Loading...
2000-04-03 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING APRIL 3, 2000 7:00 P.M. MTG#18 RES. 56-176A B.H. 8-9 LL. 3-4 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DENNIS BROWER COUNCILMAN JAMES MARTIN COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER COUNCILMAN DANIEL STEC COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER TOWN COUNSEL MARK SCHACHNER TOWN OFFICIALS WATER SUPERINTENDENT, RALPH VAN DUSEN DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND CODES, DAVE HATIN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, CHRIS ROUND FIRE MARSHAL, CHRIS JONES COMPTROLLER, HENRY HESS BILL SHAW PRESS POST STAR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN DANIEL STEC SUPERVISOR BROWER-Opened meeting. RESOLUTION ENTERING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 156. 2000 INTRODUCED BY: MR. THEODORE TURNER WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: MR. TIM BREWER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and enters into the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 3rd day of April, 2000, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower Noes: None Absent: RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE APPLICATION OF RICHARD AND ELLIE FAUCHER RESOLUTION NO.: 8,2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. James Martin WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board serves as the Town's Local Board of Health and is authorized by Town Code Chapter 136 to issues variances from the Town's On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, and WHEREAS, Richard and Ellie Faucher have applied to the Local Board of Health for a variance from Chapter 136, (136-12, to continue using the existing septic system on property located on Sign Post Road, DunlIam's Bay, Lake George in the Town of Queensbury, instead of upgrading the system as required by Town Code (136-12, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on April 17th, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, to consider Richard and Ellie Faucher's sewage disposal variance application concerning property located on Sign Post Road, DunlIam's Bay, Lake George in the Town of Queensbury and bearing Tax Map No.: Section 5, Block 1, Lot 3 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 ofMr. and Mrs. Faucher's property as required by law. Duly adopted this 3rd day of April, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brower NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.9, 2000 INTRODUCED BY: MR. DANIEL STEC WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: MR. THEODORE TURNER RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns from and moves back into the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 3rd day of April, 2000, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Brewer Noes: None Absent:None PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARING - LOCAL LAW - AMEND CODE CHAPTER 61 ENTITLED, "BURNING, OUTDOOR" OPENED 7:03 P.M. NOTICE SHOWN SUPERVISOR BROWER-We have this evening Mr. Hatin, and Mr. Jones would you care to address the board? DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES, MR. HATIN-As, I discussed with the board last week in workshop this is to amend the open burning law to further clarify what is allowed and what is not allowed to be burned in the Town. The problem we have right now is the language in the current law is somewhat vague as to what you can and can't burn. There has been a question over the years as to what is allowed and what is not allowed, therefore we set out to clarify the law and I think we've done that with the help of counsel. What we have is a fair law not only to the residents but also protects the residents from destroying property or causing illegal burns that could destroy property. FIRE MARSHAL, CHRIS JONES-Mr. Hatin and myself have made several revisions to the current ordinance. I believe the latest revision is the one that you have in front of you now this is a revision that I received on Friday. Before, I go into further explanations I would like the Town Board to consider two further revisions that are not on the ordinance that you have before you. If you can looked towards Section 61- 3 A. I would ask that you consider changing that wording to read no person shall burn, cause to be burned, or permit to be burned in the Town of Queensbury any garbage, brush, and/or rubbish. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-You want to add the brush? FIRE MARSHAL, MR. JONES-Yes, sir. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I see that you have now suggested a definition of that word. FIRE MARSHAL, MR. JONES-Yes, sir. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-That's a new change also, I'm with you. TOWN COUNSEL, MR. SCHACHNER-I can jump in whenever you like, but I do have a question about it, I can do it now or later. Unfortunately Mr. Jones and I did not have an opportunity to rehearse this. If he is suggesting that we add brush there so that we'll say, no person shall burn garbage\rubbish or brush by open fire in the ground Section C actually does allow burning of brush, but only under certain limited circumstances. My concern is that you should not be enacting provisions that are mutually inconsistent or contradictory that's my concern. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Wouldn't you issue permits for people to burn brush? TOWN COUNSEL, MR. SCHACHNER-Correct, that's what describe in Section C in some detail and that's actually what Dave and Chris have done a lot of work on is creating that. What I'm saying is that the proposed amendment again, it is unfortunate we didn't have a chance to go over this in advance. What I'm saying is from the legal standpoint I'm not comfortable recommending that you add a statement that would be construed as a flat out prohibition on burning of brush by open fire in 61-3 A because in 61-3 C you do allow burning of brush by open fire, but only under certain circumstances. Section 61-3 C specifically starts with burning of brush shall only be allowed so that means that as a matter of law any other circumstances if you don't comply with 61-3 C you are not allowed to burn brush. The only circumstances under which you are allowed to burn brush are those set forth in Section 61-C3. I may be missing something as far as you're intent here. FIRE MARSHAL, MR. JONES-No, sir. TOWN COUNSEL, MR. SCHACHNER-If I'm not missing something about you're intent and as a matter of law I would suggest that you not make the amendment to justify the Fire Marshal. FIRE MARSHAL, MR. JONES-So noted that's fine. My concern was after seeing this revision is that Section 6 wasn't clear enough. With your legal interpretation as Section 6 if you believe that is clear enough whereas the only brush that can be burned is brush that's permitted by a permit that's fine. TOWN COUNSEL, MR. SCHACHNER-I guess, I'll just say to the board nothing should be left to fancy complex legal interpretation. If the board feels that 61-3 C the opening sentence is not clear then we should change it. It seems to me it says, burning of brush shall only be allowed etc., etc., so I don't think it's a big leap to suggest, I guess what I'm saying is that it is clear to me, but if it is not clear to the board members or anybody else feels that its subject to some misinterpretation or confusion I'm a big believer in plain English language that's understandable it makes their job easier it makes our job easier so I'm open to suggestions. Councilmen STEC-Mark couldn't you just keep the word brush as they propose and add parenthesis after it saying with the exception of 61- 3 C? TOWN COUNSEL, MR. SCHACHNER-You could that to me is making things more complex then it needs to be, but you could do that. SUPERVISOR BROWER-What about leaves? TOWN COUNSEL, MR. SCHACHNER-I believe that's within the definition ofbrush. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Leaves are considered brush that's what it says here under brush. TOWN COUNSEL, MR. SCHACHNER-Trees or leaves and needles and branches therefrom; vines lawn and garden debris is the newly proposed definition of brush in 61-2 on page 1. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-How often is this consulted by members of the general public this particular section of the law? FIRE MARSHAL, MR. JONES-What we find there are cases where the general public calls my office and asks for guidance as far as a burn permit. In most cases after the ordinance is explained to them they realize that more cases then not burning is prohibited in the Town. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-My question is this an instance where somebody comes in off the street and says, can I have a copy of your burn law please or your burning regulations and they are left to go off and interpret it on their own? My experience is that does not happen very often. FIRE MARSHAL, MR. JONES-The only time where we're going to be using the ordinance word for word is if we get into a court case where we're actually serving someone with a fine. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-My reason for asking that if it's mostly you and Dave that consult this or one or the other building inspectors or something like that or new deputy when its on board you people are all going to be very familiar with the intent of this, I think the wording is fine as its been proposed. I can understand your concern, but it's not like a Zoning Ordinance where anybody off the street usually comes in and picks that up and is left sometimes to interpret the language on their own. In this case this is not a law that's widely access by the public it is mostly you people that will be reading it and enforcing it and so on. I think it's pretty clear when it says, burning of brush shall only be allowed, I think that's adequate. The only time you might run into a problem in my opinion is if somebody were to say they only go as far as reading A, but I don't see that happening. SUPERVISOR BROWER-What do the board members feel about the fine not more than one thousand dollars or imprisonment for a period of not more than one year? The previous version was two hundred fifty dollars or fifteen days. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Sock it to them baby. COUNCILMAN STEC-I'm comfortable with the new punishment. I'll tell you why Dennis there are a lot of people a thousand dollars that hurts the honest guy that makes the honest mistake, but a thousand dollars will help to deter the guy that says it worth taking the two hundred and fifty dollar hit to do what I want anyway so make it hurt a little bit more. Not more than, then it leaves it to somebody's discretion, but there are cases where people go out of the way to say they make a calculated decision a risk analysis it's worth it to me to take this two hundred and fifty dollar fine. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Are we Dave holding this is a civil standard or criminal standard? DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND CODES, MR. HATIN-It is still a civil standard correct Mark? TOWN COUNSEL, MR. SCHACHNER-Actually it depends on how the case is brought we still have the option that is correct. DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND CODES, MR. HATIN-The fines are also in line we our other local laws, too. This is in every other local law including the garbage law, which we're amending tonight, too. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I think the reason why we went a thousand dollars is for that repeat offender. DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND CODES, MR. HATIN-It is a deterrent and hopefully it will be. Most of the time we catch a person the first time we tell them put the fire out, advise them what the law is if they want to proceed properly they can do that. If they are burning something illegally we just tell them they can't burn period and that happens more than people think. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Am I correct in stating that there is no fee for you issuing a burn permit? DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND CODES, MR. HATIN-That's correct it's just a phone call. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Do you have any further comments that you would like to add at this time? FIRE MARSHAL, MR. JONES-For the members of the audience I prepared a statement similar to the statement that I mailed to you gentlemen a few days ago and I'm prepared to read that if you like. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Please read it into the record. FIRE MARSHAL, MR. JONES-I have been told that is has always been the intent of the Town to prohibit burning of rubbish, but in the previous copy of the Ordinance the word rubbish did not appear so we've asked that it be added. Also in Section 61-3A it prohibited the use of burning barrels, however, it did not prohibit the barrel itself so that opens the possibility of an offender using the barrel on weekends or on nights when town officials are off duty. We've included language in the new ordinance to prohibit the barrel itself that should give us some assistance with enforcement to deter the repeat offender. Section 61- 3B in discussions that we've had with the State Department of Environmental Conservation they told us that they do not prohibit cooking fires as long as they are appropriately sized and temporary in nature. This language was not in the ordinance previously so we felt that now was a good time to include that language to allow folks who are cooking in the back yard to do so. Language further in the ordinance will clarify that so they're not using yard debris or rubbish or garbage to cook with. Section 61-3 C does further clarify that any outdoor fire cannot be used to burn rubbish or garbage. Section 61-3 C the current addition of the Town Ordinance requires that a permit be obtained from the State Department of Environmental Conservation. It is possible in some cases due to timing that if I was to apply to the State for a permit that permit would be issued on the basis of air quality only. That permit would be issued before my trees are cut and the materials are piled. We have had a few cases where inappropriate materials have been burned that is the reason why we're asking that the Fire Marshal's Office and the Town be brought into the permit process. That way if a person wishes to burn they can apply to the State for a permit the State permit will be issued then they would notify my office and I would do a follow-up inspection after the materials are prepared and then reissue another permit. We do not intend to be anymore restrictive then the State permit our wording with our permit is very similar to the State permit, but we do want to ensure that the State permit is being complied with. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-This outdoor recreational fire is that defined currently in the law I only got the changes here? FIRE MARSHAL, MR. JONES-No, that's a change the outdoor recreational fire is a change. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-This is something for future consideration you might want to consider coming up with a definition of that term. DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND CODES, MR. HATIN-The other thing to look at too is we did define basically what a recreational fire is following that terminology of size.... .that's basically what the definition would be. It was put in there specifically so there is no question when it is out of that category. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Okay, I'm with you. FIRE MARSHAL, MR. JONES-In going with that statement further DEC has also told us that recreational fires have not been regulated in the past so that's why we have included that language in our ordinance as well. As long as that fire is no larger than three by three I think most people would be comfortable with that. Also in Section 61-3C we have language concerning the interest of outdoor wood boilers. That's something that we got a lot of questions about this past heating season where people are installing a device similar to a woodstove outdoors. Previously that wasn't something that required a permit for my office so we felt it was important to clarify that you could use a device such as that for heating, but again that you shouldn't use it as a incinerator to burn garbage or rubbish or yard waste. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-This is a further follow-up on that then. You are kind of preaching to the choir here it might be a good idea to take a copy of this new law and send it off to the distributors in the area who are selling these things to make them aware. I know those guys are probably out there preaching to people that you can burn garbage in this thing. It might be a good idea to put the distributors on notice that this is in fact in place maybe you just saved yourself a step. FIRE MARSHAL, MR. JONES-Okay, thank you. Section 61-3C does allow recreation fires as we mentioned earlier as long as they are no larger than three by three and as long as they are not used to burn refuse, garbage, or brush. Section 61-3D provides an exemption for fire department training. This also is in line with current DEC regulations so that's why we felt that now was the time to put that in our Ordinance as well. We've already discussed the fine increase from two hundred and fifty dollars to a thousand dollars. If you gentlemen have any questions I'll do my best to answer them for you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Any questions from board members? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-That's all I have I think they did a good job. COUNCILMAN BREWER-No questions down here. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Thank you for taking time out of your evening for coming down. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Yes, I appreciate it. Now, I would like to open this public hearing to any public that would like to comment on the law. If you do wish to comment please state your name, address, any comments you might have. BETTY MONAHAN, SUNNYSIDE ROAD-My question why we are allowing brush to be burned and I'm looking at leaves, needles. If you have allergies in your family there is nothing worse to rouse up allergies then a pile of smoldering burning leaves. I just think for the pollution the health hazard and I really don't know why you are allowing it anyway. If I get a tree taken down the tree guy takes and chips the brush up and I have the nice wood chips to use in my garden and so on and so forth. The other brush can be taken to the landfill I think right there you are adding a lot of pollution in this Town that doesn't need to be. I think you are also endangering people in the Town health wise and also some of these fires that have been known to get away. I know that the Fire Marshal will do everything he can, but I still think that you are opening the Town up to a lot of hazard in that. The other comment I have and it really you've got rubbish wood is mentioned. I have gone by several construction sites and seeing the end of two by fours etc., being burned there on the site and, of course, particularly with treated lumber that's very much of a hazard in the air and everything. I think it is something we need to be aware of. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you Betty. Anyone else care to address the board at this time? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7:33 P.M. FIRE MARSHAL, MR. JONES-I think it is important to note that the only way brush can be burned with the new Ordinance is with the DEC permit. The DEC has very strict guidelines related to air quality. Once the permit is issued by the air quality people then my office can become involved to make sure that the appropriate materials are burned. SUPERVISOR BROWER-So you are a secondary signatory to the deal? FIRE MARSHAL, MR. JONES-Yes. As I mentioned earlier as I understand the State guidelines their primary concern with burning brush is an air quality kind of issue where the person burning has to be for example up to five hundred feet away from the nearest person who can smell the smoke so that is a concern of theirs. As far as the concern of construction debris I believe that is covered under our definition of rubbish specifically demolition materials. If there was a fire in the future that involved demolition materials and there have been fires in the past involving demolition materials those fire have been extinguished. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-We also have wood listed there and sawdust. FIRE MARSHAL, MR. JONES-Yes sir, thank you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you very much. What is the wish of the board? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-It sounds pretty good to me. COUNCILMAN STEC-Move it. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Moved by Mr. Stec, seconded by Mr. Martin. RESOLUTION ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO.: 3, OF 2000 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 61 ENTITLED, "BURNING, OUTDOOR" RESOLUTION NO. 157, 2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. James Martin WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: 3 of 2000 to amend Town Code Chapter 61, entitled, "Burning, Outdoor," which Local Law will more clearly define the rules and regulations concerning outdoor burning within the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Board duly held a public hearing on April 3rd, 2000 and heard all interested persons, and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Local Law has been presented at this meeting and is in form approved by Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby enacts Local Law No.: 3 of 2000 to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 61, entitled, "Burning, Outdoor," as presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to file the Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and acknowledges that the Local Law will take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State. Duly adopted this 3rd day of April, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower NOES: None ABSENT:None TOWN OF QUEENSBURY LOCAL LAW NO.: 3, OF 2000 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND CHAPTER 61 OF QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE ENTITLED, "BURNING, OUTDOOR." BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 61 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury entitled, "Burning, Outdoor" ~61-2 entitled, "Definitions" is hereby amended by adding the following definition: ~61-2. Definitions. As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: BRUSH - Trees or leaves and needles and branches therefrom; vines; lawn and garden debris; GARBAGE - Includes waste food, fruit, vegetables, meat dead animals birds or fish or parts thereof, or any kind of waste material capable of fermentation or decay. INCINERATOR - A device or equipment designed specifically for the burning of garbage in such manner or means as to effect complete combustion and burning of garbage, leaving only an ash residue. OPEN FIRE - Any outdoor fire or outdoor smoke producing process from which air contaminants are emitted directly into the outdoor atmosphere. PERSON - Includes an individual, society, club, firm, partnership, corporation, municipality or association of persons, and the singular number shall include the plural number. RUBBISH - Solid or liquid waste material, including but not limited to paper and paper products; rags, furniture; cans; crockery; plastics; cartons, chemicals; paint; grease; sludges; oils and other petroleum products; wood; sawdust and demolition materials; tires; and automobiles and other vehicles and parts for junk, salvage or disposal. SECTION 2. Chapter 61 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury entitled, "Burning, Outdoor," ~61-3 entitled "Burning of garbage and/or rubbish" is hereby amended as follows: ~61- 3. Burning of Garbage, Rubbish and/or Brush. ANo person shall burn, cause to be burned or permit to be burned in the Town of Queensbury any garbage and/or rubbish by open fire on the ground or in trash burners or barrels or in pits. Trash burners or barrels or pits are prohibited on any lands within the Town of Queensbury. Garbage shall be disposed of in the Town of Queensbury by depositing it at an authorized solid waste management facility. B. Open fires used exclusively for the purpose of preparing food will be permitted provided the fire is properly contained, appropriately sized and temporary in nature. C.Burning of brush shall only be allowed after a burning permit is obtained from the Town of Queensbury Fire Marshal's Office and issued in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Local Law. Burning of brush larger than three inches (3 ") in diameter is prohibited. Burning of garbage or rubbish in outdoor or indoor recreational fires, outdoor furnaces or boilers is prohibited. Outdoor recreational fires are permitted without a burning permit as long as they are contained within an enclosure that will limit the size of the fire to three feet (3 ') in diameter and no more than three feet (3 ') in height. D .Exemption. The Town of Queensbury Fire Companies and its members are exempt from the above laws for training purposes. Acquired structures which are to be used for training must have the asphalt or plastic roofing materials, asphalt or vinyl siding and/or any asbestos materials removed prior to any burning of the structure. SECTION 3. Chapter 61 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury entitled, "Burning, Outdoor," ~61-4 entitled "Penalties for offenses" is hereby amended as follows: ~61-4. Penalties for offenses. An offense against any of the provisions of this chapter shall be a violation and, upon conviction thereof, such violator shall be subject to a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($I,OOOor imprisonment for a period of not more than one (1) year, or both. SECTION 4. Severability . If any part of this Local Law shall be declared invalid by a Court of competent jurisdiction, such declaration shall not affect or impair in any way any other provision and all other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 5. Effective Period. This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing in the Office of the New York Secretary of State as provided in ~27 of the Municipal Home Rule Law. PUBLIC HEARING LOCAL LAW - AMEND CODE CHAPTER 96 ENTITLED "GARBAGE, RUBBISH, AND REFUSE OPENED 7:23 P.M. NOTICE SHOWN SUPERVISOR BROWER-As I discussed with the board last week this was a section of the Ordinance which was previously an exemption in the Ordinance that did allow somebody to bury garbage on their property, knowing the history of that law and the law dates back to I believe the sixties when the Town was more rural in nature had farms it was an exemption more for farmers, I think than the general public. I think this exemption has now outdated itself I don't think we want our neighbors burying their garbage in the back of their property. I don't think that was the original intent of the law as the Town sits now with a population of somewhere between twenty-five and thirty thousand. Therefore, all we're asking to do is remove the exemption and not really change the law in any fashion. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Any questions from Town Board members. COUNCILMAN STEC-Very good idea. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you Dave. Would anyone from the public care to comment on this public hearing? PLINEY TUCKER, DIVISION ROAD, QUEENSBURY-I've looked the resolution over I can't find what we're exempting could somebody read it into the record? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-We're not exempting we're removing from being exempted. MR. TUCKER-What we're removing. DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND CODES, MR. HATIN-Itjust says exemptions is hereby deleted 96-9. TOWN COUNSEL, MR. SCHACHNER-I think what he is asking is read him Section 96-9. DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND CODES, MR. HATIN-I don't have the Code Book right in front of me, but I believe it just says garbage and rubbish are allowed to be buried on property owned by a homeowner in the Town of Queensbury. MR. TUCKER-Also demolition. DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND CODES, MR. HATIN-It could be I don't have the exact language right in front of me. MR. TUCKER-I know David is trying to do a good job, but I have a little bit of a problem with this thing. The past three years for private individuals I've demolished two homes and buried it on their property. The two homes I took down for three thousand dollars the estimated cost of hauling it away to a place to dispose of it was in the neighborhood often to twelve thousand dollars. Now these two individuals that I took these houses down for had plenty of land to bury this stuff. The last one I did I filed for a permit and Mr. Hatin refused to give it to me. Mr. Hatin was making the law not interpreting it at the time and I think this is where this is coming from. I know garbage shouldn't be buried on land I don't bury garbage on the land my own or anybody else's. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Did you build on this site when you demolished the house? MR. TUCKER-Yeah. One of the houses that was buried will eventually wind up under a parking lot the individuals parking lot. The other one I drove by the house today and they've got a flower garden on it. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Do you want to read 96-9? MR. TUCKER-No, they've just conveniently left demolition material out. SUPERVISOR BROWER-You do make an interesting point. I know the State when they've been replacing these bridges they are digging huge pits and burying the concrete from the old bridge. MR. TUCKER-They are burying it right on the Northway. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Right in the center of the Northway in the median. COUNCILMAN BREWER-That's clean fill. If you bury a board that someday is going to decay and create these depressions in the property isn't it? SUPERVISOR BROWER-I would think over time not in my lifetime probably. MR. TUCKER-Tim you've seen the land in back of Gary Baldwin's that is full of debris. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I don't doubt that. MR. TUCKER-A year ago we dug some fill out of there dug trees that had been buried for ten years and they hadn't changed a bit pine trees no less. SUPERVISOR BROWER-They still will be able to bury stumps and things on a building lot right? DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND CODES, MR. HATIN-Ifit is outside subdivision our subdivision regs prohibits it in subdivisions. MR. TUCKER-Prohibit what? DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND CODES, MR. HATIN-Stumps and debris from the lot. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I don't know I've been in some of these places where they undertake this practice and it is a true art to do it correctly. MR. TUCKER-What's that. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Burying this stuff. Not everybody does it correctly because you are usually doing it in a hurry as an after thought, cost saving measure? I've seen some of these things where the length of my body would go into it three times before I would hit the bottom of it. SUPERVISOR BROWER-But you have an artist sitting in front of you. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Maybe there are one or two people in Town that does it right, but for every one or two that does it right there are five or six that does it wrong. MR. TUCKER-Mr. Martin if you have trouble with how its being done these people should be there to see how its done they issue the permit. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I disagree completely. He is not there to teach somebody in the art of proper waste disposal. He is there to inspect the frame, foundation, or something like that it's not his job. If we start making it his job then we start becoming liable and I don't want that either. MR. TUCKER-I wanted to get by without bringing all this other crap up, but I guess I got to bring it up. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Have you built over the same site where you buried a house? MR. TUCKER-No. I wouldn't bury there if! was going to build there. We have three major contractors at my end of Town evacuator's whatever. They haul brush, stumps, everything off site to their site. I've spoke to Dave about it and he's gone to talk to them. We've got one on Upper Sherman Avenue, Sherman Pines they are building beautiful houses up there and they are taking all the brush and stumps and stuff down on Big Boom Road. Some of it is being buried right along the river these guys just seem to do whatever they want to do. All this is going to do is just hurt the individual it isn't going to stop them because they keep right on going. COUNCILMAN BREWER-If they are doing it Pliney and you tell Dave then absolutely he should do something about it. MR. TUCKER-He does. COUNCILMAN BREWER-He does what? MR. TUCKER-In this particular case he made them stop for a while. COUNCILMAN BREWER-If they start again he should make them stop again. DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND CODES, MR. HATIN-It is an enforcement issue and we do keep an eye on it I know who he is talking about. MR. TUCKER-We ain't got to bring his name up. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I know who he is talking about, too. DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND CODES, MR. HATIN-I know who he is talking about that hasn't been a problem. A lot of what he says in not going on now either it was it has been stopped. I've been keeping an eye on it, it hasn't been happening. We're not going to stop everybody from doing it. . . . . .. MR. TUCKER-In this particular case Thursday and Friday they were doing it. DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND CODES, MR. HATIN-Then I'll be back out. The problem you have here if we don't put this exemption in the law then it gives us no teeth to stop somebody. COUNCILMAN STEC- That's right. DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND CODES, MR. HATIN-That's where we're going to get hurt. This particular individual could claim it came from that property and we couldn't stop him then it is an argument for a Judge to decide I don't want to get into that. If we make it illegal period it is cut and dry then they can't do it period that's what I'm looking for. COUNCILMAN STEC-When you bury something sooner or later it comes back to be a problem. DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND CODES, MR. HATIN-He says when you are demolishing a building that's fine if it was just the wood structure. The other thing that go on Mc Laughlin Landfill had a problem with sulfur dioxide from the rotting of the sheetrock which was a lot of that demolition debris this same thing could happen in a neighborhood depending on the amount of it. COUNCILMAN STEC- They are closing C & D landfills why would we want to give license to have C & D landfills scattered throughout the countryside. DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND CODES, MR. HATIN-There are creative ways now to dispose of buildings and drop the cost, but it requires the owner to do some homework. MR. TUCKER-Get the fire company to burn or what and pollute the air. SUPERVISOR BROWER-That's an option. DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND CODES, MR. HATIN-But, there are other options, too. Right now this exception as it sits right now is very difficult for me to enforce when somebody says that's from my property you can't stop me and that's what we're trying to eliminate. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Would anyone else like to comment on this local law? BETTY MONAHAN-I just have to say, I agree with the board should you allow houses to be buried on site is somebody going to test that material to make sure that there is no lead, no asbestos, if it gets in the groundwater who is going to be liable. I think it is a very unsafe and also unsightly because sooner or later that will rot and you will have a problem. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Anyone else care to address the board on this topic, that being the case I'll close the public hearing and entertain discussion from the board if there is any. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7:33 P.M. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I just like to make kind of a side remark. I think this is a good law and we should enact it, but what's forcing this stuff is that there are increasingly less viable solutions for people. I think we ought to start looking into at our transfer stations sites, I know Ted you went down to look at one several years ago and there maybe some private contractors in Town who could do this and that's the idea of these drum grinders or something of that nature. There are viable alternatives out there that can take this stuff and not make it a liability, but make it a positive. I saw one of these things operate it is absolutely incredible you can have a stump the size of one of these tables and it grinds it in a matter of seconds. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Dick Sears has one of those and he goes from site to site and does it. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-We ought to be making that type of thing available and encourage it because it makes a lot of that waste organic, compost, and things like that. It even grinds asphalt shingles for aggregate that's just a side remark. We just can't say what you can't do we got to start working on solutions for people to have a viable alternative that's environmentally compliant. COUNCILMAN TURNER-The grinder we looked at was a hundred eighty six thousand dollars, but it did a job I'll tell you. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-And it paid for itself because all that stuff that it produced like the mulch was very valuable stuff they said the landscaping contractors were lined up to get it in the Spring. COUNCILMAN TURNER-It takes all the hardware out it all the meaty stuff it has a magnet right on it, it takes all the nails and everything right out of it. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-If people in private industry if they can do it fine, but nobody is we ought to entertain the idea of maybe setting one of those up. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Get Pliney to set it up. MR. TUCKER-Where do you want to put that grinder? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Maybe at one of the transfer stations sites. Lease a space for it let somebody else bring it in we'll lease them the space to do it. MR. TUCKER-We tried that it didn't work did it Ted. COUNCILMAN TURNER-The C & D didn't work. MR. TUCKER-We wanted to put a C & D landfill at the Ridge Road landsite and it didn't fly. COUNCILMAN BREWER-This is something different Pliney. MR. TUCKER-No it isn't different you are going to have room to do this. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I'm not saying the grinder is the whole solution I'm not saying that, but it is part of the solution. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Grinder is good for stumps that are for sure. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Building materials and things could be ground. MR. TUCKER-I have an idea that you can think about. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-What's that? MR. TUCKER-Make the subdividers grind everything on the site. If they want subdivision everything that they create is ground on the site. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-That's an option in the law right now that you can do it, it is not encourage. MR. TUCKER-You've got to make it the rule then you won't have them hauling it allover the Town. It is great that these people are getting all these beautiful houses up on Sherman Avenue, but the junk from this site is going to another part of the Town that's not fair to the people where they live. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-That's right you are exactly right. MR. TUCKER-One of the options is to tell these developers if they are going to come in and do subdivisions or whatever they are going to do that they got to grind it up use it on site. Thank you. RESOLUTION ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO.: 4, OF 2000 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 96 ENTITLED, "GARBAGE, RUBBISH AND REFUSE" RESOLUTION NO. 158. 2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: 4 of 2000 to amend Town Code Chapter 96, entitled, "Garbage, Rubbish and Refuse," which Local Law will clarify that Town residents are prohibited from disposing any waste material on the site that the material is generated, and WHEREAS, the Town Board duly held a public hearing on April 3rd, 2000 and heard all interested persons, and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Local Law has been presented at this meeting and is in form approved by Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby enacts Local Law No.: 4 of 2000 to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 96, entitled, "Garbage, Rubbish and Refuse," as presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to file the Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and acknowledges that the Local Law will take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State. Duly adopted this 3rd day of April, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES: None ABSENT:None TOWN OF QUEENSBURY LOCAL LAW NO.: 4 OF 2000 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND CHAPTER 96 OF QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE ENTITLED, "GARBAGE, RUBBISH AND REFUSE." BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 96 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury entitled, "Garbage, Rubbish and Refuse," ~96-4 is hereby amended as follows: ~96-4. Dumping prohibited. No person, firm or corporation shall dump or deposit any offal, garbage or refuse of any kind upon any lands in the Town of Queensbury except in or upon lands designated by the Town of Queensbury as a Town of Queensbury/City of Glens Falls landfill or transfer station. SECTION 2. Chapter 96 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury entitled, "Garbage, Rubbish and Refuse," ~96-9 entitled "Exemptions" is hereby deleted. SECTION 3. Severability . If any part of this Local Law shall be declared invalid by a Court of competent jurisdiction, such declaration shall not affect or impair in any way any other provision and all other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. Effective Period. This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing in the Office of the New York Secretary of State as provided by Municipal Home Rule Law ~27. PUBLIC HEARING - SMALL CITIES PROGRAM NOTICE SHOWN OPENED 7:38 P.M. MARILYN RYBA, SENIOR PLANNER, WILLIAM TOMPKINS PRESENT MARILYN RYBA, SENIOR PLANNER-Tonight is the second of two required public hearings for the Small Cities Grant Application. I'd like to introduce as well Bill Tompkins whose the Program Manager with our consultant Shelter Planning and Development Incorporated. Bill is going to go through we've narrowed down the scope of the application he is going to tell us about it as well as discuss some of the budget items that we've looked as well. MR. TOMPKINS-Basically the Small Cities program as we discussed at the last meeting is aimed at things that benefit low and moderate-income persons housing, public improvements, and economic development activities essentially and\or things that readdress conditions of slum and blight. As we discussed at that time we were looking at an area in Ward 4 up in West Glens Falls. It is basically an area that we have now done an income survey that is from Sherman Avenue to Luzerne Road from the City line to Veterans Field in addition the area on Newcomb Street between Luzerne Road and Corinth Road clearly there is some housing in there that needs some help. The survey so far we've gotten back thirty-one surveys and twenty- three of them are income eligible so I think we're clearly in the ballpark. What often happens is you get the people most likely to return are the income eligible from this point on they will drip and drab in for the next couple of weeks. We are about to do a second survey for the owners of rental property in the same area so I think there is clearly the makings of a housing program. We still have to do the detailed survey, but we've also looked at some other things and as I think we've talked about it at the last meeting is there is basically two choices. One is a single purpose-housing program and the other is a comprehensive application in which you address a series of related activities. Housing remains the anchor of the program in either case, but there may be some supportive activities. At this point these are the things that we're looking at very lightly literally penciled in is our budget numbers the maximum grant is nine hundred thousand but we have to get some of these numbers firmed up. My guess is at least four hundred, four hundred and fifty thousand dollars in housing it could be that I would guess its towards the four fifty end. One of the activities that we're proposing is that the City and the Town are jointly working together to developed Veterans Field under a State Program Build New York. There is a importance prejudice in the program in favor of activities that support other State and Federal actions so that is a big plus to it. What we're proposing is there is basically a series of phases and the first phase in the first lot at Veterans Field, which is right here it has water already to provide the sewer so that it is a buildable lot. The whole thrust of Build New York is to have shovel ready sites so we were proposing that the number there is in the Chazen Report was forty five thousand and in an earlier report it was fifty seven so its going to be somewhere in that Income range. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-So you're saying about fifty? MR. TOMPKINS-Yes. I have fifty-seven here I got the high number here just so you know four fifty is what I have penciled in here. Fifty-seven is what we had penciled in for the second one it might be a little bit lower bearing on what the two estimates come out to. The next activity that we're suggesting is the replacement of the water line on Newcomb Street which was part of a previous application which was not funded. We went through that application and we realized that while most of that application dealt with the area to the south of Corinth Road the Newcomb Street water line was in that. We have to get a cost updated on that, but we're at this point plugging in thirty thousand. Right now we have like four weeks to get all of this ironed out we would like very much to do some kind of a little park in the area. What we're thinking about is that in this area right here where you already have heavy traffic here, heavy traffic there that while there is a park being built up in here that to have like a Tot Park something that parents with kids in strollers wouldn't have to negotiate the bigger roads to get there it would be a neighborhood amenity. One of the things that's in a comprehensive application you have a neighborhood the idea is not just housing, but it is the supporting things water line is a supporting thing, but so could a park be. There are actually two possible places for the park but we have to negotiate to see if we can get them. The next two activities are lumped together because we probably won't do both of them. One of the things that we think happens with Veterans Field is that there will be increase traffic, increase truck traffic, we're looking at some opportunities to minimize the adverse effect. While the industrial park itself has an overall very positive effect the increase traffic would be something you would want to minimize. We're looking at either improvements around the intersection here or improvements for a secondary access. The last activity I have a hundred thousand dollars plugged in there, but that's really preliminary. We're going to talk to the engineers that are working on Veterans Field to try to get some kind of a number from them. Lastly, as I said the Community Development Block Grant Program is almost the only program that actually provides its own administrative money so there is money for the cost of administering the program and I think that's probably going to be in the hundred thousand dollar range. In terms of the housing, housing remains the most basic part of it. The typical program that we recommend people do is a program that is for people that are income eligible homeowners that it be a hundred percent grant. When we say grant it is always technically as a deferred and forgiven loan. It means if you live there for some period of time typically five years you don't pay it back, but you can't just take the grant fix your house up and sell it, it has to be a way that they are suppose to be the beneficiary. Over time, you know every good intention there is always somebody who has got a scheme to defeat it so you have to have those kinds of things and that's a recorded lien against the property. For rental property what we propose is a fifty fifty matching grant for the owners of rental property you would expect they would have the obligation to put something into it. If it was simply cost effective to make those improvements they would have already done them. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Before you go on is that limited to twelve to fifteen thousand dollars per home? MR. TOMPKINS-I think the actual grant maximum we haven't set up. We always set it up as a maximum and whether it is fifteen thousand or twelve thousand or twenty thousand is something I think we need to do after we've done preliminary inspections. The idea is that you have to do the basic health and safety improvements. The roofs, the foundation, the wiring, the heating system, if you leave those things undone then you really haven't fixed the house up. On the other hand if there is a kitchen that's out of the fifties that's perfectly functional, but outmoded that's not the purpose of the grant cosmetics or just amenities is not the purpose of the grant. That's the program as far as it is the only other thing that I would say is that there is a draft resolution asking you to support the application. If in fact, we come to do some of the supporting improvements and we have to make them not base, if we get a high enough return that we can make all the activities low and moderate income activities then we don't have to come back to you. If we're trying to do something that is not a low to moderate activity we may have to come back to you and ask you to make a determination that the area is blighted so that we can do it under the other national objective. It is just more complicated we certainly hope that we don't have to do that, but if we do we will have a resolution at the next board meeting for that. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Questions for Bill by Town Board members? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-On the scale of things does that appear to be a competitive application as you outlined there for comp? MR. TOMPKINS-The way the comp program is set up there are ten possible criteria's for selection it is a competitive process. You have to pick four and you're rated against each other on those four. Your neighborhood criteria is strong. We would suggest the public facilities criteria, which would be strong, because you have multiple activities. You have water lines you have access improvements you would have the tot lot the little park that would be multiple activities. You have support other State and Federal Programs we think that's a very strong piece not only because it is inherently you are directly supporting Veterans Field, but the agency to which we are submitting the application is the Agency that designated Veterans Field so its their own program. They very specifically said, you know we're looking for ways to support our own things like build New York, I heard that we sat down and talked to them we had not gotten this far yet, but they mentioned specifically that we're going to show this to them for sure. The last criteria there are two choices and they are both pretty good one is the slum and blight. Even if you make it a low moderate activity you would still address the slum and blight criteria because the activities that you are doing are addressing a series of blighting influences, bad housing, the water line those are the things that are definitely blighting and influences. The other criteria that no one has ever addressed are the activities and support of a neighborhood that is undergoing change. That is a very unusual criteria and we're going to go down and talk to the State, but it might be that it is a criteria that is possible. The other big program that is going on here is, of course, the Exit 18 Corridor. Basically what's happening is you are having an area that sort of been a little off the beaten path and all of a sudden you are going to have major improvements on Exit 18. You are also going to open up this area here so the idea that you would fix up the housing and keep the neighborhood for the current residence as those things are happening is something that the program is set up to encourage. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Did you look at drainage at all in that area because I've always heard about drainage being an issue in there? MR. TOMPKINS-I think the drainage issue that we've identified basically is not actually in this area it is up above it. SUPERVISOR BROWER-The Tot Park did you include that in your proposal because of the demographics of the area had a lot of small kids or do you anticipate a change in the area or did you do it simple because it makes the application better? MR. TOMPKINS-I think it is because it's a neighborhood what I've felt was that the surveys we've come back with five person household, seven person household, I haven't figured out whether they are all kids or not but there area clearly kids in there. It seemed to me that, yes it does strengthens the application for sure. But it seemed to me that if you lived in that area while there might be nice parks around and I gather there is a park being built up here right now that particularly for younger kids it might not be easy to get, too. This area right in here in particular seems like a very define neighborhood very clear boundaries. I would suggest that a lot of people drive right by you have to make an effort to go through it. SUPERVISOR BROWER-There are a lot of homes in there. If there are no other questions from board members I'd entertain a comment or questions from the public? MR. TUCKER-For this gentlemen and probably Ralph Van Dusen is going to hate me for it that's all right. This grant that you are going after does that pay for things that are already done? MR. TOMPKINS-No. MR. TUCKER-The Newcomb Street water line has already been put in hasn't it? MRS. RYBA, SENIOR PLANNER-I just found out that it was. MR. TOMPKINS-If it has already been done we can't do it twice. MR. TUCKER-And they won't pay you for it. MRS. RYBA, SENIOR PLANNER-There is also water line improvements that can be done up Veterans Road. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Any other questions from the public on this topic this public hearing at this time? MRS. MONAHAN-Wouldn't it be very easy to get the age of the children at least K-3 from Queensbury School from the bus runs that might again reinforce your application? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Sure. Anyone else that would like to comment on this? That being the case then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:54 P.M. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS THROUGH NEW YORK STATE ADMINISTERED SMALL CITIES PROGRAM RESOLUTION NO.: 159.2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. James Martin WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 128.2000, the Queensbury Town Board scheduled two (2) public hearings concerning the Town's proposed application for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds through the New York State Administered Small Cities Program, and WHEREAS, the Town Board duly conducted its public hearings on March 20th and April 3rd, 2000, heard all interested persons, reviewed its housing and community development needs and developed a proposed program and application for the CDBG funds, and WHEREAS, the Town's Senior Planner has advised the Town Board that the Empire State Community Development Corporation (ESCDC) is now accepting applications from eligible communities to compete for the CDBG funds, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize submission of its application for the CDBG funds, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs submission of the Town of Queensbury's application for Community Development Block Grant (CDGB) funds through the New York State Administered Small Cities Program to the Empire State Community Development Corporation (ESCDC), and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to sign any necessary documents in connection with the submission, including all applications, certifications and forms and further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and Community Development Department to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 3rd day of April, 2000, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT:None PUBLIC HEARING - THE MEADOWS PUD OPENED 8:00 P.M. NOTICE SHOWN ATTORNEY JOHN LAPPER, TOM NACE, ENGINEER, TOM GESSLER- DEVELOPER, FRANK F AZEO- AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONSULTANT PLANS PRESENTED ATTORNEY LAPPER-We were here last time to talk to the board to introduce this as a proposed PUD and at that point I explained that it is really only somewhat of a technicality that we have to do this as a PUD because we need to relocate the existing golf driving range which would no longer be a permitted use because the golf course is a grandfathered use. Since that time we've been to the Planning Board which unanimously supported the PUD and was very enthusiastic about the development. In fact, the design of the site plan and the buildings themselves have been done in accordance with input that the Planning Board gave us on other recent residential multi-family projects. They said this was very much what they like to see in terms of some one and two story mix buildings it just gave it a very soft look. The first board that I have up there shows what all of the buildings will look like I just like Tom to go through the site plan to show you what we have proposed. In terms of the PUD itself and the PUD legislation the only uses that we're talking about is a golf course. The nine-hole course which would remain, the existing clubhouse, the existing restaurant, relocate the driving range and that's all the golf course uses. A ninety-seven unit senior affordable housing project which would be ninety-six units for seniors and one unit for the resident manager that's really it for uses so it is a very simple project. After we meet with you we will go to the Planning Board, of course, for site plan review. TOM NACE, ENGINEER-The site plan as John said located on the golf course property up in the comer of the site plan, although it's very small, I apologize it is a little hard to see shows the overall project area north from Cronin Road to the northern boundaries of the golf course and from Bay Road over to Meadowbrook Road. As you can see the shaded area here is a portion that we're proposing to use. The overall site is about ninety-seven acres we're using approximately a quarter of that. We've laid the project out to try to minimize our impact even on that small portion that we're using. As you'll recall there was at one point a larger project proposed for this site or actually the same number of housing units, but larger in aerial extent. We've tried to compact the project into the better portions of the site. There are wetlands on the site Army Core of Engineers wetlands we're working with them towards a permit. The basic project will be an entry road, divided entry road. This will be all private road we're looking at town road at this stage of the game up through a cul-de-sac parking areas in front of each of these units and one small cul-de- sac off to the side. At the entry point here there will be a community building to serve the residents and managers apartment unit connected with that. The units basically as John said are a mixture of one and two stories. The core unit back in the back is a two story and in the wings on each side are single stories each of those total units will have eight apartments in them. ATTORNEY LAPPER-I guess this is the only other issue I'd like to mention because we have land that is in the Halfway Brook Corridor. The Town Park and Rec Committee has been working towards doing a project in the Halfway Brook Corridor that the Town owns at the southern end of Hiland Park, which is in the vicinity. We would offer this to the Town the Halfway Brook Corridor if that's something that the Town is interested in and if not the developer will keep it. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-When you make that offer is that in lieu of the rec fee law I shouldn't say rec fee law, but the recreation are you going to pay the fee? ATTORNEY LAPPER -The way the whole project works the more affordable you can keep the cost the lower the rents are so it would be offered in lieu. COUNCILMAN BREWER-In total? ATTORNEY LAPPER-We haven't thought that through certainly we could work something out. If the Town wants the land the land is available and we can certainly reach a compromise on the park and rec fees. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Any questions from the Town Board members? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-We've got the SEQRA to do on this don't we? Well, John you might as well approach the issue why this qualifies as a PUD let him get that on the table and out of the way given the fact we only have one housing type. ATTORNEY LAPPER-As I read the PUD Ordinance it provides that a variety of housing types are allowable within a PUD but are not required in a PUD. A PUD is for mixed use and the mix use here would be the commercial recreation use the golf course and the senior residential project as I read the Town Code that qualifies for a PUD . COUNCILMAN TURNER-Doesn't that hinge on the fact that you have a contract with the owner of the golf course to pick up the recreation end of it, are you buying the whole thing out or what? ATTORNEY LAPPER-The owner of the property would continue to own the golf course property, the clubhouse, and the related facilities and the developer of the senior project will own the senior project. As a PUD it is all permitted as the types of uses cause the PUD allows the different uses, but it would be owned separately. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Mr. Zoning Administrator do you agree with that determination? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-That it meets the objectives of a PUD? I did forward a memo to you last week transmitted the Planning Boards notes on the project. A brief project description and some other issues that we felt were worthy to discuss during this meeting. I'll just read back the objectives under 179-5IB. Objectives in order to realize the purpose of this article Planned Unit Development shall achieve the following objectives. A maximum choice in housing environment and type, occupancy tenure (examples, cooperatives, individual ownership or condominium leasing), lot sizes and common facilities. There are two different ways to look at the housing types. You can either look at it on the property specific or within the context of the neighborhood or the town environment. Affordable housing meets one of the objectives of our Comprehensive Plan and housing for senior development is another demographic that's under serviced in the Town that's why somebody like Queensbury Partners is involved in this kind of project. (2) More usable open space and recreation areas if permitted as part of the project, more convenient locations of accessory, commercial and service uses. Clearly restriction of the remaining property to recreation use and not allow additional development it preserves an open space. We've identified the golf course, cemeteries, and parks those are different hierarchies of open space, but golf course do provide an open space from an aesthetic standpoint. Perservation of Halfway Brook is something that is on our Comprehensive Plan. That's something that we're interested in as planners we're going to work with the recreation department to see how that's going to resolve itself. The Town does own the Girard property it is about an acre of land on the south side of Cronin Road just opposite Halfway Creek. We looked for additional access to Halfway Brook the Schermerhorn property just north of here there are some open space lands there that are changing ownership very rapidly because there are no development rights on that and it hasn't been reserved by the Town. It fits into our scheme of open space planning as it developed so far. (3) Development pattern which preserves outstanding natural topography and geological features, scenic vistas trees and historical sites and prevents disruption of natural drainage patterns. That's a pretty subjective one I don't know that there are any unique features in this area with exception to Halfway Brook. SUPERVISOR BROWER-The wetlands are unique. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-And wetlands that's true. (4) Efficient use of land resulting in small networks of utilities and streets. We are restricting development to this limited area of this larger property I think that has its advantage. It is going to be on sewer at this location. Sewer doesn't go further north on site so we're making development happen where the sewer is that's smart growth in today's new standard. Development pattern in harmony with land use intensity, transportation facilities and community facilities objectives of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. I touched on some of the comp plan objectives before, I personally think it is consistent. We looked at this that it is a residential development there is a Bank nearby, Social Security buildings nearby, Stewart's is nearby so there are some service uses. You've got the Elks Club nearby it works in with the land use patterns, I don't say it is not inconsistent with the land use patterns in that area. I noticed the Planning Board echoed that before it's a highly subjective decision. It's not a PUD in the sense that it is a grand development it's got a commercial space on site it's got a residential space on site, a rental space on site it's relatively unique I think. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Your determination is then it does qualify? ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-He means yes. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-I think it is important though to have this kind of dialogue because too soon you make decisions and then why did they make that decision. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I appreciate the explanation I was only trying to keep it light hearted. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Related to the PUD and with the agreement with Garth Allen, I guess is the owner of the golf course how are you related do you have an option to buy the golf course? ATTORNEY LAPPER- Yes. COUNCILMAN TURNER-If he wants out? ATTORNEY LAPPER-It's under option. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Are you going to retain it as a golf course or what? ATTORNEY LAPPER -The golf course is not being purchased. . . .. COUNCILMAN TURNER-I know I understand, but do you have an option to buy the golf course from him at a further time? ATTORNEY LAPPER-No because this developer is not a golf course developer or operator they are a senior affordable housing operator. It just wasn't something negotiated because it wasn't something that was an objective. He would be as part of this and part of the option is that he's giving up his development right so that his land could not in the future be subdivided it would have to be an open space recreation use somebody could buy it as golf course. COUNCILMAN BREWER-You would tie that to his deed? ATTORNEY LAPPER-It would be the PUD approval. COUNCILMAN BREWER-If Garth Allen were to ever sell that golf course..... COUNCILMAN MARTIN-It goes beyond that. There was a rezoning done for this several years ago.... COUNCILMAN TURNER-No. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-It did get change to single... . . . COUNCILMAN MARTIN-My recollection is that Garth Allen needed to cluster. There was a zoning change from SFR or something like that to SR. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I think if you look back Jim.... COUNCILMAN MARTIN-It was approved. COUNCILMAN BREWER-It was approved no question it was approved. As I remember and you can look this up Chris there was an expiration they came back.... COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I'm not talking about the project I'm talking about the rezoning. The rezoning I'm just talking strictly the rezoning the rezoning was conditioned upon the development rights being pulled and off of the rest of the property. COUNCILMAN BREWER-The rezoning was or the project was? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-The rezoning was. COUNCILMAN BREWER-You're certain of that? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I'll bet you a hundred bucks and I'm not a betting man. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Can we double check. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-I believe Jim is correct that is was rezoned. ATTORNEY LAPPER-But, regardless this would be new zoning the new PUD Ordinance would specify that the golf course has to remain a golf course. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I just want to be assured that the golf course loses the development rights. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-The development rights are already gone. MR. NACE-The PUD is the entire ninety-seven acres. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-That's my next question. Is there going to be a two lot subdivision here or..... ATTORNEY LAPPER- Yes. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Okay. ATTORNEY LAPPER-Which is typical ofPUD's. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Then on the zoning map the zoning map will be all ninety-seven acres in terms of when we draw the line for the PUD Ordinance. ATTORNEY LAPPER-The district will be the whole parcel ninety-seven acres. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-The whole two parcels. MR. NACE-Correct. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Have you gone to the Recreation Commission about the rec fee business? ATTORNEY LAPPER-I think that Chris has raised the issue. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I know there is a procedure in the law, but I don't think we're at that point yet. ATTORNEY LAPPER -We didn't feel we were at that point either we wanted to hear your input at this point, but it's on the table that it is available. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I'm between and ... ..on that one because I'd really like to have that greenway area along the brook there cause we are trying to assemble all those properties. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Maybe we could somehow get some kind of a map showing the property that we own and the property that could be presented to us at some point. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-If you could also even go up as far north as the Hiland Park piece. There is also property in there owned that was dedicated by Dr. Reed a few years ago memory serves to the Town. MR. NACE-Is that adjacent to the road? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Maybe not adjacent to the brook. I think it might be adjacent to the seventy-six acre parcel that we got with Hiland. COUNCILMAN TURNER-It is it's on the backside of it. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-There is like a hundred and fifty acres up there or something. These are all these lands that I'm talking about for the land trust. SUPERVISOR BROWER-This affordable housing you are going to have a rate that someone comes in and rents the apartments it's not based on their income in that correct? ATTORNEY LAPPER-It is based upon their income. This is Federal and State guidelines. SUPERVISOR BROWER-So they have to be under a certain income? ATTORNEY LAPPER-Yes. We presented a study to you with the original application materials that showed that there was something on the order of seven hundred and fifty people in the immediate Queensbury area that would qualify for this so there is a need. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I know there is a demand for it there is no doubt about it. ATTORNEY LAPPER -If you like Frank Piazza is here who does this for a living and he can explain in detail if you'd like. FRANK PIAZZA, AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONSULTANT-Just to give you a general idea as to the program that would be offered. If it were being offered basically in today's terms now these numbers fluctuate as time goes on. We're looking first rental rates this is somewhat approximate right now, but a one bedroom apartment would rent from about two eighty nine to four forty five per month. A two bedroom apartment might rent from about three ninety-one to five thirty two. Those rents would include beside the typical things they would include heat and hot water. The minimum incomes are guidelines at this point and are based on the rents so they are approximate. The minimum guidelines would be for a one bedroom would be about nine thousand dollars gross annual income per year for the household. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-How much? MR. PIAZZA-Nine thousand minimum. The minimum for a two bedroom might be in the neighborhood of twelve thousand dollars. The maximum income limits per household were just published for two thousand by the Federal Government so these are set in stone if it were to happen today. The maximum and this goes by the size of the household. The maximum income for one-person household would be eighteen thousand one hundred and twenty dollars that's gross annual income and it's basically unadjusted. For two- person household would be twenty thousand seven hundred and sixty dollars that's the range that we're looking at. The Federal law would prohibit any residence from being less than sixty-two years of age when applying for the apartment. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-What mechanism are we going to have to have assurance that this will be restricted to senior housing? I would imagine we're going to exercise our standard PUD Agreement approach and that would be one item within that. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-That's one although I imagine they have others as well. MR. PIAZZA-There are a number of ways to make sure it is the age limitation including the deed restriction or zoning or what have you I've seen it done a number of different ways. SUPERVISOR BROWER-This isn't subsidized in any way other than..... MR. PIAZZA-To answer your original question I think that the word subsidy is used in different contexts. It is going to be built with low income housing tax credits which we need to do this that will be the primary form of funding. The tax credits unlike what we traditionally call subsidize housing work in such a way that households, there will be a number of the apartments at this point we're looking at sixty to eighty percent of the apartments would be set aside for households with incomes of sixty percent or less of the medium income. Perhaps between twenty and forty percent of the units would be reserved for households with incomes of about forty to fifty percent of the medium income a little lower. The way it works is that private entities typically today larger corporations make investments under the low income housing tax regulations it's part of the Internal Revenue Code, Section 42. They provide a lot of the equity that's needed to develop the units in return for a fifteen-year to thirty-year compliance period on those units they receive a reduction of tax liability over ten years and they receive a lot of benefit for that. This is a great program to the extent that what it does it reduces the developers financing at the end of the day so when its finished you have less conventional debt service so you need less money to operate and that's how you get lower rents. The rents do not fluctuate up and down as your income goes up and down, as a traditional sub- city program might do like Section 8, or what we used to call Farmers Home Program. Here folks would enter in low income or very low income category by the law and they would have that rent the rent could go up pretty much to the degree that inflation increases annually, but again that's govern by the federal government by the IRS actually. A state agency monitors the program for the federal government it's audited by the state agency by law it has to be audited periodically. Then the federal government also has the option to come in and do their own audit of the program to ensure that the rents are within the program guidelines and that all of the residents are in the income categories that its designed for. When we met we met a couple of weeks ago with the senior citizens representatives throughout Warren County their questions had to do with what happens if my income goes down, my income goes up? Typically since some of the units will be set aside at lower rents if you went in at a higher rent and something happened to your income you could apply for a lower rent. You would have to wait for a lower rent unit to become available then you would just switch the designations. Financially the program works on the basis of certain rents for certain number of units. If your income went up your rent would not necessarily go up in portion to that again that adjustment for inflation. Once you're in there you could actually make much more than the programs limits and still stay at the property as long as you like. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Are you going to have any on site care available? MR. PIAZZA-There would be no services provided directly by the landlord. Typically these programs do not include services because financially that doesn't work out to well. However, there will be every attempt to provide the service if you will of matching what services do exist with the residents that are there. To help the residents make the most out of the services that are around including getting transportation that sort of thing. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you very much. Any other questions by town board members? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Tom given the fact this is, I don't know it may be kind of early for this, this is a senior housing type of facility any thought to walking paths or pedestrian facilities for these people to move around maybe access the services that were mentioned like the bank at the comer that type of thing? MR. NACE-We will consider this in the site plan. There will be on site designated garden areas for them to use and that type of thing yes there will be some. As far as walking paths the whole golf course the grounds are well maintained and this will still blend in as much as possible with the golf course. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I know a lot of people access Quaker Road. I see just for pure exercise people are walking up and down Quaker Road from Baybridge or wherever they might live. There are several housing complexes up and down the route so I would imagine these people are going to try and get there, too. MR. NACE-It is certainly something we will look at in the site plan. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. At this time I will ask the public if anyone has a comment or input that they like to make? GLENN RODE, 51 CRONIN ROAD-I live on 51 Cronin Road which is the property to the east of the proposed site on the other side of Halfway Brook I have a few concerns. One of them is that I've been told that Cronin Road is a collector road is that the proper term? What is the criteria for a collector road? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-I can't answer either of those questions right offhand. Generally there is a road system hierarchy arterial, collector, local road etc. it is probably a collector road there is a classification system in our code. MR. RODE-From what I understood a collector road to be was due to the high volume of traffic already on that road probably from Regency Park Apartments that for each driveway there should be a certain designated feet of road frontage, I believe its three hundred feet. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-There is a section of our ordinance if you're on a collector road that you need twice the lot frontage for each residence for driveway purposes. The idea behind that is to cut down on the number of curb cuts. If this were a ten-lot subdivision that we discourage a number of lots from fronting on Cronin Road we would encourage internal circulation or locations like what's proposed. MR. RODE-I'm afraid the traffic volume, I mean a lot of people walk and bike and rollerblade probably a lot of the seniors will be doing the same. I'm afraid the high volume of traffic is going to put people at risk and endanger there. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-That's a valid concern. MR. RODE-The second concern well that and also pulling out onto they are going from they're mostly out onto Bay Road which is another high volume traffic area. The second concern I had was the environmental concern the fact that it is either in or near wetlands and being a neighboring property I'm concerned what the impact will be on my property. I've already got a high water problem I'm in A2 flood zone and I don't know what kind of fill is going to be brought in for this type of development and where the drainage is going to go. I'm sure any square footage of blacktop that goes in or fill is going to probably direct a lot of the flow in my direction on Cronin Road on the Halfway Brook. I'm sure that the addition of places like Lowe's has already contributed to the quick runoff. It doesn't soak in you've got all that acreage of blacktop there that now it just runs through a system of culverts into the Halfway Brook that causes a brook dry so that's also where I had concerns is how it will affect the drainage and runoff and the lay of the land in that area? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Would anyone like to address the board? BETTY MONAHAN-First place, I want to say I think this is a very good project, but I think it's being conveyed by the wrong vehicle. I don't believe it fits the criteria for a Planned Unit Development. If you look at the purpose small to large-scale neighborhoods or portions thereof may be developed within the Town that incorporate a variety of residential types and non-residential uses and contain both individual building sites and common property which are planned and developed as a unit. Individual building sites we have one big building site if you go down further it talks about objectives. A maximum choice in housing environment and type occupancy tenure lot sizes in common facilities. While we have one lot size unless you're going to talk the golf course which is another one. Now this isn't a maximum choice I could not qualify to live there, by my age I could, but for no other reason can I qualify and I don't think age is a criteria anyway it isn't a maximum choice it's a minimum choice. I want to go through some staff notes that went to the Planning Board and if you remember when I questioned this before, oh and there is one other thing, excuse me a minute until I find the page here. B3, I think this will help preserve the outstanding natural topography and geological features, scenic vistas, trees, and historic sites and prevents the disruption of natural drainage patterns. I do not believe that this is going to prevent the disruption of natural drainage patterns. Now these objectives are not a multiple choice saying all these objectives apply so you can't say three apply and two don't all of them have to apply. I want to go back to the Planning Board Meeting and the Planning Board itself did not discuss whether or not if you read the minutes it did not discuss whether or not this fit within a PUD they just discussed the project itself. Staff Note. The PUD function is to provide affordable housing within Queensbury I don't know where they picked this up in the PUD Ordinance. It says all economic levels it did not say to provide affordable housing within Queensbury. They go on to say they are using the fact that in the area is Stewart's Plaza, Harvest Restaurant, and Social Security building etc. What's off site has no bearing on a PUD it cannot be considered as a use within a PUD when it's off site. The PUD proposed meet the purpose of 179-51A and that a portion of the neighborhood is to be developed with residential and non-residential uses and building sites and common property well I just told you why I don't think that applies. The proposal also serves, as a step in meeting the housing needs for a lower income economic levels of segment of Queensbury's population that's not relevant to a PUB. It goes on to say the PUB meets the objectives and intent in 179- 51B concerning choice rent levels as compared to market area apartments that's incorrect. There is no place in this does it talk about considering apartment levels off the site so it has no bearing on that. The other one was, I question whether or not it will not interrupt the natural drainage flow. If you read these minutes and Mr. Nace goes on to say what they're going to do and you know to do all this drainage and everything well obviously your alternating the drainage flow. I will say though, I think maybe you've got a mechanism in here that you can use. If you look at your RC-15 zone you may be able to do with that what we did with Solomon Heights. Unfortunately, I didn't have a chance to go get that resolution today, but Solomon Heights was a condition rezoning. I wanted to say also you know when you are talking about giving them credit for recreation with the open land look at what that does to your density calculations there is a little provision in the PUD about that. There is also a PUD provision in the recreation in the land you can take in lieu of fee the type of land it has to be. If you look at RC-15, I think you could get your density. It's got a lot of uses you don't want, but you can take those out and condition it on this type of housing going in there otherwise the zoning isn't effective. It allows for multi-family houses, it allows for the golf course, it also allows for a lot things you don't want, but you can condition your rezoning on that. As I said, I think you've got a great project I think you've got it in the wrong vehicle. I don't think it meets the requirements of that vehicle, but I think you could do it through the other zone. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I appreciate your comments, thank you. Would anyone else like to address the board at this time on this issue? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:33 P.M. DISCUSSION HELD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-Referral was just made to Warren County Planning cannot act in advance of the County Planning offering an opinion on the project. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-You have to do the SEQRA also. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-You could do SEQRA tonight or you could wait until some point in the future to do that. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Questioned why they chose to do a PUD and how the elements outside of the land had anything to do with your PUD? ATTORNEY LAPPER -The reason for the PUD is because a PUD is the most flexible vehicle that the Town has to both permit and restrict uses in the zone. This just seemed like while compatible such diverse uses to have a senior complex and at the same time to have a golf course so it just seemed like the flexible PUD zone was the way to do it. When you are going to a Town Board asking for a rezoning you are always concerned about a spot zoning challenge. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Questioned when you do a PUD don't you create the PUD? ATTORNEY LAPPER- Yes. COUNCILMAN BREWER-You are not creating the golf course it's already there. ATTORNEY LAPPER-You create a zone you create a bunch of allowed uses. What's not there now in this particular case is the driving range just as a technicality so that would have to be relocated and constructed. What you are doing for future you are saying that this land will always be zoned for these very specific uses the golf course and the senior affordable housing complex so you are creating a new zone. It's a different use we have sort of a challenge that we've got a site that's a golf course use now and a proposal for an affordable senior project. We would be using all of the density to do the senior project in protecting the open space that to me seemed appropriate for a PUD obviously people can differ. The PUD legislation lets you lock everything in. What Betty was talking about where you wouldn't want to let everyone let all of the uses in the RC-15 cause she acknowledges there were other broader uses that may not be appropriate in the zone. In a PUD it's very specific so you are saying you can do this that and nothing else. That's what we were looking for to ask for the minimum rather than to ask for a broader zone. COUNCILMAN STEC-Chris hit on this briefly. The article specifically encourages innovations in residential development so that the growing demands for housing at all economic levels maybe met by greater variety and type design, etc. The way I read that means if the area is lacking in one specific type and the PUD is going to add the type that's missing then it satisfies the PUD requirement. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-I agree with you Dan. If you look at our other PUD environments it's not the Top of the World, Hiland Park; none of those provide a variety of housing environments within themselves. It's meant to be as flexible as possible so that you can plan comprehensively a particular piece of property, or large track of land, or a single property that might work in with several other uses. COUNCILMAN STEC-Ifit's filling a void that exists in the community then it meets the intent. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-It's very unusual to have a Planned Unit Development that's within its boarders has a full range of housing opportunities from luxury down to affordable. COUNCILMAN STEC-The way that I interpret that if there is a void in the community and this fills the void then it meets the requirements. One point I would agree on I would like a copy of the blue book. ATTORNEY LAPPER-We read it as Dan reads it as well. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-We've got a Zoning Administrator that's his job. If! feel particularly aggrieved and compelled about his determination I will go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and ask for an interpretation that's the way this is all suppose to work. I don't want to be a Zoning Administrator anymore I was one and I don't want to do that anymore I retired from that job that's his job. If I feel particularly compelled about an interpretation he made and I'm in disagreement with it that's who I'll go see cause that's their job. COUNCILMAN BREWER-On the same hand it doesn't mean we shouldn't have debate about it. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I'm just saying my opinion I'm a legislature now. COUNCILMAN STEC-But, if we had debate on it, it should be an informed debate which we mean the book. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-We should have the book. COUNCILMAN STEC-So we're clear on that I want the book. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I just think if it's a matter of interpretation that's the Zoning Boards job. ATTORNEY LAPPER-We should also address the drainage issue that was raised. MR. NACE-I think the drainage and the wetland issue go hand in hand. There are a couple fingers of Core of Engineer wetlands that traverse our project site. We're working with the Core and restructuring the permit that had been applied for before we will be taking some areas down here and actually creating or enhancing some of the other wetlands down closer to the creek. We will be doing that in a ratio that's more than we are disturbing. If we're disturbing a half an acre we will probably be enhancing an area or so of wetland down here. Will also in our drainage any of these impervious areas will be drained into low wet areas and probably into some of the created wetland to help enhance them eventually after its adequately filter so we really won't be changing the existing drainage patterns. The drainage in here is rather flat a lot of the rainwater is stored on the surface and gradually filters through to the creek. That's exactly what we're going to do with the proposed drainage system is recreate that take any of these impervious areas collect that water put it through low shallow detention areas and eventually down into the wetland and into the stream. Another issue we probably ought to quickly bear on is traffic on Cronin Road. This is a senior project we've looked at several other senior projects and one of the things typical is that their traffic generation is normally off cycle with the normal commuting peaks so from that aspect it will have very little impact. The other thing is a lot of these people probably will not have cars they will rely on mass transient. I expect I haven't run the numbers yet, but I expect that the actual traffic generation from this project will be fairly small. COUNCILMAN TURNER-The buses go by there everyday a couple times a day, three times a day. MR. NACE-I'm sure we'll work with the transient people to see if they can't come in and actually circulate on the site for pickup. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you very much. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Are we going to have any sort of draft PUD agreement? ATTORNEY LAPPER-We can have that for the next time we're before the board submit it in advance for you to look at MRS. MONAHAN-Can I just reply to John's comment about spot zoning, please. I don't know how many of you know this, but I was probably the person that took the Solomon Heights through the federal government through all the things that it had to do and babied it, okay. That could have been considered spot zoning our Town Attorney said to our Director of Planning and myself how are you going to defend this in court and that's why I say you would condition this RC-15. We said because it meets the social economic need the location is great just as they're saying the location is great here. In their case they would have recreation close in on the site so you can defend that against spot zoning because you are doing it for a community need not for the need of the property owner. ATTORNEY LAPPER-I don't disagree and we be happy to go either way whether it's a PUD or RC-15. Our objectives are just to create these two uses and make it all legal and legitimate. It just seemed to me that this was the most flexible and most practical we're not drawing line we're happy either way whatever the board feels most comfortable. MR. RODE-I would like to know what the definition of enhancing wetland area is? If there is equal distribution of water now is enhancement meaning that a certain will be wetter than the land they are developing? COUNCILMAN TURNER-They're mitigating the issue by taking the wetlands out of there and putting them over there that's basically it. MR. RODE-Can I have the gentlemen show me where that is again on the map? COUNCILMAN TURNER-Sure. MR. NACE-Let me add to the answer a little bit. It is also taking areas that are wet maybe expanding them back into the peripheral of the upland areas. It can also be adding plants wetlands can be classified as wetlands for several different reasons. Some of those are plant life the type of soil the evidence of high ground water in the soil for an extended period of time. I'm sure there are some areas in here that are classified as wetlands, but may not have complete wetland vegetation there so it may be taking some of those areas and planting some additional wetland vegetation. It maybe expanding those back into the property from where they are now. I sort of pointed out towards the stream we'd be taking the wetlands that exist along the stream and expanding them back into the property. There is nothing here that we can do or would be doing that would raise the level of Halfway Brook. We've got an order to comply with all the drainage criteria. We've got to mimic the best that we can the way the land works now and the way the runoff reaches the creek. It is detained in these low shallow areas now we're going to be creating additional shallow areas so that we continue to detain that water and filter it down to the creek slowly. MR. RODE-It's a case of what comes first the chicken or the egg. He is talking about the runoff going into the brook from the wetlands it's the opposite. That brook crests its banks on a regular basis I live there I see it every time there is heavy rain and runoff my yard gets flooded and a portion of that land gets flooded. It's a reverse flow of what he's talking about that occurs on a regular basis. MR. NACE- That's sort of a similar but different issue. One thing I should point our and I should of pointed out earlier, I apologize. Along the creek there is what called a floodway the area that's necessary to get the rainwater's on down stream. There are regulations that said, you can't do anything within that floodway that will raise the water elevation of anywhere up stream of you. Weare well outside the floodway with anything we're proposing to do. We will not be doing any filling or any work within the floodway that could impact the level in the creek up steam by that action. COUNCILMAN TURNER-What's the change in the elevation from where the site is going to be to the brook? MR. NACE-It's in the order of five feet right to the top of the bank of the brook this is about five feet higher. SUPERVISOR BROWER-This is going to the Warren County Planning Board for their review and it will come back here for further discussion. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-We should ask now if there is anything else we want because the next time they will come back is for action. COUNCILMAN TURNER-The one thing that is going to have to be discussed is the rec fees. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-Do you want to know what the position on rec fees is before you go through.... COUNCILMAN BREWER-What they want to do their preference. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-If you broach it with the Recreation Commission I'd like to know that as well. I really don't see how we can take the property given what the demands are for recreation property in that law. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Can't do it we haven't done it for the others we didn't do it with Schermerhorn. COUNCILMAN BREWER-How we cannot or how we could? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-How we could. I don't see how we could. COUNCILMAN TURNER-We have never done it before we didn't do it with the subdivider on the other side of the brook. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I'll want to hear from the Recreation Commission on that. Given the requirements that I know about in the law I don't see how we can take that property. The decision ultimately rests with us we get recommendations from the Planning Board and Recreation Commission. ATTORNEY LAPPER-Because it won't meet a recreation objective? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Right. ATTORNEY LAPPER-What I understood was fishing and access trials is what is being done at Hiland, but that's your decision if you want it its there. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Bring them to them and we can discuss that. COUNCILMAN TURNER-I don't think that was a reason John that was offered by Hiland to the Town. ATTORNEY LAPPER-That was in lieu of the fees though. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-What I'm basically saying is I want my cake and eat it to, I want the fee and I want the land. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Why can't we do some of both? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-I think you have to refer to the rec commission and they will give your opinion on that. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Let's see what the Recreation Commission says. ATTORNEY LAPPER-Okay. NO ACTION TAKEN AWAITING DECISION FROM WARREN COUNTY PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE ORDER FOR 22-PORT AND 24-PORT COMPUTER SWITCHES RESOLUTION NO.: 160.2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously adopted purchasing procedures which require that the Town Board must approve any purchase in an amount of $5,000 or greater up to New York State bidding limits, and WHEREAS, the Computer Technology Coordinator solicited proposals for the purchase of two (2) 22-port w!2-fiber ports 10/100 switches and one (1) 24-port switch standard edition and has recommended that the Town Board authorize him to purchase the switches from PC Connection for a total amount not to exceed $6,065, and WHEREAS, the Purchasing Director has reviewed the information received by the Computer Technology Coordinator and concurs with his recommendation, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves of the Computer Technology Coordinator's purchase of two (2) 22-port w!2-fiber ports 10/100 switches and one (1) 24-port switch standard edition for a total amount not to exceed $6,065 from PC Connection to be paid for from Account No.: 001-1680-2001 ($6,000) and Account No.: 001-1680-2031 ($65), and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Computer Technology Coordinator and/or Purchasing Director to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 3rd day of April, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Brower NOES: None ABSENT:None OPEN FORUM FOR GENERAL & RESOLUTIONS BARBARA BENNETT-Spoke to the board regarding her concern for lack of transportation for senior citizens in Queensbury. Asked the board to start a study of comprehensive bus service for the Town of Queensbury. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Asked for this matter to be brought to the Transportation Council. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-Patrick Campbell is the head of the Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council they are constantly surveying perspective corridors that they will provide service to they need a minimum ridership, etc. Where they can't provide a dedicated route they will provide the call ahead bus service noting they have done this with Solomon Heights. There is a growing need building there will make sure they are attentive to this need. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Recommended putting the Transportation Council on notice regarding the stages of development that are coming. MRS. BENNETT -Spoke to the board regarding having two taxi services in the City of Glens Falls. The City of Glens Falls has zoned the territory doesn't think they have the right to zone Queensbury. Noted it costs twice as much for a smaller distance due to the fact both taxi services are in Glens Falls noted she would like one of the taxi services to come to Queensbury. BOB V ALLERO, 5 GENTRY LANE, QUEENSBURY-Updated the board regarding the sewer project for Baybridge. Spoke to the board regarding a Water District Extension Agreement noted Attorney Hafner should have submitted letter to board regarding this matter. They are doing an infiltration test to take a look at how much surface water is penetrating their sewer system. The Water Department has recommended removing our septic system noted he feels they are pretreating the effluent going into the sewer system because we guarantee to pump the tanks once every three years that is what we do now. They would be getting relatively clean water as opposed to raw sewage could impact their pumps over time also noted they have marked utilities will be surveyed for drilling points on Wednesday. Until they get an agreement that says who is going to do what will not authorize any more money. If this project doesn't go forward would like to do project totally by themselves no participation by the Town pump from their pump station directly to the dance studio force main it all they way along Bay Road noting would like to get up and running by Thanksgiving. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Questioned if he would characterize discussions with Mike Shaw as productive to date? MR. V ALLERO- Yes. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Questioned when the Sewer District Agreement has to be in place? MR. V ALLERO-No later than May 15th. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Wants to make sure they do everything properly. Questioned what happens with the legalities of who pays what, how it gets paid? ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-Understood they have been asked to provide the board with some information about the manner in which you typically and historically formulated approved district extensions. Have worked on this reasonably diligently in accordance with the Town Boards directions, but we don't believe we are working for the Baybridge Homeowners Association we work for the Town. Noted his understanding is the Baybridge Homeowners Association is proposing to deviate in some respect from the process that the Town has followed for years in creation and extension of district. One of the ways I understand the deviation to be proposed the Baybridge Homeowners Association is proposing that the Town would bear the cost in preparation of the Map, Plan, and Report is that correct? MR. V ALLERO-No. SUPERVISOR BROWER-We never traditionally did that. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER- Correct. One of the board members just a few minutes ago said something about being totally in favor of this, but lets do it by the process. Our job is simply to guide you on the process we are in fact; about to provide you guidance as to what the process has been historically in Queensbury and guidance as to what we understand Baybridge to be proposing and how those differ. It will then be up to the board as to whether you want to go to some different process or simply tell Baybridge we're happy to do this, but in accordance with the previous adopted procedures. The first piece of work as far as the sewer district extension agreement that's something that typically the would be developers presents to the Town. Noted they are open to Baybridge doing that and the May 15th date there is no problem from their standpoint of getting a district extension agreement in place by May 15th. COUNCILMAN STEC-Concerned about not violating any portion of the law. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-Thinks the Town has done this right by the book previously. COUNCILMAN BREWER-The way its been proposed to us unconventional. COUNCILMAN STEC-The proposal is unconventional. We're not concerned that's its unconventional so much as we want to make sure that's its legal. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-Are you saying you don't care whether it complies with the standard procedure in Queensbury previously? COUNCILMAN STEC-In addition to knowing what the differences are whether there are any legal issues that we need to be made aware of. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Concern that there is a growing need for us to be extending our sewer districts needs to get better at this. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-Asked if the extension would have excess capacity? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Yes. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-One of the things that our research is showing is that because of the magnitude of excess capacity it looks like its likely that future extension those who are benefited by future extensions may have to pay not only for future extensions, but they may have to reimburse the general fund for portions of this extensions is that good, bad? COUNCILMAN STEC- That's good that's fair. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-That's fine with me. COUNCILMAN TURNER-That's fair. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Recommended discussing this at the Monday's workshop, boards in agreement. P AUL NAYLOR, DIVISION ROAD, QUEENSBURY -Questioned if they are still subsiding the State of New York Police? TOWN BOARD-Yes. MR. NAYLOR-For another ten years? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Yes noted he thinks they have excellent police protection between the County and State Police thinks it benefits the community. MR. NAYLOR-Questioned the Resolution Authorizing Engagement of Lemery MacKrell Greisler, LLC, Jack Lebowitz, of Counsel, to Provide Legal Services in Connection with Fuller Road litigation thought he was against you? COUNCILMAN STEC-He was against you. MR. NA YLOR-Oh, he was against me you're playing it so you can win. COUNCILMAN STEC- The Town is going to win, the people will win, and this board wins, the public wms. MR. NA YLOR- That's a switch nothing about ethics or anything that shakes you up on this one? It's all straight forward and right by the church. SUPERVISOR BROWER-In fairness, I asked counsel if they didn't feel they may have a difficult time with this case in that they were the counsel that closed the road. Now, of course, they've always informed that no matter what goal we ask them to accomplish they will work towards that goal. I do believe that, but they felt in this particular case that maybe it would be best to step aside and allow the Town Board to.... COUNCILMAN STEC-I think counsel wants to comment. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-Counsel very much wants to comment. Mr. Supervisor... SUPERVISOR BROWER-Yes. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-You just stated on the public record that it was counsel that closed the road do you realize that you said that? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Did I say that? ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-Yes you did sir. SUPERVISOR BROWER-The counsel never closes the road excuse me that was a mistake. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-Mr. Supervisor do you know when the road was closed do you know when that occurred? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Yes. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-When Mr. Supervisor? SUPERVISOR BROWER-1995. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-That is correct Mr. Supervisor. Do you know when Miller, Mannix, and Pratt became Town Counsel sir? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-It was after that. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-Perhaps I could educate you on this. February of 1996 is when Miller, Mannix, and Pratt became Town Counsel. When you state on a public record that we closed the road I get very upset by that because the public has had that perception for several years. When the road was closed in 1995 a gentleman named Paul Dusek was the Queensbury Town Attorney. This is a very important fact. MR. NAYLOR-That's right. SUPERVISOR BROWER-That's right. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-This is a very important fact. My office gets calls with obnoxious rude comments with threats and things that like because we closed the road supposedly. You've just stated on a public record that we closed the road. SUPERVISORS BROWER-I apologize you are absolutely correct. You have indeed defended the Town against actions. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-That is absolutely correct in my mind that's a little bit different. SUPERVISOR BROWER-It is different. MR. NA YLOR-I did it I was the one who closed it with Town Board approval that was them guys now its you guys. We'll see how it works out in court right? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-That's where it should be. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Absolutely. MR. NA YLOR-I can't wait. COUNCILMAN BREWER-It would have been if we let it go, but I don't want to get into that. MR. NAYLOR-How much longer before that comes out does anybody know? You don't think this is a problem none of you? COUNCILMAN TURNER-What's that? MR. NAYLOR-Having a ...... COUNCILMAN TURNER-I do you bet your neck I do. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I do, too. MRS. MONAHAN-I think I have to echo Mr. Naylor's concern. I think I also have to echo it because if I remember correctly and without checking record I wouldn't want to say this as a positive fact. I believe Mr. Lebowitz was one of the people in the audience as an individual who was speaking out very strongly for the rights of the biker's so on and so forth. I think you've got a definite conflict of interest here and it looks like the Town Board is maneuvering. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I don't believe it is. COUNCILMAN STEC-We've discussed this with counsel and he agrees that it's not a conflict of interest. MRS. MONAHAN-That's your opinion, but I think COUNCILMAN STEC-And his and our counsel. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yep everybody's got one, too. MRS. MONAHAN-I think in the feeling of the community the community is going to feel that it is a conflict of interest. Some things are more of what they seem than what they are maybe legally. Spoke to the board regarding the State Police contract. Asked if the coverage should be raised for liabilities, asked the board to look into the limits of liabilities. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-Noted it is an excellent also a point that our Comptroller raised by memo today. Recommended adopting the resolution if the board wants because the resolution says that the agreement would be substantially in the form of the proposed agreement. The Comptroller has provided us with guidelines in updating the insurance coverage requirements both in terms of the monetary amount. Also recommended and agree with his recommendation that we build in an ability during the term of the lease to increase the insurance requirements in the Town has reason to do that. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Questioned if this should be presented to them before approving the contract? ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-Up to the board. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Noted it is to our benefit. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Would prefer to get the changes approved by both parties. MRS. MONAHAN-Recommended having the Town insurance agent comment on this noting it is their job to protect the Town. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Questioned if the Comptroller's recommendation was made with the advice of the insurance agent. COMPTROLLER, MR. HESS-Yes. PLINEY TUCKER-Questioned why the board is hiring Mr. Lebowitz as an Attorney for Fuller Road? ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-I will tell that the Supervisor is correct that he spoke with us and that we recommended engagement of special counsel. We don't want to do anything or say anything that could in anyway distract anybody from what the Town Board wants to advance as the real case. We don't want the Town Board to be subject to any criticism or frankly us to be subject to any criticism or give them any ammunition to others to waive things that we previously prepared under previous administrations as their directs orders that may not be what this administration or at least a majority of it feels it wants advanced. COUNCILMAN STEC-Do you care to address on any legal issues that mayor may not exist regarding the specific attorney in question that we've selected? Are their legal issues or it is perception issues for some? ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-I would believe more of the second. MR. TUCKER-I think I'm being misunderstood. I don't question you hiring this man I want to know why he is being hired. I want you to tell me are we being sued? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Yes. MR. TUCKER-By who? ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-He means for what is he being hired I can do that. Actually the Town sort of an ironic situation has been sued by two different entities. First this is something that we're going to have to talk about because the proposal you received only references one case. It seems to us if you are going to have outside counsel have outside counsel for both of the pending cases that's obviously up to you, but I think that would be consistent. A gentleman you may be familiar with named John Salvador who is seeking to a court order declaring the previously discontinued portion of the road to be opened has sued the Town. The Town Board enacted a resolution that I assume your familiar with correct about reopening the road. MR. TUCKER-Yeah. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-After enactment of that resolution the Town has now also been sued by the Rowland's the people that built the home up there. MR. TUCKER-I understand. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-The Town has also been sued by the Rowland's so there is actually two pending litigation cases relating to the Fuller Road situation. MR. TUCKER-Mr. Salvador's lawsuit was to open the road. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-That's correct. MR. TUCKER-When the board voted to open the road didn't that nullifies his lawsuit? ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-Some might think that, but Mr. Salvador and his attorney's apparently do not. This is where my knowledge ends I cannot possibly explain to you why they don't feel that way. COUNCILMAN STEC-I thought he was seeking reimbursement for costs there is more than just the road opemng. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-That's an excellent point. Although that's not the point their pressing forward on, but you are correct. Another thing that Mr. Salvador sought in his lawsuit was reimbursement for the money that the Town spent prosecuting the eight people whom allegedly trespassed on Fuller Road. I'll say now it's on public record which is fine that the amount of money that the Town spent is that prosecution that Mr. Salvador seeks reimbursement of is zero dollars. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I'll go the record thinking that someday I think we ought to start pursing reimbursement of defending ourselves against frivolous worthless lawsuits that particular people are incline to engage us in and waste a lot of money. MR. TUCKER-I don't think you can do it where you are sitting sir. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-Actually the Town Board can authorize us to seek penalties and sanctions against litigants for frivolous actions. MR. TUCKER-Then we've got to pay you. COUNCILMAN BREWER-You got to pay him anywhere. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-For what its worth I'll say that we generally have no trouble with that if you direct us to do that. Judges in our opinion are very wimpy about that and don't do it very often. We have no trouble seeking and I would echo Mr. Martin's comments on that. MR. TUCKER-When the closing of the road was recorded the Rowland's signed a statement that they would hold the Town of Queensbury harmless from any litigation arriving on the closing of this road. Now, we're being sued by them we got to hire an Attorney to pay them that doesn't mean a thing? ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-I don't the answer to that question I'm not aware of that. MR. TUCKER-Your not aware of that its been recorded up in the... ... ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-I'm not saying its wrong, I'mjust saying I don't know if that's the case. But, if that is the case and there is an issue there then I imagine if the Town hires special counsel I imagine special counsel with deal with it. SUPERVISOR BROWER-My understanding too, is this issue is going to be heard the tenth of April. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-That's what that letters says I don't believe that's correct actually. A lot of that will have to do with how your counsel approaches the case. COUNCILMAN STEC-Mr. Naylor raised the question what number fifteen was about. My answer to him was that we're trying to win. It's not because of any personal desire to win or the interest of the outcome of this case. Whether you agree with us or not and certainly this board is not unanimous, but three out of five us feel that it should be opened. I think we would be derelict in our duty to knowingly send in an attorney to battle that's going to have a hard time defending his position. People would say, gee that's a halfharded attempt. . .. You either feel that you should open the road or you shouldn't. COUNCILMAN BREWER-That attorney is not defending his position he is defending our position. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-In fairness we're not about to make a halfharded effort that's not what I said. COUNCILMAN STEC- That they would raise a legal argument in the court of law that could weaken the Town's position. We know that so if we stuck with you then this board would be derelict saying, setting you up for failure. We look great to the Town saying we passed it we opened the road, but at the same time we know that we're sending in an attorney that's handcuffed so we took the handcuffs off and we looked for another attorney. If your question is, why are we hiring Jack Lebowitz if that's the question then I think I'd answer the question saying that I think we're comfortable that of all the attorney's available to us he's probably the most attune to the facts surrounding the case. If Betty chuckles and says well you know he was sitting in the audience he raised issues, I asked counsel and counsel said that's not a legal disqualifier for him to participate in the Town. I asked him he knew of any other legal concerns Dennis brought this up with Mr. Lebowitz. We feel that, although I'm not an attorney not trying to do the counsel's job, but that's the rational that we had. It's not a vendetta that we have to win although I feel some parties to this feel that way. I don't think I could look the public in the eye and vote on February 28th to open the road and then turn around and send in somebody to battle that's not fully equipped and that's what we'd be doing if we didn't go with special counsel. If you want to second guess our Monday morning quarterback who we're looking to go with we haven't voted yet so if you have another attorney in mind, but we need to come up with an answer soon because we've got two pending lawsuits that we need to answer on. We're going to get off the dime we're not going to waste a lot of time or money we're going to move on this. SUPERVISOR BROWER-As far as the dollars involved for the Town its virtually a wash. MR. TUCKER-Run that by me. SUPERVISOR BROWER-It would be outside our counsel's normal scope of services so they would charge us an hourly rate. . . . MR. TUCKER-You are spending money? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Yes. MR. TUCKER-When you say wash you make it should like you're not spending money. SUPERVISOR BROWER-He's virtually at the same rate as our own counsel. COUNCILMAN STEC-It's no extra money above and beyond the normal course of business. MR. TUCKER-My entire question was this I think Mark answered in a positive tone. SUPERVISOR BROWER-You know something Pliney I think we said early on Fuller Road is a no win situation for the Town of Queensbury. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-For the Town Board. SUPERVISOR BROWER-For the Town Board it's nothing we embraced. MR. TUCKER-Thanks guys it's your problem now it was ours now its yours. What I'm interested and he said that the new attorney could take a look at this. I wish you would have him take a look at it whether we can get our money refunded on this thing because these people definitely signed a statement and its recorded at the County. SUPERVISOR BROWER-That's not the angle I'm going at initially. I think we need to get some decision on the case first and we'll move on from there. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-It's good information at least to pass along to the counsel to keep it in the back of their mind. MR. TUCKER-Questioned the status of cleaning up the roads? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Mr. Coughlin is going to request a couple of part -time people from ITP A to assist him on road cleanup. JOHN STROUGH, QUEENSBURY-Spoke to the board regarding creating a wetland noting he has never seen the plans. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Noted you are talking about a level of detail that is far beyond the capacity of anybody in this Township to look at, interpret, and understands what's going on. The last time something like this was done was the Kmart project. MR. STROUGH-Questioned if they get the stamp from the Army Core of Engineer and the plan do we oversee it? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Army Core oversees it. We usual condition the approval on obtaining an Army Core permit prior to construction. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-Because there is an update of the core permit and because there are overlapping jurisdictions in the Town are going to have an educational forum to describe the changes in the nation wide permit system how we should get involved. MRS. MONAHAN-Noted Warren and Washington Conservation Departments are having a joint committee that works on the management program for the Halfway Brook watershed. Thinks the board is missing some expertise from Dave Wicks from Warren County recommending making him an informed person on these kind of projects. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Spoke with Dave Wicks recently he has proposed a number ofremediations for the improvements of that area. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-Noted Laura Moore sits on the Warren County Water Quality Strategy Committee they meet monthly and we bring them these kind of projects. EVERETT VOORHIS, QUEENSBURY-Asked if the Cold Planer for the Highway Department is an implement or self-propelled unit? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-It appears to be an attachment. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 9:50 P.M. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION AWARDING BID FOR PURCHASE OF COLD PLANER FOR TOWN HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO. 161. 2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. James Martin WHEREAS, the Town's Purchasing Director duly advertised for bids for the purchase of one (1) new, year 2000 Cold Planer to be used for the milling of concrete and blacktop for use by the Town's Highway Department in accordance with previously submitted bid documents and specifications, and WHEREAS, Artco Equipment Sales submitted the only and therefore lowest responsible bid in the amount of $12,921 for the Cold Planer and therefore the Highway Superintendent and Purchasing Director have recommended that the Town Board award the bid to Artco Equipment Sales, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby awards the bid for one (1) new, year 2000 Cold Planer to Artco Equipment Sales for an amount not to exceed $12,921 to be paid for from the appropriate account. Duly adopted this 3rd day of April, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AWARDING BIDS FOR PURCHASE OF BRASS, VALVE BOXES, FIRE HYDRANTS AND COPPER FOR USE BY TOWN WATER DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO. 162. 2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Town's Purchasing Director duly advertised for bids for the purchase of brass, valve boxes, fire hydrants and copper for use by the Town's Water Department, and WHEREAS, the Purchasing Director and Water Superintendent have reviewed all received bids and have made their bid award recommendations to the Town Board, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby awards the bids for the purchase of brass, valve boxes, fire hydrants and copper for use by the Town's Water Department to the lowest responsible bidders as follows: ITEM SUCCESSFUL BIDDER BID AMOUNT 1. 2. 3. 4. Brass (Spec. #00-2) Valve Boxes (Spec. #00-3) Fire Hydrants (Spec. #00-4) Copper (Spec. #00-7) Ramsco Vellano Brothers Vellano Brothers Ramsco $6,936.25 $1,175.00 $8,190.00 $6,540.00 to be paid for from the appropriate account(s), and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Purchasing Director and/or Water Superintendent to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 3rd day of April, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT OF BIDS FOR ONE 3 TON CAB & CHASSIS, CONVENTIONAL CAB FOR TOWN WATER DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 163.2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the Queensbury Water Superintendent wishes to advertise for bids for the purchase of one (1) new 3 Ton Cab & Chassis, Conventional Cab as described in bid specifications prepared by the Water Superintendent, and WHEREAS, General Municipal Law ~ 103 requires that the Town advertise for bids and award the bids to the lowest responsible bidder(s) meeting New York State statutory requirements and the requirements set forth in the Town's bidding documents, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Purchasing Director to publish an advertisement for bids for one (1) new 3 Ton Cab & Chassis, Conventional Cab for the Town Water Department in the official newspaper for the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Purchasing Director to open, read aloud and record all bids received and present the bids to the next regular or special Town Board meeting. Duly adopted this 3rd day of April, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brower NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF O'BRIEN & GERE ENGINEERS, INC. FOR THE PROVISION OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE ENGINEERING SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH LOW LIFT PUMPING STATION UPGRADES RESOLUTION NO.: 164.2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. James Martin WHEREAS, the Town Water Superintendent has obtained proposals for the provision of design and construction phase engineering services in connection with necessary low lift pumping station upgrades at the Town's Water Treatment Plant, WHEREAS, the Water Superintendent received and reviewed proposals and has recommended that the Town Board engage the engineering services of O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc., for an amount not to exceed $47,800 as delineated in O'Brien & Gere's proposal dated March 14th, 2000 presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the engagement of O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc., for the provision of design and construction phase engineering services in connection with necessary low lift pumping station upgrades at the Town's Water Treatment Plant for an amount not to exceed $47,800 as delineated in O'Brien & Gere's proposal dated March 14th, 2000 to be paid for from the appropriate account, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Water Superintendent to execute any documentation and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 3rd day of April, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Brower NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE ORDER FOR HYDRAULIC POWER SUPPLY FOR TOWN WATER DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 165.2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. James Martin WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously adopted purchasing procedures which require that the Town Board must approve any purchase in an amount of $5,000 or greater up to New York State bidding limits, and WHEREAS, the Water Superintendent solicited proposals for the purchase of a hydraulic power supply for use by the Water Department and has recommended that the Town Board authorize him to purchase the supply from Pow-R Mole Sales & Service for an amount not to exceed $5,880, and WHEREAS, the Purchasing Director has reviewed the information received by the Water Superintendent and concurs with his recommendation, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves of the Water Department's purchase of one (1) Power Stinger Portable Power Unit With 20HP Honda Engine for an amount not to exceed $5,880 from Pow-R Mole Sales & Service to be paid for from Account No.: 040- 8340-2001, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Water Superintendent and/or Purchasing Director to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 3rd day of April, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2000 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 166.2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury wishes to authorize fund transfers for the 2000 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 that funds be transferred and the 2000 Town Budget be amended as follows: DATA PROCESSING: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 01-1110-2010 (Office Equipment) 01-1680-2031 (Computer Hardware) 1,000. WASTEWATER: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 32-8120-4400 (Contractual-Quaker Road) 32-8110-1910 200. (Senior Typist Overtime) Duly adopted this 3rd day of April, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HIRING OF RAYMOND SORESINO AS PART-TIME LABORER FOR TOWN LANDFILL/TRANSFER STATION RESOLUTION NO. : 167.2000 INTRODUCED BY Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Solid Waste Facilities Operator has requested Town Board authorization to hire a part-time Laborer to work at the Town Landfill/Transfer Station, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the Solid Waste Facilities Operator to hire Raymond Soresino as a part-time Laborer at an hourly salary of $10.18 to be paid from the appropriate payroll account, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Solid Waste Facilities Operator to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 3rd day of April, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brower NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW NO. OF 2000 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 124, ENTITLED, "PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS" RESOLUTION NO. 168. 2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: _ of 2000 to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 124 entitled, "Parks and Recreation Areas," by adding a new Article II entitled "Prohibition of Firearms" which Local Law would help protect the public from the unauthorized discharge of firearms or bows in Town Parks and Recreation Areas by making it a criminal action to carry and/or discharge a firearm or bow in or near Town Parks and Recreation Areas, and WHEREAS, this legislation is authorized in accordance with New York State Municipal Home Rule Law ~1O, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to set a public hearing concerning adoption of this Local Law, 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 April 17th, 2000, to hear all interested persons and take any necessary action provided by law concerning proposed Local Law No.: , 2000, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish and post a Notice of Public Hearing concerning proposed Local Law No. _ of 2000 in the manner provided by law. Duly adopted this 3rd day of April, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Brower NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW NO. OF 2000 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 136, ARTICLE VI ENTITLED, "USE OF TEMPORARY TOILET FACILITIES" RESOLUTION NO. 169.2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. James Martin WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: _ of 2000 to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 136, Article VI entitled, "Use of Temporary Toilet Facilities," which Local Law would add additional exemptions to the requirement for temporary toilet facilities, and WHEREAS, this legislation is authorized in accordance with New York State Municipal Home Rule Law ~1O, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to set a public hearing concerning adoption of this Local Law, 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 April 17th, 2000, to hear all interested persons and take any necessary action provided by law concerning proposed Local Law No.: , 2000, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish and post a Notice of Public Hearing concerning proposed Local Law No. _ of 2000 in the manner provided by law. Duly adopted this 3rd day of April, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PLACEMENT OF CANOPY ON TOWN COURTHOUSE LAWN FOR USE BY ADIRONDACK NAUTILUS LTD. RESOLUTION NO.: 170. 2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, Adirondack Nautilus, Ltd., has requested permission to place a canopy on the Queensbury Courthouse Lawn, Glenwood Avenue, on May 13th, May 20th and August 12th, 2000 for the conducting of its Open House and Annual 5K Races, and WHEREAS, Adirondack Nautilus, Ltd., has provided a Certificate of Liability Insurance naming the Town as an additional insured party, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes Adirondack Nautilus, Ltd., to place a canopy on the Queensbury Courthouse Lawn, Glenwood Avenue, on May 13th, May 20th and August 12th, 2000, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further directs that Adirondack Nautilus, Ltd. shall have the responsibility to clean and/or repair the site to the satisfaction of the Town' Facilities Manager after each event. Duly adopted this 3rd day of April, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES: None ABSENT :None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADIRONDACK NAUTILUS, LTD. TO HOST TWO (2) 5K RACES RESOLUTION NO. 171. 2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, Adirondack Nautilus, Ltd., has requested permission to conduct two (2) 5K races (runs/walks) as follows: SPONSOR Adirondack Nautilus, Ltd. EVENT 5K RACE (RUN/WALK) DATE: Saturday, May 20th, 2000, 9:00 a.m. and Saturday, August 12th, 2000, 9:00 a.m. PLACE Beginning at Queensbury Racquet Club/ Adirondack Nautilus on Glenwood Avenue, north on Bay Road to Adirondack Community College and returning to Adirondack Nautilus. The run will be conducted on the east side of Bay Road and will return on the west side of Bay to Glenwood Avenue. (Letter regarding location of run attached); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby acknowledges receipt of proof of insurance from the Adirondack Nautilus, Ltd. to conduct two (2) 5K races (runs/walks) in the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby approves these races subject to approval by the Town Highway Superintendent, which may be revoked due to concern for road conditions at any time up to the date and time of the races, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that these races shall also be subject to the approval of the Warren County Superintendent of Public Works. Duly adopted this 27th day of March, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brower NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION APPROVING TRANSIENT MERCHANT/TRANSIENT MERCHANT MARKET LICENSE FOR DEXTER SHOES RESOLUTION NO.: 172.2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. James Martin WHEREAS, Dexter Shoes has submitted an application to the Queensbury Town Board for a Transient Merchant/Transient Merchant Market License to conduct a transient merchant market from June 7th, 2000 through June 10th, 2000 to display 3-wheel conversions for motorcycles in the parking lot located at 1499 State Route 9, Queensbury in accordance with the provisions of Town Code Chapter 160, and WHEREAS, the application is identical to applications submitted by the applicant in previous years and since the Queensbury Planning Board conducted site plan review of the prior applications, it is not necessary to again refer the application to the Planning Board for site plan review, and WHEREAS, the Warren County Planning Board also reviewed the applicant's prior applications and recommended approval of the prior applications, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in accordance with the requirements set forth in Queensbury Town Code ~ 160- 8, the Town Board hereby grants a Transient Merchant! Transient Merchant Market License to Dexter Shoes to conduct a transient merchant market to display 3-wheel conversions for motorcycles in the parking lot located at 1499 State Route 9, Queensbury, subject to the following: 4. Dexter Shoes must pay all fees as required by Town Code Chapter 160; 5. Dexter Shoes must submit a bond in the amount of $10,000 as required by Chapter 160; 6. Dexter Shoes must submit proof of authorization to do business in New York and authorization of agent to receive service of summons or other legal process in New York; 8. The License shall be valid only from June 7th through June 10th, 2000 from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and the license shall expire immediately thereafter; 9. The Transient Merchant License shall not be assignable; and 10. Dexter Shoes must comply with all regulations specified in Town Code ~160-8. Duly adopted this 3rd day of April, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Brower NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND NEW YORK STATE POLICE RESOLUTION NO. 173.2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. James Martin WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury previously entered into a ten (10) year Lease Agreement with the New York State Police to lease an office building constructed on Town property on Aviation Road, Queensbury, and WHEREAS, such Lease Agreement will expire on April 16th, 2000, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury and State Police wish to enter into a new ten (10) year Lease Agreement with provisions similar to those in the original Lease Agreement dated April 16th, 1990, and WHEREAS, a proposed Lease Agreement has been presented at this meeting and is in form approved by Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves and authorizes the Lease Agreement with the New York State Police substantially in the form presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, with modifications in accordance with the memo from the Town Comptroller dated April 3, 2000, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Agreement and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 3rd day of April, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower NOES :None ABSENT:None DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE: ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-Noted they could approved the agreement substantially in this form or you can hold off. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Let's put in there contingent upon the State Police approving the limits that are recommended by our insurance agent. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-Recommended the following; with modifications in accordance with the memo from the Town Comptroller dated April3rd, 2000. TOWN BOARD-In agreement. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF LEMERY MAC KRELL GREISLER LLC, JACK LEBOWITZ, OF COUNSEL, TO PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH FULLER ROAD LITIGATION RESOLUTION NO.: 174.2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. James Martin WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury wishes to engage the legal services of Lemery MacKrell Greisler LLC, Jack Lebowitz, of Counsel, to represent the Town in connection with litigation concerning Fuller Road, and WHEREAS, Lemery MacKrell Greisler LLC has offered to represent the Town for a fee not to exceed $120 per hour, plus reimbursable disbursements, as delineated in its letter dated March 31st, 2000 presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes engagement of the legal services of Lemery MacKrell Greisler LLC, Jack Lebowitz, of Counsel, to represent the Town in connection with litigation concerning Fuller Road for a fee not to exceed $120 per hour, plus reimbursable disbursements, to be paid from the appropriate Town account, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute any documentation and take such other further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 3rd day of April, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower NOES: Mr. Turner, Mr. Brewer ABSENT:None DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE: COUNCILMAN TURNER-Why didn't we consider Mr. Clemens instead of this? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Frankly, I think we felt the attorney we selected will do the finest job for us in this case. COUNCILMAN TURNER-I think he has a conflict I don't care what anybody says. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES, P.c. TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING TECHNICAL SERVICES TO QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 175.2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. James Martin WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Executive Director of Community Development requested proposals from professional engineering firms to provide engineering technical services to the Town's Planning Board and Planning Department, and WHEREAS, the Executive Director received and reviewed proposals and recommended that the Planning Board Chairman and Town Supervisor interview select candidates from a short list, and WHEREAS, the Executive Director, Town Supervisor and Planning Board Chairman have interviewed candidates and recommended that the Town Board authorize engagement of C. T. Male Associates, P.C. (C.T. Male), and WHEREAS, a copy of C.T. Male's proposal for engineering services dated March 24th, 2000 is presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs engagement of C. T. Male Associates, P. C. to provide engineering technical services to the Queensbury Planning Board and Planning Department at the amount listed in the firm's proposal presented at this meeting, to be paid from the appropriate account, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Community Development Director to execute any documentation and take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, contract six-month trail period with a potential eighteen-month extension if we are satisfied with services after six months. Duly adopted this 3rd day of April, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brower NOES: None ABSENT:None PLANNED DISCUSSIONS LAURA MOORE, CHAIRPERSON OF THE SAFETY COMMITTEE-Reported to board on the organization of the Safety Committee and its accomplishments and future goals. CORRESPONDENCE NONE TOWN COUNCILMEN'S CONCERNS COUNCILMAN STEC-Spoke to the board regarding the following issues. Noted he will be attending a meeting at the John Burke apartments regarding various issues. Asked when the property of homeowners will be returned from the Highway Department noted residents of the Town have asked him. Asked the status of the Sylvan Avenue drainage problem noted he needs an answer regarding these issues quickly. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Extended an invitation to the City to attend a workshop regarding Queensbury Forest. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Spoke with Don Coalts noted at their Water Board Meeting, April 10th it will be approved. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Asked if they could get Tom Nace moving on the design? SUPERVISOR BROWER-As long as Glens Falls approves it. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Recommended putting it on the boards agenda in lieu of this and place a call to Don Coalts. COUNCILMAN STEC-Asked Councilman Turner to check on the status of Niagara Mohawk swinging the light at Midnight and Aviation putting it on a longer arm noted that it hasn't been done yet. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Asked the status of the survey responses on the Route 9 survey? WATER SUPERINTENDENT, MR. VAN DUSEN-Spoke with Mike Shaw regarding this there was no clear-cut yes or no, some yes some no. By next week should have more definitive numbers for the board. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Asked Water Superintendent Mr. Van Dusen if he was aware of the Mayor's request regarding Coles Woods the City requesting an easement over the Towns land in order to be able to service their water plant? WATER SUPERINTENDENT, MR. VANDUSEN-Yes he is aware. When the City chooses to reveal plans for what they are proposing to build will be happy to review plans and determine any potential negative or positive impact on the Town. COUNCILMAN STEC-Asked what's their access to the site is it through the Aviation Mall and is it legal? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR . ROUND- That's how they access it now. COUNCILMAN STEC-Asked Executive Director Mr. Round to check into this. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-Will ask Mall Manager. WATER SUPERINTENDENT, MR. VAN DUSEN-Asked Supervisor Brower if he asked the Mayor the status of the negotiations on the sewer contract. SUPERVISOR BROWER-The Mayor said he would talk to Mr. Coalts regarding the matter noting he hopes the negotiations are moving along. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Spoke to the board regarding the first step in getting the sewer extended up Exit 18, up Route 9. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Noted they have to get capacity. WATER SUPERINTENDENT, MR. VAN DUSEN-Buying capacity in the City for sewer treatment is one phase of that this is one of the things that were negotiating. The next logical step is once the County signs a contract with their engineer for the work on the road then we would negotiate with the same engineer to do an extension of the sewer district. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Recommended having a joint meeting with the Council and the Board to talk about this issue. WATER SUPERINTENDENT, MR. VAN DUSEN-Noted he needs to talk with Don Coalts again. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Recommended having the negotiations continue at this stage at that level. WATER SUPERINTENDENT, MR. VAN DUSEN-Noted they have been meeting every two weeks and progressing well. We've been in agreement as to the philosophy. Each of us would work on certain things go back very much wanted to keep the ball rolling. In the range of three or four weeks ago the meeting was canceled and was told that it would be rescheduled. When we pressed the issue after a week or so ended up with some conflicting information as to why it was cancelled. Asked Supervisor Brower to check into this based on the answer tonight will call Mr. Coalts. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Spoke to the board regarding design guidelines. Would like to retain professional help in drafted these. Community effort involve the public would like design guidelines for our commercial corridors specifically the Route 9, 254 intersection, Exit 18 and Bay Road. Recommended having Chris Round prepare RFP to get professional services. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-Noted Zoning Ordinance does have proposed design guidelines for Main Street, Quaker Road, and Route 9, Bay Road. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Talking about the public side. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-Once we have draft ordinance in place let's see how this is going to intermesh with that. Updated board regarding discussions for Veterans Field with City. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Asked Executive Director, Mr. Round to update the board on the land trust. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND- Met on Wednesday with Harry Hansen discussed an approached, met Friday with Mark Schachner defined some tasks for each of us. Will be back to the board in May with some results. To have templates for the by-laws, have draft articles on incorporation. Wouldn't require all recreation commissioners to be members of the Land Trust, but would look for a designee whether it is a Town Recreation Department person, Mr. Hansen has expressed an interest in serving a role on this organization or it may be commission members who may choose. It will be based on the best fit what will provide the best mix for the land trust membership. COMPTROLLER MR. HESS-Updated the board regarding meeting with Insurance Committee from the County. The purpose of meeting was to inform the County and other people attending where we stood on this issue. Identified three issues that we consider to be outstanding that needed resolution. (1) Dollar amount of the value of those claims. (2) Whether there is going to be an installment payment plan for whatever the number comes out to be. (3) Whether they will apply the paid in reserve $214,000 against our claims noted Paul Dusek conceded that we're owed that so we're down to just the two issues. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-Spoke to the board regarding Lake Sunnyside. Noted Councilman Turner and himself met with Highway Superintendent, Rick Missita, and Deputy Highway Superintendent, Mike Travis, Dave Wicks, Steve Myhberg from Lake Sunnyside Association. Lake Sunnyside Association received some money through the Soil and Water Conservation Distrcit to do a watershed assessment. They have identified stormwater as an issue around the lake and identified some improvements. Talked about taking some catch basins that discharge directly into the lake and converting them into infiltration devices. There are four locations they are proposing upgrading those structures to infiltrators. Highway Superintendent, Mr. Missita noted that it needed to be done. The Stormwater Conservation District will come up with actual costs associated with this. The Highway Department will come back to the board for some drainage improvement dollars. Spoke to the board regarding the Main Street project noting there is not a contract signed between the County and Clough Harbour, also noted Clough Harbour will be the engineer for this project. It is important that our County representatives get involved in this project. The County will dictate the design we have representatives at the County that can assist us in telling them what that design will be. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Noted Sunnyside Lake Association is looking at ways to address milfoil that is in the lake. They will be coming back to the board later on in the year with a preferred treatment method. ATTORNEY MATTERS ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-Updated the board regarding the Adirondack Park Agency and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Lake George Park Commission regarding somebody constructing a pond up on Shore Colony. Presented board members with copies of letters from the Adirondack Park Agency and Lake George Park Commission indicating they have no jurisdiction over this activity, awaiting answer from DEe. Spoke to the board regarding the Town contributing to the woman's in-line skating trip to Colorado noted lawfully they couldn't do that. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Recommended having a workshop session next Monday night at seven o'clock. RESOLUTION ADJOURNING TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO. 176A. 2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Regular Town Board Meeting. Duly adopted this 3rd day of April, 2000 by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Brower Noes: None AbsentNone On motion the meeting, was adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk Town of Queensbury