Loading...
1999-08-02 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING AUGUST 2, 1999 7:00 P.M. MTG#24 RES#25 1-263 B.H. 39-40 L.L. #5 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR FRED CHAMPAGNE COUNCILMAN RICHARD MERRILL COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER COUNCILMAN DOUGLAS IRISH COUNCILMAN PLINEY TUCKER TOWN COUNSEL MARK SCHACHNER TOWN OFFICIALS DEPUTY HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, RICK MISSITA CONTROLLER, HENRY HESS TECHNOLOGY COORDINATOR, BILL SHAW PRESS POST STAR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Opened meeting. RESOLUTION ENTERING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 251. 99 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Merrill RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and moves into the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 2nd day of August, 1999, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Merrill, Mr. Turner, Mr. Irish, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Champagne Noes: None AbsentNone RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE APPLICATION OF HOWLAND CONSTRUCTION INC.\ DEAN HOWLAND, JR. RESOLUTION NO.: 39.99 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Merrill WHEREAS, by law the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is also the Town's Local Board of Health and is authorized under Chapter 136 of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance to issue variances from the Ordinance, and WHEREAS, Howland Construction, Inc./Dean Howland, Jr., has applied to the Local Board of Health for three (3) variances from Chapter 136 to allow: 1. A pumping station to be located forty feet (40') from Lake George rather than the required fifty feet (50') setback; 1. The leach field to be located approximately five feet (5') from the property line rather than the required ten feet (10') setback; 1. The vertical distance from the base of the leach field to the seasonal high groundwater mark to be two feet (2') rather than three feet (3') as required; on property owned by Steven and Cathie Schonwetter and located on Holiday Point Road, Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on August 16th, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, to consider Howland Construction Inc./Dean Howland, Jr.,'s sewage disposal variance application concerning property owned by Steven and Cathie Schonwetter and located on Holiday Point Road, Queensbury and bearing Tax Map No.: Section 16, Block 1, Lot 24.1 and at that time all interested persons will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish the Notice of Public Hearing presented at this meeting and send a copy of the Notice to neighbors located within 500 feet of the property as required by law. Duly adopted this 2nd day of August, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Turner, Mr. Irish, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Merrill, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 40.99 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Douglas Irish WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns and moves back into the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 2nd day of August, 1999, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Irish, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Merrill, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne Noes: None AbsentNone PUBLIC HEARINGS LOCAL LAW REGULATING SIDEWALKS NOTICE SHOWN OPENED 7:04 P.M. EDWARD BAERTSCHI-Owner of Northern Sport Outfitters which is right smack in the middle of the Great Escape. The Great Escape or Storytown which was established in 1955 its been forty four years since that came into being and all that time there has never been a sidewalk along Route 9, now all of a sudden we've got this sidewalk. The sidewalk doesn't do me any good because we have a parking lot to the north of me, I've got a parking lot to the south of me plus my own parking lot. People who are going to the Great Escape walk from the parking lot into my parking lot and walk down into the Great Escape parking lot. The car pulling into my parking lot to go into the store doesn't use the sidewalk. Now, I'm tasked with the fact that here sets the sidewalk setup by the State, didn't ask for it, don't need it, now I'm tasked with the fact that I'm responsible for the sidewalk. If someone gets hurt on it because they are going to the Great Escape they don't point their finger at the Great Escape they point their finger at me and say, hey this is in front of your place, part of it is in front of your place you are responsible I don't look at it that way. Secondly, the fact that the State plows the road it is going to be my task to clean the sidewalk. Now, I clean the sidewalk what am I going to do with it I push it back into Route 9 they push it back up on the sidewalk what's this a ping pong game going back and forth. The City of Glens Falls if the snow is put in the street the City comes along and cleans it up and takes it away that's the problem that I am facing. Like I said, there hasn't been a sidewalk there since Storytown or Great Escape was established in 1955 never had a problem with it now I have a problem with it and I'm responsible for this thing I'm flatly against it. I don't see where the Town because the State decides that we need a sidewalk the Town should go along and say, well okay we're going to take this law into effect and you people are going to be responsible for this. I just don't see this and don't think we should be responsible for that. Half of that sidewalk if you go from the Million Dollar Beach down to Miller Hill is not even going to be used. I've watched this all summer all of a sudden you've got sidewalk and it ends what are you walking on your into Route 9. It's not being used there are sections I haven't seen a sole on it why did they put these in there? I could see in certain places like up to the Million Dollar Mile or a section say for instance in front of where Storytown is or where you have one or two, three, businesses right along side of one another but in certain areas they shouldn't even have put that in there. It was the same way the same deal when they refinished the highway they put the curbing in. We had to have this curbing, but every place where a business was and the curbing was in front it established a problem. The problem we have is the fact that people go to pull into the parking lot especially in the winter time they don't see the curbing they are right on top of the curbing the car hangs up. They come in, oh my god my car is hung up on the curbing they have to go get a tow truck to tow them off or tear the bottom of the car off. These things are set up by the State and now we're tasked with the responsibility of these things. I just cannot flatly go along with this because of the fact that it was not needed in certain areas especially in my place I don't need it. That's about what I've got to say about this. STEVE SUTTON, SUTTON'S MARKET PLACE-You are probably going to here the same thing over and over tonight. Obviously, we didn't ask for the sidewalks the State forced them on us. We got letters they took our property and they built sidewalks. I understand in order to get the federal money the sidewalks had to come in so that was part of the project and that's probably the reason why the sidewalks are there tonight. I'm not clear on that, but that's kind of what I heard. Who benefits from the sidewalks that's a good question. Our business and most of the businesses that I know along Route 9 are not benefited by walk-in traffic we're a destination store people drive to our store. I lived there for twenty years we don't get walk-by traffic so who benefits from it? The Post Star has done a couple editorial type things that we'll be benefiting from it. I question that, I think everybody may benefit from it. The bicyclers, the people that want to walk on the street and especially Great Escape is going to benefit from it because people staying in the motel up the road can walk down those sidewalks but, is it a benefit to all us businesses, no it's not. Maintaining them, I see it as impossible, I see it as a task. I mean, I lived there for sixteen years I still snowplow it on a January day when its ten below and that snow and ice and sand and everything and the ice like this year when they come through they are going to plop that on there and it's going to freeze solid as a rock. I probably have more equipment than most of my neighbors and I don't have a clue what to do. Another problem it is going to create when I move that snow off the sidewalk if I snowplow it into my parking lot it is going to build banks up higher and higher especially a lot of the elderly people that we attract for lunch are going to pull back out on Route 9 and they are going to have a big pile of snow. One thing creates another thing its just a domino effect of what happens so I see maintaining them as impossible. The Town is welcome to try it but asking us to do it I don't have a clue what we're going to do with the snow. I think people that live in the City think, oh boy what are they complaining about they can go out andjust shovel those four inches of snow or six inches of snow. That's not the case on Route 9 this is a highway forty mile an hour snowplows are throwing everything in our parking lot and we've cleaned it up for years. The next thing is the liability. I called my insurance agent today and said, whose liable here? He said, well if your employee is out there workmen's comp is probably going to cover that, but if a person walking along falls on that sidewalk your policy right now does not cover that it covers people on your property that's not our property it is State property so liability is a major issue here. Whose going to pay for it? Obviously when I saw the articles in the paper I got on the phone I called Ted, I'm in Ward 2. He said this was kind of informational and that maybe we are going to have a special tax district. I feel we're already a special tax district. The amount of sales tax that we've grown just our own business was close to four hundred thousand last year in ten years that's doubled. You go up and down the road with all the growth there is a ton of money coming in that's being spent. I think for us to ask for something back from the Town that its your responsibility the Town's responsibility to take care of those sidewalks and not pass it on, pass the buck to us. We're doing our part we're handling a lot of money for the County and the Town and we're doing everything we can to make that number grow so you can keep spending. But, it's not going to keep growing if you bite the hand that feeds you because slowly we just get eroded and eroded and it makes doing business a lot harder. Again, I believe the whole public benefits if you are going to tax everybody it should be in the general budget and you should put it in there and you should clean them and that should be the end of it. One solution that I thought of which I guess talking to other people and attorney's apparently that's not a viable solution is shutting them down from November 1st to April 1st. It's the common sense thing to do because nobody is going to be on them it's been that way for years why not just shut them down, but apparently that's not an option. The only other option is the Town do what's right and take on that responsibility and not pass it on to us. Thank you. B.J. BAXTER, VILLAGE COLLECTION-I'm sure this is going to be repetitious all evening. I am...a small business not nearly as big as Sutton's and I was truly devastated by the impact of this proposed Ordinance and the impact it will have on my business and other small businesses. Please consider as Steve said that the snowplow throws the snow very forcefully along that road. That most of this snow will land on the sidewalk that we're suppose to clear creating a bank several feet high. Now, often in a bad storm the snowplow goes up and down the road several times during a storm according to this we would have to clear it every time this goes up and down the road. I happen to have a piece of property that's three hundred feet on Route 9. The sidewalk is about three feet wide maybe it's a little bit more, but we'll say three foot that's nine hundred square feet to clear maybe three times a day every time the plow goes through maybe with ice. I have a staff of mature women I have a hard time getting them to clear just the entrance to the store if there is a snowstorm where it keeps snowing all day and we have to brush it off. There is no way, I have no equipment that I could take care of this that's going to need heavy equipment. Also that property is going to have to be sanded or salted after each storm to protect against liability for anyone who assumes this. This is different than sweeping the sidewalk in front of the store front which may be twenty feet in the City of Glens Falls this is different this is country. This is just an enormous task and the liability is enormous and we just cannot do it. Quite frankly, I think if this Ordinance was passed it would put many small businesses like myself out of business. We need to make Queensbury business friendly you want to attract business. Business is going flocking to Saratoga look at all the empty store fronts we have up and down Route 9 we want to get those filled up so you generate more taxes you are not going to do this by imposing this kind of thing on small business. We do contribute a lot to the Town both through our taxes and through our revenue you guys are our representatives we need your help. Thank you. BILL MINARCHI, BROWN'S WELCOME INN MOTEL-I've been in front of you most of the last thirteen years and you know me quite well some of you. But, what you people are doing with this disability tax money that was given to you by the Federal Government to put these sidewalks in and widen this road, and re-black top it, and put new curbs is not only going to hurt us as taxpayers and as business people. Like this lady said that plow I'm here and I see that plow going by six, seven, eight, times in a day and there is no way that this guy is going out there and shovel snow. I need a front end loader. I need something to move that snow. I don't know if you guys go by in the winter time and you see those banks and some of them are six foot tall. It is impossible that's snow is going to be dumped on the sidewalk. We we're going to be penalized to remove that snow off the sidewalk where, on our property? In the Spring I pick up twenty five gallons five gallon pails of sand off my property. Where does it come from me, no the State, does the State clean up their mess no, but we're obligated to do so if we want our places of business to generate business and generating business brings tax money, and tax money feeds the economy and keeps the taxes low around here. But, kill the goose that lays the golden egg by devaluating our property is what's happening. You impose this liability on us as taxpayers and as business people you've just devaluated all the business on Route 9 who in god's green acres is going to buy a piece of property on Route 9 knowing that the albatross is going to be around their neck it's not going to be done. I would really give it some consideration because it isn't going to work. Thank you. TOM MCDONOUGH, ESQ., GRA YCOURT MOTEL-I have my own office on Route 9 for the last thirty five years. Obviously, since we've had sidewalks in the Town of Queensbury this particular local law is properly addressed to what's going on, on Route 9 with the reconstruction of Route 9 where the State by virtue of the American with Disabilities Act have put the sidewalks in to make them disable accessible and therefore got the funding for the road and the sidewalk so it didn't cost the State of New York anything to construct the road. But, the burden has been turned over not from the State, but to the local community which probably has prompted the look into issue with respect to sidewalks. I think what we're addressing is the sidewalks on Route 9 now because they are the only new sidewalks in Town that I can recollect in many years. In that respect according to your own standards these sidewalks don't meet the standards that you have set forth five foot wide even with grade because these sidewalks are not five foot wide and they are not going to be even with grade type of sidewalks. But, the benefit that we are getting from this to the local community to the people who are abutting owners to the State property on which these sidewalks have been placed is zero, zero. Absolutely no benefit to the property owner and for that matter to the Town because these sidewalks are totally inaccessible in the wintertime as been stated by all your speakers here. But, we're burden by the fact that we now have sidewalks the Town now is looking to turn that burden over to the local taxpayer rather than assume the burden that comes along with it. As stated before these are business properties mostly they are abutting all these sidewalks so to turn the burden over to the taxpayer whose is operating a business is just an added burden which businesses are already burden with I think it is unfair. If you think the Town has a benefit for it then the Town should have the burden of also caring for it. If the Town has no benefit for it where is the benefit for the taxpayer who owns the property abutting it why put the burden on that point? Talking to the practicality of cleaning sidewalks. On Route 9 as against municipalities all the municipalities around here if you recollect will close down streets and lug snow away during the winter time. We plow in our area and we have probably four hundred foot road frontage we plow all winter long because I have my office there accessible and we operate the business there not the motel because the winter time it is not in operation. We find it difficult to take care of our own plowed snow right there just cleaning enough room for cars to come in and out and use the property. In order to take care of the sidewalks any given decent snow winter where is the snow going to be placed, we've got no place to put it at all. We'll have to carry it away, lug it away as would the Town, but the Town wants to turn that burden over according to this law to the local property owner. On that one strip for those sidewalks that are still in existence in the Town nobody has made an issue of it, okay. Now that there are about two miles of new sidewalk going in the Town makes it an issue to bring up this local law. Addressing a point or two that came up with respect to how the State plows Route 9. They come down it more than forty miles an hour and they are blowing side by side with wings going. Not only do they not place snow on our property they knock lamp posts down at the same time we replace them because it doesn't pay to make an issue of it. Where is this snow going to go when it gets like we have our normal every ten year cycle of snow? I think that is the problem that we all have not just as individual property owners and business owners, but as a community. If we can't do it who else can do it? I think that's what the problem we all have here. I'm not too sure as to the fact you can't shut down sidewalks during the winter time when the snow is over X amount of feet. I'm no expert on it you've got counsel here that can address that issue. I think everybody here is saying there is no benefit to the property owner because nobody is a walk-in on that Route 9 they are all drive-ins. As a matter of fact the State of New York made issue about curb cuts and access because the only way these people come in is by car they drive in they don't come into the local businesses. In conclusion this local law was addressed strictly to what's going on on Route 9 which is an unusual area for sidewalks the first impression issue with sidewalks on a major arterial in Queensbury. I think it would be unfair for the municipality to turn the burden over to the individual property owner to take care of that. I think that's why everybody's here talking to you folks tonight to address that issue. Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Anyone else? DAVID KINNEY, BUSINESS OWNER, DAYS INN, FACTORY OUTLET BUILDING, ROUTE 9-I've had sidewalks in front of my property probably for ten years we close them in the winter. I have sidewalks all around the buildings we maintain in the winter because they are used they are around the buildings, but sidewalks out by the street are useless. In the summer time they work a little bit and it makes the property look good and there is trees and green space. In the winter, I've been told by my insurance company there would be a major problem with liability if somebody is out there and falls because you've maintained them you showed them they could walk on them, I believe we have to shut them down. The other things is the trucks. I maintain my sidewalks and I'm constantly repairing them because you have to use salt the ones around the building they get pitted all the time. You have a hundred people taking care of sidewalks out on Route 9 with trucks going by in the middle of night it is going to be frozen in the morning when they get out there to maintain them they are going to have to use salt, you know what salt does to concrete it eats it right up. You've got to be really careful so you are going to end up losing all your sidewalks by trying to maintain them unless you have the right equipment and the right people doing it. Just to let every property owner do it for what, I think you have to have common sense there is nobody out on the roadside in the middle of the winter. Somebody said we can't close them I don't understand why there is no reason for them. We don't maintain them in front of the malls if any place we would have the most traffic up by us. People do not get out of their car and walk two hundred feet by the roadside to walk along the road. They get out of their car and walk to the building their going to through the parking lots. They don't go out by the road where there are cars flying by spraying them to look for a sidewalk there is no reason for them they are useless. Who is going to maintain them in front of the County Center is the County going to do that I take it? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I believe so. MR. KINNEY-That whole four hundred feet. I mean the State chose to put sidewalks in where they felt from the Great Escape to the County Center they chose to leave them out where there is the most people walking during the summer time, that is. You go up there every night somebody is going to get killed because all of the people I brought in out of the Country to work there walk up to the Samoset Motel every night up along the roadside there are no sidewalks. I don't even understand it, sidewalks are all in the wrong locations. But being as it is, I just don't think we should have to. . . ..I think you are asking the business people an awful burden. I've been there, I have them in front of my place, I had them for ten years. We do not maintain them now I may be forced to with this new law. It is absurd they are not easy to maintain with the ice we are in the north country that is a major highway. You get a snowplow going by there with the salt and the slush they throw it on those sidewalks it freezes like that you'd be out there with ice picks chopping all the time. It is probably an unbearable task I think some common sense should be used and I really think, my recommendation would be to really look at the law to try and close them down. I don't think the Town should do it either. All the Town does it passes a useless expense on the rest of the taxpayers of the Town. It is common sense you just don't take money and throw the garbage. I don't care who does it, I don't like the government doing it for me and I don't want to do it. But, to me that's what we're doing no matter who maintains them whether the Town does it or I do. I think they should be shut down they will last a lot longer they will be a lot nicer looking in the Spring when they are there because you won't beat the heck out of them all winter long. To me I would really advise somehow trying to close them down I think that's the best scenario if it can be done. Thank you. ED GARDNER, OWNER OF LAKE GEORGE CAMPSITE, RV SALES CENTER ON ROUTE 9-The question that needs to be answered how did we get here? How did we go through an entire process of deciding to build sidewalks and not deal with a major issue so major as to pertain to the very essence of how we're going to maintain the main product. As I understand there is a process known as SEQRA. Question was SEQRA used in the process of developing this sidewalk project? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Let me try my best here to answer that question. I know it is not going to be an answer that's going to satisfy even myself number one, and I'm sure probably not you folks. Believe me and this gentlemen here on the end we met at his place we fought like hell, I Fred Champagne went on record as being opposed to sidewalks. The unfortunate piece of this whole matter to be very honest with you and what brought this thing to tonight's meeting is the mere fact that New York State DOT has certain rights and privileges as a State agency. They came in they designed the road they required sidewalks we had no choice as to where they went how they got there. We got into several squabbles over curb cuts and property taking and I defended the property owners every case that I could. However, when the State puts a State highway in your Town or Village or your City going along with that effort on their part and its their part if they require sidewalks then we as the Town get delegated that responsibility. Every State highway in the great State of New York as I understand it in today's legal provisions requires that the sidewalk along that State highway is cleaned. Now, you are absolutely right when you say up to this point we do have State highways in the Town of Queensbury we do have County highways in the Town of Queensbury. We have taken care of those sidewalks through the Town Highway Department where it was absolutely required not even mandated, but for safety purposes. The Town Board judged the safety of that particular area and we went in and did clean it, we cleaned the bridges for example again, it is a delegated responsibility on the part of the Town to do that. What we're talking about in closing sidewalks as I understand it from our counsel the word back to this Town Board was that you have no choice in either leaving open or closing the sidewalk. If that Highway is opened that sidewalk has to be opened. They consider a sidewalk the same as they do a highway. Now, by all means we may want to take a look at possibly defending the Town against that law, I don't know that yet. In certainly listening to what's being said here tonight in hopes that I can gather some information that possibly we can take back and do something with. I'm not, believe me I'm not here arguing that this is the best solution to the problem. I put myself in your sneakers and say, would I want that liability. I guess, I would not want that liability so everything you are saying here tonight has been discussed over time with this board certainly and previous boards trying to resolve the issue of what do we do with sidewalks in the Town of Queensbury and that's why we're here to hear from the public to get a better insight as to the seriousness of the problem and how we can best resolve it. I'm not sure this law is the best resolved to be very honest with you I went on record saying that. MR. GARDNER-The question I have is was SEQRA used? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Only because, Mark help me with this, but as I understand it New York State is not required to do SEQRA under the law is that anywhere near correct? TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER-It is very near correct. I don't know the answer to whether SEQRA was followed in this case. SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE-I don't believe it was. TOWN COUNSEL, MR. SCHACHNER-If it was it would have been done by the State not by the Town. MR. GARDNER-The question would be, should it have been? If so, who was the lead agency? TOWN COUNSEL, MR. SCHACHNER-That's what I tried to just answer. The only agency that would have had that authority would have been the State of New York specifically the State of New York Department of Transportation. MR. GARDNER-If it's a requirement on any other person seeking to accomplish the same end it certainly should hold at least for the State of New York. I'd like to suggest that we as a body perhaps enjoined by the Town of Queensbury first of all question whether it was used or not and secondly if it was what was the consideration given to the economic impact on private property owners that are along this construction way that's a very very basic important issue. I think it is something that goes to the very core of our being here tonight that is, that we're all saying that we don't have the wear with all to fund this project. Mr. Turner is quoted by the Post Star as saying, "that it would be unusually unaffordable, " I think is the words that are used. If it is unaffordable to the Town of Queensbury does anybody suggest that it's not at least as unaffordable for the people that live along the roadway? How are we suppose to afford it when the Town of Queensbury can't afford it? I think this is an atrocity that has developed here from something that was initially intended to have very good results. I think we really need to go back to the drawing boards and look at how we got here in terms of figuring out how we get out of it and we do need to get out of it. There is no question about the fact that I don't think there is a property owner along Route 9 with the possible exception of the Great Escape which has very deep pockets that can honestly say that we are the ones that can afford to rescue this project. Thank you. JOHN SAL V ADOR-I don't live and don't have a business on Route 9. I have to believe the sidewalks are here to stay. I have to believe that the snow removal is an obligation that has to be fulfilled it's just a question of how we do it. Has serious thought been given to a benefit district, establish a benefit district whose sole role is to remove the dirt, snow, ice, from these sidewalks? The district could be funded by a small tax on each of the abutting property owners. The district would have a management and the equipment to do the job. There would not be duplication it's not like everybody has got to have a snowblower you would have a few of them maybe you would have one front end loader. Maybe the two miles of road whatever it is involves three or four people between the sununer work of trimming the grass and keeping it neat plantings that sort of maintenance in the wintertime may be a full time job for a few people. This district could be under the administration of the Town just like any other district that's probably the most cost effective way to go don't forget the County is a payer in this they own quite a stretch of this sidewalk so that would be my suggestion. I haven't heard anything about cost what it might cost to remove the snow. We hear astronomical numbers they scare everyone, but it's probably definable probably in the order of a few hundred thousand dollars if you do it that way. If everybody sets out to solve its own problem it's never going to work. Everybody's insurance is going to be impacted. The care you've got to be there. Your tied to your property. I would suggest the best way out is to consider a benefit district and handle it in that way. Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Anyone else care to speak? BETTY MONAHAN-First, I'd like to commend the Board and the Town Clerk's Office for the good job of publicity that you did for this meeting it was excellent. There are sidewalks in the Town of Queensbury other than at Route 9. I can think of West Glens Falls, River Road, River Street, Garrison Road, some other streets in that area that were in the subdivision we're talking not only about Route 9. Most of this property to the best of my knowledge is owned by some government entity not by the people. This to me is government big brother at its worst. You don't own it but we're giving you the responsibility, the liability of it, and the upkeep, I think it's unconscionable. We also have many retired people in this Town and more and more are moving in all the while our population is aging. As you all know or should know shoveling snow is one of the most hazardous task that an elderly person can do. If! were living in that area I would tell you I would not want to shovel seventy five or a hundred feet of sidewalk in front of a residence. In some places it is impossible to do because of the way the snow is plowed onto the sidewalks they'd be doing it several times a day. Also because you live in the north country you only have to walk the sidewalks in Glens Falls to see the impossibility in the residential areas. No matter how well those people clean their sidewalks between the thawing and the freezing it is impossible to keep them ice free just go down this winter and try walking on them for a while. I think also the Town can do this at a much more reasonable expense then if every single individual involved either has to do it or hire somebody or buy equipment. If you do the accumulative affect of that type of effort verses what the Town can do it with that kind of equipment that they can afford to put on it and what it would cost them to pay a person or several people to do it in the long run to the residents and the business people of this Town it is going to be much less expensive of having the Town do it. I just think as I said, I think it is unconscionable that this burden is put on the people in the Town of Queensbury. As you well know we've looked at a sidewalk law for years, and years, and years, threw it out every time in workshops as an undoable, unworkable, burden on the people. I hope you take everyone's comments to heart and don't put this burden on them. SUPERVISIOR CHAMPAGNE-Betty are you suggesting general fund money so that all tax dollars go towards this? MRS. MONAHAN-Probably in a good many of these incidences we all do benefit. I mean, I certainly walk on areas that I don't own and aren't in front of my property. It is either that or special benefit districts whichever works out best I think that's what you have to look at next. I personally would not be adverse to pay for having sidewalks cleaned in this Town. I think we have them in a lot of places that are unnecessary. I think that perhaps in the future a better look, I realize the State had you over a barrel, but when the Town talks about putting sidewalks in, in some of these residential areas I think you need to look long and hard at it whether or not there is really a need for it and whether or not they can do the job that they are intended to do. I'm not sure Fred if you were in office when we had the problem in West Glens Falls that real, real bad winter. We were worried about the safety of the school children getting off the buses. You know even with the combined efforts of the Town of Queensbury and the County of Warren Highway Department that was a pretty tough problem to keep solved all the while. I don't know really how you think individuals are going to accomplish that and I don't think they need that liability nor do I think they should have liability on land that they don't own. BARBARA PALLOZZI-RIDGE ROAD WHICH IS OFF OF STATE ROUTE 9L-Yes, I have a sidewalk in front of my house. Everybody here is talking about this tonight is like it is a new phenomena, but it's Route 9 you tried this in March of 1995 although you did not take a vote the general consensus of the Town Board was there was no way that property owners could keep up with State plows we can't do it. You know what the end of your driveway is like in the winter time after a plow comes through picture your entire frontage. They plow Ridge Road like it's the Northway they are the up and over boys. You have family across the street you know what it's like. My property doesn't generate any sales tax I'm not going to get into that. My sidewalk has been there a long time. You start in the beginning of the year you do what you can when you get a twelve incher forget it. I did call several Highway Superintendents in four counties every single Town that I called that had sidewalks along a State or County highway all of those sidewalks are maintained by the Town Highway Department and it is not benefit district it is as a general charge against the Town. I'll be honest with you they absolutely fully acknowledge that they cannot keep up with the State of New York their sidewalks are not in good condition. If a Town Highway Department with equipment, one piece of equipment they told me cost fifty four thousand dollars if they cannot maintain the sidewalk with people working full time and equipment costing that an individual property owner cannot possibly do it. I would be opposed and I also would be hesitant to assume the liability. I have one question and it's just when the snow is gone and the Highway Department is done plowing the roads it's winter you are not paving, not fixing pot holes, what else do they do? COUNCILMAN TURNER-They are picking up sand most of the time. MRS. PALLOZZI-That's it? COUNCILMAN TURNER-A lot of time on Town roads. MRS. PALLOZZI-Leave the sand there and come do my sidewalk. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That's a tough question to answer? MR. MINARCHI -They don't pick up sand Ted. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Not on the State road the Town roads. MR. MINARCHI-We pick it up the State doesn't pick nothing up. I have to call a wrecker when the wrecker breaks down in front of the property. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Town road not State road. MIKE O'CONNOR-REPRESENTING THE KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS-I'm a past Grand Knight, I'm currently the Council Treasurer. I appreciate the opportunity to come here and speak to you folks tonight. Fred I was very happy to hear you say that you were against this. You and I don't disagree on too much when we sit at the building up on Route 9. I just like to say that we have nearly four hundred foot of frontage it goes from the Glen drive-in to the Honda Garage. Most of our grounds are maintained by volunteers the plowing the person that does it gets a very small stipend as far as everything else it's all done by volunteers. I'm not here tonight to tell you that we won't take care of it I'm not that stupid surprisingly. I am here to tell you that I think the law is ill conceived. I don't think that it's really going to be enforceable when you look at the entire stretch that runs from 149 to wherever it is going to stop with the poles in the middle and places that are unfinished and things like that. I just think that maybe if we are stuck with it as Mr. Salvador said everybody here is saying essentially the same thing to you gentlemen here tonight. I'm not going to echo their sentiments because I believe fully in what they are saying. But, I think Fred if you really have the opportunity to look at this and close them down if you can do this legally by whatever method that counsel would advise you on I would beg you please, please consider closing them down. It is going to be a ever living nightmare and everybody here knows that. Thank you. MAUREEN KENNEDY-I live on Ridge Road on 9L in that section between Quaker Road and the Glens Falls town line. I have quite a nice sidewalk out in front of the house. I really literally do not know how come winter I could be responsible for keeping it opened. It's not that I couldn't do it probably with a snowblower, but the problem is the stuff that's kick up by the snowplow. When the Spring thaw finally set in and I looked out the door all I could see on my sidewalk was black. I went down to find out what it is and here it is stones, pieces or roadway. I don't think this would go too well in anyone's snowblower. I tried to go out a few times and clear off some of it when it first started to snow, but physically I couldn't do it. I don't know how the other homeowners in that area are going to do it either. Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you. Yes, sir. JACK DEGREGORIO, OWNER OF NORTH COUNTRY AUTO RADIATOR AND SEVERAL OTHER PARCELS ON BOTH SIDES OF ME-I feel like everyone else is feeling it is a hardship on the business. One thing all the businesses that collect taxes on Route 9 it goes into the pot and everybody in the whole community benefits by it so I feel everybody in the whole community should help to pay the cost to clear the sidewalks. It will be a major, major problem for everyone, I mean I don't want to elaborate on everything. My feelings are the same as everyone else. Whatever you could do to help everyone in business that salt like they say will really do a number on it and the Town highway should know that, too. Thank you. DON WHITE, SMALL WORLD SHOPPES- There is no need for me to dwell or go into past comments about sidewalks maintenance and the problems related to. It is quite obvious we are going to be confronted with the problem of maintaining these things. My suggestion would be to see, Ted mentioned that the Town was looking into closing these sidewalks. If you go up and down Route 9 most businesses have a north entrance and south entrance and some way of connecting those two. Through utilizing that approach I think the walkways could be closed and keep the pedestrians of the highway in most instances in fact, that's the way it has been operating for the past twenty two years that I've been in business. Another option here to aid the individuals and the businesses that have this problem with the snow removal would be to make this a municipal problem and place this on the tax roles as a general tax so that the cost is shared by everyone. Let's face it the State of New York is us our representatives went and put these sidewalks in they did not fund it so therefore, I think it is the residents problem and the funding should come from a very broad base. This would help to keep the business climate in the Town of Queensbury somewhat more pro business rather than anti-business. As most people know one of the problems in the State is not necessarily the cost of labor, but as all the little bells and whistles that every State government and every municipal government hangs on businesses making it an impossible burden this would be just another burden to carry so it should be shared over a broad base. The main function of government the way I see it they should be doing things that the general public cannot do for themselves. Certainly the general public is not equipped to handle snow removal as most of us do not have back loaders and plows and sanding equipment readily available. The Town would need to, of course, purchase necessary equipment, but that's what the tax base would be for. Also this should certainly be year round employment and since the big brothers in Washington and New York State are looking to move people from welfare to work this would seem to me to be a perfect avenue to employ a few people maybe four to six people a year on it. In closing I would just simply encourage that the Town government in this situation is going to have to step up to the plate and provide the resources for the individuals property owners both residential and business property to solve this problem. New York State are not going to allow us to remove the sidewalks and return to the way we used to be. Thank you. LOU STONE-As Mr. Salvador said I don't live anywhere near sidewalks either. It's my understanding, first of all we have heard some very cogent arguments that have to be considered in deciding whether or not to pass this law. As I understand in State government when regulations are proposed by various State agencies or State government a financial impact statement has to be prepared not just an environmental impact statement. I would suggest to the Town Board particularly as we hear many of the people tonight talk about the financial burden that's going to be placed on them to do the job if in fact they are required to clean up this thing forgetting all of the other arguments we heard. I think before this law is considered a financial impact statement should be prepared in terms of what's it going to cost the Town on one hand. What's it going to cost the landowners on the other hand. This would certainly help make a decision more palpable to everybody if we really knew what the costs were going to be of this relatively simple law. I do know that in fact when I came here tonight, I know that in many places it's a given, people have a sidewalk in front of their house a residential house they are required to take care of it. Listening to the arguments tonight listening to people who live and work along Route 9 with the high speed plowing and the scattering of snow, and sand, and, salt, and anything else that happens to be on the highway when these plows come down, I think there are some very cogent arguments that have to be considered before this law is passed and certainly the financial aspects have to be looked at on both sides of the issue. Thank you. DON DANIELS, OWNS A LITTLE PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE GREAT ESCAPE. We have two hundred feet offrontage there. It's generally been over the years operated as a seasonal business. The driveway does not get plowed. The parking area does not get plowed. This law as it is written says that the sidewalks are level with the ground, but none of the sidewalks that I see along both sides of Route 9 are level with the ground. They are level with the tops of the curbs by the street which is the case that is in front of my place now. If I was to clear the snow and didn't plow my driveway nobody could get through anyway. They are going to walk on top of snow and ice which brings me to another thought. There is very little snow that's ever put on top of that area and there probably will never be snow there when the plow goes through because it is all ice that gets pushed on there. I have gone there many times in the course of the winter I can't chop through what's there to get into my driveway mostly because I've tried to have a snowplow guy there when it's frozen they can't push what's at the end of the roadway an ice pick maybe a half ton of salt. We have grass that they came through and threw on the sides of the road if people want to put any plantings to make the sides of those sidewalks all along Route 9 look nice by the time we get done with the chemicals for two or three years not only eating the sidewalks up but killing all the plants, if somebody wanted to put nice ornamentally plantings on the sides they are just not going to live nothing is going to live on the sides. There are storm drains that we put in ten or twelve years ago when the road was reconstructed and the curbs were put in there. As the water washes down through there all that chemical is going to go into Halfway Brook or whatever the little brook is called at the bottom of the hill. If there is any fish or any live things that are living in there now it will all be dead by the time a year or two goes through and maybe a hundred tons of salt and other chemicals are washed down in there. It is capturing everything now and washing it in there nothing goes off the sides of the road anymore as it did before the curbs so everything goes right into that little brook. I heard you Fred mention about talking to the State and they've forced these sidewalks upon you. I remember when they were putting the curbs in there and they were talking about putting in the sidewalks then. At that time Steve Borgos was there and he made the statement if you are going to put the sidewalks in will you maintain them? The State said no we don't maintain sidewalks. Fred according to what I understood it was published in the paper he told the State if you are not going to maintain them we would rather not have them and they didn't put them in. Now, I don't know what happened at that time or if the laws have changed cause different things happen, but they did not put the sidewalks in. They did come through at that time they had engineers come through and talk to all the property owners. I had people come through and talk to me because at the time they were first putting those curbs in which was twelve years ago or so they proposed putting two cuts in for my property. I worked with them to realign it to just have one cut which is what I have now, I preferred to have one in the middle. This time they didn't come through and ask anybody anything, they didn't ask anybody about the sidewalks. Some of the people mentioned about the strength of the concrete and what's inside the sidewalks that people are going to have to maintain. What the Town Board is setting as rules and regulations which are already different than what's there now. Those are some of the comments that I have to make. Another thing that happens when the plows come through they do come through several times they push all this slush which freezes up into an ice ball, but when the storm is over the next day or two days later since there are four or five feet of snow that's frozen on the edge they come through with the wings, they do it in front of my place all the time they go about three feet over the top and cut that off. Even if three days later the people have gone out there and spent a couple of hundred dollars and a half of ton of salt to clear the ice off their sidewalk then the State plow or County plow whoever is plowing that is going to push another pile of frozen junk right back on top of it again. It does create a major problem for everybody it really is something that the Town has to address and have a major piece of equipment that's going to go up through there when the storm is over both sides of the road and clear it and it's done. Thank you. KELLY CARTE, CO-OWNER OF WOOD CARTE STORE ACROSS THE STREET FROM SUTTON'S- I just wanted to go on record as being adamantly opposed to this solution to the problem. This situation strikes me as another trash plant in the making here. Where something was forced on a smaller government entity and they have to live with it forever after. I would hope that we would try to find some kind of a solution before we go too much further down the road with this. Listening to some of the other people before me I don't know this, but there seems to be two or three different avenues that we should pursue to try and get out from under this liability for the Town as well as the people involved here. The previous gentlemen was talking about the salt aspect of the water and everything running down into the brook here like this. Doesn't the State have to abide by the same kinds of laws that Town's and individuals do as far as polluting aquifers? As far as the salt aspect of having to try and maintain these sidewalks and killing the vegetation and everything else? It would seem to me the Town is the only one that's in a position to look at the legal aspect of trying to get out of this where it would be closing it or try to make the State pay for it and exhaust all these avenues before trying to decide who is going to pay to maintain them. If this is fruitless it seems like this is something that's forced on the Town in general. Yes, the sidewalks today are on Route 9 in front of our businesses tomorrow they could be in some other part of the Town, but it is a non benefit that nobody wanted. I don't want to again belabor the thing everybody already has made all the points. It just seems that since it was something that was forced on the Town in general that it should be something that the Town should address in general. You can make the statement that the Town doesn't have the money to pay for this if that's the case as someone else said why would you expect that the individual property owners would have the money to pay for this. The one aspect that it does seem to me that the Town already has is the liability. The Town already has a liability policy I assume that would cover a heck of a lot more than the individual insurance policies of people such as myself. We don't have this and that is a direct expense aside from maintaining the sidewalk of having to try and cover ourselves for this liability. I would imagine that the little additional liability that the Town would incur in a policy that probably already covers everything under the sun would be a heck of a lot less than every individual property owner trying to cover themselves in this aspect. The Town also has a place to put the snow. Presumably there is a lot of Town land that's vacant you put snow for those places you take care of now we have no place to put the snow absolutely nothing. We have a hard enough job trying to keep our parking lot, I mean we have to plow from the front of the thing two hundred and fifty three hundred feet all of our parking lot to the little green space that we have on the back end of our store. To try to take as everyone has said considerably more snow that is going to be dumped on these sidewalks and find a place to put them is impossible. I'm sure that some of the places here have areas to put it, but a good many of them are in the same situation as we are that they have no place to put this snow. You should keep in mind the municipalities like Glens Falls that have sidewalks that people maintain for the most part have an area between the sidewalk and the curb which the snowplows push the snow on. The people shovel the snow off the sidewalks onto their lawns or the other direction, but we have no other direction the other direction is our parking lot which has to be cleaned. All of these would lead me to think being able to do something legally to get out of this situation that the overall solution would be a general effort by the Town to take care of this because it is a general albatross around everybody's neck here. Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Anyone else? LEN OSBORNE, FOURTH WARD-Just a couple quick questions and observations. You said that you looked into the fact that you couldn't close the sidewalk down was looked into? COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yes, I got an opinion right here from the Attorney. What it says is that, I asked a couple of questions and the first one was about Highway Law 140 which says that we have to take care of the sidewalks it is mandated by the State. The second question was whether the Town could close the sidewalks during the winter months rather than removing the snow and the ice from the sidewalks. We believe the answer to the question is no. The State Comptroller has concluded that under Section 140 the Town had an absolute duty to keep Town Highways free and clear of snow. The State Comptroller found that there was no authority for a Town to temporarily close a road during the winter months to escape its statutory duty of snow removal. Because of the same section of the law applies to both sidewalks and Town roads the same reasoning would apply. MR. OSBORNE-Okay then, I guess my next question would be the bridge that connects between South Glens Falls and Glens Falls has a sidewalk on it obviously somebody has looked at that they close that and they mark it as closed. COUNCILMAN TURNER-One side they leave the other side open. MR. OSBORNE-Who maintains it? COUNCILMAN TURNER-They do, the State. MR. OSBORNE-I'm sure somebody has looked at it. COUNCILMAN TURNER-That was my question. Can the State close one side of the bridge that goes between Glens Falls and South Glens Falls and leave the other side open. MR. OSBORNE-Same stretch of road Route 9. They arbitrarily close one side or the other I can understand because of the mist from the dam, but in the same token they still maintain the other side. Why is the burden going to be put on the property owners in this instance it sounds kind of discriminatory? COUNCILMAN TURNER-That's the way Section 140 reads. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-There is no one there at the bridge to do it. There is no property owners there at the bridge the State owns the bridge and that's why they clean it. UNKNOWN-The State owns the land in front of where the sidewalks are. MR. OSBORNE-Exact point. I'm not pointing the finger here what I'm saying is the burden is getting shuffled off to the business owners along that stretch of road because they are there. In the instance of the bridge that connects South Glens Falls and Glens Falls there is nobody there so the State does it. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Have you seen the State actually doing the sidewalks? I know that Aviation Road Bridge we have that obligation the State does not clean that bridge nor does the County anyway it is our obligation. From the information we received from DOT in Warrensburg, I don't know if the State does the bridge in South Glens Falls maybe either the Village or the City I don't know that. MR. OSBORNE-You may be right in either case I was just repeating what Ted said it seems kind of arbitrary. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Anyone else? MR. GARDNER-Just a quick comment. That's an opinion by the State Comptroller having to do with the sidewalks? COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yes. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Yes. MR. GARDNER-I wouldn't accept that as a valid opinion. That's to say that the same conditions apply to sidewalks as applied to main thoroughfares to roadways that's ridiculous they are throwing everything in the same heap. I would challenge that opinion. COUNCILMAN TURNER-It's right in here too, right in the State Highway Law 140. MR. GARDNER-Opinions are opinions they are subject to reevaluation. UNKNOWN-There was another woman I didn't catch her whole last name Barbara Pallozzi who lived on Ridge Road she said she called four different Highway Departments in the area and they said they did not maintain sidewalks along side the State roads in their areas is that correct? COUNCILMAN IRISH-The Highway Department maintains them. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Did maintain. Don. MR. WHITE, SMALL WORLD SHOPPES-In terms of maintenance of the sidewalks for snow removal. If it is left up to the individual property owners you are going to have spot compliance you are going to have all different levels of compliance. I would be interested in knowing what is the Town going to do to determine what the level of compliance is number one. Number two, to assure fairness and uniform to everyone concerned it would seem to me that the only party that could possibly keep these sidewalks open to a level where people can walk on them would be the County or Town government. It becomes a situation of one where does the Town do it or do the individual property owners with individuals you are going to have various levels of compliance. I'd be kind of interested to know how the Town would decide when they have to step in and perform the duties? SUPERVISOR CHAMP AGNE- Tough question. Obviously, we have not set any standard for cleanliness or lack of. It would be the responsibility of our Code Enforcement Officers as I understand it to check and make sure at least they are in a safe walking condition, but to describe that in any further detail at this point in time I just couldn't do it. MR. WHITE-As you are well aware and alluded to it's a problem. I think this is where government has to step in even though a vast majority are not in favor of these sidewalks it's looks like we're stuck with it. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-We're going to look for other alternatives obviously. Our purpose for the meeting tonight I expected a turnout I knew that some folks along the corridor there would be upset and concerned. I think it's good in sharing what you have to share with us tonight because certainly you have given me some insight here that I need to do some more homework myself. Is there anymore of the first go around before we take the second. LOU STONE-This is just a quick clarification. I want this on the record since we didn't read it in. Shall keep the sidewalk in front of the premises free and clear from snow, ice, dirt, and other obstructions. That's fairly cogent, fairly clear, free and clear. There is a standard whether it's one that anybody can maintain is another question, but there is a standard. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Anyone else. JIM MAREK, OWNS CARPET STORE ACROSS FROM SUTTON'S-I'm not going to repeat everything everybody else has, but what I would like to do is I'd like to see you gentlemen get together and challenge the law of not closing Route 9 that's not an answer for everybody's problem all over the Town. Since we have an active view of Route 9 all day and all evening and all winter, I don't think there is ten people that have walked up that street within the last two years. I think it would save a whole lot of money for all the taxes, all the people, everybody concerned if we can find a way to close those challenge the laws and get it in our favor rather than the State who will never walk those roads. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I'll be on the phone first thing tomorrow with the Senator's office believe me, what can you do for me. Anyone else, going once? Again, thank you very much it has been very informative for Fred... COUNCILMAN TURNER-And everybody else. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I don't believe I'm ready to act on the law tonight. I don't think there is a time for the law to be acted upon unless the other board members have difference of opinions. COUNCILMAN IRISH-You can't do anything for ten days anyway. COUNCILMAN TURNER-I think it is in our best interest to go back and look at it and see what other alternatives there are and address the issues that were raised tonight. COUNCILMAN MERRILL-Exactly. COUNCILMAN IRISH-I think it's kind of ironic that I come originally from Corinth and we have sidewalks all through the Village over there. The Village Highway Department actually maintained the sidewalks they repaired them, cleaned them, cleared them. It is kind of funny because I know when I was taking care of my father's property if I didn't like the way the sidewalk was I went out and kind of cleaned up the sides of them, but we didn't maintain them. I also work for an insurance company so I understand everybody's concern with the liability. Even though it is not your property the minute you as a citizen cleans the State's property or the Town's property or somebody else's property you can believe there is an Attorney out there that will make a case that it is now your liability. As sure as there is god's green little apples out there, there is an Attorney that is going to tell you that's it is your liability because you cleaned it. For a municipality even though it is a unfunded mandate in the era that everybody that's a politician running around complaining about unfunded mandates whether they are Federal or State or anything else seems a little hypocritical for us to say, well we're not going to pay for them but we think you should pay for them because the State says we have, too. I agree with a couple of people who said it is time for us to challenge the law and I think we should do that. I think we should make an issue of this it is probably a pretty good suit to take to court if we have to go that far with it. But, I think we should make an issue out of it and say, it is time for you people to start looking at the results of the legislation you pass that it is going to have on the people that it affects. I don't believe they do that somebody brings a law up to them happens to sound good, this is for the Americans with Disabilities Act you need to comply with that so that people can roll their wheelchairs up and down Route 9 in the middle of the winter time when there is a four foot snowstorm out there to get into one of the stores. It is ludicrous because even in the summer they walk down the middle of the road or they walk from driveway to driveway they don't walk down the sidewalks. I think it is a good time for the Town maybe even get together with the County and see if we can get something done with the legislature and change part of the law or at least challenge the Comptroller's view that we have to take care of those sidewalks. I don't believe that the law specifies sidewalks I think it said roadways. As far as I'm concerned if your caught driving on a sidewalk with your car you are probably going to get a ticket for not driving in the roadway. I wouldn't be in support of this local law anyway. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Anything else from the board? Anything else from the public? MR. BAERTSCHI-I'm a member of the New York State Naval Militia I spend quite a bit of time down to the Division of Military and Naval Affairs which is off Exit 5 the old Niskayuna Road. I spent about eight or ten weeks this past winter at that facility when it snowed they didn't plow the sidewalks we had to walk in the road to get into the building and about maybe a week later it was finally cleared off. This is a State agency they are telling us we have to do this with one hand and on the other hand they are not doing it at all in certain areas. I just wanted to bring this up that it does happen. Thank you. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Thank you very much we appreciate your input. What's the pleasure of the board you want to close it? TOWN BOARD-Close it. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS LOCAL LAW RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM OPENED 8:21 P.M. NOTICE SHOWN SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Let's open the public hearing on Local Law Retirement Incentive. Henry do you want to just give us a little bit of guidelines here on this so we have a better understanding of what were doing. CONTROLLER, MR. HESS-As they have for the past several years the State of New York past a law that allows local municipalities to adopt an early retirement incentive with defined criteria. What we're proposing tonight is that the Town would pass the law adopting the early retirement incentive without naming any participants. Once the local law is established we would then go back and look at the possible candidates and decide who the Town Board should offer it to if there are any. We received a list from the State, I requested and received a list of approximately thirty three possible candidates. There are approximately nine that are ineligible because they are either elected officials or appointed officials and we had one candidate already retire this year or leave the Town employ that would have otherwise been eligible so we have around twenty six people that could be eligible. In order to offer the retirement incentive to any individual the Town has to demonstrate a fifty percent annual savings or fifty percent of their annual cost for that position over a two year period with the cost being calculated net of the cost of the incentive. In other words what it would take to fund the incentive and pay New York State Retirement System. Eligible candidates would fall into one or two classifications. Fifty years of age with ten years of service or fifty five years with five years of service and like I said there is around twenty six candidates. The law we're asking you to pass is not to offer this to any particular employee at this point, but to enable it which has to be done by September the second in order to be able to offer this. Then we will come back with a report of candidates that might be eligible under the cost criteria, savings criteria. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Okay. Anyone from the public care to speak for or against pro or con on this law? It is standard procedure it has been for I guess the last four or five years Henry where the State has offered this option to municipalities. It is another 1999 approach to possibly early retirement for some of our employees. With that said anything from the public? NO PUBLC COMMENT SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-The board care to make any comments any members from the board? It sounds easy enough to me. TOWN BOARD NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:24 P.M. RESOLUTION ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO.: 5 OF 1999 TO ADOPT 1999 RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM RESOLUTION NO. 252. 99 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Douglas Irish WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Merrill WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury wishes to consider enactment of a Local Law which would adopt a 1999 Retirement Incentive Program offered to eligible Town of Queensbury employees, and WHEREAS, such legislation is authorized in accordance with (10 of the Municipal Home Rule Law of the State of New York and Chapter 70 of the Laws of 1999 of New York State, and WHEREAS, the Board conducted a public hearing concerning the proposed Local Law on August 2nd, 1999 and all interested persons were heard, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby enacts Local Law No.: 5, 1999 to adopt a 1999 Retirement Incentive Program offered to eligible Town of Queensbury employees, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further 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 the Local Law shall take effect immediately and as soon as allowable under law. Duly adopted this 2nd day of August, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mr. Merrill, Mr. Turner, Mr. Irish, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:None LOCAL LAW NO.: 5 OF 1999 A LOCAL LAW TO ADOPT 1999 RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adopts a 1999 Retirement Incentive Program offered to eligible Town of Queensbury employees as follows: ~ 1 Title. This Program shall be titled, "1999 Retirement Incentive Program. " ~2. Statutory Authority. The authority for this Chapter is ~ 10 of the Municipal Home Rule Law and Chapter 70 of the Laws of 1999 of the New York State and Local Retirement System. ~3. Legislative History and Purpose. In accordance with Chapter 70 of the Laws of 1999, effective June 17, 1999, the New York State and Local Retirement Systems has made available a Retirement Incentive Program to local governments, public authorities and community colleges. This legislation permits employers that participate in the New York State and Local Employees' Retirement System to provide special retirement incentive benefits to their regular retirement plan members who are at least age 50 with ten years of service credit or at least age 55 with at least five years service credit (not including incentive credit). Eligible employees participating in a special twenty-five year plan providing for retirement without regard to age are eligible to participate in the incentive program if they have earned twenty-five (25) years of service credit (including incentive service) necessary to retire prior to their effective date of retirement. Certain employees covered under Sections 89-a, 89-b and 89-d may also be eligible for the incentive program. ~4. Enactment. The Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby elects to provide the retirement incentive program authorized by Chapter 70 of the Laws of 1999 to those employees deemed eligible by the Town Board. ~5. Commencement Date. The commencement date of the Retirement Incentive Program shall be December 1st, 1999. ~6. Open Period. The open period during which eligible employees may retire and receive the additional retirement benefit, shall be thirty-one (31) days in length commencing on December 1, 1999. ~7. Incentive Cost. At the conclusion of this Program, the New York State Retirement System will calculate the cost for the Town of Queensbury. Payment for Chapter 70 will either be paid in one (1) lump sum or in five (5) annual installments with the first payment due December 15th, 2000. The estimated annual cost may be determined by multiplying the appropriate rate by the annual salary of those anticipated to retire. That figure should then be multiplied by five to determine the total five year cost. The estimated rates are as follows: Retirement Plan 75-g, 75-h, 75-1 70, 7l-a, 75-c, 75-e Article 14, Article 15 89-a, 89-b, 89-d through 89-t Rate 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.25 SECTION 2. Severability . In the event that any provision of this law should be deemed invalid or illegal by a court oflaw, the remaining portions of the law shall be read to the extent possible, as if said provision was stricken therefrom and not a part thereof. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Local Law shall take effect upon proper filing initially with the New York State Secretary of State and subsequently with the New York State and Local Retirement System in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law of the State of New York. ADMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 28 ESTABLISHING THROUGH HIGHWAYS AND STOP INTERSECTIONS IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, COUNTY OF WARREN, NEW YORK OPENED 8:24 P.M. NOTICE SHOWN SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-We will open the public hearing on the amendment to Ordinance 28 Establishing Through Highways and Stop Intersections in the Town of Queensbury. This one deals with Pershing and Ashley. Anyone from the public care to speak? This has been a request for the last two or three years anyway by the public that is the neighbors near that intersection. Is anyone here from the public care to speak to or for? How about from the Town Board? COUNCILMAN IRISH-I'd just like to comment since it is in my Ward. Originally, I guess before I came on the board the people in the area there had submitted a petition then again once the new board took office there was another petition submitted. At the time the County decided that it didn't warrant a stop sign. Through a little research by Bob Hafner we discovered that the Town Board could actually enact a local law or ordinance to put up a stop sign that was requested so I asked for this to be brought in front of the board. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Anyone else? DEPUTY HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, RICK MISSITA-To a point of reference is this being done because of the accidents or just to stop traffic? COUNCILMAN IRISH-BasicaIly it was a concern on the neighbors in the area of the safety factor the increase in traffic in the area people using the cut over through Pershing and Ashley or Ashley and Pershing to get from Dixon over to Western Avenue. They saw an increase in traffic were more concerned they came to us and asked about it. I guess the Safety Committee from the County didn't feel there were significant amount of accidents there to warrant a stop sign. Based on the interest of the neighbors in the area there I brought this up and asked that the Attorneys look at it to see if we could do something more with it than that. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-I obviously have a problem with it as I did the night it was discussed earlier on. I'm going to vote no on the basis of having had the Board of Safety Committee from the County research it they did study it and it did not warrant a stop sign, four-way. I have an issue with it in as much as if the board proceeds ahead without at least having some, I don't know it may have changed now there could be some traffic studies today that could modify that decision three or four years ago. I would just not want to go into court with an accident however serious or minor justifying a four-way stop with a rear end collision knowing that it had not been authorized or recommended by County. That's just a personal view that I have that's where I'm coming from. Even though the Town has full rights to establish one there it's always nice to have some backup and support from those people that know what vehicle should stop, when, where, and why. With that said is there anything more to be added? I guess were ready for a motion. Close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:28 P.M. RESOLUTION ENACTING AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 28 ESTABLISHING THROUGH HIGHWAYS AND STOP INTERSECTIONS IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, COUNTY OF WARREN, NEW YORK RESOLUTION NO. 253 .99 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Douglas Irish WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Merrill WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has in effect Ordinance No. 28 - Ordinance Establishing Through Highways and Stop Intersections in the Town of Queensbury, County of Warren, New York, and this Ordinance lists the stop intersections and signs located within the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to consider amending Ordinance No. 28 by adding a stop intersection at the intersection of Pershing Road and Ashley Place, and WHEREAS, the Town Board duly conducted a public hearing concerning the proposed Amendment to Ordinance No. 28 on August 2nd, 1999 and the Town Board now wishes to enact the Amendment to Ordinance No. 28, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby enacts the proposed Amendment to Ordinance No. 28 presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to enter the Amendment to Ordinance No. 28 in the minutes of this Town Board meeting, publish the Amendment to Ordinance No. 28 (or a summary or abstract) once in the Glens Falls Post Star, file an affidavit of the publication in the Town Clerk's Office, and the Amendment to Ordinance No. 28 shall take effect ten (10) days after publication. Duly adopted this 2nd day of August, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Merrill, Mr. Irish, Mr. Tucker NOES: Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne ABSENT:None DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE: COUNCILMAN TURNER-No history of accidents? COUNCILMAN IRISH-There is, but I don't think there is a significant amount of them that the committee felt there was a problem. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-We've never seen any statistics that I'm aware of unless you've seen something that I haven't. COUNCILMAN IRISH-The report that they had said that the accident ratio, I guess they have a ratio they figure in. I'm assuming there was a number of accidents there, but it didn't trigger their. . . . . . COUNCILMAN TURNER-The petition that was presented and the petition that I saw at the time was that there was screeching cars trying to stop at the intersection and that kind of stuff and there was no mention of accidents. COUNCILMAN IRISH-I don't have it in front of me so. I guess you could wait for somebody to get killed there then. COUNCILMAN TURNER-That's not the point. COUNCILMAN IRISH-If that's what you want to do. COUNCILMAN TURNER-They could get killed with a four-way stop. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-.....the question of somebody getting killed there any more or any less than it is other two-way stops throughout the Town, I don't see that as any different. COUNCILMAN TURNER-I got to tell you the one at Country Club and Mannis is a terrible scenario. COUNCILMAN IRISH-I think that works great. COUNCILMAN TURNER-No. CORRESPONDENCE DEPUTY TOWN CLERK O'BRIEN-Read the following petition into the record. From, Fire Marshal, Chris Jones Re: Fire Department training exercise/restricted burn policy. We have become aware that Dean Romer and the South Queensbury Fire Department are planning to burn three vacant buildings located at 459,461, and the one on the property due East of John's Outdoor Sports on Dix Avenue. Because of the drought this summer and as concerned neighborly citizens and business owners, we respectfully request that the afore-mentioned buildings be demolished rather than burned. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Presented pictures to board. Spoke with Fire Marshal today, has a letter from DEe. Noted it is his opinion after reading the letter from DEC really the Town has no jurisdiction over fire training if in fact that's what's being requested. It appears that it is a matter between Mr. Romer and the Fire Company as to how they proceed. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Questioned the reason for demolishing the buildings? Noted if we're going to have them demolished thinks the property owner should pay for it, noting it doesn't look like they would condemned just from looking at the buildings. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Noted they do not have any authority. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-If the South Queensbury Fire Company wants to provide a training exercise for the fireman doesn't believe the Town has any authority in passing judgment on what they can and cannot do. It is recommended that they do get a DEC permit. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Questioned if the Fire Marshal ever signs off? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-No. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Fire Departments pretty much have free rain over their practices? TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER-Noted they could exercise their powers as a Board of Health if you felt that something posed a serious imminent threat to public health you have certain emergency powers. Otherwise what authority exists indicates that fire districts and fire commissioners do have the authority to enter into this sort of arrangement with the property owner as part of a training exercise. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Understands now they are going to wait for good weather, more rain. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Noted they have to remove all the shingles off the roof. If it is plastic siding they have to take the plastic siding off and the windows out. TOWN'S COUNCILMEN'S COMMITTEE REPORTS COUNCILMAN TURNER-The Town Planning Committee met July 27th, 1999, in reference to Noise Ordinance. Proposed the following task and evaluation of the development of a Noise Ordinance. Collection of sample Ordinance from communities in New York State. Evaluation of legal issues relating to the regulation. Meeting with representatives of those problematic noise generators. Consultation with an expert in the field of noise\acoustics with a possible public forum on the issue. Development of a model Ordinance for public comment\attorney review then a public hearing. Friday, July 23rd, Chris Round and Councilman Turner made site visits to select businesses on Route 9 in the Twicwood Subdivision and also met with John Collins of the Great Escape and Keith Farraro of Skateland to discuss the Ordinance and ways to immediately address the issue. Regarding the Skateland go-carts the new mufflers were readily distinguishable from the old mufflers on the basis of gross noise output. Reaction was that additional on site mitigation could be accomplished. Mr. Farraro indicated he would explore those improvements. Mr. Collins indicated he would present the Town with the findings of an on going evaluation of off site noise impacts as soon as it is completed. The Community Development Office will explore the noise problems, regulations associated with Premier Parks facilities at other locations we have requested a copy of several planning, zoning reports regarding community noise input. COUNCILMAN MERRILL-Reported on the Finance Committee. Councilman Irish and Councilman Merrill met with Michelle Weller and Henry Hess to review the cost of power to the Town which exceeds over five hundred thousand dollars annually. Exploring savings through deregulation although the savings will probably be small thinks it is important to stay current with the emerging retail access power markets. Noted on the twenty six the Highway Committee met with Rick Missita and Joseph Lenaro from Chazen review the drainage proposal for Willow and Kiley noting several modifications were made these will be incorporated into the final plans which will be review this Thursday at nine o'clock. OPEN FORUM RESOLUTIONS DOROTHY BURNHAM, QUEENSBURY-Questioned the resolution pertaining to Hiland Springs Town Homes asking if this was the Eddy Development or a different development? COUNCILMAN TURNER-Mr. Schermerhorn's development. MRS. BURNHAM-Questioned where it will be going and the number of units? COUNCILMAN TURNER-It is going just above the pump station on the high ground on the right hand side of the road going towards Haviland. MRS. BURNHAM-Questioned if it is the same type of construction as in his other developments? COUNCILMAN TURNER-No it is not. COUNCILMAN MERRILL-His originally proposal was significantly more than we agreed upon. It is a hundred and forty townhouse rental units, noting they have had a number of meetings with Mr. Schermerhorn to discuss architectural standards. The latest plan brought forth they do pick up the architectural details that are used elsewhere in Hiland. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-All this is doing is saying to Mr. Schermerhorn is that his concept that we're looking at now is consistent with the PUD that was originally put in place at Hiland. All the board is saying is that we're agreeing it can move onto the next step and that it is consistent with the Hiland's PUD. PETE HARRINGTON, REPRESENTING WEST GLENS FALLS FIRE COMPANY-Questioned the board regarding a resolution he thought was to be on tonight's agenda regarding the borrowing of thirty thousand dollars regarding fire truck. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Asked the board if this is something they wanted to approve tonight? Noted they did meet with them got the letter back. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Understands this can happen whether we sign it or not. MR. HARRINGTON-Can't borrow the money that we need that we had asked to borrow that we are repaying not from Town funds, but our own private fundraising without a Town letter stating you are not liable for this, but you do know of us buying the equipment. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-His understanding was that they had the cash to purchase the truck. MR. HARRINGTON-They do have the cash. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-That they needed to borrow the money to upgrade it. Questioned if they can still go buy the truck you have the cash to do that? MR. HARRINGTON-We do. It is the cash they are borrowing, the truck is collateral for that loan from Glens Falls National. They will loan it to us more or less to buy the truck and the other money that we have left over from the sale would be used to rehab the truck. COUNCILMAN IRISH-WouId like input from Henry. CONTROLLER, MR. HESS-Questioned what sale they were talking about? MR. HARRINGTON-Sold one of our other engine pumpers. CONTROLLER, MR. HESS-That might be something that needs board approval. Thinks the contract does require that dispositions of equipment do require Town Board approval. All the squads are suppose to file capital plans the capital plan from West Glens Falls last year did not talk about this purchase nor disposition, this year. MR. HARRINGTON-Normally do that when we're using Town funds to finance these projects. This is being done on our own without any additional Town funds to finance. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-The truck that they sold they had purchased originally... ..... MR. HARRINGTON-With fundraising efforts it was paid for by fire company funds not Town funds. CONTROLLER, MR. HESS-Not passing judgment whether this should be done or not. Noted it was not on the capital plans that we asked the squads for. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Concerned with future obligation when they replace the truck that they are talking about buying. Where does this put the Town when it comes to replacement of vehicles in ten, fifteen, years, with that truck? CONTROLLER, MR. HESS-If you had a budget in place they would have to ask for a waiver of the budget if they wanted more money to maintain or operate a more expensive piece of equipment, noting they don't have a budget in place for next year so it is subject to negotiations. MR. HARRINGTON-Noted in his letter sent to the Supervisor don't expect a significant amount of increase in budget maintenance line item. CONTROLLER, MR. HESS-Questioned if they have a revise capital plan? MR. HARRINGTON-Yes, to bring that with them when they get to negotiations for this year. CONTROLLER, MR. HESS-Now would be the time to have the capital plan. MR. HARRINGTON-Capital plan as far as the Town's funds has not change for the remainder of this year. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Thinks the issue is regardless of what you do with the Town funds if you obligate even though you purchase the equipment with your own money if you purchase more equipment our contract says, we're going to pay you for maintenance of the equipment you are really obligating the Town for more than what we may be willing to accommodate. MR. HARRINGTON-Right now don't see a significant increase at all. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Henry is saying that plan then we will be able to see what we need to do. MR. HARRINGTON-It's hard to know what we're going to need to maintain it until we get the truck here. CONTROLLER, MR. HESS-Recommended Mr. Harrington to bring in their capital plan. MR. HARRINGTON-Questioned the figure they are looking for is the maintenance of the truck on a yearly basis for the next contract? CONTROLLER, MR. HESS-Looking for anything they used to justify the purchase. After further discussion it was the decision of the Town Board to put this on the agenda for Thursday's meeting. Mr. Harrington to bring information to Controller, Mr. Hess by Wednesday. BETTY MONAHAN-Questioned where the property is located what it is zoned now and what are they asking for it to be zoned? COUNCILMAN TURNER-It is the property at the Northway Plaza that's between the Cemetery and the Plaza. MRS. MONAHAN-Questioned if this is the piece of property that they talked about before? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Same property. MRS. MONAHAN-Questioned Resolution 6.6 regarding Hiland Springs Town Homes Project what is this doing to the density compared to the density that was in the original SEQRA review? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Reducing it. RESOLUTIONS ORDER SETTING PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING PROPOSED EXTENSION NO.5 TO CENTRAL QUEENSBURY QUAKER ROAD SEWER DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 254, 1999 INTRODUCED BY: Mr.. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Merrill WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury wishes to establish an extension to the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District to be known as the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District Extension No.5, and WHEREAS, Everest Enterprises, LLC (the "Developer") has agreed to make all necessary improvements and pay all the costs of such extension, and WHEREAS, a Map, Plan and Report has been prepared by Haanen Jenkin & Hutchins, LLC, engineers licensed by the State of New York regarding the proposed extension to the existing Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District to serve the Ponderosa Restaurant and an 80 unit Sleep Inn Hotel to be constructed by the Developer located along Route 9 just north of the Ponderosa Restaurant, Queensbury, such area consisting of parcels bearing Tax Map No.'s: 71-2-2 and 71-2-14.2 as more specifically set forth and described in the Map, Plan and Report, and WHEREAS, the Map, Plan and Report has been filed in the Queensbury Town Clerk's Office and is available for public inspection, and WHEREAS, the Map, Plan and Report delineates the boundaries of the proposed sewer district extension, a general plan of the proposed sewer system, a report of the proposed sewer system and method of operation, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury wishes to establish the proposed sewer extension in accordance with Article l2A of Town Law and consolidate the extension with the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District in accordance with Town Law ~206A, and WHEREAS, Part I of an Environmental Assessment Form has been prepared and presented at this meeting and a coordinated SEQRA review is desired, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall hold a public hearing and consider establishing the proposed extension to the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District previously described in this Resolution and to be known as the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District Extension NO.5. 2. The boundaries of the proposed extension and benefitted areas of the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District are to be as follows: All that piece or parcel ofland, situate in the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, lying along the easterly side of NYS Route 9 and southerly of Sweet Road and being further bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point in the easterly line ofNYS Route 9 at the division line oflands N/F ofV.W. Weeks (occupied by Gambles Bakery) to the north and lands ofD&C Management Associates, Inc. to the south and runs thence along said division line S870-36"-30"E 234.86' to a point in the easterly line of the aforesaid V.W. Weeks, thence along said easterly line N060-58'-30"W 100.0' to a point in the southerly line of Sweet Road; thence along said southerly line S870-36'-30"E 75.70' to a point in the westerly line oflands N/F of George and Donald Weeks; thence along said westerly line S060-5l '-OO"E 200.0' to a point in the southerly line of the aforesaid George and Donald Weeks; thence along said southerly line S870-36'-30"E 208.0' to a point in the westerly line of Montray Road; thence along said westerly and northerly lines of Montray Road the following five courses S060-5l '-OO"E 153.80' to a point; thence S060-08'-30"E 305.43' to a point of curvature; thence on a curve to the right of radius 204.90', a distance of 156.70' to a point of compound curvature; thence continuing on a curve to the right of radius 315.0' a distance of 321. 94' to a point of tangency and N830-46'-00"W 84.70' of D'Angelo; thence along said easterly and northerly line of said D'Angelo the following two courses N060-l4'-00"E 250.0' to a point and N830-46'-00"W 217.80' to a point in the easterly line ofNYS Route 9; thence along said easterly line the following three courses N080- 22'-1O"E 176.10' to a point; thence NOl o-13'-OO"E 266.58' to a point and N060-20'-30"W 123.93' to the point or place of beginning, containing 8.85:1: acres ofland. ALL THAT TRACT, PIECE OR PARCEL OF LAND, situate in the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, lying along the easterly side ofNYS Route No.9, southerly of Sweet Road and being further bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point in the easterly line of NYS Route NO.9 at the division line oflands N/F of V. W. Weeks (occupied by "Gambles Bakery") to the north and lands ofD&C Management to the south, and runs thence easterly along said division line S870-36'-30"E, 234.86' to a point in the easterly line of the aforesaid V.W. Weeks; thence along said easterly line N060-58'-30"W, 100.0' to point in the southerly line of Sweet Road; thence along said southerly line S870-36'-30"E, 75.70' to a point in the westerly line oflands N/F George Weeks and Donald Weeks; thence along said westerly line S-060-5l '-OO"E, 200.0' to a point of intersection of the southerly line of the aforementioned George Weeks and Donald Weeks; thence continuing southerly through lands ofD&C Management S060-5l'-00"E, 285.0' to a point in the northerly line of the Ponderosa Restaurant; thence along said northerly line N830-46'-00"W, 349.34' to a point in the easterly line ofNYS Route No.9; thence along said easterly line the following two courses NOl o-13'-OO"E, 234.19' to a point and N060-20'-30"W, 123.93' to the point or place of beginning, containing 2.90:1: acres of land. The above described parcel is subject to two easements along the southerly line of the above described parcel. Easement Along Southerly Line of Lot NO.1 Beginning at a point in the easterly line ofNYS Route NO.9 where it is intersected by the northerly line of the Ponderosa Restaurant parcel and runs thence along the easterly line ofNYS Route NO.9 NO! 0_13'_ OO"E, 15.06' to a point; thence easterly and southerly through lands previously described (2.90:1: acres), S830-46'-00"E, 347.17' to a point and S060-5l'-00"E, 15.40' to a point in the northerly line of the Ponderosa Restaurant parcel; thence along said northerly line N830-46'-00"W, 349.34' to the point or place of beginning. Being a 15' wide easement entirely within Lot #1 Parcel. A 30 x 30 Easement to the Town of Queensbury Beginning at a point in the easterly line ofNYS Route No.9, said point being distant the following two courses from the division line oflands N/F ofY.W. Weeks to the north (occupied by "Gambles Bakery") and lands ofD&C Management to the south S060-20'-30"E, 123.93' to a point and SOlo-13'-OO"W, 211.66' to the point of beginning and runs thence the following three (3) courses through lands of the aforesaid Kapoor S830-46'-00"E, 30.0' to a point; thence SOlo-13'-OO"W, 30.12' to a point; thence N830-46'-00"W to a point in the easterly line ofNYS Route No.9, thence along said easterly line NOlo-13'-OO"E, 30.12' to the point or place of beginning, containing 0.026:1: acres ofland. 3. The proposed improvements shall consist of the purchase and installation of an 8" gravity sewer crossing to an existing manhole located directly across Route 9. A new additional manhole will be installed on the east side of Route 9 at the terminus of the 8" gravity sewer which crosses the highway. The 8" gravity sewer and new manhole will be constructed in accordance with Queensbury standards for dedication to the Town upon completion. An additional 8" gravity sewer and new manhole will be constructed along the south boundary of parcel 71-2-2 as more specifically set forth in the Map, Plan and Report prepared by Haanen Jenkin & Hutchins, LLC and the cost shall also include a payment of the appropriate charge due the City of Glens Falls at the time of the initial hook-up. 4. All proposed construction shall be installed and paid for by the Developer (including the cost payable to the City at the time of initial hook -up) and shall be constructed and installed in full accordance with the Town of Queensbury's specifications, ordinances or local laws, and any State laws or regulations, and in accordance with approved plans and specifications and under competent engineering supervIsIOn. 5. The maximum amount proposed to be expended for these improvements will be approximately $37,500, plus a one time buy-in fee estimated to be $1.35 per gallon of average daily flow, which in this case would be $5,400. Such improvement costs shall be paid by the Developer and there shall be no cost to the Town of Queensbury or the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District for the proposed extension. The areas or properties that comprise the extension, however, will be subject to the same cost for operation, maintenance and capital improvements as in the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District. 6. The estimated cost of hook-up fees to the typical property will be $0. There are no one or two family homes in the extension, so their hook-up cost would be $0.00. The estimated annual cost of the extension to the properties will be $7,848 and approximately $10,410 for sewer rents; the total estimated annual cost is $18,258. Since there are none, the estimated annual cost for a one or two family home would be $0 for debt service and approximately $0 per year for sewer rents for a total estimated annual cost of $0. There shall be no one or two family homes within the extension: only a Ponderosa Restaurant and a proposed Sleep Inn Hotel. 7. In accordance with Town Law ~206-a, all future expenses of the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District, including all extensions included heretofore or hereafter established, shall be a charge against the entire area of the district as extended. 8. The Map, Plan and Report describing the improvements and area involved and a detailed explanation of how the hook-up fees and the cost of the District to the typical property, and, if different, the typical one or two family home was computed are on file with the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury and available for public inspection. 9. The Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall meet and hold a public hearing at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, August 16th, 1999 to consider the Map, Plan and Report and to hear all persons interested in the proposal and to take such other and further action as may be required or authorized by law. 10. The Town Board will proceed with considering the extension and hold such public hearing only if the Developer executes an agreement concerning the extension in a form acceptable to Town Counsel prior to such hearing. 11. The Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to duly publish and post this Order not less than ten (10) days nor more than twenty (20) days before the public hearing date, as required by Town Law ~209-d, and complete or arrange for the securing of two (2) Affidavits of Publication of Notice and two (2) Affidavits of Posting of Notice of the Public Hearing required hereby and to file a certified copy of this Order with the State Comptroller on or about the date of publication. 12. The Town of Queensbury Community Development Department is hereby requested to prepare a report on any environmental impacts that should be considered at the time a SEQRA review is conducted. 13. The Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Community Development Department to send a copy of this Resolution, Part I of the Environmental Assessment Form presented at this meeting and a copy of the Map, Plan and Report to all potentially involved agencies and to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and New York State Department of Health together with all documentation to be sent out with a letter indicating that the Town Board is about to undertake consideration of the project identified in this Resolution, that a coordinated SEQRA review with the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury as Lead Agency is desired and that a Lead Agency must be agreed upon within 30 days. Duly adopted this 2nd day of August, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Turner, Mr. Irish, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Merrill, Mr. Champagne NOES: Noes ABSENT:Noes RESOLUTION AMENDING RES. 246.99 REGARDING MOWING SERVICES AT TOWN LANDFILL RESOLUTION NO.: 255.99 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 246.99, the Queensbury Town Board authorized engagement of the services of Jim Girard Landscape Maintenance Corporation for mowing work at the Town Landfill on Ridge Road, and WHEREAS, the Town Controller's Office has advised that the first "RESOLVED" clause of the Resolution should be amended to delete the language, "to be paid for from the Landfill Closure Capital Project Fund No.: 092-8160-4400," as this account is closed, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby amends Resolution No. 246.99 such that the first "RESOLVED" clause shall read as follows: RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes engagement of the services of Jim Girard Landscaping Maintenance Corporation for the mowing work at the Town Landfill on Ridge Road for the approximate amount of $1,812." Duly adopted this 2nd day of August, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Irish, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Merrill, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION SEEKING LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND AUTHORIZING TOWN CLERK TO SUBMIT PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE FOR PROPERTY OWNED BY TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 256. 99 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Merrill WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 200,99, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury authorized the sale of a 1.2 acre Town-owned parcel of land located in the vicinity of Northway Plaza fronting on Quaker Road to Northway Plaza Associates, and WHEREAS, as part of Resolution No.: 200, 99, the Town Board also agreed to consider rezoning of the parcel from Right-of-Way/Single Family Residential- 1 Acre (ROW/SFR-1A) to Plaza Commercial - 1 Acre (PC-1A), and WHEREAS, the Town's Department of Community Development has submitted an application to the Queensbury Town Clerk's Office for rezoning of the parcel of property and the application has been reviewed by the Town Planning Staff and deemed complete for purposes of review, and WHEREAS, applications for rezoning and zoning amendments are forwarded to the Town Planning Department and Planning Board for recommendations in accordance with ~ 179-94 of the Town Zoning Ordinance, and WHEREAS, following such recommendations, the Queensbury Town Board will review the rezoning applications and take such other action as it shall deem necessary and proper, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to submit the following application to the Queensbury Planning Board for report and recommendation: APPLICATION OF Town of Queensbury TAX MAP NO'S: 63-1-1.1 LOCATION OF PROPERTIES Vicinity of Northway Plaza, Queensbury, NY APPLICATION FOR Rezoning of parcel currently zoned Right-of-Way/Single Family Residential- 1 Acre (ROW/SFR-1A) to Plaza Commercial- 1 Acre (PC-1A) and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its wish to be Lead Agency for SEQRA review of this project and directs the Department of Community Development to notify any other involved agencies. Duly adopted this 2nd day of August, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mr. Merrill, Mr. Turner, Mr. Irish, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW GARBAGE, RUBBISH, & REFUSE (PULLED) DISCUSSION HELD COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Asked to have this pulled there are more problems involved in what this resolution is going to take care of. Would like to have a Workshop with the Planning, Zoning, Code Enforcement Department and Town Board. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Asked if board was in agreement. Town Board in agreement. RESOLUTION TO AMEND 1999 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 257.99 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Douglas Irish WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, certain Town Departments have requested fund transfers for the 1999 Budget and the Chief Fiscal Officer has approved the requests, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the transfer of funds and the amendment of the 1999 Town Budget as follows: WATER: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 40-8330-4400 (Misc. Contractual) 40-8330-2001 (Misc. Equipment) 500.00 40-8330-4400 (Misc. Contractual) 40-8330-4270 (Chemicals & Glassware) 1,000.00 Duly adopted this 2nd day of August, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Merrill, Mr. Turner, Mr. Irish, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AFFIRMING CONSISTENCY OF HILAND SPRINGS TOWN HOMES PROJECT WITH HILAND PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 258.99 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS Richard Schermerhorn is seeking approval from the Town of Queensbury to construct 140 Town Home Rental Units ("Hiland Springs") on Meadowbrook Road in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, Mr. Schermerhorn has requested that the Queensbury Town Board affirm that this proposed project is consistent with the Hiland Park Planned Unit Development as approved by the previous Town Board on January 14, 1987 by Resolution No. 212.87, and WHEREAS, the Executive Director of Community Development has reviewed the proposed project to be sure it is in compliance with the PUD Ordinance and Hiland Park PUD and has recommended that the Town Board adopt a Resolution affirming that the proposed project is consistent with the Hiland Park PUD so that the proposal will be able to move forward through the site plan review process as administered by the Queensbury Planning Board, and WHEREAS, the Town Board anticipates that this project may undergo modifications as part of the Queensbury Planning Board's Site Plan Review process, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby affirms that the proposal by Richard Schermerhorn to construct 140 Town Home Units on Meadowbrook Road in the Town of Queensbury is consistent with the Hiland Park PUD as approved by Town Board Resolution 212.87, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director of Community Development to present a copy of this Resolution to Richard Schermerhorn and the Town Planning Board and take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 2nd day of August, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Turner, Mr. Irish, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Merrill, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF INTEGRATED LAND MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE PACKAGE FROM GOVERN SOFTWARE RESOLUTION NO.: 259.99 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Douglas Irish WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Merrill WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury previously adopted purchasing procedures which require that any purchase in an amount of $5,000 or greater up to New York State bidding limits must be approved by the Town Board, and WHEREAS, the Computer Technology Coordinator solicited proposals for an Integrated Land Management Software Package and has requested Town Board authorization to purchase the software from Govern Software for the approximate amount of $83,782, and WHEREAS, the Purchasing Manager has reviewed the information received by the Computer Technology Coordinator, conducted negotiations and concurs with the Computer Technology Coordinator's recommendation as well as the recommendations of various Department Heads, to purchase the software from Govern Software, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves of the purchase of an Integrated Land Management Software Package from Govern Software for the approximate amount of $83,782, with funding to be in accordance with the attached Quotation Analysis dated June 1, 1999 (Rev. A), and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes the transfer of $56,000 from the Contingency Contractual Account No.: 001-1990-4400 to the Central Data Processing Software Account No.: 001- 1680-2032, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Controller's Office and/or Purchasing Manager to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 2nd day of August, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Irish, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Merrill, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AWARDING BID FOR LIGHT SODA ASH FOR USE AT WATER TREATMENT PLANT RESOLUTION NO. 260.99 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Merrill WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Purchasing Manager duly advertised for bids for light soda ash in accordance with Water Department Bid Specification No.: 99-02, and WHEREAS, the Town received three (3) bids for the light soda ash, and WHEREAS, the Purchasing Manager and Water Superintendent have reviewed the bids and have recommended that the Town award the bid to Astro Chemicals, the lowest responsible bidder, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby awards the bid for light soda ash to Astro Chemicals for the approximate amount of $222.40 per net ton and further authorizes and directs that the soda ash be paid for from the appropriate Water Department Account(s). Duly adopted this 2nd day of August, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mr. Merrill, Mr. Turner, Mr. Irish, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EQUIPMENT LEASE-PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH CHASE EQUIPMENT LEASING, INe. RESOLUTION NO.: 261.99 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Douglas Irish WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Merrill WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is seeking bank financing for replacement of all Town of Queensbury non-Highway Department vehicles over the next three (3) years, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has received and reviewed proposals for such financing from Glens Falls National Bank, Evergreen Bank and Chase Manhattan Bank, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has determined that the terms of the proposal from Chase Manhattan Bank are the most advantageous to the Town, and WHEREAS, the Town is authorized to enter into installment purchase and lease purchase agreements in accordance with General Municipal Law (109-b, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute and deliver the Equipment Lease-Purchase Agreement by and between the Town as Lessee and Chase Equipment Leasing, Inc., an affiliate of the Chase Manhattan Bank, as Lessor (the "Agreement"), substantially in the form presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the period of probable usefulness of the vehicles being financed under the Agreement is hereby determined to be three (3) years in accordance with Subdivision 77 of paragraph (a) of Local Finance Law (11 and therefore the Board further determines that the term of the Agreement will not exceed three (3) years, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the purchase of the vehicles being financed under the Agreement shall comply with the public bidding requirements of General Municipal Law (103, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Controller's Office to make the required payments under the Agreement from the Central Fleet Internal Service Fund and take such other and further action as may be necessary to comply with the requirements of the Agreement and effectuate the terms of this Resolution Duly adopted this 2nd day of August, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Merrill, Mr. Turner, Mr. Irish, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW NO.: OF 1999 AMENDING TOWN CODE CHAPTER 155 TO PROVIDE FOR PARTIAL TAX EXEMPTION FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES RESOLUTION NO.: 262.99 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Douglas Irish WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury wishes to consider adoption of a Local Law to amend Chapter 155 of the Queensbury Town Code entitled "Taxation," which Local Law would provide for a partial exemption from Town real estate taxes for persons with disabilities, and WHEREAS, such legislation is specifically authorized in accordance with ~459-c of the New York State Real Property Tax Law, and WHEREAS, before the Town Board may act on such a Local Law, it must conduct a public hearing, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall meet and hold a public hearing at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury at 7:00 p.m. on August 16th, 1999 to consider the proposed Local Law presented at this meeting, hear all interested persons and take such action required or authorized by law, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED AND ORDERED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish and post the Notice of Public Hearing presented at this meeting in the manner provided by law. Duly adopted this 2nd day of August, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Turner, Mr. Irish, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Merrill, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:None PLANNED DISCUSSIONS LETTER FROM ADELPHIA REGARDING HARRON COMMUNICATIONS JOHN MUCHA, GENERAL MANAGER HARRON CABLE TV PRESENT DISCUSSION HELD Discussion held regarding the reviewing of financial's of Adelphia and five year business plan. After further discussion of the board it was the decision to approve the following resolution. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISEE FROM HARRON CABLEVISION OF NEW YORK, INe. TO ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION RESOLUTION NO.: 263.99 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Fred Champagne WHEREAS, Harron Cablevision of New York, Inc. (Harron) currently holds a cable television franchise (Franchise) to conduct, own and operate a cable television system (System) operating in the Town of Queensbury (Town), and WHEREAS, the sole stockholder of Harron is Harron Communications Corporation, a New York Corporation (Harron Corp.), and WHEREAS, the stockholders of Harron Corp. and Adelphia Communications Corporation (Adelphia) have entered into a Purchase Agreement dated April 9th, 1999 (Purchase Agreement) providing for, among other things, the sale of the stock in Harron Corp. to Adelphia (Transfer of Control) and requiring Harron Corp. to obtain any required consents of governmental franchising authorities for the Transfer of Control in accordance with applicable law and the Franchise, and WHEREAS, Harron and Adelphia have jointly submitted to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury (Board) an application on Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Form 394 requesting consent for the Transfer of Control and have submitted such other information concerning the Transfer of Control and Adelphia as required by law, the Franchise, and as requested by the Board (collectively, the Transfer Application), and WHEREAS, the Board has reviewed the Transfer Application, examined the legal, financial and technical qualifications of Adelphia, followed all required procedures in order to consider and act upon the Transfer Application and considered the comments of all interested parties, and WHEREAS, Harron will continue to hold the Franchise and operate the System in the Town subsequent to the Transfer of Control to Adelphia, and WHEREAS, the Board believes it is in the interest of the Town to approve the Transfer Application and the Transfer of Control of the Franchise and the System to Adelphia, as described in the Transfer Application, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the Transfer Application and the Transfer of Control to Adelphia or to any wholly owned affiliate of Adelphia as described in the Transfer Application and Purchase Agreement and the Board acknowledges that no further consent is required for the assignment of the Franchise to any affiliate company under common control with or controlled by Adelphia, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Board hereby acknowledges that: i. The franchise is valid and outstanding and in full force and effect on the date hereof; and i. The current term of the Franchise will expire on March 19th, 2007 subject to options in the Franchise, if any, to extend such term. i. The Board's grant of the Transfer Application and its consent to the Transfer of Control to Adelphia herein provided shall be effective immediately and Adelphia shall notify the Board promptly upon the closing of the transactions described in the Purchase Agreement. Duly adopted this 2nd day of August, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Irish, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Merrill, Mr. Turner, Mr. Champagne NOES: None ABSENT:None TOWN BOARD WORKSHOP COUNCILMAN IRISH-Spoke to Facilities Manager, Mr. Rice regarding lock on outer office door for computer and copier, changing it, so it is accessible to Town Board members, he was told he was directed not to change lock. Asked to have the computer and copier be located so Town Board members could have access to it if they are in the building when the door is locked. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Asked Controller, Mr. Hess if the computer is something that they want the Town Board members to access, noting they can make arrangements for the copier. CONTROLLER, MR. HESS-They are all accessible twenty four hours a day. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Asked Town Board if they are in agreement of this. COUNCILMAN MERRILL-Thinks it should be accessible. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-If that's what you want done we will do that, noting they will have a separate key to the door. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Noted he does not need a key. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Spoke to board regarding stripping on Potter Road questioned if they are going to remedy this? DEPUTY HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, MR. MISSITA-Have a call into them to see when they are going to come back to take care of it. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Recommended not paying them until it is fixed. DEPUTY HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, MR. MISSITA-It is a County contract the company is out of Connecticut. The gun did not shut off, noting the only thing that is there is solids where they shouldn't be. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Asked Deputy Highway Superintendent, Mr. Missita if they could change Potter Road to a double solid line? DEPUTY HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, MR. MISSITA-Town Board has the right to change it if they so desire. The stripping meets the Uniform Traffic Control Manual stated by the State of New York. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Questioned what criteria do they base it on? DEPUTY HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, MR. MISSITA-Site distance, the area. If you have residential on one side, but you have nothing on the other side so there is not much volume coming out on both ways so you have plenty of site distance. CONTROLLER, MR. HESS-Spoke to the board regarding the Workshop Meeting on Thursday noting the four agenda items he has are Purchasing Policy, Fleet Management Policy, Family Medical Leave Act Policy, West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company Vehicle Purchase. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Spoke to the board regarding purchasing noted that purchasing has become part of the Finance Committee asked to have this made official in the committee assignments. ATTORNEY MATTERS NONE OPEN FORUM 9:47 P.M. JOHN SALVADOR, QUEENSBURY --Spoke to the board regarding letter sent requesting that his application for septic holding tank be reheard and that public hearing be scheduled. SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Noted he received the letter it will be acted upon when the time arrives. MR. SALVADOR-Asked if this will be on for the next meeting? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Not promising anything will take it into consideration. MR. SALVADOR-Asked for Supervisor Champagne to let him know when this happens? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Ordinarily they don't send out personal invitations recommended him to check the agenda. MR. SALVADOR-Spoke to the board regarding Noise Ordinance recommended Town Board to look at the one for Lake George. Recommended the Town to put together a model together concerning the cost of snow removal for Route 9. Asked if the board has decided anything regarding the Cracker Barrel hearing. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Noted they already had the public hearing. MR. SALVADOR-Questioned what they are doing now? COUNCILMAN IRISH-Voting. MR. SALVADOR-Questioned if the public hearing is still opened? COUNCILMAN IRISH-No. MR. SALVADOR-Questioned what is needed to vote? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Need more information, need a finding statement noting they are going through the process. DENNIS BROWER, QUEENSBURY-Spoke to the board regarding letter from Town Board to residents of Ward One asking them if they would be interested in Town water if it cost them five hundred dollars per year, noting he thought the cost was going to be twelve hundred to fifteen hundred dollars. COUNCILMAN MERRILL-There was a letter that went out with the survey that explained that the first cut indicated about fourteen hundred dollars, our concern was, if we were able to get grants, creative financing apply some of the landfill closure monies could we reduce it down to the five hundred dollars. If we could reduce it to the five hundred level would the citizens be interested. MR. BROWER-Questioned if surveys been received back? COUNCILMAN MERRILL-Noted Water Superintendent, Mr. VanDusen is still receiving surveys, believes he will be able to give preliminary report at the next Town Board Meeting. MR. BROWER-Questioned the status of the phone system? CONTROLLER, MR. HESS-Haven't received further update it is between Ben Pratt and board. Noting they are buying the software needed to keep the phone system going. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Noted the older system is Y2K, questioned if this is something that would be pertinent to a lawsuit? TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER-If we decide to make a claim directly against Lucient. There has been a motion to dismiss the Class Action made in the Court in New York that motion has not yet been decided we will keep monitoring it to see when the Judge decides that case. MR. SALVADOR-Questioned if the people in Ward One decide not to go for the water at five hundred dollars a user per year what will be done with the Landfill Closure Fund? SUPERVISOR CHAMPAGNE-Go back in the general fund. COUNCILMAN MERRILL-Some of it has been set aside in the Capital Reserve Fund for long term maintenance. We don't know if it is legal, but before we go through the lengthily process of finding out if it is legal lets find out if the people want it. MR. SALVADOR-Questioned if it is not legal what can they do with it? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-It goes back in the general fund it belongs to everyone in the Town. OPEN FORUM CLOSED 10:00 P.M. On motion, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk Town of Queensbury