2006-04-17 MTG14
1
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG. #14
APRIL 17, 2006 RES. 207-223
7:30 p.m. BOH 10
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS
SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC
COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR
COUNCILMAN RICHARD SANFORD
COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH
TOWN OFFICIALS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARILYN RYBA
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC
1.0RESOLUTION CALLING FOR QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH
RESOLUTION NO. 207.2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
RESOLVED,
that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves into the
Queensbury Board of Health.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2006 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brewer, Mr Stec
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mr. Strough
QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH
1.1JANE MADEY SEWER VARIANCE
NOTICE SHOWN
Supervisor Stec-For the purpose of the records while the agent is handing out
information, we set this two weeks ago and the variance is being sought is one foot from
the West property line in lieu of the required ten and fifty foot from the well and I
understand it is their own well in lieu of the required one hundred and the property
location is 354 Glen Lake Road. I will turn this over to Mr. Center who probably would
like to make an opening statement and then some questions from the Board and then we
will open the public hearing.
Councilman Sanford-Before you begin just a quick comment, I do not know how the
Town Board works but we have a standing rule, had a standing rule when I was on the
Planning Board that we did not receive information on the night of the meeting. The
reason for that is because we typically wanted a chance to review so we could prepare for
2
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
questions. Is there any compelling reason why this has been received at seven o’clock on
the night of the meeting?
Agent Mr. Tom Center-The information that I needed to get for this meeting does not
materially affect the variance we are requesting. In the past when asked at the hearing
prior to the public hearing to gather additional information as long as the information that
I brought to the meeting did not materially affect the variance that we were requesting
there had not been a problem with that, this just clarifies the information that you already
have in front of you.
Supervisor Stec-The answer to your question of course is that all variances are
discretionary by the Board we may or may not choose to act on it tonight but, the answer
to your question is we do not have a formal standing order, but we may or may not use
that as a reason to not consider it tonight.
Councilman Boor-You made that very clear last time Tom.
Agent Center-What, that I would try to get the information by the time?
Councilman Boor-No, that you wouldn’t be seeking any additional variance and so we
knew that, we knew that before. I think what we requested is additional information in
regards to locations whether systems had failed how far they were from property lines
and it may be in here, it may not. But that is what we asked for and I am not going to
pretend that I am listening to you while I am reading this information, I do not think it is
fair to you and I do not think it is, I mean it is just not fair.
Agent Center-Would you like me to table this application so you have time to review the
information?
Councilman Boor-I really would. That is just me, the Supervisor and
Supervisor Stec-It depends on now strongly that you feel that you can communicate,
thankfully this is only a quarter inch thick and it is not two inch thick. Roger is right
though, the questions that asked you to come back here answers with and maybe they are
in here and certainly I think if we say where is it and you direct us where, that is fine with
me but I am one of four tonight. But, the questions that we had asked you for is we
wanted to make sure that we knew where the system was in relation to other structures
and other infrastructures around it and is the system in fact failing and what is the
condition of the current system that we are talking about. If you think that you can, you
know how long these things usually take. If you think that you can do this in the norm
without reading this to us then fine, but if not?
Agent Center-I believe the information that is in here is very self explanatory answering
the questions, the only additional information on the drawing that is provided is the exact
location of the metal septic tank and the location of the seepage/cesspool the primary on
the north side of the building. To that and additional comment on the secondary system
that serves the basement.
Councilman Boor-Is it on somebody else’s property as?
Agent Center-Yes, it is Sir.
Councilman Boor-And whose property is that?
Agent Center-It is the property to the north which is a vacant parcel land now or formally
of Hayes. That information was taken off the towns website.
Supervisor Stec-It seems that we are stepping off and that is fine, what I will suggest is
that we do step off because one, we did advertise a public hearing tonight so I think we
should just open the public hearing tonight and then certainly as we move forward if you
put our concerns mostly or enough to rest where we are ready to take action to night
3
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
perhaps we will. So, with that I guess you started to answer some questions but I do not
know if you had something that you wanted to open with or not.
Agent Center-If you would like me I will just quickly read through the letters very short it
addresses mostly Mr. Boors questions as far as how this project relates to the variance
questions and the article within the chapter. I will just read the letter real quick. As you
are aware, we have been working with Jane Madey to design and replacement septic
system serving her residence at 354 Glen Lake Road. We have coordinated with work
with Mr. David Hatin, Queensbury Code Enforcement Officer. During the course of
developing these plans our primary goal was to design a subsurface sewage disposal
system which would function properly and would afford the most protection for Glen
Lake and the public given the constraints of the available land. However, we are unable
to conform with the New York State Department of Health and Town of Queensbury, On
–Site Sewage Disposal System Regulations which required ten (10) feet of separation
between the edge of the absorption system and require a hundred feet of separation
between the well and the absorption system. Therefore we are requesting the Town of
Queensbury Board of Health consider granting a variance from Chapter 136-9 (D) of the
Code of the Town of Queensbury and allow the installation of an absorption system
which will be constructed fifty feet from the applicants well and one foot from the west
property line. The Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal System Regulations
state that the Local Board of Health may vary or adopt the strict application of any of the
requirements of this Part I in the case whereby such strict application would result in
unnecessary hardship that would deprive the owner of the reasonable use of the land
involved. The code further states in 136-18 (A) that no variance in the strict application
of any provision of this Part One shall be granted by the local Board of Health unless it
shall find all of the following: 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions,
fully described in the findings of the local Board of Health, apply to such land and that
such circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of
this Part One would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of such land. Our Response
to #1: Currently, the applicants’ main sewage system consists of a three hundred gallon
metal septic tank discharging to a stone seepage/cesspool. Additionally, the basement
bathroom and washing machine discharges to a separate stone seepage/cesspool buried
either beneath the foundation or just to the east of the foundation. The applicant and her
maintenance person reported that during their summer time occupancy the septic tank has
to be pumped and it is during these times that a moist area was observed in the location of
the primary seepage/cesspool. Also, when the washing machine discharges to the second
seepage/cesspool, sewage backsup into the basement. The applicant has discontinued use
of the second system at this time. Admittedly, the system is not in complete failure but
the fact that the septic tank is undersized to the current standards and if the washing
machine is connected to the primary system the chances of failure may be increased. The
applicant believes that these conditions deprive her of reasonable use of her land.
Number 2: That the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose and
objectives of this Part one or to other adjoining properties, or otherwise conflict with the
purpose or objectives of any policy or plan of the Town. Our Response to #2 The
primary seepage/cesspool was located by the property maintenance person and its
location; as shown on the proposed drawings, is on the property to the north. The denial
of this variance would be materially detrimental to the purpose and objectives of the
Town of Queensbury Code – Chapter 136 subsection 136-4 which states The purpose of
this Part One is to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the community by
ensuring, through the location, construction and use of properly designed facilities, that
sewage and other wastes are disposed of in a manner that will not create a health hazard,
adversely affect the environment or impair the enjoyment or use of the property. The
granting of the variance will result in the replacement of non-confirming septic system
located on an adjacent property, with a new system, designed; to the greatest extent
possible, in accordance with current Department of Health requirements. Furthermore,
the new absorption system will be located further from the applicants well and we are
requiring that the applicant install ultra-violet treatment systems on her potable water
supply. Certainly, the granting of the variance, not the denial, will serve the public
health, safety and welfare. Number 3. That for the reasons, the granting of the variance
is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and, that the variance, as granted by the
local Board of Health is the minimum variance which would alleviate the specific
unnecessary hardship found by the local Board of Health to affect the applicant. Our
4
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Response to #3 The applicant feels that the proposed variance is necessary so that she
may be able to have reasonable use of her property. This reasonable use includes the use
of a washing machine and the ability to reside at the property for an extended period of
time without having to have her septic tank pumped out due to the lack of adequate
capacity of the sewage absorption system or the potential failure of the absorption
system. This variances the minimum required to alleviate this hardship. We are
requesting setback relief from the property line bordering Glen Lake Road and from the
applicants own well. The proposed system will increase: the size of the septic tank, the
separation from the absorption field to the applicant well, the separation from the
absorption system to the lake and will remove two non-compliant systems from
discharging less than the required one hundred feet from the lake. The Town of
Queensbury Code also states in Section 136-18 (B) that in granting any variance, the
local Board of Health shall prescribe and attaché any reasonable conditions that it deems
to be necessary or desirable. The applicant would agree; if desired by the Board of
Health to the condition that no bedroom expansion beyond the existing two bedrooms
would be permitted as a condition to granting the proposed variance. We believe that as
stated above, the proposed variance request meets the requirements as set forth in the
Town of Queensbury Code Chapter 136 – subsection 136-18. The proposed replacement
septic system design will be a significant improvement and will replace two existing non-
conforming systems with a new absorption system designed; to the greatest extent
possible, in accordance with New York State Department of Health standards. Also, the
installation of the ultra-violet treatment unit for the potable water system will provide
additional protection to health and safety of the applicant.
Supervisor Stec-Mr. Center, one of the things that actually, I did not catch it in the letter
but you did answer it in a question right before you read the letter that I think is
significant to me anyways is that, but I want to make sure it is clear, because there are
two systems. The system that you are describing as not working very well and not being
used right now that is the same system as you described, that is actually physically
located on the neighbors property or is the working system on ?
Agent Center-The primary system that is located on the neighbors property when they
had their tank pumped out it was observed that there was a moist area. What happens in
the summer time when these people when these folks reside there on a more permanent
basis in the summer that the system possibly has a failure based on the moist area. When
they are only there on weekends it has enough time to recharge itself, I do not personally
see a failure we did not get involved in this project until the winter time.
Supervisor Stec-Both that primary and secondary system will be defunct if we grant you
this variance.
Agent Center-If this variance is granted the primary system will have the metal tank will
be disconnected from the house and in-filled along with the system that is over the
property line will be dug up and in-filled and the secondary system that the basement
discharges to will be disconnected in the basement and on the drawing which I was going
to get to we will use flow-able cement through the basement pipes to fill that system.
That system when they put the retaining wall, there is some retaining walls behind the
house when they put those retaining walls in they did not find that system that goes to the
basement area. So, we are assuming that it is somewhere between the retaining wall and
the basement or even underneath the basement.
Supervisor Stec-What I wanted to make sure that I understood and I do, is that the
structure, there is a structure now currently located on the neighbors property so if we
grant you this variance we could certainly say that we are increasing the reasonable
usefulness of the neighbors property.
Councilman Brewer-Now, you will take that tank off the neighbors property?
Agent Center-The tank is on this property.
Councilman Boor-The other thing that is important here and I don’t want to be to
argumentative but who is the property maintenance man?
5
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Agent Center-Frank Beneact.
Councilman Boor-Wouldn’t that be appropriate for the engineer to witness this and not
have hear say testimony as to this might be on somebody else’s property? I mean you
are the engineer of record.
Agent Center-We did probe around the area we found the outlet pipe and then probed
around because the outlet pipe drove down deeper we probed around.
Councilman Boor-That is not my question, my question is I want the engineer to say to it
is on the other property. I do not want to not want some hear say ..person.
Agent Center-I am saying that he gave us the area and we used the probe and found what
we believe to be the stone we used a long metal rod that the septic folks use to locate
tanks.
Councilman Boor-This says here it is on the property the north and you are saying it
might be.
Agent Center-He knows that is the area where that system is, that is what he reported to
me that is the information,
Councilman Boor-I know but you are the engineer of record it is your license on the line
here.
Agent Center-I do not want to be responsible for digging up and failing a system and
having to come back here and says well we dug it up it is on the other folks property we
made the system fail. Unfortunately we cannot see underneath the ground we can go
with our best estimate and the best estimate is
Councilman Boor-I want yours I guess is my point I want your best estimate I do not
want some hear say maintenance mans testimony that is not here.
Agent Center-My best estimate is that system is located on the line.
Councilman Boor-So, you will attest to that. You will attest that, that system is on
somebody else’s property.
Agent Center-Based on the information that I have been provided and the probing that I
did in the field I would say that, that system is across the line.
Councilman Boor-You are saying that the system is on somebody else’s property for the
record is that correct.
Agent Center-I am saying that the information that was provided to me by the
maintenance person and the field test that I did with the probe located what we believe to
be the system over the line. There is very short space between the two areas.
Councilman Boor-That is fine.
Agent Center-Based on the information that was provided by the septic installer,
unfortunately I cannot be there when things fail. They have not resided here full time.
Councilman Boor-I thought you said you had witnessed moisture on the ground?
Agent Center-No, I said when they pumped the tank that is when they witnessed the
property maintenance person, septic pump hauler witnessed the moist area on the edge of
the bank. That is the location.
Councilman Boor-On the other property.
6
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Agent Center-On the other property. There is a very short distance between the side of
the house and the property line.
Councilman Boor-Ok.
Councilman Sanford-Quick question on my end. I was the one that was concerned about
additions to this property. There is a pattern that is taking place here, people come in and
get an improved septic system and then they do an expansion to their home and they
justify the reason why they could expand in a critically environmental areas because they
have a septic system that will now handle it. I see where you addressed it by stating that
they would not as a condition of approval add any more than the two existing bedrooms.
Can I go so far as to say that what that means is you will not add to the footprint of the
property or do any additional additions to the home?
Agent Center-I would say after talking with the owners if they want the right to put on a
porch lets say to increase the size of their sun room to put on a deck to add a dock to do
something on their property they would like to keep that right to do that type of
construction. They are willing and they fully understand and every one that we do a
septic variance for we are very clear on the definition of a bedroom and that the system
that we are installing is limited to that number of bedrooms and that any over use has a
potential for failure, and the system is not designed to that.
Councilman Sanford-I guess what I am getting at here is I certainly do not want this to be
a way in which someone comes and keeps two bedrooms and puts in a huge hot tub.
Agent Center-Hot tub, normally do not discharge into the septic system
Councilman Boor-Normally they don’t that is correct.
Agent Center-Hot tubs are not normally, they discharge on the ground; it is no different
than a pool. Granted it has
Councilman Sanford-Are they contemplating an addition to this home?
Agent Center-The only addition that they have contemplated is the possibility of
expanding that sun porch or modifying it in some way.
Councilman Boor-Is that a covered porch?
Agent Center-Is is a covered porch right now it is a three season type porch, they realize
Councilman Boor-It is an expansion.
Agent Center-Excuse me?
Councilman Boor-It is an expansion then.
Agent Center-It would be but it is not, that is why we are trying to be very specific that
they are not going to expand bedrooms and I believe that is the intent of the code. If we
are looking at no expansions that is a different forum.
Councilman Boor-We have the assessor here maybe she could comment on.
Councilman Sanford-I thought that was my question to you was if there is merely a
situation to improve a septic system given that the property is going to remain the same
then I might have a certain disposition to this application. But, if it was to in fact
facilitate an addition or an enlargement of the home than we are going down the same
route that we have done for so many years that we are trying to prevent and you playing it
in the middle of the road the way I hear you.
Agent Center-I am being very clear as far as they will not expand to add any additional
bedrooms.
7
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Councilman Boor-They are going to expand the footprint.
Agent Center-They said the only plans and there are no plans in the works right now the
only thought that they did have when I explained to them about the wording and what this
boards feelings were that the only thought that they had was possibly expanding their
three season porch.
Councilman Sanford-But they are not ruling out something other than that, but basically
the way, the condition of approval that you are agreeing to, is stated in such a way that is
they got that approval they could go in and do and enlarge that footprint in all different
ways.
Agent Center-I believe that it would have to meet floor area ratio there
Supervisor Stec-Let me try and facilitate what I am hearing here and what I think I am
hearing that you might be willing or you might be able to grant. If we conditioned
approval on no expansion of year round square footage so
Councilman Boor-Dan you cannot do that, because three season is easily converted to all
season.
Councilman Sanford-You begin to get into definitions.
Councilman Boor-It is just three season just means they don’t put heat in when they get
the permit that is all that means.
Supervisor Stec-That and it is on the record that it is the condition of their approval that
they violated their, they are in violation of their approval.
Councilman Sanford-They have to go before the use variance or zoning board to have
that approved. That is another form for when they come there.
Councilman Boor-You know this would be so comfortable if the problem Tom that is it
clear it is not a failed system, it is clear what the intent is here and you are doing a good
job and I mean that in all sincerity in getting the client what they want but it is very clear
why we are here. It is because they are going to expand their home.
Agent Center-They have no current plans, when we discussed this
Councilman Boor-We hear that all the time. They have no current plan but as soon as we
grant this, tomorrow they will submit their plan and you have told the truth. I applaud
you for that.
Agent Center-When we discussed this they have no current plans they realize that they
cannot add additional bedrooms to this system.
Councilman Boor-It is not bedrooms that we are talking about, it is footprint expansion
on a sub-marginal lot here. This is not
Agent Center-Where in the Chapter 136 that we are dealing with has does it discuss
square footage expansion.
Councilman Sanford-It doesn’t but where does it make a statement that we are under any
obligation to grant the variance.
Agent Center-I believe when we went through the three criteria what we are looking at.
Supervisor Stec-It is entirely discretionary.
Agent Center-There is discretion on the Board.
8
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Supervisor Stec-It is entirely discretionary.
Agent Center-We are agreeing to the clause of no bedroom expansion.
Councilman Boor-How are you going to deal with
Agent Center-If you would like the caveat that the Code Enforcement Officer can have
the authority to define what a bedroom is.
Councilman Boor-No. That is not what we are asking.
Councilman Sanford-That is not what we asked actually when the question was raised at
the last time.
Councilman Boor-And that is why I did not want to get into this.
Councilman Sanford-It was that is there any, would you accept a condition of approval
that there would be no additional construction on this site, that was the question and now
you have come back with saying well there is still going to be only two bedrooms.
Agent Center-These folks are looking at their property trying to decide if we agree to this
is there anything that we want to make different about it, and the only thing they came
back with and maybe we could agree that condition and define expansion, what they can
do to the property.
Supervisor Stec-Well, Mr. Center what I would prefer to do at this juncture is Open the
Public Hearing , take any comments that there are tonight and then have you come back
perhaps address it, discuss a little bit more with the Town Board and then we will see
where we are. As far as, we might need to ask you to go talk to your client again to see
what more they are willing to do. I am guessing but there is where I see this heading
right now. I am going to open the public hearing if there are any members of the public
that would like to comment on this public hearing just raise your hand I will call on you
one at a time please. Yes, you have to come to the microphone state your name and
address for the record these microphones not only amplify they also record for purpose of
the record.
Ms. Diane Hayes-I am Diane Hayes, I am the neighbor, I want to see that picture.
Supervisor Stec-Please have a seat and address your comments to the Board.
Agent Center-This is the property line right here, this is …this is the Madey’s house
Ms. Hayes-I own this piece right here.
Agent Center-Yes, and this is where based on the information that was provided …where
the system is located.
Ms. Hayes-Do you know how far down you went? My father filled in this
Supervisor Stec-If you could use the mic? We are recording this for purposes of the
record and direct your comments to the Board, please.
Ms. Hayes-Ok. I guess they think that the, is this a septic tank?
Agent Center-It is either a seepage pit or cesspool.
Ms. Hayes-That something is on my property.
Supervisor Stec-That is what he said, he believes.
Ms. Hayes-Did you speak with the previous owners?
9
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Agent Center-Of this property?
Ms. Hayes-Yes.
Agent Center-No This is based on Mr. Beneack who maintained the property I believe,
he has some position in selling to the Madey’s he was involved in that.
Supervisor Stec-If we are going to have a dialog you might want to sit next to Ms. Hayes.
Councilman Boor-Just for the record I know it is difficult because there is only one
microphone but when you exchange try to talk into the microphone so we have it for the
record.
Supervisor Stec-Yes, please.
Ms. Hayes-So, aside from where we think this one is show me on here where you want to
build the new one.
Agent Center-The new system would be a trench in here with Elgin units in front of the
house completely on their property within the set back required off of that property line
the septic tank would be within the required set back from the property line.
Ms. Hayes-Do you know, oh ten feet.
Agent Center-Yes. Ten feet.
Ms. Hayes-Does anybody know for this area how far from a septic a well has to be?
Agent Center-One hundred feet.
Councilman Boor-And it has to be a hundred and fifty feet from a seepage pit.
Ms. Hayes-Or a variance.
Supervisor Stec-Correct.
Councilman Boor-Or a variance.
Ms. Hayes-I do no think that the seepage pit or the septic is on my property. The
property has quite of an angle to it and my father actually had fill put in there when I was
a little girl and I know the people that owned that home way back then I am going to go
and call them up I really don’t think that’s over there.
Councilman Brewer-Can I suggest this can we investigate and find our exactly Tom,
where that system is?
Councilman Boor-Again, Tom, if we had been given this information ahead of time we
could have gone out to the site and investigated, this is why it is very troubling to receive
data like this on the night especially when you did not require what we asked of you to
do. Plain and simple, we were very clear that we did not want expansion of the foot print
we wanted the client to swear to that we want an exact location of the field and you are
relying on a maintenance man assertions when the very owner of the property that you
said it was on is saying no it is not. How do you really expect or she doesn’t know, the
point is you are not getting this Board adequate time to do the type of research that is
required on something this important. It is just not conscionable to receive this kind of
information in little bits and pieces and it is not what we asked for, quite frankly.
Agent Center-I did the best to our ability with the information that is provided. It is very
difficult to
Councilman Boor-You could suffer the consequences, if that is the best of your ability.
10
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Supervisor Stec-Maam do you have any other comments?
Ms. Hayes-According to where the picture is here.
Agent Center-That would be the new system would be located in this area.
Ms. Hayes-I do not see that I would have any problem with it being put over there, it
looks like it is going to be advantageous.
Supervisor Stec-Often times these things are improvements they do increase distances but
again if they do not increase them enough to where you do not need a variance they end
up here. So, often times your point is well made that it could be an improvement but it
still needs a variance. I think that is what Mr. Center is trying to say although we
obviously still have a couple of other concerns. I am just trying to make you feel a little
bit better about your personal situation because you are the neighbor to the north and you
are reading that map correctly that this would certainly move it farther away from your
property whether it is on or off your property now we do not know for certain.
Councilman Brewer-I have got to tell you I was there today and any length of pipe I
cannot image that there is more than eight or ten feet between the house and the end of
their property because you can see it is raised.
Agent Center-What we are saying is this location is actually
Councilman Brewer-So, I do not know how it could not be on somebody else’s property.
Agent Center- somewhere on the edge of that slant where it comes down which would
very much make it, if it is any sizable thing of stone that is in there at least possibly the
edge if not the center, I do not know the size the diameter of the stone that is there.
Councilman Boor-Well, if this is in fact the owner of the property I would suggest that
you ask her permission now to test, ask her if you can dig on her property and locate that.
Agent Center-And if in the process of digging this up I fail the system because digging, is
this board whether it is on the line, over the line or just on the line
Councilman Boor-And you are suggesting it is not failing now.
Agent Center-No, no, what I am saying is in order to locate this we have to have a
backhoe, backhoe digs very blindly without knowing exactly where the system is. If we
dig this stone or cave a part of this in how do I repair that?
Councilman Sanford-Well, here is the point, according to our Code you have to have a
failed system to really be in front of us and if you are afraid of causing the system to fail
then some thing does not calculate in my mind it is either a failed system and then we can
now hear your request or if it is not failed system when the Code basically says shouldn’t
really be requesting the variance.
Agent Center-We have said during high flow times when these people reside in this
house full time when the septic tank was needed to be pumped out that there was a moist
area observed in this area that coincided with where the property maintenance person
believes the system is. Now, when someone resides at the house there is an influx of
flow, if that flow is greater than the absorption area that is provided the system will fail.
Now, when the people are not there the earth just doesn’t stop absorbing the ground the
earth continues to absorb whatever water is provided, it recharges itself. That can be
very, it is just a volume vs amount of infiltration. That is based on the statements that
were provided to us is what we belief the problem is in this area. So, these folks have
discontinued using their washing machine because they do not want to send it into the
second system which during normal uses without the washing machine connected to it
has had the septic tank was full they needed to pump out the septic tank and they observe
the moist area in the area where they believe the system is located, which is along side
the edge of the hill. So, even if this system is close to that edge of the hill, that it
11
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
provides a natural water takes the path of least resistance and it goes out. Also, the
system behind the house if failed, it does back up when the washing machines discharges
into the system which is in the basement where the washing machine is that sewage backs
up into the basement. So, we do know the second system has failed. They have not
currently using it the exact location has to be deeper than the foundation which is eight
feet below grade so the system itself is quite deep. When the retaining wall closest to the
house was put in that system was not located, it stilled worked.
Councilman Sanford-To get to the point here I would feel comfortable entertaining one of
two options. One is that this be tabled until you can go back to your client and see if you
can come back here with a firm commitment that they will not be doing any kind of
expansion construction on this site. In which case that would be a favorable thing for me
to consider this application. Two, we concluded now and if you get somebody who puts
it up as a motion and gets a second we can vote on it. But the choice I think would be
yours whether you would like to have it tabled to go back and talk to your client about the
commitment that was expressed last time which was not just the bedrooms but no
construction or change or expansion or change to the building or we could see if it flies
now.
Agent Center-Does that expansion include a porch, does it include dormer does it include
a deck. Please give me your definition of expansion so that I can take that back to the
client.
Supervisor Stec-I will take a stab at it here, from what I am hearing the deck, the outside
the external portion that you are talking about I think it would be agreeable for the Town
Board or the Board of Health, I think the point that the Board is trying to make or at least
the controlling interests of the Board is that they are dead set against living area
expansion.
Councilman Sanford-That is a fair point.
Councilman Boor-That is a very fair point and that would go to a three season porch
because once it is there the Town has no authority to come in an see if heat has been put
in retro-actively. You cannot enclose a porch in other words to the point where the Town
does not have the ability to know if it has been turned into in fact a living area year
round. If you want to put in an uncovered deck out there for the enjoyment of really
three seasons I think this Board could go with it.
Agent Center-How does an expansion of a three season porch affect the septic system?
I am just asking the question.
Councilman Boor-I am not going to answer it.
Councilman Sanford-It may not be an issue, maybe your client will feel very comfortable
with this. You do not know until you ask.
Supervisor Stec-In the mean time I would like to continue the Public Hearing, Ms. Hayes,
Sorry, do you have anything else that you would like to add or ask any questions?
Ms. Hayes-(requested a copy of the maps)
Supervisor Stec-Is there anyone else that would like to comment on this public hearing at
this time? Mr. Salvador?
Ms. Hayes-Thank you very much.
Supervisor Stec-You are very welcome, thank you Ms. Hayes.
Mr. John Salvador-Good evening, my name is John Salvador. Given the present state of
affairs, I would suggest that this facility put on a holding tank immediately. They have a
proposal to install a concrete one thousand gallon holding, septic tank. This can be
installed now where they want to install it for their present system. They should go on a
12
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
holding tank until these problems are all sorted out. Be careful of the two bedroom
definition our code does not adequately define a bedroom. We have a situation up on
Assembly Point right now that is being proposed as a three bedroom dwelling with a
library and an office. You know a library on the second floor of a dwelling, that has a
closet and the office has its own private bathroom it stinks. This is what you are going to
get yourself into not only that another board is going to be looking at this and they have
to alert to the fact that there is a condition on this approval. I have heard tonight Mr.
Center state the public health code and then refer to the Town Code and all that sort of
thing. This Board has no authority to grant variances to the public health code. If you
think you have to vary from part, appendix 75 A you seek a waiver from the New York
State Health Department. They do allow in certain circumstances the use of a holding
tank, here you have a perfect case, you have a failure, ok, should be done immediately. If
you properly sort out how they can use this site for some kind of a septic system with
variances the tank can be used, it is not going to be wasted. So, that would be my
suggestion. The other thing is we talk about reasonable use of the property. The Town
Code has a lot of uses in residential districts and there has got to be twenty or thirty uses
here. None of them say seasonal use, they are all considered to be year round, use but the
closest is the hunting and fishing cabin of either less than or more than five hundred
square feet. That is exactly what this property is probably intended to be used for a
seasonal use dwelling for recreation not residential, that is where we have our problems.
So, I think the holding tank would solve the problem in the interim and then sort out the
basis for the final thing.
Supervisor Stec- Thank you Mr. Salvador. Is there anyone else that would like to
comment on this public hearing at this time? Ok. Mr. Center? Anymore Town Board
comment amongst ourselves for Mr. Center before we decide where we are going from
here? The holding tank is an option. I certainly do not doubt that this is will be an
improvement, we run into this all the time that we have a problem with the system or we
have a problem with the property there are not many properties that are zoned water front
residential that are conforming lots any more they were all pre-existing non-conforming
and then we created zoning and rightly so and did the best job we could and we crammed
them into a zoning classification and I am going to take a stab at ninety percent of the
waterfront residential properties in the Town of Queensbury are not big enough to
conform to our setbacks. So, that is why we are always here, what do we try to do? We
try to do the best job we can to reasonably determine what is an improvement not only
for the property owner but hopefully for the neighbors and certainly not a detriment to the
neighbors within reason. But, as has been pointed out before we have wrestled with the
whole, I won’t even say it is a bate and switch because I think everyone goes in there
with, I will give everyone the benefit of the doubt that they come here and they say this is
what we want to do and properties change hands people die, people sell, people change
their minds, people forget and five years later the new owner or different owner, or
somebody that doesn’t remember what was said here comes back and they go somewhere
and maybe the record doesn’t get caught and you get an expansion on the house and the
lead argument, not an argument that mandates approval but a strong argument that hey
the septic is in good shape and we are trying to avoid those scenarios because admittedly
and there is going to be a certain percentage hopefully a small one where that becomes
the way of doing business, where we are going to fix the septic now so that is not an issue
and then it is going to become a bigger structure which translates to a lot of other
problems. So, that is the Board’s concern. This is my seventh year here, we have
wrestled with it and we have tried to, there isn’t a one size fits all answer and so that is
why we spend a good deal of time on something that, I think everyone could look at your
plan and say the proposal is better than the existing system. I do not think anyone is
going to argue with that, I hope not. But, we are tying to look at precedent we are trying
to be consistent with what we have done in the past so that we do not send the wrong
message or we do not make a mistake that damages the futures owner or the current
owner or a neighbor. One of the things that we have been trying to strive for in the last
few years has been to limit the expansion and what we do not have is we do not have that
ready made, this is the definition this is what, we know what we want but putting it in
writing sometimes is a elusive. To put it on something that everyone understands, I think
what we are all saying and I think what even you are saying that there is no intention here
to add people space, heated, four season people space. But, what do what is the
definition of the three season room vs I do not think anyones got a problem with a deck a
13
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
porch the outside kind of hey, no one is going to sleep here in January kind of places, but
a den, a bedroom can become a den and den a bedroom in a heart beat and I know that
there are definitions in our code that talk about this is what a bedroom is but I think to get
to the point what the Board is asking you to talk to your client about is coming up on the
offer of saying no more bedrooms to something a little bit beyond that, that comes more
closely to clearly defining no more heated increased enclosed heated
Councilman Boor-Capable of heating.
Supervisor Stec-enclosed weather proof, no more square footage in the people area.
Maybe your client is going to say hey, if its making a bigger sunroom or getting the
septic fixed I will get the septic fixed in which case we have a deal, and everyone is
mostly happy. But, I am thinking that is what I am hearing the Board say right now. I
don’t doubt that, it is obvious that this is an improvement to what is there now, but that
doesn’t always necessarily mean that it goes far enough or it is good enough. It is
certainly going to be healthier for this property and the neighboring properties. You have
got some tight spaces up there and you have got other problems.
Councilman Brewer-You have got to suggest to him that he has got to back and talk to
his client and also locate that system and make sure it is on somebody elses property
Tom, the best you can.
Agent Center-That is what we tried to do prior to coming here. Other than taking a
backhoe into that area and digging up with the potential, we do not know if we are off a
couple of feet we dig straight into this thing how do I repair the system that is there? If I
come back and you say, no good.
Councilman Boor-I guess Tom, we don’t
Agent Center-That’s where I am coming from as an engineer I buy that, if they are under
direction whoever is working the backhoe if they are under my direction I say hey, dig
here they are going to say but, I dug where he told me to dig and we either cut a pipe we
hit the system itself, how do I repair that?
Councilman Sanford-Well, what you can do is you can dig it up with a shovel not with a
backhoe.
Councilman Boor-Especially if it is the type of system that you are referring to.
Agent Center-I request that this be tabled and I will go back and talk to the applicant
about the definition of expansion what they are looking to do. As I understand it your
definition of expansion that you are looking for no greater expansion of the foot print of
the house.
Councilman Boor-Nothing enclosed. No expansion of enclosed area.
Supervisor Stec-People living space, because you can go up in the same foot print.
Councilman Boor-Exactly. No additional enclosed space.
Supervisor Stec-Other than a screened in porch.
Councilman Boor-Not with windows though.
Supervisor Stec-Screened only, right.
Agent Center-A screened in porch?
Councilman Boor-They are going to get, we are going to get storm windows, Dan.
Supervisor Stec-I think you have an idea of what we are saying here Tom.
14
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
A porch yes, a three season sun room.
Councilman Boor-No roof.
Agent Center-I just want to make it clear because I know when these folks come back if
they ever do decide to do that they have to come back for approval and I want to make it
clear
Councilman Boor-No they won’t be able to get approval.
Agent Center-What I am saying is if this gets approved with the caveat of no expansion, I
would like to have for them the definition of expansion defined so that they know where
their boundaries are and that someone else on the other side of the table reviewing it has a
very clear understanding of where the boundaries are.
Councilman Boor-I can tell you right now if you would like to go back in with a very
explicit recommendation I can tell you right now. It will not have, no expansion will
have a roof, or enclosed walls.
Supervisor Stec-I think you have an idea of what we are talking about here, Tom.
Councilman Boor-Certainly a deck may require a variance also, but that would be taken
up at another board.
Agent Center-Would that condition be included in a deck.
Supervisor Stec-No.
Councilman Boor-No, we can’t grant, we are not granting you a variance for a deck.
Agent Center-I understand that, but they have to come back
Councilman Brewer-I would feel better if we or you guys if that is what you want to say I
would feel better if you put that in some sort of a resolution because I don’t know if I
necessarily agree with that.
Councilman Boor-We will, because he cannot give us the answer anyway. It will be in a
resolution but I don’t want him to keep coming back and giving us material on the night
of the next meeting and then we are supposed to review it the way we are supposed to
review it on the fly, that is just not fair for the client.
st
Agent Center-I have a conflict with the next meeting of the 1, so there is plenty of time
to get information to you prior to .
Supervisor Stec-I will leave the public hearing open but you are telling me right now
st
May 1
st
Agent Center- I have a conflict with May 1.
stthth
Supervisor Stec-So, it will not be May 1 it will be May 15 at the earliest? May 15 is
what we are shooting for, that should give everyone plenty of time, I will leave the public
hearing open and we will take no action.
Councilman Brewer-Roger, you prefer to have your information a week ahead of time.
Councilman Boor-Yea. Certainly not the night of the meeting.
Councilman Brewer-Just so everybody understands that is all.
Councilman Boor-I would like to see the site too, you know.
Supervisor Stec-Any questions? For us Mr. Center?
15
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Agent Center-Not on this.
Supervisor Stec-All right thank you very much.
Agent Center-While we are in the Board of Health I just have one question in regards to a
resolution that was set last week, 7.12, just for my information that was the one that
rescinded the authority to do test pits out of season.
Supervisor Stec-We passed a resolution that rescinded several from 1991.
Agent Center-The one question that I have is what State Law was the Board referring to
that they were going to come in compliance to?
Councilman Boor-That was the high water determinant the seasonal high water
determination must occur between I believe March and June.
Agent Center-In what publication was that in?
Councilman Boor-Here again if you had given me an opportunity to have that
information I could have given it to you, Tom but on the fly I do not have it in front of
me.
Agent Center-Would it be possible for that information to be forwarded to us?
Councilman Boor-It is in State Law, yes.
Agent Center-Ok. Thank you.
Supervisor Stec-Thank you Mr. Center
RESOLUTION ADJOURNING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH
RESOLUTION NO. 10.2006 BOH
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
RESOLVED
, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns its meeting and
moves back into Regular Session.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2006 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mr. Strough
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
2.0PUBLIC HEARINGS
2.1Proposed Local law To Amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 155,
“Taxation” By Adding a new Article III entitled “Exemption For
Veterans”
Notice Shown
16
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Published on 04-07-2006
Supervisor Stec-The Town Board discussed this in a workshop a few meetings ago and
we set the public hearing at our last one. Warren County just passed essentially an
identical local law and what this is proposed doing increasing the veterans exemption on
the amount of property tax assessment for combat theatre qualified veterans. Currently
the old law had it at eighty thousand and there was a percentage of that 10% of that
eighty thousand or fifteen percent of that eighty thousand and of course anyone knows
the reval on the town property values throughout the County eighty thousand dollars
twenty years ago may have been the lion share of most homes. Today with the median
value of homes in Queensbury at just about two hundred thousand dollars the County
passed a local law that increases that percentage, that ten to fifteen percentage off of the
eighty thousand and increased the eighty thousand to a hundred and eighty thousand
dollars. Most of the towns on Warren County are passing similar legislation and the
Town of Queensbury is conducting a public hearing on that tonight for the same limit the
hundred and eighty thousand dollar limit. Right now and for the past five years it is a
mute issue because the Town does not have a general Town tax, this only impacts the
general town tax. The County affected the County tax which is about four and a half
dollars a thousand. The Town of Queensbury has no general tax so right now there is a
zero dollar impact to passing this however when we did have a town tax the last time we
had one six years ago now, was eighteen cents a thousand. Our Assessor crunched the
numbers to give us a hypothetical just so people know what we are talking about. If the
Town had, if and it is a big if and hopefully in the distance future, but if the Town did
reinstate a property tax and it had a one dollar property tax the total impact on the general
fund per year is about eighty five hundred dollars, so less than nine thousand dollars a
year impact to grant more than a thousand veterans minimal relief off of their tax, their
property taxes. So, again this is not a new law this is an existing law the proposal here
before us tonight is to increase the cap from eighty thousand dollars of assessed value to a
hundred and eighty thousand dollars and again it passed at the County Board
unanimously a few weeks ago. So, that is the explanation, I will open the pubic hearing
if there are any members of the public that would like to comment or ask any questions
we will hear you and we will just ask you to raise your hand and I will call on people and
take your comment. Mr. Auer?
Mr. Doug Auer-Doug Auer-16 Oakwood Drive-I do not have any idea in the world that
anybody on the Board would be able to answer this question perhaps Helen can if you
don’t, but what would this do to a person who is a widow of a veteran does that only
apply to a living veteran not a spouse?
Supervisor Stec-I am not sure, on that question and when you are finished I will ask
Helen to answer that question that is a good question.
Mr. Auer-Very well, thank you.
Supervisor Stec-Anybody else, any other questions or comments? Helen would you like
to address that one, I appreciate you coming this evening Helen. I know that is applies
but I do not know what happens if the veterans dies and the widow is still there.
Town Assessor Helen Otte-The un-remarried widow of a veteran is eligible to receive the
veterans exemption in the same amount that her husband received it when he was living.
Supervisor Stec-Do you have anything else to add since we have got you at, I tried to
think of everything off the top of my head that I could.
Assessor Otte-I think you said it all, I think you said it.
Councilman Sanford-I have a follow up question along the same lines, is that under the
presumption that the person was receiving the exemption then died, the widow would
continue it if there was a widow who was married to a veteran would she be eligible in
her own name? Do you understand the question?
Assessor Otte-No, right about mid point of it I thought it diverged.
17
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Councilman Sanford-We have a situation where there is a veteran and he is receiving a
reduce amount because of his status and then he dies it is clear that the widow would
continue to receive it as long as she did not remarry. Another situation would be a
veteran passes away and then this law is enacted would the widow be eligible at this
particular point in time even given the fact that the veteran is now deceased?
Assessor Otte-Retroactively is that what you are?
Supervisor Stec-I think I understand the question let me ask it this way Helen, if right
now you have to have registered in your office or the clerks office to be eligible. That is
one of the points of information that I wanted to get out you will not need to re-register if
we just change this cap. But, I think the question was that if a woman is, if one spouse is
married, because there are female veterans, that is very important to point out, but if the
veteran if they have not applied and the veterans passes away can the widow apply?
I am going to guess no. If they are not currently, if they have not registered yet, they
have not applied for this exemption and the veteran dies tomorrow a month from now the
widow comes in and she says if my spouse was still available or still alive I would have
been eligible can the widow be eligible.
Assessor Otte- I believe the answer to that question is yes. She would be able to apply.
Councilman Brewer-Because the widow would be eligible.
Assessor Otte-Yes, she is the widow of the veteran.
Supervisor Stec-I think that was your question.
Councilman Sanford-It was, I am sorry I asked it.
Supervisor Stec-Do you have anything else to add though Helen?
Assessor Otte-No.
Supervisor Stec-Thank you Helen. Mr. Rahill.
Mr. Bernard Rahill-Bernard Rahill-Wincrest Drive, Queensbury I am just interested in
clarification, what does the hundred and eighty thousand dollars represent? Because I am
not the only person who is in the dark..
Supervisor Stec-I apologize, I will try, right now as it stands the first eighty thousand
dollars of somebody’s assessed value qualifies for an exemption. So, if you house is
worth five hundred and eighty thousand the first eighty thousand is eligible for this
reduction. If you are a combat theatre qualified veteran you can get ten percent off that
eighty thousand so you could get eight thousand dollars off of your assessed value, if you
are in a combat zone then you are also qualified for an additional fifteen percent so you
would get twenty five percent off that eighty thousand or twenty thousand dollars off.
What we are proposing doing is to raise that cap that base number that numerator from
eighty to a hundred and eighty thousand so that the first hundred and eighty thousand
would be eligible for the two percentage reduction of your assessed value. So, it isn’t a
percent amount it is a percent off of a certain cap assessed value. Helen did actually, I
asked the question I wanted to know are there many people that have assessed values that
are astronomical that are currently qualified and there are over a thousand in the Town of
Queensbury that are currently eligible for these exemption. We did not see one, we
scanned all of them fairly quickly but we did not see any that were over two hundred
thousand. So, the good news, bad news for the veteran is that they don’t generally have
you know mansions, but the good news is, is that this proposed increase in the cap is
large enough
Councilman Boor-In Warren County.
18
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Supervisor Stec-in Warren County is large enough to cover the majority of or in most
cases, if you house is only assessed at a hundred and fifty thousand dollars then it is a
percentage of that hundred and fifty. So, the hundred and eighty that we are talking about
is a maximum cap that you would apply percentage. The easiest way to get your arms
around it is it a big deal, is for every dollar of town tax it is eighty five hundred dollars
impact to the general fund. So, when we had a town tax it was twenty cents per thousand
so you are looking at less than two thousand dollars to the general fund. So, it is not a lot
of money even sum told but I am not sure I am explaining it, you almost need a flow
chart to understand.
Mr. Rahill-At the same time you do know that you are talking about County Taxes aren’t
you.
Councilman Boor-Yes, and that is important to point out because there isn’t a Town of
Queensbury
Mr. Rahill-With regard to that so therefore they are doing us a favor.
Supervisor Stec-The County has already acted this is law at the County already.
Councilman Boor-This would only take place if at some point in the future we re-upped
the town tax, this has no affect on, we do not have a town tax.
Supervisor Stec-What we are talking about tonight is just for the town tax, the County tax
the County already passed back in March.
Mr. Rahill-They have already doubled their budget haven’t they at the County level, as a
matter of fact I saw Christine Margiotta in an article in the Post Star had fourteen million
dollars set aside for a County center.
Councilman Sanford-No, that is a debt level that is anticipated to raise and perhaps
double not the budget. But, going back to your question on this, Bernie, and it is pretty
confusing, but if we could ask Helen to come back up she probably remembers the
numbers because at a workshop we asked her. What would be the magnitude if we had a
Town Tax I believe at our old rate she gave us a number and it was a rather modest
amount. So, you talk in terms of a hundred and eighty thousand and all these ceilings
and what have you, you might get the impression that this is quite a significant and
material impact to what the town would collect when in reality it is a rather minor
amount.
Councilman Brewer-It does not matter really because we have no town tax so there is no
financial impact to the Town.
Councilman Sanford-If we did reinstate it, it still is
Supervisor Stec-If it was a one dollar tax ..
Councilman Brewer-But we don’t so it does not matter.
Councilman Boor-We are passing it because it is in the future it happens.
Supervisor Stec-If it was a one dollar tax the most that a veteran would benefit on a one
dollar tax rate in Queensbury would be twenty dollars a year. When you add all of them
together they added all up to less than eighty five hundred dollars. You took all the
thousand plus property, it is under ten thousand dollar total, it is right around eighty five
hundred. So, the cumulative impact on if we had a dollar at thousand would be very,
very small, the last time we had a dollar a thousand was more than ten years ago.
Mr. Rahill-Well, right now I am really not concerned about the taxes, I am concerned
about raising the debt limit by two. I think that is a serious matter. All right, Thank you
very much.
19
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Supervisor Stec-Thank you, Mr. Rahill. Anybody else on this public hearing? Ok. I will
close the public hearing any town board discussion? (None)
RESOLUTION ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO. 4 OF 2006 TO AMEND
QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 155, “TAXATION” BY
ADDING A NEW ARTICLE III ENTITLED “EXEMPTION FOR
VETERANS”
RESOLUTION NO. 208, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
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.: 4 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. 4 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
20
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
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
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
th
WHEREAS, the Town Board duly held a public hearing on Monday, April 17,
2006 and heard all interested persons, and
WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Local Law has been presented at this meeting
and is in form approved by Town Counsel,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby enacts Local Law No.: 4 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 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.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
21
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
ABSENT: Mr. Strough
LOCAL LAW NO.: 4 OF 2006
A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE
CHAPTER 155 “TAXATION” BY ADDING NEW ARTICLE III
ENTITLED “EXEMPTION FOR VETERANS”
BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
The purpose of this law is to provide for an increase in the cap or
maximum exempt amount for Veterans tax exemptions allowable in accordance with
New York State Real Property Tax Law §458-a.
Section 2.
In accordance with New York State Real Property Tax Law §258-
a, subdivision 2(d), the maximum Veterans exemption allowable from real property taxes
is established as follows:
A.Qualifying residential real property shall be exempt from taxation to the
extent of fifteen percent (15%) of the assessed value of such property;
provided however that such exemption shall 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.
B.In addition to the exemption provided by paragraph (a) of this subdivision,
where the veteran served in a combat theatre or combat zone of
operations, as documented by the award of a United States campaign
ribbon or service medal, or the armed forces expeditionary medal, navy
expeditionary medal, marine corps expeditionary medal, or global war on
terrorism expeditionary medal, qualifying residential real property also
shall be exempt from taxation to the extent of ten percent (10%) of the
assessed value of such property; provided, however, that such exemption
shall 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.
22
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
C.In addition to the exemptions provided by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
subdivision, where the veteran received a compensation rating from the
United States Veterans Administration or the United States Department of
Defense because of a service connected disability, qualifying residential
real property shall 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
shall 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 assessing unit. For purposes of this
paragraph, where a person has served in the active military, naval or air
service during a period of war died in service of a service connected
disability, such person shall be deemed to have been assigned a
compensation rating of one hundred percent (100%).
Section 3. Severability -
The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph or
provision of this Local Law shall not invalidate any other clause, sentence, paragraph or
part thereof.
Section 4. Repealer -
All Local Laws or ordinances or parts of Local Laws or
ordinances in conflict with any part of this Local law are hereby repealed.
Section 5. Effective Date -
This Local Law shall take effect upon filing in the
office of the New York State Secretary of State or as otherwise provided by law.
Supervisor Stec-Veterans if you are already getting the veterans exemption you do not
need to worry about running out and resigning up for it. If you are a veteran and you
have not heard about veterans exemptions you might want to visit the Assessor’s Office.
2.2 Public Hearing-Highway Department replacement of collapsed Manhole
Cover located on West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Co. Property and corresponding
Amendment To Fire Services Agreement
Notice shown
Published on 04-07-2005
Supervisor Stec-This comes to us the Chief of West Glens Falls Fire, Chief Mike Gordon,
contacted me a few weeks ago and he pointed out that the driveway entrance and they are a
private non profits, the town enters into contract with each fire company and we have a
contract with all of them including West Glens Falls. They have a collapsed manhole in
their driveway that needs repair. They went out an got private bids and they found that the
private bids were coming in at around five thousand dollars. They know that the town has
highway equipment capable, and people certainly capable of doing this job for them and
23
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
often times we can do it for a lot less. They asked if we would be willing, Rick Missita
looked it over and they decided that they could and I think that the materials the fire
company is still going to pay for the materials and the materials are estimated to be six
hundred and twenty four dollars and then the Highway Departments time which this would
be an increase that we would cover, would include, not exceed five hundred dollars. We
just can’t do this because they are not part of town government they are a non profit that we
enter into contract for and so we can consider modifying their contract to provide this an
additional consideration for the fire service that they provide. Why would we do that, well
because where does all the fire companies funding come from mostly from taxpayers. If we
can save the fire company four thousand dollars by entering into this contract and doing the
work for them then we have saved the taxpayers four thousand dollars. At least that is
where I think the Town Board is looking at this. But, be this as it may, it is still technically a
change to their contact and an increase in their contract which requires us to have this public
hearing before we can do the work. So, again, it will be a five hundred dollar monetary
increase that the Town will reimburse the Highway Department in their name to cover the
labor and then they will buy the necessary materials. So, instead of five thousand dollars it
is going to cost a little over a eleven hundred dollars. So, it saves almost four thousand
dollars. So, that is the explanation of this public hearing if there are any members of the
public that would like to comment or ask any questions please raise you hand and we will
call on anybody that wants to comment. (No one commented) Any Town Board
discussion? (none) Any other members of the public that would like to ask to comment?
Again I think it is a good deal but again we cannot do this without conducting a public
hearing. Closed the Public Hearing.
RESOLUTION APPROVING TOWN HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT’S
REPLACEMENT OF COLLAPSED MANHOLE COVER LOCATED
ON WEST GLENS FALLS VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY’S
PROPERTY AND CORRESPONDING AMENDMENT TO FIRE
SERVICES AGREEMENT
RESOLUTION NO.: 209, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
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
24
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
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
th
WHEREAS, on Monday, April 17, 2006, the Town Board held a public hearing
concerning this matter and the corresponding amendment to the Fire Company’s Fire
Protection Agreement, and the Town Board heard all interested persons, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has determined that it is necessary and in the public
interest to act on such proposal to facilitate continued provision of necessary fire protection
services to the Town,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves 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 for the year 2006 by an
additional $500 and correspondingly authorizes an amendment to the Fire Company’s
Agreement with the Town, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town
Supervisor to sign any necessary documentation, including an amended Agreement between
the Town and the Fire Company in form approved by Town Counsel, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the
Town Budget Officer to take all action necessary to transfer $500 from the Town’s fire
services budget to reimburse the Town Highway Department so that Town Highway funds
are not being used for this purpose and amend the 2006 Town Budget as necessary, and
BE IT FURTHER,
25
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town
Supervisor and/or Budget Officer to take any action necessary to effectuate all terms of this
Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2006 by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
NOES : None
ABSENT: Mr. Strough
2.3 Public Hearing – Agreement between Town of Queensbury Emergency
Medical Squads & Empire Ambulance Service And Coinciding 2006 Contract
Amendment With Town of Queensbury
Notice Shown
Published on 04-07-2005
Supervisor Stec-The Town and I spent some time on this at our last meeting talking about
the success of the bill for service situation however and the paid component has greatly
reduced the number I do not have the statistics handy, but I should probably get them. But,
has reduced the number of intercept calls that are out there. What is an intercept, an
intercept is when there is an EMS call and one of the three volunteer rescue squads cannot
cover it for whatever reason, they are on another call or they don’t have the coverage
because of volunteer status of whatever and Empire ends up making the call, that is called
an intercept. Empire certainly charges for service and what the Town has sought and
encouraged the three rescue squads to work out an arrangement between them and Empire
which they have and that is when Empire picks up an intercept call from one of our rescue
squads that they are owed a hundred and seventy five dollars, which is a small amount
compared to the bill for service typical call runs I think basic is three fifty, basic is two fifty
and advanced life support is three fifty if memory serves. But, when these calls are picked
up by them they in tern have been charging our would be patient. So, the patient is in the
situation where he is in the situation where he is getting a bill sometimes two bills which is
aggravating and expensive and unnecessary and so what this arrangement will do is allow a
hundred and seventy five dollars for the Town from the bill for service money to
compensate the squad when the squad pays Empire. We do not pay Empire the Squad has
their own separate arrangement the three squads each have the same relationship with
Empire to pay a hundred and seventy five dollars so this would in essence be a pass through
of a hundred and seventy five dollars from the Towns bill for service. But, again, we don’t
enter into an agreement with just Empire this is between the Town and the three rescue
squads and Empire and it puts it to bed. It is something that the Town has sought for awhile
that will address a minor problem but a problem never the less. So, with that said that is
what we are tonight considering and again any time we do a change to any contract or enter
into a contract it is required with these rescue squads and fire companies a public hearing.
So, if there is any member of the public that would like to ask any questions or make any
comments the bottom line is when there is an intercept call for a hundred and seventy five
dollars the Town will reimburse when we see the necessary paper work we will reimburse
the rescue squad for that hundred and seventy five dollars that they will in turn be paying
Empire for the intercept calls. Mr. Tucker. Did I confuse anyone? I hope not.
Mr. Pliney Tucker- Pliney Tucker-41 Division Road Queensbury, West Glens Falls The
squad that they intercept for will do the actually billing for the run?
Supervisor Stec-Yes. That is all worked out in their arrangement.
26
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Mr. Tucker-It will all go through the same sytem?
Supervisor Stec-Yes.
Mr. Tucker-Thank you.
Supervisor Stec-Yes, with just the minor, the denotation on the patient care report that the
squad paper work they denote which ones are transfers and they turn all their paper work
into the town, the town reviews them and sends them down to the billing company and then
it gets taken care of from there. So, we do see them so we know which ones are intercepts.
Any other questions? Mr. Auer?
Mr. Doug Auer-Good evening again, Doug Auer Now, just so I am clear on this, if there is
insurance, if a person has insurance for this and they are when they get to the hospital is
deemed as a necessary transport not just a medical taxi, the Town will not have to pay
anything because their insurance will, correct?
Supervisor Stec-We, I am not sure that we are talking about the same thing. This is if
somebody is injured or is in need of assistance at their home and the rescue squad cannot get
to them and Empire shows up at the house and takes them, then Empire will bill but
sometimes the rescue squad shows up first does not have the necessary people or equipment,
they are there they have started the paper work and then for some reason they do need to
hand this off even though they showed up, they hand it off, now you could potentially two
bills being generated, one from the rescue squad and one from Empire and now you have
somebody that is getting billed twice for partial service from the Town or from the rescue
squad and then the rest of the service from Empire Ambulance.
Councilman Boor-It goes a little beyond that.
Councilman Sanford-I do not think that is his question. Do you want to restate your
question?
Mr. Auer-I will take a stab at it. Someone you call, somebody falls down some stairs lets
say and this happened in my case, my daughter had slipped down stairs, Empire arrived she
got to the hospital they deemed that it was a valid reason to transport her.
Supervisor Stec-Empire was the only player involved.
Mr. Auer-Empire was the only player that showed up.
Councilman Boor-Up to now we have nothing to do with it.
Supervisor Stec-We are out of it, we are not involved.
Mr. Auer-So, in what case does the Town get involved? Because this business of
emergency squad showing up and then not being able.
Supervisor Stec-Lets say that they show up with a tecs. and they need a paramedic
Councilman Boor-It is actually even if they get called off on route, lets say you have a
Queensbury ambulance heading to a scene and an Empire ambulance going to a scene and
Empire gets their first, then the reimbursement will take place at a hundred and seventy five
dollars.
Supervisor Stec-Or if the Queensbury Company gets there and they need a paramedic and
they do not have a paramedic and they call for Empire to take over.
Councilman Boor-It puts a cap on what Empire can charge.
Supervisor Stec-Right.
Mr. Auer-Regardless of whether the person pays insurance company is paying.
27
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Supervisor Stec-Correct.
Councilman Boor-That is the ultimate payer if they have it, that really has nothing to do
with this.
Councilman Sanford-It is a negotiated thing.
Mr. Auer-It does if the person has insurance.
Councilman Boor-That is between the person and the insurance company, if they have
insurance obviously they are going to want reimbursement that is included in their policy if
they don’t it doesn’t come into play.
Mr. Auer-Most insurance companies do cover that.
Councilman Sanford-I think what the intent here was going back to the old managed care
days we are basically serving a role as a conduit provider and there are certain calls that
require a personnel will be brought in that we don’t have and in the past those people were
billing out at a fee for service rate. It seemed like a good idea to sit down with the other
third party vendors or ancillary providers and to say look it, would you be willing to
negotiate a reduced rate in consideration for a number of factors including which you are
getting out business and they agreed to this one seventy five which as Dan I think previously
mentioned was a reduction from averaging three hundred or three hundred and fifty. So, it is
basically a negotiated reduction on an outside ancillary service that the Town needs to have
to be compliance with health quality.
Mr. Auer-I was not aware that there was some tiered system for billing for transport.
Councilman Sanford-Now, for many, many, it used to be there was not a lot of negotiations
but now health care providers and payers negotiate almost all kinds of fees, you name it, it is
negotiable and that really what this is and the reason I kind of supported it is it is a
significant reduction in what we were paying or being charged before.
Mr Auer-So, the type of service performed at the scene is what would have triggered these.
Councilman Boor-Service stays the same but they are paying half.
Councilman Sanford-They are paying close to half.
Supervisor Stec-Anybody else this evening on this public hearing? Ok. I will close this
public hearing. Any discussion from the Town Board? (None) I will entertain a motion.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENTS BETWEEN TOWN
OF QUEENSBURY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SQUADS & EMPIRE
AMBULANCE SERVICE AND COINCIDING 2006 CONTRACT
AMENDMENTS WITH TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
RESOLUTION NO.: 210, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
28
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
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, since provision for such service is not presently included in the Squads’
th
2006 Agreements with the Town, the Town Board held a public hearing on April 17, 2006
concerning such proposed service and the corresponding amendment(s) to the 2006
Emergency Services Agreements and heard all interested persons, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has determined that such additional service will
benefit Town residents and visitors to the Squads’ service area(s) and therefore it is
necessary and in the public interest to act on such proposal to improve the provision of
emergency services to the Town,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of 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 with the Town of
Queensbury to provide for such service, and
BE IT FURTHER,
29
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town
Supervisor to sign any necessary documentation, including amended Agreements between
the Town and the Squad in form approved by Town Counsel, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the
Town Budget Officer to take all action necessary to transfer funds and amend the 2006
Town Budget as necessary to provide for such service, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town
Supervisor, Town Counsel and/or Budget Officer to take any action necessary to effectuate
all terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2006 by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford
NOES : None
ABSENT: Mr. Strough
2.4Public Hearing – Potential Environmental Impacts And Adopting
SEQRA Positive/Negative Declaration regarding Planned Unit
Development By The Michael’s Group, LLC on Property Owned By
Bay Meadows Corporation
Notice Shown
Publication date 04-07-2006
Supervisor Stec-At our last regular Town Board Meeting the Town Board voted to
reconsider or reopen SEQRA, the SEQRA had been approved back in November of last
year for rezoning and in the process brought it towards the Planning Board. Some
questions arose and some new information was stated to be in hand. The Town Board
agreed to reopen SEQRA and consider that with this new information and it is limited to
storm water and such not traffic or anything like that. It is geared toward storm water and
water table issues. Marilyn, do you have anything that you want to add by way of
amplification from the staff perspective or Mark?
Director Ryba-The only thing is my understanding is with your last resolution you
wanted the information forwarded to any involved agencies as well as the Warren County
Planning Board. That information did go out however my understanding no
recommendation is required or any response is required from them. It was just simply
notification that the hearing was going, the Seqra, the Board was contemplating
reopening the Seqra.
Councilman Boor-Actually I believe that we have reopened it.
30
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Town Counsel Schachner-I do not think it was contemplated I think it was opened.
Director Ryba-Ok.
Supervisor Stec-With that I see our applicant Mr. Allen and Mr. Michaels and I guess
you were present at the workshop in which this was discussed and I think you were also
present when we set the public hearing for tonight, two weeks ago. Do you have
anything to add or anything to point out to the Town Board.
Mr. Michaels-I think to just add one thing I know the landowner wasn’t there and he
would like to speak a little bit about the history but one thing is you say reopen the public
hearing on storm water and ground water issues. Are we going to have a criteria like who
is going to evaluate this because I have this, this says storm water and pollution narrative
it is quite a thick document…of the Town. Evidently you must feel that is deficient or
there is something wrong with it. Could we designate a Town Engineer that I can work
with to try to work through these issues because I think these issues are going to be
almost impossible to work through with just the public. There are formulas in here that I
do not understand.
Councilman Boor-Actually, John we do not even have to have a public hearing for this,
just so you know this Board could reach a decision without a public hearing. So, it is
really the Town Board’s decision.
Mr. Michaels-Ok, let me just say when they make a decision can we talk about some type
of criteria what, if we reopen it I just want a path of what I need to do.
Councilman Sanford-Well, first of all it is re-opened, now the question is, it is a good
question, what is the criteria for the basis for making a decision whether or not there is a
material impact due to flooding and other ground water issues. There certainly needs to
be an adequate justification in order for us to decide that there are in fact major impacts
and certainly we can’t say we feel that they are. However, it is not as simple as there
being a body of science with specific criteria and a check list. The criteria range all over
the place from incorporating and having an appreciation for public comment. In the case
of an Seqra review you deal with things such as neighborhood character here we are
limiting our scope but we are going to be dealing with here some empirical data such as
test pit data and soil analysis, understanding on how the flood plain flows what the
potential impacts may be to neighboring properties, the Girl Scouts and the people who
live both to the east and to the west of your project. We need to understand things like
how much fill you are going to be bringing into the site. In the case of the flood situation
where the banks flow into the site the water flows into the site by breaching the banks of
the brook. By bringing in that fill where will that water be displaced and again it is not a
check list it is a matter of an understanding and appreciation of all the information and
applying good common logical decision making processes to this. So, we will try to do
the best we can with this we certainly hope that you will have an appreciation and
understanding for this decision no matter which direction it goes. But, I certainly can’t
go in an give you a manual and say this is it. It is a little bit more intangible than that by
definition. It is that way on almost Seqra Review that we go through.
Supervisor Stec-With that said and Mark I haven’t had to welcome Mr. Schachner when I
heard you were pinch hitting tonight for Mr. Hafner, not that his input isn’t appreciated
but I know you have a great deal of expertise in Seqra and I know that you specifically
cover a lot of the Planning Board meetings as opposed to Bob who typically doesn’t.
Because some of this might be a little bit fuzzy to certainly even some Board Members
but definitely to some members of the public and hopefully not too much to the applicant.
Can you wrap concisely what we are considering tonight as far as our scope and are we
limited to just new information or are we or are we in fact doing all of storm water or are
we looking at, I mean, it is my understanding that we re-open it for new information are
we limited to just the new information in our deliberation or are we taking a fresh look at
the whole storm water thing.
Town Counsel Schachner-My understanding was that the Town Board adopted a
resolution re-opening or what I call reconsider the earlier Seqra determination on the
31
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
basis of new information regarding certain topics. I do not think you inaccurately
summarized the topics I do not think that was the verbatim list but the topics were ground
water, storm water management, I think there were three or four listed but I think they
generally fell within that subject matter. That was my understanding.
Councilman Sanford-I think what Dan’s question is in the context of our discussion with
the applicant he was wondering if we are restricted to just the fact of the new information
or but my understanding would be the new information causes the justification for the
reopen but the analysis of the underlying topic we can go into that in some level of depth.
Ok.
Supervisor Stec-Mark is the attorney. That makes sense to me I understand that.
Town Counsel Schachner-Well, you can’t, I think that is logical and I think that is
accurate, the context in which you are evaluating whatever this new information is, is
whether it influences or changes your answers initially to the Part II of the long
environmental assessment form and then ultimately to make, to see if you have, you have
to reach a determination of significance as to whether based on this information you
believe that there are potentially significant adverse environmental impacts or not.
Supervisor Stec-And again the Town Board’s action, I just want to make sure it is crystal
clear to all four of us. The Seqra that the Town Board considered in November was for
the PUD consistency determination not necessarily Seqra for site plan or was that it has
been a few months since November or was it all one shot that was the Seqra for the whole
project?
Town Counsel Schachner-I think the later is somewhat muddy in that regard, as I
understand it the Town Board was nominally the Seqra Lead Agency and one could argue
that as the Seqra Lead Agency the Seqra determination related to the entire project and
each and every aspect of the project but careful review of the records of what was
actually reviewed at that time would seem to indicate that the Town Board was focused
on the rezoning aspect if you will the PUD zoning as opposed to subdivision and site plan
approval.
Supervisor Stec-So, just so I understand all of our al-la carte options here when we gave a
Seqra negative declaration in November and I do recall we were lead agent, does that
deny the Planning Board the opportunity to review Seqra from the site plan or was that
the approval, and then the subsequent question is tonight can we be addressing the PUD
determination and then turn over the rest of Seqra to the site plan process?
Councilman Sanford-Dan, if I could take a quick stab at trying to address those issues. I
asked and I want to thank the staff for giving me the information going back to February
of 2005 and I reviewed the history of this application right up until the present time and
including the information that the Planning Board had. I think as Mark stated it there is
some muddy area here regarding the understanding or in fact the fact of whether or not
the Town Board was acting as lead agent in a coordinated review of the Seqra. I will
point out briefly and because it does beg a question perhaps on another topic as to why
there are such conflicting and at time contradictory statements that are filled in the
minutes and in the staff notes and it is somewhat confusing but I will try to make it as
simple as possible. On 8-16-05
Councilman Brewer-Are these in the minutes Richard?
Councilman Sanford-These are minutes and some of the minutes are minutes of the Town
Board Meetings and others are Planning Board minutes. Please bear with me it is going
to be a little laborious I will try to give you
Supervisor Stec-Again, I am not suggesting
Councilman Boor-He is going to answer your question.
32
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Councilman Sanford-I am going to answer your question it is important because and I am
going to give the abridged answer. Ok. I am not going to go on for, on 8-16-05 and staff
notes form the Department of Community Development I believe it is Mr. Baker states
on a couple of occasions and I will just give you the bottom line. He says the Planning
Board is being asked for a review and recommendation to the Town Board on the change
in the PUD Zoning only. While the Town has been encouraging developers to combine
rezoning proposals with site plan and subdivision review this is an option and not a
requirement. Separate paragraph; subdivision and site plan review on these properties
will be required prior to development and will also be subject to a separate Seqra Review.
So, that is suggesting in that particular context of that letter that the Town Board
determination as of 11-05 was somehow not that of a coordinated Seqra Review but was
limited to the rezoning aspect and that therefore other environmental impacts would in
fact be considered by the Planning Board when the project became more developed and
presented. On 8-16 on page 27 in the actual minutes, not staff notes, Mr. Baker replies to
the Planning Board, this evening the Planning Board is being asked to make a
recommendation to the Town Board on a proposed change to the PUD zoning, any
subsequent subdivision or site plan review activity related to this project and property
will come back to the Board for future review and future Seqra Review. On page 29 of
the same meeting which is the 08-16 meeting Mr. Baker responds to a question from or a
series of questions from Chris Hunsinger in reply he says, and again future subdivision
and site plan review would come back before this board for review and for Seqra Review.
Those are just, those are some of the representations made throughout some of the
hearings suggesting very much that this was not a coordinated review that the Town
Board did. Having said that what I still have not been able to flush out was early on it
seems to progress this way and then all of a sudden it seems to certainly in 06 in March
of 06, it certainly seems to be presented to the Town Planning Board as a subdivision
and site plan not requiring Seqra review. So, for the purposes of tonight’s meeting I think
we will need to look at the reopening of the Seqra and see if there is in fact material
impacts based on storm water and management, storm water and ground water levels that
would have impacted the decision that was made back in 11-28-05. Having said that I
think I have unresolved issues that need to be discussed in maybe an executive session
involving this Town Board and Members of the Planning and Community Development
as to why some of these inconsistencies took place when it seemed we were certainly on
the track at the Town Board level now, not to be a coordinated lead agency. I do not
know the answer.
Supervisor Stec-That does not answer my question although it certainly gives back it is
muddy whether or not the Town Board was doing the whole shooting match or just the
PUD, I understand that. My question is going forward from April 17, 2006 what are this
Town Boards options right now. We have voted to reconsider Seqra and we have done
that we are here, can we say we are going to do a Seqra determination for the purposes of
this PUD consistency or inconsistency which might be a very light lift and then put it
back on track and say ok, Planning Board do your thing, they do Seqra they do it all the
time for projects like this they obviously have I am going on a limb here and say that
most of the nuts and bolts issues here are going to be site plan issues as opposed to is this
consistency.
Councilman Boor-Subdivision.
Supervisor Stec-or subdivisions, you know what I am saying
Councilman Boor-But Seqra is only for subdivision not site plan.
Councilman Sanford-Before we turn it over to Mark and I certainly what him to have his
say, here is the course that I think makes the most sense. I think that we re-opened the
Seqra we do our review on the ground water and the flooding conditions and what have
you. Two outcomes could possibly happen at that point in time when we are done with
that, we could A, find that there are material impacts that cannot be mitigated in which
case we then find that they are material findings we move to a Part III and we review the
Part III and if the Part III is agreed upon that may end up in a pos dec. That pretty well
ends the process at that point in time. However, if we go through and the other option
takes place and we find that the negative declaration is reaffirmed I would then, before
33
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
we get to that point, I would then either tonight or if we are going to have to table this for
additional information at the beginning of the next hearing on it we contemplate not
doing, not accepting the coordinated review and then at that point in time if it passed a
negative Seqra determination by the Town Board it would travel back to the Planning
Board but the Planning Board would then also have the added responsibility of
performing a Subdivision Seqra. Ok. So that is kind of, when I reviewed all of this I did
not have the answers I had the opportunity to discuss it with Mark earlier to day and I
think that, at least that is my opinion, I would like to go forward with the review and see
where that is kind of leading us.
Councilman Brewer-Let me interject one second Dan, what is the new information black
and white answer that allows us to open this?
Councilman Sanford-That was actually already determined but we can talk about that but
again we will be repeating
Councilman Brewer-That is ok, keep clearing my mind, if it takes two minutes then so be
it.
Councilman Sanford-It will take two minutes.
Supervisor Stec-But I really want Mark to answer my question before we answer Tim’s
question. Mark and or Marilyn, those two options that Richard just described, I mean,
they are available to us tonight or when ever we act on this we could say, this is the Seqra
determination for the PUD consistency and the PUD consistency alone and the
Subdivision we are going defer that to the Planning Board. And Planning Board it is not
like they don’t do that all the time we could just say you got this one too. Then they are
going to ask all the questions that they are going to ask anyways when they do site plan.
Town Counsel Schachner-The only thing if you decide to do that I think you should
include as part of a Town Board resolution a specific statement to the affect of that we
are terminating coordinated review so it is clear that each agency, each involved agency
is doing separate review. In order to do that lawfully it is a requirement that this be what
is called a Seqra unlisted action as opposed to what is called Seqra Type One Action.
Councilman Sanford-It is classified as unlisted.
Town Counsel Schachner-That being the case then that is fine, then yes, you have that
option.
Supervisor Stec-Ok, that will
Councilman Sanford-Now, in direct response to yours and I think I tried to explain this
when we passed the resolution but, I have lived around the Queensbury area
Supervisor Stec-I think you were probably surprised that it passed.
Councilman Sanford-A little bit maybe. The winter storm that we had brought a new
level of understanding at least to me regarding the sensitivity of that area to flooding. I
knew the area always had high ground water and I new that it was very, very wet but I
did not know to the degree until after we had a sever but not a catastrophic rain storm just
how danger it is. So, that caused me to look into it a little bit further have some
discussions with neighbors, I did receive some photographs I have more that I will put up
again as this hearing goes on showing some of those conditions that take place. Also,
heard and discussed with people every spring typically although maybe not this spring
there is quite a concern in terms of the banks over flowing and there is periodic flooding
and wet conditions there. In addition the we did not have and I recall this new
information, we did not have at our, and I was not on the Town Board but I am going
from a review of the record, we did not have a comprehensive understanding of the extent
of the flood plain back then primarily and certainly we didn’t when the project was
envisioned a number of years ago, primarily because the GIS technology wasn’t be
utilized and or the Town did not have that available. Now, what is done a recent study
34
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
was done primarily for the benefit of the Planning Board and what they did they used
1986 data from FEMA and what they did they took an aerial photo and they overlaid the
data onto the map of the plan and that is very revealing and it is a detailed analysis but
the bottom line is that shows that part of the actual project at least one building is within
the flood plain and in addition when you do some calculations you find out that some of
the actual proposed site is actually located within the flood way. To me the technology
brought about an increased understanding again of the definition of what we were talking
about in terms of flood plain dimensions. I can consider that new information. In
addition reviewing Section 183 and I do not have the exact, I have to go to my actual
Code Book on this and I was looking at a lot of this information I was saying, you know,
we have got to deal with storm water but, storm water comes as a lay person I think of
storm water as you have a big rain storm and it is very important it was always important
on the Planning Board to keep the water on the site. You had to make sure that you could
not have more water leave your site than existed prior to the project. That is sort of a
commandment of subdivision review. Here you have a unique situation in that water
comes onto the site through the banks getting high and flowing into the site. So, it is not
a situation of the rain coming down from the sky and then having to stay on the site.
Here you have actual situations where you have a pattern a historical pattern of water
coming up from a brook and flowing onto a flood plain. When you add fill and I do not
have the specifics based on the review of the project but I have to assume a very large
material amount of fill is anticipated being brought into this project. In other words the
actual level I believe above ground level might be 303 feet and you are hoping to raise
that up to 308 feet, my calculations say you are bring in five feet of fill for the actual
buildings and site. You are basically going to be building up the site and not allowing
an area for the flood plain to do its job which is to absorb the over flow of the bank. The
concerns there would be you would then be taking that water it has to go somewhere and
you would be moving it to other sites. Either to the Girl Scouts project to the north or
going over to Meadowbrook and further aggravating their problems or either further
going to the west. I kind of liken that almost like the Aesop’s Fable where the crow
wants to get a drink of water out of a pitcher but he cannot reach his beak in so he brings
in a bunch of stones and soon enough the water level raises and he can get a drink. The
concept of us bringing in all the fill being brought in is going to aggravate an already
unacceptable condition. So, I did go and look at 183 g. page 183-21 Section g subsection
2, and it goes flood plain use and it goes land subject to flooding and land deemed by the
Planning Board to be other wise uninhabitable shall not be platted for residential
occupancy nor for such other uses as may increase danger to health, life, or property or
aggravate the flood hazard. Tim, just by definition by bringing a bunch of fill and putting
it in an area that needs to absorb the water you are displacing it and you are aggravating
the flood hazard. So, I think there is an lot of intuitive problems associated with
development in this area. It is very concerning to me and I think at the appropriate time
when we have the public hearing we will get more information from the public and those
people who live in the adjoining areas.
Supervisor Stec-Does that answer your questions?
Councilman Brewer-Somewhat.
Supervisor Stec-I am going to declare the public hearing open, and Mark that is correct
we technically did not, we did set a public hearing we will conduct a public hearing but
just for my own edification the public hearing was not, I think Roger stated that we did
not need to do a public hearing.
Councilman Boor-It was not required.
Supervisor Stec-we could have just..
Town Counsel Schachner-Correct.
Supervisor Stec-That is good to know. I will declare the public hearing open and before
we take other public comment do you have any comment to lead off with?
35
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Mr. Michaels-Yea, just one and you probably have not got a chance to read this whole
report but the storm water as designed there is no increase in run off anywhere else on the
site. That would be for the engineer to review, we had C.T. Male review that and there is
no increase in water, everything, storm water on this site was retained in a series of
retention basins on the site but, one of the things the public hearing mentioned tonight
was that I was the owner of the land and that is inaccurate, Garth Allen is the owner of
the property and he would just like to make a statement about where he is at.
Supervisor Stec-I apologize for mis-characterizing who the owner was and I know that
we did a couple last minute changes to the resolution to straighten that out but our
apologies.
Mr. Garth Allen-No problem, I just would want to let the Board know and all the people
that are here that I am available here tonight just to help answer questions to give a little
history on, I mean, Bay Meadows Corp. is a corporation that is just a group of twelve
citizens just like everybody else that is here it is not a big million dollar corporation we
have been in existence for over twenty years in the Queensbury area, always paid our
taxes, been working hard at this development for a number of years to try and come up
with a solution to basically save the golf course and retain all the green space in the area
that we could possibly retain. The twelve individuals that are involved in these
organizations, were a group of people that all went to church together that got involved to
help the widow of the previous owner keep from losing the course that is how we all got
involved in this in the beginning. It was our ultimate goal to help the Town by keeping
the golf course going, putting a small development in the back nine area which at the
time we bought the course was MR-5 rated, I could be quoting that wrong, I am not an
engineer, which was changed the first year that we bought the property without even a
letter to us and changing it to one acre residential. In saying all of that in all of this that
has happened we have continually came to the Board approached the public to try and
maintain as much green space and to come up with a development that would be
beneficial to the Town and beneficial to saving this course. The Michaels Group being
the second time around has come up with an excellent plan has invested thousand of
dollars in engineering and answered most of these questions already and it is the second
time around, only with thirty nine buildings. Still maintaining the golf course and all its
integrity. That has always been our goal. I am basically here to state that the way the tax
situation has happened to everybody in the Adirondacks where if you own a lot of
property you cannot put buildings on we are basically getting taxes out of business. It is
critical to the longevity of this course to see that this process happens quickly in that we
can move on with this development just because of the like I said basically we are getting
taxed out of business. This development will help ease that it will help us save the club
house and parking lot and all the areas that are suffering for the lack of money. Again,
we are not trying to blow anything past anybody we are trying to do a quality project and
handle all these things and not change the storm and not change the correct the runoff or
anything. We are trying to maintain as much green as possible and make a successful
operation between the Town and the citizens of it and the golf course.
Supervisor Stec-If I could make a comment and then ask a question. The comment is the
history that you have given MR-5 and that has been a hotly talked about topic around
here for a few years, but, your property was in fact originally MR-5. I mean the densities
that were once allowed several years ago were just staggering compared to where we are
now. So, I think that the Board and probably the public is happy in the direction that the
density has evolved over time. The PUD was a big improvement, a factor of a few three
or four improvements if I remember correctly over the MR-5 and then of course this PUD
modification was a further reduction in density. With that said, my question is obviously
we are here to mainly talk about storm water and its impacts on that land and I suppose I
we could debate how new the new information is. I have lived here for my whole life
and I can tell you that I know that there is always flooding off of Cronin Road. Perhaps,
we didn’t, it may be the new information is that hey, do you know the extent, unless you
took a canoe in there on some of these things maybe it is fair to say that the extent here is
tremendous. I guess what I have gathered so far from the Planning Board discussions
that have taken place and where we are now and what I heard earlier tonight, there is at
last one building that its current location is problematic because we know it is susceptible
to water issues. I think the direction, assuming that we are heading in the direction
36
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
towards finding a solution that works for everybody which I think is our goal and our
mission here is that it is very likely that the end game will be some of the current
configuration is left unchanged, and again this is not a site plan review board, the
Planning Board does site plan review, but we are in these kinds of areas right now where
we may very well be saying you now, in order to grant, in order to get our arms around
this, this Board is going to make a decision regarding Seqra and whether we segment it
and say Planning Board you take over from here we just said it is consistent you guys
figure out where to put the buildings that is one route, or if we say no we are going to
continue to try, in any way I think we are going to talk about it tonight, that the location
of at least one building is probably got to change and I just, right up front I want to find
out is that a big issue for you all.
Mr. Michaels-Well, its not, houses get built in a flood plain all the time this is not once it
is filled it is not going to be in a flood plain. Any hard engineering to move a building or
change building we are totally willing to do. We had CT Male at the Planning Board we
paid them on our behalf and to review this and CT Male has signed off on this.
Supervisor Stec-The follow up question will be and the comment was made earlier, is, ok
we can mitigate this and developments do this all the time but its whack a mole and
where if we construct your site in such a manner that you are prohibiting or resisting the
natural flow of a flood event. Where it used to, the relief now used to be your property,
not fair but you know that is mother nature. But, so if we say well we are going to shore
this up or we are going to bring in fill or whatever however you mitigate these things it
stands to reason to me that we would be likely just pushing this water somewhere else,
either across the way or
Mr. Michaels-When it floods up it is two hundred and thirty feet away from these
buildings. This is if you read the storm water report which really you can’t, I mean
unless you are a geologist or an engineer, there are hundreds and hundreds of pages of
calculations there that to be perfectly honest with you I cannot take each one and explain
it to you, it really has this is science. We would be more than happy if this is part of the
resolution to pay for the Town to hire an engineer to review this and make the
recommendations that they feel that should be made. Right now CT Male did not have
any, they said that this is designed properly. If it is not designed properly we want to
design it properly. We do not want anything but proper, but we cannot it is way to
technical discussion to have really to have it lay level because when you talk about, what
Richard said it makes a lot of sense when you put sand in there to drink and all that but
we have to rely on the engineers. This is a big parcel this is over a hundred acres of
property, and the thirty nine acres the thirty nine lots that we are putting in is only on six
acres of hundred acres so this really needs, it needs hard engineering. We are totally
open to whatever the Town engineer or some other engineer.
Supervisor Stec-I appreciate that and we did spend an awful lot of time last year talking
about all this and I am thankful that we have a plan that is going to look save the golf
course and certainly it has not escaped me that we are talking about a small amount of
property involved in a much larger property and everything else that we have done as far
as where we have gotten I am very happy with. Much more happy with thirty nine than
three hundred and ninety, I think that three ninety number was a real number at one point
years ago and I think there is an example where the Town many years ago headed in the
right direction. But, we still have, I wanted to hear from you all that you are going to be
open to in doing what is necessary.
Mr. Michaels-We have not had any engineering feed back of what we are doing here is
wrong if it is we will change it.
Councilman Sanford-Again I appreciate that there is a lot of science involved with this, I
think as you hear from the public and you see some of the picture some that I have and
some that they have this is an extreme situation here this is not a marginal problem in
terms of flood water issues. So, I think you get to the point where sure if you are talking
about something that you may have a four or five percent variance sure you may be able
to tweak it and get it so it is working right. This is a very very wet site but I want to talk
to Mr. Allen. We are conducting and going through the process now within the Town of
37
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
developing a comprehensive land use plan document and nothing has been finalized but
there is a, when I read that document a week or so ago there was something in there that
made prove to be of some interest to you and I cannot speak for the Board and I cannot
give you too much encouragement at this point in time. But, in there, there was a section
talking about how the town can look out for its environmental concerns through and the
discussion was on purchasing land. There were alternatives to that because that is
something that we financially sometimes are less inclined to want to go out and purchase
every troubled site. One of the concepts that was suggested was that if an owner has a
piece of property that they could work with the Town to come up with a situation where
if they are agreeable to as long as they own the property to leave it undeveloped that they
would receive sizable tax reductions to that parcel of land recognizing that it’s value is
diminished from the anticipation of building a development. At the risk of getting a little
bit ahead of myself, I think that probably might present a more logical discussion rather
than to try to re-scope this project. Because I think when you look at some of the
compelling information that is going to be presented it is going to be very difficult to do
really any kind of construction on that proposed site, at least that is my humble opinion
based on some of the information and picture and things that I have seen. So, with that in
mind I just wanted to give you that as a potential for some form of relief to the over
burden in taxes that the paper picked up on and you just mentioned now.
Mr. Michaels-The only thing I can comment on that if it is such a compelling argument
that this is un-developable certainly then you would think CT Male would have been able
to pick that up awful easily. We did not get any compelling feed back..
Councilman Sanford-So would have I.
Supervisor Stec-Any other comments before
Mr. Allen-Just in what you are saying Richard about I mean it just scares me that even
when I hear you say the word un-inhabitable un-developable you are basically saying
that you are condemning this property to be green space. The golf course only takes up a
portion of it, this development is only looking at six acres of it, you are basically saying
that, you are talking about totally devaluing this piece of property to basically un-
inhabitable land that is pretty scary to me.
Councilman Sanford-I am saying that Town Boards that do not have a historical
perspective on development and choice not to learn from history and the mistakes that
they have made are condemned to repeat them. While I feel sorry or have an
appreciation for your situation I look back over the last decade and I see approvals to
develop on extremely fragile flood plains type of areas and I think that has aggravated the
conditions and caused the flood plain the flood plains that used to exist to no longer to be
capable of taking in water and create problems down the road. I think the risk associated
with allowing development in your proposed area would have devastating potential
consequences to the neighbors along Meadowbrook Road, Cronin Road and the Girl
Scout Camp to the north and further aggravate other developments including a proposed
Michaels Development Waverly to, up the road because again that water is not going to
be in the flood plain and it is going to aggravate conditions up north. It is very complex
series and chain of events that take place and I know you do not want to hear this but
based on, my conclusions from my review I find the site highly problematic. So, with
that in mind maybe it is appropriate now, with Dan’s concurrence to turn it over for the
public.
Supervisor Stec-Do you have anything else right now? Thank you, again the public
hearing is open if there are any member of the public that would like to address the Board
regarding this Seqra determination just raise your hand I will call on you and state your
name and address for the record at the microphone, these microphones record as well as
amplify and we will recognize anyone that would like to speak. Sir.
Mr. Glenn Rode-My name is Glenn Rode, I live at 51 Cronin the property to the
immediate east of the proposed project and I have to comment on some things I just
heard. I am sure that an engineer will design a storm water collection system and
management plan that will work at this site for the site but not for the surrounding areas.
38
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
CT Male did not complete a Seqra Review that is what we are talking about tonight and
the whole purpose of this meeting is to discuss the impacts that this project will have on
surrounding sites am I not correct in that?
Unknown-That is correct.
Mr. Rode-As far as the designation the attorney had stated that it was listed under Seqra
as an unlisted action, how does that determination, how is that determination made? Did
you state that it was an unlisted action, I thought you did?
Town Counsel Schachner-I most certainly did not.
Mr. Rode-The project itself as an unlisted action under Seqra?
Town Counsel Schachner-I most certainly did not what I said was, want me to respond to
that?
Councilman Sanford-I would like you to explain the three types of actions.
Town Counsel Schachner-Ok, let me answer and then I will do that. What I said was
that in order for there not to be what the New York State Environmental Quality Review
Act or Seqra refers to as to coordinated review this would have to be an unlisted action as
opposed to a Type I action. I did not say whether it is or not I believe two of our
Councilmen have informed us that it is an unlisted action. Do you want me to talk about
the three types of?
Councilman Sanford-Yea, I think it would be helpful because the public might not have
an understanding what that means.
Town Counsel Schachner-The New York State Environmental Quality Review Act that
we all call Seqra, in the regulations sets up a classification scheme whereby actions fall
into one of three categories. Which category an action falls into determines how it is
treated procedurally for the purpose of review potential environmental impacts. The
names of the three categories are Type I Actions, Type II Actions and Unlisted Actions.
These are all defined in the Seqra regulations. Generally a thump nail sketch of them is
that Type I Actions are actions that meet certain thresholds that means that they are more
likely to have environmental impacts than the other types of actions. Type II Actions are
actions that are preordained to be so minor and insignificant that they do not have
significant environmental impacts. Everything in between is what is called Unlisted
Actions, neither Type I or Type II.
Mr. Rode-This is an unlisted action the way it is determined?
Councilman Sanford-My understanding based on my review of the notes it has been
classified as an unlisted. Is that correct Marilyn?
Director Ryba-Actually the Seqra classification is something that is made by the Board
who is doing the Seqra Review.
Mr. Rode-I believe that Type I would give it the most scrutiny if I am not mistaken as far
as a Seqra review being the most serious of the.
Town Counsel Schachner-What type of action we are talking about is not really a
discretionary decision; it is based on the regulatory criteria. I do not know the answer
because I do not know what the project threshold, I mean the project magnitude is but the
regulatory criteria I can read them if you want, but it is somewhat time consuming. It is
not discretionary, it is either a Type, I presume this is not a Type II action, I am confident
that is true. So, this is a Type I Action or Unlisted Action.
Councilman Boor-Didn’t you just say it was discretionary?
Director Ryba-I said, the Seqra
39
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Councilman Boor-You said it was the Town Board’s decision.
Director Ryba-It is not discretionary it is a decision in terms of how you categorize it.
Councilman Boor-I thought Mark said it is not discretionary.
Town Counsel Schachner-She did not say it was discretionary what she is saying is
technically formally the agency classifies the action and you are an agency that is what
Marilyn is saying and that is correct. But it is also correct, I said and Marilyn is not
disagreeing that it is not discretionary it is according to the regulatory criteria. If you
meet on of these criteria it is a Type I Action, if you don’t it is an unlisted action.
Supervisor Stec-In November of last year when we acted on this what was it classified
Unlisted or Type I.?
Director Ryba-I will have to look that up to be specific.
Mr. Rode-In the mean time I may read something from the I have the Part 617 the State
Environmental Review Act in front of me and under Type I Actions there is a number 2
on page 11, Agencies may adopt their own lists of additional Type I Actions, may adjust
the thresholds to make them more inclusive and may continue to use previously adopted
lists of Type I Actions to compliment those contained in this section. There is your
discretion right there. It is a discretionary by law part to that act.
Supervisor Stec-I am going to guess that, that is an entirely separate public hearing, that
is not something that we do on the fly.
Town Counsel Schachner-That is exactly right and you cannot do that on a project
specific basis. It is not correct, I am not trying to be argumentative but I know a tiny bit
about this from a legal perspective that is not, that does not mean you have the authority,
not just you, but any agency has the authority to make a project specific designation of a
particular project that is Type I if it does not meet the thresholds. What it means is that
an agency can augment the existing Type I list to say we are going to say that projects of
the following magnitude or meet the following thresholds will also be considered Type I
Actions. It has to be generic it cannot be project specific.
Supervisor Stec-To me that is like by local law.
Mr. Rode-Let me read you something more pertinent under the Type I Actions B Part I
the adoption of, all right, the following actions are Type I is they are to be directly
undertaken …or approved by an agency and list one, the adoption of a municipalities
land use plan the adoption by any agency of a Comprehensive Resources Management
Plan or the initial adoption of a municipality comprehending zoning regulations. I think
that broadly opens up that could be applied to say that this should be a Type I Action in
itself that they are using a Comprehensive Land Use Plan isn’t that what a PUD is?
Councilman Boor-No, Planned Unit Development.
Mr. Rode-Ok.
Director Ryba-I also have an answer for you, on the previous negative declaration dated
November 28, 2005 the Town Board declared it Unlisted.
Mr. Rode-Which is the lesser of the reviews, in between a I and a II.
Councilman Sanford-I think there is a little bit of a misunderstanding, I do not think that
there should be a double standard when the Town Board or the Planning Board reviews
Seqra they should and I hope to, I encourage them to do a comprehensive review and
independent of the classification of the project I think it would be incorrect to assume that
an unlisted project would receive a more superficial review than a Type I. I would hope
40
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Town Counsel Schachner-I can bolster that with an important comment if you would like.
Councilman Sanford-I would hope to think that the environmental review is the
environmental review and, but I appreciate where you might, you might think that there is
a different level of scrutiny or review but, in all cases it should be the appropriate level of
review.
Town Counsel Schachner-I can add to that I can bolster that comment with a very
important legal point, the only substantive difference between how an agency might
conduct its environmental review between an unlisted action and a Type I Action is the
requirement of a long environmental assessment form. For an Unlisted Action an agency
can only look at the short Environmental Assessment Form should it choose to do so.
Here as I understand it that has never happened, we have only been dealing with long
environmental assessment forms. To bolster Councilman Sanfords comment the Board is
exacting, both boards if it happens that way, but at this point the Town of Queensbury
Boards have been exacting the same level of scrutiny as if this were a Type I Action by
virtue of reviewing the long environmental assessment form. Once you get past that
initial hurdle of which type of environmental assessment form to look at there is no
distinction and Councilman Sanford is correct that the scrutiny is the same.
Mr. Rode-Ok. I just wanted to also read some definitions from the Part 617, one of the
definitions they give is a CEA a Critical Environmental Area, means a specific
geographic area designated by a State or Local Agency having exceptional or unique
environmental characteristics. Ok. Environment, for a definition of Environment
according to the Seqra regulations, Environment means the physical conditions that will
be affected by a proposed action including, land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise,
resources, or agricultural, archeological, historic or esthetic significance. Existing
patterns of population concentration, distribution or growth existing community or
neighborhood character and human health. I guess I go to the esthetic part when I think
of the five feet of fill but we will not get into that, that is more of part of the definition of
what an environmental impact is. An impact means to change or have any affect on any
aspects of the environment. That is pretty broad and wide open as well. Now, you say
the long form was looked for the environmental review? Was an actual environmental
impact statement done and if so when was that done?
Councilman Boor-No.
Mr. Rode-No environmental impact statement was completed
Supervisor Stec-It was a neg dec.
Director Ryba-There has to be a positive declaration to do an impact statement.
Councilman Sanford-Well, actually that is partially correct there has to be found to be
material impacts that cannot be mitigated then a Part III is done and then the Part III if
approved it could lead to a positive dec. That is the correct way of stating it, you don’t
pos dec it and then do a Part III. Is that correct Mark?
Town Counsel Schachner-Yea, but nobody suggested you do.
Councilman Sanford-Marilyn did she just said.
Director Ryba-No, I didn’t.
Town Counsel Schachner-No I do not think so.
Director Ryba-No, I got to the point.
Town Counsel Schachner-What she said was that the negative declaration was issued and
that you do not do an environmental impact statement unless a positive statement was
issued, I believe is what she said.
41
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Councilman Sanford-And I want, in the very beginning of this discussion Mr. Rodes I
touched upon some of the issues associated with what I saw was inconsistencies and
some problems in terms of statements made referring to the scope of the Town Board 11-
28-05 review, heavily suggesting and in fact stating that it was limited to a rezone of the
PUD rather than a coordinated lead agency Seqra Review of the project. Having said that
and my review of the materials that were presented and the scope of discussions that took
place during that 11-05 meeting which of course I might get some people at little ticked
because I was not on the Board at the time but based on my reading of the minutes clearly
indicated that the context at least of the way the board was thinking was that more of a
rezoning of a PUD rather than a coordinated lead agency action. They did not go into in
very much detail many of the material aspects that need to be reviewed for either an
unlisted or a Type I Seqra Review. The record merely shows that and that is somewhat
opinionated on my part but I reviewed it and I did not see where so many things were
discussed. Test pit data was not provided nor was it really requested. Representations
regarding ground water levels were made but not verified. The list goes on and on and on
I have got to tell you so I am actually scratching my head and concluding based on what I
am reading that it was a zoning unique Seqra and taking the word of Sr. Planner Baker
suggesting any subdivision would find its way into the Planning Board and then go
through a Seqra at that level. That is when I showed up at the Planning Board Meeting
just because every once in a while I stop in and see what they are doing I was blown
away by the fact that there was not going to be a Seqra Review. I said wait a second so,
at any rate that is just, again I do not want to belay, you know label it but there is a lot of
references that I have here in some of these notes based on the review of the 11-28-05
review that at least in my opinion wasn’t done in an in depth enough manner. Fore
instance, Councilman Brewer even states in one of those reviews, that he is of the opinion
its for the rezoning only. So.
Supervisor Stec-We are talking about the muddy river, Mark and Marilyn the side of the
muddy river that I was on the second half of the Seqra thing in my opinion was heading
to the Planning Board, so if Richard is saying he showed up at the Planning Board
Meeting was shocked that there was no Seqra for this I would share his astonishment.
Councilman Sanford-Here is an example.
Supervisor Stec-Because I was at all these meetings where Stu Baker said there will be
more to follow.
Councilman Sanford-On page 633 this is just one of many, in August 05 public hearing
the Town Board conducted Mr. Rode’s spoke and he says, has there been a storm water
management review associated with this project. Councilman Brewer, that is an issue
that will come up at the Planning Board when they go for site plan. All those technical
questions should and will be answered. Mr. Brewer, I believe was of the opinion that
they were looking at the rezoning aspect rather than the subdivision. In other words, not
project specific, and it turned out that they declared a lead agency coordinated review.
So, the public is getting gypped here, they are not getting the benefit of whatever reason
of the due diligence that we have a fiduciary responsibility be it the Planning Board or the
Town Board to perform. That is what we are trying to remedy tonight.
Mr. Rode-In general of the proper amount of review isn’t brought forth to this project that
we are gypping the land if it due process. I mean.
Supervisor Stec-The rest of the point here though Mr. Rode’s make no mistake is that if
we were considering Seqra to say this is for the PUD consistency then we did that and
then some to handle those questions.
Councilman Boor-Which questions.
Supervisor Stec-Our Seqra Review for, the scope of what, which we were handling
Seqra, saying for Tim’s remark to say, those questions will be addressed by the Planning
Board.
Councilman Boor-That is because we didn’t address them at the Town Board level.
42
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Supervisor Stec-But, we would not have had to if in fact the Planning Board was going to
do their own Seqra, now apparently that is not the case and we can rectify that and I
think that is the direction we are heading. But, that is not to say that we needed all of
that.
Councilman Boor-We were under a false impression make no mistake.
Councilman Sanford-At any rate I think again we have discussed the course of action that
we think might be most appropriate and that is for this Town Board to work thorough a
decision junction on the flooding and other ground water issues. Then depending upon
where that goes it may end it however if it goes further we are looking to or if it appears
that it might go in another direction will terminate coordinated review hand that process
back to the Planning Board and they will be able to go in at that point in time and look at
traffic, look at esthetics, look at neighborhood character, look at discharge into the brook,
the flooding you name it. It would be essentially at that time opening the flood gates.
Mr. Rode-I guess my point of mentioning the classification of it, I think if we are going
to make a determination on what if it is going to be open, Seqra reopened, designated at
what level it will be reopened I think that anybody can look in these regs and come up
with justification to do a Type I review and that is my point in that. Now, I also
understand that wetlands are going to be redeveloped in another area because there is
wetlands being developed, I would like to know where the wetlands are going to be
redeveloped and whether or not any borings or test pits have been dug in that area where
they are planning on restoring wetlands.
Councilman Boor-Again, we were under the impression that this would be dealt with on
the Planning Board level it was not brought to our attention that this was something that
we were supposed to be looking at, at the Town Board level. As Dan pointed out we will
have probably an executive session with staff and go over some of these issues.
Mr. Rode-Another point I just want to make is I heard the comments save the golf course
but once this is built who is to say that the rest of this won’t turn into a development later
on.
Supervisor Stec-Well, we had other meetings on this subject besides tonight. We got, we
took care of some business.
Mr. Rode-Ok. I just wanted to approach you with the photograph and these are actually
photographs from the first project that was proposed on that site which was the Senior
Housing and that is when I started taking pictures of the run off and then it kind of died
and went away and I stopped taking pictures, so I said I wasted a bunch of film in
developing. So, these pictures are probably four to five years old and I just wanted to
show.
Supervisor Stec-We will pass them right on through.
Councilman Sanford-After you are done, if you could put them on that board maybe the
camera could pick them up.
Mr. Rode-I was just going to show Mr. Stec, he spoke of a relief valve of the water
failure here, your back is the east, that is to the left and say north west and that is the
immediate west that is an area somewhere that they are going to be building or filling or
putting somewhat of a retention pond, I do not know how a retention pond is going to act
when it is already full of water. But, there is where the water, it runs out into that field
and goes on that side of those, there is a tree line through there and then it crosses over
into the field. So, the whole area becomes saturated the only reason this showed up as
well as it did, they did some mowing and some cutting, but that is basically some pictures
of my property.
Councilman Sanford-Do you want the mic so it is recorded if you are going to talk about.
43
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Mr. Rode-I was just showing Mr. Brewer and Mr. Stec the relief valve that Mr. Stec
talked about as far as the water reaching a certain point in my property and the
surrounding properties and then breaching the wall on the west side and heading into the
proposed projects, the property and if the upper left picture shows something very close
in proximity of where this development is proposed. It is obviously you know it is a wet
area and I might add that it is not just a spring time occurrence and the storm during the
winter was not just anomaly that happens on a regular basis year round hurricane Floyd
put it up there, December 2001 we had water just as high as that last storm so.
Supervisor Stec-You want to put that up there?
Mr. Rode-Ok. I will put the pictures up. Should I pass them around?
Supervisor Stec-No, I think everyone has seen them you can just put them on the easel.
Councilman Sanford-Could you remove that picture ..so it doesn’t get it in the way or
put it up there I guess, I do not know what that is.
Mr. Rode-It looks like..
Director Ryba-That is an aerial map that shows the site.
Supervisor Stec-Councilman Brewer will hang that for you if you want to go back to the
microphone we will try to reign ourselves back onto format here.
Mr. Rode-I also just wanted to just mention some studies that, I have mentioned these
studies before done by the Warren County soil and water and I just wondered what the
Town’s interaction with the County is on these studies because that site of the proposed
project is in one of the areas that they designate as a storm water improvement site for
that area. They broke it down area, by area and where potential storm water
improvement site could be located and that is one of them. Is there any involvement
between the Town and the County as far as planning in this joint project to do storm
water?
Councilman Boor-We have got a lot of stuff up here obviously the half way brook right
here they specifically mention the very site you were talking about.
Councilman Sanford-For the record on page 12 of the Halfway Brook Watershed Storm
Water Assessment and Management Plan dated 1999 prepared by the Warren County
Conservation District on page 12 item number 5 they talk about key objectives of the
plan was to locate suitable areas which could be utilized for storm water improvements,
structures or facilities and they identify on item number zero Cronin Road Bay Meadows
Golf Course by main stem of Halfway Brook as that area. The main overview of this
particular study on page one is as land gets developed road networks built and an open
space diminished, the land area also changes with increased development we see
increases in the runoff to streams and lakes as more land becomes impervious to water
that once infiltrated. So, this is a good study and it does identify that as a site that should
be utilized for flood plain.
Mr. Rode-One of the two studies speak to the hydrology the way the hydrology has been
affected so then we get back to what the engineers will tell you as far as the science and
the calculations. If those calculations are based on base line numbers that have changed
over the years due to the hydrology that should put them back to the drawing board as far
as calculations. Any engineer will design a storm water management system for you but
it is going to work around that system and really not around the surrounding areas. I
guess that is my point.
Supervisor Stec-Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to comment
on this public hearing, Yes.
44
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Ms. Jill Steele-My name is Jill Steele and I live at 236 Meadowbrook Road I am the
poor slob that gets all of the runoff from Queensbury. I would like to give these picture
to Mr. Brewer if I could.
Supervisor Stec-Are they ours to keep for the record, do you need them back? Ok. I will
ask the Clerk to put them with the record.
Ms. Steele-I just have a small impact statement. I just want you to see what the over
construction of Queensbury has done to my property that is really all I want to say. Just
that I used to replace my sump pump in my basement every two years now I have to
replace it every six months because of the water impact.
Councilman Brewer-Where abouts is your house on Meadowbrook?
Ms. Steele-I live on the east side of Meadowbrook Road, I live directly across the street
from the Girl Scout Camp entrance.
Supervisor Stec-North or South of the bridge.
Ms. Steele-I live on the northern side. I am not here to bash Mr. Michaels project
actually I am on the list for one of his townhouses over there. But, actually when I signed
on I thought it was going to be on the southern side of Cronin Road next to the VW Hall,
they have that big space there, that big piece of land, that is where I thought it was going
to be. But, now that I hear that they are building in Waverly too then I might just go
north. You can look at those pictures and
Supervisor Stec-And we can keep them.
Ms. Jill Steele-Absolutely. Thank you.
Supervisor Stec-Thank you Ms. Steele. Is there anybody else this evening? Yes.
Ms. Kathy Sweet-Kathy Sweet, 177 Meadowbrook Road I would like to stick to what I
wrote because I am so nervous. Just a couple
Supervisor Stec-Don’t be Tim is the only mean one up here.
Ms. Sweet-The term muddy water is kind ironic because that is what we live in, in my
back yard is muddy water. Mr. Stec, unless you brought a canoe out on it in April of 2005
my husband brought a kayak out on it. So, it really does flood back there. It is my
understanding that the ok by the Town Board to proceed to the next phase or the Bay
Meadows Project occurred in November. I am sorry that I was not here I had a child. I
appreciate that the homeowners have been given this opportunity to relay their concerns.
I would hope that the pictures that you have seen at the last Board Meeting and now this
one has demonstrated clearly that the area surrounding this proposed project is already
quite sensitive. As a homeowner I really feel for Mr. Allen, I wish that there was a way
that they could develop and I am not here to stand in anyone’s way of development I am
just here to protect my property and my neighbors property. We have a really good
comradery among us there. I like to just put these pictures up as well because this is …
Supervisor Stec-We will pass it around and then put it up.
Ms. Sweet-Mr. Brewer can hang it up.
Supervisor Stec-He is also the chief bottle washer.
Ms. Sweet-Sorry the snowman on the back was my son’s Christmas Project.
Supervisor Stec-You destroyed that for this?
45
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Ms. Sweet-I did it I am sorry. On the pictures if you could see that, those are actually
taken from my home. That is in the fall of 2005 or 2003 or something like that. So, that
flooding occurs regardless of what season you are in.
Councilman Brewer-Is yours the second house on the left as you go down Meadow
from Cronin?
Ms. Sweet-Up Meadowbrook Road. It is the first Schmerhorn home that he built there.
Councilman Brewer-So it is relatively new then.
Ms. Sweet-And that goes to my next point which is when I believe Mr. Sanford said that
storm water, when you approve a project it is supposed to be maintained on that. My
storm water runs right to Halfway Brook, it doesn’t maintain on my property. I do not
know who came up, what engineer came up with that I am just a Mom, so I do not know.
Very little lives in Halfway Brook anymore and I would be amiss to sit up here just talk
about my property, because I do love my property. But, I also enjoy that my children get
to go out into the environment and there is very little that lives in that brook that is not
man placed in that brook. That brook has feet of sediment on the bottom of it and I can
only imagine that, that comes from run off from somewhere. By the time we stop and
have regard to this treasure it will be too late. Just in closing I would really like to thank
Mr. Sanford to listening to the folks in his Ward, you have maintained your
professionalism and taken a few beatings for us. Ultimately you five gentlemen must do
what is best for the Town of Queensbury and if you think that another development, this
development is what is best for Queensbury then your decision is simple. But, if you
even have one concern what the impact of this development would have on existing
properties homeowners and the environment then your decision should also be just as
clear and once big developers and high power attorneys the big money goes elsewhere I
will still be here calling my little half acre in Queensbury home. Just one other thing for
Mr. Allen, I was really sad when he said that his property would be condemned if he
received a tax break, I think any green space that we can save is a treasure for every
generation of Queensbury. Thank you.
Supervisor Stec-Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to address
on this public hearing? Mr. Auer, Yes Ma’am
Ms. Kim Kroll-My name is Kim Kroll and I live directly across the street from where this
project wants to be done.
Supervisor Stec-What is your last name?
Ms. Kim Kroll-Kroll, Kim Kroll I am just going to read to you too, because I am real
nervous as you have noticed in the other meetings. I have resided on Cronin Road for
over forty years and I have seen drastic changes in the last several years because of the
construction that has taken place in the neighborhood. Halfway Brook has narrowed and
silted up as she said. The water flow has decreased it’s pathetic down on Meadowbrook
Road. The raising water table has made it necessary for sump pumps which used to run
only occasionally in my fathers house to run almost constantly. Wild life has been
displaced, deer now roam through neighborhoods destroying gardens, trees and bushes.
Coyotes wander in packets along Cronin Road and take up my back yard just about every
night of the week. After Lowes was built our yard became a home for the increasing
number of displaced moles, woodchucks and rabbits. The speed and volume of traffic
has grown to an alarming rate, roadside trash on Meadowbrook Road and Cronin Roads
has increased along with the growth and population of the neighborhood. In considering
the Bay Meadows project I hope that you will give your attention to the impact and the
above changes have made and I urge you to revisit the Seqra so that up todate
information may be found and studied before a decision is made. I have also spent a
good amount of hours walking the neighborhood and I have a petition with a hundred and
six names who all feel the same way I do.
Supervisor Stec-Give those to the Clerk please. Thank you very much. Is there anyone
else that would like to address the Board this evening? Mr. Auer…Thank you.
46
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Ms. Lee Beaman-My name is Lee Beaman I live on Overlook Drive in Queensbury in a
Michael’s group home which I am very pleased with.
Supervisor Stec-You got a lot of good press tonight, John, we should charge you for this.
Ms. Beaman-During the course of attending Planning Board meetings on the Bay
Meadows Project, I have learned that criteria which is several years old is being used to
substantiate the building of thirty nine town homes on land that has always been wet. In
the last few years there has been a significant increase in housing development in the
adjacent neighborhood. This has made a negative impact on the proposed project site.
Storm water runoff from the newly paved areas has flowed into this lowest piece of land
and a build up of silt has curtailed the effectiveness of Halfway Brook. In making your
decision on the Bay Meadows project I urge you to take into consideration the change
that has taken place. To continue to ignore its impact would be more than irresponsible it
would have far reaching consequences for the Town of Queensbury and for the quality of
life for those who reside here. I ask that you revisit Seqra and have a qualified outside
party test the soil in Bay Meadows, find out it’s current content find out the current water
table then proceed toward making an informed decision on this project.
Supervisor Stec-Thank you very much. Anybody else this evening, Mr. Auer
Mr. Douglas Auer-Again, Doug Auer As a matter of historical for the historical record,
I just talked to Mr. Allen about this, because I was in the Recreation Commission at the
time. This is fifteen or sixteen years ago I had just gotten on the Recreation Commission
at the time I thought it was fifty five units but he informed me that Dick Morse who I
knew fairly well at the time was an engineer that practiced here in town, but he had
worked up a design for that property for sixty five units now. We as Recreation
Commission Members I do not think Mark was on the Commission at the time.
Supervisor Stec-Not fifteen years ago
Town Counsel Schachner-Yea, might have been, probably.
Mr. Auer-Do you remember being part of that discussion when we looked at that
property, Dick Morse we went on a tour with him?
Town Counsel Schachner-It doesn’t matter
Mr. Auer-To help clarify some of this, my recollections, but the point is at the time this
was pretty much in the same area with the exception that they were looking to the
developers and the developers were looking to provide some land in lieu of money which
is the way it works with developments, five hundred dollars per unit is what they pay if
the land is not acceptable. At the time we declined the offer of the land we felt the
money would be more worth while to us but I would suggest looking at the some of the
minutes of the Recreation Commission meetings because I think we hashed over some
things at the time that maybe germane to what you all are looking at, at this point. So,
Councilman Boor-That was done very recently and actually Mr. Rode’s who is in the
audience had some quotes and the Recreation Commission ultimately said that
Mr. Auer-What year was that Roger?
Councilman Boor-I do not have that, right here but you could ask Mr. Rode’s because it
was fairly recently it was declined because it was too wet, they did not want it and also at
the, another meeting a portion of property in this PUD was donated to the Town four
acres along Meadowbrook with the thought that boat access or access to Halfway Brook
would be a nice thing to do and it was ultimately abandoned do to wet conditions.
Nobody could figure out how to get cars to park anywhere near there so it was abandoned
the idea.
Mr. Auer-I think that was even a little later iteration.
47
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Councilman Brewer-Doug, what you are talking about was back in the early ninety’s I
was on the Planning Board then.
Mr. Auer-They must have come to you guys at the time because we would not have
gotten it.
Councilman Brewer-Jimmy Girrard had another piece of property across the street.
Mr. Auer-My point is, is that there is some historical information here that I think you
might want to look at. If you really want to do diligence on this you look back to some of
that, I think you will find some interesting discussion at the time.
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 I think Mr. Rode
presentation has shown the importance of preserving the impounding basin. That seems
to be environmentally essential. Filling it, is not going to do it. There is a way to build
on it if you want to build the facilities on stilts. You could preserve the impounding
basin.
Supervisor Stec-Do you know a contractor, John?
Mr. Salvador-Pardon me?
Supervisor Stec-Do you know a contractor that does that sort of work?
Mr. Salvador-I have a little experience in it. In any case, we must preserve the
impounding basin that is essential. I would like to suggest a method of maybe
simplifying this whole review. I would like to refer you to the language of the State
Environmental Review Quality Review Act, section 617.9 which talks about the
preparation and content of an environmental impact statement and the procedures thereof.
Paragraph seven under that section deals with a supplemental EIS. The reason I bring
this up is that I have not so sure that all aspects and elements of this PUD need to be
reviewed. There is probably just one area that seems to be in need of a restudy or re-
review. A supplemental EIS can do it. Supplemental EIS the lead agency may require a
supplemental EIS limited to the specific adverse environmental impacts not addressed or
inadequately addressed in the EIS that arise from A. Changes proposed for the project
B. Newly discovered information or C. A change in circumstances related to the project.
The decision to require preparation of a supplemental EIS in the case of newly discovered
information must be based upon the following criteria. A. The importance and relevance
of the information and B. The present state of the information in the EIS. If a
supplemental EIS is required it will be subject to the full procedures of this part. I really
think what you are required to do is as you evaluate the environmental impacts on this as,
as this part of the project as a supplement you have got to tie in the rest of the project
with it. You have got to identify the accumulative impacts. So, that might simplify
getting the process moving. The other thing I would like to suggest is that the sponsor
put together after a scoping session the draft environmental impact statement. The lead
agency then can prepare the final environmental statement. Thank you.
Supervisor Stec-Thank you Mr. Salavdor Anybody else on this public hearing. Yes.
Go ahead I will still need you to come to the microphone.
Ms. Jill Steele-One other question, my name is Jill Steele by the way. Is it Queensbury’s
responsibility or Warren County and Washington Counties responsibility to walk the
sides of Halfway Brook and to take out any beavers or beaver dams?
Supervisor Stec-I do not know about the whole beaver thing we have had questions on
beavers and otters before but I do not know about beaver control responsibility.
Ms. Steele-Well, my husband
48
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Supervisor Stec-That is a DEC question, the Department of Environmental Conservation
in Warrensburg, they are in the phone book but call the Warrensburg DEC and you say
hey, we are concerned about a beaver dam, they are the people that handle that.
Ms. Steele-Ok. Thank you.
Supervisor Stec-They are in the phone book and off the top of my head that is the best I
can give you right now.
Ms. Steele-Thank you.
Supervisor Stec-Anybody else? Well, any wildlife is DEC. All right how about Mr.
Allen and Mr. Michaels if you got anything else? Since the public hearing was not
required in the first place I will close the public hearing and then from here on in we can
discuss it amongst ourselves.
Councilman Sanford-I would suggest that we close the public hearing just before we are
ready to do Seqra. If we are going to do Seqra tonight then we can close the public
hearing tonight if for some reason the Board is of the persuasion to table this then I would
like to keep the public hearing open until we finally do address it.
Supervisor Stec-Well, lets, we will leave it open but Darleen we will leave it open but lets
talk about where we are going from here, we talked about a lot of things.
Councilman Sanford-I have got a couple things more sort of like a Town Board
discussion rather than where we are going. I have a couple of things I want to talk about
as well…..
Supervisor Stec-Are these the same pictures from two weeks ago Richard?
Councilman Sanford-No, well, one is the other one isn’t. The one on the bottom I will
leave it there, I want to explain what they are.
Supervisor Stec-The one on the bottom is the one that we saw two weeks ago.
Councilman Sanford-Yes, but the one on the top is not.
Supervisor Stec-Usually we hand them to the Board to look at, but go ahead and talk.
Councilman Boor-We want the camera to have it and then.
Councilman Sanford-Let me just quickly explain if this still works. On the top here Jim,
those are pictures that I received not to long ago. Again, the top one and the bottom one
is from 177 Meadowbrook looking to the site and the one up here is I think from 187
Meadowbrook which is just the house north of 177 even though there is a 10 digit
increase in housing numbers. So, what I am doing with these pictures and then on the
bottom again, are pictures of the Girl Scout Camp which is located at the north part of the
project going into the site. So, with the series of these six pictures you are getting pretty
much from looking from the east to the west of the proposed site during the winter storm
of 2006. Ok. So, those show I think the site at perhaps its worst conditions when you
have a major storm not some of the other conditions were just spring time or fall this is
after a significant rain storm.
Councilman Brewer-Those are right on the Bay Meadows Golf Course?
Councilman Sanford-They are looking to it, they are
Councilman Boor-The photographer is not on the course.
Councilman Sanford-The photographer is not but the camera angle is directed in that
direction Tim.
49
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Councilman Brewer-The course is beyond this water or is that water.
Councilman Sanford-What water is
Supervisor Stec-The course is beyond the trees.
Councilman Sanford-Yea.
Councilman Brewer-The water is ..Bay Meadows then, this is in the backyard of these
people?
Councilman Sanford-It is from the back yard then going if you know the, I walked the
land the other day, these people’s back yards hit the brook and then you go and then
Glenn’s house in the southern section is there are well, and then you hit the brook and
then you got the property.
Councilman Brewer-I am just making a point of clarification that the water that you are
showing in those pictures really isn’t on Bay Meadows it is on these people’s property.
Councilman Sanford-Well, no actually if you look way back here this is ..
Councilman Brewer-The majority of it.
Supervisor Stec-The fore ground on residential property.
Councilman Sanford-I think the real point that I saw with these newer pictures was that
they are looking at two and a half feet of water on their property and the site heading due
west of them if that gets filled in I can only imagine the water that, how deep that water
would be on 187 Meadowbrook and 177 Meadowbrook it would obviously raise the
degree that it is not being displaced on the flood plain.
Supervisor Stec-I am going to stick my neck out here and say that we are not going to
take any action tonight. So, my question from here forward is more a procedural one and
a time line one. We do have a decision to make at some point I am not sure that we will
make that decision tonight or at a future meeting so to whether or not to say well lets
continue with coordinated review and try to hammer out all the water issues and keep this
internal with the Town Board finish it and then hand it off Seqra complete to the Planning
Board that is Option I or Option II would be to figure out what we are going to do by way
of just saying we are going to do an uncoordinated just the PUD portion and then hand
the whole kit and caboodle off to the Planning Board in which case the entire Seqra at the
Site Plan and Subdivision level gets revisited. I think those are the two, Mark is shaking
his head.
Councilman Boor-They cannot do the zoning. We are the only ones that can do zoning.
Supervisor Stec-We do the zoning and they do
Town Counsel Schachner-I was only shaking my head because you said at which point
the Planning Board would redo the entire Seqra Review.
Supervisor Stec-Not for the zoning but for the site plan. The site plan, the Seqra Review
that most of our commenter’s are here talking about because I don’t think that anyone is
going to say no this is tremendously inconsistent to go from PUD from forty nine units to
PUD of thirty nine units. I mean that isn’t the issue, the issue is going to be is this too
much density on this property with the water and all those issues, I think is what I term
and maybe incorrectly so but in my mind those are the typical traditional site plan kind of
Seqra Reviews. I think the PUD determination and I am not sure I do not have a strong
opinion which way we go but I think as I understand it those are the two options that you
described.
Unknown-Well yes.
50
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Councilman Boor-But there are actually a lot of options.
Councilman Sanford-I guess my point is there are only four of us here tonight and so we
do not have to move to a Seqra.
Supervisor Stec-It is reasonable that you could get four votes.
Councilman Sanford-That is right and that is my question actually is really looking at this
Dan,
Supervisor Stec-Lets say we have three of us say that we thought that
Councilman Sanford-Do you really, really think that this is a suitable site for this project
based on what we know now? Do you think and I have a list of additional information
that we can pursue if we chose to, but do you think ..and do you think it is appropriate to
continue to drag this out and ..
Supervisor Stec-I am not going to argue the applicants..
Councilman Sanford-Again if we want to go forward we could
Supervisor Stec-Here is the history and I did not mean to be coy or flippant with some
with Mr. Rode’s but we did have a lot of meetings about this, there is more to it than just
do we want to put thirty nine units here? I do not want to argue the applicants, if the
applicant says you know, you know what we will do our forty units right off from Bay
Road and we will not be anywhere near the wetland and oh, by the way, we will save the
par 3.
Councilman Boor-They will not say that because they would have to go through the same
process all over again and I sense that if we did the process again this Board would
actually look at the housing project which it did not do, because all the time staff was
leading us to believe that review would be done at the Planning Board level, we know
now that was incorrect. So, the question is do you make one mistake better by
compounding it with another or do you address it and deal with it in an appropriate way?
Supervisor Stec-Again, I think there was an approved PO for more density in a different
design and if we said forget it we are not going to entertain this one because we know
more now then we did three or four months ago, which is true, then that is fine. But,
what would stop the applicant from saying ok, then we will go with what had already
been approved in which case you do not have the protection.
Councilman Boor-There is new information, we can open up any one of these with new
information Dan. Any Seqra can be re-opened with new information, is that correct?
Supervisor Stec-Yea, but Roger ..there is a hundred
Councilman Boor-Don’t assume that he can go back to the old plan just, I mean.
Supervisor Stec-If the old plan is high and dry that is the point I am saying. If there is a
hundred acres and I do not remember the old plan, but if the old plan was we are going to
put forty nine units up here on the high ground on Bay Road and that was what was
approved, then they could do that.
Councilman Boor-If he wants to do it, no they can apply for that, Dan.
Councilman Sanford-What is the date of the original old plan how many years ago?
Director Ryba-2001 I believe.
Councilman Sanford-Is that plan still executable?
51
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Councilman Boor-Not under the new PUD zoning.
Councilman Brewer-What are you saying Richard, do you want to reopen this and kill the
whole project is that what you are saying?
Supervisor Stec-Wait a minute, let me interrupt just for a few
Councilman Brewer-I am not criticizing I am just asking the question.
Councilman Sanford-What I am saying is sure, we could table it, we could give them a
laundry list of information we could go through additional soil samples, we could go
through test pits we could go through, I have questions on specific exact amounts of
yards of soil being brought in, I want to know how many truck loads, it goes, on and on
and on. My feeling is in all likelihood the conclusion is probably going to be the same. I
am not going to try to push this through, but this is a project that should not have that
development on it.
Supervisor Stec-Let me try to re-explain this again, and again I am not married to what
we have got but I want to make sure that all four Town Board Members understand what
we are thinking about.
Councilman Boor-What you are thinking about.
Supervisor Stec-This is my understanding.
Councilman Boor-What you are thinking about.
Supervisor Stec-You have got a hundred acres, with frontage on Cronin and Bay Road,
they could come back, they could say you what or we could say, one of us either the
applicant or the Town or both could say this current plan as written way too much
trouble, way too many problems with what we are trying to do where we are trying to put
what. They could say fine, scrap that, they could apply and there is no guarantee, of
course at some point we are going to run out of wetlands and water problems, if they
move up Bay Road they could potentially be completely out of water issue in which case
they are going to say we would like this version of a PUD and it might not protect the
golf course and it might be more density.
Councilman Boor-That is fine, Dan.
Supervisor Stec-I just want to make sure everybody understands that.
Councilman Boor-Don’t assume that it is going to get approved.
Councilman Sanford-If they come back with a project that makes sense from an
environmental point of view and a design standard point of view and meets site plan
subdivision criteria and
Councilman Boor-All the more to them….
Councilman Sanford-That America…
Supervisor Stec-I just want to make sure, I understand, I want to make sure we all
understand.
Councilman Boor-It does not have to be more dense, it may be more dense. Don’t
predetermine what they are going to come in with.
Supervisor Stec-Correct I am just saying that could happen. Potentially they could come
in and they could say
Councilman Boor-It certainly could they could come in with five hundred units …
52
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Supervisor Stec-I just want to make sure everyone understood what we are talking about.
Councilman Sanford-They have that right if they submit a complete application
Councilman Boor-They have the right to do whatever they want.
Councilman Sanford-and they want to go through the motions, we have an obligation to
go through that process. Again, what I am saying is
Supervisor Stec-Water might not be an issue then is what I am saying.
Councilman Sanford-Good, good
Councilman Boor-You act like we are trying to, we are not against the project
Councilman Sanford-I do not want water as an issue.
Supervisor Stec-Just making sure that we are all on the same page.
Councilman Boor-We are not opposed to building Dan we are opposed to building in bad
areas. If they can find a good area on there that meets all the Seqra requirements all the
more too them.
Supervisor Stec-All right, that is what I needed to hear.
Councilman Sanford-My feeling is that
Supervisor Stec-That is all I needed to hear.
Councilman Sanford-Ok, that is right,
Supervisor Stec-that is all I needed to hear
Councilman Sanford-we do not need to get
Supervisor Stec- I heard what I needed to hear.
Councilman Sanford-Fine
Supervisor Stec-I have my answer.
Councilman Sanford-Fine
Supervisor Stec-I am happy.
Councilman Sanford-Fine
Supervisor Stec-We are all on record crystal clear.
Councilman Sanford-Fine.
Supervisor Stec-So, now where do we go?
Councilman Sanford-Why don’t we, the way I see it is why don’t we go through with the
Seqra determination and my understanding is if it carries, it carries if for some reason,
because we do not have a fifth member here and we come up with a two, two then that
means that no decision has been made and it would carry and then we would table it and
then it would carry forward until such a point where we can readdress it and have
hopefully a three, two or a majority decision. But, that would be my recommendation.
Supervisor Stec-Marilyn, do you have anything to, I mean staff has been silent tonight
and maybe wisely so, I mean.
53
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Director Ryba-One of the things and certainly there are some things that if we had some
opportunity to be filled in on some thoughts that we might have been able to address but I
think the question was asked as to during a Town Board workshop as to why the Planning
Board why there was a reverse on that and I believe that was addressed and should be in
the minutes. The other thing and I remember having a conversation with our Sr. Planner
about this, that there was a Dreps Cerniglia review also done because we wanted and it
included this because we did not want to have a segmented review. So, I think there may
have already been some Planning Board review on this but I would need to go through
information and fill out, do a memo type of thing, get all the facts straight and that is why
I have been silent, because until such time as I get to go through all of that then I can
better speak to it.
Councilman Sanford-Those are good comments but they are not addressing the
advisability of pursuing a Seqra Review tonight. I guess you have those concerns which
aren’t really related to that.
Director Ryba-Well, the concerns relate to what has already been done and what hasn’t
been done specifically.
Councilman Sanford-But if my assertion if my assertion is that based upon the
information that is applicable to the limited scope revisiting rather than reopening of the
Seqra and in fact if a majority of this Board can feel comfortable with the decision one
way or the other then that certainly shouldn’t impact your research and review of some of
the items that I pointed out that were troublesome to me in terms of inconsistencies and
incongruence’s so it is really not a relative process to what we are contemplating.
Councilman Boor-..tax map numbers the Drebs ..is referring to we are not even looking at
that portion of the PUD.
Supervisor Stec-Marilyn, I think I would like to have the benefit of digesting this
information, get a little more information from you, it sounds like you have got some
more to say but perhaps you would like some time to put your thoughts together. I would
also recommend that we put this on the agenda for our next workshop if
Councilman Brewer-Monday
Director Ryba-I will not be here.
Supervisor Stec-Then the following workshop, I mean, no action does not push it
forward.
Councilman Boor-I will not be herr for the following. I do not want to push this out for
the applicant either, they deserve
Councilman Sanford-I do not want it at a workshop I want it at regular meeting because
the public hearing is still open and we don’t typically conduct public hearings at a
workshop.
Councilman Brewer-Just like you said last week Richard, it a Board meeting we can take
action if need be.
Councilman Boor-It is a public hearing.
Supervisor Stec-No, I am not suggesting that we take action. We would have to conclude
this at a Regular Meeting
Councilman Brewer-We could leave it open.
Councilman Boor-As long as we could have it here.
Supervisor Stec-Leave it open? There is no guarantee I will check with Kathleen.
54
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
th
Councilman Boor-I will not be here on the 16 or after so.
th
Councilman Brewer-The 16
Councilman Boor-Of May
th
Supervisor Stec-The 15 is a Board Meeting night.
th
Councilman Boor-Right a regular. I will, I am leaving the 16.
Councilman Brewer-Why couldn’t we hopefully come to some sort of conclusion next
Monday night amongst us because the action taken is done
Councilman Boor-Because we do not do resolutions at a workshop.
Councilman Sanford-I want to come up, Tim, because I want to come up with some kind
of decision where I can be looking the applicant in the eye when I do it, I would not want
to do it at a workshop type of meeting where they may or may not be present, where the
public may not be present and then go in with a non committed consensus and then move
it there. I would like to keep it
Councilman Brewer-Well, that is fine I didn’t say.
Supervisor Stec-Scrap the workshop idea but I do not think that I am ready to take an
action on this tonight so we could possibly take action two weeks from now.
Councilman Brewer-Richard, what I my point was we could discuss, look at the
information we have got to talk amongst ourselves with what we have heard here tonight,
possibly give the applicant a chance to put something together for us, I am not saying he
should or he would or he will or he won’t we can talk about next Monday and then the
following Town Board Meeting we can appropriately act on it. On television, with the
public it doesn’t matter to me.
Councilman Boor-Just so, for my benefit what could the applicant put together for us?
Councilman Brewer-I do not know Roger, there has been a lot of things brought out
tonight
Councilman Boor-I don’t think he can do anything.
Councilman Brewer-if I am going to do a Seqra I am going to look at all the information
so I can do it appropriately and not just key in on one section.
Councilman Sanford-Well, first of all in the scope of what we are doing now we have to
key in on one section Tim.
Councilman Boor-That is all we can do.
Councilman Sanford-It is inappropriate for us to deviate. I think in the time that we have
taken here to review this and discuss it and listen to the public and look at things we have
done that limited scope review. Again, we could do the Seqra review and if for some
reason it comes out to a two, two it merely means and correct me if I am wrong Mark it
means that no decision has been made and then we deal with it. But, it may very well be
that the outcome will be one way or the other a three one so why not move down that
path.
Supervisor Stec-I do not know about Tim, I am not prepared to vote on this tonight. I am
just, there is a lot of information and I am glad that you thanked Darleen for getting it
together and I am hearing from Staff that have got more to say.
55
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Councilman Sanford-I guess I go back to Roger’s question is, what is it going to take for
you to form an opinion that this project is an environmentally sound project and you feel
good going forward with it.
Councilman Boor-That is a legitimate question let him answer it.
Supervisor Stec-I have a legitimate answer, the one document other than antidotal
evidence which is valuable, but the one document that I am aware of that we have
Councilman Boor-Antidotal isn’t photographs of it.
Supervisor Stec-The new flood line, Marilyn and say that is the line and you know thou
shall not be over that line.
Councilman Boor-You do not want to know where the flood line is.
Supervisor Stec-That is what I am comfortable with.
Councilman Boor-It is like further …
Supervisor Stec-Richard I have seen it.
Councilman Boor-Well then you said you wanted to see where the flood line is he is
going to show you.
Councilman Sanford-S4, has
Councilman Boor-Right there,
Councilman Sanford-in the red.
Councilman Boor-And that is the 86’ flood line, not
Councilman Sanford-this is the flood plain
Councilman Boor-1986 flood plain
Councilman Sanford-In the flood plain you have section of three and four resides within
it, the actual property of the development although not development is partially within the
actual flood way which means basically part of …and you can see you have a very
problematic site here compounded with all the discussions we have had and all the
information it gets to the point where you know who knows maybe the applicant will
come up here and say
Supervisor Stec-forget it.
Councilman Sanford-he just as soon withdraw the application.
Councilman Boor-I think it is important to understand that, that flood way and that flood
plain was 1986, Lowes wasn’t there, the car wash was not there, Mr. Schmerhorn’s
hundreds and hundreds of apartments were not there, I can go on and on as far as the kind
of developments occurred since that flood plain was established. The notion that it has
got, that it has reseeded and it has not gotten bigger you know, here again, I think Mr.
Michaels made some good points with relative to engineering but at some point use
common sense too, guys, that is not antidotal by the way Dan, those pictures are not
antidotal. Those are photographs, and I think they tell a very compelling story and I
cannot be comfortable pretending those photographs do not exists and that there isn’t
some water issues over there and
Councilman Brewer-I do not think anybody here said that there weren’t any water issues
Roger,
56
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Supervisor Stec-That is right.
Councilman Brewer-you are making
Councilman Boor-I guess, I think Mr. Sanford correctly asked the question what is it
going to take for you guys to say this is a good project and should go forward or I have
got some serious reservations about this project.
Supervisor Stec-We spent two hours telling you we had some reservations.
Councilman Boor-You had serious reservations about this project
Councilman Brewer-Absolutely, I do.
Supervisor Stec-That is why I think that is why two of us voted much to your surprise
two weeks ago to reopen this.
Councilman Boor- And you are aware that the applicant cannot change anything at this
point in time, we can only act on what he had put forth.
Supervisor Stec-I prefer to hear that from Mark.
Councilman Brewer-Roger I think in fairness
Councilman Boor-In the Seqra review for thirty nine units.
Councilman Brewer-to all of us if we do this and do a pos dec and make him do a
environmental assessment form should we sit here and just kill the project and not allow
that to happen is that what you are saying?
Councilman Sanford-No, no, no, what I am saying is we would go through the Seqra of
long form and if at the conclusion of that there were identified major impacts that cannot
be mitigated then what would happen at that particular point in time we would take, I
would recommend that we would take a reasonable period of time to draw up, write up
and compose Part III to the Seqra process and then that would be brought back and
discussed and reviewed upon the Town Board and then it voted on . If the majority of the
Board approved the Part III explaining why there were major impacts that cannot be
mitigated then you would in essence have the pos dec on the Seqra Review and then there
are a couple of options that the applicant can take, one of which is comprehensive
environmental impact statement, the other is I guess call it a day. I guess the third they
could disagree with us and take us to Court.
Councilman Boor-I believe that is an accurate assessment isn’t it?
Supervisor Stec-I have a question that I would like an answer from our Attorney. If we
say, there are issues and we want mitigation and lets say the mitigation that we seek is we
would like to move the line in accordance with, from the flood plain to the flood way or
the flood way to the flood plain, the new line that we have been talking about can we,
because Roger is saying we cannot move anything it just eliminates the buildings that are
trapped in there.
Councilman Boor-We cannot do it in this format, we would have to set, go ahead you
answer it.
Councilman Sanford-Answer the question, I mean, you are creating a process that
theoretically would have a perpetually moving on Dan, they would keep revising until
finally they felt good about it. I think the process is, they can withdraw the application
and come back with a new plan.
Supervisor Stec-The line is the new piece of information, I mean, ten years from now
perhaps the line is different, sure I understand that, but you do not take buildings down
when the line moves. We pick a line that we think is
57
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Councilman Boor-Amen
Supervisor Stec-reasonable, right,
Councilman Boor-Amen, so keep that in mind.
Supervisor Stec-We pick a line that we believe to be a reasonable line that protects those
people that would be living in this development and the area so the question is if they
said fine, if you are going to move that line from the east to the west, keeping us further
and further away from Halfway Brook which I think is a good thing but they are going to
say you know these two buildings now are on the wrong side of that line and we want to
put them over here. Is that mechanism available to them or is that completely not
available.
Councilman Boor-Under the limited Seqra Review that we are doing tonight.
Town Counsel Schachner-I see everyone loading up for the answer you want me to give
so I am just going to ignore that and give you the correct legal answer. The correct legal
answer is this issue is expressly addressed by an important case decided by the highest
court in the State of New York called the Court of Appeals and in that case the decision
was very clear that uses a phrase like give and take but I cannot remember if that is the
exact phrase but I would be happy to provide the Board with copies of the case if you
like. But the prevailing view in New York is that the Seqra process not only can but
arguably should be used for give and take to help projects be improved through dialog
between the agency and the applicant. So, this has arisen many, many times before and
in fact courts have sanctioned the notion that Seqra Review can be beneficially utilized to
have exactly that sort of exchange and have an applicant modify a project to reflect, not
to reflect, to address concerns of an environmental nature expressed by a Seqra
Reviewing Agencies.
Councilman Sanford-When is the threshold reached because I have knowledge of this
from the Planning Board, where it becomes a point where you are not dealing with a
modification but you are dealing with a new application.
Town Counsel Schachner-There is no, the law does not provide bright line and you have
heard me say that at Planning Board Meetings as well, the general idea behind that is if
there are substantial or material modifications such that the entity in this case the Town,
wants to consider something new application or a new project, that is somewhat
discretionary decision and you can do that.
Supervisor Stec-Now, Mark from a practical standpoint though all of this the applicant
could say, you know what it is not worth the trouble in which case I am going to venture
a guess there will be a lot of people in the room right now would be very happy.
Town Counsel Schachner-If I am addressing your question, the applicant always has the
right to withdraw an application if that is what you are asking.
Supervisor Stec-I guess, you know we invested a lot of time last year and a lot of good
things came from what we put our energy into, about protecting the golf course, and
reducing density and that was a great thing. The applicant worked with the Town Board
on that, I do not deny that we have got a very legitimate concern that has been amplified
with some very good photographs and we have some other new information like the flood
line to consider and you know what, if there is a way to make the project better and be
less burdensome to the neighbors of course I am all for that. I did not know about this
case about the give and take but again that makes some common sense it is a good way to
do business.
Town Counsel Schachner-It happens all, if you think about it, it happens many, many
reviews it has happened right here in the Town of Queensbury at Town Board PUD
Reviews at Planning Board numerous reviews very, very common.
58
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Councilman Boor-I guess my question now Mark is under the limited scope that I believe
we have been told we can do review I am hard pressed to understand how we can start re-
looking at roads and other issues. Not that I think that they were ever an issue when we
have been told that we can only look at
Councilman Sanford-Very good point.
Town Counsel Schachner-Well, I am not sure who told you that, that is what the Town
Board, I mean your resolution
Councilman Boor-No, it is very clear that this is the only areas that we could talk about.
Councilman Sanford-What we were told was that the focus of our review is based on the
new information, now if Dan is suggesting that we don’t call it a new application but we
take a material modification and we say ok, that is the modification and we will entertain
it then I would argue that, that should open up,
Councilman Boor-All Seqra Reviews
Councilman Sanford-it should open up the Seqra associated with esthetics and
everything,
Councilman Boor-With everything.
Supervisor Stec-That is fine.
Town Counsel Schachner-Anything that is related to the modification, sure.
Councilman Boor-It needs to be very clear because under this limited
Town Counsel Schachner-Anything that is related to the modification sure.
Supervisor Stec-Fine but at that juncture, I am sorry
Councilman Boor-But I guess why, that is why I asked the question how do you re-open
a new, I do not think it can be done on the fly just changing lines under the limited review
that we are required to do at this meeting.
Town Counsel Schachner-I do not think anyone is suggesting that.
Supervisor Stec-Oh, no Roger that is not where I was going, no, no, I am sorry.
Councilman Boor-Well that is what it sure sounded like, it sounded like you were just
saying move the lines and we will vote on it.
Supervisor Stec-No, I was saying lets say this is the line that we want to draw and tell the
applicant that and say, if we draw this line then we can at some point the Town Board can
say reaffirm the consistency, if they want to go there, we can confirm this is consistent
with the PUD hand off the new project and the new design and with the new flood line
and the new layout to the Planning Board and they do all of Seqra and I am fine with it.
Town Counsel Schachner-All of Seqra except for the rezoning.
Councilman Sanford-What I would argue that what you are suggesting is and this is
where the discussion comes in that Mark just referenced, is of a, it is such a material
modification that the same thing would be accomplished in a cleaner way because it
would also avoid the muddy path that we have traveled that Mark also mentioned in the
beginning of this meeting, and have them submit a new application with a new
configuration in the new location of the site should they chose to. Why perpetuate this
confusing mess when we could start fresh with basically as I see it, not a particularly any
more burden or inconvenience to the applicant. If they are going to have to do this kind
59
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
of a modification they are going to have to redo everything anyhow. So, I do not
understand the value of taking your course of action. I just don’t see it.
Supervisor Stec-That is fine, you don’t have to. So, that is what I would like to do.
Councilman Boor-You would like to do what, move the line?
Supervisor Stec-Move the line, tell the applicant we would like to move the line, see what
the applicant has to say. There is even money that the applicant is going to fold their
tents and leave and again I think that satisfies some people.
Councilman Sanford-Why don’t ask them.
Councilman Brewer-Why don’t we just all of us shut up for a minute and ask the
applicant what he wants to do.
Supervisor Stec-I tried to get them up here before and they kind of waived me off. Do
you all want to comment? It is your project.
Mr. Michaels-We are more than willing to modify the application as needed if what
information we are given is based on engineering. If this line has to be moved based on
an engineering survey or something that says it we are more than glad in working with
any engineer to figure out how to do this project. But, we are not, we cannot deal with
this project on just pure emotion and pictures based on that everybody knows with a
manhole, that the Town did not maintain that manhole, that was the reason most of that
water came in there this winter, and that is on public records, you can ask.
Councilman Boor-Actually, John one of the biggest constrictions was on the other side of
Quaker Road and if it hadn’t been for that constriction Homer Avenue wouldn’t have
flooded and you have received
Councilman Sanford-more water
Councilman Boor-The bulk of what went into somebody’s cellar over there.
Mr. Michaels-We are more than willing to do it based on ..engineering, we feel that, that
we are talking about science and flood plains
Supervisor Stec-Marilyn what is the origin of that line, the line that we are talking the
flood way the new floodway line.
Director Ryba-The floodway channel is where the water actually flows, the origin is the
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Supervisor Stec-What is the vintage on that line?
Councilman Boor-86’ 1986, Dan.
Councilman Sanford-I will tell you what Dan
Councilman Brewer-I guess I do not understand if that line has always been there then
how did, is there any comment or mention made about that from the Army Corp. or
anything?
Supervisor Stec-How is it new? I was under the impression that there was a new flood
line.
Councilman Boor-Is it new because…it was never on the pictures we got
Councilman Sanford-No, no, no here is how it is new the GIS information the data on
that was superimposed the aerial photos and all the junk onto the site plan and that
enabled the calculation to show the new line. I will tell you what
60
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Director Ryba-Previously we found did not have that capability, we had the maps
actually the determination of whether something is or is not in a flood way is done at the
time of the building permit and Dave Hatin is the authorized official to make that
determination.
Supervisor Stec-So, we are going to be a little more pro-active.
Directory Ryba-Right, it is not until fairly recently that this information was available in
a format so that we could electronically have it in our geographic information system.
Councilman Sanford-I tell you want Dan, we are going back and forth on this I am going
to make a motion.
Mr. Michaels-Do you mind, what I just put forth before the motion and just make an offer
to the Town. That the applicant would pay for an engineering review, the engineer of
your choice, it could be someone new, not familiar with the project to go thorough and
evaluate all the issues that were brought up here today meet with the neighbors to take
full scope and come back with a recommendation to the Town Board on what should be
done with this project. Based on that we will make the changes or any changes that are
needed to do it.
Councilman Sanford-Again, I appreciate that offer. I am going to make a motion
Supervisor Stec-Let him start, hold that thought Mark, hold that thought for a second.
Town Counsel Schachner-It is a procedural I think it is of some importance ok.
Supervisor Stec-I know it is, go ahead Richard the floor is yours.
Councilman Boor-Hold on let him go.
Supervisor Stec-Counsel is going to tell you that you cannot make a motion on this unless
I close the public hearing.
Town Counsel Schachner-That is exactly what the Counsel is going to say.
Supervisor Stec-See how good I am, I have been doing this for awhile Mark, I knew what
you were going to say before you said it. Would you like me to close the public hearing?
Councilman Sanford-I was going to make a motion that we close the public hearing
and…
….
Supervisor Stec-Are you sure you want me to close the public hearing?
Councilman Sanford-We could always by the majority of the Board reopen the public
hearing so it is ok, so it is not like
Councilman Boor-Look it we did not have to have a public hearing so it is not even a
Supervisor Stec-I declare the public hearing closed and I will entertain a motion 10:10
P.M.
RESOLUTION TO CONDUCT SEQRA REVIEW ON PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT BY THE MICHAELS GROUP LLC, ON PROPERTY OWNED
BY BAY MEADOWS CORPORATION
RESOLUTION NO. 211.2006
61
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
RESOLVED,
a motion that as part of our re-review of this SEQRA that we conduct a
SEQRA Review to determine whether or not there are any material impacts on the
Planned Unit Development by The Michaels Group, LLC on property owned by Bay
Meadows Corporation.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2006 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Boor
NOES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
ABSENT: Mr. Strough
Discussion held before vote: Supervisor Stec-To do what I am not sure I understand the
motion. Councilman Sanford-Seqra, to do the long form Seqra. Councilman Brewser-You
need a motion to do a Seqra? Supervisor Stec-Now I am beyond, Mark? Town Counsel
Schachner-I am not aware that taking a motion, but it is up to the Board I guess. I am not
saying you can’t. Councilman Boor-So we do not have to second it then? Town Counsel
Schachner-Well I am not saying you can’t do it by motion I just don’t think you have ever
done that in the past, but that is fine. Councilman Sanford-Well I am trying to get us off the
dime here. Town Counsel Schachner-I am not objecting to it. Councilman Sanford-Ok.
Fine. Supervisor Stec-There is a motion and a second to proceed with a long form tonight,
right now. I just want to make sure I understand, there is a motion and a second. (vote
taken)
Councilman Brewer-I will use your methodology here you know, you got all this new
information and that is great and I will not say that I don’t have a problem with the flood
plain and what not, but I think in fairness all this new information we just got tonight from
you Richard, you never shared anything with us. Councilman Boor-It is not over Tim, it is
not over, we are just moving forward into the meeting agenda. Councilman Brewer-I am
just explaining how I voted and why I voted the way I did. Lets be fair. Councilman
Sanford-It funny, I do not know where you are during the week or at nights Councilman
Brewer-Usually at work and then at home.. Councilman Sanford-Well I guess because you
are not reviewing your material because I spent four days reviewing this material.
Councilman Brewer-I will not say that I didn’t review this, you never told me what the new
information was, Richard, for weeks. Supervisor Stec-I made a suggestion that we consider
pushing this in the direction of adopting the 86’ flood line as the new line of death and then
work with the applicant. The applicant came up here and actually got side tracked, but I
think the applicant was open to my more complicated and less clean manner of going in that
direction rather than killing a project and starting a new project. Throw a shoe if I was
wrong. So, I think that is the direction, again, that is where I would like to go. Town
Counsel Schachner-The Board can’t redesign an application Supervisor Stec-Correct. I am
saying lets not take any action but Councilman Boor-That is why we tried to take this vote
so we could move on to other things on the agenda. Supervisor Stec-But while we have the
benefit of the applicant here, I do not want to waste anyone else’s time especially mine.
Councilman Boor-We are not done with this Dan, we are done with it tonight because we do
not have a fifth person here and that is why we ..the vote because obviously the four of us
were not going to find an agreement so, our motion and our desire to have a vote was so that
we could get off the dime and get some other business done. Supervisor Stec-I guess what I
want to know is, without holding anyone down, because certainly you have the, there is
going to be more detail and two weeks are going to pass and you have the right to think
about thing and change you mind, but I want to know at a blush does anyone have a big
problem with working off of the flood line if you said lets start with that flood line and
keep..Councilman Sanford-Yes. Councilman Boor-Yes. Supervisor Stec-You do.
Councilman Sanford-We are not going to do it. Councilman Boor-No, we are not going to
62
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
do it. Councilman Brewer-You are not going to do it. Councilman Boor-No, we are going
to wait until the fifth person gets back so he can be involved in the discussion. Councilman
Sanford-And then we are going to review it, we will probably then review the Seqra and we
will see where we go with this, ok? Supervisor Stec-Fair enough. Mark do you have any
procedural issues for us about any of this? Town Counsel Schachner-I do have one
comment and that is at some point you really are going to have to face the issue of when you
do the Seqra Review whether you are doing it as a lead agency and reviewing the entire
project consisting of all the sub actions or you are deciding to not do coordinator review as a
lead agency but just reviewing the potential environmental impacts of the PUD Zoning.
Councilman Boor-I think if we had, had three votes tonight we would have answered that
question. Town Counsel Schachner-I am not suggesting that it has to be answered tonight I
just want to make sure everyone hears the answer. Councilman Boor-No, I mean is that
correct or not, we would have had to go down the road one road if we had Town Counsel
Schachner-Oh, I think that would be most appropriate so that you know what sort of Seqra
Review you are doing. Councilman Boor-Right, exactly, we would have known that if we
had, thank you.
3.0CORRESPONDENCE
3.0Landfill Report for the Month of March placed on file
3.1Building and Codes Report for the Month of March on file
4.0 INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS FROM THE FLOOR
5.0 PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Mr. Bernard Rahill-37 Wincrest Drive – Requested a traffic study of Warren County, the
number of accidents that take place in Queensbury and Warren County..also a study where
accidents take place and how frequent and the impact of traffic in certain areas. Requested
the Town Board contact the Post Star and Sheriff to do a report on this.
Supervisor Stec-The Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council in the last three years
completed a traffic study of Warren County and a separate study of Washington County.
The Town has talked about in the past and we may do in the future, we may do a Town
specific traffic study on the major intersections.
Mr. Rahill-Questioned if the people of this area know about the study? An organization was
established for the purpose of promoting business in Warren County, what are they doing?
Supervisor Stec-The Authority Reviewed the process, the draft has been sent to the County
for review…the County Board will probably take action in May and the State Legislature
sometime in June. They do not have the authority to levy taxes they do have the authority to
go into debt, that would have to be from the County Board. The legislation allowed for only
occupancy tax revenue to be used as a revenue source it did not general fund tax. It did not
mandate occupancy tax only allowed for it. The Board of Supervisor will make the decision
if occupancy tax will be used for the Authority.
Mr. Rahill-Re: Warren County I just noticed as Richard corrected me that we have a
doubling of the debt limit n Warren County under Nick Caimano as Financial Officer
Supervisor Stec-Nick does not enter into debt for the County he is the guy how good or bad
we are doing.
Mr. Rahill-Spoke about the County Center costing 14 million, a lot of things are being done
without the electorate participating in a vote, I do not think we should have a County Center
without the people of Warren County voting.
63
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Mr. Pliney Tucker-41 Division Road Re: Great Escape helping the Town with a purchase
of a ladder truck
Supervisor Stec-Will be speaking to them in the next couple of days.
Mr. Tucker-Questioned at the County level if you are appointed chairman of a committee do
you get a stipend for that?
Supervisor Stec-No. The Budget Officer has a stipend and so does the Vice Chairman and
the Chairman of the Board.
Mr. Tucker-Questioned that the budget officer received $10,000 extra.
Supervisor Stec-They increased his stipend this year to encompass the over sight of the Bed
Tax Fund and contracts…
Mr. John Salvador-Questioned what the old jail space would be used for?
Supervisor Stec-Noted there is a committee looking into that.
Mr. Salvador-The one story structure has been designed to take a second story. Written
letters and one as a formal complaint to the Zoning Administrator for which I have received
absolutely no responses since the first of the year. These all deal with projects in North
Queensbury, they all point for the need of a moratorium. There are projects that are not
receiving the proper review that are being permitted on a flawed basis.
Councilman Boor-It is of little help to you right now but I can assure you that those are
going to be the very issues that certain members of this Board are going to be addressing
when we revise the Zoning, the Codes, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan those definitions
that you are seeking I am hoping we can clarify.
th
Mr. Salvador-January 19 asked for the Zoning Administrator determination five different
issues of determination on a specific project the Long Project. If I am not satisfied with his
determination I can appeal it to the ZBA, the applicant can appeal to the ZBA but right now
it is no where and this project is moving ahead.
Mr. Peter Brothers-Minutes of last Town Board Meeting noted not all his comments were
made part of the minutes word for word. The minutes should be recorded word for word.
Supervisor Stec-I would like to recognize at this juncture 25 years she just celebrated last
month so Darleen thank you very much.
Town Clerk Dougher-The minutes are my minutes, the only thing we do word for word is a
public hearing. Noted that we do more in the minutes than is required.
Mr. Brothers-Why is the Zoning Board and Planning Board done word for word?
Town Clerk Dougher-Because they are all public hearings. Noted that the Board Meetings
are on tape and can be reviewed at any time.
Mr. Brothers-RE: Warren Co. Spending- Specifically with Health and Human Services
building I think this should be put out to competitive bidding the contractors and attorneys
as well. I feel this should be put to a referendum.
Supervisor Stec-The consensus of the County Board of Supervisors is that these buildings
are long over due, they are heading in the direction of building these buildings.
Mr. Brothers-Questioned if the residents should vote?
Supervisor Stec-The law allows some things to go to referendum and others not.
64
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
There are certain things that can go to referendum, certain things that have to go to
referendum, and certain things that cannot go to referendum. The County is in full
compliance with the law.
Mr. Brothers-It is important when there is a significant amount of money at stake that they
are given every opportunity to vote their conscience.
6.0 TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS
st
Councilman Brewer-Noted May 1 the annual pickup begins.
Councilman Strough-None
Councilman Boor-Received a letter concerning Reardon Road
Supervisor Stec-Soil and Water is going to handle the paper work on this project and they
are doing the design work…
Councilman Boor-North Queensbury Fire regarding expenses incurred during the wind
storm, did Warren County or Queensbury declare a state of emergency?
Supervisor Stec-Warren County declared a State of Emergency.
Councilman Boor-Asked that the Supervisor check into the status of whether there will be
reimbursement, if there isn’t I would suggest that the Town Board pickup the slack and
authorize…
Supervisor Stec-I hopefully will have the answer this week.
Councilman Boor-Marilyn, I do want to have an executive session with you Stu Baker and
perhaps Sue Bardin relative to the PUD and some of the issues that came to light, during a
discussion with Attorneys this afternoon.
Supervisor Stec-Noted the passing of Dr.Jack Irion, he was Queensbury School
Superintendent for twenty one years. We send his family the Towns condolences. Also
noted www.queensbury.net the Towns web site …thanked TV8 and Glens Falls National
Bank for making the televising of our meetings possible.
Councilman Sanford-To be discussed at the next workshop, the Town Board of Queensbury
discussing a resolution to Warren County Board of Supervisors, Washington County Board
of Supervisors, the Trustees of ACC, Betty Little, and Theresa Sayward, basically stating
the Town’s position that we will be discussing at the workshop regarding the proposed Fire
Burn Center at ACC.
Supervisor Stec-We can do that, suggested that he meet with the Attorney and write the
resolution and the County Board will give it, its due attention.
7.0 RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION APPOINTING BRUCE OSTRANDER AS WATER
SUPERINTENDENT ON PERMANENT BASIS
RESOLUTION NO. 212, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
65
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 547,2005 the Queensbury Town Board appointed
Bruce Ostrander as the Town’s Water Superintendent on a provisional basis until such time
as Mr. Ostrander successfully completed the Water Superintendent’s Civil Service Exam
and met any other Civil Service requirements for the position, and
WHEREAS, the Warren County Department of Personnel and Civil Service has
advised that Mr. Ostrander is eligible for permanent appointment without further Civil
Service Examination in accordance with Warren County Civil Service Rule XXII - 9, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to therefore appoint Mr. Ostrander on a
permanent basis,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby appoints Bruce Ostrander to
th
the position of Water Superintendent on a permanent basis effective April 17, 2006, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town
Supervisor, Water Superintendent and/or Budget Officer to complete any forms necessary to
effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2006 by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brewer
NOES : None
ABSENT: Mr. Strough
RESOLUTION APPOINTING KEITH SHEERER AS LANDFILL
EQUIPMENT OPERATOR
RESOLUTION NO. 213, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
66
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 188,2006, the Queensbury Town Board established
the full-time, hourly, overtime eligible Union position of Landfill Equipment Operator
within the Town of Queensbury Unit of the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA),
and
WHEREAS, CSEA concurred with the position description and salary, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury posted the position consistent with the
Collective Bargaining Agreement, reviewed resumes, interviewed interested candidates and
wishes to make an appointment,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that consistent with discussion between the Town of Queensbury and
CSEA, the base salary for the Landfill Equipment Operator position is hereby set at $20.73
per hour for 2006 and $21.41 for 2007, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, the Queensbury Town Board hereby appoints Keith Sheerer to the
full-time, hourly, overtime eligible Union position of Landfill Equipment Operator in the
Town’s Solid Waste Facilities Department in accordance with the terms set forth in Town
Board Resolution No.: 188,2006, and
BE IT FURTHER,
th
RESOLVED, that Mr. Sheerer’s appointment shall be effective April 17, 2006 and
shall be on a provisional basis until such time as he successfully completes a ninety (90) day
probation period, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town
Supervisor and/or Budget Officer to complete any documentation and take such other and
further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
ABSENT: Mr. Strough
67
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
Discussion held before vote: Agreed upon by Councilman Boor and Councilman Brewer as
amended indicating correct salary… Supervisor Stec-Congratulated Keith Sheerer he has
done a great job.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HIRING OF COLBY GARB AND
DANIEL DWYER AS TEMPORARY, PART-TIME LABORERS
TO WORK AT TOWN CEMETERIES
RESOLUTION NO. : 214, 2006
INTRODUCED BY Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY : Mr. Roger Boor
WHEREAS, the Cemetery Commission has requested Town Board authorization to
hire Colby Garb and Daniel Dwyer as temporary Laborers to work for 10 weeks this
summer under the direct supervision of the Town’s Cemetery Superintendent, such
employment proposed to commence in June, 2006, and
WHEREAS, Town Policy requires that familial relationships must be disclosed
and that the Town Board must approve the appointment of Town employees’ relatives
and Colby Garb is the son of Chuck Garb, a Working Foreman in the Town Highway
Department and Dan Dwyer is the nephew of Michael Lopez, a Working Foreman at the
Pine View Cemetery,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the
hiring of Colby Garb and Daniel Dwyer as temporary Laborers to work 10 weeks this
summer under the direct supervision of the Town Cemetery Superintendent, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that these temporary employees shall be paid at the hourly rate set
forth in the Town’s Agreement with the Civil Service Employees Association and payment
shall be paid from the Laborer, Part-Time Account No.: 002-8810-1410, and
BE IT FURTHER,
68
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Cemetery
Superintendent, Budget Officer and/or Supervisor to complete any forms and take any
action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
NOES : None
ABSENT: Mr. Strough
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HIRING OF CHARLIE ROACH AS
PART-TIME LABORER FOR TOWN TRANSFER STATIONS
RESOLUTION NO. : 215, 2006
INTRODUCED BY Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY : Mr. Roger Boor
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Landfill Equipment Operator has requested
Town Board authorization to hire Charlie Roach as a part-time Laborer to work at the Town
Transfer Stations,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the
Landfill Equipment Operator to hire Charlie Roach as a part-time Laborer effective April
th
17, 2006, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that Mr. Roach shall be paid $12 per hour as set forth in Town Board
Resolution No.: 595,2005 to be paid from the appropriate payroll account, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town
Supervisor, Landfill Equipment Operator and/or Budget Officer to complete any forms and
take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
69
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford
NOES : None
ABSENT: Mr. Strough
RESOLUTION AWARDING BID FOR 2006 COMBINATION DUMP
BODY WITH SNOWPLOW AND HYDRAULICS FOR
TOWN HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 216, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHEREAS, the Town’s Purchasing Agent duly advertised for bids for the purchase
of a 2006 Combination Dump Body with Snowplow and Hydraulics, and
WHEREAS, Arrowhead Equipment, Inc., submitted the lowest responsible bid for
the Combination Dump Body with Snowplow and Hydraulics in the amount of $70,690and
the Highway Superintendent and Purchasing Agent have recommended that the Town
Board award the bid to Arrowhead Equipment, Inc.,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby awards the bid for a 2006
Combination Dump Body with Snowplow and Hydraulics to Arrowhead Equipment, Inc.,
for an amount not to exceed $70,690 to be paid for from Highway Heavy Equipment
Account No.: 04-5130-2040, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town
Supervisor, Highway Superintendent, Purchasing Agent and/or Budget Officer to take any
and all actions necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
70
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2006 by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford
NOES : None
ABSENT: Mr. Strough
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO.: 173,2006
REGARDING PURCHASE OF INTERNATIONAL TANDEM TRUCK
FOR
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
RESOLUTION NO.: 217, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 173,2006 the Queensbury Town Board authorized
the Highway Superintendent’s purchase of a 2007 International Tandem Truck Model 7600
6x4 Cab and Chassis from International Truck & Engine Corporation for an amount not to
exceed $96,434.45, and
WHEREAS, the Highway Superintendent has requested certain changes to the
Truck’s specifications resulting in a $365.40 proposed price increase, or a revised total not
to exceed $96,799.85, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to amend Resolution No. 173,2006
accordingly,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby amends Resolution No.:
173,2006 such that the purchase price for the 2007 International Tandem Truck Model 7600
6x4 Cab and Chassis to be purchased by the Highway Department shall be for an amount
not to exceed $96,799.85, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby affirms and ratifies Resolution No.:
173,2006 in all other respects.
71
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
th
Duly adopted this 17 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 ON DAVID WILCOX
AND VICTORIA ZELDIN’S APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE
PERMIT TO LOCATE MOBILE HOME OUTSIDE OF MOBILE
HOME COURT
RESOLUTION NO.: 218, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, in accordance with Queensbury Town Code §113-12, the Queensbury
Town Board is authorized to issue permits for mobile homes to be located outside of mobile
home courts under certain circumstances, and
WHEREAS, David Wilcox and Victoria Zeldin have filed a Town of Queensbury
“Application for Placing a Mobile Home Outside of a Mobile Home Court" revocable
permit to replace their seasonal camp which was recently destroyed in a windstorm, with a
1992 Sunline singlewide mobile home until a replacement seasonal camp may be rebuilt, on
property located at 26 Forest Road, Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to conduct a public hearing regarding this
application,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall hold a public hearing on
st
Monday, May 1, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road,
Queensbury, to consider David Wilcox and Victoria Zeldin’s “Application for Placing a
Mobile Home Outside of a Mobile Home Court" revocable permit concerning property
situated at 26 Forest Road, Town of Queensbury (Tax Map No.’s: 226.19-1-42 and 226.19-
1-43) and at that time all interested persons will be heard, and
BE IT FURTHER,
72
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to
publish and post a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing as required by law.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
ABSENT: Mr. Strough
Discussion held before vote: Councilman Brewer-Questioned how long the placement is
expected to be? Mr. Wilcox-We expect to use it seasonally as we have used the camp so we
will use it this summer and then we will see how far along we have been able to get along
on our building process, it maybe next summer. We are looking to two summers is the
ideal.
RESOLUTION APPROVING TRANSIENT MERCHANT/TRANSIENT
MERCHANT MARKET LICENSE FOR NORTHEAST REALTY
DEVELOPMENT/KEVIN QUINN
RESOLUTION NO.: 219, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, Northeast Realty Development/Kevin Quinn (Northeast Realty) has
submitted an application to the Queensbury Town Board for a Transient Merchant/Transient
th
Merchant Market License to conduct a transient merchant market from June 5 through
th
June 10, 2006 in the parking lot at 1652 State Route 9, Queensbury in accordance with the
provisions of Town Code Chapter 160, and
WHEREAS, the application is identical to applications submitted by the applicant in
previous years and since the Queensbury Planning Board conducted site plan review of the
prior applications, it is not necessary to again refer the application to the Planning Board for
site plan review,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that in accordance with the requirements set forth in Queensbury
Town Code §160-8, the Town Board hereby grants a Transient Merchant/Transient
Merchant Market License to Northeast Realty Development/Kevin Quinn to conduct a
73
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
transient merchant market in the parking lot located at 1652 State Route 9, Queensbury,
subject to the following:
1. Northeast Realty must pay all fees as required by Town Code Chapter 160;
2. Northeast Realty must submit a bond in the amount of $10,000 as required by
Chapter 160;
3. Northeast Realty must submit proof of authorization to do business in New York
and authorization of agent to receive service of summons or other legal process
in New York;
thth
4. The License shall be valid only from June 5 through June 10, 2006 from 9:00
a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and the license shall expire immediately thereafter;
5. The Transient Merchant License shall not be assignable; and
6. Northeast Realty must comply with all regulations specified in Town Code
§160-8.
th
Duly adopted this 17 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
LOCAL LAW NO. __ OF 2006 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN
CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER ENTITLED “DESIGNATION
OF REQUIRED COUNTERSIGNATURE ON TOWN CHECKS”
RESOLUTION NO. 220, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local
Law No.: __ of 2006 to amend the Queensbury Town Code by adding a new Chapter
entitled "Designation of Required Countersignature on Town Checks” to require a
74
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
countersignature on all Town checks signed by the Town Supervisor and to facilitate
obtaining both signatures in an efficient and timely manner, and
WHEREAS, this legislation is authorized in accordance with 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,
st
May 1, 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.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford
NOES : None
ABSENT: Mr. Strough
RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2006 BUDGET
RESOLUTION NO.: 221, 2005
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec 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,
75
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
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:
001-1110-4335 001-1110-1020 500.
(Software Sub. & Maint.) (Overtime)
001-1990-4400 001-8540-2899 15,000.
(Contingency) (Drainage)
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford
NOES : None
ABSENT: Mr. Strough
RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS –
TH
WARRANT OF APRIL 17, 2006
RESOLUTION NO.: 222, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve the audit of bills
th
presented as the Warrant with a run date of April 13, 2006 and a payment due date of April
th
18, 2006,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Warrant with a
thth
run date of April 13, 2006 and payment due date of April 18, 2006 and totaling
$1,105,790.14, and
BE IT FURTHER,
76
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 4-17-2006 MTG. #14
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Budget Officer
and/or Town Supervisor to take such other and further action as may be necessary to
effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brewer
NOES : None
ABSENT: Mr. Strough
8.0 ACTION OF RESOLUTIONS PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED FROM THE
FLOOR
NONE
9.0EXECUTIVE SESSION
NONE
RESOLUTION ADJOURNING TOWN BOARD MEETING
RESOLUTION NO. 223, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr.Roger Boor WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
RESOLVED,
that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its
Regular Town Board Meeting.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2006 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mr. Strough
Respectfully submitted,
Miss Darleen M. Dougher