be climate controlled or you are right if a civilian or some other person needs to have a place to get out of the elements it can provide that service as well. 420 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 Councilman Strough-After looking at the whole thing I have gotten all kinds of phone calls for, against, for, against, you know I looked at this and got the tour and I have given it a hard look, and it looks like you know you were trading it for a 1985 vehicle too that you know, I support this proposal but it did lead me to some thoughts that I am going to share with you at the Town Board moment later on, in reference to vehicles. Thank you. Supervisor Stec-Tim? Councilman Brewer-When I was there we talked about and prior to me being there, there was conversation about getting rid of two vehicles and replacing two of them with this the Hahn Pumper and if that is correct is what I am saying what I am saying. I asked you about the ISO rating what will happen if we did happen to get rid of two of them and just keep this one, or if we could equip this one to maintain the same rating. Maybe you could just explain that and let us know whether it will change or won’t change. Whether it is beneficial to keep both or sell one or sell two. Chief Mellon-As far as that question is concerned, ISO Insurance Service office they review different fire district, fire companies for the type of service that they provide and are given a rating. The rating is comprised of several factors, man power, dispatching, water supply, pumping capacity, amount of equipment carried and so forth. Basically after the review was completed due to the different factors in our district it is required that we have three engines available in our fire district. An engine is something that makes the criteria according to the NFPA 1901 standard for pumper fire apparatus. This new truck that we are going to be buying is actually considered a water supply apparatus because it is primarily a tanker, it happens to have a water pump on it that can be used to pump the water off if we have to. Due to the fact that there is a certain amount of equipment that is required to be carried, i.e. air packs, ladders, hose, pipe poles, different type of equipment, the size of this truck limits the capacity to carry all the required equipment because it is primarily a tanker, the large part of the body is water tanks. The water tank on board we also have two portable drop tanks, portable ponds there are different terminologies that is how we dump the water off the tanker into these ponds and it is ultimately supplied to another pumper that puts the water on the fire. We are limited for the amount of equipment storage to do that fact we cannot count this as a pumper per se. In using that engine or a third engine. Can a third engine if it is not available in our fire district will this effect insurance rates in the fire protection classification. I spoke to Tim Henry in ISO and his answer, basically we are considered 4-9 classification in our area. It is a split classification four has to do with the areas in the hydrant district nine is the rural area that has no water. Basically our rating would revert back to a five instead of a four. As far as insurance rates they do not directly determine how much the insurance rates are but his answer was it depends on each insurance company how much the insurance rates would increase. Different insurance companies use different rating schemes. Some would basically remain the same, some our increase slightly some would increase dramatically. That is the best information he could provide me for that. I asked him if this tanker because it has a pump on it, if it could be considered a third engine and due to the fact that it does not make all the NFPA required equipment it would not be. Additionally ISO has actually stricter guidelines then NFPA for the equipment to be carried on a vehicle. With that in mind I took the 1988 Hahn and the 85 tanker compared the equipment from both vehicles to see if we could put equipment from the pumper on the tanker. Basically I came up with a list of fifty nine pieces of equipment that are on the engine, forty nine pieces of equipment that are on the tanker. There is physically no way that we can carry the equipment from both trucks on to the tanker. Due to the fact also we have no other way to carry the equipment we do not have a full size rescue per se, unlike the other four departments in the Town, that they have that, that is great that they do. But, unfortunately we do not have that luxury to have another place to carry our equipment. So, in part I hope that answers your questions as far as where we are going to carry the equipment. Councilman Brewer-All right, one last question. The four, nine, is the four the best it can get or the worst it can get and is the nine? 421 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 Chief Mellon-The lower the number the better the rating. So, the four is, it is very good a large part of that has to do with the Councilman Brewer-So, then my question would be, why wouldn’t the rating get better if we are adding another piece of equipment. Chief Mellon-Because you are asking about Councilman Boor-Eliminating two. Supervisor Stec-You are talking about eliminating two trucks? Councilman Brewer-No, no I am saying on the other hand if we were to, we are going to keep the Hahn, now we are buying a bigger, better truck, and I am not saying we should or shouldn’t I am just asking the question. Why couldn’t that help us get our rating to a better point? Chief Mellon-If I understand to get a better rating there is a lot more, it has more to do than the type of apparatus. It has to do with training requirements a lot of it has to do with career vs. volunteer departments. You really if I understand it correctly you do not get a better rating than a four until you go to a paid service. Councilman Brewer-We do not want to do there. Supervisor Stec-That is my understanding as well, is that the four, nine and I think this is important to note, because we are always talking. Councilman Brewer-Is probably the best you can get. Supervisor Stec-Four, nine is the best rating ISO rating that we can get without having a career service, which I agree we want to avoid because the cost is of that, well I mean I do not think the Town wants to make that investment. Councilman Brewer-No, I am not saying that I am for or against that I am just saying when we buy these things we have to be aware of what our ratings is and why it is what it is so when the public calls us and says why are you spending three hundred and fifty thousand dollars on a truck, this is the reason. Chief Mellon-That is correct a large part that we have the four, nine rating also has to do with the excellent water supply for the areas that are provided by hydrants in the Town. Many areas, many not in Queensbury but in other areas the hydrant flows could vary from one hydrant to another. In Queensbury we are very fortunate that the hydrants that we have they all flow about the same and they are maximum flow rates so that is something that probably Ralph VanDusen should be commended on for the service that they provide. Supervisor Stec-I think you are right and I think since he is here I think we will commend the Water Department. I asked the question not to get off on too much of a tangent but talking about the towns water supply for fire fighting, back about a year or so ago there was some newspaper articles concerning hydrants, working, not working you know impacting firefighting outside the municipality, adjacent to the Town. At the time I asked Ralph VanDusen how good are our hydrants? I will put him on the stop, but it goes to what you are saying Chip, he pointed out that we have about a thousand fire hydrants in the town and they all get checked every year. Every single one of them gets checked and actually I think he said that Vance Plante is the guy that does most of the hydrants and he said that he is as certain as he could be that they all work all the time. They get checked every year and you know a little maintenance. I think that that is important for our public to know and I think its appropriate time in the discussion to commend the Water Department, Ralph and Bruce and the entire Water Department for keeping up with the hydrants the way they do. Sorry to interrupt. Tim? Councilman Brewer-I am all set, thank you Chip. 422 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 Supervisor Stec-It sounds like everybody has been to look at the tanker 420, I know that Tim and I were up there at the same time not too long ago and I stayed to get the tour of the truck and he didn’t but you got back there at a later date. You know I think it is important to note that to my memory the four years that I have been on the Town Board and running, that this is the first time that we have had a proposed vehicle replacement come to us with the exception of South Queensbury’s Brush truck that actually hit twenty years. It is not to say that we are making the argument that they should be twenty years because I also understand that NFPA is now recommending fifteen years as a guideline instead of twenty. Most large apparatus like this, this is the fist one that I have seen hit the twenty year mark. You do, you start to getting into the debate well do you hang onto it for three more years, drive it into the ground or do you take the little bit of money that you can get for it and run? I do think and I have talked with the leadership of the five departments together, they have all heard this, and we have a lot of members of Bay Ridge here and I am sure several people will watch this on TV so I will take a minute to just say that moving forward later this year when we have a contact that will expire at the end of the year and rather than waiting until November and trying to scurry and throw together a contract in the middle of everything else that we usually have going on at the end of the year. I have been trying to get us all and I think we are a little bit ahead of the curve in some of the discussion that we are thinking now in February and March about issues that are going to be coming up for the next contract and things that we do not have to wait for contract time to implement. A comprehensive look at all of the towns apparatus I think going forward, each, as part of their contracts each of the five fire companies submits a five year plan for their apparatus and the Town gets that and we keep that and that is great, but I think that what we would be better served by we being the public is a comprehensive look where we integrated all five of those plans together and have a discussion together so that we are not necessarily duplicating. I have been likening it a lot to the rec center. Everyone is concerned well gee you know you have got all these schools doing their own thing you have got Doug Miller doing his thing, you have got the Forum now and you have got the Y and is this going to compete? Is the rec center going to compete with these. The answer that we are hoping that we are going to get is well no they are complement. The only way we will know that is if we do sit down and talk with the Y and talk with the different school districts and find out what is in the hopper for you what are you seeing for numbers and demand. And so, that you find out that if you need a pool and basketball court that somebody builds a pool and somebody builds a basketball court and you do not have the Y and the Town building two pools. So, I think that kind of thinking is called for when we talk about apparatus you know that I think we are one town tax rate, one town so we have an interest in making sure that the Town fire system is all that it can be and so I think integrating that and going forward into the future is going to be important and I know that I shared that with the fire departments and hopefully there is some agreement there. I know you start talking about change or doing something that we haven’t done before and people get a little nervous. But, I think that you know certainly if we have got, say there is twenty large piece of apparatus out there you know, maybe when you do a comprehensive look at it maybe the number comes in at nineteen or eighteen and before you know it you are saving three or four hundred thousand dollar purchase. I think going forward in the future that will be important, I think that is going to take some faith and some cooperation between the town and the five fire departments, but I think we can get there. So, I do think that as we move forward we need to organize that. On its own merits looking at the truck that you have and looking at and talking to not only members of Bay Ridge but members of other companies and other people that I know have expertise. While there is, there is always some criticism and you have got at some point decide do we have enough or do we have too much, that I think that on its own merits you have got a twenty year old truck and we are either going to get another two years out of it or maybe we won’t. But, is it worth the hassle to try to get another year or two out of it, I do not think so. Anything else from the Town Board? All right I will close the public hearing and entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING BAY RIDGE VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC.’S PROPOSAL TO PURCHASE AMERICAN 423 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 LAFRANCE CUSTOM EAGLE TANKER TRUCK AND AUTHORIZING INCURRENCE OF DEBT FOR SUCH PURCHASE RESOLUTION NO.: 160. 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury and the Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. (Fire Company) have entered into an Agreement for fire protection services, which Agreement sets forth a number of terms and conditions including a condition that the Fire Company will not purchase or enter into any binding contract to purchase any piece of apparatus, equipment, vehicles, real property, or make any improvements that would require the Fire Company to acquire a loan or mortgage or use money placed in a “vehicles fund” without prior approval of the Queensbury Town Board, and WHEREAS, the Fire Company has advised the Town Board that it wishes to purchase an American LaFrance Custom Eagle Tanker Truck (Tanker) for a sum not to exceed $356,910, such purchase already included in the scheduled Fire Company’s five (5) year capital plan that forecasts future capital needs and expenditures, including anticipated vehicles, equipment, tools, other apparatus, facilities or improvements to facilities to be used for firematic purposes, and WHEREAS, the Fire Company plans on paying for the Tanker by using $225,000 in funds from its Restricted Vehicle Fund and entering into a four (4) year tax-exempt lease- purchase agreement with Evergreen Bank/Bank North for $131,910, and th WHEREAS, on March 15, 2004, the Town Board held a public hearing concerning the Fire Company’s proposed purchase and debt incurrence and heard all interested persons, and WHEREAS, the Town Board feels that this new vehicle will provide additional safety protection for the Town, and WHEREAS, the Town wishes to adopt a Resolution authorizing the purchase of the Tanker Truck and incurrence of debt by the Fire Company, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 424 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Company, Inc.’s proposal to purchase an American LaFrance Custom Eagle Tanker Truck for a sum not to exceed $356,910, such purchase already included in the scheduled Fire Company’s five (5) year capital plan that forecasts future capital needs and expenditures, including anticipated vehicles, equipment, tools, other apparatus, facilities or improvements to facilities to be used for firematic purposes, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes the Fire Company to use $225,000 in funds from its Restricted Vehicle Fund toward the purchase, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further approves of the incurrence of $131,910 in debt by the Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. for such purchase with the understanding that the Town Board is relying upon the Fire Company’s assurances that the Tanker Truck is serviceable and suitable for its long-term intended use, BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that a retired tanker truck will be sold or traded at fair market value and the proceeds will be deposited to the Restricted Vehicle Fund if sold, or will reduce the amount of debt if traded in, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury does not guarantee the debt with Evergreen Bank/Bank North on behalf of the Fire Company nor does the Town Board create or intend to create any assumption on the part of the Town of Queensbury of any obligation or liability for the financing, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Budget Officer to take any action necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2004 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner 425 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 NOES : None ABSENT: None Discussion held before vote: Councilman Brewer-Can we amend it so that the sales price of the apparatus that we are getting rid of be applied to the purchase price? Councilman Boor- Do we want to do that, we certainly can but do you want to think about it we do not need to do it right now. Councilman Brewer-Why wouldn’t you want to do that? Councilman Boor-Because I don’t think we have thought it out. Supervisor Stec-I do not think we have to do that tonight. Councilman Boor-It certainly leaves the option open I am not opposed to it I just do not know why we would put it in the resolution. Councilman Brewer-Are you guys plan on buying something in the year or two? Chief Mellon-no Councilman Brewer- Why would you want to just put money in the bank? Councilman Boor-I could not answer that question that is why I do not really want to change the resolution. Supervisor Stec-This can go into the vehicle fund and then we could turn around and pay down the debt. Chief Mellon-We can get back to you at the time the truck is sold. Supervisor Stec-Thank you and all the volunteer fire companies and rescue squads for your service and your volunteer and your significant hours we appreciate it. 5.0 PUBLIC HEARING - Proposed Local Law, To Replace Chapter 119 Entitled “Outdoor Furnaces” With A New Local law Prohibiting The Use Of Outdoor Furnaces In the Town of Queensbury NOTICE SHOWN Supervisor Stec-We have a six month moratorium started not too long ago, prohibiting the addition of any new outdoor furnaces until the Town Board had a chance to research, deliberate and decide what if anything we wanted to do to address the issue. We did have late last year, we did have some people come and bring a video tape of some outdoor furnace activity over on Glen Lake that got our attention. I think anyone that saw that it certainly raised eyebrows. Since that time we instituted this moratorium to consider it. The Town Board has had at least one workshop on this subject to deliberate it and we I can assure the public that we have wrestled with each other and beat each other up over it. The original draft had a fair amount of, with the Town Board directed the attorneys to draft up some local law that would severely limit the use of the allowance of these in the Town. The Town Board discussed it and at one point the recommendation was made that the restrictions that we were proposing to have were so restrictive that really what in effect we were talking about was a ban. So, we did at that point say fine, write the local law to ban them, which is where we are today. We have got along with the banning there are several other things that need to be addressed. The idea of grand fathering to grand father to not grand father how long to if we didn’t grand father how long would we allow them to continue to use if we ban them. So, that is what is before us tonight. I can tell you that since we set the public hearing for tonight there has been continuing debate between the Town Board and continued input from the public as to the merits and draw backs from taking this action. We have tried to educate ourselves a little bit. I have talked with a member of DEC’s air quality this morning on the phone for about a half an hour up in Warrensburg and picked their brain. But, what we have before us is a proposed local law that would ban outdoor furnaces within the town. So, that is the next public hearing, did I miss any key items? Yes Mr. Schachner. th Town Counsel Schachner-The moratorium was adopted on December 15 2003 for a six month period. Supervisor Stec-I thought it was right at the end of the year. We still have a moratorium in th effect regardless of what happens tonight. The moratorium is in effect until June 15 unless we adopted a local law tonight. With that I recognize some people in the audience that I have talked to about the issue and so I would open the public hearing to anyone that would like to come on either side of the issue to ban or not ban, yes Sir. For the public hearing for 426 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 the purpose of the record if you could just state your name and address for the record and we can entertain your comments and hopefully do the right thing. Mr. Kevin Ireland-My name is Kevin Ireland I live in Harris Street in Queensbury, New York I do have a prepared comment, it should only take me a few minutes to read it. Hopefully my voice will hold up. In regard to the matter of the proposed banning of the use of outdoor wood furnaces in the Town of Queensbury I would like to point out a few things that may or may not effect the out come of your final decision. First off I would like to point out that I have an outdoor wood furnace in use at my home and also I am a local dealer of outdoor wood furnaces here in Queensbury. To satisfy any possible critics that I may have I would like to point out that residents of the Town of Queensbury are not my primary customers. If Queensbury were to in fact ban the use of outdoor wood furnaces it would not drastically effect my business. Granted I do have a vested interest in the outcome of this matter but I am also concerned about the rights of Americans Citizens being taken away from them little by little. As far as I am concerned there are a number of benefits to be had for someone to install an outdoor wood furnace at their home, not just in comparison to a wood stove in general, but to all heating sources combined. We live in the Adirondacks where wood is both plentiful and relatively inexpensive thus to heat with wood can be considerably cheaper than heating with most any other fuel. Having the unit outside the structure being heated virtually eliminates the risk of fire and carbon monoxide poisoning as compared with having a wood stove inside the home. The heat from the outdoor unit is piped into the structure by means of underground piping and the heat is evenly distributed throughout the home as opposed to just one room that a wood stove might be in . A homeowner no longer has to contend with the wood, smoke, insects and ash being brought into their home thus making them cleaner to operate than a conventional woodstove. Heating with wood in this way gives homeowners more control over their heating costs and it also gives them freedom of choice because they are no longer forced to purchase from the local utility or propane/fuel oil distributor. If you do not allow your constituents the option to decide whether or not to, an outdoor wood furnace is right for them, then realize that once again it would appear that government is taking away Americans Freedoms bit by bit. I would like to point out that wood is a renewal energy source and that petroleum based fuels are not. Also that Americans have been burning wood for over two hundred years and mankind in general has been doing so for thousands of years. Wood smoke is wood smoke is wood smoke whether it is created by an outdoor wood furnace or your neighbors indoor woodstove. They both do the same thing to a greater or lesser degree. You might say that an outdoor wood furnace is essentially a very large wood stove just like comparing a compact car with an SUV. They both an get the job done but the SUV is the preferred vehicle because it does it better. If you decide to ban the use of outdoor wood furnaces in the entire Town of Queensbury how can you then justify denying one person the right to install a safe inexpensive and comfortable means of heating for his home and then turn around and allow that same persons neighbor to install a wood stove in theirs? To ban or not to ban that is the question. Instead of making a blanket prohibition of the use of outdoor wood furnaces in the entire Town of Queensbury I suggest you consider the recent cigarette smoke ban by the Federal Government. Some places may be appropriate and others not. Maybe neighborhood approval is the answer, that is when a constituent applies for a variance. Maybe regulating what materials are burned in them and seeing to it that they are installed correctly according to manufacturers instructions. The requirement to extend the chimney height of some installations may resolve the smoke issue in areas where complaints from neighbors might become prevalent. However, if the weather out side is stagnant and causes the smoke to linger at ground level it would do so no matter where the smoke came from wood stove or wood furnace. I have also heard it suggested that the time of year that they could be operated could be regulated but I do not think that is the best solution either as there are some installations with no neighbors whatsoever and also that the regulations would not apply equally to woodstoves use. I happen to live in an area where many of my neighbors have in the past or are presently heating with wood and we have no disputes with one another. I personally do not believe that the use of an outdoor wood furnace is necessarily appropriate for all neighborhoods though. If I happen to live in Bedford Close, Courthouse Estates, or anyone of the newer developments in the Town where the property acreage is small then I probably would not opt for an outdoor wood furnace because of esthetic reasons but then again if I could afford to live in a development like that then this whole thing would not be an issue for me and I would be paying the local utility without a second thought. In conclusion and above all else I believe that common sense and respect 427 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 for the safety and well being of others should prevail and be the deciding factor as to whether or not an outdoor wood furnace is appropriate for any particular neighborhood. Thank you. Supervisor Stec-Thank you Sir. Mr. Gary Springer- Gary Springer, 80 Central Avenue, Queensbury You guys should have copies of these, I put them in Tim’s mailbox. I would just like to say a couple of things that these woodstoves, mine anyway. Councilman Boor-Could you give the page? Mr. Springer-Yes, second page. They are endorsed by the US Forestry Service and the Union of Concerned Scientists. On page 5 there is a fuel cost comparison and that was one of the big things for me was that and the other big thing that he mentioned was it is outside it is not in my house. I had a woodstove I did not like it. Then there is a lot of other stuff in here but the biggest thing that I want to go to was in the back page the last page. It states in there, you know, the fuel that you should use what you should burn and what you should not burn in them. There are stipulations and stuff in here and there are specs on where they should be in height and stuff and I would just like you people to look over this before you make a decision. Ok. Thank you. Supervisor Stec-Yes, Sir. Anyone else, Yes, Sir. Mr. Rodney Tollefson-Rodney Tollefson, I am with Central Boiler. I have a handout. I appreciate the chance to be here, again I am Rodney Tollefson I am Vice President at Central Boiler. I have been with Central Boiler since 1990. I have traveled from northern Minnesota to be with you today and I appreciate your, the opportunity to speak. I am going to read this and if there are any questions you would like to ask me afterwards that is fine, but sometimes I forget things and I don’t say enough if I don’t read it, so I am going to read the prepared statement I have. I would like to present some facts about outdoor wood furnaces and clear up some misconceptions. First let me take a moment to tell you a little bit about Central Boiler. We are one of the larger manufacturers of outdoor furnaces and we probably manufactured a significant percentage of the outdoor furnaces sold in New York State. We provide heat efficiency, low emission furnaces as a responsible alternative means to heating homes. We are very committed to R&D, we have an on site testing lab, we are currently testing emissions and efficiency and we have been doing so for two years. We have some very good technologies that we see coming that can do a lot for increasing efficiency and emission control in the near future, very near term future. Many other manufacturers also are taking the initiative as we speak. They are testing emissions and seeking improvements for better performance. We actually have a manufacturers an out door wood furnace manufacturer caucus and we have addressed these issues in the past year very earnestly. New York dealerships provide dedicated sales and technical support and can be a big help in many installations where there might be an issue. Central … has been at the forefront of educational efforts and working together with government to troubleshoot issues. If something comes up we try to get together with them. Next I would like to address air quality concerns. Outdoor furnaces do not pose a threat to the environment any different than other indoor stoves. Heating with wood reduces SO2 and NOX as compared with fossil fuels. I know that is a very big issue in New York and all the eastern states the SO2 and NOX and wood is a very low emission rate of that almost non existent. Heating with wood also produces no net increase of carbon dioxide, fossil fuels do. The natural the renewal resource is, it produces absolutely no increase in carbon dioxide. When compared to emissions from indoor woodstoves, particulate emission are the same as indoor woodstoves. Outdoor wood furnaces have eliminated many health problems for thousands of homeowners. Many people have had asthma and other respiratory problems completely eliminated when they removed their indoor wood stoves and replaced them with an outdoor wood furnace. I for one have a wife that has asthma problems and we had to get rid of our indoor wood stove we could not use it and we can heat with wood because of an outdoor furnace. Central Boiler was directly involved with EPA by providing one of the outdoor wood furnaces and other heating equipment used in the emission testing project that 428 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 evaluated outdoor wood furnaces. This EPA testing was conducted from June of 1995 through October, 1995. The results are published in a February 1998 report identified as EPA-600/R-98-017. The project summary published on this states compared to a wide range of residential heating options, these furnaces emissions were of the same order as other stick wood burning appliances. If you look at the last page I have included a copy it is a portion of that test and it talks about, I put an arrow on the grams per kilogram of dry fuel, that is the emission rate on outdoor wood furnace, that was one of our furnaces tested at that time. A project in 1998 and 99 in Portland, Oregon the arrows indicating there, they are the same, the 10.8 and the 9.23 the grams per kilogram are the same on an EPA certified phase 2 stove. For the amount of wood they burn they produce the same amount of emissions. If you put two wood stoves in and burn the same amount as you would in one indoor it produces the same amount of emissions is what that is saying. Now, I would like to address why we are here today, the complaints and neighborhood disputes. It is a serious issue. Burning of illegal trash. For years, Central Boiler and other manufacturers have clearly instructed, in the written installation manuals that chimneys are to be extended to a height above the roofs of surrounding buildings if installed in areas of higher populations. These instruction manuals also clearly state, burn wood only. In our review of the small number of complaints about outdoor wood furnaces each indicate that the furnaces involved did not have the proper installation chimneys initially installed to proper heights in the beginning. That is every one of the complaints that we have ever been able to locate, everyone of them has not had the chimney extended to start with. So that is at the route of the problem. In researching other complains we have found in researching all of these we found that approximately fifty of the complaints started long before there was an outdoor furnace involved. Half of the complaints were disputing neighbors over issues like pets, dogs, swimming pools, stereos or vehicles, loud vehicles. In each case where there are nuisance laws in place to take care of that somebody is forced to turn their stereos down, they are forced to tie up their pets or they are forced not to drive vehicles in whatever on lawns or replace mufflers or whatever they did not ban the stereos or the pets or the vehicles they controlled them by the nuisance laws they currently had in place. I think that is our solution. So, the solution is working together for a responsible operation and installation of the product. Central Boiler and other manufacturers independently and through industry associations with HPBA are committed to the responsible burning. We worked together as a caucus to form, to apply responsible wood burning to out door furnaces focusing on efforts to publicize the best burn practices. Are you all aware of that best burn practices here? He had that in his last guy that got up here. The second is if there are a few issues we want to help trouble shoot any issues that are out there and we would like to work together with the government if there is any thing. We already have an on going relationship with the Department in New York Environmental Conservation. We are working together with them getting them some information. So, we encourage a dialog to work with you. Is there any questions any of you have? Supervisor Stec-Any questions? Councilman Brewer-How did you find out about this meeting? Mr. Tollefson-I found out from a dealer of ours that had informed us that there was going to be a hearing. Councilman Strough-You are recommending that the stack height be higher then the roofs of the adjacent houses? Mr. Tollefson-If it is in very close, if homes are very close together then yes, if not, if they are further apart that chart in there shows you that you can we expect that the further distance you are the stack can go down somewhat. Councilman Boor-In your study what distances do you consider appropriate when you say if they are close together, what do you consider close together? Mr. Tollefson-That chart talks about if you look 429 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 Councilman Boor-I saw the 150’ but I they are talking about the ability of the plumbing I believe to be most efficient. I am talking about the smoke, in other words what do you consider close proximity of buildings? Mr. Tollefson-The best practices chart that you have right there. Councilman Boor-Right here I see this and that is what I am looking at and that has to do to me they are talking about the efficiency. I am seeing this as efficiency. Mr. Tollefson-They are talking about the stack height as related to the distance to a home that is not serviced by the unit. So, if you are fifty feet or a hundred or two hundred feet the stack, the closer you are the taller the stack has to be. Councilman Boor-I guess I have a problem when it says if located more than a hundred feet but not more than a hundred and fifty feet, in other words why, wouldn’t more be better? Mr. Tollefson-Well it is in between they are trying to cover. Councilman Boor-I know but wouldn’t more be better if you wanted to have a buffer for smoke why would you limit it at a hundred and fifty feet wouldn’t three or five hundred feet be better for the down wind recipient of the smoke? Mr. Tollefson-Yes you can always go higher? Councilman Boor-I know I guess I am not trying to be argumentative but I just do not know why you put a limit of a hundred and fifty feet I mean it seems like more is better in this instance. Mr. Tollefson-Yea, if you are installing one if you are talking about a neighbor being in a close proximity if there is really an issue of smoke whether you are a hundred feet or you are ten feet you need to get the smoke high enough so it becomes no issue. We put a chart in there to be a guideline to start with. Councilman Strough-All right lets get back to my thought, I never got the chance to complete. So, if the adjacent house was say twenty five feet and it is within fifty feet then the smoke stack should be at least twenty five feet high. Mr. Tollefson-To the roof line. Councilman Strough-To the roof line. Councilman Brewer-Plus two feet. Mr. Tollefson-Plus two feet Councilman Strough-So, twenty seven foot. Councilman Brewer-If the house is twenty five foot Councilman Strough-If the house if twenty five. Councilman Boor-If the eve, it is a two story house. Councilman Strough-How do you support a stack of twenty five feet high? Mr. Tollefson-It is very easy there are many people that have just put a beam or a pole in the ground and support it from that five feet away from the stack. It is very easy to do. Councilman Strough-So you would have an xo structure of some sort a pole with guide wires even? 430 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 Mr. Tollefson-Some people have had them near a building and they run a brace from a building or if you are close, relatively close to a building or you can put a support you can guide wire it but what ever means it needs to be if it is going up two or three extensions it can support itself on the furnace without any, if you are going twenty five feet it needs to be supported in an adequate manner. Councilman Strough-Ok. Now from an esthetic point of view that kind of arrangement is not for everywhere and I think you would agree. Mr. Tollefson-I would certainly not want it put something that was not esthetically pleasing. Councilman Strough-The other question that I have is on sparks, I have read some literature here and at times because you can really load these up, they can get roaring and people have admitted that there is a potential for sparks and this might again be related to improper stack heights or the fact that they do not have spark arrestors but is there a potential to public safety of arrant sparks? Mr. Tollefson-Our owners manual suggests that all installations use the spark arrestor at least if they are in an area of high fire risk, but we recommend it on all. Spark arrestors are available. Councilman Strough-It is only a recommendation it does not come with the unit itself? Mr. Tollefson-That is correct. Councilman Strough-You have to pay extra for that? Mr. Tollefson-It is thirty five bucks or fifty five bucks or something like that. A regular home fireplace would have the same spark issue and fire issue because you can have a chimney fire in one of those and you have flames shooting out of them similar. Councilman Strough-The only other, the last time and I have this just that the EPA test and from what I have read those emissions standards are best on, are based on the best case scenario. That is not often the case with an individual home users, or it may or may not be. Mr. Tollefson-This report and I brought it along just to for illustration purposes the report that was done in 1995, it was actually written in 1998 the testing was done in 95’ it actually there were two different rates. It was a fifteen thousand and thirty thousand and a thirty thousand BTU rate constant out put rate is similar to a seven gallon little better than seven gallons per day of oil. So, a normal residential home would very easily, many of them anyway would be heated by that so that is a fairly real use where if you take an indoor wood stove the hang tag ratings that they put on them are what you depicted. They have a weighted average and they burn them in a lab and they do them, they rate them two point nine when in reality in the home use you see what they put out and this testing was more of a real in home use because it was a thirty thousand BTU and a fifteen thousand steady draw. So, it wasn’t a better rating because it was done in a laboratory. Any other questions? Supervisor Stec-I thank you for traveling all the way from Minnesota and thank you for bring your weather with you tomorrow. Mr. Tollesfson-We do not have this down there. Thank you. Supervisor Stec-Anyone else? Outdoor furnaces, Yes, Sir in the back. Mr. Bob Dean-Hello, my name is Bob Dean, Big Boom Road, Queensbury. I have a Classic Boiler but I have never met this man, maybe he could have given me a better deal. Anyways, I have over eight thousand dollars in my system, I do not burn anything but wood and I do not have any problems with my neighbors. I have neighbors that burn coal, I have neighbors that have wood stoves none of them are close to me at all. I burn wood. I do not see what the problem is. Last I knew I have to pay taxes for garbage to be burnt, and we are not getting rid of the garbage plant. I also think we have an incinerator, I mean a crematorium in town don’t we, I do not understand how you can say here somebody has got 431 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 eight to ten thousand dollars in something you cannot have it. How can you tell me how to heat my home if I am not doing it illegal. That is all I have got to say. Supervisor Stec-Yes, in the back. Ms. Kathleen Sweet-Kathleen Sweet, South Western Avenue but we also have property on Mallory Avenue and that is where the Central Boiler is located. Mr. Keith Sweet-I just wanted to, well Kevin pretty much covered everything I guess, there he did a good job on that. Like I said we have a wood boiler, we have the support of our neighbors. No body around us has a problem with it. We burn just wood we have a lot of cost in it about seven or eight thousand dollars. The energy costs is with the cost of energy and everything these days it is going through the roof. What else, we are responsible, we only burn wood and make sure it doesn’t get carried away or anything like that. I do not agree with the ban. I have got a lot of money invested in it. Mrs. Sweet-The way we are heating we are doing a lot of hot, like we have radiant heat floors so we are using the water that comes from that for that so our heating system the heart of our heating system at this point is the wood furnace. We don’t burn it after, we burn it basically from October to possibly the first of April, clean it out, we take very good care of it, it is a substantial part of our heating system and we are heating three times the size of the house that we are living in now and our power bill this month was fifty dollars in our other house it is a hundred and seventy. So, it is a substantial savings and I really do not want to see us have to go back to fossil fuels if we do not have to. Councilman Strough-How close are you to your neighbors? Mrs. Sweet-We have a good size piece of property we are probably a hundred to two hundred feet. Mr. Sweet-A hundred fifty feet probably. Mrs. Sweet-From our neighbors around, we have gone to every single one of them and talked to them and not any of them have a problem with it. Councilman Strough-How high is your stack? Mr. Sweet-About twenty feet. It is two section so it is twenty feet. Councilman Strough-And you support it with a pole? Mr. Sweet-With two sections you do not have to support it at all, it is free standing. Supervisor Stec-I would say, just for the benefit of the Board that the Sweet’s outdoor furnace and the Ireland’s outdoor furnace, Tim and I went and visited them, I do not think you were expecting us I think that Kevin Ireland was and he had it set up so we got there when it was the appropriate time where he could take it through a cycle so we could see what was going on with his unit. But, there’s two you could stand at one and throw a stone and just about hit the other one and I went to one of your neighbors that was in between the two of you and knocked on her door and I asked her about it and she backed up with both you and Mr. Ireland that she did not have a problem at all. I saw what you were burning and we talked a lot about that. I thought it was, it struck me enough that I felt I should note it to the Board that here is two you could throw a stone from one and hit the other one and you are in a pretty tight neighborhood. I also want to say that I was impressed with both set up as far as showing us how it works inside the home and you know both arrangements were pretty impressive to see how that it is tied in because I had not seen it before. I wanted to thank you publicly for spending some time with us over the weekend. I thought it was remarkable to note that you had two that were that close together and I went to a neighbor in the middle and asked what they thought and they backed up what everyone was telling us. Mr. Sweet-Thank you for your time. 432 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 Ms. Dawn Hlavaty Starratt Mr. Starratt-We live at 154 Glen Lake Road, and we live approximately about one thousand feet from a wood burning furnace that not to mention also I am a plumber I do plumbing and heating and air-conditioning so I deal with a lot of boilers and actually these are boilers because they contain water. Your question about the distance from the house and stuff, you do have distances that you cannot go farther from being that you are carrying and transferring hot water from a distance and it will cool down. So, you do have a ratio of about a hundred and fifty feet that you really maximize away from the house but the heights of the stacks are very important and proper installation as the first gentlemen had said and proper set up and proper use of any kind of unit being it oil fired being anything. I mean people have gone by houses that haven’t had an oil fired furnace serviced and you can see black smoke coming through it. It is just proper care and being responsible for your particular way of heating your house. As we remember back in the 70’s during the energy crunch they were big for alternative fuel sources and I think as government officials that was a big thing then have we forgotten that? What happens is oil does go up to outrageous rates, gas is already going crazy to cost to heat our homes. Some people in the areas have had their houses for a long time they are not financially, they are financially fixed and they use these boilers to keep their costs under control. Being that wood is plentiful, and it a renewal resource that is a very important thing to take in fact, taking it into account. So, we do live next to one and we really do not have a problem with it there are days when it is stagnant out and the air is and anything would be, oil, soot, everything would be sitting down in low areas. I think the cause of the one that caused most of the complaints, I noticed because I drove by the house that was there, there might have been some stuff that was not really supposed to be burned. It seems to be in a gully. It seems to be trapped, the other houses are higher than that one from my notification of taking a look around and seeing it. So, maybe there are some things that we can do to ask this person to try to rectify the situation. I think banning wood outdoor boilers would be a mistake, someday I plan if the oil prices go up being a plumber, I have left two out lets on my boiler that I just put in so that if I had to I can run lines out and put an outdoor wood furnace. So, it is just a precaution that everybody should take. What happens if like I said we get into a large oil crunch and there is only so many fossil fuels and its just a matter of time before that ever happens. Mrs. Starratt-We highly agree with Mr. Ireland on everything he said, he was exactly right. So, we are totally against it, so hopefully you will all review it all and make sure that you are doing the right thing for the community. I think if you look back to the problems with the neighbors, they had problems prior to a wood furnace burning, it was other problems prior to this. I live on Ash Drive as you probably know so we have no problem. Supervisor Stec-Thank you. Anyone else on outdoor furnaces. Yes, Sir. Mr. Thomas Washburn-Gentlemen, My name is Thomas Washburn, Cormus Road, Queensbury One thing Roger brought up tonight in discussing with the Fire Department that Queensbury we still do have rural areas. I live in a rural area of Queensbury. We have been here for twenty two years and we have heated our home for those twenty two years with wood. We purchased an outdoor furnace nine years ago and installed that so we could take the fire to the outside. Now, we have no more threats of worrying about any fire at all and we can safely heat our home and in doing this we create no problems because we are in a rural area. To take and ban something like this would really have an effect on us where we do not have neighbors. Supervisor Stec-I was going to ask have you had any complaints from the neighbors? Mr. Washburn-We have no neighbors because we live in a rural area. So, it would really be a hardship to us. We have twenty acres we harvest our own wood off our property and that is the heating system. So, we would have our investment taken away and we would have to take and transfer our home into a whole new heating system in order to do this. Supervisor Stec- Mr. Turner has a question. Councilman Turner-Mr. Washburn do you use your unit in the summer time to heat your hot water? 433 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 Mr. Washburn-No I do not. Councilman Turner-You don’t so you shut it down? Mr. Washburn-I shut it right down. Councilman Turner-And you have secondary? Mr. Washburn-All I have Councilman Turner-Hot water tank. Mr. Washburn-is an electric hot water heater and in the summer time we just turn that on for that. Councilman Turner-You do not have a furnace if that one happens to do down? Mr. Washburn-No, Sir. Councilman Turner-You do not have a standby? Mr. Washburn-No. Councilman Turner-Thank you. Supervisor Stec-Anything else? Thank you both. Mr. Tucker did you have something you wanted to say? Mr. Pliney Tucker-Pliney Tucker Division Road I am one of the dumb ones I have a fireplace in my house. Do you guys have any knowledge of how many outdoor furnaces are in the Town of Queensbury? Supervisor Stec-Well, it is funny you mentioned that, we have the last staff estimate I heard was ten to twelve and I am going to guess that is probably low but not a lot. Mr. Tucker-How many complaints have you had that are problems. All I ever heard about was this one in Glen Lake and I missed the video so I did not see that part of it. Supervisor Stec-The video was enlightening and is for sure, but as far as I am aware that was the only one that we ever had anything. Councilman Boor-To this Board. Supervisor Stec-To us. Councilman Boor-I cannot speak to the Building Dept. of anything I do not know what…I cannot speak to if they have gone to Dave Hatin or if they have gone to the Fire Marshal. But, to this Board the one that you are referring to is really the only one that we have heard complaints on. Supervisor Stec-Chris are you aware of any complaints other than that Director Chris Round-I couldn’t tell you conclusively. Mr. Tucker-Well then I guess I want to use the word knee jerk reaction to this situation. If we have a problem with somebody the neighbors are having problems with wouldn’t the first step be to go and talk to these people and find out why it is a problem? Rather than Supervisor Stec-As a general rule Mr. Tucker-punish all the nice people that are doing things right? 434 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 Supervisor Stec-That is the theme that I am getting, in general whether its outdoor furnaces or who’s leaves are blowing into who’s yards we have those complaints. You know barking dogs and loud stereos you hit the nail on the head, that the first step is to try to resolve with the neighbor. Now, we whether we are talking about barn yard animals in a residential zone or any of the other nut case kind of activities that we have going on around town that sometimes you cannot work that out with the neighbor and that’s when you start getting into this. But, I personally have the sense that we are talking about the classic example of one or two bad apples ruining it for the bunch. That’s, I think we are getting that kind of feed back. in general. I did talk with DEC today and you know there is debate as to who’s emissions are worse, outdoor furnaces vs you know conventional indoor wood boiler, wood stove. The State is considering all these things but I do know that there are laws on the books already regarding burn materials, that the State Department of Environmental Conservation who we pay our tax dollars to fund that department, they are responsible for enforcing these air quality laws as well. There are mechanisms and laws out there but we do have these lingering issues that bring us to consider what we are considering tonight. I am not sure that answers you question, but you are right that you would hope that neighbors would be able to work that out, however I have heard lots of neighbor stories in general in the town in the last few years and you were on the Town Board and you know that you cannot always rely on neighbors to work it out. It takes two. Mr. Tucker-It does not seem like that it is a major problem, you have been going on here for what an hour and there hasn’t been a sole came up to this table and complained to you that they are against these furnaces. Supervisor Stec-I am sure that we will before we are done. Councilman Brewer-Let everybody be heard before you say that. Mr. Tucker-But I am saying it now. Supervisor Stec-This is an important issue and we are not in a hurry if it takes, we have had these in years past we will have these in the next coming years where you are going to have something, we want to make sure we give this as thorough as we can and consider it. Mr. Tucker-I am not saying that, but I mean, it certainly does not look like a major problem. Thank you. Mr. Scott Gunther-My name is Scott Gunther I live on Ash Drive Councilman Boor-Your last name? Mr. Gunther-Gunther, I live on Ash Drive I am one of the gentlemen and has a wood stove outdoor boiler. Supervisor Stec-Are you the one closest to Glen Lake Road? Mr. Gunther-Yes. Supervisor Stec-I drive by earlier this week the Highway Dept. was out fixing to cut brush and I figured I would stop in and say hello to them and I just did a drive by, I slowed down with my red pickup and watched for a few minutes. Mr. Gunther-As you will see with the proper burning of materials it does not emit a lot of smoke, if there is a call for heat in the home you will get a puff of basically vapor because the stove has been on an idle mode as that vapor clears out it clears out very quickly and become invisible. My chimney is about six feet tall I do not have any neighbors around me. If I need to go to the taller chimney I do not have a problem with that whatsoever. I do have a problem with the fact that you are telling me I cannot use my stove anymore. Supervisor Stec-I have not told you anything yet, but I get your point. 435 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 Mr. Gunther-I have not been notified of any of the meetings other than by hear say, I have never received any letters stating please come in and give your opinion of anything. Councilman Boor-And that is important but you need to understand that you are not registered, we would not know where you are unless. Mr. Gunther-I was just told that he was at my home the other day so he knows where I am. Supervisor Stec-I saw, I knew there was at least one on Ash Drive. I knew… Mr. Gunther-I do burn the proper materials, it is wood. I am in the general contracting business the wood that I burn has been cut the year before and dried and if I did not cut it and burn it, it would be destined to the landfill which we have quite a few of those stump dumps around. What looks better a stump dump full of useless wood or being used. I also have a very big investment, the stove cost me ten thousand dollars. My home was electric heat so I had to convert all of the heating system in side to baseboard heat, that was another fifteen thousand dollars because I was not able to do that myself. That was all done under legal terms. Installed legally, done under no, there should not be a problem at this point. I do not feel that they should be banned at all. If my neighbor feels that they want to have a stove so be it. If I cannot use my outside boiler I have an alternative my three wood stoves in my house. I do not really see the lesser of two evils here because I am not going back to oil, because oil is outrageous already. I do have an old home unfortunately it is not heated or insulated very well, I have been working on that. My home has been handed down to me, its something that I am going to hand down to my daughter later on. It is a big investment and it is something, I am a local person that does support our Queensbury area. That is all I have to say and if you have any questions? Councilman Strough-Do you burn pressure treated wood? Mr. Gunther-No. I burn logs and wood. If I have any cut off two by fours that are dried I burn those as far as any dimensional lumber but nothing pressured treated. I do not burn garbage there is no heat source in it. I have a garbage pick up service that I have picked up every Tuesday. I have no reason to burn garbage. I do not really, I have nothing that I would be doing that would jeopardize the use of my stove. You are more than welcome to stop in anytime if you would like. I will show you how it works. Mine is actually a pressure vessel which I do not know if all of them are or not but that does make it a little bit more efficient. It actually has seven pounds. Supervisor Stec-That is what is driving your costs, that is more expensive. Mr. Gunther-That is correct, it is a seven and a half to thirteen pound pressure vessel it does not work of atmospheric pressure it works off of, almost like a pressure pot. Supervisor Stec-But you can run it at a higher temperature you can get more heat into your house. Mr. Gunther-Correct. That maybe why it does not smoke so much, I do not know. If you need a video I have no problem whatsoever either setting up one of your videos or I will set up a video myself. Supervisor Stec-I told you I happen to drive by and yours looked very similar to the Ireland’s and the Sweet’s that I saw very clean stack that day, I mean granted I was there at your place probably all five or ten minutes, but you know, so I didn’t see the whole start up and on a stagnant day who knows. But from what I saw I know what you are talking about. Mr. Gunther-I feel there is more of an issue with the summer time camp fires than there is with the wintertime wood stove. We are surrounded by all kinds of State and private campgrounds. If you want to see a valley full of smoke wait until some of those camp grounds are going and the prevailing wind is coming right down by us. Maybe that is where some of the smoke problems are coming in, in the summer time. I do not burn mine in the summer, it will probably be shut down late April somewhere in that range. Because it is not 436 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 effective to burn all summer when I have the oil furnace also. That is how I heat my water in the summer. Councilman Boor-It sounds like in your instance and I am assuming probably most of these since we live in the clement we live in and it freezes you really cannot shut these things down once we have weather below thirty two degrees, right, where the pipes will freeze? Mr. Gunther-I do have mine antifreeze protected. Because I do want the option to be Councilman Boor-But that lowers the efficiency doesn’t it? Mr. Gunther-It does put, you do not get much heat transfer it does cut down a little bit. Councilman Boor-I think, we are obviously going to have lots of discussions about this but I think it is important that the public understands that for the most part once these things are started in the fall they pretty much have to run through the winter so they do not freeze up. Mr. Gunther-Correct. Councilman Boor-So, whether you need the heat or not you still have to have a fire going. Mr. Gunther-If you are choosing to heat with an outside source, correct. Councilman Boor-Or you run the risk of freezing and loosing a lot of value in your system. In other words costly repairs. Mr. …. -That is an important issue that I would like to address. Supervisor Stec-Please come back up. Councilman Boor-Lets let Scott finish. Mr. Gunther-I am finished if you do not have any other questions. You are all set with me, Thank you for your time. …. Supervisor Stec-Anyone else, Yes, Sir, Ma’am Ms. Gloria Hlavaty – My name is Gloria Hlavaty and I live right next door to Scott Gunther. I have absolutely no problem what so ever with his wood stove, outside wood stove, wood burner. He is a good neighbor and I would have appreciated the Town Board of somebody to have gone to visit him and discuss it. I resent having the article in the paper about banning when it should have been an open forum before it even mentioning banning. Because I think you increase peoples temperatures when you do something like that. Supervisor Stec-We are doing all right so far tonight. But you are right knock on wood. No, but your point is well taken. We try to be as informative as we can it was discussed in December and again in Councilman Boor-January Supervisor Stec-January or February, and the paper has had a few articles in it but so we always try to give as much of a heads up so people know, we try not to spring anything on anyone last minute if we can ever avoid it. But your point being a neighbor is important. Mrs. Hlavaty-I do want to say that I am also a distance neighbor I am not right on the say road as the one that was complaining about the video with the smoke, but I know where he lives and it is a gully, his neighbor that was complaining has a house up higher and I think it all could have been remedied if someone came in and gave him the ok to have put up a larger stack. I resent what has been done to him, so, and I just want it on the record. 437 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 Supervisor Stec-Yes, Sir Mr. Art Brown-I am Art Brown from Birch Road I am the bad apple. My stove has got a stack the is approximately two feet above the telephone pole, the telephone pole is thirty two feet. Ok. What happens is the wind on one condition it is not all the bad conditions the wind blows off French Mountain comes through the wetlands and through the lady’s ice pond and blows right into two of the neighbors that made the complaint when we get a northeaster. This was something I really hadn’t, just really hadn’t expected. When it is the smoky condition that people complain about it is like for about seven minutes on a start up. I can crack the door open and give the stove more oxygen and it will get rid of the smoky condition, ok. But what happens is you start getting flames coming out of the door and it is kind of dangerous to stand there to do that. It also will set the seven hundred and fifty gallons of water it will set it to boiling in just a very short amount of time and the stove really was not meant to be run with the door open. I would be willing to put in a taller stack and smaller in diameter while I was at it. Supervisor Stec-Can I ask you a question or two and don’t mean to pick on anyone but you did mention yours is the one that we did receive complains on recently at least we as a Town Board. Have you, what do you burn in that stove? Mr. Brown-Pallets. It does not matter I can do it with hard wood. It is not Supervisor Stec-But you don’t burn, for the purpose of the record, and you do not have to answer but Mr. Brown-I do not do pressure treated wood, I am not burning garbage I got garbage service I have had it continually since I have been there, I pay eight dollars a week for four cans and they will even take a car tire if I so desire to send it. Supervisor Stec-That is what I was asking, you are not burning anything that you are not supposed to burn. Mr. Brown-Tuesday morning usually about quarter to 8 the garbage truck comes and picks up my garbage. I got a hopper there. It is just, one thing is we have got a mad man blowing up our Navy Ships what if they start blowing up oil tankers? It just seems to me that we have a renewal fuel and. When it quits getting cold I shut down by that time, it is work, I am pretty tired of it by then. I am interesting myself in just experimenting with getting another add on furnace that burns, free burn exhaust gas and have something that would be a back up for when I am not loading the furnace. If my neighbors were friendly I would hook up a pipe to haul water to their house. Supervisor Stec-We understand that there are some neighbor issues there and we do not want to get into the middle of that. Mr. Brown-You call he, the Building and Code Inspector, I got no use for him. Nobody talked to me first so they do not get, he does not get any respect. Supervisor Stec-Lets try to keep focused here. But you are saying you are not burning any plastic or rubber or oil, just wood? Mr. Brown-No, I may have a lot of clutter and it maybe garbage to me and may be garbage to somebody else or maybe my treasures to me and I will get rid of it properly. Supervisor Stec-The video that we saw and again. Mr. Brown-Did you see the smoky condition in the video you saw? Supervisor Stec-Yes. I have seen pictures. What I saw in the video was very different from what I saw last week at the other one on Ash Drive sorry Sir I forgot your name, Scott, Scott Gunther, and Mr. Brown-Well his is a more modern one, maybe 438 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 Supervisor Stec-His is a high tech, certainly. Mr. Brown-Way, way better. Supervisor Stec-Different from the others that I saw. Mr. Brown-They have improved it. Supervisor Stec-That is why, yours for whatever reason was definitely putting out a lot more smoke than the other ones that I have seen around town. I think some of the questions were, coming from that were maybe you are burning something that you should not be and that is why I asked you and I am glad you told us you are not. Mr. Brown-I have had a lot of accusations of that. I have had accusations of all sorts of things. Supervisor Stec-You are saying you are not burning anything illegal though, and I do not have evidence to prove otherwise. Mr. Brown-I really do not want anybody coming to my house, but I could bring you to my house and I could show you plenty of things that would be on your illegal list. Ok. If I burned them they would not be there. Ok. In my opinion pine is a waste of time to burn that and it was kind of advertised that I would burn anything I wanted when I got the thing. The first year I got three truck loads of it and Supervisor Stec-There is no heat in pine. Mr. Brown-I am not saying that was false advertising but I was a little bit miss leading. That is pine smoke we smell when we go up Nine in the summertime. Supervisor Stec-That goes to the, about camp fires. Mr. Brown-Right. I just do not have I currently don’t have a basement to put a furnace in. Supervisor Stec-How old is you unit? Mr. Brown-Six years old. I plan on it lasting a hundred and thirty years. Supervisor Stec-Was it stainless inside? Mr. Brown-It doesn’t matter I will repair it. You guys got fuel reserve if I change over to oil to give me if they blow up all the oil tankers? Supervisor Stec-We don’t. Mr. Brown-When you make a law just for one person that is called a bill of at tender and be very careful about that. My dander is up already and I am willing to go to court. Supervisor Stec-We have not passed anything yet. Mr. Brown-Any other questions? Councilman Strough-I have one, now several people have given us this and these are people favoring they have wood furnaces so I have seen this more than once, it is the HPBA are you familiar with the outdoor best burn practices? This is the Hearth, Patio, Barbeque, Association. This is what we have been talking about the recommended stack height. It says that it should be, if you are between fifty and one hundred feet of any residence the stack height should be at least seventy five percent of the height of the eve line of that residence plus two feet. We heard previously from Mr. Brown-Within how much percent of the eve, the eve on the bottom edge, right? 439 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 Unknown-Yes. Councilman Strough-We had heard from Mr. Tollefson who is the representative of Central Boiler from Minnesota who spoke earlier. He recommends that the stack be higher than your neighbors roof line plus two feet. So he has even a more stricter Mr. Brown-I am not going to be able to go higher than the one on the top of the hill? Councilman Strough-Well how high would that be then? Mr .Brown-If I am at twenty two feet I will double it to fifty foot of pipe. Councilman Strough-Would that bring you up to within the HPBA’s regulations? Mr. Brown- You said the eves, you said the eves, I am already within a couple of feet of the eves of my building. Councilman Strough-No, of your neighbors building. Mr. Brown-Her building, she is up on the hill she is like one hundred and twenty feet away. I do when I realize it blowing toward their house I go out and turn it off and put like a nail in the thing so it just gets a little bit of air. I got seven hundred and fifty gallons of water and it will stay warm for awhile until the wind changes direction. Councilman Strough-Do you have a spark arrestor on yours? Mr. Brown-No. Supervisor Stec-Anything else Mr. Brown? Thank you for your time. Mr. Brown-I think there should be something I should say. The first thing is, is the nice feature of these things, is there is no spontaneous combustion of furniture that has been sitting in the house for eight years next to the wood stove. You get no spontaneous combustion of two by fours that is behind brick and cement board walls that are behind the wood stove. Ok, now, you don’t when you leave the house most of the people, a lot of the people that have had wood stoves have had an inside one before. When I had them, when I left the house I always damper it down and did not really want it to be going full boor when I wasn’t there. You do not have, you do not get that feeling of looking for the fire department which direction they are headed when you are down at the grocery store. To me its improvement over the idea and when you got he is ninety eight percent proficient nature gas and Kerosene stoves have just been around a short time there is a lot of room for improvement on these things. I think it is a part of the future. When you got, we have used up two thirds of our fossil fuel in a hundred years it took us fifteen thousand years to make and somewhere it is just. I am sorry I smoked some people out. Supervisor Stec-I appreciate you coming tonight though and sharing with us because your woodstove and not you is the apple I was referring to, that was the one we were getting the calls on but it raises an issue that is much larger than just what is going on down in that part of Glen Lake and you know there are a lot of other people that are affected. I appreciate you coming tonight and answered some questions about your operation. Thank you. Yes, Sir. Mr. Dave McGowan-Good evening, my name is Dave McGowan I live at forty eight Birch Road I am north of the furnace on Birch Road and I am also just east with the furnace on Ash Drive. That sort of puts us right in the cross fire between the two. Just for the record I am Chemical Engineer by degree and also in practice. I am going to give you just a minute to study the photographs that I have just put in front of you. Every single one of you is probably saying holy you fill in the blank. What is really, I have four photographs that I have distributed to each of the Board Members and what is very surprising is with this hearing coming, we took those two photographs on the front Saturday morning at nine am. I was standing on my lake lot and we were watching the plume and all of a sudden it just erupted into that huge cloud of smoke that you see. I was standing on the lot my lungs were 440 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 burning. I was there I was talking to somebody working on the Searle property on the house by the name of Karl Arnold when I left Karl his eyes were tearing and he was wiping the tears away from his eyes and saying I can’t believe that I have to work in this condition for the next two weeks. The second photo that was taken in February so this is pretty much an every day occurrence, that photo taken in February the emission were estimated by the State Attorney General Protection Bureau to be at eighty percent of paucity. That exceeds the twenty percent which is a violation of the New York State Air Pollution status 211.2 which prohibits emissions of air contaminants that are injurious to humans, plant or animal life or the property for which unreasonably interferes with the comfortable environment of life or property. Everybody on the Board look at those photos, can anybody tell me that, that is not going to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property at my home. Anybody? Second, I would like to read from the Queensbury’s zoning ordinance dated, st April 1. 2002. Number 179-6-040 entitled Particulates and Smoke. No use shall emit particulates and or smoke that is detrimental to the public health welfare and safety. No use shall emit particles or smoke that exceeds the paucity of two on the Ringelmann Chart. For those of you who don’t know what the Ringelmann Chart is, it is a system, it is a virtual, the Ringelmann System is virtually a scheme where by graduated shades of gray varying by five equal steps between white and black. In other words, white would be zero, total black would be five. It does not take an engineering degree to look at those photos and see that we have violated the Queensbury Ordinance. That is definitely greater than two. Secondly on the books, Ordinance 179-6-030, No use shall regularly emit offensive odors perceptibly at the property line of any adjoining use. My lungs were burning on my property that is a direct violation of the Queensbury Ordinance. As you can see from the photographs the residents of Birch Road have been subjected to detrimental health impacts of the outdoor furnaces for too long. Queensbury has violated its own zoning ordinances by not measuring and enforcing the ordinances on particulate and smoke. These photographs clearly show smoke and particulate densities that are igneous to public health. Those who are undecided on the Queensbury proposed bans on outdoor furnaces and for those who claim a ban violates their rights, my family and everyone living around the furnaces rights are being violated. When the outdoor furnace emission leaves their property enters their lungs our children’s lungs and our homes, outdoor furnaces in residential use zone routinely violates Queensbury and New York State Air Quality Ordinances and Laws. If emissions from these furnaces stayed on the owners property it would not be a problem other than maybe the owners shorten life expectancy due to the volume of the emissions. But the emission don’t stay put and surrounding homeowners are the ones that are paying for this. For those who claim that the emissions are benign with no impact to the homes around them please take another look at the photographs. Is it noticeable? Is this a nine? Would your home, lungs and family would you want these emissions entering your home, your lungs, your family’s lungs your children’s lungs? All year round? For those who claim financial hardship from having to remove them what is the cost of asthma, what is the cost of children’s lungs, the elderly’s lungs. What is the cost of not being able to enjoy your home your property due to someone else’s actions? What is the cost of a reduced quality of life because you and your family can’t breath the air safely. What is the cost to the neighborhood from a child ten years old saying, they would rather move than play out side because it hurts their lungs. Yes, it is happening in Queensbury, home of natural beauty, a good place to live or at least it used to be. My children experience lung congestion playing outside when the outdoor furnace is operating due to the high volume of particulate matter emitted. Is Queensbury going to continue to let the neighborhoods deteriorate due to the operation of furnaces which violate its open ordinances? Finally, for those who suggest that allowing outdoor furnaces to operate from October to April is the answer. What is the outdoor furnace, why does the outdoor furnace owner get to decide when I can enjoy my yard? When my children can play out doors? When my wife and I can sit out on my deck? When we can skate on the lake? When the furnace owners can violate State and Town Ordinances. Again, take another look at the photographs would you want to live next to that outdoor furnace? Would you want your family or children being exposed to the emissions? Do you want these things popping up in a development that is new in Queensbury? Would you want to be subjected to the questionable potpourri of emissions from what ever the furnace owner happened to find or wanted to get rid of. Would you want the smoke stack transporting smoke directly into your yard? Would you want to have enjoyment of your yard and home diminished because of emissions from the neighborhood incinerator? In closing my family would ask that the Town Board uphold their own ordinances on the books and ban outdoor furnaces from Queensbury. Queensbury’s inaction regarding these devices have caused law 441 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 abiding home owners to pay with their health. Queensbury a nice place to live, not on Ash Drive and Birch Road. We believe that we have sufficient evidence that will prove Queensbury has been negligent in enforcing their own laws and we are contemplating legal action against the town if the new resolution is not passed. We asked two things, number one, new construction of the furnaces be immediately banned when the current status expires in June and number two, that the existing furnaces be shut off and decommissioned st permanently as of June 1. This going back to the photographs too, you can take a look at the roof line and where the pipe is in relationship to the smoke, you will see that the pipe appears to be just above the roof line. I do not think raising that stack is really going to help much at all. I was again on my lake lot across the Bay and I could smell the smoke. The other night in fact yesterday night, when I walked outside I could smell the smoke and it was fairly dense and I walked toward the furnace you take it my house is probably five or six hundred feet from the stack where we live and as I got closer I could smell it. The paucity at that point was not nearly what it is in the photograph. So, there is still is a smell and there still is a diminishing of quality of life due to that stack in our neighborhood. Supervisor Stec-Questions. Councilman Strough-Who’s smoke stack is it? Supervisor Stec-That is Mr. Brown’s, he is waiving his hand. Mr. McGowan-Mr. Brown’s, Birch Drive. Supervisor Stec-Since we have identified and since I believe what was a rhetorical question I will answer it. I would not want to live next to that and it is my understanding that from the ones that I have driven around town and looked at this is the exception. The exception to the rule. The offending furnace if you will that has brought us here. I certainly agree with you I do not think, this is going on, on a daily basis you know, this is the norm of the operation of this outdoor furnace I whole heartedly agree with you. But, I would also say that I from what I have been able to understand in my conversations and my own research that this is not the norm for the rest of them. Do you have a problem here, oh absolutely. Is it an enforcement issue, I think that it probably is and I would ask Chris and you probably will not be able to answer this off the top of your head. I would like tomorrow to know what call volume, complaints, the file, have we taken complaints? Yes we are responsible for enforcement of our code however we do not have a police force and we rely on neighbor complaints and neighbors filing complaints, contacting the DEC and the DEC is the enforcing authority on air quality, not the Town of Queensbury. We do have an ordinance that supports DEC but the heavy lifting here is to be done by the State DEC. I do not want to speak for them but I know that they would complain about budget issues themselves. I think that it is important for us to know if we had a volume of complaints and certainly I know and there are people in this room that can attest, the Town is very good at following up on complaints to the point where sometimes we have very contentious confrontations in handling complaints. Councilman Boor-If I could just add a little bit to your questioning on a subject that I think goes to the heart of this. That has to do with the difference between an Ordinance and a Law. One of the reasons where ever this ends up what I would like to end up with is a law, because then enforcement is in the hands of the sheriff. It is not an ordinance and it is not I believe that laws are enforced by law enforcement officers. Supervisor Stec-Well, we may as well get into this, yes and no. Mark is shaking his head and I will let him interject before I throw in my two cents. There are differences between ordinances and laws but I would also say that the Sheriff Town Counsel Schachner-The general proposition is not correct. Councilman Boor-OK. Supervisor Stec-The Sheriff does not necessarily drive around Councilman Boor-No, he would have to be notified. But I am saying that the enforcement body wouldn’t it be the Sheriff if it is a law? 442 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 Town Counsel Schachner-That is not necessarily the case. Councilman Boor-Give me an exception. Town Counsel Schachner-The Town of Queensbury Code the entire thing is a local law every bit of the Queensbury’s Code has been adopted by local law and as you presumably aware we have Code Enforcement personnel that go about enforcing many provisions in the Town of Queensbury Codes. So, there are many dozens of examples of laws that are enforced by our Code Enforcement Town Personnel not by the County Sheriff. Councilman Boor-So when do we make the determination as we did recently to have a law enforcement officer accompany one of our town employees to enforce something? How was that decision made? Town Counsel Schachner-That decision was generally made as a matter of security and safety. Councilman Boor-We are talking public safety here so I am trying to get to the root of when we make these decision and how we make these decisions and when do we decide. Town Counsel Schachner-I am not arguing with you. Councilman Boor-I want the information, because I want to know when it is appropriate to have law enforcement, enforce a law and when is it not appropriate. Town Counsel Schachner-I cannot answer that question. The example you gave we did not give the advice, but if asked we would give the advice that if there is a viable, if we would perceive a threat to somebody health or safety in a given situation we have advised town code enforcement and various town enforcement personnel to be accompanied by armed deputy sheriff personnel if appropriate and if possible. In that particular example, if I am on the right example which I hope I am, Councilman Boor-It is not critical, but I think its poignant. Town Counsel Schachner-that advice was taken and I think that advice seemed to have been good advice and I think we are all the better for that advice having been taken. Supervisor Stec-I would also add Roger because I think I understand what you are getting at is that and you probably what to shoot me pardon, the pun. Councilman Boor-The notion that people haven’t called Code Enforcement in the Town is ridiculous. Supervisor Stec-I do not know if they have or they haven’t but Director Round-The gentleman is referencing a section of the law that, of our local zoning ordinance that pertains to site plan review projects that there are environmental performance standards as you know that were new with our 2002 regulations that include some issues that deal with smoke opacity, noise, odors etc. those are standards to be utilized by the Planning Board in is review projects in order to impose some base lines. It is not a nuisance law it wasn’t written with a particular issue in hand in mind and it is not a nuisance law that is used by the Code Enforcement Staff to pursue this particular issue. Town Counsel Schachner-If I could add to that if that is the source of the Code language that the member of the public is referring to them for the benefit of the Board the public and anybody else understand that, that means that those standards only apply to projects that the Planning Board has site review authority over. Now, that Chris has mentioned those I am familiar as well, there are a number of environmental performance standards as well as other performance standards, traffic and the light that are in our zoning ordinance for projects subject to site plan review. So, just to use traffic as an analogy we have traffic standards as I recall if at my personal residence I have more traffic showing up right now that are in those 443 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 standards that is not a viable enforcement issue because my personal residence is not subject to site plan review. So, those particular standards that the commenter was referring to it sounds like do not even apply to these operations because they are not subject to site plan review. Supervisor Stec-So, you would say, if somebody calls tomorrow and says that neighbor X and neighborhood Y has a furnace that is putting out smoke like a locomotive and they complain to us, our recourse on the books, we do not have any then what would Councilman Boor-We have a law. Director Round-We refer, further the complain to New York State DEC as we quoted in the workshop there is definitely an air quality issue I think that is well evidenced that we have referred them to DEC and DEC needs to take that enforcement action into consideration. I think you had that some conversation today with the DEC official. Supervisor Stec-Yes, I did, they have air quality people in Warrensburg, now are they going to show up at two o’clock in the morning that is the issue. What, recourse do they have, well they could show up at eight o’clock the following morning and take a complaint and pursue it from there. That is how it was explained to me, today. Mr. McGowan-What triggers site plan review? Are you talking about an ordinance that can’t be enforced prior to a furnace being built? That is what I am hearing there which doesn’t make any sense, how can I determine if I have got a zero to five Ringelmann on a structure that it’s not built? Town Counsel Schachner-I can try, unless I am mistaken and Chris will jump in if I am, I am not aware of any requirement for site plan approval currently. The only requirement for site plan approval for outdoor furnaces and therefore the criteria, the environmental performance standards that exist in our zoning ordinance which is a law, I say zoning ordinance which is a law a local law. The environmental performance criteria which exists in our zoning law would not apply to these outdoor furnaces. Supervisor Stec-So, that section of the Code what, under what circumstances would that apply? Town Counsel Schachner-When a project is subject to site plan review. I think the gentlemen asked Supervisor Stec-So, if somebody says I am going to build factory in Queensbury and I am going to have smoke stack on that factory we are going to ask their designers their builders their engineers about their emissions. Town Counsel Schachner-Correct, that answers. Supervisor Stec-They have to be able to demonstrate to us that they are going to meet those requirements. Town Counsel Schachner-Correct and the commenter asked how can you know before the stack is built? Supervisor Stec-And then five years after the factory is built, five years after the factory is built, they are exceeding that, now exceeding their site plan approval? Councilman Boor-Let me convolute it just a little bit more then, ok? What we have here is a light industrial use of residential properties because we have power generation occurring in a residential area which means that they are in violation of another ordinance. … Councilman Boor-You are generating power believe it or not …yes you are we can talk about it but 444 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 Supervisor Stec-I am not sure I want to go … Councilman Boor-I am just trying to bring up the types of things that would be inappropriate in residential and we can’t Unknown-We are generating kinetic energy not power. Supervisor Stec-Lets keep, right now. Councilman Boor-Its one and the same if you look up your physic’s book . Supervisor Stec-Tim or Roger sorry, I am used to yelling at you, lets keep it here with those with the microphones talking please. Councilman Boor-Well, I am on the Board. Supervisor Stec-No, I know but not to the audience. Councilman Boor-Well, I guess my issue here is if you look at power generation its done with internal combustion whether it is natural gas oil, coal, that is how we get the electricity when we hit that switch, whether you like it or not. Nuclear in some instances but it is power generation so, we can argue the semantics all day long but the bottom line is you essentially have a building on a property that is generating power in a residential neighborhood and the effects of that generation of power are polluting the neighbors next door. Supervisor Stec-Myself Roger speaking for myself and without having had a chance to pick Counsels brain on this particular matter I mean, that scenario you would be describing every furnace, every wood boiler, every gas furnace, every oil furnace in the town. I think it is a stretch where you are going I think personally is a stretch to demonstrate that. Councilman Boor-I think these people might feel otherwise. Supervisor Stec-No, I think that clearly this has got to violate something with DEC. Councilman Boor-I think that if everybody in the Town installed a wood burning furnace you would have some issues, trust me and it is not the same as turning that switch on and having Niagara Mohawk power come into your place from a long ways away. Mr. McGowan-Lets assume that he is correct then that they applied for new construction and you have no way of knowing on new construction whether the Ringelmann value is going to exceed to then, prior to construction? Some will and some will not. I think that is a perfect issue for the ban. Supervisor Stec-What he said though was that they don’t apply, we are not talking about new construction, they apply to site plan and these don’t currently require site plan. Town Counsel Schachner-And for what it is worth I do not know how far you are going to take this but I have participated in Department of Environmental Conservations sponsored hearings at which in fact air quality engineers and combustion engineers and other have in fact made projections and done scientific studies prior to construction as to what the opacity of values would be what the particulate emission values would be and what the nitric oxide Sulfur dioxide and a whole slue of other emissions would be. So, I do not know I am not going to debate, I am not an engineer and I am not going to get into a credential debate but I do know that science and Supervisor Stec probably knows far more than I about this but science claims that those predictions can be made. Mr. McGowan-I am an engineer and sometimes we are wrong. Supervisor Stec-That is true, not often but sometimes. Thank you. 445 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 Councilman Strough-Mr. McGowan how frequently or what percentage of the time does the opacity exceed 20% on this particular wood burning operation? Supervisor Stec-What my question would be is this a five minute start up event or is this the normal go on hour after hour. Councilman Boor-Remember the video? Remember how long that video.. Supervisor Stec-I am asking him, I saw the video. Councilman Boor-OK. I just did not know if you remembered. Supervisor Stec-Oh yea, I remember better than you do. It was in December. Councilman Boor-I am talking about the length and duration of the smoke is what I am talking about. Supervisor Stec-It ran for a good forty five minutes the video. Unknown-In terms of frequency. Supervisor Stec-First identify yourself? Mrs. Maryann McGowan- My name is Maryann McGowan I also live at 48 Birch Road. In terms of frequency we are blessed that we both have jobs outside the home that our children attend school and that we are not at the home twenty four by seven, if we did we certainly would have asthma issues and we would have many more health problems than we currently do because of that furnace. This particular situation in front of you was noticed by my husband at approximately ten to nine in the morning, that continued for at least forty minutes, before it appeared that the operator shut it down, at least that is how it appeared to us. But, that was at least forty minutes. In terms of over all odor producing particulate quality that happened to be, that happens daily it happens constantly it happens when the air is stagnant, it happens when the air is coming from the south because we live north of that furnace. Supervisor Stec-I think that where we are going at this not a five, ten minute start up once a day kind of event. This happens more frequently than that. Mrs. McGowan-That is correct. Supervisor Stec-And when it happens it lasts longer than five or ten minutes. Mr. McGowan-more than half an hour. Supervisor Stec-Sometimes or most of the time it last longer than five or ten minutes, I am just trying to get an idea here. Mrs. McGowan-Again, I really cannot speak to that because you try not to be outside when that is happening and you know the minute you walk outside the door and I can tell you that when the furnace cycles for example my children have been trying to go out ice skating and we get a view of the furnace when its cycling and it easily cycles and produces emissions similar to that every fifteen minutes if not more frequently, depending again on what it is burning and how cold it is outside and the other variables. Supervisor Stec-Thank you. Anything else Sir? Anyone else, Yes? ..Sir Mr. Brown-I am going to leave, I just want to leave you with my phone number, I just it down about eleven o’clock and I not go filling it all night long. I start up about nine o’clock. Supervisor Stec-Thank you Sir, have a good evening. Yes Ma’am. Chris would you do that though tomorrow, I would be curious is there is any data we can glean as to what complaints we have received. 446 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 Director Round-Oh yea… Supervisor Stec-If you get a call about this right now, what would we do, we would refer them to DEC we would send somebody we would hang up and say sorry we cannot help you? Director Round-..how we deal with them before …make an investigation… Supervisor Stec-We are, we do not have a code per se Director Round-..entertain the issue from one aspect … Supervisor Stec-We need to know what how is it currently done if you have a minute I would like to hear. Councilman Brewer-..Do we need to know right now, let this lady speak. Director Round-The town does not have a local air emission, nuisance law pertaining to particulates etc. that is one way to deal with it is the output I think you can deal with it the other way is to deal with the source of the problem. Different communities deal with it differently, some people like to get rid of the potential problem. Unless you are a very large community that has unique circumstances you don’t generally get involved with air emissions type of regulations that has been an avenue for the State. It is a very difficult very complex avenue I think, we told you at the workshop several months ago that there is a law on the book, New York State DEC law that deals with air pollution and I think that is what you are largely what you are dealing with is an air pollution issue. We suggested that maybe a conversation with DEC might help produce an increase in enforcement. Supervisor Stec.-I had an informal one today maybe we need to have a more formal one in the future. Yes, Ma'am. Thank you. Mrs. Linda Clark-Hello, my name is Linda Clark I live at the end of Ash Drive and the end of Birch Road and my house is the one on the hill. Supervisor Stec-Lucky you. Mrs. Clark-Lucky me. Mrs. Clark-Before I begin my actual presentation tonight I have two neighbors who have asked me to read letters aloud to you, if that is all right. Ok. This first letter is from Kenneth and Leo Searles their home is on One Birch Road, Glen Lake. To Whom it May Concern. We have owned a home on Birch Road on Glen Lake for sixteen years. My family has enjoyed being part of this lake community and the larger Queensbury community. This past year has been spent completely rebuilding our home and in doing so we have gladly made sure to follow every guideline and stipulation to the letter. We take great pride in our neighborhood and wanted to go about this rebuild with our community in mind. This being said we have great concern about the outdoor furnace in our area we are extremely worried about the pollution that is effecting all of us in this area as well as the long term effects will be have on Glen Lake. This Monday we ask that the Town of Queensbury please take this into consideration and vote to eliminate the use of outdoor furnaces. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely Kenneth and Leigh Searles. The second letter oh by the way you have copies of everything in your folders, if I miss pronounce a word you can let me know. The second letter is from Robert and Ann Clarke who live next door to the furnace, the furnace is approximately fifty feet from their home. Dear Members of the Board, It is with great concern that we appeal to you to pass a law eliminating and banning the future use of outdoor furnaces in the Town of Queensbury. We have lived next to one about fifty feet of this furnace for seven years and know from personal experience the negative effects of this type of heating to the neighborhood. Our air quality is affected twenty four hours a day by smoke an nauseous fumes when in use. We feel that the Town has an obligation to protect the health and well being of all its citizens. These furnaces may be great for the owners but create health hazards and impact on the 447 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 quality of life of the surrounding community neighbors. The miss use of these furnaces by uncaring owners is another issue the Board must address. To date the Town has shown no ability to monitor and enforce violations of burning fuels such as garbage, trash, and other waste materials which we have personally witnessed. Officials of the Town of Queensbury instructed us to take pictures of the neighbor violating burning regulations. So, far our neighbor has refused to pose for pictures fueling his furnace. This suggestion imposes on us the obligation of monitoring this furnace, we question the fairness of that obligation. Again, we feel the Town of Queensbury has an obligation and duty to protect the environment we live in. This includes the lake, the land and the air quality. To grant permission to a few to spoil the environment for the convenience of a few at the expense of the rest of the community is morally reprehensible. Please protect my family, my neighbors and myself by passing a law to ban outdoor furnaces in the Town of Queensbury. Sincerely, Ann and Robert Clark. As you know I made quite a lengthy presentation at the first public hearing so I am not going to repeat a lot of what I have said. I hope to present a little bit more or something different to you. If you recall these are the pictures that I had shown to you along with the video. So, if anyone has not had a chance to see them please you are welcome to take a look. First of all I would like to present to you something I did not have at that meeting, and that would be a letter from my doctor explaining that my physical condition has been effected my health has been effected by this smoke. Ms. Whitty is a patient of mine, actually Whitty was my old name, Clark is now my new name, and suffered for many years with allergies and upper airway congestion which all started when her neighbor started using an outdoor furnace. I would like to see this exposure stopped and I support her neighbor being banned from using an outdoor furnace. He said to me that he would write a more detailed letter if need be and if you would like him to do so. I do want to let you know that I have been on medication since the first winter that he installed that furnace. I experience on a daily basis difficulties breathing my eyes burn, I get terrible headaches, it is just impossible, impossible and it makes me miserable. I am not a real happy person lots of the time but other times I am. In any case outdoor burns, I found a web site, I could not believe it because it was such an ironic twist to everything. This particular web site is an organization which supports the burning or wood as a source of heat, but it is extremely critical of the outdoor furnace and actually discourages its use. What I did I actually copied some of these things for you so that you could see what I was referring to. This is woodheat.org. it talks about in the first article that you see there outdoor boilers, what it is and I have highlighted some key things for you so you do not have read the whole thing tonight and we are not going to do that. I just hope that you take the time to read it later on. They do indicate that this is a very controversial method and you can see the big problem is smoke. “Boy do they smoke” If you turn you will find there was an EPA test done on the outdoor burners done in 1998 the average of several test runs for each burner produces an emission rate of about fifty grams of smoke per hour and an efficiency of fifty percent. This particular group believes that the test were not representative. The real world conditions because fire wood was dry and the heat losses from the unit itself and underground piping estimated to be eight percent by one manufacturer was not considered. They continue, they know of no real test of units under real conditions but we expect the actual delivered efficiency would be considerably lower and the emissions likely would be higher than these test results. There is currently a decision under appeal regarding these furnaces. The next piece of information that you have is this was really fascinating because this is actually a whole group of people that wrote to this site and it is their personal testimonials about the effect of or their experiences with wood burners, outdoor wood burners. Many of these people own them if not most of them and every single one of them indicated the major problem, smoke, smoke, smoke. It smokes a lot. It smokes, over and over again. One of the Board members talked about sparks. One of the testimonials said on the second page here, but we need to add our own spark arrestor because so many sparks came out the unit as sold, shoots lots of sparks unless the wood is high quality and very dry. However with the spark arrestor in place we can burn any day we like anything we like. We do not need to worry about tending the furnace or starting brush fires so that is an issue. One women says, I feel trapped because of the smoke, boy do I sympathize with her, you cannot go outside when that thing is fired up. Yes, it runs pretty much the entire day and it is at night time when it begins to really smell. The odor can be sometimes it can wake you out of your sleep. It is that bad. So, you can pretty much assume that, that is when the garbage is being burned. The next thing in your packet was the McGowans actually brought it to my attention, the law on the books, Queensbury Code the general, it says General Legislation Environmental and Performance Standards Particulates and Smoke. I do not see 448 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 any indicators here of limitations. It says here no use shall emit particulates and or smoke that is detrimental to public health, welfare and safety, no use shall emit particulates or smoke that exceeds proacity of two on the Ringelmann chart. No use. I do not see where there is a stipulation as to what use, when or anything like that here. This is right from the web site. Then I also threw in a real basic explanation of the Ringelmann Chart because we started complaining nearly five years ago about this furnace and we told by Dave Hatin there isn’t a law on the book to help you, nothing. He never, never brought the Ringelmann smoke chart to test to see if this smoke was in compliance of the town code? Since he doesn’t know about it I figured maybe some of the Board Members didn’t know about it, so here it is. This is it, this is all you need. Yes, it was developed in the late 1800’s I also read the history on it, and what you have to do and I know you asked Mr. McGowan if he checked to see, it is not our job to police these people who are violating the laws, it is your job. You have to take this chart and you have to put it up against the smoke stack that we are not allowed to go near or God knows what would happen if we did. You put it up against the smoke stack and you stand a distance away until this gets gray and you check the gray with the smoke and the air and I can tell you right now there is no way on Gods green earth this smoke stack spews anything less than a three and two is the limit. Two is actually the first list, one would be completely white, two is the second one here this one and then three, four and five as explained in here is completely black, would be a black sheet of paper. Never once in five years did we hear anything of this. This could have been something that would be usable to shut this down. It really just it is mind boggling that I have had to put up with all these health issues for all these years when there was something on the books. In regards to the chimney height, he would have to put a chimney in nearly as high as a high raise building in order to be above my house because I do live on a hill. So, I do not see how that is really possible. When it comes to regulation we have been told by DEC and the Town that it is almost impossible to regulate. Because you have to catch this person doing the wrong thing and it is not just us that has to catch them it has to be DEC and you know what DEC did come out one time and they did catch him. The caught him once and you know what they did after all of these complaints? Well this was his first time that we caught him so we are not going to write up a warning. Well we’ll just tell him, that is what we were told. Time and time again we have notified the Town in the last five years and if you do not have it on written record many times I did write it down and I can have many people come in and testify here that they called the town they talked with Dave Hatin they have talked to Chris Round and they have talked with a number of people over and over again about our concerns and we have gotten no where. One of the other things that I did bring up at the last meeting that I just want to reiterate here is the fact that what these furnaces do in terms of lending them self to the kind of environment they inspire keep in mind that this is what it looks like when they start gathering together the things needed to burn. Of course they are not burning that, it all depends on who you are talking to and what time of day it is of course. I found it interesting tonight in listening to all the people that there were very very few people here who were neighbors who actually testified on behalf of those who own the furnaces. I actually do sympathize with those who have purchased those furnaces. I am sorry, but I also paid that much money in medical expenses, x rays, doctors appointments, I have paid that much money too. It is time to put an end to it. Therefore I have to agree with Mr. McGowan that these things should be banned out right, they are a health hazard whether they are burning garbage or they are burning pallets or wood the design of these things is completely un-environmentally friendly. So, I would like you to please seriously consider this and ban these things from Queensbury. Thank you very much. Supervisor Stec-Anyone else first time? Yes, Sir. Mr. Paul Derby- First on a side note the DEC…Paul Derby 36 Ash Drive Just as a side note to the Town the DEC really has not been a help for us on Glen Lake on several issues. I am just wondering if the Town can somehow pressure the State to Supervisor Stec-If I could just interrupt Paul because, I am, I have been listening tonight and I have been doing a lot of thoughts on this as has everyone else and I mean clearly there is an issue with at least this one that we are talking about. I am just stymied that at what I just heard that we have had, I understand dealing with the State and some of the touchy feely laws that are out there that are kind of, it is real easy to say it’s there it is not there, it is fourteen feet or it is twenty feet and you start getting into this well you got to catch them in 449 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 the act and it has got to last you know ten minutes and all the stuff that goes with these sort of laws like the noise ordinance. So, we go for hours of operation on garbage collection as opposed to noise ordinance. Now we have an issue over who is going to enforce these laws is the sheriff going to enforce it or how is this. I find it impossible to believe that DEC is this unresponsive to this problem and so I, look I am not sure whatever we do when ever we get around to doing it on this is going to make everyone or no one happy but I mean it is clear to me from tonight from January from December from these pictures from the pictures we got from the forty five minutes video tape that ran it was probably longer but we were, we won’t add on, that something is wrong here . If we cannot handle a problem like this I mean that is ridiculous. So, I am going to make some phone calls tomorrow I am going to call our DEC rep. and get him hopping on his new job Mr. Montesi and we are going to get some resolution on this because this is nonsense. I mean this is nonsense. This is nonsense not only for you folks on Ash Drive and Birch Drive to have to put up with this but this is also nonsense that this has pushed us to the point where we have had a dozen other people that are operating them responsibly that I have visited personally and it has gotten to this point where we are going to ruin it for everyone else. So, that is where I am coming from, in I am in a position where I want to say you know what we need to get a hold of this problem and we need to get some restrictions and we need to have a law on the books for outdoor furnaces and emissions, yea, absolutely but do I want to go all the way off the cliff and say you know what you have been operating one responsibly for ten years you are on five acres of land and you are not bothering anyone and no one has ever complained and you put ten thousand dollars into this investment I do not want to go there. I want to fix your problem and we are going to get to the bottom of this and if we got to get the Sheriff involved and we got to get the State Police involved but if what you are all telling me is true and all the evidence I have seen so far tells me I am hearing the truth on Glen Lake that something has to be done with this but I do not want to punish the good guy. It is very easy to enforce a ban you drive by Monday through Friday working hours you either got one in the yard or you don’t got one in the yard, you got one in the yard bam you are in it, you go into the Court System hey the thing is there that is the easiest thing to enforce. But you get into this well you know we got an enforcement issue I do not believe that you should correct this problem by, an enforcement problem by just saying well the easiest thing to enforce is you are not allowed to have them at all. So, are we going to blow this off? No. We are going to fix this one. But, you know I, hopefully we do not have a whole lot more on public hearing for this tonight but where I am going for and I think a lot of the Board Members are inclined to think about this some more. But this problem we do not need to think about any more. This is a specific instance that we should be able to handle without getting carried away. Agreed Staff? Councilman Boor-But lets let these people finish. Supervisor Stec-Go ahead, Paul. Mr. Derby-I just wanted to make a note that DEC has not been that cooperative in the past with things so any pressure at that level would be great. It seems pretty clear to me that outdoor wood burning furnaces were made for rural areas. You have heard to experts say, most of them said that. It seems pretty clear that they were not made for residential areas in particular high density areas. I just feel that they are completely inappropriate in high density area. Frankly I would not want my neighbor putting one up, we live on fifty foot lots or hundred foot lots or across the street it is just not appropriate in those areas. So, I think we could almost make it simpler by saying ok, what is appropriate well maybe in rural area. Maybe fore instance ten acre lots would be ok, with half mile set backs or something. I do not know, something to work for, but the idea that you can just put them anywhere in Queensbury when you have houses right next to each other just doesn’t seem reasonable to me. Supervisor Stec-Paul, not to interrupt you again but I will, is we do have two issues here we have got going forward, what is going to come in the future and then of course we have got which has got a lot of people on the other side of the issue here tonight, we have got some existing one and what do we do with that, but under no circumstances should anyone have to tolerate what I have been hearing about this. Maybe the solution is we do get on and we do crack down on where we allow these in town but that still leaves the question of what do 450 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 we do with the ones that are existing that have not demonstrated a problem and that is a separate issue that we need to address at the same time. Councilman Boor-I think there is going to be some people to speak to that actually. Mr. Derby-Again. I would make the restrictions so that if they are in these high density areas that they be phased out within a reasonable period of time. Thanks. That is is. Supervisor Stec-Mrs. Monahan Mrs. Betty Monahan-Betty Monahan, Sunnyside Road First, I would ask you Gentlemen to please use your microphones, when you sit back there in the room the sound carries in this room terribly. Most of you we cannot hear very well back there nor can we hear the Attorney. I have only known this situation what I am reading in the paper and what I am listening here tonight. But, I think you have some problems here. Number one if you are going to ban wood furnaces you are also going to have to do some kind of a comparison between wood furnaces, fire places and wood stoves about who spews the most in the air. I happen to be very sensitive to smoke and I remember during the last, and I am not asking you to ban anything, I am just doing this as a example. Supervisor Stec-Good, because then we will not disappoint you. Mrs. Monahan-But during the last energy crisis I can remember hitting the Northway when it went into Queensbury and my eyes in the car would start to tear because everybody was using wood stoves and fire places for heat trying to avoid the high oil bills. Councilman Boor-What year was that? Mrs. Monahan-Back when we had some of the energy crisis. Councilman Boor-70;s, 80’s because Mrs. Monahan-Any place through there really. Councilman Boor-EPA Mrs. Monahan-I realize that, but I am saying you are going to have to make that comparison to prove that one is worse than the other to be legally sound as far as I am concerned. Secondly, I think we also have to recognize the position this Country is in today. I think what has happened in Spain has brought it even more to the fore front. We may not have a supply of oil that we have expected and we may have to deal with that problem. Thirdly, I have a feeling here that we are reacting because of one person, one furnace in this Town, let me put it that way, that is not being operated properly or maybe because of its construction the age or something cannot operate properly. There certainly ought to be tests that you could do and I will only refer to a burn barrel type of a situation where we had a gentleman speak to us in a group that I am involved in. They actually did tests on the soil around the burn barrel, to show what happen when you start to burn plastic and stuff like that. It would seem to me and you can and I do not think that Town is in a position to do this or get the equipment. You can do things to test the air quality in certain areas, you can do other tests in the soil around it where the vapors from the air are going to land, see exactly what is going on and it would seem to me that’s one of the first things that you should do. Again, you know if you had a car in the Town of Queensbury that was going the wrong way on the Northway at a hundred miles per hour you wouldn’t say nobody could drive a car in the Town of Queensbury. So, I think you need to look at this sensibly very even handily and not respond emotionally to what is going on out there in the Town . Supervisor Stec-Thank you Betty. Supervisor Stec-Hopefully, that is the path we are on. Yes, Sir. Unknown-I will be short and sweet here I think everybody pretty well covered everything I live at 65 Birch directly next door. 451 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 Supervisor Stec-Your name, Sir? Mr. Peter Dineen-Peter Dineen Supervisor Stec-Thank you. Mr. Dineen-I have been there four years now and there is a major, major problem there as you can see by the photographs. I think it is one of those things when I first moved in there the first couple of weeks I go, I was wondering why my eyes were watering? Why asthma issues what have you. It is a big problem in our neighborhood and hopefully that the Board recognizes and that we are going to be able to do something with it. Supervisor Stec-We are going to do our best. Mr. Dineen-Thank you. Councilman Strough-Peter, some of these photos just show like piles of wood, it is not sheded it is just piled Mr. Dineen-Its thrown right in front of there. Councilman Strough-I mean it is not wood its Councilman Boor-I would say there is some wood in there. Councilman Strough-its furniture, its chairs, its screen doors just in a big pile. Mr. Dineen-Anything that will burn. Councilman Strough-It is not covered or anything it is just on his back yard or what ever … Mr. Dineen-Like today it went for three hours, it was not seven minutes, it wasn’t five minutes it was three hours. From eight thirty to twelve o’clock Supervisor Stec-That was today? Mr. Dineen-That was today. Councilman Strough-Is one of the issues the appearance of one’s yard because of the materials they are burning? Mr. Dineen-That is a different issue Supervisor Stec-Thank you, that is a different issue, Thank you. Mr. Dineen-If you look at the pictures it is pretty evident. Supervisor Stec-It makes you wonder if it is stacked next to the outdoor boiler it makes you wonder where it is going? Councilman Boor-How hard does it make you wonder. Supervisor Stec-All right, Peter, those are some new pictures though but thank you, thank you very much. Yes, Ma’am Mrs. Lorraine Stein-Good evening, my name is Lorraine Stein I live on 86 Ash Drive. I just wanted to point out as you have heard, we are sandwiched, my house is sort of sandwiched in between the two furnaces and I just want to clarify something for me, it does appear to me, one maybe worse than the other but I have experienced odor, smoke from both. You know, I have seen them both operating during late summer, fall, and I have had my windows opened and had to close them because my whole house smelled like smoke. I 452 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 enjoy having my windows open. I sleep during the wintertime with the window open and the fan on above my head. I do not want to have to, I feel I have a right to be able to do that and to breath fresh air and I think it is a public health and safety issue that the Town should consider seriously. These furnaces are really not meant to be in those types of neighborhoods. No matter what I mean I am talking about both situations here because we are not talking about just the one. Supervisor Stec-I do not think and I will speak for myself I do not think at this point I have any issues going forward with seriously limiting where in the Town these are and are not appropriate and I do not think anyone on the Board has an issue with that. I think were we are going to run into harder decisions is what do we do with the ones that are currently operating, but certainly in any event you know. Mrs. Stein-I would like to see something done with the ones that are there currently because of course I do not want to see any of my immediate neighbors putting one below my window either, so. you know I mean. Supervisor Stec-New ones I think would be a lot easier to limit, a lot more strictly than what do you do with the ones that are currently out there. Do we grandfather them, do we phase them out over time or do we say, hey, make sure you adhere to this or else. There is a lot we could in between out right remove them tomorrow or keep going as you are. Mrs. Stein-I would like to see them phased out in densely populated areas like my neighborhood. Thank you. Supervisor Stec-We have been on this for awhile I do not want to shut down public comment but is there, we are looking for new information new comments, I think the two issues are the two sides of the issue are pretty clear to us. Yes, Sir. Mr. Pete Skinner-Supervisor Stec and Town Counsel people and support staff, my name is Pete Skinner I am a registered and licensed professional engineer in the State of New York, I have recently retired from the Attorney General’s Office where I was Chief Scientist for thirty three years starting with Louis Lefkowitz over those years I have worked on most of the big cases that our office has been involved with from acid rain to Love Canal to nuclear power plants. During the last three years I have done a lot of different cases before my retirement, but one recurring theme has been out door wood boilers. They seem to end up in our office because our office is often times the site of last resort for people who have not found satisfaction with environmental enforcement other places. These devices unfortunately are more than just an environmental problem in general they are very divisive for communities like yourselves. All across New York the North East and the Mid West, as more of these go into densely populated areas their rudimentary design and the emissions that come from that design and sometimes the miss use of them have caused groups like your selves to spend long hours trying to figure out how to get somebody else to enforce laws that are on the books. It is a very difficult undertaking because it pits neighbor against neighbor. No body likes to get involved with those kinds of disputes. But in this case because this smoke goes over long distances that often times it is more than just one neighbor against another neighbor it is one neighbor against many neighbors. Some of them are not as vocal as others some are very vocal. Some of them are so vocal that they almost do themselves a disservice by fighting for their rights to breath clean air. So, as we have received many of these complaints we have interacted not only with the complaints and the owners but also with the manufacturers, Randy is here I am glad to see him come. We have done that because we thought when it began that these devices could be remedied perhaps with an after burner. Perhaps with some other you know retro fits that could fix them, so they couldn’t be misused and they would operate reliably without smoke So far retro fitting has not been a solution. The higher stacks have improved some sites but not all of them. As you well know there are stagnant air conditions that cause these to be a problem. So, we have worked with other states the North east States air pollution people NESCOM and in particular Vermont which have rules that prohibit these things in certain areas. These problems are very severe. I am particularly happy to hear Randy say that he plans to improve the design, because they are basically very rudimentary they are very hard to operate without smoke and even when they don’t smoke the smell is pretty nasty especially when it is released at low levels. So, what I would like to add to this I could go on and on 453 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 because we have looked into this in great depth I am happy to help any of you draft something, is the following. Number one I think you should extend your moratorium on new installations until you can figure out some bright line of where they should go because frankly certain topographies lead to difficulties even though there may be a large set back. If you want to go see one try Round Lake area where the fellow burns a lot of pine and it is down hill to Round Lake and when there is an inversion especially cold days Round Lake starts to fill up with a whole haze area just because of one person, and he burns in the summertime to heat his pool. So, the problem occurs not just there but many places in New York and other places so I would recommend extending your moratorium until you can figure out can we enforce our own rules here, can we past rules that have that have bright lines that our Code Enforcement Officer clearly says this is a violation, this isn’t. Until you do that I think you should extend the moratorium. Another question comes in terms of phase out, when I grew up in Vermont we heated with wood, when I moved to West Sand Lake I have heated with wood for twenty two years and I have used a certified EPA wood stove and it has not been perfect but it met the 7.5 grams per hour standards. The study to which Randy refers here which is by Valentee and Clayton here really has some flaws but if you go to one of the tables it measurers a number and forty three grams per hour at power outputs, it is a good deal smaller than what these folks turn out so it could be even higher than that. So, we are talking about emissions and particulates. And order of magnitude higher than EPA certified wood stoves. So, when they can meet the EPA woodstove rules, great. Maybe we can reconsider, but until then I suggest that you need to extend that moratorium. Now in terms of the phase out, I want to get back to that, I feel badly that these folks have put in five thousand, ten thousand dollars into their units. Not only have they put a tremendous amount of money into their units for better for worse I have bought some things I wish I had not bought, but they have worked very hard to get the wood and put it in there and they put it in all year long and they do not take vacations because they can’t take a vacation it freezes up and they have got a big problem. So, consequently you know you get kind of wedded to this particular device and I can really understand the psychology of it and I have a high degree of respect for the people that worked so hard to have these things work. So, I understand, what can I call it, their reluctances to give it up because it should work, especially if you have free wood because you are landscaper or something like that. So, how can we make those people whole who have to take it out because their neighbors are too close or the topography is not right. Around this area there only be one or two perhaps from what I heard tonight and maybe more when you get closer to the issue. An important thing turned out and Randy can explain this perhaps in more detail, in Bennington Vermont a landscaper bought one of these devices from Beacroft Shooter Supply down here in Schaghticoke and put it in. Immediately there was a problem with the neighbors and he wasn’t aware that Vermont had set back rules and the like which he violated and he sued Central Boiler and he sued Beacrofts. To my knowledge it was resolved so that there was a satisfactory financial out come for that dispute. As far as I know that device is not being used and Randy could explain it in more detail. I tried to get a hold of the Attorney this afternoon but I could not get him. So, there is an opportunity for Queensbury to step in here, Chris and others could work toward resolving this financial issue. The Attorney Generals Office has a consumer bureau that might be willing to help negotiate an appropriate outcome, so that these devices could be retrieved and replacement systems put in place so that neighbors aren’t made, don’t have a problem with these units. So, in this way it would be a win, win. You folks don’t put people who have in good faith gone out and bought a device that they felt would do the job, you have helped them feel that they have come out whole. The manufacturer doesn’t want these embarrassing problems to dog their company would also be made whole because they would not have to worry about bad press and you folks could go onto other business which is perhaps more important than hours spent on a few furnaces. So, that is what I recommend, moratorium extension and a phase out, devices in high density areas where there is a problem and the owners be made whole through negotiations with the companies. Supervisor Stec-Thank you, Sir. Any other questions? Councilman Strough-Do you know of any town that has adopted the perfect law? Mr. Skinner-Many towns around New York and other places have adopted out right bans because they felt the enforcement of trying to draw bright line between one that is ok and one that is not ok was too difficult. As you may know the Department of Environmental Conservation back in July wrote to these companies and stated lets see if I can get it stated 454 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 just as they said it, they said the Department is concerned however that these products are not designed or manufactured in a manner necessary to operate they in compliance with New York State regulations as such the Department whether the sale and use of wood fired outdoor furnaces in New York also violates New York State air pollution control laws and regulations. Councilman Brewer-How do we allow them to be sold if they violate the standards? Mr. Skinner-Well, I guess that is what they are saying here, that they are evaluating that, I guess they have not come to a conclusion yet. Councilman Brewer-How can you accuse somebody of violating standards and not outright tell them they can’t sell them if they are, if you are making the acquisition but you are not backing it up. Mr. Skinner-I am not making it. Councilman Brewer-I am not saying you the State is. Mr. Skinner-it is a letter from DEC. I think your point was well taken and you should begin thorough the region and this came from headquarters and as you know the regions operate a bit differently from the headquarters, or not differently but they are some what separate. Supervisor Stec-I will be talking to Region 5 again tomorrow. Councilman Boor-It might also be appropriate if you read the five recommendations that they, I believe it is the same letter isn’t it the second page? Mr. Skinner-No, actually this is a letter to a facility in I think it is in Perry, New York it is near Genesio, that is a situation where they said during the inspection we saw cresol treated railroad ties mixed in with the wood and plastic bags and card board in the vicinity of the unit ready to be burned. Burning of this waste and other garbage violates a number of different DEC rules and they go onto other rules that this particular one did or could violate. However, the last time I talked to the neighbors this was still operating. So, it is very difficult for DEC to close these down but I think you have the where with all and the capability to take action here locally to protect your citizens without necessarily having an adverse impact on owners. Councilman Strough-The way I am looking at it there are a lot of options I think we can go in I do not know if we are going to find the perfect situation, because we could restrict them based on zoning, that the higher density zoning just not be permitted in and the less dense zoning maybe they would be if you did a site plan review. So, you might be able to go through a site plan review before adopting a nuisance law as was suggested. Possibly a nuisance law based on best burn practices you know or maybe a combination of those. We are going to have to sit down and I think as Supervisor Stec pointed out and take a good hard look at this and see if we can come up with something that would make most people happy. Supervisor Stec-John you are new and so I will give you the fire side chat, we will Mr. Skinner-Is that in the wood shed? Supervisor Stec-We very seldom except when we cut taxes and even then believe it or not we don’t, we very rarely make everyone happy, but I think we can get to the point were we can a remedy. We have got three issues before us , we have a discrete severe issue that needs to be addressed immediately. We have got the future to deal with and we have got those that are currently in operation to deal with ad I think we need to look at all three of those and one is going to be dealt with tomorrow morning the other two maybe we will discuss a little bit more tonight, I do not want to speak for the board but. Anything else Sir? Anyone else from the public, I am not discouraging input but we have been here on this awhile, anything new? Lets try that. Does anyone have any more questions for Mr. Tollefson? Anything new? 455 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 Mrs. Monahan-The gentleman the manufacturer offered earlier to discuss the freezing up of them when that question came he said he had some information. Supervisor Stec-Is the Board interested in that, sure, you are here you came from Minnesota I have five more minutes for a Viking. Thank you again for coming out I thought that was great. Mr. Tollefson –If that is an important issue to know, myself I sprained by ankle three weeks ago I did not fire my stove for two weeks and I had no problems with it and I don’t have antifreeze in it. Supervisor Stec-If you are circulating it and you have got a back up. Mr. Tollefson-Yes. Councilman Boor-Your house and stuff was heating the boiler essentially correct. Mr. Tollefson-yes, it takes very little energy to do that and that is one of the recommendation on the list of recommendations that there be a back up system in place, so we feel that is an important issue to address. Supervisor Stec-Did any one have any questions for Mr. Tollefson anyone else on the Board? Councilman Boor-Not at this time but certainly I would like a card… Supervisor Stec-Also you served, the fortunately retired State, if you have business cards Or perhaps a name or number for us. Unknown-Not yet. Mr. Tollefson-Could I ask to clarify your name was Peter Skinner, ok. Thank you. Mr. Skinner-We talked on the phone. Ok. Thank you. Unknown-I have a question for the gentleman as far as the newer furnaces and everything the … you are putting into them stuff like that, the one bought six years ago vs one that was just bought last year as far as smoke release, dampers, everything else that elapsed does it burn clean, much more cleaner or is there any kind of a difference? Supervisor Stec-For the record cause we are trying to capture this on tape and a doubt that picked up the difference between six years ago unit and a year unit and the technology. Mr. Tollefson-The future units that we are looking at have extreme advantages . Councilman Boor-Present or future. Mr. Tollefson-Future. Supervisor Stec-Anything else on this issue? All right. Town Board discussion? Lets start with Roger. Councilman Boor-Actually I would kind of like to go last the reason being I brought this to the Boards attention and Supervisor Stec-You can go second to last, Ted. Councilman Boor-Excuse me, if you don’t mind I would like to speak. Supervisor Stec-Last or now? 456 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 Councilman Boor-I would like to give you my reasoning why I think it is important we do this correctly so that we do not make mistakes. I put a lot of time into this and I would like to think that some of the questions you might have I might actually be able to answer. So, I thought it might be appropriate for me to go last since I put that much time into it. Thank you. Supervisor Stec-Ted. John. Councilman Strough-Well, basically it would repeating what I said before when I said you might be able to make most people happy Supervisor Stec-We might. Councilman Strough-Then you gave me your fire side chat when you told me you can only make most people happy. So, I do not know, we have to put our expert legal people to work I think and ..see if we can come up with something that will deal with the issues of topography and zoning and these wood burning, exterior wood burning or furnaces or boilers whatever you want to call them. I do not know if it is going to be adopting a nuisance law some kind of a zoning restriction some kind of Planning Board or special use permit review. I think we are going to have to sit back down and take a look at this and extent our moratorium as was suggested. th Supervisor Stec-Well the moratorium will continue without action until June 15 and I am hopeful between now and then we will be off this with a resolution and onto something different. Mr. Brewer. Councilman Brewer-My only suggestion would be to allow us time to read what we have in front of us and then possibly at a later date ask the manufacturer or some manufacturer to come back and talk with I am sorry I forgot the gentlemen name .. Supervisor Stec-Mr. Skinner. Councilman Brewer-Mr. Skinner at a workshop setting, people that own them, people that don’t want people to own them and we outline some ideas and come up with something. I cannot sit here tonight and tell you what the answer is, I only know that for two hours on Saturday I watched literally two of these furnaces burn and neither one of them are in comparison to the pictures that we looked at tonight and previously. Supervisor Stec-I concur with your observation. Councilman Brewer-So out and out ban them because there is a couple of them that are bad, no, I do not think so. I think we have to put all our heads together and come up with a plan and I do not know what that plan is right now. Supervisor Stec-I agree and Mr.Skinner touched on a few items from my conversation with DEC up on Warrensburg today that they have , the State says that the studies and the opinions out there and the science is not conclusive that there is a lot of conflicting data out there and the State is looking into this issue and apparently so that also agrees with what Mr. Skinner pointed out to the Board. I think I kind of peppered in my thoughts and ideas on this and where we should head through out the discussion tonight so I will not repeat myself. Roger or Ted. Councilman Turner-I will go. As far as I am concerned, I burn wood in my house but it is not in an outside they call the stove in Vermont a water stove. But, anyway, there is nothing wrong with burning wood it is just where you are when you are burning it. There are going to be areas in the Town that are not going to be allowed to have them period. There is going to be areas in the Town that are going to be allowed to have them because they function well there and there is no complaints. So, I think we have a lot of homework to do to get this thing back on the main stream and get a conclusion to this before the next heating season. Supervisor Stec-Roger. 457 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 Councilman Boor-The first thing I would like to say is I appreciate every comment that was made tonight and certainly the Post Star has portrayed me as the person pushing this ban. I certainly have problems with the type of furnaces that we have talked about tonight but I think it is very important because some of the people that own these things need to understand that from the very beginning and I still believe that these things can be controlled with the exceptions of what Mr. Skinner referred to as atmospheric anomalies with set back and zoning. I have always felt that was appropriate I was not in favor of an all out ban. I am very happy to see that some of the colleagues who wanted to outright ban them have now changed their mind and are willing to discuss maybe what the more appropriate measures might be. Now, having said that there is a lot of ways to approach this. I think one that we might want to look at is what I would call a revocable special use that could be granted by means of a variance. So, if lets say an established set back and it would be arbitrary just for discussion lets say two hundred feet from a property line. We poll the surrounding neighbors and they say you know what we do not have a problem with this. We say fine, we will give you a variance but it is revocable in the event that at some point in time it is determined by a neighbor that they are suffering and it proven to be as such. Then that might be a way to go. It obviously is it a very complicated issue. I also feel very badly for the people that have had to put up with this one particular burner and I think that there certainly is responsible use of what I would not call sophisticated technology and we can argue back and forth on that, but the point I am trying to make here is that I think that is some of the people that spoke tonight saying that I used this responsibly I have never had complaints, I don’t believe that I am causing any harm, I think that if you had seen what these people had put up with for seven years you would understand why we are here tonight and are dealing with this. If you go over the notes of the workshops it is very clear that I emphasize one hundred percent with the investment that those of you that own these stoves has. I feel bad if it results in an eventual taking away of that. I am not suggesting that that is what we do, but it has got to be left on the table as a possibility. I think that we do live in a type community where we high densities and we have very low densities. I think great cases could be made where these things would be appropriate maybe appropriate isn’t the right word but would be such that they would not cause hardships on other individuals. But certainly in the neighborhood around Glen Lake and I can name a ton of other residential neighborhoods these things should definitely not be on half acre parcels. I do not care how big a stack you put them on or what you do it is just inappropriate. We need to also look at EPA there is a lot of comparisons being made between people burning in an air tight catalytic wood stove visa vie what I would call rudimentary somewhat archaic methods of burning huge chunks of wood. Why huge chunks of wood? Because people don’t want to have to maintain these a lot, they want to put a bunch of wood in there and leave for forty eight hours and it is understandable. But the problem is that they burn incredible amounts of fuel and the notion that this stuff doesn’t go into the air is fallacy and I think truthfully that as time will show they probably will be banned or the technology as the gentleman from Minnesota pointed out will have to get remarkably better because the way it is now these are highly inefficient. That is not to say that there are not certain robust individuals here that don’t mind tending these things and filling them but there is a lot of work involved. There is a lot of material that has to go into these things and I think we can strike some kind of a law an ordinance whereby these things may be allowed in some areas but they should certainly be prohibited and banned from others. You know this is not supposed to be an easy job it would be great if we could just go yea well, you do this, you do that and it is over. Half of you go away very upset the other half would be elated. That is what makes this job so difficult. Everybody here has seen both sides of this issue and we have got to grapple with this and I am sure that we will come up with something appropriate. Ultimately, somebody two, three, four, five people may not be happy with what we come up with. It is hard to say at this point in time. I know we are all committed to doing what is right we understand the health issues and we under stand the long term effects of not doing anything. So, I will continue to work hard on this and I know my colleagues will also and hopefully we can come up with a solution that makes everybody understanding of it. That is about it. Supervisor Stec-I would just add that I think it is important for everyone to take away from this tonight to build on one point that Roger made, the status quo is not going to remain. Change is coming, for some the change will be too much for others it will not be enough. I think that was the point that Roger and John both made well. But, like I said we have got three items to contend with, one immediate, the future and then what do we do with the past. But I have not heard anyone on the Town Board tonight suggest that they want to take 458 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 action on this tonight, so I have a procedural question. Lets assume that we do not want to take action on this tonight, we have a public hearing that is open we may or may not, I am assuming that we are going to want to significantly modify what we have got before us. What are our options, do we close the public hearing, do we take, do we take action on this to kill it and what do we need to do in order, lets say we say tomorrow all right, Bob and Mark you have been hearing what we have been talking about lets go back to the drawing board and come up with something different. New public hearing or build off this public hearing or what do we need to do? Town Counsel Schachner-I think you can do either one, but I would surmise from what I am hearing from the Town Board that we are talking about a substantially different proposed local law that you might as well just put it out for a new public hearing new notice. Supervisor Stec-So, what do we do in the mean time with this one Town Counsel Schachner-No action is necessary. Supervisor Stec-No action, just close the public hearing? Town Counsel Schachner-Close the public hearing and no action Supervisor Stec-And no action tonight but rest assured we have got a moratorium in place th until June 15. Councilman Boor-And we will extend that if we cannot.. Supervisor Stec-I do not have a problem extending that at all if need be. All of this is a separate issue from what you all are talking about that is something that I think warrants a little more vigorous and immediate action on our part or even if and by I say our part I mean government and likely the State the DEC. We will on the Town’s residents behalf we will pick up that ball and run with it. But, change is going to happen we are going to certainly regulate these, we are certainly going to limit them significantly in the town. We have got questions what to do with the old ones perhaps the thing to do with the old ones is that, you know that we start enforcing some of this other stuff. I suspect that Ms. Monahan you know made a good point you do not ban cars because somebody is driving the wrong way down the Northway or whatnot. I think with that unless I hear anything else from the Town Board I am going to close the public hearing. Unknown- …do you know how many there are? Supervisor Stec-The question is from Mr. Sanford do we know how many there are? The last estimate that we got from Town Staff was ten to twelve. I am not to guess that, that is probably lower, that is ten to twelve perhaps that we are aware of. There maybe double that but I cannot imagine there is much more than that but the last number I got out of staff was ten to twelve. So, that is the number that we got, I personally suspect that there is more if we look for them. There is probably many that we do not know about there is likely to be a permitting process where we know where they all are. I mean there is going to be regulations associated with this but that is all more for the future. Anything else from the Town Board. I am going to close the public hearing and lets move onto correspondence. 3.0 CORRESPONDENCE 3.1 Building and Code Report for February on file 3.2 Town Clerk Report for February on file 3.3 Landfill Report for February on file 4.0 INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS FROM THE FLOOR NONE 459 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 5.0 OPEN FORUM Mr. Pliney Tucker- 41 Division Road Questioned the money that the City collected for County tax and wasn’t turned in, and answers? Supervisor Stec-I will answer to what I know…to my knowledge there is a 250,000 dollars that the City is on a track to repay by the end of the month I believe. Mr. Tucker-Are they paying interest? Supervisor Stec-I do not know. Mr. Tucker-The land above the water plant, there was a resolution passed in 1994 that stated six months after the development was approved for construction that the land was to change hands, my suggestion lets notify Niagara Mohawk that we are going to sue them and try to collect for the time we did not have the benefit of this land. The four and a half acres that the City has its dump on and answers on that? Supervisor Stec-No answers yet. Mr. Tucker-The Barber Case Supervisor Stec-No news there. Mrs. Karen Angleson-1 Greenwood Lane Questioned if there was any progress on the Great Escape, pedestrian bridge, lights etc.? Asked for assistance from Betty Little and Theresa Sayward on this issue… Concerned for the safety of the issue of the people and traffic. Supervisor Stec-We have a meeting scheduled for tomorrow on this issue…the Great Escape has indicated that they will cooperate on getting the lights. Mrs. Angleson-re: widening of West Mountain Road the shoulders…are you discussing two four foot walking lanes plus the twelve foot? Supervisor Stec-The driving lanes as they currently are would not change we are talking about outside the white lines, widening that on both sides of the road. I think we were talking a minimum of four feet wide off the white line. Spoke on working with the County on this project. The Town Board will need to review the proposal before the Town will commit to it. Mr. George Drellos-27 Fox Hollow Lane re: Volunteers, Firemen and Ambulance your idea of looking at them all and pooling them together is a good idea, the time has come… Supervisor Stec-Noted we have a draft of an RFP for the bill for service we need to get an RFP out to hire somebody to do the study for a building location for EMS… Councilman Strough-spoke on the need for a fleet committee for emergency services… Mr. Drellos-Questioned what would happen if Bay Ridge disbanded… Supervisor Stec-It is a private non profit, if they went under they would go into bankruptcy mode. Noted we are not liable. Any other for Open Forum? I should recognize earlier in the evening Warren County Supervisor Mike Brody was here, we had former Councilman Dick Merrill here we currently have the Honorable Bob McNally, former Councilwoman Betty Monahan, former Councilman Pliney Tucker and retired Highway Supt. Paul H. Naylor. Mrs. Monahan-Household Hazardous Waste day is coming up, if a Town report is going out I would suggest you put a list in… 460 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 Supervisor Stec-Noted that he would be seeing the first draft of the Qsby. Report tomorrow, there will be announcements regarding the Hazardous Waste Day and Tire Day…noted the water report will be incorporated in this issue. Noted if latex paint is brought to the Hazardous Waste Day they will be asked to bring them to the Ridge Road Transfer Station where we will take it for free that day.. 6.0 TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS Councilman Strough-Asked that a workshop be held on the American Federation of Musicians, making a proposal for additional concerts. th Supervisor Stec-suggested it be brought up at the workshop of the 29. Warren County EDC luncheon Congressman Sweeney was present at that event. He mentioned his support for the Exit 18 Corridor…Attended a tour with him at Travlers. … 7.0 RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION ADOPTING SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION DAY RESOLUTION NO. 161. 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 49, 2004 the Queensbury Town Board authorized the filing of an application for state assistance from the Household Hazardous Waste State Assistance Program to fund the Town’s Household Hazardous Waste Collection Day to be th conducted on Saturday, June 5, 2004, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 78, 2004, the Town Board authorized the advertisement for bids for the furnishing of all materials and performing all work necessary for the collection and disposal of household hazardous waste in connection with the Town’s Household Hazardous Waste Collection Day, and WHEREAS, as part of the Household Hazardous Waste Collection Day activity and for the grant funding application, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation requires that a State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review be conducted before the Town’s Hazardous Waste Collection Day takes place or funds are spent, and WHEREAS, the Town Board is duly qualified to act as lead agency for compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) which requires environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 461 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board, after considering the proposed action, reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form and thoroughly analyzing the action for potential environmental concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to complete the Environmental Assessment Form by checking the box indicating that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board approves of a Negative Declaration and authorizes and directs the Town Clerk's Office and/or Department of Community Development to file any necessary documents in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT : None ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A, Does action exceed any type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.4? NO B, Will action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 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, drainage or flooding problems? NO C2, aesthetic, agriculture, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? NO C3, Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? NO 462 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 C4, A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use of intensity of use of land or other natural resources? NO C5, Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? NO C6, Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1- C5? NO C7, Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? NO D. Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a CEA? NO E, Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? NO (VOTE TAKEN) RESOLUTION AWARDING BID FOR COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE RESOLUTION NO. 162. 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board authorized the advertisement for bids for the furnishing of all materials and performing all work necessary for the collection and disposal of household hazardous waste in connection with the Town’s Household th Hazardous Waste Collection Day to be conducted on Saturday, June 5, 2004, and WHEREAS, the Town’s Purchasing Agent duly advertised for bids and the Purchasing Agent and Solid Waste Facilities Operator have reviewed the bids and recommended that the Town Board award the bid to Care Environmental Corp., the lowest responsible bidder, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby awards the bid for the furnishing of all materials and performing all work necessary for the collection and disposal of household hazardous waste in connection with the Town’s Household Hazardous Waste th Collection Day to be conducted on Saturday, June 5, 2004 to Care Environmental Corp., for the amount of $600 for the site set-up fee and at the collection rates outlined in the bid 463 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 packaged submitted to the Town Purchasing Agent, a copy of which has been presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Purchasing Agent to process a purchase order for Care Environmental Corp., in the amount of $20,000 from Account No.: 910-8160-4245 such amount including $600 for the site set-up fee and $19,400 reflecting the estimated cost of collecting and disposing of the Town’s household hazardous waste in accordance with Care Environmental Corp.’s collection rates schedule presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Purchasing Agent, Budget Officer and/or Solid Waste Facilities Manager to execute any documentation and take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPROVING GRANT AWARD FOR CASE FILE #3820 IN CONNECTION WITH WARD 4 REHABILITATION PROGRAM RESOLUTION NO.: 163. 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has established a Housing Rehabilitation Program which provides grants to cover 100% of the cost of rehabilitation up to a maximum of $20,000, and 464 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 WHEREAS, a single family property, Case File No.: 3820, has been determined to be eligible for rehabilitation grant assistance and the owner of the property has requested such assistance, and WHEREAS, property rehabilitation specifications have been provided to four (4) qualified contractors for bid, and WHEREAS, the low bid cost to complete the work specified is seventeen thousand seven hundred seventy five dollars ($17,775), and , WHEREAS Shelter Planning & Development, Inc. has overseen the grant process and has verified that it has been followed in this case and recommends approving this grant, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves a grant for Case File No.: 3820 in the Town of Queensbury, New York in the amount not to exceed seventeen thousand seven hundred seventy five dollars ($17,775) and authorizes and directs either the Town Supervisor or Town Senior Planner to execute a Grant Award Agreement and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT : None RESOLUTION APPROVING GRANT AWARD FOR CASE FILE #4876 IN CONNECTION WITH WARD 4 REHABILITATION PROGRAM RESOLUTION NO.: 164. 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough 465 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has established a Housing Rehabilitation Program which provides grants to cover 100% of the cost of rehabilitation up to a maximum of $20,000, and WHEREAS, a single family property, Case File No.: 4876, has been determined to be eligible for rehabilitation grant assistance and the owner of the property has requested such assistance, and WHEREAS, property rehabilitation specifications have been provided to three (3) qualified contractors for bid, and WHEREAS, the low bid cost to complete the work specified is fifteen thousand three hundred forty five dollars ($15,345), and , WHEREAS Shelter Planning & Development, Inc. has overseen the grant process and has verified that it has been followed in this case and recommends approving this grant, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves a grant for Case File No.: 4876 in the Town of Queensbury, New York in the amount not to exceed fifteen thousand three hundred forty five dollars ($15,345) and authorizes and directs either the Town Supervisor or Town Senior Planner to execute a Grant Award Agreement and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT : None RESOLUTION APPROVING GRANT AWARD FOR CASE FILE #4877 IN CONNECTION WITH WARD 4 REHABILITATION PROGRAM RESOLUTION NO.: 165. 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough 466 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has established a Housing Rehabilitation Program which provides grants to cover 100% of the cost of rehabilitation up to a maximum of $20,000, and WHEREAS, a single family property, Case File No.: 4877, has been determined to be eligible for rehabilitation grant assistance and the owner of the property has requested such assistance, and WHEREAS, property rehabilitation specifications have been provided to four (4) qualified contractors for bid, and WHEREAS, the low bid cost to complete the work specified is eleven thousand seven hundred dollars ($11,700), and , WHEREAS Shelter Planning & Development, Inc. has overseen the grant process and has verified that it has been followed in this case and recommends approving this grant, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves a grant for Case File No.: 4877 in the Town of Queensbury, New York in the amount not to exceed eleven thousand seven hundred dollars ($11,700) and authorizes and directs either the Town Supervisor or Town Senior Planner to execute a Grant Award Agreement and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner NOES : None ABSENT : None RESOLUTION ADOPTING SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING RIDGE/JENKINSVILLE PARK IMPROVEMENTS RESOLUTION NO. 166. 2004 467 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 416, 2003 the Queensbury Town Board authorized establishment of Capital Project Fund #138 to fund expenses associated with parking lot improvements, design and expansion of softball fields and replacement of fencing at the Ridge/Jenkinsville Park, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to conduct a State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review of such park improvements as well as future park improvements to include, but not be limited to, the construction of basketball and tennis courts, regrading of the open field area for multi-use field play and the creation of additional parking, roadways, trails and restroom facilities, and WHEREAS, the Town Board is duly qualified to act as lead agency for compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) which requires environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board, after considering the proposed action, reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form and thoroughly analyzing the action for potential environmental concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to complete the Environmental Assessment Form by checking the box indicating that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board approves a SEQRA Negative Declaration and authorizes and directs the Town Clerk's Office and/or Parks and Recreation Department to file any necessary documents in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: 468 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT : None DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE: Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation Steve Lovering reviewed the proposal for the Town Board Members … ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM A, Does action exceed any type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.4? NO B, Will action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6? 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, drainage or flooding problems? NO C2, aesthetic, agriculture, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? NO C3, Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? NO C4, A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use of intensity of use of land or other natural resources? NO C5, Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? NO C6, Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1- C5? NO C7, Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? NO D, Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? NO (VOTE TAKEN) RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF ARC INFO COMPUTER SOFTWARE FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT’S USE RESOLUTION NO.: 167. 2004 469 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously adopted purchasing procedures which require that the Town Board must approve any purchase in an amount of $5,000 or greater up to New York State bidding limits, and WHEREAS, the Town’s Director of Information Technology has requested Town Board approval to purchase ArcInfo computer software for use by the Town’s Community Development Department, which software is the complete GIS data creation, update, query, mapping and analysis system and is composed of ArcInfo Desktop and ArcInfo Workstation, and WHEREAS, New York State Bidding is not required as the purchase price for the computer software is in accordance with New York State Contract No.: PT56395 pricing, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the Town’s Director of Information Technology’s purchase of the ArcInfo computer software from ESRI, Inc., in accordance with New York State Contract No.: PT56395 pricing for an amount not to exceed $7,138 to be paid for from Computer Software Account No.: 01- 1680-2032, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Director of Information Technology, Budget Officer and/or Town Supervisor to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: None Discussion held before vote: Director of Technology Bob Keenan-This is basically mapping software, it will be used by the Planning Department to create and update maps that the County creates. Councilman Brewer-Questioned the status of ID tags. 470 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 Director Keenan-Noted that the equipment came in last week and he had printed one out today.. RESOLUTION APPROVING YEAR 2002 VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE WORKER SERVICE AWARD PROGRAM FINAL LISTINGS FOR WEST GLENS FALLS EMERGENCY SQUAD, INC. RESOLUTION NO.: 168. 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously authorized engagement of PENFLEX, Inc., to provide the 2002 Standard Year End Administration Services for the Town’s Volunteer Ambulance Workers Service Award Program, and as part of such Program it is necessary that the Town Board approve each Emergency Squad’s Service Award Program records, and WHEREAS, by prior Resolution the Town Board approved the 2002 Service Award Program Records for the West Glens Falls Emergency Squad, Inc. (Squad) and as required the Squad posted the approved listings at its headquarters for 30 days, and WHEREAS, the Town Supervisor’s Executive Assistant has received the final listings from the Squad and has advised that the Squad made no changes to the listings since the 30 day posting and the listings are complete, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to approve the final listings, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the final 2002 Volunteer Ambulance Worker Service Award Program listings for the West Glens Falls Emergency Squad, Inc., and BE IT FURTHER, 471 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Executive Assistant to the Town Supervisor and/or Budget Officer to take any and all action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES, P.C. FOR DESIGN, CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION SERVICES AND EASEMENT PREPARATION RELATING TO BAY ROAD WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 169. 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Town’s Water Superintendent has advised the Town Board that 4200 LF of water main along Bay Road from Cronin Road to just north of Bayberry Drive needs to be replaced, and WHEREAS, the Water Superintendent has recommended that the Town Board authorize engagement of C.T. Male Associates, P.C., for design phase, contract administration phase, construction observation and easement preparation services in connection with the project for the following amount(s): Design Phase A. 1. Design: - $23,200 2. Design survey including locating wetlands delineation: -$ 4,200 3. Environmental (.) -$ wetlands delineation, Stormwater Pollution Plan, et al 8,750 TOTAL DESIGN PHASE: - $36,150 (Lump Sum) Contract Administration: -$ 9,500 (Lump Sum B. ) Construction Observation C. $23,490 9 weeks @ 45 hrs/week x $58/hr: - 1. Mileage: 50 mi/day x .35 x 45 days: - $787.50 2. 472 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 $24,300 Estimated Fee: - Construction observation to be billed on a per diem basis based on actual 3. time worked . $550 each D. Easements - $1,400 based on subcontractor quote E. Soil Borings - as delineated in C.T. Male’s Proposal dated March 8, 2004 and presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs engagement of C.T. Male Associates, P.C. for design phase, contract administration phase, construction observation and easement preparation services in connection with the Bay Road Water Main Replacement Project as follows: Design Phase A. 1. Design: - $23,200 2. Design survey including locating wetlands delineation: -$ 4,200 3. Environmental (.) -$ wetlands delineation, Stormwater Pollution Plan, et al 8,750 TOTAL DESIGN PHASE: - $36,150 (Lump Sum) Contract Administration: -$ 9,500 (Lump Sum) B. Construction Observation C. $23,490 9 weeks @ 45 hrs/week x $58/hr: - 1. 2. Mileage: 50 mi/day x .35 x 45 days: - $787.50 $24,300 Estimated Fee: - Construction observation to be billed on a per diem basis based on actual time 3. worked . Easements - $550 each D. Soil Borings - $1,400 based on subcontractor quote E. as delineated in C.T. Male’s Proposal dated March 8, 2004 and presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs that payment for C.T. Male’s services shall be paid for from Account No.: 40-8340-2899, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Water Superintendent, Budget Officer and/or Town Supervisor to execute any documentation and 473 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: None Discussion held before vote: - Water/wastewater Supt. Ralph VanDusenReviewed for Town Board the Bay Road Water project…the County hopes to have engineering report st by April 1. Water/wastewater Supt. VanDusen-The Water transmission enhancement project is out to bid, the good news is that there is a large amount of interest in the project, we should see st a very competitive price the bad new is, since January 1 there has been two significant price increases in ductile iron pipe and fittings amounting to approximately a thirty percent increase. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF WILLOWBROOK DRIVE IN BAYBROOK PROFESSIONAL PARK SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION NO. 170. 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, Schermerhorn Commercial Holdings, LP has offered a deed to dedicate Willowbrook Drive in the Baybrook Professional Park Subdivision to the Town of Queensbury as described in a Survey prepared by VanDusen & Steves, Land Surveyors, LLC, dated December 9, 2003, and WHEREAS, the Town Highway Superintendent has inspected the road and recommended its acceptance contingent upon the developer 1) fixing certain drain and sewer manholes and two large depressions near the Bay Road intersection; 2) after inspection, completing the top coat of the black-top within two years of the date of acceptance or by March th 15, 2006, and 3) defining and placing any necessary drainage easement boundaries, and WHEREAS, Schermerhorn Commercial Holdings, LP will provide the Town with a th $19,800 cash escrow to ensure placement of the top coat on the roads by March 15, 2006, and 474 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 WHEREAS, the Town Water Superintendent has confirmed that installation of water mains and appurtenances has not been made in accordance with Town Water Department standards, and WHEREAS, the Water Superintendent recommends that if the Town of Queensbury shall accept Willowbrook Drive as a Town Road, that it not accept dedication of the water mains and appurtenances until such time as the Developer shall have met Town requirements for such water mains and appurtenances, and WHEREAS, the Developer understands that it shall not receive any certificates of occupancy until such time as such water mains and appurtenances are accepted for dedication, and WHEREAS, the form of the deed and title to the road offered for dedication have been reviewed by Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby accepts and approves the deed for dedication of Willowbrook Drive in the Baybrook Professional Park Subdivision which deed shall not include dedication of the water mains and appurtenances, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this acceptance is expressly conditioned on the Town’s receipt of the $19,800 cash escrow, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further 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 to be in form acceptable to the Town Budget Officer and Town Counsel,and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs Schermerhorn Commercial Holdings, LP to record the deed in the Warren County Clerk's Office, after which time the deed shall be properly filed and maintained in the Queensbury Town Clerk’s Office, and 475 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to add the road to the official inventory of Town Highways as follows: Name: Willowbrook Drive Road Number: 544 Description: Beginning at Bay Road and continuing in a northeasterly direction a distance of 1,184 feet and .22 hundredths of a mile and ending at a cul-de-sac. Feet: 1,184’ and .22 of a mile . th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner NOES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec ABSENT: None Discussion held before vote : Water/wastewater Supt. Ralph VanDusen- Noted that the water main is not being accepted at this time. Ms. Jennifer Switzer Budget Officer noted that the escrow check has not been received…Board agreed to amend the resolution to reflect that the resolution is conditional upon receipt of the check… Ms. Switzer requested that from now the receipt of the checks should identified… RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW NO.: ____ OF 2004 TO AMEND THE QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 9 ENTITLED "CREATION OF TOWN COURT CLERK AND DEPUTY COURT CLERK POSITIONS" RESOLUTION NO. 171. 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: ___, 2004 to add a new Chapter 9 to the Queensbury Town Code entitled "Creation of Town Court Clerk and Deputy Court Clerk Positions," which Chapter will create the Town Court Clerk and Deputy Court Clerk positions in compliance with New § York State Civil Service Law 41(1)(d), and WHEREAS, such legislation is authorized in accordance with New York State Town Law §130 and Municipal Home Rule Law §10, and 476 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 WHEREAS, prior to adoption of the Local Law, it is necessary to conduct a public hearing, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall meet and hold a public hearing th at the Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury at 7:00 p.m. on April 5, 2004 to consider proposed Local Law No.: ___ of 2004, hear all persons interested and take such action as is required or authorized by law, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish and post a Notice of Public Hearing as required by law. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT : None Discussion held before vote: Town Justice McNally-reviewed for the Board the purpose of the proposed Local Law. RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS BY EMINENT DOMAIN AND AUTHORIZING APPRAISAL OF EXXON/MOBIL STATION PROPERTY EASEMENT ON ROUTE 9 IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY RESOLUTION NO.: 172. 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, by Town Board Resolution No.: 113,2003 the Town Board adopted its Final Order approving creation of the Route 9 Sewer District, and 477 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 WHEREAS, the engineer working with the Town has determined the technical requirements of the Project and has indicated that a line will need to run across the property of the ExxonMobil Station on Route 9 identified as Tax Map No.: 288.16-1-3, and WHEREAS, the Town has attempted to negotiate with the property owner for an easement necessary for the Project but it appears that it will not be possible to get a consent easement, and WHEREAS, the Town Board finds it necessary to exercise its rights to acquire the easement by eminent domain in order to serve a public purpose, and WHEREAS, the Town is required to compensate the property owner for the property rights obtained, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to obtain an appraisal of the value of the easement across the property, and WHEREAS, the Town has in the past relied upon the appraisal services of Empire State Appraisal Consultants, Inc., and has found their work to be thorough and accurate, and WHEREAS, Eminent Domain Procedure Law §201 requires the Town Board to hold a public hearing prior to commencing a proceeding to acquire property rights by eminent domain, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall hold a public hearing on April th 5, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, to inform the general public about the Project, review the public use to be served by the Project and the potential impacts on the environment and the residents of the locality where the Project is to be located and to hear all persons interested in the proposed Project, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to publish a Notice of Public Hearing in at least five (5) successive issues of the Glens Falls Post-Star commencing at least ten (10) but no more than thirty (30) days before the date of the public hearing, and BE IT FURTHER, 478 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to engage the services of Empire State Appraisal Consultants, Inc., to provide an appraisal value of the easement over the property identified as Tax Map No.: 288.16- 1-3 for a total cost not to exceed $1,800 to be paid from the appropriate account as determined by the Town’s Budget Officer, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to sign any documentation, including a contract for appraisal services, and the Town Supervisor and/or Town Counsel to take all action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall take effect immediately. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT : None RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO LEAD AGENCY DESIGNATION AND AUTHORIZING TOWN CLERK TO SUBMIT PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE FOR PROPERTY OWNED BY MICHELLE CLARK MAILLE TO PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 173. 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, Michelle Clark Maille has submitted an application to the Queensbury Town Clerk’s Office for rezoning of certain property and the application has been reviewed by the Town Planning Staff and deemed complete for purposes of review, and 479 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 WHEREAS, applications for rezoning and zoning amendments are forwarded to the Town Planning Department and Planning Board for recommendations in accordance with §179-15-020 of the Town Zoning Ordinance, and WHEREAS, following such recommendations, the Queensbury Town Board will review the rezoning applications and take such other action as it shall deem necessary and proper, and WHEREAS, the Town Board understands that the reason for this rezoning request is for a subdivision of the subject property, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to submit the following application to the Queensbury Planning Board for advisory report and recommendation: APPLICATION OF : Michelle Clark Maille TAX MAP NO: : 308.06-1-86 LOCATION OF PROPERTY : North side of Luzerne Road, .85 miles east of West Mountain Road and 1,000’ east of Burch Lane, Queensbury APPLICATION FOR : Rezoning of property currently zoned Suburban Residential – One Acre (SR-1A) to Suburban Residential – Twenty- Thousand Square Feet (SR-20); and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby consents to the Planning Board acting as Lead Agency for SEQRA review of this project and directs the Department of Community Development to notify any other involved agencies. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough NOES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec 480 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 ABSENT: None RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO LEAD AGENCY DESIGNATION AND AUTHORIZING TOWN CLERK TO SUBMIT PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE FOR PROPERTY OWNED BY JOHN HUGHES TO QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 174. 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr.Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, John Hughes has submitted an application to the Queensbury Town Clerk’s Office for rezoning of certain property and the application has been reviewed by the Town Planning Staff and deemed complete for purposes of review, and WHEREAS, applications for rezoning and zoning amendments are forwarded to the Town Planning Department and Planning Board for recommendations in accordance with §179-15-020 of the Town Zoning Ordinance, and WHEREAS, following such recommendations, the Queensbury Town Board will review the rezoning applications and take such other action as it shall deem necessary and proper, and WHEREAS, the Town Board understands that the reason for this rezoning request is for a subdivision of the subject property, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to submit the following application to the Queensbury Planning Board for advisory report and recommendation: APPLICATION OF : John Hughes TAX MAP NO: : 296.12-1-23 LOCATION OF PROPERTY : Bayberry Drive & Bay Road, Queensbury 481 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 APPLICATION FOR : Rezoning of property currently zoned Professional Office (PO) to Single Family Residential – Twenty-Thousand Square Feet (SFR-20); and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby consents to the Planning Board acting as Lead Agency for SEQRA review of this project and directs the Department of Community Development to notify any other involved agencies. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : Mr. Brewer ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS – TH ABSTRACT OF MARCH 12, 2004 RESOLUTION NO.: 175. 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 th presented as the Abstract appearing on March 12, 2004, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Abstract th appearing on March 12, 2004 numbering 24097000 through 24128800 and totaling $568,244.66, and BE IT FURTHER, 482 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Budget Officer and/or Town Supervisor to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Turner NOES : Mr. Boor ABSENT: None Discussion held before vote: Supervisor Stec-Noted that the Town Board now will review and approve all Town Audits … Budget Officer Ms. Switzer noted that the vouchers will be kept in the Accounting Office for review until they are approved and then will be filed in the Accounting Office. RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS – JANUARY AND FEBRUARY 2004 ABSTRACTS RESOLUTION NO.: 176. 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve, ratify and affirm the audit of bills presented as the Abstracts of January and February, 2004, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves, ratifies and affirms the Abstracts of January and February, 2004 numbering 24000000 through 24096900 and totaling $3,992,803.09, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board affirms and ratifies the Town Budget Officer and/or Town Supervisor’s actions taken during January and February concerning such audits and authorizes and directs the Budget Officer and/or Town Supervisor to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, NOES : Mr. Boor 483 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-15-2004 MTG. #13 ABSENT: None Discussion held before vote: Councilman Boor-the reason I am voting no on this one too is that I haven’t reviewed these so I do not think it would be appropriate for me to say yes. 8.0 ACTION OF RESOLUTIONS PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED FROM THE FLOOR NONE 9.0 ATTORNEY MATTERS NONE RESOLUTION ADJOURNING TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO. 177.2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Regular Session. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2004 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: None Respectfully submitted, Miss Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk-Queensbury