Loading...
2010-09-13 MTG #34 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1060 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG # 34 September 13, 2010 RES. 303-319 7:00 P.M. BOH: 24-25 LL: 10 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC COUNCILMAN ANTHONY METIVIER COUNCILMAN RONALD MONTESI COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER TOWN COUNSEL ROBERT HAFNER TOWN OFFICIALS WASTEWATER SUPERINTENDENT, MIKE SHAW WATER SUPERINTENDENT, BRUCE OSTRANDER PRESS TV 8 POST STAR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN RONALD MONTESI SUPERVISOR STEC-Opened Meeting 1.0 RESOLUTION CALLING FOR QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 303, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves into the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 13th day of September, 2010 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: None QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: August 27, 2010 PUBLIC HEARING SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE OF EDWARD AND PHILOMENA VANPUTTE REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1061 SUPERVISOR STEC- This is seeking three variances from out of Chapter 136. The property is located on Glen Lake on 23 Jay Road West, a placement of a holding tank to be five feet from the foundation in lieu of ten feet, placement of a holding tank five feet of the property line in lieu of ten feet and placement of a holding tank to be forty one feet from Glen Lake and the well in lieu of the required fifty feet. With that said, I will open the public hearing and I’ll let the applicant and or his agent make a brief summary statement if they need to add to that. ATTORNEY, MICHAEL BORGOS- Thank you Mr. Supervisor, for the record, Michael Borgos of Borgos and Delsignore for the applicant. With me is Patrick VanPutte, speaking on behalf of his parents and Tom Jarrett as Engineer. I’ll let Tom introduce and explain to you exactly what’s happening. Patrick do you want to give them the overview PATRICK VANPUTTE- At this point in time, what we’re looking to do is replace the existing cesspool that’s there today. It’s nothing more than really a leach field that’s been, was put in place when the property was built back in the 1920’s. The challenge that we’re facing is because of the size of the lot. We cannot meet the so called restrictions or the requirements of where that tank needs to be placed. So we have with the structure, with the dwelling that we’re looking at come up with a solution that we feel betters the property and adds value to the premise. SUPERVISOR STEC- One question we typically will ask is that is this a prelude to an expansion of the living space of the building or are we merely correcting an engineering issue with the septic MR. VANPUTTE- The history of this is that it was occasioned by fire loss on July fourth of 2009. SUPERVISOR STEC- Okay MR. VANPUTTE- So it was an existing camp there. Now the economics of it really dictate that we take a hard look at the floor space that we put back there when we go to build. It’s the possibility that we are going to pursue with obtaining variances at the other boards. It’s not anything definite at this time SUPERVISOR STEC- So it could be a larger structure than what was there MR. VANPUTTE- That’s correct TOM JARRETT- However let’s throw a little caveat out here; the intensity of use won’t change. It will be three bedrooms now and in the future. SUPERVISOR STEC- And again, I mean, you’re familiar Tom, we typically MR. JARRETT- One’s three bedrooms SUPERVISOR STEC- we typically ask these questions, it’s usually not a show stopper for us but we usually like to know what we’re walking everyone into if we approve it. MR. JARRETT- But we want to differentiate between floor space and number of bedrooms SUPERVISOR STEC- Understood, understood COUNCILMAN STROUGH- But this is also because I went looking for it and I see there’s no structure at 23 Jay west, there’s just a hole in the ground. Very, very, very, very small lot. MR. VANPUTTE- I understand COUNCILMAN STROUGH- I don’t know what you’re going to put in there for a structure. What? I’d like to see what you’re going to put in there for a structure, because whatever you’re going to put in there is going to have to be really small. MR. VANPUTTE- We were going to follow pretty much the existing footprint that was there previously from the standpoint of the existing foundation etcetera. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1062 COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Which may not have been the healthiest situation to begin with because of the size of the lot. I mean, that’s pretty small MR. VANPUTTE- No, I understand COUNCILMAN STROUGH- You’ve got to keep in mind, Glen Lake’s health isn’t improving, we all know it’s just doing the opposite. One of the problems is the density around the shoreline of that Lake. I mean, a three bedroom home on that lot, maybe a one bedroom cottage or studio place or something like that might go in there. But a three bedroom place on that lot, I’m having trouble visualizing that. I’d like to know when you go before the Zoning Board, if you go before the Zoning Board how many variances you’re going to have to put something like a three bedroom place up there. I’m wondering what are they going to ask you to do, reduce it down to a studio size apartment. Just because it’s a lot doesn’t mean a three bedroom house is the appropriate thing for this one tenth of an acre? I just have real serious reservations COUNCILMAN MONTESI- I voted against this even bringing it to a public hearing the last time. But, I did do a field trip, field visit and one of the things that our Building Inspector and our Planning Department told me was I may have some reservations just as John does about size of the lot but you could have rebuilt the house and septic system exactly the way it was. As you point out the septic system on that size lot was almost a direct line into the Lake, which probably, you know, in 1920 when they built it wasn’t a problem but today it is, would have been. So, as a trade off you’re putting in a holding tank. I had some concerns because it’s on a cul-de sac or a dead end road how a septic truck would get there but obviously it will be difficult but they will. As far as I’m concerned, at least that’s cleaning up the Lake to that point. Whether you’re going to rebuild an eight hundred square feet MR. VANPUTTE- A little over eight hundred square feet COUNCILMAN BREWER- That’s eight sixty on the bottom floor, Ron MR. VANPUTTE- That’s correct, that’s correct COUNCILMAN MONTESI- I know in the old house you could have walked from the road to get on the roof MR. VANPUTTE- That’s correct, that is absolutely correct COUNCILMAN MONTESI- I think all in all, it’s an improvement in terms of environmentally protecting the Lake; whether or not you will get the variances for, and I’m sure what you’re faced with sideline, rear setback, etcetera, etcetera MR. VANPUTTE- Correct COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Height probably MR. VANPUTTE- Depending on the structure that may be the case COUNCILMAN MONTESI- I’m happy that at least it’s a holding tank and it’s not going into the ground. MR. VANPUTTE- Right, our objection was to follow that footprint as close as possible when it comes to the foundation and I was going to COUNCILMAN MONTESI- If you look at it from a point of view that it’s your mom and dad’s house, they must have grandkids, who wants them swimming in a lake MR. VANPUTTE- Well, that was my thought once I found out what we had, that was our thought SUPERVISOR STEC- Any other Board Members have questions or comments before we take some public comment? All right, the public hearing is open, if there’s any members of the public that would like to comment on this Board of Health variance application just raise your hand and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1063 I’ll call on folks one at a time. Okay, Board Members have any other questions or comments for the applicant? Tim COUNCILMAN BREWER- These are seventeen hundred and fifty gallon a piece Tom? MR. JARRETT- Yes, that’s correct COUNCILMAN BREWER- On this sheet you gave us here, I don’t see seventeen fifty. MR. JARRETT- It should be on the plan; I don’t know what you’re looking COUNCILMAN BREWER- That this is what an example of what the tank is like MR. JARRETT- That’s just the construction of the tank itself yes COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, you know what I don’t see on the plan Tom is the alarm system setup MR. JARRETT- Those details have not been prepared yet, the surveyor showed the location of the tanks and one of the comments, I believe that was made by this Board or maybe staff was the details are still forthcoming. So, we would, depending on the conditions that you impose; we would submit those details to the Building Department including an alarm and a water shut off. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- You couldn’t get an approval without an alarm COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, we’re giving the approval COUNCILMAN METIVIER- No COUNCILMAN BREWER- Just for the septic MR. JARRETT- From the Building Department we wouldn’t be able COUNCILMAN METIVIER- From the Building Department you can’t get your final approval I should say COUNCILMAN BREWER- I mean I don’t have a big issue with five feet from the foundation or the property line if it’s a holding tank, if it was a septic system and it’s something different, but as long as you’re going to be having it pumped out whenever it’s needed to be pumped I don’t have a big problem with it really MR. JARRETT- That’s correct SUPERVISOR STEC- And historically that’s how we looked at it, there’s always been a debate as to how much flexibility the Town’s truly have as far as approving or not approving holding tanks, whether there seasonal in nature or not seasonal in nature. The bottom line is, it’s a practical matter, as long as there’s controls and alarms in place on the system the tank, unless it springs a leak it shouldn’t go anywhere COUNCILMAN BREWER- In fact, I think it would be safer for the whole Lake if everybody had a holding tank COUNCILMAN STROUGH- I do too but SUPERVISOR STEC- Right, it would probably, and we’ve generally looked favorably on holding tanks for those reasons. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- But the other issue here too is the floor area ratio. What’s the floor area ratio? COUNCILMAN BREWER- John, that’s Planning Board and Zoning Board stuff, that’s not us REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1064 COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, when I’m considering the septic system, I’m considering the big picture, I’m considering the whole package COUNCILMAN BREWER- That’s not our job though COUNCILMAN STROUGH- That’s my job SUPERVISOR STEC- Well, the question before us is the septic variance question. I mean, if you need other variances you’ll have to go to other appropriate boards for that or whatever, buyer beware that approval from this Board tonight really would be just for the holding tank. After that you would have to deal with the constraints of the lot, which are several MR. VANPUTTE- We understand that SUPERVISOR STEC- Any other public comment? All right, I will close this public hearing. Any other discussion by the Board or would somebody try to take a swing at a motion COUNCILMAN MONTESI- I’ll move it with an alarm system SUPERVISOR STEC- Moved to approve provided that it has the appropriate alarms and shut off. Okay motioned by Councilman Montesi COUNCILMAN BREWER- I’ll second SUPERVISOR STEC- Seconded by Councilman Brewer, any other discussion by the Board? Okay, Rose if you want to call the vote please RESOLUTION APPROVING SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE FOR EDWARD AND PHILOMENA VANPUTTE RESOLUTION NO.: BOH 24, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, Edward and Philomena VanPutte applied to the Local Board of Health for a § variance from Chapter 136, 136-11, which requires applicants to obtain a variance for holding tanks and the applicants requested a holding tank as the leaching system will not meet the necessary setback requirements, and WHEREAS, the applicants also applied to the Local Board of Health for three (3) additional variances from Chapter 136 to allow: 1.placement of the holding tank to be five feet (5’) from the foundation in lieu of the required ten feet (10’) setback; 2.placement of the holding tank to be five feet (5’) from the property line in lieu of the required ten feet (10’) setback; and 3.placement of the holding tank to be forty-one feet (41’) from Glen Lake and the well in lieu of the required fifty feet (50’) setback; REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1065 on property located at 23 Jay Road West in the Town of Queensbury, New York, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk’s Office published the Notice of Public Hearing in the Town’s official newspaper and the Local Board of Health conducted a public hearing concerning the th variance request on Monday, September 13, 2010, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk’s Office has advised that it duly notified all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that 1.due to the nature of the variance, the Local Board of Health finds that the variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes and objectives of this Ordinance or other adjoining properties nor otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of any Town plan or policy; and 2.the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variances is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and are the minimum variances which would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health to affect the applicants; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health hereby approves the application of Edward and Philomena VanPutte for variances from the Sewage Disposal Ordinance to allow installation of a holding tank and three (3) additional variances from Chapter 136 to allow: 1.placement of the holding tank to be five feet (5’) from the foundation in lieu of the required ten feet (10’) setback; 2.placement of the holding tank to be five feet (5’) from the property line in lieu of the required ten feet (10’) setback; and 3.placement of the holding tank to be forty-one feet (41’) from Glen Lake and the well in lieu of the required fifty feet (50’) setback; provided that the holding tank has the appropriate alarms and shut-offs, on property located at 23 Jay Road West in the Town of Queensbury and bearing Tax Map No.: 289.10-1-18. th Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1066 AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier NOES: Mr. Strough ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. BOH 25, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns its meeting and moves back in regular session. Duly adopted this 13th day of September, 2010 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi NOES: None ABSENT: None 2.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARING ADOPTING SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AMENDING ZONING LAW TO CHANGE CLASSIFICATION OF PARCELS ON COUNTRY CLUB ROAD AND GLENWOOD AVENUE AND ENACTING LOCAL LAW TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 179 “ZONING” NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: August 27, 2010 SUPERVISOR STEC- Before we open the public hearing for the record, and I’ve already briefly spoke with Rose about this earlier today and hopefully the Town Board and the public that’s concerned will recall at our last regular meeting which was four weeks ago, which I believe th would have been August 16 we took public comment on this overall request. However, because we had a notice issue that wasn’t properly given we did not act on that public hearing but instead that evening we set a new public hearing for tonight. I said that evening that we would take comment and we include that comment as part of the file and the record for posterity sake. I asked Rose in the Clerk’s Office to assure us that that happens and she said that she would do that. So, we have already taken some comment on that from I think both of the two main property owners involved and I think that their here this evening. With that said, I will open this public hearing and take any public comment either restating what was said previously or anything new on the proposed rezoning of I believe it’s seven parcels. Is it five or seven, I haven’t looked at it in a little bit. (By request of Town Board, comments of the public hearing on August 16, 2010 hereby made part of this meeting—see meeting #31 dated: August 16, 2010) COUNCILMAN METIVIER- Seven REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1067 SUPERVISOR STEC- Seven parcels, four of which would be proposed to go back from office back to moderate density residential, which is what they were, we had rezoned these properties back in March or April; in looking at it again we decided that we wanted to entertain taking four properties and putting them back to the moderate density residential and including three properties that had been left out of the rezoning to office and in fact changing them to office. Essentially being the Veterinarian Hospital on the corner of Woodvale and Glenwood. So, that’s a general description of what we’re doing and with that said I’ll open the public hearing and if there’s any members of the public who would like to comment again just raise your hand one at a time. Mr. Lapper ATTORNEY, JOHN LAPPER- Good evening everyone, I’m here with and on behalf of Tom Drake who owns two of the parcels on the northern end 296-15-1-18 and dash 24. My partner Stephanie Bitter was here last time to talk to you and after that discussion she had said that we would come back with a conceptual plan and we have that to discuss, conceptual is really what it is. But, what I want to show is that we feel the most appropriate use of this property in conjunction with the property to the south, which is the Wiswall Trust, would be to do a townhouse development similar to Westwood. To show that we have a plan that uses the Westwood footprints, there four-plexes and a connector road that would connect from Glenwood to Country Club. What we’re showing here is a total of thirty six units on all this property. So we’re not talking about a major development but in terms of the use, which is really what we’re here to talk about townhouse development is an appropriate use when you’re near Glenwood, traffic corridor, you have sewer, which would enable the sewer to come through the Wiswall property and access the Drake property. We do except that is this is not rezoned to acquire the Wiswall property and come back to the Planning Board with a proposal similar to what I’m handing out to you. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- John, how many parcels do you have to buy? Mr. Drake owns which one of these on the map SUPERVISOR STEC- There’s a couple I think, there’s two out of the four and Mr. Parisi, if I miss pronounce your name, sir, I apologize, I think owns the two other ones, the northern most one and these two are Mr. Drake’s and the other two are Parisi’s COUNCILMAN METIVIER- Okay COUNCILMAN MONTESI- So, you not only have to buy Wiswall but Parisi’s ATTORNEY LAPPER- Not necessarily COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Oh, okay SUPERVISOR STEC- Now one of the other things that I’m pretty sure I mentioned it and I recall now Stephanie was there, I don’t know, four weeks ago was again looking for either compromises or ulterior designs, which is certainly you presented to us tonight and not wanting to get into the business of working a site plan review for the project tonight COUNCILMAN BREWER- He owns this already SUPERVISOR STEC- But one of the suggestions I think I made was would it be feasible rather than swinging to the west, out to Country Club Road as your second access point to work with the property owner and swing to the east and access out onto Bay Road thus containing the entire thing in office zoning as opposed to what we might not want to keep office zoning on Country Club. I don’t know if you have an answer tonight or not. I’m pretty sure I mentioned that to Stephanie that evening but, and I know there’s a lot of moving parts. You can’t guarantee what a neighbors going to want to sell or not sell or whether it’s feasible or not. ATTORNEY LAPPER- What we’re showing is that there are no units near Country Club Road so it wouldn’t change the character of Country Club Road it’s just that road access because it does make sense, the Town has a thousand foot limit on dead end roads. So, a connector would make sense for traffic and it would also comply with the code. My understanding is that to go towards Bay Road there are some major wetlands to cross that would not be feasible; besides the fact the Town already owns this parcel. I think what we’re showing here is something modest REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1068 with the number of units. It’s possible there may be another building that could be fit in another four units. This is modest, it’s nowhere near as dense as Westwood and I think that I would argue that Westwood is an appropriate use when you’re down there and you’ve got sewer and you’re near Quaker Road and near Hannaford that that’s where you’d want to encourage townhouse development. Westwood is mostly retired people, not a big impact on either of the school districts and that’s what we would expect here but I think this is a very compatible use with what’s next door. SUPERVISOR STEC- Now John if I could, and again I apologize for morphing the Town Board into the Planning Board a little bit, some of us like it more than others but, looking at this it looks like two of the housing, the footprints, the clustered building structures, are on the south eastern most property of the four that we’re talking about owned by Mr. Drake. All the rest of them to the south, I can’t read my ATTORNEY LAPPER- That’s correct SUPERVISOR STEC- And you mentioned the thousand feet dead end, and again, what I’m thinking here is let’s say that, because I am sympathetic to Mr. Drake’s situation, he’s a new owner, the zoning changed, not long ago but it did change and he bought it thinking that he wanted to develop it a certain way and for the Town to change. I personally feel a little better that we’re talking about doing it after a short period of time rather a large period of time, but it may not matter much to Mr. Drake, so I’m trying to work with here. Would it be feasible to condense or compact those two northern most structures down to the south out of that one parcel and then you may in fact be below the thousand foot threshold for the dead end for townhouse or you might even be able to get a variance if it’s a little more than a thousand. I think the Board, or some of us anyways on the Board, would prefer, you may disagree but I think some of us would prefer whatever traffic is going to come off there to go onto Glenwood as opposed to introducing an unknown amount of traffic that’s going to be entering onto Country Club Road just south of Sweet Road. That stretch from Sweet Road to Quaker Road is already a cut through for a lot of us, myself included to try to bypass a lot of the commercial congestion. We may feel better if that was an option. It would allow us to rezone the property perhaps and not have the curb cut onto Sweet Road while at the same time maybe preserving most if not all of the density that you are talking about. Again, not wanting to get into detailed site plan now ATTORNEY LAPPER- Like usual Dan, you covered a couple of concepts, one question, so first in terms of the location, the area where those eight units are shown on the area that we are talking about tonight is upland and the meadow that is on the adjacent Wiswall property has some wetland areas and that’s why those areas were avoided. So that’s the appropriate place to put those units because of the soil conditions. In terms of the connection, I think you could make the argument that Glenwood is more congested in some ways than Country Club and where that connector is shown at that radius of the curve it’s got good visibility north and south on Country Club. So this is not a huge development in terms of density. It’s not like somebody would cut through this neighborhood to avoid going up Country Club which would be easier. SUPERVISOR STEC- This is thirty six units? How many units? ATTORNEY LAPPER- Thirty six is what we’re showing COUNCILMAN MONTESI- For fire protection I’d have a much more comfort zone of saying there’s two ways to get in and out of here SUPERVISOR STEC- That’s true too. I agree, that is a true statement COUNCILMAN MONTESI- John, you feel that you can mitigate where this road comes out to get on Country Club Road there’s some wetlands there and obviously you’re putting some culverts in ATTORNEY LAPPER- Yes COUNCILMAN MONTESI- That’s going to be something you’ll have to deal with DEC I presume REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1069 ATTORNEY LAPPER- There are a couple of crossing that require culverts but for the most part the wetlands are being avoided, very minimal impact SUPERVISOR STEC- John or I probably shouldn’t ask you for legal advice, I’ll through this out to both you and our Attorney, Bob Hafner; the northern parcel that Mr. Drake owns currently as suggested there would be no units built on that and really the only thing that would be running over that would be the access road. My question is, could we, if they wanted to develop it as that and let’s say that we left that one south eastern parcel with the two structures on it as office, but we changed the zoning for the northern parcel back to MDR does that present an issue as far as can you have an access road over the MDR with no buildings on it? You weren’t prepared for this question but ATTORNEY HAFNER- I wasn’t prepared SUPERVISOR STEC- John might have a COUNCILMAN BREWER- can’t you put a road in any zone SUPERVISOR STEC- Well, that’s what I mean, could you put a road, if we changed that northern one back COUNCILMAN BREWER- There’s roads in every zone in the Town so I don’t know why you couldn’t SUPERVISOR STEC- I mean they would dedicate the road ATTORNEY HAFNER- I think what we’re controlling is other type of development COUNCILMAN BREWER- Old retired Highway Superintendent SUPERVISOR STEC- And you’re talking about dedicating this road to the Town, I mean you want to make this a public road right, it’s not a private drive? ATTORNEY LAPPER- Yes, now that would be the goal to dedicate SUPERVISOR STEC- Would that work from your understanding of the Town Code is ATTORNEY LAPPER- Well, I think that because it’s a residential zone it would be permissible to have a road SUPERVISOR STEC- Okay ATTORNEY LAPPER- Two residential zones SUPERVISOR STEC- You know what I’m saying, I don’t want ATTORNEY LAPPER- The simple answer is that it won’t make that big a difference if we do what you suggest because that lot is mostly wetlands, there’s not much that can be, it’s really there for the access road, so in terms of a compromise we’d rather that it stayed zone the way it is now but it wouldn’t hurt the development SUPERVISOR STEC- And I’m just spit balling here, the other Town Board Members may prefer to go all or none or they may like the suggested compromise. The suggested compromise doesn’t change the fact that we’re talking about adding thirty six units there, the residents that are going to be concerned, they don’t care what color the zoning map is they care that there is a road there now with thirty six units on it. I would suggest that thirty six units isn’t the end of the world as far as an intensity of development but from a cumulative, and you’re familiar with the zoning issues the Town has gone through over the years John, cumulatively thirty six here, eighteen there, fourteen there and before you know it you’ve got people screaming. ATTORNEY LAPPER- But, again Dan this is the area closest to Quaker Road, it’s a good location for townhouse development REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1070 SUPERVISOR STEC- Would this be sewer then? ATTORNEY LAPPER- Yes, the goal would be to, right now Tom’s property doesn’t have access to the sewer but that’s the reason to acquire the Wiswall property to be able to bring the sewer in COUNCILMAN BREWER- Did you acquire that piece of property or is in contract ATTORNEY LAPPER- We’re in discussions with the trust COUNCILMAN BREWER- So, if you don’t do that than this goes away SUPERVISOR STEC- But whatever the zoning is it’s available ATTORNEY LAPPER- Well, it would have to come in from Country Club, then it would have no choice but to come in from Country Club COUNCILMAN BREWER- Right ATTORNEY LAPPER- But this is a better plan SUPERVISOR STEC- Well, and not only, but you would also lose density right because you wouldn’t have the property ATTORNEY LAPPER- Right, but the density would be based upon SUPERVISOR STEC- The volume, you wouldn’t have the number units because you wouldn’t own the southern portion ATTORNEY LAPPER- The most important piece is what you’d asked about Dan, the parcel on the east side of Tom’s property where it doesn’t include the wetlands, that’s where the density so, but to go to a two acre zone if it didn’t have sewer would be a terrible thing. He wouldn’t be able to develop anything; he wouldn’t even be able to justify the cost of the road COUNCILMAN BREWER- How long is the road? ATTORNEY LAPPER- About thirteen hundred feet SUPERVISOR STEC- The whole length from Country Club to ATTORNEY LAPPER- No, no to get it into this part of, to get it into COUNCILMAN BREWER- Total how long is the road? ATTORNEY LAPPER- Um, probably about three thousand COUNCILMAN BREWER- This is an expensive road ATTORNEY LAPPER- Yes, it is an expensive road, and that’s why he needs COUNCILMAN BREWER- Four hundred thousand dollars for a road ATTORNEY LAPPER- He needs some density to justify that COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Plus the infrastructure of sewer and water COUNCILMAN STROUGH- It’s not a road, it a driveway COUNCILMAN BREWER- It’s going to be a road John REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1071 SUPERVISOR STEC- I asked him, you said you are going to build this to Town specs and dedicate it to the Town ATTORNEY LAPPER- That would be COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, the first thing is, I was told by a highway engineer that the base that was laid down, that rock and everything would not meet Town standards ATTORNEY LAPPER- Some work was done by COUNCILMAN STROUGH- So the base of that driveway that’s in there automatically ATTORNEY LAPPER- That was done by the predecessor entitle COUNCILMAN STROUGH- I know ATTORNEY LAPPER- So if that has to be redone, it has to be redone; I mean if you are building something to Town specs it has to be built to Town specs, there’s no argument about that SUPERVISOR STEC- So you know going in that that may not be useable, you may have to spend money on rework ATTORNEY LAPPER- Yes SUPERVISOR STEC- Did the Board follow my suggestion to consider of these four if you wanted to rezone the three to the west and not change the zoning of the one to the southeast that would accommodate what they’re suggesting COUNCILMAN BREWER- It doesn’t really make any difference because he’s not going to be able to do anything on it anyway SUPERVISOR STEC- Today but you never know what the next property owner comes in and puts together and pulls COUNCILMAN BREWER- If he does this project Dan the roads there; I mean we put restrictions on it, how can he do anything SUPERVISOR STEC- That’s fine, and like I said the Board may or may not like the suggestion I just throw it out there as something to consider ATTORNEY LAPPER- Preference would be to keep it the way it is and let this project go to the Planning Board COUNCILMAN BREWER- I mean the road is going to take up his buildable space so he’s not really going to be able to build anything there anyway. I mean who knows what happens in the future COUNCILMAN MONTESI- I think we’re getting too involved in the planning process SUPERVISOR STEC- Yea, well I agree COUNCILMAN MONTESI- The question is do we rezone it or not rezone it and how long the road is, it’s going through a wetland, you compromised the point that said you know we can’t do much with land anyway except put a road in, do we want to see the rest of that development, thirty six units and rezone that parcel including the Wiswall property and I would presume, if you are in contract or trying to be into contract with them want to see it so that this development can happen ATTORNEY LAPPER- Their attorney had actually said he was going to be sending a letter in to the Town Board for the public hearing supporting keeping it the way it is. I just want to say one more thing, just because of the fact that it doesn’t have sewer now, if you rezoned it and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1072 therefore Tom didn’t buy the Wiswall property, two acre per single family dwelling unit there’d be very little he could do with this property. It really would not have a value because of the cost of getting through the wetland area to the developable property COUNCILMAN MONTESI- I mean I’m one of probably one of the few Board Members who felt that we did it one way three months ago and we’re changing it back and it didn’t make much sense to me in terms of us being good planners. We have a lot of good guys on this Board that say they’re good planners ATTORNEY LAPPER- That’s why we wanted to come in with a plan that we hoped you could support as good planning SUPERVISOR STEC- Did you say they are or they are COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Yea SUPERVISOR STEC- We’re better than most in the area I would suggest ATTORNEY LAPPER- I’m going to leave a copy of this concept plan SUPERVISOR STEC- That’s fine ATTORNEY LAPPER- So that if any of the neighbors come up to speak they can see SUPERVISOR STEC- Oh sure, they can see it, that’s not a bad idea ATTORNEY LAPPER- But, I’d also ask if I could have a minute SUPERVISOR STEC- Might want to give Attorney Borgos, who contributes to the traffic that you mentioned on Glenwood, significantly ATTORNEY LAPPER- I just ask that after the neighbors speak if I could have a minute if there’s anything I need to rebut or address SUPERVISOR STEC- It’s a public hearing; you get more than one bite at the apple at a public hearing ATTORNEY LAPPER- Thank you SUPERVISOR STEC- All right, thank you. Mr. Borgos. Hello Mr. Borgos ATTORNEY, MICHAEL BORGOS- Good evening again, Michael Borgos, here this time on behalf of the Westward Homeowners Association. I must say that off the top that we’re a little bit surprised to be hearing of a plan. We came with the understanding that the Board was moving ahead with the decision to go back to the original zoning SUPERVISOR STEC- Well, we’re going to take public comment and then make our decision. But, last time, four weeks ago we did suggest, I would have preferred to seen it sooner than today, but we did ask ATTORNEY BORGOS- Well, that’s my point exactly, we didn’t have an opportunity to review the plan SUPERVISOR STEC- Sure, with your client ATTORNEY BORGOS- Just a few quick comments from what I’ve heard, our concerns as an Association really are traffic related as well as the impact on the water table in that neighborhood. There’s already significant problems as Mr. Lapper alluded to on the Wiswall property to the west of the Homeowners Association. We have photographs of standing water in the springtime, it’s very common. We think that any development on the parcels discussed will exacerbate that problem and that needs to be studied. Obviously, that’s a Planning Board issue but those are the type of things that you do consider in the normal course of considering a zone REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1073 change. This is a very unusual situation, and I think you’ve all eluded to that fact, I would much prefer seeing the Board go through with the plan to go back to what it was and if the applicant has a meritorious argument for a zone change we can precede in a normal course because I know there are a lot of people who would like to come and speak but didn’t expect that we would be into the nity grity of some plan that was presented on the very evening of the public hearing. I just think that doesn’t give everybody proper amount of time SUPERVISOR STEC- We’re a pretty thorough and open government here, we take all the comment that people want to through at us. ATTORNEY BORGOS- In addition to the water issue, I think that this was previously permitted for a single family residents when Mr. Karanikas owned it as the predecessor in title; and that’s certainly what everyone was expecting to be built there. I know there was a change in circumstance and change in ownership, but again the proper application would be to go through the rezone process. With regards to the Wiswall negotiations, I’d like to hear from Mr. Lapper as to whether he’d be seeking a deed to the entire Wiswall property or if he’s only seeking an easement for access out to Glenwood because that would be a significant issue. If there’s remaining property there and all that’s going to be utilized is an access point that would allow for future development on that Wiswall property potentially, which would affect, I think, the determination of the utilization of this rear parcel, is it being boot strapped essentially COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Mike, it looks like all of the buildings are on the Wiswall property COUNCILAN BREWER- Right ATTORNEY BORGOS- Yea SUPERVISOR STEC- I was going to say, it looks like if we went through with the rezoning as advertised tonight that we’re having the public hearing on, the remaining property that is, will continue to be zoned office, seven out of the nine structures are, could still feasibly be built ATTORNEY BORGOS- Well, this is where I’m getting at, is it contingent upon obtaining the Wiswall property or are you going to do the … zoning alone as it were without that component. I would want to see that it be contingent SUPERVISOR STEC – The Wiswall property is already zoned office ATTORNEY BORGOS- That is, but the other parcel that we’re discussing COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, you’re basically saying there’s nothing and it’s true, nothing assuring or guaranteeing that this is the project ATTORNEY BORGOS- Exactly SUPERVISOR STEC- That this happens, that’s right, I agree COUNCILMAN STROUGH- I mean it’s entirely possible that if it gets resold or even this owner, comes together with a little bit more, a lot more aggressive plan. I mean it’s entirely possible SUPERVISOR STEC- That’s right, another developer could, for some reason whatever reason, six months from now could be a different developer, different project COUNCILMAN BREWER- Bob, answer me if I’m, I think I’m right in saying can we condition the rezoning on this? ATTORNEY HAFNER- On the tentative plan that hasn’t even gone to the Planning Board? COUNCILMAN BREWER- Well, can we condition the rezoning on a parcel with a limit of units on it? COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1074 COUNCILMAN BREWER- Let him answer my question first ATTORNEY HAFNER- You, I mean when you’re rezoning you’re rezoning it through a different COUNCILMAN BREWER- To the maximum ATTORNEY HAFNER- And that’s you’re zoning classification COUNCILMAN BREWER- But, I thought we rezoned a property with conditions ATTORNEY HAFNER- If you want to create a different zoning classification than you can go through the process to do that and call it that COUNCILMAN BREWER- No, I understand ATTORNEY BORGOS- And I think that points to the problem of rushing to judgment … on a specific proposed project that may not be a project. Those are significant issues to consider COUNCILMAN STROUGH- And there’s a lot of big ifs about whether they would be able to secure these other parcels ATTORNEY BORGOS- Exactly. I think, if I understood you correctly, Mr. Stec, there was a discussion about trying to have a connector to Bay Road SUPERVISOR STEC- I threw that out as a possible suggestion, like I said I think the traffic onto Bay Road would be more appropriate or more welcomed than traffic onto Country Club. It may not be as significant with thirty six units, most of which are closer to Glenwood than Country Club. It may not be that big of a deal but I would think going out to Bay Road, and that way in keeping everything in the office zone as opposed to things that are potentially better suited in the MDR zone ATTORNEY BORGOS- I think that in the last several years staff has had discussions regarding that because there is certainly a need to alleviate some of the congestion. There’s been discussion at times of extending Walker Lane but there’s no real easy way to connect to Country Club. There is some available property just to the west and to the north but the terminus onto Country Club Road is very close to the entrance to the Twicwood neighborhood and that presents traffic hazards and there’s a little bit of an elevation change there as well. If there was a way to connect over through this property, that might be something that would be worth discussing as long as it doesn’t affect the density and the impact with the water on this property and the Homeowners Association, which is a neighbor. But, the influx of traffic that we’ve seen on Glenwood Avenue just in the past five years even with the ACC traffic it’s really very noticeable. It’s something that if you haven’t been out there during those peak times you wouldn’t really appreciate it. Many of you though would recall before the stop sign went in at the corner on Glenwood where Sprinkles is now and the bike trail cross, that used to be a very easy traffic corridor to go through without much need for a stop sign but now quite often that stop sign is backed up eight or ten cars deep. When you add in the traffic at the Animal Hospital, the O’Connor’s place with the ACC traffic it can be very, very busy through there. Any other traffic entering or exiting is going to have a significant impact COUNCILMAN MONTESI- I think Mike, right now on your road, Glenwood, with the closing of the Tennis and the gym there’s been a minimal amount, I mean a lot of traffic has been eliminated there but I’m not sure what Schermerhorn is going to do to that building. It may be an office complex someday, I don’t know what his plans are but I don’t think he’s ever submitted them so it’s back on the market. That will have an impact I’m sure on Glenwood ATTORNEY BORGOS- That’s why I’m looking at it from a planning perspective that’s already permitted, it’s a large parking lot, you have to anticipate it will have additional traffic in the years to come and that’s what concerns us. So those are our concerns, thank you for hearing me. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1075 SUPERVISOR STEC- All right, thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to comment on this public hearing this evening? COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Mike, you’re group would like to see it go to office? SUPERVISOR STEC- They’d like to see us follow through with the rezonings as proposed ATTORNEY BORGOS- That’s correct, follow through with what you proposed SUPERVISOR STEC- Change them back to MDR COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Change it back to MDR SUPERVISOR STEC- He thinks that the good planning was the way we had it the first time before we changed ATTORNEY BORGOS- It doesn’t happen often, but I agree with what you’d planned SUPERVISOR STEC- Originally ATTORNEY BORGOS- Well, yes, correct, and not any of the discussions to modify that plan tonight. If indeed it is meritorious to go through with the rezoning in the future let that play out as it normally would. That’s what we ask for, thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC- Is there anyone else that would like to address the Board on this public hearing this evening? Luise LUISE CRAIGE-SHERMAN- 70 Country Club Road. I apologize, I’m not very familiar with Queensbury zoning, having only lived on Country Club Road for the last year and a half SUPERVISOR STEC- It’s very off the shelf, very hum drum MRS. CRAIGE-SHERMAN- Well, this rezoning has prompted us to come a little bit earlier than we originally had planned to but looking at what that density is and yes thirty six units, which to me says seventy two cars, because even people who are in their eighty and nineties now often maintain their cars. If it’s a senior couple they may very well still have those two cars. To me that’s seventy two cars plus any type of guests, plus any type of vehicles that are coming for deliveries or friends or relatives visiting, that type of thing. Country Club Road since we moved there, we bought what we thought was a country house, a farmhouse and come to find out we’re on a race course. I think in the last probably ten years in talking to our neighbors about this quite a bit with the advent of the bike trail and the increase user ship of that the amount of road frontage that is used for the bike trail, which has a very narrow, and we’re talking maybe three feet of bike path in some cases. Just since we’ve been there, as I said a little less than two years, we’ve seen four or five accidents between Round Pond Road and Sweet Road. I understand a young boy lost his life on Country Club Road some twenty years ago, riding his bike to his house, which was on Country Club Road. It appears there’s a lot more new houses there that have been built and certainly the access which was just mentioned about ACC, again my neighbors have said who have lived there in some cases thirty and forty years, have said that with the advent and the growth of the College that traffic has considerably increased as well as the redevelopment of the Wal-Mart Plaza has increased traffic. As you said, Supervisor Stec, you’re guilty as using that as a cut through as we are SUPERVISOR STEC- Well, it’s a public road, it’s legal but the neighbors won’t love it but it is legal MRS. CRAIGE-SHERMAN- I know, absolutely. The intersection where Woodvale comes into Country Club Road, I’m not quite sure, I apologize if anyone here approved that but the angle of which that road intersects is difficult at best. Depending what type of vehicle you’re driving sometimes it’s a total blind spot, and I’ve seen so many people turn into the bike trail thinking that was the road and then they have to back back out onto the road to get into Woodvale. I would make a suggestion that I understand that length of that one property would make an access road; I would love to see it go out onto Bay Road. I think that’s an excellent suggestion but if it REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1076 had to go onto Country Club Road, currently the parcel that sits on the southeast corner of Sweet Road and Country Club Road, which backs up to the bike trail, it’s a very wet, I would venture to guess unbuildable for most things, that even if you could bring Sweet Road, if somehow you could take that corner and realign Sweet Road to make an intersection there with a traffic light and start slowing down the traffic on Country Club Road, have this development, in the worst case scenario, have this development come straight out and be directly opposite Sweet Road, put a traffic light and start slowing down the traffic on Country Club Road. I’m planning on getting a petition together of landowners, property owners on Country Club Road; we’ve wanted to do it for about the last year but some of you know I’ve been a little busy, looking to reduce the speed limit on that road. Currently, forty-five miles an hour is in league with the fastest roads in all of Queensbury. There are parts of Quaker Road that are actually less speed limit posted SUPERVISOR STEC- Just as an aside, having eleven years of experience dealing with people asking about lower speed limits, you’d be amazed at how difficult it is to get a speed limit lowered MRS. CRAIGE-SHERMAN- I know, I know, I’ve already talked to the Sheriff and to Glens Falls SUPERVISOR STEC- It has to be approved by New York State DOT MRS. CRAIGE-SHERMAN- Well, it’s a county road though SUPERVISOR STEC- It doesn’t matter, even on a town road it has to be approved by New York State DOT and they are extremely reluctant MRS. CRAIGE- SHERMAN- I know, if everybody goes fifty-five they’ll say that’s safe because they haven’t had a zillion accidents, but I can tell you when I see what I call the ducklings, the mother, the father and the three little kids behind them going up that bike trail on a three foot path and people going fifty-five and sixty miles an hour whizzing by them, you’ve got two bike crossings not just one, but two. The one by our house is almost blind as you’re coming from the south heading north. It’s a dangerous situation and I’m concerned about adding yet more density onto the road and making it even more difficult situation. Thank you SUPERVISOR STEC- All right, thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Town Board on this public hearing? Any other discussion from Town Board? No I haven’t heard anyone comment on the rezoning from MDR to Office on the three parcels down there on Glenwood right there, which essentially are the animal hospital. I imagine that the Board and the public are generally fine with that. I think any discussion that the Town Board needs to ought to really focus on the four properties that are currently office that we’re contemplating rezoning back to MDR. I had asked Bob previously and we talked about this at the Town Board Meeting four weeks ago that if we in fact want to the Town Board is free to, of the seven properties that have been advertised and the public hearing has been conducted on, we can drop any or all of them. We could use four or five, so we could use four or five, so we have some flexibility as to these seven properties which ones we may or may not want to include in the rezoning. I just put that out there so that the Board, as we start formulating if we want to have a resolution tonight, I imagine that we’re going to want follow through at least on those three properties that no one is talking about allowing the animal hospital to go to office COUNCILMAN MONTESI- What can be built in an MDR, just so everybody knows SUPERVISOR STEC- Off the top of my head, residential COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, I can look up the table if that tables in my code book COUNCILMAN BREWER- You had to say that didn’t you SUPERVISOR STEC- You know, we had it all resolved. Go ahead John, did you want to comment about something Mr. Borgos said or asked about? ATTORNEY LAPPER- Well, the issue is whether the density will permit townhouses and in MDR you can have single family on a two acre lot. Because Tom’s lot doesn’t have sewer so if REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1077 you were going to cluster it to do townhouses you would be doing the math and you’d take off the wetland and you’re not going to have much that can go on that property. So, if wouldn’t justify the cost of putting the road in and doing a townhouse development. I’m arguing that a townhouse development mirrors what’s next door at Westwood, the thirty six units is a minor number for traffic generation compared to the number of acres here and to respond to what Mike said this was designed to avoid the wet areas. Obviously, it has to comply with DEC and Town requirements. There’s plenty of land here to be able to deal with the wet areas and do a modest size townhouse development, which would just be good for the Town, appropriate use for this property near the travel corridors and shopping and the sewer line of course. I don’t see that there is any reason why you have to do anything to Tom’s property tonight. I mean what we’re trying, we came in with a plan to show you that this could be modestly developed for the Town COUNCILMAN BREWER- How many units are there in Westbrook? COUNCILMAN METIVIER- Westwood has forty eight COUNCILMAN STROUGH- There’s forty eight but John you would almost develop that the way he’s pictured it, as Dan has suggested with what we’re proposing to do because you would have your access drive ATTORNEY LAPPER- But if you rezone that western, excuse me eastern piece where we’re showing the eight units; I mean the cost of this road is so expensive that you just can’t justify putting in three thousand feet of road unless you get some density and we’re not even showing COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, that’s what I mean you’ve got the same density SUPERVISOR STEC- You wouldn’t have to do the whole road you could do about half the road COUNCILMAN STROUGH- You wouldn’t have to change… you could move you’re density down into the SUPERVISOR STEC- You could almost have the dead end or a cul-de-sac ATTORNEY LAPPER- You’re also bringing in sewer, it’s not just, I mean to make this feasible COUNCILMAN STROUGH- I mean you’re talking the same density John ATTORNEY LAPPER- No, those eight units are really important. I mean in terms of the COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, I think you’re thinking more than eight units because by the time you got done with the road and by the time you got done with sewer thirty six units I don’t think is going to pay for it ATTORNEY LAPPER- Well, even if we could fit another building, this is concept; this was done in a few weeks COUNCILMAN STROUGH- I know it’s concept that’s part of the problem ATTORNEY LAPPER- So maybe it’s forty, but whatever it is it’s still an appropriate use, it’s less dense by a lot than Westwood, if you look at Westwood. I used the same footprints on the map just to show a compatible use COUNCILMAN STROUGH- I appreciate the effort buy I’m still not convinced. I like the proposal and the resolution we have right here ATTORNEY LAPPER- If it goes to two acre, single family two acre there’s just COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Given the caring capacity of the land, giving the limits that you’ve admitted, the limits of water, the limits of wetland, the limits of rock out beds, the limits of traffic, all those combined say that this should not be a high density area REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1078 ATTORNEY LAPPER- And that’s why we’re only talking about a few units. I would say just give us some time to get this under contract where we’re close. There’s just no reason to take away the value of Tom’s property and leave him high and dry. He’s trying to do something that makes sense SUPERVISOR STEC- You do agree though that an option that is available is what Mr. Borgos said before that. Two, three, six months from now you can always come with an application to rezone and we could do it then ATTORNEY LAPPER- There’s no reason for you do anything tonight. The idea to rezone it to make it restrictive and then have us come back with a whole application to try and fix it again, I mean time and money, he’s approached the Wiswall’s they’ve got a piece of property their trying to sell, he’s trying to buy. I think we’ll get that together COUNCILMAN MONTESI- John, I agree with your argument only on a different basis. To put a thirty five hundred foot roadway, which approximately that’s what it is, run the sewer lines in, water and utilities and only have thirty six units it just doesn’t seem like that would be a very good business decision to make. I’m willing to say this is conceptual; you really need a chance to try and show of what it can be. This is really a tough decision in terms of a business decision. Thirty six units, I don’t know how you can make any money at that? ATTORNEY LAPPER- And it may be forty, we don’t know yet but it’s not going to be a lot more than thirty six COUNCILMAN METIVIER- I think that’s the problem though is that we’re almost welcoming the fact that his project could almost be a failure if you can’t get forty, forty two, forty four units in; and at that point you know we’ve invited it. I am concerned; I was just doing a little bit of math myself, thinking how can you possible make any money on this thirty six unit development with the infrastructure, the price of the land. You’ll be pricing your houses so high that nobody will be able to afford them. It is a concern; to me it’s a concern ATTORNEY LAPPER- Well, Tom won’t go through with it if it doesn’t make financial sense but we were not even given the notice so we found out that this was on the agenda last month and quickly had to put something together. He acquired the one piece, we’ve been talking to the neighbor, I think we’ll get that under contract quickly but I guess just let him try to do something that makes sense. Certainly townhouse development makes more sense than single family in that area where you’d be doing one acre lots COUNCILMAN STROUGH- To me that makes sense COUNCILMAN BREWER- What COUNCILMAN STROUGH- One acre, two acre lots ATTORNEY LAPPER- You’re right behind Westwood, for two acre lots it’s kind of a strange place for an estate lot. I would ask you on Tom’s behalf to just leave it alone and promise you that we’ll come in with an appropriate development for this site that’s not too dense that looks good COUNCILMAN METIVIER- Can we do that for the time being? SUPERVISOR STEC- We could, I’m not sure I agree with Mr. Lapper here, but because we could always entertain a rezoning application when we do have a lot more known quantities and fewer variables. That would give us more control COUNCILMAN METIVIER- Well, I think if we had some kind of control over it, where we’re not, I’m worried about this, I really, really am worried about this SUPERVISOR STEC- I would suggest if you’re worried about, the way that I think that you are, than the safe play would be to follow through with the rezoning because that gives us more control to make a better decision later. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1079 ATTORNEY LAPPER- Than you know that he can’t make any money if you rezone it to two acre lots than the project is dead COUNCILMAN METIVIER- But we also said to you if you brought something to us that was more definitive with ATTORNEY LAPPER- Well, this is the idea, I mean this is what it would be we just have to do the engineering COUNCILMAN METIVIER- Yea but I still, I’m not convinced that thirty six is the magic number here ATTORNEY LAPPER- Let’s say it’s forty, but to ask him to go do all the detailed engineering, soil tests when it’s not even zoned right, I don’t know if he goes forward and buys the property next door COUNCILMAN METIVIER- I understand, I know, I understand, I know, I know SUPERVISOR STEC- Is there anyone else that would like to comment before I close the public hearing DEPUTY CLERK, MELLON- I do have a letter, I have a letter from Matthew Fuller, dated th today, September 13. It says: Dear Supervisor Stec and Town Board Members: I understand that the Town Board has on its agenda tonight further consideration of a “re-re- zoning” of property along or near Country Club Road in the Town. In reviewing the public hearing info, I see that this generally includes Dr. O’Connor’s properties which are proposed to be brought into the Office zone, and which I think makes sense from a planning perspective. However, I also see that the Board is moving forward with essentially “undoing” the changes that applied to some properties this past spring. I would ask the Town Board to decline this invitation. I am unaware how the current changes arose. Last month, the Town Board removed from consideration those parcels contained in the Wiswall estates, and I thank the Board for that. The Board should do the same with the parcels currently targeted to move back to the MDR zone. Aside from the potential Constitutional and property rights issues associated with flipping property from zone to zone, I think the proposed changes to the parcels identified as being along Country Club Road, but actually located off Country Club Road, makes bad planning sense. This area of the Town has water, sewer, electric and gas, higher traffic patterns, and higher density in general. In short, this area of the Town has been designed, intentionally or not, to support density such as that contained in the neighboring Westwood development. Moving the properties to the North of the Wiswall property back to the MDR zone would prevent such development. I urge the Town Board to take a hard look at the implications of the proposed change, and to deny the invitation to reverse the zoning changes instituted just this past spring. Thank you. Sincerely, Matthew F. Fuller SUPERVISOR STEC- Okay, any other comment? All right then, again, what I suggested to the Board is we have seven parcels. We could either follow through with the rezoning of all seven of them as the resolution is written tonight or if the majority of the Board would prefer to make some changes, I would presume in the four parcels to the north, they could do that. We would also need to go through SEQRA. So, what I’ll do is I will close the public hearing and I guess I entertain a little bit more discussion so that we can determine what the consensus of the Board might be as far as do we want to move forward with the rezoning as advertised or if we want to eliminated some of the parcels from consideration. Once we have a consensus idea there we’ll go through the SEQRA and the resolution. I’ll let John speak himself COUNCILMAN STROUGH- I prefer to keep the resolution just as it is REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1080 SUPERVISOR STEC- I do as well. Other Board Members? COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Given the conceptual-ness of this plan and knowing that it might be forty, it might be forty four. I just assume keep it the way it is. If Mr. Drake wants to come in SUPERVISOR STEC- With an application COUNCILMAN MONTESI- With an application that would be his prerogative but SUPERVISOR STEC- I think that’s reasonable, it may certainly not be as convenient for the applicant as Mr. Lapper has pointed out and I think accurately so. But I agree, I think it gives the Town a little more control in eliminating some of the unknowns that we’ve talked about here tonight. Tony or Tim do you have strong feelings about it? COUNCILMAN BREWER- I don’t have a strong feeling either way Dan. I sympathize with Mr. Lapper’s client but at the same time I don’t know if we can rezone a piece of property on a project we don’t know what’s going to be SUPERVISOR STEC- Tony, do you have anything? Right now I’m hearing the consensus is move forward COUNCILMAN METIVIER- I have nothing more to add. I don’t know if I have an answer or not COUNCILMAN BREWER- I think if he comes back with a plan that has merit we can entertain it SUPERVISOR STEC- We can have another public hearing, there’s certainly nothing wrong with doing that. All right, presuming that the Board wants to follow through with the resolution as written, Bob do you want to walk us through SEQRA please PART 2- SEQRA FORM LONG FORM 1.Will the Proposed action result in any physical change to the project site? NO 2.Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological, formations, etc.) NO 3.Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? (under Articles 12, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) NO 4.Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? NO 5.Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? NO 6.Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? NO 7.Will proposed action affect air quality? NO 8.Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? NO 9.Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? NO 10.Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? NO 11. Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources? NO 12.Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? NO REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1081 13.Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? NO 14.Will proposed action impact he exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14(g)? NO 15.Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? NO 16.Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? NO 17.Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? NO 18.Will proposed action affect public health and safety? NO 19.Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? NO 20.Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? NO ATTORNEY HAFNER- You’ve answered no to all of the questions so I think the resolution has that there will be a negative declaration and that it will authorize you to sign Dan SUPERVISOR STEC- It does, it does, it authorizes us to file a SEQRA negative declaration. Okay so we have a resolution with a negative SEQRA declaration to rezone the seven parcels COUNCILMAN STROUGH- I’ll move it SUPERVISOR STEC- Moved by Councilman Strough COUNCILMAN BREWER- I’ll second it SUPERVISOR STEC- Seconded by Councilman Brewer, any further discussion? Hearing none let’s go ahead and vote RESOLUTION ADOPTING SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AMENDING ZONING LAW TO CHANGE CLASSIFICATION OF PARCELS ON COUNTRY CLUB ROAD AND GLENWOOD AVENUE AND ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO.: 10 OF 2010 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 179 “ZONING” RESOLUTION NO.: 304, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: 10 of 2010 to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179 by amending the official Town Zoning Ordinance and Map to reflect the rezoning of: 1.four (4) parcels of property on Country Club Road from Office (O) to Moderate REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1082 Density Residential (MDR), and 2.hree (3) parcels of property on Glenwood Avenue from Moderate Density Residential (MDR) to Office (O), as presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, before the Town Board may amend, supplement, change, or modify its Zoning Law and Map, it must hold a public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Town Law §265, the Municipal Home Rule Law and the Town of Queensbury Zoning Laws, and WHEREAS, the Town Board duly conducted a public hearing and heard all interested th parties concerning the proposed rezoning on Monday, September 13, 2010, and th WHEREAS, on or about August 11, 2010,the Warren County Planning Board considered the proposed rezoning and determined that there would be no County impact, and WHEREAS, as SEQRA Lead Agency, the Town Board has reviewed a Full Environmental Assessment Form to analyze potential environmental impacts of the proposed rezoning, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has considered the conditions and circumstances of the area affected by the rezoning, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby determines that the proposed rezoning will not have any significant adverse environmental impact and a SEQRA Negative Declaration is made, and therefore authorizes and directs the Town Clerk and/or Senior Planner and/or Town Counsel to file and publish a SEQRA Negative Declaration - Notice of Determination of Non-Significance with respect to the rezoning, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby amends the Town of Queensbury Zoning Law and Map to rezone the properties bearing Tax Map Parcel No.’s: ? 296.15-1-18, 296.15-1-24, 296.15-1-25 and 296.19-1-12 located along Country Club Road in the Town of Queensbury from Office (O) to Moderate Density Residential (MDR); and ? 296.19-1-15, 296.19-1-16, and 296.19-1-17 located along Glenwood Avenue in the Town of Queensbury from Moderate Density Residential (MDR) to Office (O); and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1083 RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby adopts Local Law No.: 10 of 2010 to amend the Queensbury Town Code by amending the official Town Zoning Map to reflect such change of zone as presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to file the Local Law and the official Town Zoning Map, as amended, with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and acknowledges that the Local Law will take effect upon such filing, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to send copies of this Resolution, Local Law and Zoning Map to the Town Planning Board, Town Zoning Board of Appeals and Zoning Administrator in accordance with §179-15-080(D) of the Town Zoning Law, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall take effect immediately. th Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi NOES: None ABSENT: None LOCAL LAW NO.: 10 OF 2010 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND CHAPTER 179 “ZONING” OF QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE TO AMEND OFFICIAL TOWN ZONING MAP BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179, “Zoning,” is hereby amended by amending the official Town Zoning Map to reflect a change of zone for four (4) parcels of property REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1084 on Country Club Road from Office (O) to Moderate Density Residential (MDR) such properties bearing Tax Map Parcel No.’s: 296.15-1-18, 296.15-1-24, 296.15-1-25 and 296.19-1-12. SECTION 2. Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179, “Zoning,” is hereby amended by amending the official Town Zoning Map to reflect a change of zone for three (3) parcels of property along Glenwood Avenue from Moderate Density Residential (MDR) to Office (O) such properties bearing Tax Map Parcel No.’s: 296.19-1-15, 296.19-1-16, and 296.19-1-17. SECTION 3. The map appended to this Local Law is hereby adopted as the official Town Zoning Map of the Town of Queensbury and supersedes the previously adopted Town Zoning Map. SECTION 4. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph or provision of this Local Law shall not invalidate any other clause, sentence, paragraph or part thereof. SECTION 5. All Local Laws or ordinances or parts of Local Laws or ordinances in conflict with any part of this Local Law are hereby repealed. SECTION 6. This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing in the Office of the New York Secretary of State as provided in New York Municipal Home Rule Law §27. PUBLIC HEARING AUTHORIZING CONSOLIDATION AGREEMENT AND CONSOLIDATION OF CENTRAL QUEENSBURY QUAKER ROAD SEWER DISTRICT AND HILAND PARK SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: August 27, 2010 SUPERVISOR STEC- All right, I’ll ask our sewer manager, Mike Shaw to come up here. Essentially the Town has been taking steps over the last couple of months to move us towards having this public hearing this evening to essentially consolidate two sewer districts, the Central Queensbury/Quaker Road Sewer District and the Hiland Park Sanitary Sewer District. Mike, I’ll turn the floor over to you and let you hit any highlights that you think is worthy of covering here before we take any other public comment WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, MIKE SHAW- Okay, as Dan explained we’re proposing to consolidate two districts, Central Queensbury/Quaker Road Sewer District and Hiland Park Sewer District. There’s a map just on the left side of the Town Board that kind of shows those two areas. If you see the tan area on the map that’s the Hiland Park Sewer District and the blue area is the Central Queensbury/Quaker Road Sewer District. Both of these districts were constructed about the same time, in the late eighties, and Hiland Park Sewer District has had two extensions to it, Quaker Road Sewer District has had twelve extensions to it. The value of each district according the GASB 34 reporting for last year was Central Queensbury/Quaker Road Sewer District had eight and a half million dollars as valued at and Hiland Park was valued at almost two million dollars. Each district currently has fund balance, fund balance in the Quaker Road Sewer District as of 2009 was approximately two hundred thousand and the fund balance in Hiland Park was approximately seventy five thousand dollars COUNCILMAN BREWER- Seventy five REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1085 WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, SHAW- As I explained both of these districts were constructed in the late 1980’s. The Hiland Park Sewer District was constructed by developer Gary Bowen and paid by the developer. Central Queensbury/Quaker Road Sewer District was developed by the Town and paid for by the people of the district. Currently, neither district has funding or bonding on them and both districts are currently paying the same O&M rate SUPERVISOR STEC- All right, anything else you would like to add before I open the public hearing Mike? WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, SHAW- No SUPERVISOR STEC- All right, I will open the public hearing, if there is anybody that would like to comment on this public hearing regarding the consolidation of these two sewer districts, I just ask that you raise your hand and we’ll call on you. Do Board Members have any questions for Mike Shaw? COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Mike, will the impact be different crosswise for either of the districts? WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, SHAW- The immediate impact we’ll see is of course administratively combining two budgets, not doing two budgets at budget time, not creating double purchase orders, double entries or payments of bills. Really the biggest benefit, I think, is in the future; you’re spreading cost over a larger district. Both of these districts have similar construction, one flows into the other. In the future, if they have repairs, spreading those repairs over a wider base of people COUNCILMAN MONTESI- But I mean either one of those will not, because of this consolidation, will not see an increase in their rate WASTERWATER DIRECTOR, SHAW- No, neither one of them will see an increase in their rate because of the consolidation. As you’ll see on tonight’s agenda there is increases suggested for the future for all districts to pay a portion of the treatment at the City of Glens Falls SUPERVISOR STEC- When we know what it is COUNCILMAN MONTESI- And you’ve done a good job of managing too because we do have some reserve funds there for contingencies WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, SHAW- We have, over the years too, done repairs and things, each district has had its pump stations upgraded in the last five or six years. Both of them are in reasonable operational condition COUNCILMAN MONTESI- That’s the pump station on Meadowbrook and both on Meadowbrook WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, SHAW- Correct SUPERVISOR STEC- All right, is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this public hearing? Seeing none I will close this public hearing and entertain a motion RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONSOLIDATION AGREEMENT AND CONSOLIDATION OF CENTRAL QUEENSBURY QUAKER ROAD SEWER DISTRICT AND HILAND PARK SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO.: 305, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1086 SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHEREAS, New York General Municipal Law Article 17-A authorizes water and sewer districts to consolidate into combined districts if such combination “shall be conducive to the public health, welfare, and convenience and be of special benefit to the lands of the district”; and WHEREAS, the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District (“CQQRSD”) was duly established by the Town Board and constructed in late 1980 to serve the business area of Quaker Road, Aviation Road, Route 9 and Bay Road area and has added 12 District extensions over the years, and WHEREAS, the Hiland Park Sanitary Sewer District (“HPSSD”) was duly established by the Queensbury Town Board and constructed in early 1990 by developer Gary Bowen to serve the Hiland Park PUD and has added two district extensions, Adirondack Community College and Willowbrook apartments, over the years, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board is the body responsible for the administration of all its sewer districts, including the CQQRSD and the HPSSD, and WHEREAS, the Town Wastewater Director has studied whether it would be to the mutual benefit, and in the best interests of the customers each serves, to combine the CQQRSD and the HPSSD into one District, and determined that such a combination would create greater operating efficiencies, provide better service to the public each serves, and generate cost savings by avoiding duplication in administrative services, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board is the governing entity for each of the Districts (the local government entities), so the statutory requirement for a joint Resolution is hereby ratified by a single Resolution by the Queensbury Town Board action on behalf of each District, and WHEREAS, New York General Municipal Law Article 17-A requires, by joint Resolution, the local government entities to endorse a Consolidation Agreement to commence proceedings to consolidate Districts; and WHEREAS, Town Counsel and the Town Wastewater Director prepared a proposed Consolidation Agreement and provided it to the Town Board for its review, and the Town Board, by Resolution 265,2010, endorsed the Consolidation Agreement and set a public hearing on the proposed Consolidation Agreement and consolidation of Sewer Districts, and th WHEREAS, the Town Board duly held such public hearing on Monday, September 13, 2010 and the Town Board has considered the evidence given together with other information, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to consolidate the Sewer Districts in accordance with New York General Municipal Law Article 17-A, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1087 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby determines that: 1.Notice of the Public Hearing, including a summary of the Agreement and a reference to the public place where it may be examined, was published and displayed on the Town’s website not less than 10 or more than 20 days before the Public Hearing, as required by the New York General Municipal Law and is otherwise sufficient; 2.All property and property owners within the consolidated areas are benefited; 3.It is in the public interest to consolidate the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sanitary Sewer District and the Hiland Park Sanitary Sewer District into one (1) District as described in the preambles of this Resolution; 4.It is in the public interest to assess all expenses of the District, including all extensions heretofore or hereafter established, as a charge against the entire area of the District as consolidated; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby approves, authorizes and establishes the consolidation of the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sanitary Sewer District and the Hiland Park Sanitary Sewer District, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board approves the proposed Consolidation Agreement as final and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Consolidation Agreement in the form presented at this meeting, and the Town Supervisor, Wastewater Superintendent, Town Clerk and/or Town Counsel to take all actions necessary to effectuate this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that, in accordance with the Consolidation Agreement, the CQQRSD and HPSD shall be consolidated into the Queensbury Consolidated Sanitary Sewer District as of October 1, 2010. th Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1088 NOES: None ABSENT: None 3.0 PRIVELEGE OF THE FLOOR (LIMIT- 4 MINUTES) KEITH HENDRY- Spoke to the Board regarding the Pine View Cemetery. He is the owner of eight lots in Pine View and has issues with people walking their dogs, and feeding the geese. He has been in contact with the Cemetery Commissioner and the employees regarding this issue. Explained that this is totally unacceptable, a cemetery is supposed to be a place people to go to visit their loved ones that have gone before them. JOHN SHAHAY AND JOHN HOGKINS, MEMBERS OF NORTH QUEENSBURY VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY- Read a letter regarding John Salvador’s comments of the th August 16 Board Meeting. They wanted to right some misconceptions that were said about the Fire Company by Mr. Salvador. PLINEY TUCKER- Questioned the Board regarding resolution 4.14. Where is that illegal junkyard? COUNCILMAN BREWER- Big Bay Road MR. TUCKER- Spoke regarding an article in the Post Star concerning North Queensbury Fire Company wanting to form their own district SUPERVISOR STEC- This has been discussed off and on for the last several years. This is something that we can take up at any time. There is a process to go through. As of right now, we haven’t started anything. PAUL NAYLOR- Spoke to the Board regarding resolution 4.1 concerning health insurance for retired employees SUPERVISOR STEC- Explained that right now a retiree is eligible if he retires at the age of fifty five or older pursuant to the New York State and Local Retirement System with at least ten years of service to the Town. What we’re proposing to add is a second eligibility or age fifty or older eligible to receive pension from New York State Employee Retirement System and have at least thirty years of service with the Town. 4.0 RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO SECTION 701 OF TOWN OF QUEENSBURY EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK TO CLARIFY TERMS OF HEALTH INSURANCE FOR RETIRED EMPLOYEES RESOLUTION NO.: 306, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury provides ongoing health insurance benefits for full- time employees who retire from the Town of Queensbury who are 55 years of age or older, eligible to receive a pension from the New York State and Local Retirement System and have at least ten REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1089 (10) years of service with the Town, and allows a surviving spouse to receive such benefits for an additional six (6) month period, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to amend its Employee Handbook such that the Town will continue to provide group health insurance for any covered Town employee: 1) retiring at age 55 and older pursuant to the New York State and Local Retirement System with at least ten (10) or 2) age fifty (50) or older, eligible to receive a pension from the years of service to the Town, New York Employees Retirement System (NYS ERS), and have at least thirty (30) years of service with the Town, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes amendment of the Town of Queensbury’s Employee Handbook Section 701 such that the first paragraph following the subtitle “Health Insurance Retired Employees” shall read as follows: “Health Insurance - Retired Employees Full-time employees who retire from the Town of Queensbury may be eligible to receive a health insurance benefit for themselves and their spouses. To be eligible for such coverage, the retiring employee must be: 1. age fifty-five (55) or older, eligible to receive a pension from the New York Employees Retirement System (NYS ERS), and have at least ten (10) years of service with the or Town; 2. age fifty (50) or older, eligible to receive a pension from the New York Employees Retirement System (NYS ERS), and have at least thirty (30) years of service with the Town. Such health insurance will continue until the death of such retired employee as long as the retiree makes all required contributions.” and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Budget Officer to sign any documentation and take any and all action necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1090 RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to distribute copies of this Resolution to all Town Departments and amend the Employee Handbook accordingly. th Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2010 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPROVING RE-PURCHASE OF CEMETERY LOT IN PINE VIEW CEMETERY FROM MARILYN BORDEAU RESOLUTION NO.: 307, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Cemetery Commission previously sold a cemetery lot in the Pine View Cemetery to Marilyn Bordeau – Lot No.: 80-C, Algonquin Section, and WHEREAS, Ms. Bordeau wishes to sell such lot back to the Cemetery Commission, and th WHEREAS, by Memorandum dated August 20, 2010, the Cemetery Commission and Cemetery Superintendent have recommended re-purchase of the lot and requests approval of the re- purchase from the Town Board, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the Cemetery Commission's re-purchase of a lot in the Pine View Cemetery from Marilyn Bordeau – Lot No.: 80- C, Algonquin Section, for the amount of $183.33, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Cemetery Superintendent to arrange for the payment of such amount to Ms. Bordeau and properly account for the sales in the Town’s books and records. th Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1091 AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer RESOLUTION APPROVING RE-PURCHASE OF CEMETERY LOT IN PINE VIEW CEMETERY FROM THE ESTATE OF JOAN BURCH RESOLUTION NO.: 308, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Cemetery Commission previously sold a cemetery lot in the Pine View Cemetery to Joan Burch – Lot No.: 84-A, Mohawk Section, and WHEREAS, Ms. Burch recently died and Ms. Burch’s estate wishes to sell such lot back to the Cemetery Commission, and th WHEREAS, by Memorandum dated August 20, 2010, the Cemetery Commission and Cemetery Superintendent have recommended re-purchase of the lot and requests approval of the re- purchase from the Town Board, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the Cemetery Commission's re-purchase of a lot in the Pine View Cemetery from the estate of Joan Burch – Lot No.: 84-A, Mohawk Section, for the amount of $266.67, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Cemetery Superintendent to arrange for the payment of such amount to the “Estate of Joan Burch or Kyle Burch and Kylee Burch-Lamb” and properly account for the sales in the Town’s books and records. th Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier NOES: None REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1092 ABSENT: Mr. Brewer RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND THE FEEDER CANAL ALLIANCE RESOLUTION NO.: 309, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 484,2007, the Queensbury Town Board provided for the Town’s receipt of occupancy tax revenues from Warren County in accordance with the Local Tourism Promotion and Convention Development Agreement (Agreement) entered into between the Town and Warren County, and WHEREAS, the Agreement provides that specific expenditure of the funds provided under the Agreement are subject to further Resolution of the Queensbury Town Board, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to provide funding to the Feeder Canal Alliance in the amount of $1,000 with occupancy tax revenues received from Warren County and accordingly enter into an agreement with the Feeder Canal Alliance for the year 2010 for the preservation and promotion of the Feeder Canal and the historic towpath trail, and WHEREAS, a proposed agreement has been presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Agreement between the Town and the Feeder Canal Alliance substantially in the form presented at this meeting and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Agreement, with funding for the Agreement not exceeding the sum of $1,000 and to be provided by occupancy tax revenues the Town receives from Warren County, to be paid for from Account No.: 050-6410-4412, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that such Agreement is expressly contingent upon the Town Budget Officer confirming that the Town has unallocated occupancy tax funds available from Warren County. th Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1093 AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CLOSURE OF BANK ACCOUNT CREATED IN CONJUNCTION WITH BOND #3, PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BOND 1976 FOR WATER DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 310, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously opened a bank account in conjunction with Bond #3, Public Improvement Bond 1976 for the Water Department, and WHEREAS, the Town’s Accountant has advised that the Bond has been paid in full and therefore the bank account may be closed and remaining moneys transferred to the Water Department to be used for paying debt, and WHEREAS, the Town’s accounting records show that there is approximately $8,786.90 remaining in such bank account, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to close such bank account and transfer the account’s remaining balance to the Water Department, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Accountant to close the bank account opened in conjunction with Bond #3, Public Improvement Bond 1976 for the Water Department and transfer the remaining balance to the Water Department to use for paying debt, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer, Accountant and/or Water Superintendent to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1094 AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT OF BIDS FOR PURCHASE OF MATERIALS FOR UNDERDRAIN REHABILITATION FOR FILTERS AND PROGRAMMABLE LOGIC CONTROLLERS FOR SUCH FILTERS AT TOWN WATER DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 311, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury’s Water Department Civil Engineer has requested that the Town Board authorize an advertisement for bids for the purchase of materials for the underdrain rehabilitation for Filters #3 and #5, including new cell dividers, porous plates and filter media, and two (2) new Programmable Logic Controllers (PLC) for Filters #1 and #2 at the Town Water Department in accordance with bid specifications on file with the Town’s Purchasing Agent, and WHEREAS, General Municipal Law §103 requires that the Town advertise for bids and award the bids to the lowest responsible bidder(s) meeting New York State statutory requirements and the requirements set forth in the Town’s bidding documents, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town’s Purchasing Agent to publish an advertisement for bids for the purchase of materials for the underdrain rehabilitation for Filters #3 and #5, including new cell dividers, porous plates and filter media, and two (2) new Programmable Logic Controllers (PLC) for Filters #1 and #2 at the Town Water Department in the official newspaper for the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Purchasing Agent to open all bids received, read the same aloud and record the bids as is customarily done and present the bids to the next regular or special meeting of the Town Board. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1095 th Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW NO. __ OF 2010 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 136, ARTICLE XXIV ENTITLED "ESTABLISHMENT OF SEWER RENTS" TO INCREASE QUARTERLY CHARGES FOR TOWN OF QUEENSBURY SANITARY SEWER DISTRICTS RESOLUTION NO.: 312, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: __ of 2010 to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 136, Article XXIV entitled “Establishment of Sewer Rents," which Local Law would modify the quarterly sewer rent rates in the Queensbury Consolidated Sanitary Sewer District (previously known as the Central Queensbury/Quaker Road Sewer District and Hiland Park Sewer District), Queensbury Technical Park, Pershing-Ashley- Coolidge, South Queensbury-Queensbury Avenue, Route 9 and West Queensbury Sanitary Sewer Districts, and WHEREAS, this legislation is authorized in accordance with New York State Municipal Home Rule Law §10, Town Law Article 16 and General Municipal Law Article 14-F, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to set a public hearing concerning adoption of this Local Law, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall meet and hold a public hearing at the th Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, September 27, 2010 to hear all interested persons and take any necessary action provided by law concerning proposed Local Law No.: ___ of 2010, and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1096 RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish and post a Notice of Public Hearing concerning proposed Local Law No.: __ of 2010 in the manner provided by law. th Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SETTLEMENT OF PENDING ARTICLE 7 REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CASES COMMENCED BY JOHN BOOMER RESOLUTION NO.: 313, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, John Boomer previously commenced Article 7 Real Property Assessment Review cases against the Town of Queensbury for the 2008, 2009, and 2010 assessments on residential property located at 23 Wood Point Lane (Tax Map No.: 239.14-1-3), and WHEREAS, the Town Assessor has recommended a settlement proposal to the Town Board and the Town Board has reviewed the cases with Town Counsel, and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the Lake George Central School District will approve the proposed settlement, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the settlement of the pending Article 7 proceedings filed by John Boomer identified above as follows: Year Tax Map # Current AV Proposed AV Reduction 2008 239.14-1-3 1,198,800 1,073,800 125,000 2009 239.14-1-3 1,198,800 1,073,800 125,000 2010 239.14-1-3 1,198,800 1,073,800 125,000 and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1097 RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs payment of any and all refunds, with interest if ordered by the Court, within sixty (60) days after service upon the Warren County Treasurer of the Order approving settlement with Notice of Entry, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Town Assessor, Town Budget Officer and/or Town Counsel to execute settlement documents and take any additional steps necessary to effectuate the proposed settlement in accordance with the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2010 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 314, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the following Budget Amendment Requests have been duly initiated and justified and are deemed compliant with Town operating procedures and accounting practices by the Town Budget Officer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town’s Accounting Office to take all action necessary to amend the 2010 Town Budget as follows: From To Code Appropriation Code Appropriation $ 001-1680-1010 Wages 001-8020-1010 Wages 30,000 004-5110-4620 Paving Materials 004-5112-2899 Chips 27,264 004-5130-4410 Fuel 004-5140-4009 Tree Trimming 5,000 033-0000-0909 Fund Balance 033-8130-4425 Sewage Treatment 4500 035-8130-4425 Sewage Treatment 035-8120-4400 Misc. Contractual 2000 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1098 Increase Revenue 040-0000-52680 Insurance Recoveries 500 Increase Appropriation 040-8340-4110 Repairs 500 th Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS – TH WARRANT OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 RESOLUTION NO.: 315, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve an audit of bills presented as a thth Warrant with a run date of September 9, 2010 and payment date of September 14, 2010, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Warrant with the run thth date of September 9, 2010 and payment date of September 14, 2010 totaling $2,070,399.36, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Budget Officer to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT WITH DAVID J. DECKER, P.E. & ASSOCIATES FOR PROVISION OF YEAR 2010 PROGRAM AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES RELATED TO “LAKE GEORGE – PLAN FOR THE FUTURE” GRANT FUNDING AND EXECUTION OF REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1099 AGREEMENT #C006962 WITH NEW YORK STATE AND ESTABLISHING APPROPRIATIONS AND ESTIMATED REVENUES FOR GRANT FUNDS RESOLUTION NO.: 316, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the environmental health and overall quality of life in the Lake George Watershed area is critical to the social and economic well being for the Town of Queensbury, Warren County and the region in general, and WHEREAS, the protection, preservation and proper management of water quality within the basin is an essential ingredient to maintaining this revered natural resource as a key to the social and economic vitality of this region, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has been an active participant in developing the critically important water quality management plan, and WHEREAS, the adopted document, entitled, “Lake George – Plan for the Future” identifies numerous recommendations and actions as being critical to pursuing the objectives of preserving, protecting and enhancing the water quality throughout the Basin, several of which will require the engagement of contract services to execute these recommendations, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 340,2008, the Queensbury Town Board authorized submission of the Environmental Protection Fund Application for State Assistance Payments – th Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, Year 2008-2009 dated June 30, 2008 in response to New York State’s solicitation of Financial Assistance Grant, and WHEREAS, the NYS Department of State recently awarded to the Town of Queensbury, on behalf of all participating municipalities in the Lake George Watershed Coalition (LGWC), $1,200,000 – ‘Grant A – C006868”, and $600,000 – “ Grant B – C006962”, (respectively) in separate matching grant funds for implementation of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program for 2009-2010, such funds (in Grant “A”) to supplement an announced construction project being progressed by the New York State Department of Transportation to reconstruct part of Route 9, extending into the Village of Lake George, with the local match for this grant already secured by three members of the LGWC, namely the Town of Lake George, Village of Lake George and Warren County, regarding the purchase of the Gaslight Village property and the LGWC’s purchase of the 1400 acre Berry Pond Tract located within the West Brook Watershed,and such funds in (Grant “B”) to supplement local matching funds and services-in-kind provided by the collective membership of the Lake George Watershed Coalition, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1100 WHEREAS, the Town Board has already considered and adopted Resolution 297,2009, related to the aforementioned Project “A – C006868” and, WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to also authorize a Year 2010 Agreement with Decker & Associates for the provision of program and project management services in connection with the Town’s grant “B- C006962” award, and WHEREAS, a copy of a proposed Agreement between the Town and Decker & Associates has been presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby accepts the $600,000 in matching grant funding to be received from New York State for implementation of the Environmental Protection Fund Application for State Assistance Payments – Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, Year 2010-2011program as more specifically set forth above, in the interest of advancing the important work of protecting the preservation of water quality of Lake George, and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute a Grant Agreement and any other associated documentation and take any other action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further establishes appropriations and estimated revenues as follows: ? Increase Appropriations in Account 014-8310-4400-6962 by $600,000; ? Increase Revenue in Account 014-0000-53789-6962 by $600,000; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to amend the 2010 Town Budget, make any adjustments, budget amendments, transfers or prepare any documentation necessary to establish such appropriations and estimated revenues and effectuate all terms of this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further approves of the Agreement for Services between David J. Decker, P.E. & Associates and the Town of Queensbury substantially in the form presented REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1101 at this meeting for the provision of program and project management services relating to grant funds received by the Town, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the fees paid to Decker & Associates for rendering 12 months worth of , program management services shall be $97,560 not to include out-of-pocket expenses, such services to paid by a temporary loan from the General Fund until such time as the Town receives its grant funds, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to sign the Agreement and further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Town Counsel and/or Town Budget Officer to take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: None ** DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE: DIRECTOR OF THE LAKE GEORGE WATERSHED COOLITION, DAVID DECKER- Reviewed for the Board the Proposed resolution RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING NEW CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS #178 AND #179 CONCERNING CLOSURE AND REPLACEMENT OF FUEL STORAGE TANKS AND SITE REMEDIATION AND AUTHORIZING AWARD AND ADVERTISEMENT OF BIDS RESOLUTION NO.: 317, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 267,2010, the Queensbury Town Board authorized the issuance of up to $450,000 in serial bonds to pay the cost of closure and replacement of three (3) existing underground fuel storage tanks and the acquisition, construction and installation of a REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1102 fueling island in a different location with new aboveground storage tanks and surface spillage containment system at the Town Highway Garage site, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 266,2010, the Town Board authorized the issuance of up to $255,000 in serial bonds to pay the cost of site remediation at the Town Highway Garage site, including the cleaning, removal and disposal of remaining system components and excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated soil in the vicinity of the discontinued oil-water separator in compliance with USEPA rules and regulations, and WHEREAS, the Town Board accordingly wishes to establish two (2) Capital Project Funds related to these Projects, and WHEREAS, the Town’s Engineer, Vision Engineering, LLC prepared bid documents and specifications to advertise for bids for the closure and replacement of the three (3) existing underground fuel storage tanks, an advertisement for bids was published, and bids were received, and th WHEREAS, on September 9, 2010, all received bids were opened, and WHEREAS, Vision Engineering, LLC and the Town Purchasing Agent have recommended that the Town Board award the bid to the lowest responsible bidder, E. W. Tompkins Company, Inc., for an amount not to exceed $429,349, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the establishment of two (2) Capital Project Funds to be known as the: 1.Highway Fuel Storage Tanks Project Fund #178; and 2.Site Remediation at Highway Garage Project Fund #179; which Funds will establish funding for expenses associated with the closure and replacement of underground fuel storage tanks and site remediation work at the Town Highway Garage site, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs that funding for these Projects shall be by proceeds of the serial bonds as set forth in Resolutions No. 266 and 267 of 2010, and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1103 RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby establishes initial appropriations and estimated revenues for: 1.Capital Project Fund #178 in the amount of $450,000; and 2.Capital Project Fund #179 in the amount of $255,000; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to take all action necessary to establish accounts for such appropriations and revenues as necessary, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to amend the 2010 Town Budget, make any adjustments, budget amendments, transfers or prepare any documentation necessary to establish such appropriations and estimated revenues and effectuate all terms of this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby accepts and awards the bid for the closure and replacement of the three (3) existing underground fuel storage tanks from the lowest responsible bidder, E. W. Tompkins Company, Inc., for an amount not to exceed $429,349, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute any needed Agreement between the Town and E. W. Tompkins Company, Inc., in form acceptable to the Town Supervisor, Vision Engineering, LLC, Town Budget Officer and/or Town Counsel, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town’s Purchasing Agent to publish two (2) advertisements for bids in accordance with General Municipal Law §103 for: 1.the removal of the three (3) existing underground fuel storage tanks in the official newspaper for the Town of Queensbury; and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1104 2.the remediation, including the cleaning, removal and disposal of remaining system components and excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated soil in the vicinity of the discontinued oil-water separator in compliance with USEPA rules and regulations; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Purchasing Agent to open all bids received, read the same aloud and record the bids as is customarily done and present the bids to the Town Board, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Town Purchasing Agent, Town Budget Officer, Town Engineer, Town Counsel and/or Facilities Manager to take any and all actions necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2010 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING COMMENCEMENT OF SUPREME COURT ACTION IN CONNECTION WITH TOWN OF QUEENSBURY V. WILLIAM THREW – ILLEGAL JUNKYARD OPERATION RESOLUTION NO.: 318, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHEREAS, Chapter 102 of the Town Code provides for administration and enforcement of the Town’s Junkyard Ordinance and related laws, codes, ordinances, and regulations, and WHEREAS, William Threw owns property at 375 and 369 Big Bay Road and an adjacent lot, without frontage off Egan Road, in the Town of Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 309.17-1-13, 309.17-1-12 and 309.17-1-7) and Town officials have warned Mr. Threw on numerous occasions and through previous Town Court actions, that Mr. Threw is not allowed to bring or store discarded junk, junk vehicles and other debris to his property, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1105 WHEREAS, the Town’s Director of Building and Codes is charged with enforcement of the Town’s Junkyard Ordinance and has personally observed that junk vehicles, discarded motor vehicle parts, scrap metal, garbage, lot clearing debris, construction debris, demolished building parts and other junk items continue to be discarded on Mr. Threw’s property, and WHEREAS, the Town’s Director of Building and Code Enforcement has therefore recommended to the Town Board that it commence a Supreme Court action against Mr. Threw to require Mr. Threw to come into conformance with the Town’s Junkyard Ordinance and Town Code, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Court lacks injunctive power to require this action, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to pursue preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the commencement of a Warren County Supreme Court action to pursue preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against William Threw concerning the property located at 375 and 369 Big Bay Road and an adjacent lot, without frontage off Egan Road, in the Town of Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 309.17-1-13, 309.17-1-12 and 309.17-1-7) as referenced in the preambles of this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town’s Budget Officer to arrange for payment of any Court and/or litigation costs related to this matter from the account(s) deemed to be appropriate by the Budget Officer, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs Town Counsel to file any necessary documentation to commence such proceeding and the Town Supervisor, Town Counsel, Director of Building and Codes Enforcement and/or Town Budget Officer to take any and all action necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier NOES: Mr. Strough REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1106 ABSENT: None 5.0 CORRESPONDENCE DEPUTY CLERK MELLON- We have the Supervisor’s Report for Community Development/Building and Codes for the month of August is on file in the Town Clerk’s Office. 6.0 TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS COUNCILMAN BREWER- ? The exit 18 corridor project for Media Drive west will be completed this year. th ? Spoke regarding the September 30 deadline with Pyramid Mall. Suggested a resolution two weeks from tonight authorizing the commencement of Supreme Court action if work has begun. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Queensbury Senior Citizens Newsletter – reviewed their upcoming events. For more information or to become a member call 761-8224. COUNCILMAN MONTESI- Delighted to report that the Home Avenue project is now underway. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- ? Thanked Councilman Montesi and Councilman Strough for covering for him on a drainage issue on Hilman Road. Spoke of the need of a workshop meeting on this issue. ? Has spoken with Bob Huntz regarding Lake Sunnyside. It is a mess with milfoil again. We need to get together at a workshop with the Members of the Sunnyside Association concerning the establishment of a district. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- With regards to the issues in Lake Sunnyside, recently attended Kathy Bozony’s presentation on algae growth in Lake George. The information she presented can apply to Glen Lake and Sunnyside as well. She mentioned that plant growth depends on nutrients and phosphorus is the big culprit. Explained that he has been doing some research himself; and he will have a draft to share with the Board on accessing shoreline chemical use. SUPERVISOR STEC- ? Thanked TV8 and their sponsors for televising the Town Board Meetings ? The town’s website: www.queensbury.net Our Technology Coordinator, Ryan Lashway, has been working on a significant face lift of the Town’s website. Explained that there is a lot of good information on this site. RESOLUTION ADJOURNING REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO.: 319, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Regular Town Board Meeting. Duly adopted this 13th day of September, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi NOES: None REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING #34 09-13-2010 1107 ABSENT: None Respectfully Submitted, Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk Town of Queensbury