2001-08-06
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING
AUGUST 6, 2001
MTG. #32
RES. 314-3297:10 p.rn.
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DENNIS BROWER COUNCILMAN
THEODORE TURNER COUNCILMAN DANIEL STEC COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
COUNCILMAN JAMES MARTIN
TOWN OFFICIALS RALPH VANDUSEN-WATER/WASTE WATER SUPT. MIKE SHAW-DEPTY
SUPT. OF WASTEWATER CHRIS ROUND-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT HENRY HESS-TOWN COMPTROLLER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER
SUPERVISOR BROWER-OPENED THE MEETING
1.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS
1.1 Bay Ridge Rescue Squad-New Ambulance
NOTICE SHOWN
Supervisor Brower-Connie, I do not know who is here from your squad, Joe? Do you want to introduce
yourselves for the record, I would appreciate it.
Ms. Connie Tucker-My name is Connie Tucker I am the President of Bay Ridge Rescue Squad
Mr. Joe Blair-I am Joe Blair, associated with the Bay Ridge Rescue Squad.
Supervisor Brower-Thank you, Good Evening. Do you want to up date the public as to the scope of your
project and the reasons behind it.
Ms. Connie Tucker-In April of this year I came in front of the Board requesting monies for purchase of a
new ambulance and to replace a 1975 Freightliner a 1995 Freightliner Ambulance which since we had, had
an accident with it a year ago or so we had to put a lot of money into this vehicle. It is large it is
cumbersome; it costs a lot in fuel. We have had to replace the transmission we have had several thousand
dollars worth of repair costs to it. When we repair it we have to send it to Albany. We were offered Forty-
five thousand dollars for this ambulance as to this point and do have a buyer for it. We had talked to the
people we had purchased our other ambulance from two years ago Med- Tech and they quoted us a price of,
hold on a second, I do have it here somewhere, Ninety-eight thousand nine hundred and twenty-four
dollars. It is going to cost us Seven hundred and forty five dollars to have the ambulance re-lettered, the
reflected striping needs to be put on it was another three hundred dollars, acessories, radios etc. they have
to be put into the ambulance at a cost of accessories, at a cost of three thousand eight hundred and eighty
six dollars, radios just installing the radios that we presently have in this ambulance just to put them in the
new ambulance is thirteen hundred dollars which brought the cost up to One hundred and five thousand one
hundred and fifty five dollars. We were able, as I said; we had an offer for forty-five thousand dollars for
this ambulance, which is primarily a good buy at this price. They were aware of the problems that we have
had with the ambulance, they have a twin to it and we are still willing to give us that amount of money.
Supervisor Brower-Connie, was that always forty-five thousand?
Ms. Tucker-Yes.
Supervisor Brower-ok, for some reason I recall sixty thousand, but it may have been a different discussion.
Ms. Tucker-No, it was forty-five thousand that they have offered us for the ambulance and I did get a, in
writing a letter of intent from them stating that they would purchase the ambulance for forty-five thousand.
There was some issues with my ambulance replacement account as you are all aware but, possibly the
public isn't. When we re-negotiated our contact at the end of 1999, we were told that we were going to get
a total of thirty-two thousand dollars for an ambulance replacement account and when it went to public
hearing it was only eighteen thousand, for each year, which shorted us monies to be able to come right out
and just pay for this new ambulance with what we have in our fund. We have with the eighteen thousand
from last year and I believe Henry the figure you gave me that we had a balance at the end of 99' of two
thousand seven hundred and sixty-three dollars in our ambulance replacement fund we received eighteen
thousand last year and we are due eighteen thousand this year. It still left us sort twenty-one thousand
dollars. I came to the Board to ask them if they could give us the additional twenty-one thousand since for
four years we had been I hate to use the term, screwed, but, we did not get the additional eighteen thousand
for last year. I was told that there wasn't really anything that we could do about it once we had re-
negotiated the contracts because the error had already been there and it had already had gone to public
hearing. We had only gotten sixteen thousand the two years prior to that which would be 98' and 99',
which still shorted us for those years. So, I'm coming here today to request that you guys give me twenty-
one thousand dollars so I can purchase this new ambulance without having to take out a loan. I know that
the referendum that Henry, that you guys had put together the resolution had stated that Mr. Hess
recommended that we borrow the additional twenty-one thousand dollars because you are, fire and ems
budget at the end of this year will only have thirty- two thousnd dollars left in it. I really do not want to
borrow money for this, had I been, had we been given the amounts of money that we were supposed to get
over the last four year period this would have been a mute point. We would have had plenty of money to
pay cash for this ambulance without any issue. Which was the whole reason that the ambulance
replacement accounts were set up was so that we never had to take out a loan for an ambulance and we
could replace them on a schedule. This ambulance is actually two years early to be replaced, but we really
do not want to put any more money into this ambulance. If! can get rid of it for forty-five thousand I want
to get rid of it for forty-five thousand. The Med- Tech that we bought in 99' we have not had a single bit of
trouble with it. It has run good it is great on gas we have had very little maintenance on it other than oil,
you know, changing the oil and lubes and all of the other additional items that go along with that.
Supervisor Brower-Connie how many miles are on this 95' Freightliner?
Ms. Tucker-Almost sixteen thousand. Which is low, but we do not use it because we do not want anything
more to happen to it. We use that as a second line ambulance instead of a first line ambulance.
Supervisor Brower-Well, there are other reasons to right; it is a huge piece of equipment.
Ms. Tucker-It is huge, it is a Cummings Diesel engine, and it is as big as a fire truck. I was not for it when
we purchased it however, membership at that time had voted and I was not in office at that time to really
push not buying it.
Councilman Brewer-What, why didn't you get the money in 98' and 99'?
Ms. Tucker-It was a oversight in the contact and so when, at that time we just felt that since we were not
going to be replacing an ambulance for a while we could live with what we had until the contracts came up
for two thousand and two thousand and one. When we sat with you gentlemen at that time we had
discussed this issue and it was assumed that and I know we should never make assumptions, that
Councilman Brewer-I guess, how come was it left out of the budget when we did the budget and
Comptroller Henry Hess-I think there is a difference in understanding between the squad and the town, but
the budget is the way it was negotiated and it was the way it was adopted. I mean, they had gotten sixteen
thousand for the prior two years; the fire contract went up to eighteen thousand if there was a discussion
about doubling that to thirty-two or thirty-six thousand I missed it. But when we published the documents
immediately following those meetings that is where it was. So, there may have been a miss understanding
between the squad and the town but I do not, I would not characterize it as an omission, because I think the
town adopted what they intended to adopt.
Ms. Tucker-Well, I can tell you that a squad that only makes 90 calls a year in this town gets nineteen
thousand dollars for their ambulance and we are making 750 calls a year and only getting eighteen
thousand for two ambulances.
Councilman Stec-Correct me if I am wrong Henry, or Connie, you are on a two year contact right now so at
right around January this coming year is when you are due for your next contract, right?
Ms. Tucker-Actually, I believe we will probably be sitting down sometime within the next month or so I
would think to talk. The budgets for next year have been submitted.
Supervisor Brower-Now, the two thousand this was scheduled to replaced in two thousand three initially?
Ms. Tucker-Two thousand and two, actually, two thousand and three, yes, I am sorry, two thousand and
three.
Supervisor Brower-You know, I know we discussed, Henry you and I discussed the fact that you would
have to go out and borrow some money if we enabled this purchase. I frankly did not have a problem in
borrowing money over a five-year period or whatever it took. Our vehicle reserve fund for fire and ems is
down to thirty two thousand if I am correct. Is that correct Henry?
Comptroller Hess-Yes.
Supervisor Brower-And that is a very low balance for us to maintain in that account which we use to front
occasionally front companies monies when they have an emergency, things of that nature. That has
traditionally been at over a hundred thousand dollars and I would hate to drop it even further because you
did not want to take a loan, quite frankly. But, that is my opinion I do not know how the rest of the board
feels on that, but.
Ms. Tucker-Dennis, I came here initially in April, I understand the necessity for Bay Ridge Fire Company
to have a new building. You appropriated a hundred thousand, over a hundred thousand dollar for them as
an adjustment to their budget for this year and you gave fifteen thousand dollars to North Queensbury to
hire a lawyer. I would think that some place you gentlemen should be able to find me twenty-one thousand
dollars so that I do not have to secure a loan and pay interest on it over a five-year period.
Councilman Brewer-Typically don't we get money back at the end of the year Henry to put into that fund?
Didn't we last year?
Comptroller Hess-You get a very small residuals, I think of the five of the financial reports that we have
received so far, there is probably adjustment totaling maybe five or six thousand dollars.
Councilman Brewer-How much did we get back last year?
Comptroller Hess-I do not know but it was not significant. I mean it is simply insurance and debt service
adjustments on the Squads contracts. We adjust those and once we see what the financial report are and if
it is insurance we pay the difference or adjust the difference out, if it is debt service we only take the debt
back we do not issue credits. The issue about whether to borrow or grant is a I think you have two issues,
one is the paying of interest it will be paid by the Town it is towns debt, I cannot disagree with Connie's
assessment that a loan or excuse me a grant is always cheaper than debt. Whether you have to pay interest
or whether you don't. So, I think the Town has to look at it from its own financing methods as opposed to
how it affects the squad because it will only effect the squad's budget not their other operations.
Councilman Stec- Which is why I raised the question we are going to re-negotiate next years budget
anyways. I do not have a big problem with the, I do not understand your concern with the debt.
Ms. Tucker-I just think that every time you have to borrow money it just is a larger burden on the taxpayer.
Yes, over a period of time it is not so much out of their pocket at one time, but if I were to take out a loan
for this ambulance at five point five percent the figures that I got from First National, from Evergreen, we
are going to be paying something like over a five year period, paying something like fifteen thousand, ten
thousand or twelve thousand dollars over that period just in interest alone.
Councilman Brewer-On a twenty one thousand dollar loan?
Ms. Tucker-No on a hundred thousand dollar loan for the ambulance?
Councilman Brewer-Why would you borrow all of it though?
Councilman Stec- Y ou are just going to borrow the twenty-one.
Councilman Brewer-Borrow the twenty-one thousand.
Ms. Tucker-Well, Henry suggested that we borrow, this was the first I have been aware of that, I
understood that when we met that he wanted me to look at borrowing the whole thing, the whole shot.
Supervisor Brower-Not the whole thing, no only what you wanted us to give you.
Councilman Stec-Just the twenty-one.
Ms. Tucker-Now, when I did get the issuance of it and I did talk to the bank they say that, yea, I can get a
hundred thousand dollars at five point five percent but they do not think that they can give me twenty-one
thousand dollars at five point five percent, I can get seven point seven percent.
Councilman Brewer-at five and a half?
Councilman Stec-I would think that they would.
Councilman Brewer-So, what we could do, Connie, is if we you get the loan for twenty-one thousand next
year or this year actually when we re-negotiate your contract and make room for that provision you pay the
loan off next year.
Councilman Stec- Y ou can always payoff early.
Councilman Brewer-The eighteen thousand is going to come anyways right or the thirty-six.
Ms. Tucker-Well, the eighteen thousand is already figured into this for this year. But the eighteen thousand
that will be due sometime this month.
Councilman Stec-So, the eighteen thousand next year if you get twenty-one thousand next year
Councilman Brewer-No, she is talking about, thirty-six thousand, right?
Ms. Tucker-Well, actually next year budget I am asking for forty thousand. Ok.
Councilman Brewer-Well, if you get to thirty-six then you just put the twenty
Supervisor Brower-Joe, I hate to keep you out of this discussion,
Mr. Joe Blair-That is perfectly all right.
Ms. Tucker-He is my support he keeps me in check.
Supervisor Brower-Connie has indicated that it is crucial that you do this now as opposed to waiting two
years when the schedule replacement would occur. Do you concur?
Mr. Blair-Yea. For one thing as she said we have a letter of commitment from the people who want this
ambulance and they really want it bad. They may not wait a long as this?
Supervisor Brower-Who wants this ambulance currently? What is the party?
Ms. Tucker-Duansburg.
Supervisor Brower-Duansburg.
Ms. Tucker-They are down near the other side of Albany. The other thing Dennis is that the depreciation
of this ambulance, in two years I will be lucky if I can get twenty thousand for this ambulance in two years
and I will end up paying an additional twenty thousand for another ambulance in two years.
Councilman Brewer-How long does it take to get it?
Ms. Tucker-I can have it in four weeks.
Supervisor Brower-I appreciate that, if you would have a seat and we will see if anyone from the public
would like to comment on this public hearing? At this time I would like to invite any members of the
public to come forward and talk about if you have any comment regarding this ambulance purchase now is
the time to make your comments. If you do have a comment just state your name and address for the
record please. No comment. Ok. In that case I will close the public hearing portion of the this and ask
Connie and Joe to come forward again please. Board Members any further questions of Connie or Joe?
Councilman Turner-What is the dead line on the commitment from Duansburg?
Ms. Tucker-I do not have a dead line on them I do have a dead line on the purchase of the ambulance
though and they have just extended it through the end of this month.
Councilman Stec-Connie you seem to make it sound to me that the 95' truck that we have got now is too
big almost for your needs, you had mentioned, my question is the vehicle that you are proposing to buy is it
smaller?
Ms. Tucker-Much smaller
Councilman Stec-is it more alone the lines of what you think you need?
Ms. Tucker-It is a much smaller ambulance I can get into areas, it is a regular type three modular
ambulance which you will see most of the agencies have. This particular one that I am trying to get rid of
is about twice the size.
Councilman Stec-I have seen it.
Ms. Tucker-It is as big as a fire truck.
Mr. Blair-Some people are intimidated by it as far as you driving it goes.
Ms. Tucker-There are many areas that we cannot get into with that ambulance.
Councilman Brewer-Why didn't they think about that when they bought it?
Ms. Tucker-I was there when we bought it I was not an officer at the time, I was very much opposed to
buying an ambulance this large, however the powers that be at that time made a good case for it and
Councilman Stec-But this, the ambulance that we are talking about buying you think is more appropriate
for the kind of use that it will see than what you have got now.
Ms. Tucker-Absolutely. It is a much smaller ambulance; I can still stand inside of it.
Supervisor Brower-I have seen the Freightliner Ambulance and to me it is
Ms. Tucker-I wish I had brought it with me.
Supervisor Brower-useless. I mean they are just too big.
Ms. Tucker-They are huge.
Supervisor Brower-I never could understand why a squad would buy one of those ambulances. But, you
know, I guess the thing that bothers me and probably the Town Board is when errors are made in
purchasing and procurement that does result in negative experience. The squads do not hesitate to come
back to us and ask for another piece of equipment. There is no delay I mean it is like, lets get rid of this
thing.
Ms. Tucker-I am just trying to save us money in the long run, ok.
Supervisor Brower-Understand.
Ms. Tucker-We run on a shoe string budget as it is, we have no money left at the end of the year and as a
matter of fact when we go from year to year on contact and that is just because of maintenance costs on the
building. Maintenance cost on the building, maintenance costs on the ambulances you know just general
fuel costs, we took care of the fuel problem so that's an issue that was resolved as far as the increase in
costs but that does not take care of the increase in my propane bill. That does not take care of the increase
in my Niagara Mohawk Bill or my Telephone Bill or the contracts that I have on my generator that we have
to have. We are required to have and all the other. We do not have any extra bells and whistles at Bay
Ridge, we have never, we have always in good faith come to the Board, we have only asked or what we
needed we have never asked for any more than that we have managed to get through each year barely and
we are at the point where I have equipment that needs to be replaced that shoul have been replaced over the
last five years that is worn out that I cannot replace because of the amount of money it has cost us for this
ambulance.
Councilman Brewer-I am fine, I will introduce the resolution.
Councilman Stec-I will second it.
Supervisor Brower-Ok, the resolution is moved or introduced by Councilman Brewer, seconded by
Councilman Stec, further discussion?
Councilman Turner-This is to borrow the money?
Councilman Brewer-To borrow the money the twenty-one thousand.
Councilman Stec-For four years, as written.
Supervisor Brower-To borrow the twenty-one thousand, as written.
Councilman Stec- Twenty-one thousand.
Councilman Brewer-And then if they re-negotiate their contact next year, what ever happens
Councilman Stec-ifthey want to pay it off early, ...we can deal with that in negotiations.
Supervisor Brower-Asked for vote.
RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE OF 2001 MEDTEC SATURN AMBULANCE BY BAY
RIDGE RESCUE SQUAD, INC.
RESOLUTION NO.: 314,2001
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury and the Bay Ridge Rescue Squad, Inc., (Squad) have
entered into an Agreement for emergency protection services which Agreement sets forth a number of
terms and conditions including a condition that the Squad will not purchase or enter into any binding
contract to purchase any piece of apparatus, equipment, vehicles, real property or make any improvements
that would require the Squad to acquire a loan or mortgage or use money placed in a "vehicles fund"
without prior approval of the Queensbury Town Board, and
WHEREAS, the Squad wishes to replace its 1995 ambulance and purchase one (1) 2001 Medtec
Saturn ambulance for the approximate total sum of $105, 155, and
WHEREAS, the Squad has been guaranteed a sale price of $45,000 on its 1995 ambulance
resulting in a net purchase cost of the new ambulance in the amount of approximately $60,155, and
WHEREAS, the Squad wishes to use approximately $39,155 in its restricted vehicle fund toward
the ambulance purchase, leaving a balance of approximately $21,000 needed for the ambulance purchase,
and
WHEREAS, the Town Comptroller has recommended that the Squad finance the balance of
approximately $21,000 with installment debt for four (4) years, and
WHEREAS, on August 6th, 2001, the Town Board held a public hearing, heard all interested
persons and the Town wishes to facilitate the financing on behalf of the Squad,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the purchase of one (1) 2001
Medtec Saturn ambulance for the approximate sum of $105,155 by the Bay Ridge Rescue Squad, Inc., with
the understanding that the Squad will sell its 1995 ambulance for the amount of $45,000 and use those
funds for the purchase along with $39,155 presently in its restricted vehicle fund, and will finance the
balance of approximately $21,000 with installment debt for four (4) years, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby approves the incurring of debt on the part of the Bay
Ridge Rescue Squad, Inc., provided however, that the Town Board shall not and does not by this
Resolution create or intend to create any assumption on the part of the Town of Queensbury of any
obligation or liability for the financing.
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 2001 by the following vote:
AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower
NOES None
ABSENT: Mr. Martin
1.2 PUBLIC HEARING - AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE LONG RIFLE ENTERPRISES, INC.
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ONE ACRE TO HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ONE ACRE
NOTICE SHOWN
Mr. Sean Garvey-For the record my name is Sean Garvey I am one of the owners of Long Rifle Enterprises
and Garvey Volkswagon, Hyundai
Supervisor Brower-Goodevening.
Mr. Garvey-Since I honestly do not know how you are all going to vote tonight I have to give a compete
presentation even though some of you maybe have heard this or have read excerpts of it from the previous
meetings. A short introduction, for twenty-three years I have been in business we took on the Volkswagen
line in 1978, in 1990 we took on Hyundai's in 1998 we took on Kia and this year we took on the Mitsubishi
dealer. I started in business in 1978 with twelve employees and now I employ fifty-six. I would like to
share with the Board some statistics, that the impact that my business has had on the Town in the last eight
and a half years. In the last eight and a half years out of the twenty-three I have been in business my
payroll has totaled fourteen million dollars. I have generated seven point five million dollars in sales tax of
which Queensbury has received one point six million and of which Warren County has received one point
six million. I have also paid one hundred and twelve thousand dollar in school and property tax. The
history of my application is fairly simple but I will try to make it short and concise and to the point. Last
summer due to the crowed conditions at the Volkswagen Hyundai dealership on Quaker Road my brothers
and I felt the most economical way that we could address this situation was to store cars elsewhere. We
had to store up to three months of cars at a time to meet the needs and the selection that typically is
necessary in the car business. We picked a site that was owned by the Army Corp. of Engineers offfrom
Dix Avenue. After a second round of bidding September 25th oflast year our bid was accepted for the
property. As soon as it was accepted I asked Chris Round for a letter of determination of our use, proposed
use for the property as a storage facility and to bring customers on the site to show our cars there. I have
copies of everything that I have mentioned here in case you wish. In this October 16th a letter of the year
2000, basically he granted use or hesaid the site application for auto storage facility could proceed but I
could not bring customers on the site. Sales of automobiles would require the issuance of a use variance as
well as site plan review. He felt if I brought customers on the site to occasionally show a car that was there
it would be construed as auto sales and auto sales is not allowable use under light industrial, it would be
highway commercial use. Because obviously it was October of last year I wanted to pave the site before
the snow flew asphalt plants typically close around Thanksgiving. I was kind of under the gun here, so I
decided and my brothers to proceed with a simple site plan application for a storage facility so I would not
need anything special and then if I wanted to bring customers on the site I would need to ask for a use
variance or a zone change which would delay the application. We chose to attempt to beat the clock before
the snow flew to pave the lots so we decided to proceed with just the normal storage facility pplication and
in the future we were going to apply for a zone change. We always wanted to bring customers on the site.
So, November of last year we were approved, and because of the weather we did quite a lot of site work but
we just could not put the last coat of pavement on the site. So, this spring we paved it and planted and
hydro seeded it. May 30th I applied for a zone change, June 30th of this year I was became a Mitsubishi
dealer, July 11th of this year the Warren County Planning Board had to review my application, it was
denied. I was scheduled to be at a Mitsubishi dealer meeting then, I really did not want to go I felt I really
wanted to be at this meeting because it is my job out of my three brothers and I to handle this type of thing,
we split our duties. But, basically from my understanding of these meetings with the County I felt a zone
change wouldn't really impact the County it was my simplistic thinking. You cannot really make a
presentation there as you can here they basically review the application they ask questions and then they
vote. It is nothing interactive, like this, so I felt it was fairly safe to send him, I briefly him on everything
and gave him all the paper work. He noticed the tone of negativism in the board, he asked them if they
could table it to see if I could present it because he felt there was something I was missing or he was
missing. They said no, they had to get it back to the Town and basically they voted no because they felt
there was inconsistent statements made to the Board during the application previous review. I felt I should
address this because it is I maybe look at things too simplistically but the original, over a year ago the
original application was for a site plan. This was a totally different and new application for a zone change
there was two separate things. Did not relate anything at all to each other and I felt the zone change in tat
little corner of the County would not really impact the County. Because they voted no I needed a super
majority at the Queensbury Planning Board which I did receive. Staff notes were in favor of the zone
change, which I have supplied to you. This application is strictly for a zone change from light industrial to
highway commercial and nothing more than that. My, originally intended use was for auto sales because I
wanted to bring customers onto the lot. Eighty percent of the corridor is highway commercial; I have ten
letters of endorsement from adjacent landowners, which are in my application. Three percent of the Town
is zoned commercial, in the Town's comprehensive use plan it states that highway commercial can expand
primarily through infill. The purpose of these zones is to confine development of this type to areas where
while providing for minimal expansion primarily through infill. If you look at the site in my application or
the one that is on display here by infilling that little piece thatwhole corridor becomes highway commercial
up to that point. The payroll and sales tax numbers I supplied to you earlier are an example what a
commercial use can bring to the town vs a light industrial use. If approved I will be back with a site plan
application for a new dealership. I will build a new dealership I will hire more people I will sell more cars I
will collect more sales tax and I will give you more money to spend on this town. I ask your approval for
the zone change from light industrial to highway commercial, please.
Supervisor Brower-Thank you very much.
Mr. Garvey-I tried to make it short and sweet, I know you guys don't like people to babble on here.
Supervisor Brower-Questions from the Town Board at this time?
Councilman Brewer-I have none.
Councilman Stec-I do not have any.
Councilman Turner-The one concern that I had was that when you bought it and bid on it you knew it was
light industrial?
Mr. Garvey-Absolutely.
Councilman Turner-All right so you did not buy a pig in a polk.
Mr. Garvey-Pardon me?
Councilman Turner-You did not buy a pig in a polk.
Mr. Garvey-Correct.
Councilman Turner-So, then you won out on the bid and then you come back and wanted to change it from
light industrial to highway commercial.
Mr. Garvey-What I tried to mention is that my original use was for storage and that was the only use that I
needed it for at that time. But, I have become a Mitsubishi dealer since then and I would like to expand.
Councilman Turner-I read the previous minutes and quite a while ago and they did indicate the
conversation between you and some of the members on the Planning Board relative to the fact that you
could not bring people down there.
Mr. Garvey-I had to promise that and I did not break that promise, no customers have touched that site.
Councilman Turner-But the building is not up now. The building is not up.
Mr. Garvey-You mean
Councilman Turner-The lights are there but the building is not up.
Mr. Gravey-Correct, because we had applications to Mitsubishi and other dealers for to become a new
dealer we felt we did not need to proceed with that because that would be spending money that was going
to be wasted so we decided not to complete the site plan, not to put a building there because I had hoped to
get it rezoned so I could put a larger building further back in the site.
Supervisor Brower-Mr. Garvey, if I am not mistaken we had a Mitsubishi further down on Quaker Road
didn't we at one time?
Mr. Garvey-I think that was Mazda.
Supervisor Brower-Was that Mazda? I wasn't sure.
Mr. Garvey-That was the Chrysler store now.
Councilman Brewer-That, formerly was Mazda.
Supervisor Brower-Thank you very much, we will ask the public for any comment now and may ask you to
come back in a few minutes. At this time I would like to open the public hearing to anyone that would like
to comment on this project either favorably or unfavorably? Any comment from the public? Ok. Seeing
none I will close the public hearing portion of the meeting ask Mr. Garvey to come back to the microphone.
Councilman Brewer-We have to do a SEQRA long form?
Town Counsel Schachner-It was in the packet.
Councilman Brewer-Got it.
Supervisor Brower-Ok. Chris do you want to lead us through this SEQRA form?
Executive Director Round-Sure, I just want to point out, I do have two things additional in front of you,
you do have staff comments and those are the comments of Laura Moore our Staff Planner. I just want to
highlight that this area it is another piece of light industrial land that we are loosing to highway commercial
use and that has been the tread. I mean, one property in and of itself is generally seen as insignificant but
you realize several other properties in this area were zoned from light industrial to highway commercial
and generally the trend is not to go back to that use. One of the things that we have tried to highlight in the
four years that I have been here is that there is a limit to the inventory of light industrial land, this particular
industrial land does have sewer facilities available to it which if you look at another area of town there are
no properties with waste water services. The Town did approve a zone change in this same area from light
industrial to highway commercial use appoximately three years ago and I think Mr. Garvey was involved
with that. That involved his dealership on Quaker Road and several other properties. There is an industrial
park just south of this site and that is the Queensbury Economic Development Corp. industrial park it is
home to NDP, which is Northeastern Data Processing, which does provide jobs and creates wealth in the
community. They actually provide payroll services to the Town of Queensbury. Opposite there is also the
AMG, the former AMG facility. However the trend has been commercial, Quaker Road is a commercial
corridor; you see K Mart is in this area the Hess, etc. I just want to go on the record with that information.
I would like you to go through the staff notes, there are several questions that are asked on the application
of the applicant and I am trying to get you in the habit of doing that when you do consider rezonings. I
would just, I will read our staff notes on the records so that they are on the record.
Councilman Brewer-Let me find where you are Chris before ..
Director Round-Ok, It is a two page, it is the Town of Queensbury Planning Board Community
Development Staff notes and they are dated July 17, 2001. There are nine questions and these nine
questions are also found on the application for a petition to rezone itself. Let me know.
Councilman Brewer-I am there.
Director Round-One, is what need is being met by the proposed change in zone or new zone and our,
Laura's response; the applicant proposed to utilize an approved storage area for sale of vehicles, so it
satisfies the applicants desires I think is what the short answer. What existing zones if any can meet the
stated need; Highway Commercial Zone is the zone that allows this particular use no other zones do allow
this use. Three, how is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones? Mr. Garvey indicated the
property is nearly encompassed by highway commercial zones. As I indicated there are light industrial
uses to the west and to the south. What physical characteristics on site are suitable to the proposed zone?
The response was the parcel is close to the road and is level no significant topography change. You might
also note that is on a commercial corridor, has adequate traffic facilities has wastewater disposal facilities
etc. How would the proposed zone effect public facilities? And when you tal about public facilities those
are as you talk tonight, fire, ems, highway etc. and those impacts I think are moderate or minimal. Six,
what is the current zoning classification not appropriate for the property in question, this is the one that I
struggled with and I hope you would struggle as well. Laura had indicated that existing zoning
classification and property is appropriate because the existing industrial land located in the west and south
west side of the property the change in zone does reduce the amount of industrial zone land in the
community the proposed zoning highway commercial allows for other site plan review uses. So, it is a toss
up there, you are in between two areas and it has been and trend has been to highway commercial. Seven,
what are the environmental impacts of proposed change, and I defer to the EAF, let you walk through that.
Eight, how is the proposal compatible with the relevant proportions of the Comprehensive Land Use
Master Plan? Indicates that the proposed zone change s located in neighborhood ten of the 1998
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. What I do know and I have a copy of a draft ordinance for you tonight,
this area is proposed for a commercial industrial zone, which is a mix of commercial and industrial uses.
Allowing industrial uses is consistent with what the Compo Plan has indicated and what the zoning
ordinance proposes. Nine, how are the wider interest of the community being served by this proposal. It
indicates that it is going to provide additional highway commercial zone coverage within the Town and
allow for additional commercial development. So, to go on the record with that information I will walk
you through a.
Councilman Brewer-One question, Chris? If 80% of the corridor is commercial or highway commercial,
how much acreage does that leave light industrial? Or other zones?
Director Round-I am sorry, say that again?
Councilman Brewer-How much light industrial land are we talking about, physical land?
Director Round-This particular property
Councilman Brewer-the seven acres, but, in that general area that has not been changed or, give or take?
Director Round - I do not have that in front of me
Councilman Brewer-Twenty, Fifty?
Director Round-Tim, there is, there is less than twenty or thirty acres in this immediate area we are looking
at if you look, as part of the new zoning ordinance the Earltown property part of that is zoned industrial but
that has limited development potential. We are looking at some additional rezoning, north of County Line
Road or I guess would be east of County Line Road to add some industrial inventory. But, it is a limited
commodity it measurers in the hundreds of acres town wide and we are seventy two square miles in area so
it is an extremely minor portion of the town and I would just go on record that, there is an editorial two
weeks ago from the Post Star I think it was Ken Tingley actually wrote it. It indicated that lets recognize
that we are a tourism center of the Town and lets just forget all these other things and lets just out toward
and promote tourism. I would like to debate the merits of that because, if you look at you need diversity in
the community you need a proper mix and if you putall your eggs in one basket it is very rare that
communities are driven on tourism based economies alone. It is not in my opinion it is not an appropriate
strategy for economic development. I think Warren Rosenthal is here and I think Warren would agree with
me and some other people that are here.
Councilman Stec-I would agree to.
Mr. Garvey-Could I respond to a couple of points that he made?
Supervisor Brower-Certainly.
Mr. Garvey-In the Town of Queensbury there is basically eleven hundred and thirty nine acres for
commercial use and nineteen hundred eighty six acres for industrial use that is three percent vs five percent.
So, there is actually more acreage in town put aside for industrial use. Auto sales is not a tourist type of
business, I made the scenario the last, when I was talking to the Planning Board and maybe my simplistic
way of looking at things. If you allow this to get rezoned and lets make believe I put a dealership on it and
at five years from now the dealership I decided to sell it or it went bankrupt or whatever happened. Now
the building was vacant and it was zoned highway commercial, if someone wanted to build toys there and
they would have to sit in front of this board to ask for a use variance or to get it rezoned so that they could
use it for a light industrial use. My presumption since that person is now going to fill that empty building
and employ people that you would say yes to their request. So, this since this is in the corner of the town on
a main corridor, which typically main corridors are used for retail use, highway commercial use. If you go,
if you go thorough the list of the types of highway commercials that are allowable in this town vs light
industrial there is fifty different types of highway commercials uses allowed and only seventeen light
industrial uses. Highway Commercial use is what drives the economy in this town, light industrial use is
predominately is payroll and land tax. I paid a hundred and twelve thousand dollars in eight and a half
years in property tax, that is a drop in the bucket compared to what you have collected in sales tax. What
drives the Town what is the lift blood of this town is retail sales, collecting sales tax.
Director Round-I just, I am not debating Mr. Garvey about this particular project my job is to put
perspective on what we are doing here tonight I do not disagree with the one exception the numbers Mr.
Garvey quotes if you look at I have provided the town with three years ago of inventory of light industrial
lands, I apologize I do not have it here tonight, those numbers are not completely accurate because what is
developable I mean, light industrial land that is, we are looking at of that nineteen hundred acres. I do not
know the number Mr. Garvey quoted, that includes the Big Cedar Swamp which is about nine hundred
acres which is all wet land, which is not developable. You have to look a little deeper than just the initial
number. I just want to make sure you know that we are not we are comparing apples to apples. But, let me
go through the EAF for you can consider those elements. It is a long EAF which we asked to be submitted,
typically with unlisted SEQRA, unlisted type projects.
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, PART II
IMPACT ON LAND
1. Will the proposed action result in physical change to the project site: NO
Examples that would apply to column 2
Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the
general slopes in the project area exceed 1O%.
Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet.
Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles.
Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground
surface.
Construction that will continue for more then 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage.
Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e.,
rock or soil) per year.
Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill.
Construction in a designated floodway.
Other impacts:
2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes,
geological formations, etc.) NO
Specific land forms:
IMPACT ON WATER
3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? NO
Examples that would apply
Developable area of site contains a protected water body.
Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream.
Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body.
Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland.
Other impacts:
4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? NO
Examples that would apply
A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre
increase or decrease.
Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area.
Other impacts:
5. Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? NO
Examples that would apply
Proposed action will require a discharge permit.
Proposed action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed
(project) action.
Proposed action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute
pumping capacity.
Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system.
Proposed action will adversely affect groundwater.
Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have
inadequate capacity.
Proposed action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day.
Proposed action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the
extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions.
Proposed action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100
gallons.
Proposed action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services.
Proposed action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of
existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities.
Other impacts:
6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? NO
Examples that would apply
Proposed action would change flood water flows.
Proposed action may cause substantial erosion.
Proposed action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns.
Proposed action will allow development in a designated floodway.
Other impacts:
IMPACT ON AIR
7. Will proposed action affect air quality? NO
Examples that would apply
Proposed action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour.
Proposed action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour.
Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 Ibs. per hour or a heat source producing more
than 10 million BTU's per hour.
Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use.
Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing
industrial areas.
Other impacts:
IMP ACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8. Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? NO
Examples that would apply
Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or
near site or found on the site.
Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat.
Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes.
Other impacts:
9. Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? NO
Examples that would apply
Proposed action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or
wildlife species.
Proposed action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of
age) or other locally important vegetation.
IMP ACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES
10. Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? NO
Examples that would apply
The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland,
hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.)
Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land.
The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, if
located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land.
The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land management
systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g.
cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff)
Other impacts:
IMP ACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? NO
Examples that would apply
Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current
surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural.
Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will
eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource.
Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views
known to be important to the area.
Other impacts:
IMP ACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOCIAL RESOURCES
12. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological
importance? NO
Examples that would apply
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or
site listed on the State or National Register of historic places.
Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site.
Proposed action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS
Site Inventory.
Other impacts:
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
13. Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational
opportunities? NO
Examples that would apply
The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity.
A major reduction of an open space important to the community.
Other impacts:
IMP ACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
14. Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental
area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14 (g)? NO
List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA.
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? NO
Examples that would apply
Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods.
Proposed action will result in major traffic problems.
Other impacts:
IMP ACT ON ENERGY
16. Will proposed action affect the community's sources offuel or energy supply? NO
Examples that would apply
Proposed action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of energy in the
municipality.
Proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system
to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use.
Other impacts:
NOISE AND ODOR IMP ACTS
17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? NO
Examples that would apply
Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility.
Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day).
Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise
outside of structures.
Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen.
Other impacts:
IMP ACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
18. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? NO
Examples that would apply
Proposed action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil,
pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic
low level discharge or emission.
Proposed action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous,
highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.)
Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other flammable
liquids.
Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used
for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste.
Other impacts:
IMP ACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
19. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? NO
Examples that would apply
The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to
grow by more than 5%.
The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5%
per year as a result of this project.
Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals.
Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use.
Proposed action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic
importance to the community.
Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and
fire, etc.)
Proposed action will set an important precedent for future projects.
Proposed action will create or eliminate employment.
Other impacts:
20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?
NO
Discussion held before vote: Councilman Stec-I do not have my Planning Board Minutes in front of me,
can you tell me what the vote of the board was? Director Round-Mr. Vollaro was the lone dissenter.
Councilman Brewer-That is only a recommendation though. Town Counsel Schachner noted that a super
majority would be needed, because the Warren County Planning Board recommended denial.
Resolution introduced and seconded, further discussion:
Supervisor Brower-Chris I am glad you brought up the light industrial point of view, I remember talking to
the Board about preserving our light industrial areas as much as possible and yet at the same time I
recognize the intrinsic value of this property for highway commercial purposes. It is kind of like you go
application by application and it certainly the application inviting in many regards, even though we would
be loosing light industrial property. But light industry is one of the reasons we are working on the sewer
agreement with the City in order to establish the ability to sewer light industrial businesses particularly.
Councilman Brewer-I would also say to that point though Dennis it has been light industrial for how long,
Councilman Stec-And it is surrounded by highway commercial.
Councilman Brewer-since 88' has that light industrial been applied?
Supervisor Brower-They have had sewer there too, I believe.
Councilman Brewer-I understand that, there has been sewer there the light industrial has not been applied
we have an application that is going to benefit our community, not saying that we don't need light industrial
we certainly do, but I think a seven acre parcel in a pocket in the middle of highway commercial how does
it benefit that use?
Councilman Stec-And how would the surrounding highway commercial be negatively impacted by fully
built out maximum intensity light industrial use could be a detriment to highway commercial.
Councilman Brewer-Seven acres is not big enough to do ...
Councilman Stec- The character of the neighborhood is highway commercial in my opinion.
Supervisor Brower-Well, it is, it is to a large extent.
Councilman Turner-Don't forget we had an application last year for a similar circumstance a little farther
down the road on the left and the gentlemen came here for our blessing and when he got to the other board
he withdrew the application. The Senior Citizens home, that was on the other side of Quaker Road, it is
still there.
Councilman Brewer-But, there was a lot of different elements to that application Ted, it did not have a
good way in there, they did not have a good plan, that is not our fault he withdrew.
Councilman Turner-No, that is not our, but he withdrew it.
Vote taken
RESOLUTION ADOPTING SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AMENDING ZONING
ORDINANCE TO CHANGE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY LONG RIFLE
ENTERPRISES, INC. LOCATED AT 257 DIX AVENUE FROM LI-IA (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL - ONE
ACRE) TO HC-IA (HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL - ONE ACRE)
RESOLUTION NO. 315,2001
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board is considering a request by Long Rifle Enterprises, Inc.,
to amend the Town Zoning Ordinance and Map to rezone property bearing Tax Map No.: 110-1-1.27
located at 257 Dix Avenue, Queensbury from LI-IA (Light Industrial- One Acre) to HC-IA (Highway
Commercial - One Acre), and
WHEREAS, on or about June 4th, 2001, the Town Board adopted a Resolution authorizing
submission of the rezoning application to the Town's Planning Board for report and recommendation, and
WHEREAS, on or about July 17th, 2001, the Queensbury Planning Board considered the
proposed rezoning and made a positive recommendation to the Town Board to approve the rezoning
application, and
WHEREAS, on or about July 11th, 2001, the Warren County Planning Board considered the
proposed rezoning and recommended denial of the proposed rezoning, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board duly conducted a public hearing concerning the proposed rezoning
on August 6th, 2001, and
WHEREAS, as SEQRA Lead Agency, the Town Board has reviewed an Environmental
Assessment Form to analyze potential environmental impacts of the proposed rezoning, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has considered the conditions and circumstances of the area affected
by the rezoning,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby determines that the proposed rezoning will
not have any significant environmental impact and a SEQRA Negative Declaration is adopted, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby amends the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance
and Map to rezone property owned by Long Rifle Enterprises, Inc., bearing Tax Map No.: 110-1-1.27
located at 257 Dix Avenue, Queensbury from LI-IA (Light Industrial- One Acre) to HC-IA (Highway
Commercial - One Acre), and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to
arrange with a surveyor to update the official Town Zoning Map to reflect this change of zone, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to send a copy of
this Resolution to the Warren County Planning Board, Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals,
Town of Queensbury Planning Board and any agency involved for SEQRA purposes, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, in accordance with the requirements of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance
Article XIII and Town Law ~265, the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to publish
a certified copy of the zoning changes in the Glens Falls Post-Star within five (5) days and obtain an
Affidavit of Publication, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that this amendment shall take effect upon filing in the Town Clerk's Office.
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower
NOES
None
ABSENT: Mr. Martin
Discussion during vote: Councilman Turner-I will only because of the circumstances on the site,
but if it had been a bigger site my vote would have been no, so I will vote yes on this one.
1.3 PROPOSED CREATION OF SOUTH QUEENSBURY-QUEENSBURY AVENUE SEWER
DISTRICT
NOTICE SHOWN
Supervisor Brower-Mr. Jarrett and Mr. Shaw good evening, please introduce yourself for the record.
Mr. Tom Jarrett-Good evening, my name is Tom Jarrett of the local firm of Jarrett, Martin Engineers Why
don't we take a minute and go though the proposed district and let everyone, the project that we will be
discussing tonight involves the creation, thanks, Chris, the creation of a new sewer district in the
southeastern portion of the Town. (used maps of the area) To orient you and the audience this is the Floyd
Bennett Airport, County Line Road and Queensbury Avenue, Dix Avenue and Quaker Road. The new
district was born some five years ago from the need to update or replace the aging wastewater treatment
plant that serves the existing industrial park next to the airport. For some time funding was sought to
construct a line to tie the old plant into the City of Glens Falls and when funding was not available the
sewer district went after funding through DEC to upgrade that plant. That funding was obtained but
Warren Rosenthal through some diligent efforts pursued additional funding we blended two project
together to get funding through USEDA. One project was the development of the Warren and Washington
Counties Industrial Development Agency land north of Casey Road the northern most section of colored
lands here, with the new sewer district proposal. The new sewer district involved construction of a new
pump station near the entrance to the airport, as well as gravity sewer from the existing industrial park
treatment to the pump station about a thousand feet of gravity sewer and then roughly three miles of
pressure sewer down to the City of Glens Falls down to Dix Avenue. The funding was obtained from the
US EDA in conjunction with the funding that was obtained through DEC for the upgrade of the plant. That
funding totaled nine hundred thousand dollars. The total project cost we are talking about here with both
projects is about two point two million dollars. Several local agencies and communities have purchased
what we call additional capacity in this district. That reduced the over all cost to distrct members to about
nine hundred thousand dollars, which is proposed for bonding for this project. Now the color scheme here
shows blue as Washington County parcels and the northern most parcel here which is shown as blue is
actually going to be differentiated from the remaining blue parcels with the formation of a new Kingsbury
sewer district. There is a separate district formation report prepared for that and SEQRA long form EAF
prepared for that action. Additional blue parcels are lands within Kingsbury they are not presently in a
sewer district as well as the Washington County Sewer District number one, which serves the Washington
County parcels in that industrial park. The tan here, the gold or tan color is the existing Warren County
Sewer District at the industrial park and the remaining parcels are green and those are new parcels to be
included in the new Queensbury Sewer District. Just for a point of clarification, the existing industrial park
all the blue parcels and the gold parcels will contrct with Queensbury for sewer service from the City of
Glens Falls and using the pump station force main which will be owned by the Town of Queensbury.
Sound pretty confusing so I will answer questions as they come up. As I said the total funding total project
cost is two point two million dollars of that nine hundred thousand dollars will be bonded. I will entertain
questions at this time.
Supervisor Brower-If the public would care to ask any questions at this time? Yes, sir, Would you come
forward to the microphone and state your name and address please for the record.
Town Counsel Schachner-Dennis, I amjust curious how we are running this from the stand point of
procedure, this is a public hearing presuming the commenter are commenting to the Town Board or how
are we dealing with Mr. Jarrett has sort of changed the fore mat on this.
Supervisor Brower-He is here to answer if he is needed and he may very well be needed.
Mr. Jarrett-Mark is correct I inserted this question and answer thing because this is quite a confusing
project but if you would like to defer that to formal comments.
Town Counsel Schachner-It is up to you I am just trying to point out we should be clear how we are
running this, that is all.
Supervisor Brower-Mr. Lavery
Mr. Bill Lavery-Mr. Lavery, I live in Dixon Road in Queensbury My only question was what becomes of
the properties along County Line Road and Dix Avenue that are not gold, green or blue at this point, are
they going to be able to get into this sewer district? Are they mandated to be?
Mr. Jarrett-They are not mandated to join all the properties that are shown on this diagram have voluntarily
asked to join this district. None of the properties that are not included in this district will be mandated to
join it, does that answer your question?
Mr. Lavery-Will they be allowed to?
Mr. Jarrett-If they request so, after this process is concluded they would have to go through their own
district formation process not as involved as this but it is an involved process to join the district.
Mr. Lavery-So, they are all on private septic at this point?
Mr. Jarrett-I assume so.
Supervisor Brower-Now is the ideal time for people to along the corridor to get involved.
Director Round-Tom, can you point out what the purpose of this district is that it is an industrial sewer
district and there are different requirements for
Mr. Jarrett-The original intent of this district was to provide sewer service to the existing industrial park
and then the expanded industrial park north of Casey Road. But, since the force main would be constructed
along Queensbury Avenue and then the Niagara Mohawk Right of Way to Glens Falls the process was
opened up to Land owners along the route to see if they were willing or interested in joining. It was
primarily to serve the industrial parks in this area.
Director Round-Can I, I would like to just for edification purposes there are higher income thresholds or
higher costs impacts I am not saying that quite correctly Tom, maybe you can put a spin on that, that the
State Comptroller indicates that there is an affordability level for residential users that is set at a lower level
than it is for industrial users, is that right Mike and so when you intermix the two it has an impact on the
affordability from the Comptrollers stand point.
Mr. Jarrett-That is correct there really are no set guidelines for industrial and commercial users from the
Comptrollers Office but for residential users there are target rates. By the way within the district formation
report we have shown what the rate would be for a typical residential user in this district although there are
no proposed residential users at this time. We have shown a projected rate of I believe it was five hundred
dollars a year.
Deputy Wastewater Supt. Mike Shaw-312. I think.
Mr. Jarrett-Well, then I better stand corrected.
Councilman Brewer-Are we having a public hearing or are we setting a public hearing, it is confusing here.
Town Counsel Schachner-It is confusing and the reason it is confusing is because we are actually doing
both. There was a public hearing previously scheduled for this evening and there is no reason not to have
that public hearing to allow members of the public to speak if they wish to, however we have suggested and
strongly recommended and this is why you are confused, the resolution that is before you seems to
schedule another public hearing on August 20th because there has been some modifications to the map,
plan and report. The resolution that you have before you in fact in bold type includes some of those
modifications. So, you are absolutely right it is an excellent question it is confusing because we are doing
both.
Councilman Brewer-I am supposed to be not confused any more?
Supervisor Brower-Any more questions from the Board right now ofMr. Jarrett or Mr. Shaw before we
open it to the general public?
Councilman Brewer-No, I have none.
Supervisor Brower-Mr. Salvador would you come forward please and state your question for the record,
please, name and address.
Mr. John Salvador-My name is John Salvador, I am a resident of the Town of Lake George. If I
understand correctly then the green area, are they residential or industrial users?
Mr. Jarrett-It is actually a mixture. The parcel which shows adjacent to the airport is essentially airport
property, this is vacant land, and is zoned, now I do not recall what that zone is, either highway commercial
or light industrial I thought.
Director Round-Light industrial.
Mr. Jarrett -This parcel here toward the corner is zoned residentially right now although no houses exist on
that site. These parcels here are zoned it is a mixture of highway commercial and light industrial as I recall.
Councilman Brewer-Why would we have highway commercial oh, all right down on Dix Avenue.
Director Round-Some of that fronts on Quaker Road and there are some highway commercial use in that
area.
Mr. Salvador-When ever or who ever decides to join this district will be locked in to the costs, the cost is
being locked in at the present time for those users on this plan, whether they are residential, industrial,
commercial whatever they are. Is that fixed?
Mr. Jarrett-Largely that is correct, yes.
Mr. Salvador-That is fixed. As I understand it, it is really not cost effective for these types of users but it is
cost effective for an industrial user. An industrial user of sanitary waste or discharge of sanitary waste is
usually not high intensity, not like residential. So, they can afford to pay a high unit price which results in
a relatively low total costs for their operation as opposed to a single household that would have essentially
a higher unit cost as well as total cost. I mean there is a reason why these residential owners property do
not want to join, but what if someday they are forced to? What if their facility is no longer useful or cost
effective or whatever?
Deputy Wastewater Supt. Shaw-First of all the typical user, we did look at a typical residential user, in this
district although there is not any at this time, typical residential user would be paying a total fee of three
fifty one a year. They would be paying the same unit cost as a commercial one. Anybody in the district
will be paying the same unit costs. The units are divided up according to what you have residential or
commercial use. So, ..district in the future they certainly could by district extension but they are going to
be paying in at that same rate as the current district users.
Mr. Salvador-I was lead to believe that the industrial cost, unit costs was relatively high and was something
that could be approved because it was industrial.
Deputy Wastewater Supt. Shaw-The current per unit cost of forty-one sixty, I think as this plan sits here
now based on the projections we have today.
Mr. Jarrett-And that unit is consistent whether you are a residential, commercial or industrial user.
Mr. Salvador-How does the industry get to pay more, I do not know, I am really confused?
Mr. Jarrett-How do they get to pay more?
Mr. Salvador-You said here earlier that the blue area was industrial and would be paying something in the
order of five hundred dollars a unit?
Mr. Jarrett-Well I mis-spoke on the five hundred and we looked it up it is actually 351. for a typical
residential user, ...district right now.
Supervisor Brower-Other questions? Mr. Tucker?
Mr. Pliney Tucker-Pliney Tucker 41 Division Road Does this sewer district stand on its own? I mean is it
a new district in the Town?
Mr. Jarrett -That is correct.
Mr. Tucker-The capacity that it needs at the Glens Falls plant will be negotiated for just this district?
Mr. Jarrett-That is a relatively complicated question and I will defer to the Board on some of that but the
basic capacity needed to form this district is already been negotiated and that is in place, 25,000 gallons.
Mr. Tucker-How?
Mr. Jarrett-A prior agreement.
Councilman Stec-Over a year ago.
Supervisor Brower-Prior agreement with the City.
Councilman Brewer-Right. It is not just the Town doing it, it is the City, the Town of Queensbury
Councilman Stec-It was about a year ago, it was last year some time.
Mr. Tucker-Just for this district.
Councilman Brewer-Yes.
Supervisor Brower-25,000 gallons a day.
Mr. Tucker-Will there be an effect on the Quaker Road sewer district.?
Councilman Brewer-No.
Mr. Tucker-Or the negotiations that are going on now?
Councilman Stec-We passed the resolution here.
Councilman Brewer-No. this is solely on its own.
Mr. Tucker- On its own merit.
Councilman Brewer-Yes.
Supervisor Brower-Thank you. Further questions from the public at this time? Board Members?
Councilman Brewer-So, I have one question for our Attorney, now we close this public hearing then we
have to do a resolution to have another public hearing?
Town Counsel Schachner-That is our strong recommendation because of the changes that have been made
to the map, plan and report although one could argue that they are not substantial and we feel that this is an
important high priority and high profile project and we want to make sure that all t's are crossed and I's
dotted at least once if not twice as a result you have a revised resolution before you with some of those
changes in bold type and we are recommending that you schedule another public hearing for August 20th.
ORDER SETTING PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING PROPOSED CREATION OF SOUTH
QUEENSBURY - QUEENSBURY AVENUE SEWER DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO. 316,2001
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury, Town of Kingsbury, Warren County, Queensbury
Economic Development Corporation, Washington County Sewer District #1, Warren-Washington County
Industrial Development Agency and City of Glens Falls are entering into an Intermunicipal Agreement to
jointly construct sewer facilities connecting the existing Washington County Sewer District #1 (WCSD#I)
Wastewater Treatment Plant to the City of Glens Falls Wastewater Treatment Plant (GFWWTP), and
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is acting as the coordinator of the project and will issue its
municipal bonds and/or bond anticipation notes to finance a portion of the project with amounts required
for debt service to be apportioned among the municipalities, municipal agencies and individual properties
which will be benefited by the project, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury wishes to create a new sewer district to be known as the
South Queensbury-Queensbury Avenue Sewer District, and
WHEREAS, a District Formation Report (Map, Plan and Report) has been prepared by Jarrett-
Martin, LLP, professional engineers, concerning the proposed sewer district formation and the construction
of sewer facilities involving three sewer districts and connecting the existing Washington County Sewer
District #1 (WCSD#I) Wastewater Treatment Plant to the City of Glens Falls Wastewater Treatment Plant
(GFWWTP) along a route following Queensbury Avenue and the Niagara Mohawk Right of Way, which
area would also include 30 lots in the Warren-Washington Counties Airport Industrial Park, the Floyd
Bennett Memorial Airport and several parcels along the proposed force main route to the City of Glens
Falls, as more specifically set forth and described in the Map, Plan and Report (the "Project"), and
WHEREAS, the Map, Plan and Report has been filed in the Queensbury Town Clerk's Office and
is available for public inspection, and
WHEREAS, the Map, Plan and Report delineates the boundaries of the proposed sewer district, a
general plan of the proposed sewer system, a report of the proposed sewer system and method of operation,
and
WHEREAS, the sewer district improvements in the Town of Kingsbury were discussed generally
in the Map, Plan and Report as they will be included as a part of the entire Project, but subsequent to the
filing of the Map, Plan and Report the Town of Kingsbury decided to create its own district to undertake
such improvements, and
WHEREAS, Jarrett-Martin, LLP filed a district formation report for the Kingsbury Sewer District
(Kingsbury District Formation Report) in May, 2001, and
WHEREAS, the Kingsbury District Formation Report included a revised Part I of a Full
Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) which considered both the South Queensbury-Queensbury Avenue
Sewer District improvements and the Kingsbury Sewer District improvements, and
WHEREAS, coordinated SEQRA review will be conducted and the Town has sent a copy of Part I
of the EAF, the Map, Plan and Report and the Kingsbury District Formation Report to all potentially
involved agencies including the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and New
York State Department of Health together with all required documentation and a letter indicating that the
Town Board will be undertaking consideration of the project identified in this Order, that coordinated
SEQRA review with the Queensbury Town Board as lead agency is desired and that a lead agency must be
agreed upon within 30 days, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to establish the proposed South Queensbury-Queensbury
Avenue Sewer District in accordance with Town Law Article 12-A,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS
ORDERED:
1. The boundaries of the proposed South Queensbury - Queensbury Avenue Sewer District
are shown on the Project Location Map attached as Exhibit A to this Order. The benefited properties
proposed to be a part of the Sewer District are as follows:
TAX MAP NUMBER
PROPERTY OWNER as of 6/2000
109-3-6.1 North Country Imports
109-5-1 Chartrand Property 109-5-2 Warren County 109-5-3 109-5-4
109-5-13.21 Warren County Properties
55-2-21.1
Floyd Bennett Memorial Airport [Partial]
109-3-3
109-4-7
110-1-2.61
110.1-2.62
110-1-2.64
110-1-2.65
110-1-2.66
110-1-2.67
110-1-2.68
Earltown Properties
2. Four separate sewer districts, including the existing Warren County Sewer District #1 and
Washington County Sewer District #1 and the proposed South Queensbury-Queensbury Avenue Sewer
District and Kingsbury Sewer District, will utilize the improvements which comprise the Project. The
proposed improvements will connect the existing wastewater collection system to the City of Glens Falls
Wastewater Treatment Plant by constructing a gravity sewer line along Queensbury Avenue connected to a
pump station opposite the Floyd Bennett Memorial Airport which will lift wastewater through a force main
to a gravity sewer manhole in Dix Avenue. Specific improvements include the construction of the pumping
station, installation of approximately 1000 feet of gravity sewer to convey sewage from the existing Warren
County Sewer District # 1 Wastewater Treatment Plant to the pumping station, installation of a force main
southward along Queensbury Avenue to an existing Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. right-of-way, westward
along theNIMO right -of-way to Quaker Road, under Quaker Road by directional borings, along the south
shoulder of Apollo Drive and along the south edge of a NIMO parking lot to an existing City of Glens Falls
municipal sewer manhole. The improvements are more fully described in the Map, Plan and Report and a
list of the components of these improvements is included as Exhibit B to this Order.
3. All proposed improvements shall be installed and paid for as described in the Map, Plan
and Report (including the cost payable to the City at the time of initial hook-up) and shall be constructed
and installed in full accordance with the Town of Queensbury's specifications, ordinances or local laws, and
any State laws or regulations, and in accordance with approved plans and specifications and under
competent engineering supervision.
4. The maximum amount proposed to be expended for these improvements will be
approximately $2,204,035 including a one time buy-in fee to the City of Glens Falls wastewater treatment
facility which is estimated to be $1.25 per gallon of average daily flow, which in this case will equal
$31,250. However, as described in paragraph 7 below, existing and new District users will be responsible
for only approximately $903,195. The improvement costs for various components of the proposed Sewer
District are specifically described in the Map, Plan and Report.
5. Nearly all of the properties within the Sewer District are zoned for industrial or
commercial use but are vacant at this time. As water usage by industrial and commercial users varies
widely depending upon their specific activities, it is virtually impossible to calculate an estimated annual
cost of the District to a "typical" industrial or commercial property, which is the typical Sewer District
property. However, it is anticipated that the annual cost of the District to the typical property would not
exceed the estimated cost of the Project to the typical user in the Washington County Sewer District #1,
which is approximately $1,573.20 based on average water and sewer usage by existing non-residential
users in that District. That amount includes a benefit tax of $1,116 and an operation and maintenance user
fee of $457.20. The estimated annual cost of the District for debt service and operation and maintenance
costs to a typical one or two family home would be approximately $351.86. There would be no acual
hook-up fees. The cost to retain a private contractor to install a new collection sewer system and/or sewer
lateral between a building and the main Project sewer lines vary significantly depending on the individual
conditions including distance from the line and various subsurface conditions. Typical sewer lateral
installation costs have been at least several thousand dollars; it is impossible to generalize the costs for
collections sewer systems.
6. A detailed explanation of how the estimated cost of the District to the typical property,
and, if different, the typical one or two family home was computed is included in the Map, Plan and Report
which is on file with the Town Clerk and available for public inspection.
7. The proposed method of financing the total cost of the Project includes the following:
a. U. S. Department of Commerce-Economic Development Administration Grant in the
amount of 50% of the Project cost up to $600,000;
b. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act Grant
in the amount of $300,000;
c. $325,000 purchase of future capacity in the sewer district;
d. $76,500 total reimbursement and donation of right-of way from NIMO; and
e. issuance of Bonds and/or Bond Anticipation Notes by the Town of Queensbury on behalf
of the Sewer District in the amount of $903,195. Debt service on the Bonds will be paid by an annual
benefit tax charge to users and annual sewer use charges will be imposed to pay the costs of operation and
maintenance.
8. The Town Board shall meet and hold a public hearing to hear all persons interested in the
establishment of the Sewer District and consider the Map, Plan and Report and take such other and further
action as may be required or authorized by law, at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, August 20th, 2001 at the
Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, New York.
9. The Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to duly
publish and post this Order not less than ten (10) days nor more than twenty (20) days before the public
hearing date, as required by Town Law ~209-d, and complete or arrange for the securing of two (2)
Affidavits of Publication of Notice and two (2) Affidavits of Posting of Notice of the Public Hearing
required hereby and to file a certified copy of this Order with the State Comptroller on or about the date of
publication.
10. The Town of Queensbury Community Development Department is hereby requested to
prepare a report on any environmental impacts that should be considered at the time a SEQRA review is
conducted.
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 2001 by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Turner
NOES
None
ABSENT: Mr. Martin
Supervisor Brower-Before we close this one I just want to see if there are any further questions one more
time from the public, seeing none, then I thank you all for coming tonight we look forward to seeing you
again August 20th.
2.0 COMMUNICATIONS
Ltr.
Dunham's Bay Association
Darlene Dougher, Town Clerk Bay & Haviland Roads Queensbury, N.Y. 12804
Dear Darlene,
As a result of our phone conversation, this letter is a request to the Town Board to change the
position of the 5 MPH buoys in Dunham's Bay, Lake George.
Specifically, The Association has voted to request the buoys be moved out towards the main lake
about 100 yards. (About opposite the Wait boathouse on the west shore) At this point the Bay begins to
widen considerably.
The purpose is to reduce the noise and waves from the boats entering and leaving the Bay. The
effect is particularly bad on the properties that lie just outside the present buoy location.
We appreciate the Boards consideration. I can be reached at 656-9342.
Sincerely, /s/ Douglas Wrigley, President
MONTHLY REPORTS Town Clerk Landfill Comptroller's Financial Report
PRESENTATION CRANDALL LIBRARY
Supervisor Brower-Introduced Donna Farrar President of the Crandall Library Board and Bob McNally
Queensbury Trustee from the Library Board
Ms. Donna Farrar-We are here as the result oflast months Board meeting where we discussed the
resolution that we want all three municipalities in our library district to approve, addressing the issue of
offering municipalities voting on Capital Projects that the library may be putting forth to the voters. Our
Attorneys and our Board Members have gone back and forth with your Attorneys and I think we have come
up with the wording that satisfies both of us...I have a copy in front of me, ... we wanted to define the term
capital project and the debt we would be incurring to limit it to facility expansion type project and debt...
Attorney McNally-Spoke to the Board regarding the agreement that would have to be signed by all three
municipalities...Glens Falls, Town of Moreau, and Town of Queensbury
Mr. Tucker-Questioned when the informational meetings on the Library budget will be held.
Ms. Farrar-In September
3.0 OPEN FORUM
Mr. Richard Merrill-My name is Richard Merrill a resident of 6 Sunset Trail in North Queensbury I do
appreciate this opportunity to participate in the open forum tonight. Last Monday, July 30th there were
over forty residents of the area two of whom were represented by Attorneys attended a workshop session at
which Mr. Lamy gave an update on the North Queensbury and the Warren County Sewer Project. Deep
concerns were expressed by many of those in attendance over the proposal to revive the Pickle Hill
Discharge Option for North Queensbury. Unfortunately the session was not recorded because of technical
problems and because of this no record exists of this meeting. Now we recognize that it is not required to
record a workshop session but because of the importance of the subjects brought up at this meeting I would
like to very briefly summarize some of the key points that were brought up so we do have it on the record.
First of all we all recognize the need to protect the quality of Lake George water and hat is not the issue.
The issue is how to accomplish this without creating problems in other areas of town, especially an
established residential neighborhoods outside of the benefit area. The reason so many were in attendance
last Monday is that we are all very surprised and shocked to hear that the Pickle Hill Discharge Option was
again under consideration. The Post Star reported on July 27th and let me quote from that "Town Officials
have resurrected a controversial plan to dump treated wastewater from homes in North Queensbury at a site
near the intersection of Pickle Hill and Bay Roads" The Pickle Hill proposal first came to light in 1992 we
personally examined the plan in great detail uncovered major flaws and concerns that were documented in
several memo's to town and county officials. In this proposal affluent from seven hundred and fifty eight
equalivant dwelling units would be concentrated into a thirteen acre site located in an established low
density rural residential three residential area. That area is now classified as a critical environmental area.
Very clearly locating a disposal site in a middle of an established residential zone would change the
neighborhood character. The odors, the impact on ground water table the impact on the aquifer that serves
as a drinking water supply the impact on neighboring leach beds the impact on streams leading into the
protected for ever wild Dunhams Bay Wetlands were but of a few of the issues in the 1992 and they are still
issues tonight. There will be damage to neighboring properties who will bear this liability? There is no
question that this plan will lead to decreased property values. There were several people in attendance at
last weeks meeting that would never have purchased property in that area if they had known that this was
under consideration. Because of these and other concerns on August 26th of 1992 the Warren County
Committee on Lake George Affairs passed a resolution to removed the Pickle Hill Area from the sewer
project. This resoluion still stands it is inappropriate, in proper and out of order to reconsider it at this point
in time. Pickle Hill is also excluded from the Warren County Sewer Project 1994 project DEIS and let me
read from Section 2.27 Alternative Number 4 "This alternative provides for full service area sewering with
in basin discharge via the Pickle Hill Road site." Let me skip to the end "Due to public opposition
regarding the location of the treatment facility at the Pickle Hill Road site this alternative is no longer
consider a viable option for this project." There is no basis to include it in any future EIS either. We all
want the best solution we need the best solution for all citizens not just the lowest cost solution. That
brings me to a very serious point; I am very serious about this that reviving this proposal really represents a
betrayal of our basic trust in governmental process. We were all assured in no uncertain terms that the
project was dead and there is no justification for reviving at this pint. We respectfully request that you
honor the decision made by Warren County in 1992. Thank you.
Supervisor Brower-Thank you very much Mr. Merrill
Mr. Dennis Prevost-My name is Dennis Prevost, a resident of Sunset Trail and a home owner at 67 Sunset
Trail My purpose for addressing the Board tonight is to further clarify Mr. Merrill's comments concerning
the significant public participation that occurred on thirty July 2001 when approximately fifty members of
the north Queensbury neighborhoods of Pickle Hill, Sunset Trail, and Boulderwood attended a Town
working meeting to affirm their collective opposition to the reintroduction of Pickle Hill as a SEQRA
option concerning the treatment of waste and effluent from the Lake George Basin. I ask to include my
comments tonight in the public record to confirm the large public opposition residents expressed
concerning this boards plan to reintroduce the leach field proposal. While each of the people in attendance
Monday night fully support protecting the water quality of Lake George they collectively oppose the
placement of a leach field or lagoon effluent treatment distribution system in their rural residental
neighborhood. Simply stated they feel very strongly that it is not necessary to destroy their neighborhood
quality of life and to adversely affect their property values, to protect the cleanliness of Lake George.
Further they feel that more environmentally sensitive alternatives exist under the current SEQRA process
and that adoption of one or more of these existing alternatives is outlined by Mr. Lemy is preferable to a
sighting of a leach field in an RR3 residential neighborhood. Specifically their objections include but are
not limited to the following concerns: First; contamination of the Pickle Hill aquifer, since the proposed
effluent discharge plan is sized to discharge up to seven hundred and fifty thousand gallons per day of
untreated effluent significant risk of ground water contamination exists. Each of the homes in our area
relies exclusively on deep wells, which draws water from the Pickle Hill aquifer. The danger to our
drinking water from fecal contamination and other wastewater hazard is very real; particularly in the light
of the fact that the soil on Pickle Hill is heavily layered with clay and drainage is already a major problem
in the area. The risk that untreated effluent my not percolate into the subsoil but rather move directly
across the ground within existing surface waters is quite real throughout much of the year in our
neighborhood. Secondly, destruction of existing septic systems injecting between two hundred and fifty
thousand and seven hundred and fifty thousand gallons of untreated effluent on a daily basis will surely
degrade the efficacy of existing home septic systems or in a very worse case render them completely non
operational. As was already sited above, the existing clay base of much of Pickle Hill already makes
subsurface drainage extremely difficult and it is feared that adding such a massive volume of daily effluent
will further degrade our already fragile septic systems. Since Pickle Hill, Sunset Trial and surrounding
streets are not projected for inclusionin the new sewer district preservation of our existing septic systems
must be a high priority in light of the fact that this is a protected water area shed. Third, Since the
Appellate Court directive to re-initiate the SEQRA process a new lethal public health hazard has been
identified in upstate New York. This is simply the West Nile Virus issue. Residents wish it clearly known
that no environmental impact statement completed to date has addressed the risk to public health which will
certainly result if two hundred and fifty thousand plus gallons of effluent is added daily to an already
saturated water table on Pickle Hill Road. The probability of standing water becoming a breeding ground
for mosquitoes, which can contract and carry the western Nile Virus, must be thoroughly evaluated before
any decision to revisit the Pickle Hill leach field option can be considered as part of the SEQRA process.
Finally, the residents of North Queensbury who attended the thirty July 2001 meeting, wish to make it very
cear that they view the unanimous vote by the Warren County Committee on Lake George Affairs which
was held on twenty-six August 92' to be both binding on the Queensbury Town Board and the Lake George
Sewer Committee presented constituted. That resolution formally ruled out any future consideration of
the Pickle Hill leach field proposal. To date that resolution has neither been modified or overturned. It
remains in effect and thus prevents this Board or other interested committees from arbitrarily adding Pickle
Hill to any SEQRA evaluation process unless and until the many environmental concerns detailed above
are resolved and new information becomes available which warrants Warren County over turning their
resolution. Since no such activity has occurred the residents wish to make it very clear that this Board's
arbitrary inclusion of the so-called Pickle Hill option is improper and we view it as a waste of taxpayers
funds. The residents respectfully submit that this Board's participation in the revisd SEQRA process must
be governed by the August 26th 1992 resolution, formally and unanimously excluding Pickle Hill from
such consideration. Thank you for allowing me to clarify the public record of thirty July 2001.
Mr. John Salvador-My name is John Salvador property owner in North Queensbury and a generator of
wastewater...Noted he agreed that the use of the Pickle Hill option does not represent sound economy, it is
not the most cost effective way to handle the problem and probably not the most environmentally effective
way. Regarding West Nile problem - noted there are six hundred acres of wetlands standing in North
Queensbury a breeding ground for such mosquitoes. Noted there has never been talk of discharging
untreated wastewater in the Pickle Hill Road area... We have talked about two hundred and fifty thousand
gallons a day as a maximum being generated in No. Qsby....noting Pickle Hill is not in the basin...it was
mentioned it was in a critical environmental area, not to my knowledge. Noted zoning does not allow for
a municipal utility in No. Qsby...
Mr. Richard Merrill-I believe that the latest zoning map does show Pickle Hill discharge area as a critical
environmental zone, also the early records show the plant was to be sized to handle up to seven hundred
and fifty thousand gallons...
Ms. Pat Jameson-Ridge Road On Warren Street which runs between the Boulevard and River Street,
Brown's Bridge, the bike trail runs in front of that hill and there is no bike signs there, noted that the street
is one side Hudson Falls and one side Town of Queensbury. . . requested that a sign is needed for safety...
Mr. John Salvador-RE: Res. 3.5 Crandall Library Questioned if there is shown to be a deficiency in the
enabling legislation that necessitates this resolution?
Councilman Brewer-Noted the resolution is a way of clarifying the legislation.
Town Counsel Schachner-Reviewed for the Board the enabling and amendment of the legislation. basically
the legislation is not in the opinion of some, crystal clear as to what type or level of approval is required for
capital projects.. . from now on any capital project as defined in the proposed resolution would require the
approval of each of the three constituents municipalities.
Mr. Salvador-Noted he felt that the legislation was clear. ...questioned if it is only bonding to be used for
financing a capital project?
Trustee McNally-The Whereas Clause that Mr. Salvador refers to was in my opinion phrased in the
generic, ...regardless of the method of bonding this approval of the three municipalities is required.
Mr. Salvador-Problem of using an IDA etc. is that such an approval by this Town would expose the
taxpayers to guaranteeing the debt of a public corporation...
Trustee McNally-Noted that this is leaving the option of seeking options at other sources...
Mr. Pliney Tucker-41 Division Road Asked for an announcement from Pyramid Mall who the expansion
is for?
Councilman Brewer-We can ask them.
Councilman Stec-For the purpose of the record to calibrate for the purpose of the record from the Town
Board perspective that in my opinion the characterization of the July 30th workshop meeting given by Dick
Merrill and Dennis Prevost was accurate. I think that there was a good forty people or better and probably
approximately ten of them may have spoken but I think that for the purpose of the record it is important
that somebody say that I think that the characterization was accurate of what was discussed. I apologize for
the technical inconvenience and frankly hearing what I heard and hearing nothing to the contrary if it
makes you or any of the residents of the neighborhood feel any better I think that comment was made on
this already nine years ago and as far as I am concerned I am determined to hold up our end as I understand
it.
Supervisor Brower-Asked for further comments...hearing none the Open Forum was Closed.
4.0 RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BAY RIDGE VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC. TO RELOCATE
RADIO TOWER AND ANTENNA AND ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES TO TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY LANDFILL
RESOLUTION NO.: 317,2001
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY:
Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, the Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. (Fire Company) recently sought
approval from the Town of Queensbury Planning Board (Planning Board) and Zoning Board of Appeals
(ZBA) to relocate the Fire Company's 60' emergency services wireless communications tower and antenna
(tower) presently located at the Fire Company's Station 1 on Sunnyside Road to the Queensbury Landfill
located at 1396 Ridge Road, and
WHEREAS, on July 18th, 2001, the ZBA approved the Fire Company's Use Variance No.: 50-
2001 to relocate the tower, and
WHEREAS, on July 24th, 2001, the Planning Board approved the Fire Company's Site Plan
Application No.: 29-2001 concerning the tower relocation, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to now authorize the Fire Company's relocation request,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves and authorizes Bay Ridge
Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., to relocate the Fire Company's 60' emergency services wireless
communications tower and antenna presently located at the Fire Company's Station 1 on Sunnyside Road,
Queensbury to the Queensbury Landfill located at 1396 Ridge Road, Queensbury as authorized and
approved by the Town of Queensbury Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals.
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 2001 by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec
NOES
None
ABSENT: Mr. Martin
Discussion held before vote: Supervisor Brower-Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Company has asked to move
their antenna location to the site of our landfill which is one hundred feet higher than its current location
this will enable them to cover dead spots that they currently have in their coverage area and should provide
an increased level of public safety. Councilman Stec-Noted that this was sought by more than just Bay
Ridge, all the fire departments requested this.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CHANGE OF ROAD NAME FROM "ELLSWORTH ROAD" TO
"ELLSWORTH LANE"
RESOLUTION NO.:
318,2001
INTRODUCED BY:
Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY:
Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 166 of 1963, the Queensbury Town Board adopted the Town's
official inventory of Town Highways and such inventory included Ellsworth Road, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has received a petition from residents of Ellsworth Road requesting
that the name of the road be changed to "Ellsworth Lane," and
WHEREAS, the Town Clerk, Highway Superintendent and Director of Building and Codes have
no objection to this proposed road name change,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the change of road name from
Ellsworth Road to Ellsworth Lane, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to forward
a certified copy of this Resolution to the Town Highway Department so that the necessary poles and street
signs identifying Ellsworth Lane can be properly installed, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to effectuate this
road name change in the Town's official inventory of Town Highways.
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Brower, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer
NOES
None
ABSENT:
Mr. Martin
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF EMPIRE STATE APPRAISAL CONSULTANTS,
INC. TO PREPARE APPRAISALS IN CONNECTION WITH ARTICLE 7 ASSESSMENT CASES
COMMENCED BY PYRAMID COMPANIES, INC.
RESOLUTION NO.: 319,2001
INTRODUCED BY:
Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY:
Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, Pyramid Companies, Inc., (Pyramid) has commenced litigation against the Town of
Queensbury regarding real property tax assessments on the Aviation Mall for the years 1997 to 2000, and
WHEREAS, the firm of Empire State Appraisal Consultants, Inc. (ESAC) is a reputable and
established appraisal company, with 26 years of experience, including extensive experience in appraising
large commercial properties, and
WHEREAS, ESAC has appraised other commercial property for the Town and its performance and
services have been entirely satisfactory and have materially contributed to the ability of the Town to settle
past tax assessment litigation without the need for trial, and
WHEREAS, ESAC has proposed to prepare preliminary and final appraisals for the Town's use in
settlement discussions and litigation with its fee for the preliminary appraisal not to exceed $8,000 and its
fee for a final, trial-ready appraisal, if necessary, not to exceed $12,000 (for a maximum total of $20,000),
with the costs of ESAC's work to be shared equally by the Town and the Queensbury Union Free School
District, and
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Union Free School District has approved engagement of the services
ofESAC to perform the needed appraisal work on the stated terms and recommends that the Town
similarly provides its approval, and
WHEREAS, the Assessor and Town Counsel recommend that the Town Board engage the
services ofESAC to provide the necessary appraisal services on the proposed terms with the cost for such
appraisal services to be divided equally between the Town and the Queensbury Union Free School District,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes engagement of Empire State
Appraisal Consultants, Inc. (ESAC) to prepare a preliminary appraisal and, if necessary, a final appraisal of
the Aviation Mall properties for the Town's use in connection with litigation with Pyramid Companies,
Inc., with the cost for such preliminary appraisal not to exceed $8,000 and the cost of a final appraisal, if
necessary, not to exceed $12,000 (for a maximum total of $20,000), which costs shall be divided equally
between the Town and the Queensbury Union Free School District, with the Town's portion to be paid from
the Assessor's Department Article 7 Account No.: 001-1355-4740, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Assessor, Town Counsel and/or
Town Supervisor to take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower
NOES None
ABSENT Mr. Martin
Discussion held before vote: Councilman Stec-Questioned the dollar figures...Town Counsel Schachner-
Noted that there are seven tax years in question, 1995-2001 the difference is in the amounts of the
assessment of the real property by the Town Assessor vs what Pyramid claims the property should have
been assessed at, the total in question is approximately twenty three and a half million dollars, the actual
dollar amount in controversy would be a little over seven hundred thousand dollars...being town and county
only... Councilman Stec-roughly one and a half million to the school district... noted that the School is
participating in this ... Councilman Brewer-For the record for the things that upsets me about the whole
thing is they propose a project and tell about the wonderful assessment that they are going to bring to the
Town and the jobs that they are going to create and I am not saying that they are not going to create jobs
and then they sue us to get it lowered. Councilman Stec-I have difficulties with this situation as well.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EMPIRE STATE APPRAISAL CONSULTANTS, INC. TO ENGAGE
SERVICES OF LEONARD VONA, CPA, CFE TO AUDIT RECORDS OF PYRAMID COMPANIES,
INC.
RESOLUTION NO.: 320,2001
INTRODUCED BY:
Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY:
Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, Pyramid Companies, Inc., (Pyramid) has commenced litigation against the Town of
Queensbury regarding real property tax assessments on the Aviation Mall for the years 1997 to 2000, and
WHEREAS, by prior Resolution the Town Board authorized engagement of Empire State
Appraisal Consultants, Inc. (ESAC) to provide necessary appraisal services to the Town in this litigation,
and
WHEREAS, it will be necessary to perform an audit of Pyramid's accounts and records in order to
assure the reasonable accuracy of the appraisals to be produced by ESAC, and
WHEREAS, ESAC cannot itself provide the needed audit services, and
WHEREAS, ESAC has recommended that the Town authorize ESAC to engage the services of
Leonard W. Vona, CPA, CFE, to perform the necessary audit, and
WHEREAS, Mr. Vona is a Certified Public Accountant and Certified Fraud Examiner with
extensive professional credentials, and
WHEREAS, ESAC has utilized the services ofMr. Vona in conducting audits in connection with the
preparation of appraisals in other tax assessment litigation and has found his work to be of very high
quality, and
WHEREAS Mr. Vona proposes to conduct an audit of the accounts, books and records of Pyramid
Companies for the purpose of assuring the reasonable accuracy of ESAC's appraisal, and
WHEREAS the cost of such audit services to be provided by Mr. Vona will be $120 per hour, not
to exceed a maximum of $4,800 without further approval by this Board, with such costs to be shared
equally with the Queensbury Union Free School District, and
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Union Free School District has approved ofESAC engaging the
services ofMr. Vona to perform the needed audit work on the stated terms and recommends that the Town
similarly provide its approval, and
WHEREAS the Assessor and Town Counsel recommend that ESAC be authorized to engage the services
of Mr. Vona to provide the necessary audit services on the proposed terms, with the cost to be divided
equally between the Town and the Queensbury Union Free School District,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes Empire State Appraisal
Consultants, Inc. to engage the services of Leonard W. Vona, CPA, CFE, to audit the accounts, books and
records of Pyramid Companies, Inc. in order to assure the reasonable accuracy of the appraisals of the
Aviation Mall properties to be provided by ESAC, with the cost for such audit services to be $120 per hour,
not to exceed a total of $4,800 without further approval of the Town Board, which costs shall be divided
equally between the Town and the Queensbury Union Free School District, with the Town's portion to be
paid from the Assessor's Department Article 7 Account No.: 001-1355 -4740, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Assessor, Town Counsel and/or
Town Supervisor to take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES
Martin
: None ABSENT
Mr.
CITY OF GLENS FALLS COMMON COUNCIL QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD MOREAU TOWN
BOARD CRANDALL PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
RESOLUTION SPECIFYING APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR CRANDALL PUBLIC LIBRARY
DISTRICT CAPITAL PROJECTS
RESOLUTION NO.: 321,2001
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, the Crandall Public Library ("Library District") is an independent public library
district organized under the Laws of the State of new York (L1992, C456) to provide library services to the
citizens of the Town of Queensbury, Town of Moreau and City of Glens Falls (together, the "District
Municipalities" and each a "District Municipality"), and
WHEREAS, the Library District is governed by the Crandall Public Library Board of Trustees
("Library Trustees"), and
WHEREAS, the Library Trustees are considering a capital project to provide for expansion of the
Library District facilities, and
WHEREAS, the District Municipalities and Library Trustees met at a public meeting on February
28th, 2001 to discuss various Library matters and wish to specify their agreement regarding the approval
required for bonding any such capital project, either this one or any in the future,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the authorization, sale and issuance of bonds, notes or other evidences of
indebtedness for any "capital project" of the Library District, but not the adoption of the annual Library
budget, shall require prior approval by a majority of the qualified voters of each of the District
Municipalities casting votes at an election, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that for the purposes of this Resolution, "capital project" shall mean any real
property acquisition or construction project by or on behalf of the Library District to provide facilities or
improve facilities for public library purposes, excepting maintenance, repair or replacement of components
of the existing physical plant which requires the authorization, sale and issuance of bonds, notes or other
debt instruments repayable over more than one year to finance or refinance the cost of such project, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the portion of the annual Library District budget related to the financing of a
capital project shall not be deemed to be a continuing annual appropriation for library purposes, as provided
in ~5 of the Library District's enabling legislation, after payment in full of any such financing, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall not become effective unless and until it is adopted by the
governing bodies of each of the District Municipalities and the Library Trustees and any Resolution or
other action modifying, amending or repealing any of the provisions of this Resolution shall not become
effective unless and until it is adopted by the governing bodies of each of the District Municipalities and
the Library Trustees.
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Turner
NOES None
ABSENT: Mr. Martin
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING NEW CAPITAL RESERVE FUND #64 FOR CAPITALIZATION OF
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
RESOLUTION NO.: 322,2001
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
MOVED ITS ADOPTION
Res. Amended by Res. 323.201 WHO
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 248,2001 the Queensbury Town Board authorized adoption of
the Policy Authorizing and Establishing a Capital Improvement Plan for the Town of Queensbury (CIP),
and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to establish a Capital Reserve Fund for capitalization of the
CIP in accordance with New York State General Municipal Law ~6(c) and as set forth in the CIP,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the establishment of
a Capital Reserve Fund for the purpose of capitalization of the Capital Improvement Plan Policy for the
Town of Queensbury (CIP) as follows:
1. The Capital Reserve Fund shall be known as "Capital Reserve Fund #64," which Fund will establish
fund expenditures associated with the CIP authorized by Town Board Resolution No.: 248,2001;
2. Initial Funding for the Capital Reserve Fund #64 shall be by a transfer of surplus fund balance from the
General Fund in the amount of $2.5 million.
3. Such amounts as may be provided for by budgetary appropriation shall be paid into Capital Reserve
Fund #64;
4. Such revenues not otherwise appropriated or required by law to be paid into any other fund or account
may be paid into Capital Reserve Fund #64;
5. No transfers shall be made from Capital Reserve Fund #64 except by Town Board Resolution pursuant
to requirements of the CIP Policy;
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Comptroller's Office to
establish Capital Reserve Fund #64 in accordance with General Municipal Law ~6(c), transfer funds,
amend the 2001 Town Budget and take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms and
provisions of this Resolution.
Duly adopted this 8th day of August, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec
NOES
None
ABSENT: Mr. Martin
Discussion held before vote: Comptroller Hess-This is the next step in establishing the funding the Capital
Improvement Plan that the Town has undertaken. We have taken two million five hundred thousand
dollars from general fund surplus or fund balance moving it into a Capital Improvement Plan which will
fund in some way or another either in full or in part capitalize capital projects which have not yet been
defined. There is a prioritization process that is now underway, which involves a committee in the Town
and then come to the Town Board and it will also involve a public hearing when that comes about. Vote
taken...
Councilman Brewer-re: Number 4 One of the revenues that would not be appropriated or required by law
to be paid could come in and go into that fund
Comptroller Hess-That is a legal term, I did not write that or put it in there, but I am going to guess that if
grant money is appropriated that it does not have any other ear mark on it for a specific project it could go
into here.
Councilman Brewer-We do not have an idea where the money is going to come from why is it in there?
Town Counsel Schachner-The very point of it was to build this fund and if money that is not other wised
earmarked; as the Comptroller indicated arrives however it arrives it would go into this fund.
Comptroller Hess-It could...it can go into
Town Counsel Schachner-If the intent is only if it could then I think we should change the shall to may.
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 322.2001
RESOLUTION NO. 323.2001
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
RESOLVED, that Resolution No. 322.2001 be amended as follows; that the wording in #4 the word
shall will be changed to the word may.
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 2001 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Brower, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mr. Martin
RESOLUTION APPROVING SEQRA FINDINGS STATEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH PYRAMID
COMPANY OF GLENS FALLS' PROPOSED A VIA TION MALL RENOVATION AND EXPANSION
PROJECT
RESOLUTION NO.
324,2001
INTRODUCED BY
: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY : Mr. Dennis Brower
WHEREAS, in April of 1998, the Pyramid Company of Glens Falls (Pyramid) submitted a
Petition for Change of Zone application to Amend the Town of Queensbury Zoning Map and Ordinance, a
Full Environmental Assessment Form in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law
and its implementing regulations (6 NYCRR Part 617) known collectively as the New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and an application for site plan approval including site plans
(collectively, the "Petition") to the Queensbury Town Board, and
WHEREAS, on April 20th, 1998, the Town Board by Resolution No. 160,98, forwarded
Pyramid's application for rezoning and zoning amendments to the Town Planning Staff, indicated its wish
to be designated as SEQRA Lead Agency for environmental review of the proposed expansion project,
authorized the Town Clerk to submit Pyramid's application to the Town Planning Board for report and
recommendation, and authorized and directed the Executive Director to notify all SEQRA involved
agencies of the Town Board's wish to be Lead Agency and request their consent or objections within thirty
(30) days, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board acting as SEQRA Lead Agency received consent from the two (2)
SEQRA involved agencies, the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) and the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board (Planning Board), and
WHEREAS, on April 24th, 1998, Pyramid submitted a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for review by the Town Board, The Sear-Brown Group, the engineering firm retained for purposes
of assisting the Town in connection with the SEQRA review (Sear-Brown), NYSDOT, Town Planning
Staff and Planning Board, and
WHEREAS, on May 4th, 1998, by Resolution No.: 189.98, the Town Board made a SEQRA
Positive Declaration, accepted the DEIS as complete with respect to its scope, content and adequacy for the
purpose of commencing public review and commenced the public comment period, and
WHEREAS, on June 8th, 1998, the Town Board conducted a public hearing on the Project and
DEIS at a joint session with the Planning Board and on June 19th, 1998, the public comment period
concluded, and
WHEREAS, on May 7th, 2001, Pyramid presented a modified proposal to reduce the size of the
prior proposal to authorize construction and operation of a 125,000 SF GLA department store, which
results in a net expansion of the existing Aviation Mall by HOO,OOO SF GLA, associated parking and other
site improvements (Modified Project) and requested the Town Board to resume its consideration of the
Petition and Modified Project as submitted, and
WHEREAS, Pyramid submitted a proposed Addendum to the DEIS (Addendum) to the Town
Board for review and consideration, and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 212.2001, the Town Board on May 14th, 2001, accepted the
Addendum as complete with respect to its scope, content and adequacy for the purpose of commencing
public review and commenced a public comment period, and
WHEREAS, on May 21,2001 the Town Board duly conducted a public hearing on the Modified
Project, the DEIS and Addendum and on June 18th, 2001 the public comment period concluded, and
WHEREAS, by Town Board Resolution No.: 293.2001, the Town Board accepted the FEIS and
authorized the Notice of Completion of FEIS, and
WHEREAS, a Findings Statement has been presented to the Town Board at this meeting and the
Town Board has reviewed the Findings Statement and issues relevant to the Modified Project,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby states that it has fully and carefully
considered the proposal for the renovation and expansion of Aviation Mall, the proposed action's impacts
on the Town of Queensbury and surrounding area and the comments and recommendations of any involved
and interested agencies and the general public, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby affirms that the requirements of Part 617, New York
Code of Rules and Regulations, Title 6 have been met and hereby determines that:
1. It has considered the relevant environmental impacts, facts and conclusions disclosed in the FEIS;
2. It has weighed and balanced relevant environmental impacts with social, economic and other
considerations;
3. It has provided a rationale for its decision; and
4. Consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations from among the reasonable
alternatives available, the action is one that avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the
maximum extent practicable and adverse environmental impacts will be avoided or minimized to the
maximum extent practicable by incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative measures that
were identified as practicable;
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board, as lead agency in assessing potential
environmental impacts of the proposed renovation and expansion of Aviation Mall, hereby approves and
adopts the Statement of SEQRA Findings presented at this meeting, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director of
Community Development to file this Resolution and Findings Statement as may be required by the SEQRA
Regulations, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs Town Counsel to review any
required notices and make any necessary additions or modifications to comply with the SEQRA
Regulations.
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Brower, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer
NOES
None
ABSENT: Mr. Martin
Discussion held before vote:
Executive Director Chris Round-This is a resolution that we have draft findings statements I gave you a
draft last Monday night explaining that there were several issues that are outstanding in regards to the
Northwest lands, beautification elements landscaping, building height, a couple of elements in regards to
traffic impact analysis that was presented. This revised findings statement that you have in front of you
tonight addresses those and I would like to walk you thorough what the changes that we have proposed for
you. I have also given you a copy of a letter that we received on Friday from New York State DOT they do
have five comments, broad comments on submittals that were presented to them back in May. They have
been slow in responding to the Town and to the applicant. These five comments we feel, I feel and after
talking with Sear Brown Group, they have been addressed in the responses that have been submitted to the
Town. I will just say that in another way is that the Town has made similar coments to the applicant, the
applicant responded and responded satisfactorily to the Town. So, I will leave that, at that. If you would
just take a copy of the finding statement in front of you it is a lengthily document it does several things, it
establishes the bases for the decision that you would be entertaining tonight. So, a lot of what is included
in the finding statement reiterates what was in either the draft or the final EIS. Here are the conditions,
here are the things that you have contemplated through this decision making process.
Councilman Brewer-You are going through the finding statement right now?
Director Round-I am going to the finding statement it is what I dropped in front of you tonight.
Councilman Brewer-This letter here you are pretty confident that it is already been addressed?
Director Round-I feel that it has been addressed, let me just go over that a little bit, Item 1. regards Trip
Generation and Distribution of Traffic How many vehicles are going to be generated and what drive ways
are they going to enter, we asked those same questions on behalf of the Town Board. The applicant
provided a response, they are going to have to get the DOT comfortable with those issues. We, the Town
Consultants are comfortable with those but regardless of what action we take tonight the applicant is going
to have to obtain a New York State DOT work permit. Work permits generally contain provisions that
applicants are going to have to respond to and that might include something about these trip distribution
numbers. Two-Proximity of the Eastern Signalized Drive to 254 It talks about cueing and ask for a course
of analysis. We asked for the course of analysis the applicant provided it and actually the course of
analysis was developed by the Transportation Council, the Crayton Manning Engineerng report for the
Greenway Connector Project. We did a course of analysis. What that is, the way traffic analysis are done
they follow methodology, it is called the Highway Capacity System Methodology and there is a three point
five there is an iteration of what that computer application is. What that does, it is state of the art analysis
is traffic analysis have taken to the next step and they have provided simulations. Well you can only
analyze so many elements with a capacity manual analysis. This ..looks at how many vehicles are going to
be in the roadway and it looks at the roadway itself typically, highway capacity looks at intersections, it
looks at the pipes that we call roadways and how many things can fit thorough valve. Well, traffic we want
to look at how much is backed up at a particular intersection so this course of analysis allows us to do that.
The Cryaton Manning Engineering analysis looked at that and said, yes, we can accommodate growth in
the corridor but it is going to require sigal timing changes and the applicant reiterated those particular
elements. Item 3. Talks about that again, signal coordination. If you recall almost three years ago the
Town instituted signal timing changes on Quaker Road and those signal timing changes allowed traffic to
move through the corridor at a design speed for the highway so that you would only hit, rarely would you
hit a red light if you were traveling at the design speed. Not everyone travels at the design speed and if
you, so those of you that hit red lights on Quaker Road drive a little slower you are going to get more
green. But, what we didn't do we didn't change the signal timings to Nine and two fifty-four, the Mall
entrance or 187 because at that time a large Aviation Road project was proposed. We said lets not propose
any changes to that there might be new driveways there might be new signals, so DOT has chimed in and
asked for that and the findings that you have in front of you address this particular element. Four, DOT is
asking foran accident history at the Mall intersections Those were done in a previous traffic analysis so
that the Pyramid folks have to provide this updated analysis to DOT. The last item is that they used an
older version of this Highway Capacity HCS model they need to use a newer model because just recently I
think as recently as June or July DOT has adopted a new model to utilize. So, we think that they are mostly,
most of these things have been addressed and those that haven't been addressed can be addressed through a
work permit that DOT will require of the applicant. I do not know if you have any questions of DOT
letter? But, hopefully, I did express this concern last week that we did not have DOT comments, we do
have them in hand. It is my opinion that the applicant is going to be able to address thern. They are not
environmental thresholds that they are things that can be handled through the work permit process. To go
back to the findings statement, there are some changes; they are underlined in most nstances. I apology
there is not page numbers on this latest version we were in, we were at the presses at four o'clock trying to
get this ready for you tonight. So, there are some, there are no numbers on the pages. The first change is
on the third page and you see a section that is underlined and it talks about just this, not having received
DOT's comments. Having just received them we have modified we do acknowledge receipt of these on
August 2nd. The Town acknowledges that DOT is an involved agency and it is not necessary from a
procedural standpoint for the Town to delay its action on the findings statement. So, I kind of boiled those
paragraphs down and I will ask Mark to chime in anytime he feels necessary. I am going to go ahead to
page the top of the page it is called Item 4. Possible Future Development the area that we revised was Item
5 under Parking It was just a clarification point. This new project that is proposed the modified project for
everybody's edification, the modified projec is what is proposed immediately or in the immediate future
and that is a new retail space that is measured at and depending on how you measure it, it is one hundred
and twenty five thousand square foot retail facility. With construction of this new facility they are going to
lose parking areas and as a part of the zone change we have asked and through discussions they have
reduced the parking requirements for the mall. Right now it is currently at, help me out John at any time, at
five, five is the standards throughout the town the new zoning ordinance proposes four and a half the mall
Attorney Lapper-We are asking for four.
Director Round-They are asking for four we proposed so is it four in the
Councilman Brewer-Four point Oh, six.
Director Round-Well this what is going to be constructed I do not have the zone change resolution
Attorney Lapper- The zone changes goes down to four.
Director Round-It goes down to four.
Councilman Brewer-What does this mean in the event the applicant determines?
Director Round-Generally the perspective of the town is we build too much parking, all right, so we have
lowered the standard for parking so that we are not mandating too much parking. Generally, we do not
have an off street parking problem, we are not an urban center where we have a lot of overflow parking on
the streets so we reduced this down to four to say, here is the requirement if you want more and the
applicant asks for more they want to go to four and a half they could ask for four and a half the Planning
Board could entertain that approval and I have no problem. If they need four and a half to accommodate
their site needs I have no problem them building that. We do not want to require that of them but if
requested and if needed lets allow them to do that.
Supervisor Brower-We are not building parking lots for the peak season.
Director Round-Right.
Councilman Brewer-Why can't you just simply put in here that what we will require them four provide
enough area in the future they need four and half that the area is available? Can't we do something like
that?
Attorney Lapper -The issue for us is that there may be a tenant that has to have four and half because they
have different requirements which is still not like K Mart that was at seven.
Councilman Brewer-So why are we lowering it then?
Attorney Lapper- W e want to build four but if a new tenant comes in not the tenant that we have now, but if
the next tenant comes in and says that they have to have four and a half we want to have the flexibility so it
does not have to be a zoning issue for the Town Board just to add some extra spaces so we can get a tenant.
Just in terms of flexibility.
Director Round-Four is not, we do not find a lot of basis for four in our research or literature, generally it is
four and a half and that is what is proposed in the town so we wanted four and a half to be consistent.
Generally the Planning Board and you know, Tim, from your experience we say, can you build four and a
half, yes you can build four and a half but, ok, you are going to satisfy any potential need because you are
going to be able to build the minimurn. However, we do not want you to build that minimum we want to
you build even less because your site only needs this.
Councilman Brewer-That is what I would prefer in this, rather than saying four and a half and have them
come back.
Director Round-It is a different approach you are approaching it a different approach from a different way,
I approached it hey, lets require four and a half and if they need less, right and that is consistent with the
way we have done it in the past, that is the reason I have proposed it at four and a half and allow them to
build less. Demonstrate that you capable of building the minimum, our requirement but if you need to
build less, lets let you do that. It is a difference in approach. So, this change just clarifies how many
parking spaces are going to be on the site, I am going to flip ahead if you do not have any more questions.
Next page Item 7 under lighting, I had discussed with you last week it has been our discussions with the
applicant through this process over the last six months or so that new lights, one of our things that our
heightened awareness to with our new zoning ordinance is the impact of lighting on our landscape on our
built environments. So, what this says is that the design of th lighting fixtures is going to be addressed at
the Planning Board. They had proposed just to reutilized an existing lighting structures as feasible and I do
not have it in my head what those, the heights of those structures are right now but they are going to be in
exceedance of what we are going to propose as a guideline so this is going to allow us to further address
lighting on the site as a part of site plan approval. Item 8 we added there was a typo identified capital
district transportation we have Greater Glens Falls Transit for busses but the last paragraph under item 8, it
says "While there is no current plan to do so, in the event the Town causes an extension of the Foster
Avenue to the be constructed, the Applicant expressed a willingness to consider reasonable site
improvements to facilitate such an extension." Foster Avenue was one of those improvements identified in
a 93' transportation plan for the Town and that Foster Avenue would provide an improvement to Nine and
Two Fifty Four intersectin. That improvement as we go through the TIP process, the TIP process is where
we evaluate highway improvements and whether they are fundable with State and Federal dollars. It is
taking a lower priority but, in the event it becomes a higher priority of the Town and of this Regional
Transportation Planning Commission we want Pyramid to participate in that process we do not want to
have to pay Pyramid to modify their site to accommodate a road, which is going to provide a benefit to
Pyramid. So, this without creating a lot of language this does, it addresses that particular element.
Councilman Brewer-It just says they have a willingness to consider it.
Director Round-It is very difficult without having a plan in hand to say, this is what you are going to do,
this creates a willingness. I know.
Councilman Brewer-We couldn't say that they are willing to participate in implementing the plan?
Director Round-At any point during this discussion you want to propose a language change feel free to do
so.
Councilman Brewer-That is what I would propose.
Attorney Lapper- Tim, if we could talk about that for a second. What Pyramid has told us they want to be
able to review where it would be located how that would impact the ring road, where it would
Councilman Brewer-Absolutely.
Attorney Lapper-be compared to a tenant, so it is just, because there is no plan we were trying to come up
with some general language saying that they will sit down with you and work out the details but at the same
time they cannot be told no, you are going to do something
Councilman Brewer-All I would propose John, is to say that you are willing to participate in the project,
not say you have a willingness to talk that does not mean anything.
Councilman Stec-Chris, also we had talked about
Councilman Brewer-That does not give any substance at all to say that you are willing to talk, well
anybody can talk but if you are not willing to do something then what difference, you might better take that
willingness to talk out of there. Do you understand what I am saying?
Attorney Lapper-Yes.
Director Round-It is difficult for us to give some language I do not know if Mr. ...is not going to
Councilman Brewer-There are a lot of lawyers in the room they will come up with something. Can we
come up with something Mark?
Town Counsel Schachner-We are really operating here in a vacuum because we do not know what plan
there might ever exist?
Councilman Brewer-I would just, broadly say that their willingness to participate in some sort of a
Town Counsel Schachner-That is fine if you want to say the applicant consents to participate in reasonable
site improvements, I do not have a problem with that but again that is still unquantified what does
participate mean?
Attorney Lapper-Ifyou look at eleven there is better language Greg just pointed out where we had talked to
Chris about this. Under the very last page under 11 is a little more definitive language. ...this is the actual
mitigation.
Councilman Brewer-The last page.
Attorney Lapper- The last page
Director Round-Page Item 11 in what, we will go through all these but, it says that in the event the Town
determines to construct a road connecting the site to Foster Avenue and Foster Avenue being located
southeasterly of the Expanded Mall, the Applicant shall cooperate with the Town regarding establishment
of a mutually acceptable connection of such road to the site. The very last page of the entire document. I
am going to move ahead and I apologize not having page numbers here.
Councilman Brewer-The next page Chris letter A, just read that paragraph, that is the part I was referencing
to earlier I am trying to embarrass you guys.
Director Round-The page is titled Municipal Revenues and Finances 1. a. Modified Project The modified
project will have a significant positive economic impact as it is anticipated to create two hundred and
twenty three full time equivalent construction jobs with the payroll of six point two five million dollars. In
addition a hundred and thirty seven full time equivalent jobs are anticipated once the modified project is
completed with an annual payroll of two million dollars. These jobs and revenues will generate additional
expenditures in the local economy through direct and multiplier effects of approximately three point eight
million dollars annually. Additional projected tax revenue from real property taxes, school taxes and sales
taxes are anticipated to total almost $500,000 dollars annually. The growth of the tax base more than off
sets any municipal costs associated with the Modified Project. Did you want to discuss that?
Councilman Brewer-No. Just a point of reference from before.
Director Round-If you would just flip ahead until you see the next underlined section the top of the page
says "The Applicant also requested that building set backs and buffer zone" do you have that page in front
of you? Ok. This is regarding, the applicant requested that we measure the travel corridor overlay set back
from the edge of pavement and I have indicated to you throughout our discussions that I am not an
advocate for us to be measuring building set backs from the edge of a roadway, because an edge of a
roadway is subject to relocation at any time at any year at any month. So, this, I wrote this on your behalf,
is second sentence, the Town Board believes that such requested modification is inconsistent with the
Town's Ordinance however, the Town Board finds that there is adequate right of way along the Aviation
Road corridor, through 187 east to New York State Route 9. So, that is the area that we are talking about is
this project site area from 187 all the way to Route 9. The Town Board, I dicussed this with Ted, Ted and I
had drafted this together actually. The Town Board proposes modification to the travel corridor overlay
zone that section 179-28 of our Zoning Ordinance. To reduce the travel corridor I am adding language, to
reduce this set back to forty feet consistence with the set backs of the ECS zones. So, our travel corridor
over lay zone is typically seventy-five feet through out the Town. Quaker Road, from Route 9 all the way
to Warren Street, there is no travel corridor over lay set back because there is existing the right of way,
when we proposed the legislation there was not need for travel corridor lane because we already have a five
lane road section and we likely not going to build a five lane or additional lanes throughout that area. So,
this is consistent with that, basically you are eliminating the travel corridor overlay from the south side of
the roadway in the area of the project site. So, that would be Mobil, Burger King, the Mall and the
northwest lands.
Councilman Brewer-Because that would all be forty feet?
Director Round-That would all be forty feet and that is what the ESC zone that you are proposing is forty
feet as well. There is basically it removes the travel corridor overlay set back from this area.
Councilman Brewer-So, if Burger King or somebody like that tore that down they could be within forty
feet of the road?
Director Round-And that is what this zoning allows as well, within forty feet.
Town Counsel Schachner-So, you want to specify that this is only in this stretch of road.
Director Round-It is and it is in the zoning ordinance, the language that is included with the next resolution
specifies this, that it is just section of the roadway that we are proposing a modification. Weare not
proposing a uniform modification through out the town just for Aviation Road. Ok. I am going to flip
ahead to the next underlined sections again, it is going to be under, you are going to see Traffic topic
number 8. There are several modifications here in the next pages, I am not going to go through them all but
I will try to summarize them for you. This first comment indicates the absence and I am going to read this
one directly I guess. "The absence of comments from the NYSDOT is no way relieves the project
applicant of meeting any and all specific requirements NYSDOT my have for the issuance of a highway
work permit. The applicant will be responsible for all improvements required by the NYSDOT and such
improvements will not take the place of mitigation measures described herein." So, wha this says is just
because we propose mitigation if DOT proposes this mitigation you cannot be relieved from the cost of our
mitigation. What we propose later on is that we are proposing a fee in lieu of mitigation that fee is
proposed to pay for the town share of Nine and Two Fifty-four traffic improvements. So, the rest of this
language elaborates on those elements it also elaborates the initial draft of the findings when it comes to
traffic impact analysis the applicant I think we more accurately describe the outcome of the traffic impact
analysis and we indicate that, yes there are degradations of level of service so that is on the record. It does
goes from D to E in two instances at Nine and Two Fifty-four. And we want to make sure that, that was
clearly identified the previous version did not clearly identify that this version does clearly identify that.
DOT is going to chime in, DOT typically they characterize drops in level of service themselves. They will
characterize a drop of a level C to alvei D as an acceptable drop or an acceptable loss in capacity and
associated with a level of service. The previous version didn't acknowledge a D to an E as not acceptable
so that is what we do in here, we say this is not acceptable therefore we are going to require mitigation.
That is what this page. From the applicants standpoint I just, something that I just picked up on tonight the
last sentence, the applicants contribution will therefore be calculated at a rate of one dollar per square foot
of net building area increase to, paid at the town at the time of issuance of building permit, and later on in
the document we talk about gross leas able area are constructed. It was in a previous version the net
increase as I calculate it is one hundred and twenty five thousand square feet is proposed for this modified
project less twenty-three thousand five hundred square feet, so that would be one hundred and one thousand
five hundred square feet. So, I am just, I want to make sure, I would like to add a sentece at the end of that
applicants contribution will therefore be calculated at a rate of one dollar per square foot of net building
area increase to be paid to the town at the time of issuance of building permit the net increase is measured
at one hundred and one thousand five hundred square feet for the modified project. Just so we are
consistent throughout this document.
Supervisor Brower-Is that dollar a square foot, is there any precedent is this a common type of fee? How
did you come up with a dollar?
Director Round-It is very difficult those are handled individually if you recall the Veterans Field Industrial
Park, we identified the cost of improvements, typically identify what actual mitigation are you going to
propose and if you are not able to construct it because it is outside of you jurisdiction or outside of your
operational control you can pay that entity that has that jurisdiction a fee, so you will identify hey, you need
three signals you need a turning lane we have quantified that the cost for that project is X. Or you will
identify in a generic EIS for makes the term, take Veterans Field and just set that aside, you do a GIS for an
area a corridor that is going to grow you are going to impose an impact fee on all those contributors to
growth so you are going to pay a proportionate share of all traffic improvements and it might be
contemplated over a planning window a ten year or twenty year planning window. So, for instance we
expect a lot of growth in a particular corridor, we could have donethis with the transportation concept
study. That identified a series of improvements, it proposed Foster Avenue Extension, it proposed a re-
alignment of intersections, a proposed Greenway North Connection, proposed a Sweet Road Connector we
could have taken that list of improvements and quantified the dollar value of that. Then we could have
assessed all new users in this transportation improvement district a fee, so those are examples of how traffic
mitigation fees are utilized. In this case there is a public project proposed and that's improvements to Nine
and Two Fifty-four. We quantified we assessed a cost we identified a cost for the Greenway Connector,
the Greenway Connector is no longer being proposed. Nine and Two Fifty-four intersection improvements
are proposed we estimate that, that project is going to be on the order of a million and a half to three million
dollars. The local share is five percent, so the Town if they funded five percent of three million dollars that
would be a hundred and fift thousand dollars. So, this is how, that is not how we came up with this
assessment the applicant proposed dollar we were looking for additional basis for assessing a cost, we do
not have that in hand but I personally and this is a reasonable number to work with. So, I do not know if I
have enlightened or confused you at this point, but.
Supervisor Brower-The only other question I have you took away you deducted what twenty-five thousand
square feet roughly, twenty four thousand square feet, is that, because of the existing building that they are
moving into?
Director Round-Because it is a mall, because this particular addition is just that, the addition is actually
bumped into the mall so they are going to re-fab twenty three five and they are going to construct a
hundred and one five.
Supervisor Brower-But that space isn't currently being utilized, correct?
Attorney Lapper-It is there..it is being utilized.
Director Round-No, it is there, typically you couldn't if they were going to tear down the mall and rebuild it
we couldn't assess them a traffic impact fee to construct a mall in kind. It is just not a reasonable request.
So, that is that comment there. Where we come up with the dollar, where the dollar comes up so that the
one hundred and one five is mearly going to pay for a five percent share of a three million dollar project
that we are going to be looking at in the next year to two years. So, but, also they are going to be assessed
a dollar a square foot for a hundred and fifty thousand square foot building that is not proposed yet but the
zoning that is going on and this SEQRA approval is going to allow them to build up to a hundred and fifty
thousand square foot building. So, they would be assessed another dollar another hundred and fifty
thousand dollars for that construction activity. I am going to flip ahead, so that is what these two
paragraphs that have been revised and there has been a lot f strike outs that goes out on and flipping ahead
if you look to noise and vibration that paragraph above that Possible Future Development. It chimes in
again it is going to be a dollar square foot of gross leas able area and that is going to be, we want this paid
they propose the issuance of a certificate of occupancy I am recommending that you get that at the time of
building permit is issued because a building permit is the one set of the activity, CO, a lot of things can
happen between building permit and CO and I think, Mark is nodding his head in agreement I think it is
just a greater sense of security on my standpoint. I am going to flip all the way ahead to the last section and
that is mitigation measurers, that is title of item four. It is the last three pages of the findings statement.
Items one through five are things that are taken out of just a typical construction activities, boiler plate here
are the kind of things you want to control, dust emissions, you want to have soil and erosion contrl so they
are just things that we typically include in a plan. Item six talks about roadway and interior road
improvements, if any identified in traffic impact statement to be constructed by and you are missing the
applicant for the modified project shall be constructed prior to the issuance of the CO. So, in this case the
proposal they, we required them to make improvements to the ring road. They are going to actually further
refine and define that loop around the mall, right now it is kind of, it is the outside lane in that you know
derby the event that you do when you go shopping at Christmas time, this is actually going to provide
curbing. They need to construct that before we issue a CO for this new facility. So, that is what this says.
Item seven, is that a typo, I guess we have a typo here, we got six and seven look like they are identical
Director Round Ok. Thanks, section one is for the future development so they have got to construct any
traffic improvements for the future development meaning the northwest lands before that project gets a CO,
Item eight is what we have talked about, it is a dollar a square foot per square foot of gross leas able area
constructed. Such amounts represent a contribution of costs of the intersection and related improvements,
also in this section ..the applicant shall develop a signal coordination plan and implement said plan in
consultation with New York State DOT. We talked about it we relied, our traffic impact analysis relied
that they coordinate signals we just want to make sure that, that is identified in the mitigation plan and we
expect that the DOT is going to take an active roll in that and that is going to be a condition of the work
permit but I did not want that to go on unrecognized in our findings statement. It also, the last sentence
"This does not preclude the NYS SOT from requiring additional mtigation.." So, in the event that they go
through this design and development with DOT and the review process DOT wants something else they are
free to ask and that doesn't they do not get any credit for what they pay to the Town. Item nine is, we
reserve the right for the Planning Board to specify landscaping during the site planning process so that the
mixture that, that most sensitive to the area right along Aviation Road and the area along the highway 187
that, that has to be landscaped and presented appropriately to make sure that we have a nice gateway to the
Town. Item ten, Item eleven we talked about it says we are going to cooperate with Foster Avenue, Item
ten, I will let, I do not know if John has anything else to say about item ten, Item ten is a commitment to
have a tenant to occupy the Seven Steers facility within sixty days if they don't they have to come before
the Planning Board and submit a landscaping plan that is going to address some of the beautification
elements that you have all taked about during this process.
Attorney Lapper-What I can comment is that Bob Orlando, the Mall Manager sitting next to me is very
close to finalizing a lease to tenant that space and we hope that there will be a formal announcement within
the next few weeks, but at the same time we provided this alternative if that falls apart which we do not
expect, so that we could implement the landscape plan that we all talked about and we would come back
with a formal plan if that happened but that is certainly not preferable to the applicant and that is not what
we expect.
Director Round-I think it was in one of our versions this item ten should include and Mark do you want to
just rephrase that, this landscape is going to be submitted to the Planning Board in this current version does
not say that.
Town Counsel Schachner-And actually we propose to add the words to the Planning Board at the end of the
last full line. So, it says the applicant shall submit an interim landscaping plan to the, actually I would like
to add, to the Town Planning Board for the northwest lands along Aviation Road.
Director Round-So, we gave you this last week, it is a lot of information we tried to summarize it half way
tonight I do not know if there are any question of the applicant, of us, of staff, Town Counsel, the
resolutions that you have in front of you tonight are going to do several things. One is to adopt this
findings statement that is 3.7 and 3.8 actually is the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, that amendment
is going to change the Highway Commercial Zoning Designation consistent with what has been proposed
right throughout this process. It is going to change the parking schedules, permeable area, building height
requirements, we talked about building height last week, travel corridor, overlay, so it is going to make
those changes. It is also going to rezone the northwest lands HCIA to ESe. Things we have discussed
throughout this process, throughout the presentations the only difference the only change that we have
proposed that the Town Board act on is a change to the travel corridor overlay sectionthat I talked about.
Rather than change the ESC zone to address traffic corridor overlay lets change the traffic corridor overlay
it is consist ant with what we have contemplated throughout this process but it is a different way to do that
change. I do not know if you have any comments? We haven't talked about I do not know if there is
anything that we haven't talked about that you have concerns about.
Supervisor Brower-The cost for the timing improvement on the lights on Aviation Road that's assumed to
be taken care of by the applicant?
Director Round-The is the obligation of the applicant. Iffor instance you need a new signal head and a
new controller those can run on the order of a hundred thousand dollars that is going to be the responsibility
of the applicant to make those improvements.
Councilman Brewer-Do you guys want to announce a tenant tonight?
Attorney Lapper-No. As we have mentioned previously we have an agreement with the tenant that they
will announce it after we have received the approvals but we are hoping that, that will happen soon and this
project will get underway soon.
Councilman Stec-Requested a five-minute break.
Supervisor Brower-We will break for five minutes, we will come back in five minutes. Break over...Chris
you are finished with the findings?
Director Round-Yes. I have explained the findings and the resolutions that follow, I do not know if you
have any questions of me or the applicant please feel free to fire away.
Councilman Brewer-So, what are our options tonight? Our options are to accept this move forward do the
rezoning?
Town Counsel Schachner-You have the same standards, options you generally have on rezoning issues,
you have the option of adopting the SEQRA finding statement which is what I would call a positive
SEQRA findings statement meaning it is a SEQRA finding statement that explains that any negative or
adverse environmental impacts are out weighted by the benefits of the proposed project this how the
SEQRA findings statement is written. If you do not agree with that you know you legally have the option
to say no, we feel that the significant adverse environmental impacts out weight the economic social and
other benefits in which case we would have to revise substantially revise the draft SEQRA findings
statement. I do not think that we could probably do that tonight for you to adopt that tonight but legally
you have that option. You also as always have the option of not doing anything tonight and consider this
still further; those are your legal options.
Supervisor Brower-If we do adopt the SEQRA findings statement it would be revised as discussed
Councilman Brewer-As amended.
Supervisor Brower-Chris's presentation.
Town Counsel Schachner-There were only two minor amendments and we, staff and counsel would
certainly suggest that if you introduced and approve the SEQRA findings statement as drafted that those
two amendments be incorporated. I am sorry I only gave you half an answer to the question I suppose; I
only discuss the SEQRA findings statement. You cannot, I gave you half the answer I only answered about
the SEQRA finding statement, there are two proposed actions before you tonight one is adoption of the
SEQRA finding statement the second one is the actual approval of the zoning ordinance amendments that
the applicant seeks. You have the same basic options there except that you know there, by law, you also
have no legal obligation ever to actually consider zoning amendments, you always have the legal
opportunity or option to simply say we are not going to consider thern. I am certainly not advocating that,
you asked me what your legal options were and I am pointing them out.
Supervisor Brower-Discussion or questions from the Town Board Members?
Councilman Turner-Any problems with what we have got right here? The findings statement as it is stated
and the changes we made, anybody have a problem with it?
Councilman Brewer-It pretty much accomplishes what
Councilman Turner-It addresses all the issues really.
Supervisor Brower-I still believe they, eventually Foster Avenue is going to have to be considered as an
improvement to our traffic flow in the Town. I know it is not, it is addressed somewhat here but not very
specifically.
Councilman Turner-It alludes to the fact that they will be a participant in it.
Councilman Brewer-That is in the last sentence on here right? Do you think we ought to define that more
Dennis? As to what participation they will take?
Attorney Lapper- The problem with Foster Ave. as we discussed that it requires the acquisitions of a whole
bunch of land that Pyramid doesn't own that the neighbor owns.
Supervisor Brower-I understand that.
Attorney Lapper-If some
Supervisor Brower-There are some complications there.
Attorney Lapper-But if someday they do a project, the neighbors do a project and the town requires them to
dedicate land that could become feasible but at this point it is a stretch, but our traffic study did not require
that it be done either for this project.
Supervisor Brower-I like the fact that the dollar per square foot will enable, help the town fund some of the
traffic improvement some of the matching funds required for Nine and Two Fifty-four in the future. I think
that is very critical.
Councilman Turner-That was one of the issues that we were hung up on.
Supervisor Brower-Any further comments from the Board Members? Well let me ask you this do I have a
motion by any Board Member to adopt the revised positive SEQRA finding statement?
Councilman Stec-Is there any pressing need from the applicant for us to act on this, this evening?
Attorney Lapper-Of course, we are hoping for move forward this month to the Planning Board we have
been to the Planning Board twice to discuss the project and we would like to get the site plan approval so
that the project can actually get built as soon as possible.
Councilman Stec-Would two weeks to think it over review it more thoroughly pose a significant hurdle?
Attorney Lapper-I guess, the question is are there issues that the Board would like us to further explore?
We certainly have been working hard with Chris and the Planning Dept. to get to this point.
Supervisor Brower-DOT, they still have to get a permit from DOT to move forward so if there is further
traffic problems that they have to address you know they will be responsible for that with DOT directly.
Councilman Brewer-They do not get the building permit until they get the DOT comments?
Attorney Lapper-Right, we need a DOT work permit first.
Councilman Turner-I think that there has been a lot of work that has been done on it that's been a real
contribution to the progress or the forward movement of this project and I think to further address it and try
to refine it I do not think it is there. Now is the time to do it, I am ready to do it.
Town Counsel Schachner-I have a comment just something that Chris and I are thinking out loud about we
might offer a proposed amendment to that final mitigation measure item number lion the last page of the
document try to firm up some of the board's thoughts about what this Board's quote unquote cooperation
with the Town might mean just something to think about. You understand that this talks about the applicant
cooperating with the Town regarding establishment of a mutually acceptable connection of such road to the
site in reference to the road connecting the site to Foster Avenue. You could consider adding language at
the end of that to the effect of, and the applicant shall be financially responsible for the cost of any related
site improvements occurring on its property. That would at least require the applicant, in other words
however the applicant, however the town and applicant mutually decide there will be a connector road
connecting the Aviation Road property to Foster Avenue might require site improvements on the property
owned by the Mall, by Pyramid and this would obligate the applicat to pay for the improvements that
would be occurring on its property to facility that connection. Something that arguably might be obligated
to do anyway but this would sort of firm that up.
Supervisor Brower-I think that is wise language.
Councilman Brewer-Do we have to amend that Ted?
Town Counsel Schachner-I am afraid so I did not think of it quickly enough to beat your motion.
Supervisor Brower-So that would be as amended Ted?
Councilman Turner-Yes, as amended.
Supervisor Brower-And I would second that as amended.
Councilman Turner-On page 22 on my sheet and it refers to paragraph eleven.
Councilman Brewer-Was that agreeable with the applicant?
Attorney Lapper-Could you give the exact language again?
Councilman Brewer-Mark could you restate that language?
Town Counsel Schachner-We are proposing to add or I guess the motion now includes the addition of
language at the end of mitigation finding number eleven on the very last page of the findings statement and
the language would just be added to the sentence it is not a new sentence, and the language would read; and
the applicant shall be financially responsible for the cost of any related site improvements occurring on its
property.
Attorney Lapper-Is that on the Mall property? What if they own property somewhere else?
Town Counsel Schachner-The context here is if the Town determines to construct a road connecting the
site, which is presumably the Pyramid Aviation Mall site to Foster Avenue. That is the language right out
of the first line of number eleven.
Supervisor Brower-Board Members?
Councilman Brewer-Is that acceptable?
Attorney Lapper-It is your decision. We would like to get this approved tonight, certainly.
VOTE TAKEN
~ requirement to no less than four (4) spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet of GLA upon request by
the landowner."
~ 179-28. Travel Corridor Overlay Zone.
A. Purpose. The Town of Queensbury realizes that as the Town and the region continue to grow, the need
for improved local arterial roads will become important to the movement of traffic within the Town of
Queensbury. In order to maintain the rural character along these roadways and/or to allow widening of
these roadways in the future, increased setbacks for new construction has been established along the major
regional arterials in the Town.
B. [Amended 3-5-1990; 7-29-1991 by L.L. No. 14-1991] Designated arterials. The following roads shall
comply with the requirements of the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone:
(1) Route 9 from the Glens Falls City line north to the Lake George Town line. (2) Ridge Road from the
Glens Falls City line north to Route 149. (3) Corinth Road from the Luzerne Town line east to Route 1-87.
(4) Main Street from Route 1-87 east to the Glens Falls City line. (5) Relocated Aviation Road from Route
1-87 east to Route 9. (Note 1) (6) Quaker Road from Route 9 east to Dix Avenue. (7) Route 149 from Route
9 east to the Fort Ann Town line. (8) Bay Road from the Glens Falls City line north to Route 149 (Note 2) .
C. Regulations. All buildings hereafter erected or altered within this Travel Corridor
Overlay District shall be set back 75 feet from the edge of the road right-of-way.
Notes: (1)The setback for the south side of the relocated Aviation Road shall be 40 feet from the edge of
the ROW. (2)Along Bay Road only, this seventy-five-foot setback shall be maintained as open space, as
defined.
RESOLUTION AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE CLASSIFICATION OF
PROPERTY OWNED BY PYRAMID COMPANY OF GLENS FALLS LOCATED ON AVIATION
ROAD FROM HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL - ONE ACRE (HC-IA) TO ENCLOSED SHOPPING
CENTER - TWENTY-FIVE ACRES (ESC - 25A)
RESOLUTION NO.
: 325,2001
INTRODUCED BY
: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY : Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, in April of 1998, the Pyramid Company of Glens Falls (Pyramid) submitted a Petition for
Change of Zone application to Amend the Town of Queensbury Zoning Map and Ordinance, a Full
Environmental Assessment Form in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and
its implementation regulations (6 NYCRR Part 617) known collectively as the New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and an application for site plan approval including site
plans (collectively, the "Petition") to the Queensbury Town Board, and
WHEREAS, the Petition requests that the Town Board authorize the rezoning of lands located
between Aviation Mall and the Northway Exit 19 interchange ("Northwest Lands") from Highway
Commercial - One Acre (HC-IA) to Enclosed Shopping Center - 25 Acres ("ESC-25A"), and
WHEREAS, the Petition further requests that the Town Board authorize the amendment of certain
regulations pertaining to uses in the ESC-25A zone, and
WHEREAS, the Petition was originally submitted in connection with a proposed expansion to
Aviation Mall of :1:850,000 square feet of gross leaseable area ("SF GLA") including multi-level parking
facilities and other site improvements ("Original Project"), and
WHEREAS, on June 8, 1998, the Town Board conducted a public hearing on the Petition, and
WHEREAS, on June 10, 1998, the Warren County Planning Board adopted a Resolution
recommending approval of the Petition, and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 1998, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board adopted a Resolution
recommending approval of the Petition, and
WHEREAS, on May 7,2001, the Applicant presented a modified proposal to reduce the size of
the proposed expansion and authorize construction of a department store, associated parking and other site
improvements ("Modified Project"), and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Amendment requests of the Petition remain applicable to the Modified
Project, and
WHEREAS, on May 21,2001, a second public hearing was duly conducted by the Town Board on
the Petition, which public hearing, although not legally required, was conducted to provide the public an
opportunity to provide input on the Petition in light of the Modified Project and Possible Future
Development (as described in the Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement which was
prepared for the Project), and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to modify certain of the proposed amendments in the Petition
as set forth in the attached Exhibit A, and
WHEREAS, the public notices for the two public hearings fairly apprised the public of the
fundamental character of the proposed amendments in the Petition, and
WHEREAS, taking into account the modifications, the fundamental character of each proposed
amendment in the Petition remains substantially the same, and the Town-initiated modifications to the
Petition are more restrictive than those in the Petition, and
WHEREAS, on August 6,2001, the Town Board, as lead agency, adopted a Findings Statement
pursuant to the requirements of SEQRA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby amends the Official Town Zoning
Ordinance and Zoning Map to rezone the zoning district classification of the Northwest Lands (including
tax map parcels 98-1-1,98-1-2.1,98-1-3,98-1-4,98-1-5.1) from Highway Commercial-l Acre (HC-IA) to
Enclosed Shopping Center - Twenty-Five Acres (ESC-25A), and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that, as modified, the Petition is granted and the Town Board hereby amends the
Zoning Ordinance accordingly as set forth in the attached Exhibit A, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to
arrange to update the official Town Zoning Map and the Zoning Ordinance to reflect these zoning
amendments, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to send a copy of
this Resolution, if and to the extent required, to other involved or interested agencies, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, in accordance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Town Law, the
Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to publish a certified copy of the zoning changes
in the Glens Falls Post Star within five (5) days and obtain an Affidavit of Publication, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that these amendments shall take effect upon filing in the Town Clerk's Office.
DULY adopted this 6th day of August, 2001, by following vote:
AYES
Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower
NOES
None
ABSENT
Mr. Martin
ABSTAIN
None
EXHIBIT A
~179-27.1 Enclosed Shopping Center Zones, ESC-25A [added 12/17/90]
A. Maximum density. At least twenty-five (25) acres will be required to establish any allowable use
in an ESC Zone, up to sixteen thousand (16,000) square feet of gross floor area per acre for single-story
buildings and twenty thousand (20,000) per acre for multistory buildings. An additional five hundred (500)
square feet of land area will be required for each two hundred twenty five (225) square feet of gross floor
area for single story buildings and three hundred (300) square feet or proportion thereoffor multistory
buildings.
B. Purpose. Enclosed shopping center (ESC) are those areas where development exists or is
anticipated. Access points are defined in an effort to create coherent and safe traffic patterns, efficient
loading and unloading, aesthetically pleasing shopping environments and safe pedestrian circulation.
C. Lot, yard and height regulations shall be as follows: .
Lot, Yard and Height Requirements for ESC-25A Zone Enclosed Shopping Center
Minimum Lot Size Area in acres-25 Width in feet-800
Minimum Yard Setbacks (Feet) Front-40 Side-30 Rear-30
Minimum Percent of Lot to be Permeable 14.5
Maximum Height of Building (feet)*- 50. NOTE: A fifty foot buffer zone shall be required adjoining
residential and industrial zones.
*- In the ESC-25A Zone, those building faces which directly face an existing public right-of-way
must meet the 50-foot height requirement. All other building faces shall not exceed 80 feet.
D. The following uses are permitted in Enclosed Shopping Center Zones:
(1) Permitted Uses:
(a) Enclosed shopping center. (b) Freestanding out-parcel commercial uses.
(2) Accessory Uses:
(a) Loading facility.
(b) Parking facility, either on grade, multi-story or below grade.
(c) Ancillary freestanding signs as per Chapter 140, Signs.
(3) Site plan review uses: All uses in ESC Zones will be subject to site plan review.
~ 179-66(C): The last sentence of Enclosed Shopping Center Parking Requirements shall be revised to read
as follows:
"The required number of off-street parking spaces shall be calculated as follows: for enclosed shopping
centers greater than four hundred thousand (400,000) square feet of GLA, all off street parking servicing
the center will be based on four and one-half (4.5) spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet of GLA
however, the Planning Board may reduce the parking requirement to no less than four (4) spaces per one
thousand (1,000) square feet of GLA upon request by the landowner."
~ 179-28. Travel Corridor Overlay Zone.
C. Purpose. The Town of Queensbury realizes that as the Town and the region continue to grow, the need
for improved local arterial roads will become important to the movement of traffic within the Town of
Queensbury. In order to maintain the rural character along these roadways and/or to allow widening of
these roadways in the future, increased setbacks for new construction has been established along the major
regional arterials in the Town.
D. [Amended 3-5-1990; 7-29-1991 by L.L. No. 14-1991] Designated arterials. The following roads shall
comply with the requirements of the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone:
(9) Route 9 from the Glens Falls City line north to the Lake George Town line. (10) Ridge Road from the
Glens Falls City line north to Route 149. (11) Corinth Road from the Luzerne Town line east to Route 1-87.
(12) Main Street from Route 1-87 east to the Glens Falls City line. (13) Relocated Aviation Road from
Route 1-87 east to Route 9. (Note 1) (14) Quaker Road from Route 9 east to Dix Avenue. (15) Route 149
from Route 9 east to the Fort Ann Town line. (16) Bay Road from the Glens Falls City line north to Route
149 (Note 2) .
C. Regulations. All buildings hereafter erected or altered within this Travel Corridor
Overlay District shall be set back 75 feet from the edge of the road right-of-way.
Notes: (1)The setback for the south side of the relocated Aviation Road shall be 40 feet from the edge of
the ROW. (2)Along Bay Road only, this seventy-five-foot setback shall be maintained as open space, as
defined.
Discussion held before vote: Director Round-Noted in next to last page a typo...should read off street not of
street... Councilman Brewer-Now what about, only one question we had in here was about the eighty feet
building height? Director Round-With the findings and what this resolution is proposing is that, they
would be allowed to construct an eighty foot tall structure, building, however all faces of the building that
are exposed to a roadway would have to be fifty feet. So, that would allow them to construct an eighty foot
if the slope of the land were the front exposure the front elevation would be fifty feet the rear elevation or
the internal elevation could be up to eighty feet. If you recall the original proposal, they were proposing a
big excavation and a parking garage, that is the same site constraints comply, they may excavate an area
where the northwest lands are site a building there. The front of that building on Aviation and 187 is going
to be fifty feet but the rear might be up to eighty eet. So, that is what we are proposing we talked about last
week.
VOTE TAKEN
3.9 Resolution Authorizing Purchase of Animal Land Property and Transfer of Property to the Queensbury
Land Conservancy-PULLED
Councilman Stec-Why was this pulled?
Supervisor Brower-It was pulled for a couple of reasons, one the parcel numbers were incorrect on the
resolution. The Land Conservancy has not had an opportunity to review the proposal and provide its
recommendation to the Board and there is no rush to do it today because it has been pulled off the County's
auction list at this time. It was recommended by Counsel to consider pulling it tonight.
Councilman Stec-When will we do it in two weeks?
Supervisor Brower-Exactly.
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO.: 170,2001 REGARDING VEHICLE PURCHASE
FOR DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING & GROUNDS
RESOLUTION NO.: 326,2001
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 170,2001 the Queensbury Town Board authorized the purchase
of several Town vehicles including the purchase of one (1) Ford F550 4x4 4 Ton Dump Truck with Plow
by the Department of Building and Grounds (Truck), and
WHEREAS, the Facilities Manager has advised the Town Board that due to availability issues,
there is an increased cost in the amount of $2,344 to obtain the Truck from another dealer, bringing the cost
of the Truck to $35,164 from the originally authorized amount of $32,820, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to therefore amend Resolution No. 170,2001 accordingly,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby amends Resolution No.: 170,2001 such
that the purchase price for the Ford F550 4x4 4 ton Dump Truck with Plow to be purchased by the Building
& Grounds Department shall be for the amount of $35, 164, such purchase to be from Genessee Ford and in
accordance with New York State Contract No.: PC57163, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Comptroller's Office to
take all action necessary to transfer $2,344 in funds from the Building Service Supplies Account No.: 01-
1620-4070-23 to the Transfer to Capital Project Account No.: 01-9950-9000, make any other necessary
transfers, take any other necessary action and amend the 2001 Town Budget accordingly, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby affirms and ratifies Resolution No.: 170,2001 in all
other respects.
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower
NOES None
ABSENT: Mr. Martin
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO.: 276,2001 REGARDING BID AWARD FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF WATER LINE CONNECTOR TO TOWN OF MOREAU
RESOLUTION NO.: 327, 2001
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 276,2001 the Queensbury Town Board approved the
construction of a water line connector to the Town of Moreau, authorized funding for the project and
awarded the bid to Swartout Construction, Inc. for a bid amount of $284,882.50 and an additional $5,000
for any change orders authorized by the Water Superintendent, and
WHEREAS, appropriations were set for the project in the amount of $290,000; however, there is
only $200,300 in Water Department Account No.: 122-8340-2899 or a deficiency of $89,582.50, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to amend Resolution No. 276,2001 accordingly,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby amends Resolution No.: 276,2001 such
that the second "RESOLVED" paragraph shall read as follows:
"RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs that funding for this project shall be from
the Moreau Water Connection Capital Project Fund and further authorizes and directs the Town
Comptroller's Office to transfer $90,000 from the Water Department Fund Balance to Account No.: 122-
8340-2899 and further authorizes appropriations for this portion of the project in the amount of $290,000,"
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Comptroller's Office to
take all action necessary to transfer these funds, make any other necessary transfers, take any other
necessary action and amend the 2001 Town Budget accordingly, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby affirms and ratifies Resolution No.: 276,2001 in all
other respects.
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Turner
NOES
None
ABSENT: Mr. Martin
Discussion held before vote: Councilman Brewer-When is all this going to take place Ralph and how long
is it going to take? Water/Wastewater Supt. Ralph VanDusen-The goal right now is that the project will be
done by Labor Day the Town of Moreau was to start the river crossing today.
5.0 TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS
Supervisor Brower- Updates: August 22nd at 7:00 P.M. Meeting at the North Queensbury Fire House, to
discuss North Queensbury Sewer scoping session. Met with Helen Otte and our consultant on the Nimo
Assessment Case that is moving along. John Wells President ofW.G. F. Fire Co. to inform the Town they
are looking to get rid of their turn out gear, they are buying new turn out gear for their company and the
turn out gear they are buying is black their previous gear was yellow, South Glens Falls has yellow turn out
gear so So. Glens Falls has agreed to purchase ten sets from W.G.F. The Capital Plan Committee met
today, talked about capital plan items and prioritization again, we will reschedule another meeting... RE:
Sewer agreement noted he had not received anything from the City as of Friday morning...Two weeks ago
Thursday we sent a proposed MOU on the Sewer Agreement to the City Friday afternoon John Michaels,
President of the Warren County Economic Development Corp. asked to meet with me he had this list
(passed out copies to the Town Board) he presented to me, apparently the City had a response for us and
John Michaels and Maureen Donovan met with the Mayor and I am not sure if anyone else was in the
meeting or not and discussed the content of their response which basically is in this one page handout. I
did review this today with the Sewer Negotiating team just to up date them as to where the City was on our
MOU. They had some issues, which I will delineate to you. One of the issues was the right to purchase
and price per gallon. They wanted to add that after five years the rate of 75 cents a gallon would be
adjusted annually for inflation.
Councilman Brewer-Who wanted to add that, Dennis?
Supervisor Brower-The City. Prior to the final contract the City will determine a certain amount of
capacity that must always be kept in reserve for the City's future needs.
Councilman Turner-What is that number?
Supervisor Brower-I do not know what that number is Ted. Another item that relates to this was in the
spirit of cooperation they indicated that with the intent to have this agreement executed the City will accept
a seventy five cent per gallon buy in for all previously agreed to contracts solicited. Quite frankly in
discussing this with the Sewer Negotiating team they felt that it would be more important to keep the
seventy-five cents per gallon fixed over the period of the agreement as opposed to using the inflation and
not worrying about the seventy five cent offer that the city made. On O&M I was really surprised to see
this because quite frankly I thought that we had this ironed out, as a matter of fact at this time since they are
both here, I see Chris is gone and Henry is gone, Ralph VanDusen and Mike Shaw are here if you guys
would come forward to the microphone I would appreciate it. They are both members of the Sewer
Negotiating Team as you are well aware. The O&M portion they wanted to add the anguage the additional
twenty five percent total of the base O&M will be based on the greater of the increase of Earth Tech
contract or the CPI. (consumer price index) Quite frankly, all the discussions we had with the City
regarding this indicated that we wanted to work on their costs and everything was based on their costs so I
was a little surprised to see this. Ralph, Mike do you have any comment on this?
Water/Wastewater Supt. Ralph VanDusen-In general about the entire page, we spent a great deal of time
attempting to negotiate we have successes we have had failures in my own mind I question the need for us
to negotiate any farther. I think we gave them a viable offer, and I am not saying we should stop discussion
but I think we should not be particularly anxious to negotiate against ourselves, especially when we have
third parties involved. Sometimes that can be beneficial but I think the City, this is not a City response to
us and I think before we, until we hear back from the City that I think we shouldn't.
Supervisor Brower-Apparently the City did draft this up but it wasn't presented by the City, that is for sure.
Councilman Brewer-Why not?
Councilman Stec-Did anyone say why not?
Supervisor Brower-Well ironically the Mayor called me about five fifteen and spoke briefly and indicated
that he was going out of town on vacation and I informed him that I had informed the Town Board of their
response and when he gets back from vacation we will talk.
Councilman Brewer-The whole thing that upsets me Dennis, is the lack of response. We have sat, had rush
meetings, get together yea, we will do it, yea we will do it, we have had a deal how many times? He keeps
coming back with these things and I am here to tell you that these do not go away my yes vote does. That
is from my stand point. I agree with Ralph 100% we have negotiated, negotiated, negotiated we have a
deal three times and every time we have a deal the City or the Mayor or someone representing the City
comes back to us and says can you do this. I am tired of doing this. That is just Tim Brewer. You guys to
what you have got to do.
Supervisor Brower-Lets continue before we get further engrossed in the conversation. Mike did you have
any further?
Water/Wastewater Supt. VanDusen-Actually Dennis, I did not actually answer your question.
Supervisor Brower-No, you didn't.
Water/Wastewater Supt. VanDusen-I editorialized,
Supervisor Brower-On the O&M you mean?
Water/Wastewater Supt. VanDusen-Yes. On the O&M, Dennis is correct, that right from the very
beginning our attempt was to work off their costs and the City had some concerns, we had some concerns
and we adjusted the twenty five percent we adjusted to that point to address some of those concerns. I
think it would be a mistake to bump up that percentage even higher what is in effect what you are doing by
going from this. They had asked the Mayor had mentioned this as a possibility and it was, when we were at
something lower than twenty five percent and I just think that we need to be very concerned about keeping
it at that twenty five percent with no mark up.
Supervisor Brower-I agree, I think that is an important point. Reconstruction, the language indicates the
City mayor may not avail itself to the bonding mechanism provided but nevertheless both parties agree that
the reconstruction fund should be reviewed at five year intervals for adequacy. Now in explaining this,
John indicated that the City did not know if they wanted to bond like we do, and they wanted to keep their
options open but they do agree they have to fund this reconstruction fund. My concern about that was if the
Town bonds its requirements and the City doesn't and doesn't fund it the Town is the only one that put in
any reconstruction money. Of course, frankly the reconstruction money that the town is only a small part of
the total needed but still, that has been my concern.
Councilman Brewer-We talked about that last time didn't we? What happens to the money.
Supervisor Brower-I think that is why we worded the MOU the way we did.
Councilman Stec-Because all these years they were supposed to be contributing and they hadn't. This is
wiggle room.
Supervisor Brower-Do you guys have any comment on that, at all. If you don't that is fine.
Water/Wastewater Supt. VanDusen-Obviously we need to protect our interests that whatever mechanism
that we choose to fund it that is fine. If the City is going to use a different mechanism we need to make
100% certain that they are contributing their share that money is available and that down the road we are
not going to get screwed and then doing ours and some of theirs.
Councilman Stec-I am not comfortable with that language.
Water/Wastewater Supt. VanDusen-I guess my immediate question back would be then what are they
thinking about? If they are thinking about not bonding, what are they thinking as an option?
Councilman Stec- They don't have it in surplus, I will tell you that.
Supervisor Brower-It seems like the Mayor seemed impressed with Henry's you know when he illustrated
how much it would save on an annual basis, by bonding up front. Plus, Henry's thought process on this
whole thing was that the EP A would be much more apt to approve a reconstruction plan if all the parties
had already bonded the money up front so that the money was actually in this special account, that can only
be used for reconstruction. So, it made a lot of sense. Veteran's Field Traffic mitigation will be limited to
various intersection improvements as identified in SEQRA at a cost of $200,000. Well Chris you might
want to chime in on this, but part of the SEQRA findings included two hundred thousand for the connector
road improvement and two hundred thousand for various other intersection improvements, correct?
Director Round-Tim just asked for a copy of that section of the findings statement and he has that in his
hand right now and it was a total of four hundred thousand dollars of mitigation fees in lieu of, fees in lieu
of mitigation.
Councilman Stec-Did they adopt it? They said they adopted it.
Director Round-I got a copy of the resolution that they did indeed adopt a findings statement I do not have
a copy of the finding statement they adopted. I will follow up on that, I have asked for a copy of it but I
got to go through the formal channels now.
Councilman Stec-You mean you have to F.O.I.L. it. The City that we are negotiating with is making us
F.O.I.L information.
Director Round-They did not ask me to F.O.I.L. it but they, I have been working with Bob Murray from
Shelter Planning and he did not have a copy and he said get it through the Clerk's Office so I will following
that.
Councilman Brewer-That number has to stay at four hundred thousand.
Councilman Stec-Absolutely.
Supervisor Brower-I agree. Said committee shall have three appointees by the Chairman of the LDC and
three appointees by either the QEDC or the Queensbury Town Board.
Unknown-What is that in reference to?
Supervisor Brower-That is in reference to as you recall we passed a generic environmental impact study for
Veterans Field when we were going to jointly develop it and the whole idea of having that was to avoid the
timely nature of having to go through both Planning Boards so this was going to enable, that would enable
quicker approval.
Director Round-In the findings statement the one thing that was left to the discretionary review was
building design and architecture the findings statement this Board as well as the Planning Board was
uncomfortable that the design stands were enough detail. It said A they could be so tall they could be
brown, they blue, but you have to use these kinds of material and everybody was comfortable with that they
said lets propose this, there be a joint committee of the two LDC, the Greater Glens Falls LDC and the
Queensbury Economic Development Corp. and those three members from each of those will decide
whether these plans meet the intent of the findings statement.
Councilman Stec- What did it read before.
Director Round-So, that is just consistent, that is just consistent that is nothing new I do not think, I think in
the MOU we just did not specify that we referred to the findings statement and that's just right out of the
findings statement.
Supervisor Brower-This is pretty consistent, this one. On F. Insert the following language, the City shall
not initiate legal proceedings to annex any property within the Town, unless the Town Board shall first
authorize such by Resolution.
Councilman Brewer-What was the matter with the language we had in there?
Councilman Stec- What was wrong with our?
Supervisor Brower-I do not know.
Councilman Brewer-Strike it.
Water/Wastewater Supt. VanDusen-The original one said that they would not do it
Councilman Stec-I thought it said they would not seek, that is right.
Water/Wastewater Supt. VanDusen-This one says we would not unless we give them permission.
Councilman Brewer-No.
Councilman Stec-I would be leery of the language change here.
Supervisor Brower-It seems pretty consistent with what we have asked them for it is just ...
Water/Wastewater Supt. VanDusen- It gives them the possibility..
Supervisor Brower-Mark has not even seen this. Hold on...
Town Counsel Schachner-Bob Morris called us today and said that he was going to get us something and
that Mayor Regan was out of Town until next week.
Councilman Stec- Why don't they take like we did with our findings statement why wouldn't they take the
document and line out and underline, like we do. So, that we could see the context that it is in. I am really
nervous about what their angle is on, because there is an angle there is a reason why they want this change
and I do not know what it is.
Supervisor Brower-Sometimes it pays to be suspicious.
Councilman Stec-We have learned a few times with this particular party.
Supervisor Brower-The next item, I will let Mark contemplate that if you have any comment on that?
Town Counsel Schachner-No, if you are talking about the City's Item F?
Supervisor Brower-Yes. Compared to our language?
Town Counsel Schachner-Which was essentially the same absent the last clause unless the Town Board
Supervisor Brower-Yes.
Councilman Stec-Now it says insert, so is that in addition to what we already have?
Councilman Brewer-Yea. I would say leave our language the way it is. That is the way we spelled it out.
Councilman Stec-On that I want the strongest language possible, if this is stronger, but I get nervous about.
Town Counsel Schachner-No this is not stronger, stronger is this shall not initiate period.
Councilman Brewer-That is what we want. Stronger..
Councilman Stec-Legal proceedings as opposed to what other kind of proceedings?
Supervisor Brower-Now, item M it says remove entirely, annexation of Town owned property was never
part of this agreement.
Councilman Stec-Is that, that little bit of property?
Councilman Brewer-Yes.
Supervisor Brower-That is part of the property I believe
Councilman Brewer-Of the industrial park.
Councilman Stec-In the dump I thought.
Councilman Brewer-Yes, it is.
Director Round-A small parcel of land that the Town owns that's
Mr. Tucker- Four and a half acres.
Director Round-Part of the landfill.
Councilman Stec- That was there last July 9th right?
Director Round-It has always been proposed it has never been discussed, that is what the Mayor
Councilman Brewer-What is his problem with taking that?
Councilman Stec-Liability, he is afraid of everything.
Councilman Brewer-He is going to own everything around it.
Councilman Stec-Ifthere is whole nest of PCB's there he does not want to own it. I think that was part of
the agreement.
Water/Wastewater Supt. VanDusen-Actually they have been squatting on it for how many years, they own
it.
Councilman Brewer-Do they pay taxes on it? Do we pay taxes on it?
Director Round-It is town owned property in the town so I do not know do they do that?
Water/Wastewater Supt. VanDusen-You pay on Special Districts.
Town Clerk Dougher-For special districts.
Councilman Brewer-We pay them special districts?
Water/Wastewater Supt. VanDusen-Today, ..in the water district.
Supervisor Brower-At the bottom it says minor additions/clarifications below: Exhibit A referred to page 3
was not provided. The City would like to review the interim municipal agreements noted in paragraph 1
prior to contract signing. Veterans Field should read: "the City or current owner shall be... "
Councilman Stec-What is that about that one makes me nervous too.
Supervisor Brower-I am not sure about that one either.
Councilman Stec-What does that mean, every where that the word Veterans Field appears it should be
replaced by City of current owner? I do not understand that one. I disagree with them I think that they
should take that property.
Supervisor Brower-Although it is not listed on this sheet the last item that he mentioned was related to
Veterans Field fire protection and he indicated that the Mayor is having difficulties with his fire unions and
that they want to be the first, they want to be responsible for fire protection on their property because it is
City land and you know if the Town wants mutual aid, you know whats to provide mutual aid that is fine
but.
Councilman Brewer-No, Dennis.
Supervisor Brower-That is what they want.
Councilman Brewer-January 4th I told Bob Regan that at the Municipal Center that the fire district does not
change, he said ok, I will deal with the Union, well now he has got to deal with the Union. That will not
change.
Councilman Stec- That is not reneging, that was in the original, we did not even go to the municipal center
with that one.
Supervisor Brower-Ironically, when I was talking to John Wells this afternoon one of the things that he
asked me, he said, what is the story with annexation of Veterans Field and I told him what the proposal was
and he said Boy, he says, I think the town should be happy to get rid of that property.
Councilman Brewer-Well, I do not care.
Supervisor Brower-So, that was his comment so he certainly did not seem too concerned about it.
Councilman Brewer-On the other hand the Fire Chief came to me Friday and said what is going on with
that property across the street and I said what do you mean, he said who is going to protect it. I said you
are, he said good. Also, if he is having a problem with the Union why did he agree to pay the fire district
tax on it?
Councilman Stec-How did that not make this printed list though? John Michaels brings this list how did
that get added to it?
Supervisor Brower-He mentioned it, when I was reviewing my list I did not see it on the list.
Councilman Stec- They were afraid to commit that one to paper.
Councilman Brewer-Too, bad Dennis tell them, you know how strongly I feel about that.
Supervisor Brower-One of the, Mark?
Town Counsel Schachner-Just so the Board understands, and I was not obviously been the focal person on
this but my understanding talking to my partner Bob Hafner today was that Bob Morris of Fitzerald,
Morris, Baker, Firth who is representing the City in this called Bob Hafner today and told him that the City
was going to have comments that he had talked to the Mayor about this, that the Mayor was out of Town
until next Monday or Tuesday and they would be getting us something. So, I just want to make sure that I
report that to you all so you will understand our understanding is that what ever this magical list of papers
from John Michaels is not necessarily the City's official response to.
Supervisor Brower-So, they will be having an official response.
Town Counsel Schachner-Our understanding from Mr. Morris was that some additional response was
coming from the City, correct.
Supervisor Brower-Well that is good to know.
Councilman Brewer-It is just the whole, in my mind, Dennis,
Supervisor Brower-I bet it is similar to this.
Councilman Brewer-When you do this when you send something back to the City do you send Tom Nace
or not to pick on Tom Nace but I mean somebody within the Town or do you do it?
Councilman Stec-Well I am not going to give this another thought until the Mayor is off vacation, if he is
on vacation on this so am I.
Councilman Brewer-No, you have got my answer, any of those comments especially the fire district and
the two hundred thousand and the seventy-five cents and the twenty five percent.
Supervisor Brower-Mike do you have anything to say?
Deputy Wastewater Supt. Mike Shaw-I am sitting here trying to be quiet. The things that we negotiated in
the last meeting with the City we basically sat down and we had two agreements on the table at that time.
The committee had left the City to look at those and discuss what, which options they wanted. We left
them for five or ten minutes we came back in the room and they clearly picked the Earth Tech twenty five
percent option. They said at that time, that is what they wanted. So, the things that are down here now
they are trying to get something else on top of that or renege on some of that. Clearly that was our
understanding at that time and that is when we generated the MOD.
Councilman Brewer-I just think the Town has been in good faith tried to do this the best way we can and
you give them an inch they want a mile.
Councilman Stec- Y ou have got to look your self in the mirror in the morning, I am not going to sell my
sole.
Deputy Wastewater Supt. Shaw-I guess maybe the Board can understand how we have been so long at this
process.
Councilman Brewer-I appreciate that.
Deputy Wastewater Supt. Shaw-We have had several meetings like this and gone through this scenario
several times and we thought maybe this last meeting we had an agreement, but this has happened to us
before.
Councilman Brewer-Tell them we will sell them the property
Councilman Stec-I can wait for January
Councilman Brewer-We will sell them the rights to the property for Veterans Field somehow whatever but
if he has a problem with his Union, if his Union controls him then something is wrong.
Councilman Stec-I can wait till January we have waited eighteen months, I can wait six more months and
deal with the next Mayor.
Supervisor Brower-I would like to tell you I was a surprised but, I guess I wasn't. Ok, the other frustrating
part it seems like we have meetings like this to discuss this in public and the City has not had to have
apparently public meetings to discuss this type of thing, because the Water and Sewer Board and the Mayor
are, I guess they are public meetings but I do not know if they have actually had public discussion or not. I
have to tell you that I am optimistic that we will resolve this and as our original MOU. This does mean
approximately over a twenty-year period approximately the revenue that this deal means to the City is
about nineteen million dollars, benefit to the City. I thank you both for your participation in all this sewer
negotiating meetings and Chris Round I want to thank Chris and Henry Hess and Bob Hafner for those
meetings that he has been involved with and his efforts on behalf of the Town Board and the Sewer
Negotiating Committee and the Town Board for your patients. Hopefully we cn move forward in a short
period of time and get our original intent signed and move forward. Thank you gentlemen.
Councilman Stec-Clifford Avenue the Town Board is considering closure of Clifford Avenue off from
Warren Street we have been talking about it for several months and no one is going to say that we didn't tell
anybody. The Animal Land property I would definitely would like to see us try to not forget that and
press forward and fix whatever needs to be fixed on the resolution. Speaking for myself if the Land
Conservancy is not sure what they want to do with it I still think that the Town should grab it,...it has been
removed from the Public Auction, Dennis?
Supervisor Brower-Yes.
Councilman Brewer-Is the sidewalks going to get started over on Ashley and that?
Supervisor Brower-Noted that the Highway Supt. has met with the homeowners over there.
Councilman Brewer-Hopefully Wednesday we are going to go over to the City property and start
construction with the Queensbury Forest project. Noted that the final easement will be done tomorrow.
Director Round-RE: Zoning Ordinance informational meetings; Here August 23rd. , North Queensbury
Fire House Wednesday August 29th, South Queensbury Fire House Thursday September 6th, and West
Glens Falls Fire House date to be set. Zoning Steering Committee to meet tomorrow the 7th we will
present the information to the Zoning Board on 15th and the Planning Board on the 21st. Requested
executive session for personnel issue...
6.0 ATTONEYMATTERS
NONE
7.0 EXECUTIVE SESSION
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION
RESOLUTION NO. 328.2001
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 moves to Executive Session for a
personnel issue.
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 2001 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mr. Martin
No action taken.
RESOLUTION ADJOURNING MEETING
RESOLUTION NO. 329.2001
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Dennis Brower
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns is Executive session and
Regular session.
Duly adopted this 6th day of August, 2001 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Turner, Mr. Brower
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mr. Martin
Respectfully submitted,
Miss Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk-Queensbury