Loading...
2006-04-03 MTG12 Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 735 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING Mtg #12 RD APRIL 3, 2006 Res. #181-203 7:00 P.M. BOH Res. #7-9 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR COUNCILMAN RICHARD SANFORD COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER BOARD MEMBER ABSENT COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH TOWN COUNSEL Bob Hafner TOWN OFFICIALS Jennifer Switzer, Budget Officer Marilyn Ryba, Executive Director of Community Development Stuart Baker, Senior Planner Mike Shaw, Wastewater Director Bob Keenan, Director of Technology PRESS: Glens Falls Post Star, TV-8 Supervisor Stec called meeting to order… PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY SUPERVISOR STEC SUPERVISOR STEC recognized Mr. James Coughlin, Retired Solid Waste Superintendent and presented him with award of commendation from the Town of Queensbury for his 29 years of distinguished service: THIS COMMENDATION IS HEREBY PRESENTED TO JAMES T. COUGHLIN FOR 29 YEARS OF LEADERSHIP AND DEDICATION TO THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY SOLID WASTE FACILITY DEPARTMENT AND FOR HIS IMMEASURABLE SERVICE TO THE QUEENSBURY COMMUNITY. PROUDLY PRESENTED BY DANIEL G. STEC, RD QUEENSBURY TOWN SUPERVISOR, APRIL 3, 2006. SUPERVISOR STEC-Jim has been a member for almost thirty years here of the Solid Waste Facility and he has seen it go from a big hole in the ground to a filled in hole in the ground to a transfer station and a burn plant and everything in between and he ran a great operation and he recently retired and certainly we wish him all the best. Jim, thank you very much. MR. JAMES COUGHLIN-Thank you Supervisor Stec for the letter you mailed me, it was very much appreciated and it meant a lot to me and also this really means a lot to me too, I had no idea that something like this was going to happen. SUPERVISOR STEC-Well it was the very least we could do Jim, we do appreciate your hard work and your enthusiasm and everything you’ve done for this community, it’s sincerely meant and it’s the very least we could do to thank you with a plaque and a little bit of recognition. MR. COUGHLIN-Well I thank you again, thank all of you, I appreciate it. Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 736 COUNCILMAN BOOR-Thanks. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Thank you Jim. PUBLIC HEARING – Proposed Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District Extension No. 10 – Bay Road Notice Shown 7:03 P.M. SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, I will open this public hearing and I know that our applicant is here this evening. I’ll try to summarize it; I know our Wastewater Director Mike Shaw is present as well. The town is considering, we’ve received a map, plan and report that’s been reviewed by, technically by our Wastewater staff and from legal perspective, our attorney and we set a public hearing a couple of weeks ago for tonight on this project. This is a project that the applicant has proposed bringing sewer from Walker Lane on Bay Road north on Bay Road to the corner here of Bay and Blind Rock Road. According to Mike Shaw it does meet the long town standard that the town had shot for from a technical standpoint and basically there are two properties involved directly within this district. But they’re proposing a district and this is a required public hearing to consider extension number 10 to bring sewer further up Bay Road. So with that said, why don’t I turn it over first, if you have any comments? Mike, do you have any comments to add to that? Again, the public hearing is open if there are any members of the public that would like to comment on this public hearing or ask any questions. Whatever answers we can give you tonight, we will but certainly we’re looking for any comment positive or negative or otherwise on this project. Mr. Salvador, if you would. Again, we just ask that you, I’ll call on people and if you’d just please come to the microphone, state your name and address for the record. These microphones not only amplify but they also record. Mr. Salvador. MR. JOHN SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I hear that you’re going to extend this sewer line to the corner of Bay Road and Blind Rock Road; it begs the question is there any plan for sewer extension number 11? COUNCILMAN BREWER-At this point I don’t believe there is. MR. SALVADOR-We know we have other wastewater problems in the area. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Correct. MR. SALVADOR-And we’ve heard at your last meeting, we heard the residents from Surrey Fields, one after the other coming up talking about their failures and something has to be done there. And so I don’t think you can extend this line up in this direction without some regard that it will have capacity for Surrey Fields or anything else in the area here. It’s the logical place to tie everything into, whether it’s this Town Hall or its Surrey Fields. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Maybe we could ask Mike that, tell us how much capacity is there and those kinds of details afterwards. SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, anything else Mr. Salvador? MR. SALVADOR-Is Mike going to answer? SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes, we’ll have him up at the end. MR. SALVADOR-Well, I would like to SUPERVISOR STEC-Understood, we’ll have him up. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-I also want to just jump in, when you get to doing SEQRA, you have to make sure that you aggregate all of the things so I think he maybe Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 737 trying to get at whether or not this district and others in the future should be combined together. This is the only district that we have and plans for, we have a long range plan that Mike Shaw and his department worked on for what might be appropriate along this corridor but this is the only district that we know of and the only one that’s being considered. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Well there is, there is some maybe it’s not a district but there is some thing that’s relevant to what your question is and that is, there is a proposed project that is in front of the town now near Bay Meadows that, we’re not sure where that project will go but that may have to, that will have to if it is approved hook into the sewer lines along Bay Road either through a contract or a sewer extension. One way or another, if the project was to move forward, it would have to feed into that sewer line. So, if your concern is capacities of the sewer line and whether or not there maybe bottle neck issues, it’s a good question because there is contemplation for additional tie-ins. Does that help at all? MR. SALVADOR-Well it answers the question in that you’re obligated to quantify under the SEQRA review the events that are likely to occur as a result of approving this action. COUNCILMAN BOOR-And John I truly believe we will be doing that and I think as the attorney pointed out, when we get to SEQRA that question becomes very valid and it certainly will be addressed. SUPERVISOR STEC-And I should add to that and I should point out because I forgot to at the beginning here that we will be conducting this public hearing this evening but we will not be taking action on it until a later date because we need to wait until SEQRA Lead Agency status has been established. So we will not be acting on this tonight but I agree with what’s been said that the questions you’re asking will be appropriately addressed at the SEQRA point. MR. SALVADOR-Then the public hearing will remain open until just before SUPERVISOR STEC-I will leave the public hearing open, yes. MR. SALVADOR-Okay, thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-You’re welcome. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Town Board on this public hearing? Mike, do you have anything you’ like to add? Mike Shaw, our Wastewater Director. MR. MIKE SHAW, Wastewater Director-Actually the applicant is here tonight with their engineers, some the questions might be forwarded to them. I think one of the questions just came up about Bay Meadows; Bay Meadows is going to discharge into Cronin Road which won’t affect the extension number 10 that we’re talking about here. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Does extension 10 flow down towards Cronin Road? MR. SHAW, Wastewater Director-Yes it does but Cronin Road discharges into a twelve inch line, it won’t discharge it, Cronin Road or Bay Meadows will not discharge in this line, we’re talking about extension 10. SUPERVISOR STEC-Mike, you’ve been asked these questions about downstream impacts of this sewer extension before and I believe you’ve given answers. Do you have any, from a technical standpoint are there any showstoppers that you’re aware of with the concern with accommodating a possible contract user coming from Surrey Fields which is in the works right now and this extension, again which is consistent with the town’s plan? MR. SHAW, Wastewater Director-We infrastructure this being put in there, as proposed to be put in there, is to the conceptual plan that we had drafted a couple of years ago, we had an engineer draft. Capacities do exist in that line to serve all of the corridor for the future. The two I’ll say bottlenecks possible in the future are the pump station down the Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 738 road that Rich Schermerhorn put in, there’s an upgrade for that minimal cost that will take care of that question. There’s another connector line further on down Bay Road that takes care of Glenwood, maybe in the future someday depending on other development in the town, that might need upgrading and maybe it won’t, it depends on how this whole thing shakes out. SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, is there anyone else from the public that would like to comment? Again, I will be leaving the public hearing open until such time that we can act on it from a SEQRA Lead Agency standpoint which won’t be tonight. Yes sir, Mr. Giebink. MR. JOHN GIEBINK-Hi, my name is John Giebink, I’m the owner of the Cedar’s Senior Living Community and I just want to make sure to give the direct answer relative to the gentleman before because the map, plan and report and the sewer line is designed to accommodate the flows from Surrey Fields and from the town area here. So, that is taken into account within the designs for this extension as well as the map, plan and report shows from all the other areas that have potential development. I would like to just request to the board because it was unknown to me until today that there was going to be no action taken because in the previous meetings that we’ve had on this, we’ve been sort of pushed along, everyone has been pushing along to try to get this to happen because we want to try to get construction of this done this summer, certainly this bit of a gap here right now is going to make that a little bit more difficult. So it would certainly, I would request if there’s any indication that members can make of the board as to what their feeling is on the sewer line, it will help us because we’re in the mist of engineering and my engineer is here tonight and I’d hate to have to have him hold up here for thirty days or so. COUNCILMAN BOOR-John, if I could just comment briefly, that’s why when I saw you before the meeting I said gee, you drove all the way from Vermont because I was aware that we, who was going to be the Lead Agent with SEQRA, it hadn’t been established so I was surprised you were here, albeit we would accept comments but we weren’t going to take action, I apologize for you having not been noticed. I had assumed that you had been notified that that had yet to be determined. I don’t have any problems with what you’re proposing. MR. GIEBINK-No, it was obviously my choice to come down and answer any questions. I just, you know to have an indication of members whether there’s any issues out here that still needs to be addressed by the engineer. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Not unless somebody comes up with something we haven’t heard of. SUPERVISOR STEC-Right, I was going to say I’m not aware of any, having looked at the map, plan and report, talked to Mike Shaw. I do hope that you were still in Vermont when I spoke with you on the phone today? MR. GIEBINK-Oh yes. SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright so you did come here knowing that we were MR. GIEBINK-Oh absolutely. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Well why the delay, what are we waiting on? SUPERVISOR STEC-SEQRA Lead Agency status. We need to wait until we hear from all interested parties whether they want to take SEQRA Lead Agency or not or if we don’t hear from them, after thirty days. COUNCILMAN BOOR-The county could request it. Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 739 COUNCILMAN SANFORD-When did we request it? SUPERVISOR STEC-A little over, about a week ago. th COUNCILMAN BREWER-The 27. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Okay. SUPERVISOR STEC-I don’t anticipate any problems but I do also apologize for the additional delay. MR. GIEBINK-That’s fine. No, I understand the process. SUPERVISOR STEC-So does anyone, Tim do you have anything to add or? COUNCILMAN BREWER-I have no, the only concern I have is if it’s not done. SUPERVISOR STEC-Me too. COUNCILMAN BREWER-It’s been a long time coming and I appreciate your fortitude in moving this along and hopefully you’ll accomplish a lot with the extension. SUPERVISOR STEC-And I know there’s a neighborhood to the north of you that is, with baited breath cheering for this to happen, I see a few of them nodding their head. They’re looking at us saying what’s going on here and we have our dance to do and our wickets to get through according to the law and whatnot but I think reading between the lines, it sounds certainly like although an unfortunate delay, it looks like most of our questions have been answered. We can’t guarantee until obviously there’s a vote, it’s not a done deal until there’s a vote but I certainly expect at the earliest possible convenience we will be having that. But I know you were looking for an indication moving forward, if there were any showstoppers or issues that we’re aware of and I’m not hearing any. Is there any other, do you have anything else to add Mr. Giebink? MR. GIEBINK-No thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, Mike anything else? MR. SHAW, Wastewater Director-No. SUPERVISOR STEC-Is there anyone else from the public that would care to comment? Okay, I will leave the public hearing open until such time that we are prepared from the SEQRA Lead Agency standpoint to take action on this at a very near date, hopefully no st later then May 1, possibly on the outside depending on if we hear back from the other agencies by then we could possibly do so at our next meeting. But at one of those two meetings, hopefully we’ll be in a position to send this project forward, again after concluding the public hearing. Thank you very much. PUBLIC HEARING LEFT OPEN PUBLIC HEARING – Concerning Glens Falls Labels (Glens Falls Business Forms, Inc.)’s Request To Shift Operations To Washington County Empire Zone Notice Shown 7:15 P.M. SUPERVISOR STEC-This is a required public hearing, any time an Empire Zone status business seeks to leave one municipality, there’s certain strings that are attached with getting Empire Zone status, it’s a tax and energy incentive program setup by the State of New York that Warren County was successful in securing a few years ago and this Glens Falls Labels is a business that has been granted an Empire Zone status. The law requires that if they are to relocate anywhere in the State and take their Empire Zone credits with the Empire Zone status with them, that they have to get a release from the original municipality. In this case, Glens Falls Labels wants to relocate from Queensbury and Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 740 shift operations actually into Washington County. So before they can leave and bring their Empire Zone status with them, we have to give them our blessing. So we set this public hearing a few weeks ago and we’ve done these before, we did this for TV-8 as matter of fact and there’s a couple of other ones, I can’t remember the names of business, but other small businesses that we’ve allowed to relocate. So with that explanation, if there’s anybody that would like to address the Board on this public hearing, again, Glens Falls Labels will be shifting their operations and taking their Empire Zone status from Queensbury in Warren County to I think it’s Kingsbury in Washington County, just raise your hand and we’ll have you come to the microphone. Any Town Board comments or staff comments? COUNCILMAN BREWER-Just one comment. Dan, I would just maybe let the public know that they’re not taking Warren County’s status from Warren County, I said that wrong. SUPERVISOR STEC-They’re keeping their eligibility. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Their eligibility they’re applying in Washington County not Warren County though. SUPERVISOR STEC-Correct. COUNCILMAN BREWER-So they will be drawing from their bank so to speak, right? SUPERVISOR STEC-Correct, it won’t be held against our bank. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Right. SUPERVISOR STEC-Correct, that’s a good point to point out. Again, the public hearing is open; is there any members that would like to comment on this public hearing? Alright, seeing none I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7:18 P.M. RESOLUTION APPROVING GF LABELS (GLENS FALLS BUSINESS FORMS, INC.)’S REQUEST TO SHIFT OPERATIONS TO WASHINGTON COUNTY EMPIRE ZONE RESOLUTION NO.: 181, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS,GF Labels (Glens Falls Business Forms, Inc.) currently operates at 834 Bay Road, Queensbury, New York, and , WHEREAS GF Labels has decided to construct a new facility on Lot #12 Fergerson Lane in Kingsbury, New York, and , WHEREAS GF Labels expects to apply for Qualified Empire Zone Enterprise (QEZE) status through the Washington County Empire Zone in connection with such relocation, and Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 741 § WHEREAS, in accordance with New York State General Municipal Law 959 (a)(iii), GF Labels must secure the approval of the Town of Queensbury in order to obtain QEZE certification, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board duly conducted a public hearing and rd heard all interested persons on April 3, 2006 concerning GF Labels’ proposed relocation and QEZE certification, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT § RESOLVED, in accordance with New York State General Municipal Law 959 (a)(iii), the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the proposal by GF Labels (Glens Falls Business Forms, Inc.) to shift its operations from 834 Bay Road, Queensbury to its new facility to be located on Lot #12 Fergerson Lane in Kingsbury, New York and to apply for Qualified Empire Zone Enterprise status through the Washington County Empire Zone, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to sign any documentation and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of April, 2006 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT : Mr. Strough PUBLIC HEARING – Proposed Local Law No. ____ 2006 to Establish Temporary Moratorium In Professional Office (PO) Zone Notice Shown 7:19 P.M. SUPERVISOR STEC-This is a public hearing that had been set well over a month ago, I think it was actually set back in February. The reason why it was set so long ago to be held tonight is that we knew that we were required for an action like this to solicit recommendation from both the Warren County Planning Board and the Queensbury Planning Board on this proposed Temporary Moratorium in the Professional Office Zone st which was proposed to expire I believe October 1 of this year and it would only affect the Professional Office Zone properties. In order to get on their agenda there’s deadlines as many applicants know that are familiar with the processes and in order to allow time for those two boards to give a recommendation to the Town Board we knew that we would need to wait until their March meeting so that’s why in February we decided to set Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 742 the public hearing to this first meeting in April so that we would have adequate time to get a recommendation. I do know that we did get recommendations; I’m not sure Marilyn or Caroline if you want to read either one of those into the record now or later but with that I will declare the public hearing open. I look to Marilyn or Caroline to see if you want to read those in or not at this point before we start taking public comment. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-I think you should at least read the substance of them because it’s relevant to the vote that’s required. SUPERVISOR STEC-Correct which I’ll let you explain Bob. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Okay. MARILYN RYBA, Executive Director-I was just going to say, I do have the County referral and essentially the County does have a concern which states, this concern includes whether or not multifamily housing should be allowed in the zone and that, let’s see, the information indicates that one hundred ninety-six parcels in the zone would be affected where the moratorium would temporarily decrease the office and housing stock. And it said, the data included indicates in 2005 no subdivision in the PO Zone was requested, four site plans were submitted with only one for ninety-two unit multifamily project which was withdrawn. It says staff, the County Planning Board recommendation is to deny, the Warren County Planning Board recommends deny, the Board is concerned about the negative economic impact during the peak building season and the proposal does not demonstrate the need since the zoning amendment of Professional Office Zone was approved at the local level in February. What that means is then that the Town Board needs to have a super majority to pass the moratorium. The Planning Board however did recommend in favor of, COUNCILMAN BOOR-Queensbury Planning Board. MS. RYBA, Executive Director-Excuse me, yes the Queensbury Planning Board did recommend in favor of the proposed moratorium. SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, so the Queensbury Planning Board recommended to move forward with this, the Warren County Planning Board recommended denial and Bob, there’s some statutory language that you wanted to just make the Board and the public aware of. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-I just wanted to repeat what Marilyn said that because of the recommendation to deny you need four votes to pass. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Affirmative. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Affirmative, that’s right. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Yes, four yes votes. SUPERVISOR STEC-Four yes votes. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-No votes won’t pass it. SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, with that said, the public hearing is open, if there’s any members of the public that would like to comment on this pending action by the Town Board, we just ask that you raise your hand, I’ll call on you and we’ll have you state your name and address for the record please. Anybody at all? Yes sir. MR. DOUG AUER-Good evening gentlemen. Just, actually a question, in the way this was crafted, would this affect an existing approved subdivision and there is an approved subdivision within the zone? If this did get, this moratorium did get approved, how would it or would it not affect that subdivision? Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 743 COUNCILMAN SANFORD-It would affect a pending, if one was in the process but if one was already approved it would not, that’s my understanding. MR. AUER-That’s correct Bob? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Yes, Mr. Sanford’s got exactly right. MR. AUER-Okay very well. Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-You’re welcome. Anybody else this evening? Yes ma’am. MS. KATHY FRANKLIN, 1232 West Mt. Road-I’m Kathy Franklin, I live at 1232 West Mt. Road. I have a question I would like you to explain what the gist of what the Planning Board for Queensbury had to say about this project and why they thought the moratorium should go ahead. I’ll listen from the back. I’m assuming that there’s some sort of a … of it. MS. RYBA, Executive Director-There wasn’t a rational provided; only the recommendation that they thought it should go forward. SUPERVISOR STEC-Anybody else this evening? Yes, Mr. Tucker MR. PLINEY TUCKER, 41 Division Road-In that resolution and I don’t know what part st of it that it is asking to allow an extension of the moratorium after October 1, is this normal procedure? COUNCILMAN BOOR-They do have to have time frames. You can’t have an indefinite moratorium, there does have to be a time frame on it. st SUPERVISOR STEC-And actually to be completely thorough I said October 1, it’s st actually a little more involved then that, it’s the sooner of October 1 or such date that the Town Board adopts an updated Comprehensive Land Use Plan Zoning Ordinance and Map of Subdivision Regulations, whichever date comes first. So if we adopted the st Comprehensive Land Use Plan and associated updates before October 1 then that would be the date that it would cease. COUNCILMAN BREWER-What he’s asking is the extensions, we can extend it if we want to. SUPERVISOR STEC-Sure, I mean the Board can always extend it by Board action, if that’s your question. MR. TUCKER-Yea well that’s my question, without a public hearing? COUNCILMAN BOOR-I don’t know. SUPERVISOR STEC-No, we would need a public hearing. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I think it would require a public hearing. COUNCILMAN BREWER-No, you’d have to have a public hearing. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It would require a public hearing to extend it beyond, if we were to pass it. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-They would have to go through the exact same process that they’re going through here. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Essentially, it would be a new moratorium really. SUPERVISOR STEC-So it would almost be like starting over, that’s exactly what I was going to point out. Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 744 MR. TUCKER-Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-You’re very welcome. Anybody else like to comment on this? Yes, ma’am. MS. ANNIE BANG, 1218 West Mt. Road-Hi, I’m Annie Bang, 1218 West Mt. Road. I have to, I kind of fail to understand why we seem to go one way and then we go just change direction. Why would you want to deny a moratorium and not pass it when we’re working so hard to get a Comprehensive Land Use and Building Codes and the rest? For once it won’t be, excuse the expression half done and erratic. I mean everybody’s working real hard to get a coordinated common sense approach to this so why would you want to? COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I’ll take a stab at it. MS. BANG-I’m hoping all four of you do. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-First of all we haven’t made a decision but its likely not to pass tonight, my guess would be that that would be the outcome. I think if you look at the history of how this moratorium was created, it was at the same time that we were contemplating a clarification and or change to the Professional Office Zone. That happened and so one could argue that that made this effort unnecessary and or redundant because we accomplished, at least those who supported the change in clarification of zone; we accomplished that when we passed that law. So now this, this was actually, this originated, it was a suggestion to do a moratorium on both Professional Office and MR which is multi residential by Councilman Brewer, later modified to be just a moratorium on Professional Office. The County reviewed it as they review these types of things and you just heard their decision, they were not in favor of it. They gave two reasons; the first reason was because we did in fact pass the change in zone. The other reason was because they felt there was a fiscal impact to the County. This is questionable in my mind and I certainly would appreciate some clarification because it begs the question, there’s very little Professional Office space available that hasn’t already been developed and if the County is going to find that this has a material fiscal impact to the County’s finances then I would almost suggest that any moratorium would have an impact to the County and therefore maybe our State Legislature isn’t wise because maybe they should just say all moratoriums should have a super majority. Because when I read the County decision, I scratched my head and I said, this is a real stretch, there’s only a few parcels that we have in Queensbury and they’re saying that they have deep concerns about the fiscal impact. To me, it didn’t really pass the smell test. But, I do believe that it’s largely unnecessary at this point in time because we did clarify and change the zone. MS. BANG-Okay, I don’t happen to agree with you. Anybody else? COUNCILMAN BREWER-I feel pretty much the same way. When I proposed this moratorium it was of a different, it was a moratorium in Professional Office Zone and MR-5 particularly just for apartments because that seemed to be the hot issue at that time and everybody was having a problem whether they should be or shouldn’t be, whether they will be allowed or won’t be allowed. So, I suggested that. That was turned down. As Richard said, the efforts that were done in this Professional Office to stop apartments from being in the first thousand feet, that law was passed and enacted, that prevents the problem as some people saw it. This I think, if we’re going to do a moratorium to get the Comprehensive Plan done, I don’t think we should pick one zone. It wouldn’t make sense to pick one zone and say alright; let’s have a moratorium just here and everywhere else in the town you can build. What purpose would it serve? You know I mean it just; nobody is going to build a professional office. So, I’m not in favor of it. I think my effort was to step back, look at it and say well, do we want apartments in Multi Family Residential; do we want them in Professional Office? That was the question I had and that gave us time to look at the Professional Office Zone and really decide what we wanted, not just say you can’t do it in a thousand feet. So I can’t support the moratorium in just PO. Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 745 MS. BANG-Okay, well I’m a newcomer at this, I only got involved when we had the nonsense up on West Mt. Road but it was a lesson, the kind of lesson you don’t ever forget because so much of this is so unclear and all this political talk and stuff doesn’t make it clearer, you know, at all. And so I’m actually enjoying the meetings on the third Thursday of every month because the reality is, is that I can sit here and moan and bitch and complain and praise and do all kinds of things but at the end of this, this effort, my days of moaning and groaning are over because everybody has worked towards this, everybody has put their two cents in. You’re not going to get everything you want, you’re going to get some of this and some of that but the reality is hopefully it’s going to end up being thorough, including taste which we believe our community should have and you certainly wouldn’t know it if you drive Route 9 and so I don’t, I mean, I have to admit I don’t see any reason to encourage commercial building and not wait. It just makes no sense to me because you’re still going to have the same old battles going through all the Planning Board and the rest. You’re still going to have the same old song and dance with things being very unclear. You wait six months and people wouldn’t have to go through what Schermerhorn went through with West Mt. Road. So, anyway I think you should think twice about it. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you very much. Anybody else this evening on this public hearing? Mr. Salvador. MR. JOHN SALVADOR-Good evening, my name is John Salvador and I’d like to speak tonight on the subject of the moratorium. I’ve prepared a few notes here I’d like to read from. I would like to establish at this time a foundation for why we need some form of a moratorium and it should not be as Mr. Brewer said, it should not be directed at one particular zone or one particular use. Something more has got to be done to curb the runaway train called Community Development. The idea of a moratorium put in place for purposes of amending only one small segment of the Zoning Ordinance directed to only one allowable use smacks of a piecemeal zoning or what is commonly referred to as spot zoning which can not stand. The New York State Court of Appeals has opined that spot zoning is the very antithesis of planned zoning. Projects which qualify for being granted a zoning permit as allowed in accordance with Town Code Chapter 179, Section 179-16-090 titled, ‘Zoning Permits’ should be allowed to move forward regardless of the form of building moratorium adopted by the Town Board. What is needed is a tightening of the process for issuing zoning permits. According to Town Code Chapter 179, Section 179-16-090, the Zoning Administrator shall remove the Building Department application for purposes of Zoning Ordinance compliance and shall issue permits by indicating review and compliance or non-compliance with the Zoning Ordinance thereon. Section 179-16-100 A establishes the criteria for the issuance of a zoning permit and that the Zoning Administrator shall issue a zoning permit only if he determines the following. It says the following, not each of the following, all of the following. The new land use or development complies with any applicable sanitary codes. The new land use or development meets the area, setbacks from property lines, bulk and height controls and the special shoreline restrictions of this chapter, unless an area variance has been granted pursuant to Article 14. The new land use or development has received site plan or special use permit approval, if applicable and if such approval is subject to conditions to be met prior to the granting of a permit. If it is a non-permissible use, a use variance has to be granted. Firstly the construction of the phrase above dictates that the Zoning Administrator must first make a determination as to whether or not the project constitutes a new land use or some other form of development. This is very important. Other kinds of development, although not specifically addressed in the Town Code Chapter 179, are articulated in the Building Code of the State of New York which State Code is administered and enforced by the Building Code Enforcement Officer Mr. David Hatin. These other kinds of development include, repairs, renovations, alterations, reconstruction and additions. I have copies of a photograph taken about one week ago of a residential construction which has progressed to the present stage of construction as an alteration. (Presented picture to the Town Board) SUPERVISOR STEC-John, is in the PO Zone? COUNCILMAN BREWER-It’s an alteration? To the landscape. Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 746 COUNCILMAN BOOR-Nice alteration, huh? MR. SALVADOR-This alteration had its beginning in September of 2005 with the issuance of a demolition permit for presumably some well defined demolition. Following that, a building permit was issued some three weeks later for this so called alteration. Alteration is defined in the Code that Mr. Hatin administers and enforces as that of a classification of work which includes the reconfiguration of space. The addition or elimination of any door or window, the reconfiguration and extension of any system or installation of any additional equipment. Notice that the words expansion, additional, area and height are not expressions which apply to alterations. The Building Code of the State of New York does include a classification of work called an addition which better defines the work shown in the photograph before you. To quote Chapter K3, Section K307, additions include any expansion or increase in floor area or height of an existing building or structure. The fact that this project, in addition to being located in the Town of Queensbury is located in Mr. Boor’s first Ward should have been considered an addition rather then an alteration is somewhat immaterial from a building permit perspective. Mr. Hatin’s acceptance of an application cleverly called an alteration rather then an addition because it involved an increase in floor area and or building height in the Town of Queensbury in Councilman Boor’s first Ward and in the Adirondack Park. SUPERVISOR STEC-Mr. Salvador, if I may interrupt for just a moment. I feel part of my duty is to keep us focused. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. SUPERVISOR STEC-And I think we’re losing it right now, as nicely as I MR. SALVADOR-I’m trying to establish a basis for a mor SUPERVISOR STEC-The Professional Office Moratorium. MR. SALVADOR-Any. A moratorium. SUPERVISOR STEC-As nicely as I know how, I’ll ask you to get to the point please. MR. SALVADOR-Okay, it won’t take me long. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you. MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Hatin’s acceptance of an application cleverly called an alteration rather then an addition because it involved an increase in floor area and or building height in the Town of Queensbury and Councilman Boor’s first Ward and in the Adirondack Park paved the way for the Zoning Administrator, Mr. Brown to rely on the definition of an alteration as specified in Town Code Chapter 179, Section 179-2-010 to direct his determination required in Section 179-16-100 A. Alteration as applied to a building or structure, a change or rearrangement in the structure or in the existing facilities or an enlargement whether by extending on a side or by increasing in height or the moving from one location or position to another. We all understand that the Town Code can not trump the State Code that is rule one page one and this we’ve done here. Nevertheless to say that we do not have a definition for addition in Section 179-2-010, to support my contention that the completion of this project as it is progressing will result in a dwelling with increased height and or floor area, I have enlarged photographs taken from the Town Assessor’s website. (Presented picture to the Town Board) SUPERVISOR STEC-John, could we move it along please? MR. SALVADOR-I’m trying. The first photo I gave you shows the old dwelling as it nd existed in April, on April 22, 2004 before the demolition was complete. The second th photograph is taken after construction started on February 13. (Presented picture to the Town Board) Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 747 SUPERVISOR STEC-John, I really think we’re off point here. Town Board Members feel free to disagree with me if I’m off base here but we would appreciate getting on point John or allowing us to move along. MR. SALVADOR-Allow me to get to it. SUPERVISOR STEC-Well are we talking seconds or hours here? John, I’m asking. MR. SALVADOR-Seconds make hours. I will finish, I only have another page or two. Had Mr. Hatin properly identified this development as that of an expansion which it really is, then Mr. Brown would have been compelled to review the building permit application for compliance or non-compliance with the applicable sanitary codes and special shoreline restrictions of the project in the Town of Queensbury, in Mr. Boor’s first Ward, north of the blue line, in the Adirondack Park, on the shores of Lake George, bordering the Town of Bolton and in the Lake George Park Commission designated critical environmental area. Had Mr. Hatin properly labeled this project and expansion which all additions are, then Mr. Brown would have been compelled to make a determination before the fact as to whether or not the new development could meet any applicable sanitary codes including the need to set the leach field two hundred feet from the lake. Another Zoning Administrator determination that Mr. Hatin’s false lead-in has allowed to go unanswered is that of the requirement for a major project storm water management plan, simply because the project site is in the critical environmental area. SUPERVISOR STEC-John, I’m going to give you one more minute, you’re way off topic. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. The problem we have here is with definitions. It’s simply definitions. You recall when we first organized the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, excuse me, the PORC Committee, the first issue they attacked was that of definitions. In fact, they formed a special subcommittee within that committee to address the issue of definitions, a very, very important beginning for any plan. It was short lived. They couldn’t even, they couldn’t decide on which dictionary to use. But that’s our failing here and that’s why we have to have a moratorium. We must have. This is a runaway situation. This is a project that’s moving ahead, it has had no review whatsoever. No Site Plan. The determination that the septic system is going to support this development has not been determined. This, and the disturbing thing about all of this is that this dwelling is, the sponsor of this project is a world renowned analogist, Chairwoman of the Fund for Lake George, Dr. Carol Collins. This review is totally unacceptable and supports my contention that we’ve got to stop the race and a moratorium is what we need. If that’s what we need, we’ve got to stop it but if someone qualifies for a building permit without any kind of variance requirement, anything like that, fine they should be able to move ahead. It’s a moratorium on zoning permits is what we need because they’re not be properly addressed. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you Mr. Salvador. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Town Board on the Professional Office public hearing? MR. SALVADOR-If you don’t need those, I’ll take them back. SUPERVISOR STEC-Here you go John. Anybody else? COUNCILMAN BOOR-Can we keep one for the record John? MR. SALVADOR-Sure. MR. DAVID BRUNO, 119 Gurney Lane-David Bruno, 119 Gurney Lane. I didn’t plan on speaking much but just wanted to agree with Councilman Brewer’s opinion that a moratorium on just the PO is a waste of our time. I think a broad moratorium would be more effective. My opinion of the Planning and Ordinance Review Committee was that it was a poor attempt to placate the voting public by our representatives to lull them into some idea that they were being concerned with the overall opinion of this town and we’ve had more then one occasion where petitions have been put forth and it seems to Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 748 me, not totally ignored but again, placated by different maneuverings. And I would like to say that I think if you look at the surrounding areas from, I work in Albany, Guilderland, all the way, Rotterdam all the way up, they are slamming moratoriums down on development because they’ve squandered their resources. Our resources are not yet exhausted. I think that if we really believe in the process of a planning ordinance review committee that there’s no good reason why we should let development run amuck until we get this in place, if we truly believe that that’s, that the outcome of that planning ordinance review was something that we wanted to follow. If we don’t believe that we want to follow that, we just want to throw our thumbs under our suspenders and say, look what I’ve created on my watch, well then we wasted money on the planning ordinance review committee and the voting public really doesn’t have any say in this town and I really hope that that is not the case and I support Mr. Brewer in his opinion that a broad moratorium on building in general is what would be the intelligent road to take in this situation. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Just one comment. Every two years you have say. MR. BRUNO-Yup, absolutely. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-And that’s when the elections take place. MR. BRUNO-Absolutely. Well noted. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you. Anybody else this evening? Any one at all? MS. KATHY FRANKLIN-Kathy Franklin, 1232 West Mt. Road. You were talking about the Professional Office Zone being clarified and then you said that basically you can’t have the apartments anywhere within the first thousand feet, there has to be a setback and that is, as far as I know the only clarification that was made. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Actually there was another one that had to do with square, what is it? COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Floor area ratio. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Floor area ratios, yea. MS. FRANKLIN-Floor area ratio. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Which reduces the size. MS. FRANKLIN-Right, I understand. When this property that, is at the top of Gurney Lane which is only one of the three properties you’re discussing, I realize but it’s relevant, it was one, zoned one family residential and the process was bizarre. The man who owned the property came with a project that conformed and the town took it off the, out of his hands and said that the town was going to become, I forget the word for it but they were going to be the applicant, I think it was and changed it to Professional Office building. At that time I asked what the Professional Office building was, what that zone was and it included everything from fruit stands, daycare, cemeteries, I think it had mobile home parks in it, I’m not sure. It had at least twenty different categories. As far as I know it still does. Is that true? COUNCILMAN BOOR-I don’t have it in front of me, I can look it up, I don’t think it’s germane to what we’re talking about. MS. FRANKLIN-What we’re talking about is whether or not there’s a clear definition of what a Professional Office Zone is that meets the requirements of the citizens of the town and what they expect their town is going to look like. COUNCILMAN BOOR-That would be addressed at the PORC Committee or with Saratoga Associates. No, let me, really, it’s really important that you understand this because we are very limited to what we’re talking about here tonight. This discussion Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 749 does not have anything to do with changing what is allowed in or out of Professional Office Zoning. We can not tonight say we’re going to get rid of daycare, we’re going to get rid of cemeteries, this is only about MS. FRANKLIN-I recognize that. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, yea, so I mean although those are great points, they don’t, they’re not germane to the action that’s being contemplated tonight and although, and they should be brought up and they should be brought up at PORC and they should be brought up when we’re reviewing the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and you should be very strong about it and I may agree with you on some of them, I may disagree with you on some of the others but it really has nothing to do with the determination that we’re contemplating tonight. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-But there is MS. FRANKLIN-But the contemplation, what we’re talking about tonight is whether or not your going to go forward with the moratorium which will hold up everything until that PORC Committee which you just spoke of has, has established what it feels represents the town’s wishes, is that true? COUNCILMAN BOOR-No. MS. FRANKLIN-That’s what he said. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Not actually but its close. The ultimate decision of what is in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and how the new zoning will read is solely and only the responsibility of this Board. The PORC MS. FRANKLIN-It’s recommendation only. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Saratoga Associates do not have legislative authority, they can not, they can only make recommendations. The five, well I should say the four people here tonight absent one are going to be the only ones that can modify, accept as it is handed to them or change what they get. MS. FRANKLIN-I see. Right, you guys have the power, we got that established but my question is why, why are we paying those people and why are the people who are volunteering their time, spending their time to make careful and clear recommendations and think carefully about what they feel the future of this town ought to be in order to lend their advice to your, you know to lend counsel, if you’re not going to listen to the counsel or you can give them time to finish it. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I don’t think, I take exception to not listening. MS. FRANKLIN-Well, if you’re not COUNCILMAN BOOR-We attend MS. FRANKLIN-If they haven’t completed COUNCILMAN BOOR-I attended. We’ve attended those meetings. MS. FRANKLIN-If they haven’t completed the sentence, it’s sort of like our discussion right now, if they haven’t completed the sentence then you haven’t listened. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Exactly and they haven’t. MS. FRANKLIN-Okay, they haven’t. COUNCILMAN BOOR-And until they do, I’m not going to characterize what their determination is going to be. I’m going to let make a determination, I’m going to read it Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 750 and then this Board is going to discuss, if we agree with it, if we think it’s appropriate and it can be moved forward in a legal manner and if we do, I would guess that we would accept it. MS. FRANKLIN-And in the meantime, if somebody wants to put up a Professional Office Zone under the existing COUNCILMAN BOOR-Under the new one, you mean. MS. FRANKLIN-Yes, I mean the one that says that you can have all those other things but you have to have them within, if you happen to put in residential housing, it has to be a thousand feet from the road. They can put up anything of any particular height, any architectural standards COUNCILMAN BOOR-They can’t, see that’s COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Let me address this for a change. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I appreciate what your point is and actually next Monday there’s going to be a workshop discussion hopefully involving the PORC Committee and not just the Chairman but others and we’re going to talk about where they are and we’re hoping to find out when we can receive a product to review. What Mr. Boor stated is very correct. By law we can not assign our or delegate our responsibility as a Town Board. We can seek to citizens in an advisory capacity and we have done that and we have some issues that we need to work out but going back to your point which I thought was a very good one which is while we changed the zone, your concerned about what is the line of defense, for a lack of a better way, I’m paraphrasing what you’re saying, should a new development come along before that work is done. Please keep in mind, and I was on the Planning Board for four years, the Planning Board reviews all projects of this nature and whether they exercise the right degree of authority or decision making can be debated but any project that comes in that they feel isn’t appropriate and can justify it, they can either encourage modification or deny such a project. Then so you, you know when we’re up here talking to people who have concerns, I want to say that I don’t think it’s prudent for us to try to set down into law everything, we have to rely on the good judgment of our appointed boards to do that job and that’s why they conduct public hearings and they have people like you that show up to those public hearings, voice your concerns and incorporate into their decision making process a whole range of environmental impacts including aesthetics, traffic and what have you. And so, if I sound like I’m trying to defend the Planning Board it is because I am. I think that we have to work to give them greater degree of empowerment so that they can do the right thing for this community. MS. FRANKLIN-And perhaps in order to do that, is to let them finish their work. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Well that’s a different committee, I’m not talking PORC now, I’m talking the Planning Board. MS. FRANKLIN-Related ideas though. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Okay. MS. FRANKLIN-The other thing is if you have a super majority which is four votes and you only have four people because you’re absent one member, how can you take a vote tonight? COUNCILMAN SANFORD-We can take a vote. COUNCILMAN BOOR-We can take a vote. Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 751 COUNCILMAN SANFORD-But if it’s a two-two vote, it doesn’t mean that one issue is defeated or one issue is approved, it means that there was no decision and what we may very well do is carry any of those items over until the next meeting when presumably there will be a majority. COUNCILMAN BREWER-No we do not. COUNCILMAN BOOR-This is a vote, yes or no. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Well actually Richard if all four of you don’t vote for it, it’s a denial. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Oh no, if all four, I’m talking if we have a two-two vote. COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, it’s still a denial. COUNCILMAN BREWER-No, it’s still a denial. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Oh on this issue, on this issue. COUNCILMAN BOOR-On this issue, on this issue. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Okay, okay. COUNCILMAN BOOR-On any, yea TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-And on any other one, if you don’t have three votes, it loses. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right, yea. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I understand. No I’m sorry. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-So I’m sorry. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I thought she was talking in the event of a tie break. COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, no. MS. FRANKLIN-No what I mean is, if three of you say yes and one of you says no. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-That’s a denial. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It would always have to be four. MS. FRANKLIN-Right but if the fourth person isn’t here to say yes. COUNCILMAN BOOR-The fifth person isn’t here. SUPERVISOR STEC-The fifth person. MS. FRANKLIN-The fifth person, I’m sorry. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-That’s true. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Then it fails. TOWN COUNSEL HANFER-They would need all of them to vote yes. COUNCILMAN BOOR-All of us would have to be unanimous in our decision for this particular resolution to pass tonight. Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 752 MS. FRANKLIN-Okay so if Mr. Strough were here, you would have to have five votes? COUNCILMAN BREWER-No, you’d have to have four. SUPERVISOR STEC-No you would need four votes. COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, four affirmative in total. MS. FRANKLIN-Okay, I understand, four affirmative votes. So if three of you are affirmative tonight. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s not a super majority. MS. FRANKLIN-But my question is, if that’s, always not a super majority because one of your members is not here. SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s correct. COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s correct. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-And the reason why a super majority is needed if you listened to Marilyn explain was because MS. FRANKLIN-The Warren County got into it, yup. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-The Warren County Planning Board felt that it was such an impact, a financial impact. MS. FRANKLIN-Such an environment COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, economic. MS. FRANKLIN-Such an economic disaster for all of Warren County. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-That, they just couldn’t see their way through to a… SUPERVISOR STEC-I don’t think you’re fairly characterizing the hard work of the Warren County Planning Board Richard. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I don’t think we’re talking about the work; we’re talking about the decision. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I think the Chairman’s here; perhaps he can explain the criteria they used. MS. FRANKLIN-That would be a really great idea. SUPERVISOR STEC-Is there anyone else that would like to speak this evening on this public hearing? Anyone at all? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:00 P.M. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I would actually Dan, like to just pull it if that’s appropriate. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I don’t think it’s appropriate, I think we should vote on it. SUPERVISOR STEC-I prefer to take action tonight. COUNCILMAN BOOR-With Councilman Strough not here you want to do that? Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 753 SUPERVISOR STEC-I’d like to take action tonight. I’ll move it for consideration. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I’ll second it. RESOLUTION ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO.: __ OF 2006 TO ESTABLISH TEMPORARY MORATORIUM IN PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) ZONE DEFEATED RESOLUTION NO.: 182, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: ___ of 2006 entitled, "A Local Law to Establish a Temporary Moratorium in Professional Office (PO) Zone” which Law shall authorize a temporary moratorium on site plan review and subdivision applications regarding properties located within any of the st Town of Queensbury’s Professional Office (PO) Zones until the sooner of October 1, 2006 or such date that the Town Board adopts an updated Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Map and Subdivision Regulations, whichever date comes first, and WHEREAS, this legislation is authorized in accordance with New York State Municipal Home Rule Law §10, and th WHEREAS, on or about March 8, 2006, the Warren County Planning Board considered the proposal and made a recommendation to deny the temporary moratorium, and st WHEREAS, on or about March 21, 2006, the Queensbury Planning Board considered the proposal and made a recommendation to the Town Board to approve the temporary moratorium, and rd WHEREAS, the Town Board duly held a public hearing on Monday, April 3, 2006 and heard all interested persons, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby enacts Local Law No.: __ of 2006 "A Local Law to Establish a Temporary Moratorium in Professional Office (PO) Zone” which Law shall authorize a temporary moratorium on site plan review and subdivision applications regarding properties located within any of the Town of st Queensbury’s Professional Office (PO) Zones until the sooner of October 1, 2006 or such Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 754 date that the Town Board adopts an updated Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Map and Subdivision Regulations, whichever date comes first, as presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to file the Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and acknowledges that the Local Law will take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : None NOES : Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor ABSENT: Mr. Strough RESOLUTION CALLING FOR QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 183, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and enters as the Queensbury Board of Health. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Strough QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE APPLICATION OF JANE MADEY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 7, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 755 WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board serves as the Town’s Local Board of Health and is authorized by Town Code Chapter 136 to issue variances from the Town’s On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, and WHEREAS, Jane Madey has applied to the Local Board of Health for a variance from Chapter 136 to install a replacement absorption system: 1.one foot (1’) from the west property line instead of the required ten feet (10’) setback; and 2.fifty feet (50’) from a well instead of the required one hundred feet (100’) setback; on property located at 354 Glen Lake Road in the Town of Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health will hold a public th hearing on Monday, April 17, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, to consider Jane Madey’s sewage disposal variance application concerning property located at 354 Glen Lake Road in the Town of Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 289.9-1-68) and at that time all interested persons will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish the Notice of Public Hearing presented at this meeting and send a copy of the Notice to neighbors located within 500 feet of the property as required by law. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES : None ABSENT: Mr. Strough DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE: MR. TOM CENTER, Agent for applicant noted that he submitted revised drawings denoting the full one hundred foot setbacks which the prior drawings did not… There are no neighboring wells that fall within the one hundred feet except the applicant’s well. COUNCILMAN BOOR questioned whether the system has failed? MR. CENTER, Agent-Noted that there are two systems, one that he has advised the applicant not to use because of backup and the other, they’re concerned with the fact that Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 756 it’s a metal tank that’s possibly deteriorated and located close to the property line with the drywell being off the property. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Referred to the Queensbury Code Book noting that the application does not meet the findings required and therefore the Board of Health is not able to act on this application. MR. CENTER, Agent-So we should leave this system in place until it fails? COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s what the law reads. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-For the Town Board to grant the variances, which you have over the past you have to make these findings and it’s up to the Board to determine the reasonable use of the land, whether the current septic meets that and whether you need to grant a variance to change that and you also, it’s up to the Town Board whether or not it’s the minimum necessary and whether there’s a hardship. MR. CENTER, Agent-The current septic, one of them is sixty-one feet from the lake, the other system is sixty-six feet from the lake. We’re going to increase that separation distance to a hundred and fifteen feet, we’re trying to make all possible accommodations to get a system in that protects the lake and the way I’ve understood it in the past that that’s one of the things the town is trying to do, take old non-complying systems and try to make them as compliant as possible and that’s why in this case I’ve also included ultraviolet treatment system for the applicant’s own well system because he is within well less the hundred feet required. COUNCILMAN BOOR-If the system is located off the property, I think we can meet the criteria. I think you need to provide the Board with definitive information as to the location. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Does this applicant anticipate any household improvements or construction improvements to the home? MR. CENTER-No sir, this is a two bedroom camp right now, they will not be able to and they’ve been advised they can not add any more bedrooms. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Do they have construction plans? MR. CENTER-I do not believe so, they have not told me they have construction plans. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Would they be willing to sign paperwork so that they would not be able to expand? MR. CENTER-They can not expand with the new system that’s in there. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Would they sign something to that effect? MR. CENTER-I can certainly contact them. SUPERVISOR STEC-Or stipulate in the approval. MR. CENTER-I can get that information by the time we come back for the public hearing. COUNCILMAN BOOR-And I would like more information on locations. Town Board held discussion regarding the code and possible needed changes to the code… Town Board agreed to move forward with setting the public hearing… (vote taken) TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-One more thing about our process, even if the Town Board thinks that the proposed variance application doesn’t, might not meet the standards Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 757 that Roger just went through, our process says that once we get a completed application for a variance we will, the Town Board as the local Board of Health will give notice and set a public hearing. The determination of whether you meet the standards is after the public hearing. COUNCILMAN BOOR-If I can just interrupt, Marilyn on the previous application, the SEQRA short form was not complete, item 12 was not addressed… RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE APPLICATION OF ANDREA PEEK BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 8, 2006 DEFEATED INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board serves as the Town’s Local Board of Health and is authorized by Town Code Chapter 136 to issue variances from the Town’s On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, and WHEREAS, Andrea Peek has applied to the Local Board of Health for a variance from Chapter 136 to install an absorption field eighty-eight feet (88’) from Lake George instead of the required one-hundred feet (100’) setback and one foot (1’) from the property line instead of the required ten feet (10’) setback on property located at 108 Rockhurst Road, Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health will hold a public th hearing on Monday, April 17, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, to consider Andrea Peek’s sewage disposal variance application concerning property located at 108 Rockhurst Road, Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 227.9-1- 11) and at that time all interested persons will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish the Notice of Public Hearing presented at this meeting and send a copy of the Notice to neighbors located within 500 feet of the property as required by law. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : None NOES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brewer Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 758 ABSENT: Mr. Strough DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE: COUNCILMAN BOOR-Is your system failing? MR. BRETT PEEK, Owner-No. Not that I’m aware. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Here again, I don’t know how we can review it if it’s not failing. MR. PEEK-This is all precursor to doing some construction up there. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Which makes it worse. There’s a subdivision map plat for this development that you’re in, it’s very clear that there’s a ten foot no build zone where you’re proposing to put your leach field. If I understand the process correctly, you would have to go to the Planning Board to get a site plan modification and then you would have to go to the Zoning Board and get a variance because it shows that you’re going to be expanding this property and then you would probably have to show that the system that is there now is failing in order for this Board to grant you a septic variance. MR. PEEK-We’re going to stay within the footprint, we’re not going to add any bedrooms, does that make a difference? COUNCILMAN BOOR-It definitely makes a difference with regard to the Planning Board, where you’re proposing to put your field is in the no build zone on the subdivision map plat. So you would have to get a modification from the Planning Board to do that. MR. PEEK-If I was to stay within my boundaries and leave the system in that I have now would that be okay? Am I within my rights? Because they were the ones that told me that I had to change my septic. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Who is they? MR. PEEK-When we went to submit some preliminary plans they said that this is going to be considered new construction and you have to change your septic system. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Who said that, the Town Staff? COUNCILMAN BOOR-Craig Brown? MR. PEEK-Yea, I believe it was him. I’m not sure, this is what my architect and the engineer said so that’s what they came and redesigned the septic, did a perk test, redesigned it and set it out for new because they were told it. A new system is only going to improve what we have, I mean, we’re not going to stop living there because of the system. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I know but you can’t do it without a, I believe you need a site plan modification from the Planning Board. MR. PEEK-Okay and then I would still have to prove that COUNCILMAN BOOR-You have a failing system and that you have a hardship, that there’s a hardship and that’s why you’re seeking to have an improved system put in. MR. PEEK-And the alternative to that is to leave an old fifty year system in? COUNCILMAN BOOR-That you are being denied reasonable use of your property because of the system that’s in there now. Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 759 MR. PEEK-The alternative to me doesn’t sound logical. The alternative is a bunch of old systems that between twenty and eighty years old that we know are either in failure or going to fail at some point. Now people aren’t going to stop living at their million dollar lake houses because of it. COUNCILMAN BOOR-You raise a very interesting point and Supervisor Stec, Supervisor Brody and Supervisor Champagne and Marilyn Ryba met almost three weeks ago and I’m trying to craft a letter that will go to all the residents of Rockhurst asking their advice and their wishes as it relates to a wastewater management district whereby we would run a line down Rockhurst, we would have a single holding tank that would be pumped out on town property and then these problems go away. What it does is ultimately eliminates all waste from going into the lake. MR. PEEK-That would be great. My point is that the houses aren’t going away, people aren’t going to stop living in them and the systems are failing. To me, to put a whole new and we designed it for an Elgin System and supposedly they’re way better at double the cost which I don’t have a problem doing, it’s just a matter of getting it done. Town Board held discussion regarding whether or not to move forward with the resolution setting the public hearing and it was agreed to take the vote… (vote taken) SUPERVISOR STEC-So what we’re saying is we would like this to go through the Planning Board and then the Zoning Board. RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 9, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED IT’S SECOND SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns and enters Regular Session of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Strough REGULAR SESSION CORRESPONDENCE – NONE INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS FROM THE FLOOR - NONE PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR 8:35 P.M. MR. PLINEY TUCKER, 41 Division Road-Questioned Resolution 7.6, ‘Resolution Increasing Appropriations and Amending 2006 Town Budget to Accommodate EMS Budgets’ and 7.7, ‘Resolution Increasing Appropriations and Amending 2006 Town Budget to Accommodate Fire Company Budgets’ of the agenda. Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 760 SUPERVISOR STEC-The Town Board adopts a Budget on time every year in November and then sometimes we wrap up discussions and negotiations in setting budgets with Fire and EMS companies after that date and that’s basically what’s happened in both of these. So number 7.6 we actually settled on a contract and we do have a fund balance but the budget for West Glens Falls EMS was over what we budgeted by three thousand nine hundred and two dollars ($3,902.00) so in order to cover that, we need to move it and it is moving from the appropriated fund balance for emergency services and likewise for the fire companies. There’s five of them that we did this year and the fire companies came in at about eighty-eight thousand six hundred and fifty-five dollars ($88,655.00) more then we budgeted and again that comes from the appropriated fund balance. MR. TUCKER-Questioned Resolution 7.8, ‘Resolution Amend 2005 Budget to Increase Appropriations and Amend Fund Balance’ and Resolution 7.9 ‘Resolution Amending 2005 Budget to Increase Appropriations and Amend Fund Balance’ of the agenda. SUPERVISOR STEC-Resolution 7.8, this is the 2005 budget to increase appropriations and amend fund balance for emergency services, this is for last year by the amount of thirteen thousand six hundred and ninety-five dollars ($13,695.00) and the reason why, our current bill for service arrangement, we pay ten percent to Iliant, the company that we entered into Bill-For-Service. Last year was the first full year that we did the Bill-For- Service, we didn’t know exactly what to expect and we needed to come up with a budget number back in 2004 for 2005 and we budgeted to receive two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00) which would mean that we’d pay Iliant twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) of that. The good news is that we collected four hundred and thirty-eight thousand dollars ($438,000.00) in revenue but that also means that we owe Iliant forty-three thousand eight hundred dollars ($43,800.00) and we hadn’t budgeted for such a large revenue so this catches that up. Resolution 7.9, in the Highway Department we needed to move money and again, this is also for 2005’s budget for snow melting agents, they were short forty-six thousand four hundred and eighty-two dollars ($46,482.00) and also appropriate for a Motor Equipment Operator, a personnel item that hadn’t been budgeted adequately for and we were four thousand five hundred and seventy-seven ($4,577.00) short on that line item. MR. TUCKER-Questioned the status regarding the land acquisition from Niagara Mohawk to the Town of Queensbury. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-We had received the proposed deeds from Niagara Mohawk. We had title report prepared by Mike O’Connor, his Title Company to insure the title to the town because he’s done the title for Niagara Mohawk in the past. So he has the back title which would be a very big project to go back and redo, there were certain things that came up in the title report that related to that five acre parcel that you’ve been talking about because it’s part of another parcel that, and because our tax records showed it being in the name of another, of the Hydro entity up there, that the Niagara Mohawk attorney and Mike O’Connor were working out the things that Mike O’Connor would need so that he could give the town good title. I talked to Mike about a week and a half, two weeks ago, he was about to go on vacation and wouldn’t be able to get to it until he got back. He said that they were working things out and that he would get to it when he got back, that’s where we are. MR. GEORGE DRELLOS, 27 Fox Hollow Lane-Roger, I can agree with some of your comments on those two applications but the first one, I don’t have the plans and don’t know the particulars but if there is a metal tank there, wouldn’t in your book, isn’t that a safety issue? COUNCILMAN BOOR-There isn’t a clause and that’s why I was saying I think we need to address some of these issues and the thing that I tried to impress upon the applicant’s engineer is, don’t say you think this is what it is, I need to know what it is. We can’t make decisions on those kinds of comments. MR. DRELLOS-What if the cover fell in on this tank? Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 761 COUNCILMAN BOOR-Then he’d have a failed system and he would not be able to enjoy his property in a reasonable way and we could act on it. MR. DRELLOS-If he just wanted to change the tank, safety? COUNCILMAN BOOR-He wouldn’t need a variance if he wasn’t changing the location. He needs the variance because he’s changing the location. MR. DRELLOS-To do what you’re saying is it cost effective to go in there and do this work that you’re suggesting when you could put it towards a new system. You’re not talking no fifty dollars. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s not a failed system. MR. DRELLOS-I understand but you want to know what’s there, to go in someone’s yard and start digging, you’re talking quite a bit of money. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Sure, it costs a lot as you well know but we don’t make our decisions because it costs somebody money, it’s a Board of Health; it’s not a financial board. MR. DRELLOS-I’m just saying you want someone to go in there and just find out what’s there and then come back to the Board, spend thousands of dollars. SUPERVISOR STEC-In order to grant a variance we need to know it’s failed; I think is what Roger’s point is. MR. DRELLOS-Questioned Resolution 7.12, ‘Resolution Rescinding Certain Resolutions Pertaining to Testing of High Groundwater Levels’ of the agenda. COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s something I asked the attorney to draw up. As it currently exists the law affords, the state affords high water tests to occur March through June and in 1991 the Town Board at the time granted certain engineers within the town the right to make determinations out of season and we’ve had a couple of applications come before us where the science has been lacking and they’ve made big mistakes and I’m thinking to myself, it’s kind of crazy to let the fox watch the henhouse. So when the applicant comes in and he’s also authorized by the Town Board to do high water determinations out of season, I think that’s something that a town engineer should do, they’re going to be looking out for the best interests of the town. MR. DRELLOS-Who would pay for the town engineer? COUNCILMAN BOOR-The applicant. MR. DRELLOS-Dan, the fire companies have they all signed? SUPERVISOR STEC-They have all signed and all checks have been signed. MR. DRELLOS- Referred to Resolution 7.2, ‘Resolution Approving North Queensbury Rescue Squad Inc.’s Proposal to Purchase 2006 Ambulance’ of the agenda and questioned why a public hearing is not required. SUPERVISOR STEC-North Queensbury Rescue Squad met with us in a workshop last week and any time any Fire or EMS Company uses money from their restricted vehicle fund, it’s required under our contract with them, they’re required to get permission from the town in a form of a resolution to allow them to do that. In this case they are looking to replace a 1994 ambulance at a cost not to exceed a hundred and thirty thousand dollars and between the proceeds of the sale of the 94 ambulance plus the significant funds that they have in their vehicle fund, they will be able to buy that for cash without incurring any debt. But in order to get at that restricted vehicle fund money, they need to come to us. If they had to take on debt or if they had to borrow, then we’re talking about amending their contract and that requires a public hearing. Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 762 MR. GLENN RODE, 51 Cronin Road-Questioned Resolution 7.18, ‘Resolution Setting Public Hearing to Further Consider Environmental Impacts of Bay Meadows Planned Unit Development for Property Owned by the Michaels Group, LLC’ of the agenda. SUPERVISOR STEC-The brief history of resolution 7.18, anytime we change a zoning or sometimes site plan as another example we’re required to have a public hearing on a thing called SEQRA, the State Environmental Quality Review Act that was done by the Town Board when we reviewed the consistency of a PUD back in November. Some Town Board Members believe that there’s new information and new information would be a reason to reopen SEQRA. When you reopen SEQRA you need to have another public hearing to address those issues so that resolution would set a public hearing for two weeks from this evening in order to look at the new information and then modify our previous determination. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I was going to discuss some of this at Town Board discussions but I’m going to put this up, this talks to what Dan just mentioned which is some of the new information, these are pictures taken of that area. MR. RODE-I’ve been to several Planning Board meetings and I’ve talked about the hydrology in the area and I’ve got two studies here that basically speak to the fact that with all of the development that’s gone on it’s affected the hydrology and the ability of that area to handle stormwater runoff and I believe that would be new information. The Planning Board was unaware of these two studies. The first one is the Halfway Brook Watershed Management Plan and the second one is the Halfway Brook Stormwater Assessment and Management Plan and in the later of the two, there’s actually a section where they locate potential stormwater improvement sites and that whole parcel of land is identified as a location of possible stormwater improvement site. So it’s something to be considered in granting, you know if we’re going to look at, have SEQRA reinvestigate this property. I think that’s a good thing to keep in mind, that it has been identified in a study and is part of a plan as an improvement site. I don’t see how the development in itself and how they were talking about their retention basins, their ground level, that they’re going to filter the first surge of stormwater. I’ve lived there now for seven years and it’s not going to work, what they’ve proposed. They’ve got everything backwards, I’ve heard the engineer on the project speak to designing a stormwater collection system that’s going to flow water slowly and smoothly into the brook where he doesn’t understand and they’re not willing to understand it, when you have high rain falls the water flows out of the brook and goes into that property, it’s not the other way around. That’s where I think old engineering data was used probably dating 1985, around that era when FEMA came through and did the floodwater base and assessment or whatever they do for the floodwater mapping. But due to the recent developments and these studies speak to the recent development, well these were done in I think 98 and 2000 and we’ve seen what’s gone on since then so there’s been a significant amount of impact of land use since these studies have come out. MR. SANFORD-Later tonight we are going to be voting on a resolution to reopen the SEQRA. We had a consensus at the workshop to do that but we have to take formal action tonight and to set a public hearing for the reopening of the SEQRA here. I met with our Town Attorney and discussed the criteria that’s needed for the Town Board to do this and what’s key to reopen it is that we have become aware of new information following the November 05 SEQRA finding and there may possibly some disagreement among this Board and I won’t know until later tonight but I think those pictures speak a thousand words each and I guess my, a rhetorical question would be if that is not new and that was known, would the Town Board pass SEQRA in November 05, if those types of flooding conditions were understood by the Town Board when they did their initial review. MR. RODE-I’d just like to say in closing that that was a unique event as everybody knows but there’s very similar events, not quite as extreme that do flood the area of my yard, neighbor’s yards and water reaches a breakwater point and it flows into that field where they’re going to put that development. Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 763 COUNCILMAN BOOR-To add just a little bit on this, as you correctly stated it was a bit of a unique event although it was not hundred year storm as characterized in our workshop but I think what’s even more telling is that the property ended up looking like that and that’s with the blockage on the other side of Quaker Road. One can only wonder what that property would have looked like if Homer Drive hadn’t backed up and the water had been allowed to pass under Route 9 and go into this property as the rest of it had. MR. RODE-And we were lucky it stopped raining. I’ve also heard a theory about how the bridge on Meadowbrook may be restricting flow and causing water to rise, well that would tell me that the water on one side of Meadowbrook would be lower then the other side so that theory doesn’t hold water. I think the whole thing really needs to be revisited and I hope that’s the way the Board goes. MR. PETER BROTHERS-Questioned whether there will be an opportunity for residents of Warren County to be able to vote on the sixteen million dollar County Social Services Building that’s going to be built. SUPERVISOR STEC-I don’t know off the top of my head if that’s subject to referendum or not. We’ll follow what the law requires and if the law requires a mandatory referendum then there will be one, if there’s a permissive referendum then perhaps there will be one. MR. BROTHERS-Do you think the residents should have the right to voice their concerns considering the amount of money? SUPERVISOR STEC-I think the residents should voice their opinions as much as possible. MR. BROTHERS-Considering the amount of money, I’m not sure if there’s any other county in the state, I haven’t done the research myself so I don’t know but I’m just trying to think of another county with a population size of Warren County similar circumstance that’s proposing this kind of a building just for Social Services. SUPERVISOR STEC-I’m not aware of any other county in the State of New York that has an eighty year old tuberculosis clinic that is being used as a Social Services Building with a condemned third floor right now. But these are all great questions for the Chairman of the Social Services Committee John Haskell from Thurman; I don’t have any other information for you beyond what I just gave you. MRS. KATHLEEN SALVADOR spoke to the Town Board as Secretary of Dunhams th Resort Corp. regarding the Post Star’s news release of March 8, 2006 where an Assistant State Attorney General alleged that the organization is misleading customers who dock boats at their facility who are charged a hundred and fifty dollar registration fees and that those fees were never paid to the Lake George Park Commission. Noted the process involved regarding the registration fees of owners of commercial boat docks on Lake George and that they’re payable to the Lake George Park Trust Fund, a fund established in 1988 when the environmental user fees were first instituted by the New York State Legislature. As owners of boat docks on Lake George used for commercial purposes, we have remitted these environmental user fees every year since 1988. The total of the user fees due is the product function of a number of linear feet of usable commercial dock as determined by the Commission and the applicable rate. These fees th are invoiced annual by the Commission and due payable to the Commission by April 30 of each year… We bring these matters to this Board’s attention at this time because if in fact we are in violation of any Lake George Park Commission Regulations concerning our method of collection for and our obligation to pay commercial dock fees then we would be at the same time in violation of the Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179, Section 179-10-060A, Marinas… Spoke regarding their special use permit application in 2003 that was denied by both the Queensbury Town Planning Board and the Warren County Planning Board and noted that as soon as this litigation is finalized, they have every intention to renew their application for a special use permit to operate a Class A Marina in the Town of Queensbury…. (submitted letter to the Town Board) Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 764 MR. JOHN SALVADOR spoke to the Town Board as President of the Dunhams Resort Corp. regarding background and establishment of the Lake George Park Commission Trust Fund relating to the boat and boat dock registration fees… (submitted letter to the Town Board) MR. PAUL H. NAYLOR, Division Road-Questioned what kind of engineer the town is considering hiring? COUNCILMAN BOOR-Certainly one that understands soils, that would be one criteria. Do you want the whole list? Just so that you understand and I think it’s probably important for the public also, hiring a town engineer doesn’t mean we don’t contract with engineering companies to do work. MR. NAYLOR-Okay but he’s going to contract a lot of other engineers to tell him he’s wrong. COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, he’s probably going to say this is most appropriately handled by this engineer… He’s as much a consultant to the Boards as he is an engineer but certainly when it comes to soils, I want an engineer in the town that understands soils. MR. NAYLOR-You’re going to have to hire a big engineer to cover all that. On the drainage, that water has been like that for as many years as I can remember. The trouble with drainage, you got to start at the bottom, wherever it’s holding it back. I suggested one time to the state engineer and all the guys in the world how to lower that brook, they said that’s a good idea but you can’t do it. I showed them how, I had a plan to put steel sheeting, dig a ditch and let it gradually flow down until it filled up, naturally clean itself. They said it’s a great idea but you can’t do it because the law says if you can walk in it, you legally can’t go in it. If you can ride a boat in it, you can legally get on it. Every law is against you to do it. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Well based on those pictures you could water ski in it. MR. NAYLOR-Yea but the trouble is, it doesn’t stay like that all the time. Somewhere down below Ridge Road there’s a blockage because all the water from the City of Glens Falls and I laid the pipes personally forty years ago when I worked for Kubricky, I laid all the pipes on Glen Street, Bay Road and they all dump down this way and you guys are on the lower end of the totem pole so you get all the water. SUPERVISOR STEC-Water flows down hill too. MR. NAYLOR-Just like politicians… Like you said, every two years we’ve got a right to get even but we can’t because I only got a right to get after him and him but I can’t touch either one of you guys that’s why the Ward System was designed. Before the Ward System we were all up for everybody shooting at us, we had to have answers for Ward 4, Ward 3, Ward 2 and Ward 1… But those days are gone. OPEN FORUM CLOSED 9:10 P.M. TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS COUNCILMAN BOOR-I encourage the Board to move forward with hiring a Town Engineer, RFP for that. Certainly we need to have a good understanding of what the engineer is going to be doing and I don’t want the public to believe that one engineer, an individual could possibly handle the engineering requirements of a town of our size… There’s a lot to be done and I think the town needs guidance and that’s why I’m going to be very interested in how we proceed. As I pointed out earlier, a little slower in my development of a letter to the Rockhurst people because in reviewing the material to make sure that I covered all my bases, I’ve realized that perhaps we haven’t done some of the things or recognized some of the codes and information that we should when we speak to issues of sewer and wastewater. Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 765 COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Just want to let the public know that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Committee otherwise known as PORC will be meeting with the Town th Board on the 10 and will be getting an update at that point in time… I’d like you to put th on the workshop of the 10, captioned setting the agenda process and venue for workshop meetings. For the public’s benefit, there is no real legal distinction between a regular meeting and a workshop meeting and it is something that the Town of Queensbury and other town’s use but all meetings of the Town Board are official meetings of the Board. However, it was thought to be perhaps advantageous every other meeting be a workshop where we could discuss, take limitation action but not do the whole resolution route that we do typically at these regular meetings and try to come up with a understanding as to where we’re going to go. I certainly want this on the agenda anyway whether we cover it or not… One additional item which I think will probably need to be a discussion of a few different meetings and that has to do with legal services that the town is receiving. I see in the warrant of bills, has a February legal voucher, I did the arithmetic and I annualized that out and if February represents a typical month, the legal expenditures would annualize out payable to our law firm two hundred and eighty- eight thousand four hundred and thirty-eight dollars ($288,438.00). Keep in mind that’s just for our outside legal services, we also incur inside legal services as well and you add that together and I’m concerned again as I was before I even came on the Board as to the level of expenditures. So this may take a number of discussions and it maybe we will not th be able to fit this in on April 10 because of how the workshop is shaping up. But I’d like to have this earmarked on a near term workshop meeting to read RFP for legal services and or the hiring of a town staff attorney under a discussion item so we can review pros and cons of all possibilities. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Just one item, I got a memo from Miller, Mannix, Schachner th and Hafner back on December 5, I want to revive a couple of street light issues that you we talked about back in December, I want to bring them to the forefront, we have to go through a process and I’ll make copies of this and put in everybody’s box so that we all know what we have to do. There’s three street lights I’ve been trying to get put up since November, it’s now five, six months later so I’d like that on some workshop so that we can address that issue. SUPERVISOR STEC-I’d like to thank Glens Falls National Bank and TV-8 for sponsoring and producing the Town Board’s televised meetings… Announced Queensbury’s website, www.queensbury.net, it has a wealth of information… I do want to report to the public because I think it is a huge success story financially and from a quality of care standpoint with the EMS bill-for-services and paid daytime staffing. Two years ago, we got the bill-for-services and we talked a little bit about how that’s worked, we made a lot more in revenues that we had budgeted for last year. Last year we budgeted for two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00) in total revenue and we brought in four hundred and thirty-eight thousand dollars ($438,000.00). That revenue has allowed us to do a couple of things and I really think that the public needs to know about because we do have occasion to beat up, financially on our Fire Companies and Rescue Squads. That revenue has allowed us to not only lower the property taxes for EMS which used to be in the thirty-seven cent range, now it’s in the thirteen cent range, part of that is due to the reval but the lion share of that is actually because we cut the amount to be raised by taxes by about half. The other thing is that we are spending more because we’ve also used some of that revenue to bring on a paid crew component so that during the day when a lot of our volunteers are working and can’t get out to the call, there are paid people on seven days a week, at least one pair on every day of the week but five days a week there are two pair that are on somewhere in the town. So the quality and response time of care to the patient which is their utmost importance, as it should be is there. This year we budgeted conservatively four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000.00) this year and to date, year to date we brought in about a hundred and ninety-eight thousand dollars ($198,000.00) and annualized that’s well over seven hundred thousand ($700,000.00)… We talked a fair amount about Halfway Brook and th the flooding on that part of town, although the January 17 storm we had flooding all over town in places that normally don’t receive flooding. Certainly we did have a physical issue with the flow of water in the Quaker Road area of town. I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that I had gotten the occasion to go out with some folks from Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 766 Warren County Soil and Water to walk and personally view all of the infrastructure, the culvert pipes and bridges from the Minogue’s parking lot working my way south all the way to the cemetery on Webster Avenue in Glens Falls. What I had seen there was that all of the infrastructure there looks to be in pretty good condition and sized pretty well, if I was looking for a bottleneck on that flow the bottleneck in my opinion seemed to be in that Minogue’s parking lot area. Last week I went out for a couple of hours again with some of the folks from Warren County Soil and Water and we worked our way north from that point on Quaker, looking at the Cronin Road bridge and then behind the Girl Scout Camp and under Meadowbrook and then again up under Ridge Road and then ultimately out to the County Line by Sunnyside. That infrastructure, most of it is bridges and culverts so I can’t offer an explanation downstream of the Quaker Road, Minogue’s area but my humble opinion from what I’ve seen that’s the main issue on that stretch. I want to thank Warren County Soil and Water for spending the time with me to look at this stuff. I think that Minogue’s parking lot is probably definitely worth pursuing, that’s privately owned and we’ll have to work on that. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING DOUG IRISH AS MEMBER OF TOWN RECREATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.: 184, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury previously established the Town of Queensbury Recreation Commission in accordance with applicable New York State Law, and WHEREAS, the term of Recreation Commission member Doug Irish expired and Mr. Irish wishes to be reappointed to the Commission, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby reappoints Doug Irish to serve as a member of the Town of Queensbury Recreation Commission until his term st expires on December 31, 2012. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: Mr. Strough BEFORE VOTE: Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 767 SUPERVISOR STEC-I’d like to thank Doug Irish for his continued service to the Town of Queensbury. RESOLUTION APPROVING NORTH QUEENSBURY RESCUE SQUAD INC.’S PROPOSAL TO PURCHASE 2006 AMBULANCE RESOLUTION NO.: 185, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury and the North Queensbury Rescue Squad, Inc. (Squad) have entered into an Agreement for emergency protection services, which Agreement sets forth a number of terms and conditions including a condition that the Squad will not purchase or enter into any binding contract to purchase any piece of apparatus, equipment, vehicles, real property, or make any improvements that would require the Squad to acquire a loan or mortgage or use money placed in a “vehicles fund” without prior approval of the Queensbury Town Board, and WHEREAS, the Squad wishes to replace its 1994 ambulance by trading it in for a 2006 ambulance for the approximate net purchase price not to exceed $130,000, and WHEREAS, the Squad plans on paying for the ambulance by using proceeds from the sale of its 1994 ambulance and using funds from its Restricted Vehicle Fund, and WHEREAS, the Town Board feels that this new ambulance will provide additional safety protection for the Town and therefore the Town Board wishes to authorize such purchase, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the North Queensbury Rescue Squad, Inc.’s purchase of a 2006 ambulance for a sum not to exceed $130,000 to be paid for from proceeds from the sale of the Squad’s 1994 ambulance and funds from the Squad’s Restricted Vehicle Fund provided that details are received and approved by the Town Supervisor prior to such purchase, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that should any funds remain from the Squad’s proceeds of the sale of its 1994 ambulance or in the Squad’s Restricted Vehicle Fund, such funds will go back into the Squad’s Restricted Vehicle Fund, and Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 768 BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Budget Officer to take any and all action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: Mr. Strough RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AGREEMENTS BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SQUADS AND EMPIRE AMBULANCE SERVICE AND COINCIDING CONTRACT AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION NO.: 186, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has entered into Agreements for emergency protection services with the Bay Ridge Rescue Squad, Inc., North Queensbury Rescue Squad, Inc. and West Glens Falls Emergency Squad, Inc., (Squads), which Agreements set forth a number of terms and conditions including a condition that the Squad will not purchase or enter into any binding contract to purchase any piece of apparatus, equipment, vehicles, real property, or make any improvements that would require the Squad to acquire a loan or mortgage or use money placed in a “vehicles fund” without prior approval of the Queensbury Town Board, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board and Squads have negotiated and agreed upon terms for the Squads to enter into Agreement(s) with Empire Ambulance Service (Empire) for Empire’s provision of Paramedic 4/Critical Care Technician II intercept services to the Squads with the Squads reimbursing Empire, and the Town then reimbursing the Squads, the amount of $175 for each Paramedic 4/Critical Care Technical III intercept to which a response was requested by the Squad(s), and WHEREAS, such additional service will benefit Town residents and visitors to the Squads’ service area(s), and Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 769 WHEREAS, since provision for such service is not presently included in the Squads’ 2006 Agreements with the Town, the Town Board wishes to set a public hearing concerning such proposal and amendment(s) to the Squads’ 2006 Agreement(s), NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall conduct a public hearing concerning the Bay Ridge Rescue Squad, Inc., North Queensbury Rescue Squad, Inc. and West Glens Falls Emergency Squad, Inc.’s, (Squads), proposal to enter into Agreement(s) with Empire Ambulance Service (Empire) for Empire’s provision of Paramedic 4/Critical Care Technician II intercept services to the Squads with the Squads reimbursing Empire, and the Town then reimbursing the Squads, the amount of $175 for each Paramedic 4/Critical Care Technical III intercept to which a response was requested by the Squad(s), and the corresponding amendment of the Squads’ 2006 emergency services Agreements to th provide for such service, on Monday, April 17, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish a Notice of Public Hearing in the Post-Star Newspaper once at least ten (10) days prior to the Public Hearing. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES : None ABSENT: Mr. Strough RESOLUTION ADOPTING COMPUTER SYSTEM SECURITY BREACH NOTIFICATION POLICY RESOLUTION NO.: 187, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, New York State Technology Law §208 establishes procedures regarding the notification of affected individuals in the event of a breach of a computer Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 770 security system and requires municipalities to adopt a notification policy or local law consistent with these procedures, and WHEREAS, a proposed “Town of Queensbury Computer System Security Breach Notification Policy” has been presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves and adopts the “Town of Queensbury Computer System Security Breach Notification Policy” presented at this meeting as the Town’s official policy, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to take such actions as may be necessary to implement the Policy, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall take effect immediately. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT : Mr. Strough RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING LANDFILL EQUIPMENT OPERATOR POSITION RESOLUTION NO.: 188, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to establish the full-time position of Landfill Equipment Operator (LEO) in accordance with the Landfill Equipment Operator Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 771 position description adopted by the Warren County Department of Personnel and Civil Service, and WHEREAS, monies for such an LEO position were budgeted in the Town’s Solid Waste Facilities Department budget and adopted as part of the 2006 Town of Queensbury budget, and WHEREAS, the new position shall be an hourly, overtime eligible position to be included in the Town’s Civil Service Employee Association (CSEA) Bargaining Unit, and WHEREAS, consistent with the Public Employees’ Fair Employment Act, the Town has engaged in discussion with CSEA concerning establishing and filling this position, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby establishes the full-time, hourly, overtime eligible position of Landfill Equipment Operator in the Town’s Solid Waste Facilities Department, such position to be included in the Town’s Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. (CSEA) Bargaining Unit, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further establishes the position at a salary to be determined at a later date consistent with the CSEA Agreement, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Board to begin the process of filling this newly-created position, including posting for such position, and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Town Counsel and/or Budget Officer to complete and file any documentation needed to establish this position and take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: Mr. Strough RESOLUTION INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS AND AMENDING 2006 TOWN BUDGET TO ACCOMMODATE EMS BUDGETS Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 772 RESOLUTION NO.: 189, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has entered into a contract with the West Glens Falls Emergency Medical Squad to provide EMS services during 2006, and WHEREAS, the total amount budgeted in the Town’s 2006 budget for such EMS services is inadequate to cover the cost of the contract, WHEREAS, the Accounting Department has accordingly requested a budget amendment, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs amendment of the Town’s 2006 Budget to increase appropriations in Account #005- 3410-4415-4981 in the amount of $3,902 to be financed through additional appropriated fund balance (005-0000-0599), and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further approves, authorizes and directs the Accounting Office to make any necessary adjustments, transfers or prepare any documentation necessary to amend the 2006 Town Budget and effectuate the terms of this Resolution. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: Mr. Strough RESOLUTION INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS AND AMENDING 2006 TOWN BUDGET TO ACCOMMODATE FIRE COMPANY BUDGETS RESOLUTION NO.: 190, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 773 WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has entered into contracts with the Town’s fire companies to provide fire protection services during 2006, and WHEREAS, the total amount budgeted in the Town’s 2006 budget for such fire protection services is inadequate to cover the cost of the contracts, WHEREAS, the Accounting Department has accordingly requested a budget amendment, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs amendment of the Town’s 2006 Budget to increase appropriations in Account #005- 3410-4415-4980 in the amount of $88,655 to be financed through additional appropriated fund balance (005-0000-0599), and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further approves, authorizes and directs the Accounting Office to make any necessary adjustments, transfers or prepare any documentation necessary to amend the 2006 Town Budget and effectuate the terms of this Resolution. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES : None ABSENT: Mr. Strough RESOLUTION AMENDING 2005 BUDGET TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS AND AMEND FUND BALANCE RESOLUTION NO.: 191, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 774 WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Emergency Services Fund has incurred EMS Contract costs greater than originally budgeted for, and WHEREAS, the Emergency Services Fund has sufficient surplus fund balances and has met New York State Comptroller's requirements for the appropriation of fund balance during the fiscal year, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to increase appropriations and appropriated fund balance in the Emergency Services Fund, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves, authorizes and directs that the 2005 Budget be amended by increasing appropriations and increasing Appropriated Fund Balance in the Emergency Services Fund - EMS Contract Account No.: 005-3410-4400-4981 in the amount of $13,695, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town's Budget Officer to make any necessary adjustments, transfers, or prepare any necessary documentation to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: Mr. Strough RESOLUTION AMENDING 2005 BUDGET TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS AND AMEND FUND BALANCE RESOLUTION NO.: 192, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Highway Fund has incurred snow melting agent and motor equipment operator costs greater than originally budgeted for, and Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 775 WHEREAS, the Highway Fund has sufficient surplus fund balances and has met New York State Comptroller's requirements for the appropriation of fund balance during the fiscal year, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to increase appropriations and appropriated fund balance in the Highway Fund, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves, authorizes and directs that the 2005 Budget be amended by increasing appropriations and increasing Appropriated Fund Balance in the Highway Fund – Snow Melting Agents Account No.: 004-5142-4641 in the amount of $46,482 and Motor Equipment Operator Account No.: 004-5142-1450 in the amount of $4,577, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town's Budget Officer to make any necessary adjustments, transfers, or prepare any necessary documentation to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: Mr. Strough RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2005 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 193, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the attached Budget Amendment Requests have been duly initiated and justified and are deemed compliant with Town operating procedures and accounting practices by the Town Budget Officer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 776 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer’s Office to take all action necessary to transfer funds and amend the 2005 Town Budget as follows: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 001-1220-4010 001-1220-1020 51.16 (Office Supplies) (Deputy Town Supervisor) 001-1320-4401 001-1330-1120 223. (CPA Audit) (Tax Receiver) 001-1320-4401 001-1330-4030 2,380. (CPA Audit) (Postage) 001-1355-4740 001-1355-1730 3,314. (Art. 7 Appraisals) (Asst. to Assessor) FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 001-1440-4720 001-1420-4131 10,878. (Engineering Consultant) (Litigation) 001-1450-4156 001-1450-1002 4,800. (Elections) (Misc. P/R Elections) 001-1450-4156 001-1460-1060 2,229. (Elections) (Records Clerk) 001-1650-4100 001-1670-1060 4,947. (Telephone) (Clerk – PT – Mailing) 001-1650-4100 001-1670-4030 3,758. (Telephone) 001-1910-4200 001-1950-4430 36,798. (Unalloc. Ins.) (Property Taxes) 001-3510-4760 001-3510-1640 229. (Vet Services) (Animal Control) 001-3510-4760 001-3510-1640-0002 310. (Vet Services) (Animal Control – OT) 001-3620-1372 001-3620-4120 174. (B&C Enforcement) (Printing) 001-3620-1372 001-3620-2010 608. (B&C Enforcement) (Office Furniture) 001-4010-4711 001-4020-4135 985. (Reimb. Engineering Svc.) (Vital Statistics Compensation) 001-5010-2020 001-9060-8060 24,000. (Highway Vehicles) 001-5010-4001 001-5132-4500 2,167. (Consumer Supplies) (Fuel) 001-5630-4414 001-6410-4532 1,228. (Community Svc. Contracts) (Newsletter Publishing) Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 777 001-5630-4414 001-6772-4418 375. (Community Svc. Contracts) (Programs for Aging) FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 001-8030-4400 001-9060-8060 10,000. (Community Svc. Research) (Health Ins.) 001-8540-2899 001-9060-8060 9,436. (Drainage) (Health Ins.) 002-9060-8060 002-8810-4500 4,185. (Health Ins.) (Heating Fuel) 002-9060-8060 002-8810-1450 552. (Health Ins.) (MEO) 002-9060-8060 002-8810-1400 1,204. (Health Ins.) (Laborer) 910-9060-8060 910-8160-4447 1,373. (Health Ins.) (Trash Disposable-Burnable) 040-8340-2899 040-8320-4300 25,204. (Capital Construction) (Electricity) 910-9060-8060 910-8160-1410-0002 1,312. (Health Ins.) (Laborer PT) rd Duly adopted this 3 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: Mr. Strough RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2006 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 194, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the attached Budget Amendment Requests have been duly initiated and justified and are deemed compliant with Town operating procedures and accounting practices by the Town Budget Officer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 778 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer’s Office to take all action necessary to transfer funds and amend the 2006 Town Budget as follows: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 001-3620-2001 001-3620-4105 300. (Misc. Equip.) (Mobile Comm.) rd Duly adopted this 3 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES : None ABSENT: Mr. Strough RESOLUTION RESCINDING CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS PERTAINING TO TESTING OF HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVELS RESOLUTION NO.: 195, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHEREAS, Queensbury Town Code Chapter 136, Appendix F entitled, “High Groundwater Determination” details certain rules concerning the determination of seasonal high groundwater levels, including the provision that such determination shall be made during the months of March, April, May or June, within six weeks of the time that the frost leaves the ground, and WHEREAS, such provision provides that such a determination may be made at other times if the person doing such test is qualified and approved by the Local Board of Health, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board, acting as the Town’s Local Board of Health, has adopted the following Resolutions: 1.1 of 1991; 2.8 of 1991; 3.10 of 1991; 4.171 of 1991; 5.172 of 1991; and 6.184 of 1991; approving certain persons to perform such groundwater tests, and Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 779 WHEREAS, in light of the diminished quantity of good, buildable lot sizes, the importance of protecting the best interests of the public and concerns about such determinations being performed out of the specified season, the Town Board wishes to rescind all such Resolutions enacted prior to this Town Board meeting approving certain persons in accordance with Queensbury Town Code Chapter 136, Appendix F entitled, “High Groundwater Determination,” and WHEREAS, the Town Board acknowledges that this will result in such tests only being performed during a six week period after the frost leaves the ground during the months of March, April, May or June and to lessen any impacts to property owners in the Town wishes to publish an advertisement notifying the public of this change, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby resolves as follows: RESOLVED, that all Resolutions approving certain persons to evaluate and certify seasonal high groundwater at other times during the year in accordance with Queensbury Town Code Chapter 136, Appendix F entitled, “High Groundwater Determination,” including but not limited to the following Resolutions: 7.1 of 1991; 8.8 of 1991; 9.10 of 1991; 10.171 of 1991; 11.172 of 1991; and 12.184 of 1991; shall hereby be rescinded, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that accordingly, the determination of seasonal high groundwater levels shall be made during the six weeks after the frost leaves the ground during the months of March, April, May or June as provided in the Queensbury Town Code, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board requests that the Town Clerk publish an advertisement in The Post Star notifying the public of this change. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 780 AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: Mr. Strough DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE: SUPERVISOR STEC-Presently right now New York State Law has that there’s a six week window following when frost leaves the ground, whenever that happens for groundwater testing to be conducted. In the past, in 1991 in several instances the Town Board gave certain additional authority to certain individuals that they felt at the time comfortable and were qualified to make a determination outside of the six week period. So this resolution as we discussed briefly earlier would rescind those resolutions and basically limit us to the state window of six weeks. COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s accurate Dan. I was conferring with Counsel prior to this; I think we’re going to be able to move into a direction that lessens this a little bit. My main intent here was to not have the current host of engineers who do not have to abide by the State Law to be doing this because they’re representing applicants not the town and until such time as we get better clarity on that, I was comfortable with this. Also I discussed that it’s June to March but they do reference six weeks after the frost leaves the ground. Now, I would be willing to probably work with it just June to March but I think it’s going to be loosened up a little bit but for right now I wanted to rescind those that, to have privilege because they represent the applicants not the town. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-This is by resolution because the appointments and rescissions are by resolution. If you want to change our code, that’s local law, you’ll have to do the public hearing process. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I don’t have any issue with this at all Roger but I just wanted to ask did we or are we going to look at other communities to see what they do? COUNCILMAN BOOR-Most other communities have an engineer. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Maybe we could have contract with an engineer until such time we do have one to possibly do this for us. COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s a possibility but the bottom line is, the ones that are named here are the ones that are sitting at that table getting paid by applicants and that’s not what I want. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I understand that, I don’t have a problem with it, I just want to know if we’re going to come back to this and possibly appoint some particular person. SUPERVISOR STEC-Correct, I think we’re all in agreement on that. (vote taken) RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING OF THE FIRST INSTANCE 100% OF FEDERAL AID AND STATE “MARCHISELLI” PROGRAM-AID ELIGIBLE COSTS OF ROUTES 9 AND 254 IMPROVEMENTS CAPITAL PROJECT PIN 1753.82.121 AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR SUCH CAPITAL PROJECT RESOLUTION NO.: 196, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 781 SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 69,2003, the Queensbury Town Board authorized establishment of the Routes 9 and 254 Traffic Improvements Capital Project and establishment of the Routes 9 and 254 Traffic Improvements Capital Project Fund #137 to fund expenses associated with the Project, and WHEREAS, such Capital Project for the Routes 9 and 254 area congestion improvements, Town of Queensbury P.I.N. 1753.82 (the “Project”), is eligible for funding under Title 23 U.S. Code, as amended, that calls for the apportionment of the costs of such program to be borne at the ratio of 80% Federal funds and 20% non-federal funds, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 446.2004, the Queensbury Town Board reaffirmed and authorized its establishment of the Routes 9 and 254 Traffic Improvements Capital Project and authorized the Town Budget Officer to pay in the first instance 100% of the federal and non-federal share of the cost of preliminary engineering work for the Project or portions of the Project, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury wishes to again advance the Project by again making a commitment of 100% of the non-federal share of the costs of preliminary engineering, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby reaffirms and authorizes its establishment of the Routes 9 and 254 Traffic Improvements Capital Project #137, Town of Queensbury P.I.N. 1753.82 (the “Project”), and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to pay in the first instance 100% of the federal and non-federal share of the cost of preliminary engineering work for the Project or portions of the Project, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the sum of two-hundred twenty-four thousand dollars ($224,000) has already been appropriated from Fund #64 – Capital Reserve Fundand made available to cover the cost of participation in the above phase of the Project, and Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 782 BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the additional sum of thirty-four thousand dollars ($34,000) has already been appropriated from Fund #64 a- Capital Reserve Fund and made available to cover the additional cost of participation in the preliminary engineering phase of the Project, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that in the event that the full federal and non-federal share costs of the Project exceeds the amount appropriated above, the Queensbury Town Board shall convene as soon as possible to appropriate such excess amount immediately upon the notification by the New York State Department of Transportation, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED that the Queensbury Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Executive Director of Community Development to execute all necessary Agreements, certifications or reimbursement requests for Federal Aid and/or Marchiselli Aid on behalf of the Town of Queensbury with the New York State Department of Transportation in connection with the advancement or approval of the Project and providing for the administration of the Project and the Town’s first instance funding of Project costs and permanent funding of the local share of federal aid and state- aid eligible Project costs and all Project costs within appropriations therefore that are not so eligible, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Executive Director of Community Development to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the New York State Commissioner of Transportation by attaching it to any necessary agreement in connection with the Project, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Executive Director of Community Development to take all action necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution, and Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 783 BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall take effect immediately. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT : Mr. Strough RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR LEAD BASED PAINT RISK ASSESSMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH TOWN HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM RESOLUTION NO.: 197, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury currently uses Leadsafe Environmental for its lead based paint risk assessment services, and WHEREAS, the New York State Governor’s Office for Small Cities has recommended that the Town Board solicit proposals for the Town’s lead based paint risk assessment services, and WHEREAS, the Department of Community Development has requested Town Board authorization to prepare and distribute a Request for Proposals (RFP) to distribute to qualified businesses in the Queensbury area and Capital District areas, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the Community Development Department to prepare and distribute a Request for Proposals for lead based paint risk assessment services to qualified businesses in the Queensbury area and Capital District, such RFP to conform to New York State Government Finance Officers Association specifications and recommendations and to require that all businesses submitting proposals comply with all applicable regulations of the State of New York, and BE IT FURTHER, Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 784 RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Department of Community Development to require all qualified businesses to submit proposals by the end of April 2006 so that the Town Board may review the proposals and enter into an agreement for the required lead based paint risk assessment services. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: Mr. Strough DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE: COUNCILMAN SANFORD-How much did we pay for this last year? SUPERVISOR STEC-Stuart, you might want to give a little background on what we’re doing here too, I know that you were encouraged by the Governor’s Office for Small Cities to put this out to bid, this lead based paint risk assessment for our grants. MR. STUART BAKER, Senior Planner-That’s correct, I don’t know how much we paid last year. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I ask that, I wanted to know if this was material. MS. JENNIFER SWITZER, Budget Officer-I don’t think we paid more then two or three thousand dollars for this last year and the reason that we’re doing it is, I’m sure Stuart is going to explain is because the State has come in and said, you have to do this. MR. BAKER, Senior Planner-The Governor’s Office for Small Cities is one of the three funding sources we have with New York State for our Housing Rehab Program and they have requested that we go out to bid for this. MS. RYBA, Executive Director-And we really don’t know I think from year to year what’s its going to be because it addresses homes that are built before 1979 so until we have more information on who we’re rehabbing, we don’t particularly know. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-The only thing I would like to do is change it from the middle of April to the middle of May. I think by the time you get out and try to communicate to all qualified businesses and ask them to submit a proposal to the Town of Queensbury, it’s quite ambitious to try to accomplish that by the middle of April as the resolution reads. SUPERVISOR STEC-You’d like to amend your motion? COUNCILMAN SANFORD-To the middle of May, unless there’s a time constraint. MR. BAKER, Senior Planner-I actually think the middle of April is doable, there’s actually only three businesses in the region that are qualified to bid on this. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Alright, well work with me, let’s do it to the end of April. MR. BAKER, Senior Planner-That’s fine. SUPERVISOR STEC-Tim, are you fine with that amendment? COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yes. SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright as amended… (vote taken) Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 785 RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING SUPPORT FOR THE HUDSON RIVER AND CHAMPLAIN FEEDER CANAL INTERMUNICIPAL LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM RESOLUTION NO.: 198, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 337,2001 the Queensbury Town Board expressed support for an application by the Town of Moreau to the NYS Department of State Local Waterfront Revitalization Program and authorized a letter from the Town Supervisor expressing such support and a $10,000 cash and in-kind contribution from the Town, and WHEREAS, the purpose of the grant application is to develop a Local Waterfront Master Plan for the Hudson River including the Town of Moreau, Town of Fort Edward, Town of Queensbury, City of Glens Falls and Village of South Glens Falls, and WHEREAS, the Town of Moreau has been awarded the grant, and has finalized Contract No.: C006268 with the NYS Department of State, and WHEREAS, under the terms of such Contract, the Town of Moreau must document participation of these communities through commitments of cash, in-kind services and participation in the Local Waterfront Revitalization. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby reaffirms its support of the Hudson River and Champlain Feeder Canal Intermunicipal Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, and BE IT FURTHER, Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 786 RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes a combination of Six Thousand Dollars ($6,000.00) in matching funds and Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) in in-kind services not to exceed the total amount of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000), and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer’s Office to take all action necessary to transfer funds and amend the 2006 Town Budget as follows: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT 001-1990-4400 001-8030-4400 $ 6,000. (Contingency) (Community Reach Misc Con.) and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to sign any documentation and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of April, 2006 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES : None ABSENT: Mr. Strough BEFORE VOTE: MR. BAKER, Senior Planner-Essentially we’re finally getting to, out of the starting gate as it were on a project, an intermunicipal planning project that was first discussed in 2001. The project involves the towns of Moreau, Fort Edward, Queensbury, City of Glens Falls and the Village of South Glens Falls and the particular project is to do a waterfront revitalization plan along the shared sections of the Hudson River. The town along the way has committed staff resources and a ten thousand dollar cash and in-kind match, that match is six thousand dollars cash, four thousand dollars of staff time. The staffing in-kind services would primarily be through my participation on the coordinating committee for the project. (vote taken) RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW NO. __ OF 2006 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 155, “TAXATION” BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE III ENTITLED “EXEMPTION FOR VETERANS” RESOLUTION NO.: 199, 2006 Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 787 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHEREAS, Warren County Board of Supervisors recently unanimously adopted and enacted Local Law No. 2 of 2006 which provides for an increase in the cap or maximum exempt amount for Veteran’s tax exemptions under New York State Real Property Tax Law §458-a, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board also wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: __ of 2006 to amend the Queensbury Town Code Chapter 155, “Taxation” by adding a new Article III entitled "Exemption for Veterans” to provide for an increase in the cap or maximum exempt amount for Veteran’s tax exemptions under New York State Real Property Tax Law §458-a, and WHEREAS, the proposed Local Law No. ____ of 2006 proposes to establish the maximum Veterans exemption allowable from real property taxes as follows: 1.Qualifying residential real property would be exempt from taxation to the extent of fifteen percent (15%) of the assessed value of such property, provided, however, that such exemption not exceed the lesser of Twenty- Seven Thousand Dollars ($27,000) or the product of Twenty-Seven Thousand Dollars ($27,000) multiplied by the latest state equalization rate for the assessing unit; 2.A veteran who served in a combat theatre or combat zone of operations would be exempt from taxation to the extent of ten percent (10%) of the assessed value of such property; provided, however, that such exemption not exceed the lesser of Eighteen Thousand Dollars ($18,000) or the product of Eighteen Thousand Dollars ($18,000) multiplied by the latest state equalization rate for the assessing unit; and 3.Qualifying residential real property owned by a veteran who received a compensation rating from the United States Veterans Administration or Department of Defense because of a service connected disability would be exempt from taxation to the extent of the product of the assessed value of such property multiplied by fifty percent (50%) of the veteran’s disability rating, provided, however, that such exemption not exceed the lesser of Ninety Thousand Dollars ($90,000) or the product of Ninety Thousand Dollars ($90,000) multiplied by the latest state equalization rate for the Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 788 assessing unit and where a veteran died in service of a service connected disability, such person would be deemed to have been assigned a compensation rating of one hundred percent (100%); and WHEREAS, this legislation is authorized in accordance with New York State Real Property Tax Law §458-a and New York State Municipal Home Rule Law §10, 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 Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, th April 17, 2006 to hear all interested persons and take any necessary action provided by law concerning proposed Local Law No.: __ of 2006, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish and post a Notice of Public Hearing concerning proposed Local Law No. __ of 2006 in the manner provided by law. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: Mr. Strough RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING TOWN HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT’S REPLACEMENT OF COLLAPSED MANHOLE COVER LOCATED ON WEST GLENS FALLS VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC.’S PROPERTY AND CORRESPONDING AMENDMENT TO FIRE SERVICES AGREEMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 200, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 789 SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury and the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. (Fire Company) have entered into an Agreement for fire protection services, which Agreement sets forth a number of terms and conditions including a condition that the Fire Company will not purchase or enter into any binding contract to purchase any piece of apparatus, equipment, vehicles, real property, or make any improvements that would require the Fire Company to acquire a loan or mortgage or use money placed in a “vehicles fund” without prior approval of the Queensbury Town Board, and WHEREAS, a manhole cover located on the Fire Company’s property, specifically on the firehouse’s Luzerne Road driveway, has collapsed, and WHEREAS, this unexpected property damage will increase the cost of providing necessary fire protection services to the Town, and WHEREAS, the Fire Company received a quote from a contractor for repair costs and received a quote in the amount of $5,000, and WHEREAS, the Town Highway Department Superintendent has advised the Fire Company and Town Board that the Highway Department could make the needed repairs with the dollar value of in-kind services estimated not to exceed $500, where the Fire Company will pay the cost of the necessary materials which are estimated to be $624, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to set a public hearing concerning the Town Highway Department’s proposed replacement of the collapsed manhole cover on the Fire Company’s property and the corresponding increase in the Fire Company’s budget and amendment of its Fire Services Agreement, and WHEREAS, the Town Board feels that doing this will cost less to the Town’s taxpayers than the Fire Company paying $5,000 to correct this damage by contracting with a third party, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall conduct a public hearing concerning the estimated $500 increase in the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company, Inc.’s budget for the Town Highway Department to replace the collapsed manhole cover on the Fire Company’s Luzerne Road driveway, and the corresponding amendment to the Fire Company’s Agreement with the Town of Queensbury for fire protection services, on Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 790 th Monday, April 17, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish a Notice of Public Hearing in the Post-Star Newspaper once at least ten (10) days prior to the Public Hearing. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: Mr. Strough RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING TO FURTHER CONSIDER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF BAY MEADOWS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY OWNED BY THE MICHAEL’S GROUP, LLC RESOLUTION NO.: 201, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, by Resolution 337.2005 the Queensbury Town Board became Lead Agency and held a public hearing to consider the environmental impacts of the Bay Meadows Planned Unit Development, and WHEREAS, by Resolution 534.2005, the Town Board made a SEQRA negative declaration on the PUD amendment ant its associated housing project, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Planning Board is currently considering a site plan by The Michael’s Group, LLC at the Bay Meadows PUD, and WHEREAS, the Town Board believes new information relevant to the environmental impact of this project has been presented before the Planning Board as part of its current review, and th WHEREAS, at a March 27, 2006 Town Board Workshop Meeting, the Town Board discussed the possibility of scheduling a public hearing and the reopening of its Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 791 th original November 28, 2005 SEQRA findings for the Bay Meadows Planned Unit Development zone amendment, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall hold a public hearing on th Monday, April 17, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury to hear all interested parties concerning new information related to stormwater management, pre-development groundwater levels, floodplains and soils and the prior SEQRA approval, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby indicates its wish to re-open the SEQRA review of this Project and authorizes and directs the Town Clerk and/or Executive Director of Community Development to send a copy of the Long Environmental Assessment Form Part I and certified copy of this Resolution to any and all communities or agencies that it is necessary to give written notice to in accordance with New York State Town Law including, but not limited to, the Warren County Planning Board, notifying the involved agencies of this reconsideration, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk’s Office to provide 10 days notice of the public hearing by publishing the attached Notice of Public Hearing in the Town’s official newspaper and posting the Notice on the Town’s bulletin board, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Community Development Department to provide the Town Clerk’s Office with a list of all property owners located within 500' of the area to be rezoned so that the Town Clerk’s Office may send the Notice of Public Hearing to those property owners, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Clerk’s Office to send the Notice of Public Hearing to the Clerk of the Warren County Board of Supervisors, Warren County Planning Board and other communities or agencies that it is necessary to give written notice to. Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 792 rd Duly adopted this 3 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: Mr. Strough DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE: COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Dan, over the weekend we had a chain of emails, first one, I wasn’t happy with the resolution, I went to staff and reworked it and came up with a second one and then further revised on the third one. I understand you had some concerns with my last one. SUPERVISOR STEC-Correct. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I’ll concede the point. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Are you okay with the second one? SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes, absolutely. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Now do you have that one? SUPERVISOR STEC-I do. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Okay, let’s make sure it’s the same one. SUPERVISOR STEC-Absolutely. I was hopeful that we would get to this. (distributed copies of proposed resolution) COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Okay, I wanted to make sure that this referral on 265 was omitted because that’s not applicable nor is it, do we need to give the intention to be lead agent when we already are lead agent. SUPERVISOR STEC-Absolutely, I have no problem with that. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-So, alright, I’ll stay with this one then and then the only other question I have, I know Tim got to look at this and Roger did, you were busy, do you care before we vote to see these pictures? SUPERVISOR STEC-I saw them, I don’t have a problem with considering that new information. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I would just make a request, before we have this meeting I would like to have you give me a call or talk to me or show me what this new information is other then those pictures. I mean certainly so I can understand what we’re about to do. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-That would be fine, I’d be happy to explain to you how I see the SEQRA process unfolding and we can discuss it. COUNCILMAN BREWER-We can do it next Monday. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-That will be fine… (vote taken) Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 793 RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS – RD WARRANT OF APRIL 3, 2006 RESOLUTION NO.: 202, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve the audit of bills th presented as the Warrant with a run date of March 30, 2006 and a payment due date of th April 4, 2006, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Warrant with a thth run date of March 30, 2006 and payment due date of April 4, 2006 and totaling $1,494,811.99, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Budget Officer and/or Town Supervisor to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. rd Duly adopted this 3 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES : None ABSENT: Mr. Strough RESOLUTION ADJOURNING TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO.: 203, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Regular Town Board Meeting. Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-03-2006, Mtg #12 794 rd Duly adopted this 3 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Strough No further action taken. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK TOWN OF QUEENSBURY