Loading...
2002-02-11 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 11TH, 2002 Mtg # 11 Res. #97-109 BOH Res. 7-8 7:00 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DENNIS BROWER COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER COUNCILMAN DANIEL STEC BOARD MEMBER ABSENT COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER TOWN COUNSEL BOB HAFNER TOWN OFFICIALS Henry Hess, Comptroller Chris Round, Executive Director of Community Development David Hatin, Director of Building & Codes PRESS: Glens Falls Post Star Supervisor Brower called meeting to order. . . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN DANIEL STEC RESOLUTION CALLING FOR QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 97,2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and enters as the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 11th day of February, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer BOARD OF HEALTH PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED - BOMBARD SEWER VARIANCE 7:01 P.M. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay, Mr. Bombard, you're here this evening. Good evening. If you want to come forward with your representative? MR. CARLOS BOMBARD-Carlos Bombard, 583 Moon Hill Road, for a variance on my septic system and my neighbor was opposed to some, was worried about some footage, I guess. So, I guess it's been resolved, we hope, that's why I'm here tonight. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I believe for the record, this is a continuation of the public hearing from our last meeting. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yes, it is. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay, so Mr. Sweet? MR. JAY SWEET -Jay Sweet, Queensbury Sewer. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Do you have anything to add? MR. SWEET-No, I think it's all right now. We did what they wanted us to. The Town Building Inspectors really helped us out a lot. SUPERVISOR BROWER-They were helpful? MR. SWEET-Yup, very helpful. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay, excellent. Alright. MR. CHRIS ROUND, Executive Director-Dennis, there's some confusion on our part whether the application has been changed and maybe Dave, you can ask it. It was originally going to be carried over, about a public hearing being carried over from the previous meeting and then there was some debate amongst the parties involved whether they were going to submit a new application. So, is this a new application and we're just setting a public hearing? MR. SWEET-Yea. MR. DAVID HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-No. Yea, I guess they are setting a MR. ROUND, Executive Director-This is identical. MR. HA TIN, Director of Building & Codes-They are setting a hearing. According to the resolution, you're setting a hearing. MR. ROUND, Executive Director-Yea, that's why I'm not clear of TOWN COUNSEL BOB HAFNER-They've changed how it looks, it's going sideways rather then up the hill and the numbers are different. MR. ROUND, Executive Director-Okay. SUPERVISOR BROWER-So, you're saying we'd have to have a MR. ROUND, Executive Director-Yes, so we're just setting a public hearing tonight for February 25th. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay, alright. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Yea, it's a different setup from last time so that's why we're setting a public hearing. SUPERVISOR BROWER-And you do have the application? MR. ROUND, Executive Director-Yes, we do. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay. Alright then, in that case, you've obviously looked at the lot and changed the map and resubmitted it. So, I guess, do I, Chris, technically I'll have to close this public hearing from the continuation, right? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-What we're doing because they've made some changes in how they layout is, this is a new application. SUPERVISOR BROWER-So, we'll just announce a new public hearing? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-So, you are setting a brand new public hearing for two weeks. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-February 25th. SUPERVISOR BROWER-For February 25th. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-For two weeks from today on this application. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Do I have a resolution from board members to set a public hearing for February 25th? COUNCILMAN DANIEL STEC-I'll move it. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-It should be before you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Pardon me? DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-It should be before you. COUNCILMAN TURNER-It is, it's right here in front of us. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Well, I thought we had, we hadn't closed the former public hearing though, you see. COUNCILMAN STEC-Do we have to close it? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-We should, I mean SUPERVISOR BROWER-So, I wanted to know if we needed to close that first? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-If it is still open from two weeks ago, that needs to be closed but that application is no longer. COUNCILMAN STEC-Right. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-This is a new application. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Alright, then I'll close the public hearing from our last board meeting and at this time I'll entertain a resolution to set a public hearing on a revised plan for February 25th. RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE APPLICATION OF CARLOS BOMBARD BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 7, 2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board serves as the Town's Local Board of Health and is authorized by Town Code Chapter 136 to issues variances from the Town's On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, and WHEREAS, Carlos Bombard has applied to the Local Board of Health for variances from Chapter 136 to allow a leachfield to be located one foot (1 ') from the rear property line in lieu of the required ten feet (10') setback and sixty-five feet (65') from his well in lieu of the required one- hundred feet (100') setback on property located at 583 Moon Hill Road, Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health will hold a public hearing on February 25th, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, to consider Carlos Bombard's sewage disposal variance application concerning his property situated at 583 Moon Hill Road, Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 48-2-7) and at that time all interested persons will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish the Notice of Public Hearing presented at this meeting and send a copy of the Notice to neighbors located within 500 feet of the property as required by law. Duly adopted this 11th day of February, 2002, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer Discussion before vote: Councilman Stec-Before we move on, I see that some of the concerned neighbors from last time are here and just so that we expedite the process, I want to ask the applicant if you've touched base with the concerned neighbor and does everyone think they're on the same page now? Mr. Bombard-We've come to an agreement and everything is pretty copasetic. Councilman Boor-I'd just like to add one thing too. This isn't the public hearing for that but it something that I think you might want to consider for the public hearing is, I'm thinking, as I look at this that I'd like to have you possibly do a periodic check of your well. Mr. Bombard-Okay. Councilman Boor-Just because we, this is a considerable variance as far as distance and as far as liability issues, I'd like if you would be willing to agree to something like that. I don't know, I don't know what the proper time span would be, whether it be every year, every two years, every five years but I can just tell you right now, I'd be more comfortable Mr. Bombard-I can do it every six months, there's a gentleman up on Farm to Market Road that does this and I can take it there. Councilman Boor-Well, that would be, that's more then fair. I'mjust, like I say, when we get into the sixty-five foot range, I'm thinking, you know, for your protection, obviously your neighbor may be satisfied with Mr. Bombard-Yea, he's further away. Councilman Boor-But for your protection, I'd be Mr. Bombard-No problem. Councilman Boor-Okay. Supervisor Brower-Well, we certainly don't want to put a burden on your neighbor. However, if the neighbor is not present and would like to comment on the application, you're welcome to in writing if you can't be here in person but certainly, hopefully, on the 25th, you might, you'll be notified anyway, in any case. (vote taken) RESOLUTION ADJOURNING BOARD OF HEALTH BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 8,2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns and enters Regular Session of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 11th day of February, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer REGULAR SESSION DISCUSSION - PYRAMID COMPANIES OF GLENS FALLS COUNSEL JON LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper and Bob Orlando on behalf of Pyramid Companies of Glens Falls. Continuing our discussions from all of the prior meetings, we are here with a proposal to address the order that the town has issued and to address the situation of the fire damage to the hotel caused by vandals. What Pyramid would like to do and would like to get your permission to do in response to your order is to demolish and remove from the site the Blacksmith Shop Restaurant and the motel office which were the two structures that were damaged by the November 30th fire. That would serve to address the safety and structural issue which Dave Hatin has raised. It will improve the visual issue because those are the two structures that are closes to the road and it will let Pyramid keep it's options open for, either redevelopment of the remainder of the site for commercial use or to put it back into service as a hotel. We are asking and maintain that the hotel building should not come down because it has many hundreds of thousand dollars of value both to the owner of the property and to the town in terms of property taxes. I mentioned previously, that the, between school and county and town, which obviously is no longer a factor of taxes, it's over seventy thousand dollars a year and since we've had the discussions, Pyramid has received three separate offers from three separate parties to purchase or long term lease the, and renovate and repair the hotel. That's not their preference, they would rather develop it as a commercial site which is their business but as a fall back, if they're not successful redeveloping the site, we now feel confident that there are parties interested, local hotel operators that would be interested in putting the site back into service. In meetings with Dave Hatin, he mentioned another concern of his, that there is some combustible material inside the hotel building which would be, which would only be an issue if there was another act of vandalism and hopefully, that won't be the case. Most of the contents of the hotel were donated to the Double H Ranch at the time that it was purchased by Pyramid and the mattresses were left there. One of the fires was apparently set when, the earlier fire when some kids got in it and set some mattresses on fire. So, after speaking with Dave, we would propose that at the same time which would be immediately starting this week, when the demolition takes place, if the Town Board is agreeable, the mattresses would be removed also to take out that flammable material to reduce the chances of another serious fire if there was vandalism. In terms of securing the site, which is something else that the ordinance, Section 60 of the Town Code talks about, unsafe buildings, as we mentioned previously, Pyramid has increased the patrols to once every half hour on that site, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week and it's understanding that the sheriff is now patrolling the Cole's Woods area back there more frequently because apparently that was the area where kids were hanging out who ultimately vandalized the facility. The only thing that we're not proposing is to remove the hotel building, again, because we think that that can be put back in service and that's what we're asking your consideration on. But Pyramid is obviously a large landholder in town, has plans to continue to improve it's mall facility and hopes to be back in front of the town many times over the next few years with different expansion plans to improve the property. We certainly don't want to be in an adversely position with the town and we're proposing this as a way to cooperate with the intent of the Town Board Order and clean up and remove the buildings that were seriously damaged but to retain the rest, the cinder block structure which we believe based upon these offers from other parties and based upon inspecting it that they can be renovated and put back in service if that's appropriate. SUPERVISOR BROWER-When would you demolish this? MR. BOB ORLANDO-We would begin the process immediately. SUPERVISOR BROWER-What's immediately? MR. ORLANDO-Sign the paperwork tomorrow. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Demolition begun? MR. ORLANDO-Within, before the end of this week. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Do you propose to do this in either case, whether or not the board agrees with your position? COUNSEL LAPPER-We believe that under the, under Section 60 of the Town Code that what has to be done is that it has to be made safe and secure. So, we believe that, that it is possible that the front buildings could be secured instead of demolished, that that would be another way to deal with this, to address the safety issue. We understand that that's not what the Town Board is asking for so Pyramid believes that they're going farther then what they legally are required to do, instead of just securing it to demolish it. So, the proposal is to demolish the front but also to ask you to modify your Order to allow the hotel to remain for the time being. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay. Any questions from board members? COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well in your, the way you've describe it is, you said we think it can be and when you were referring to the hotel and to be really frank, that's really not good enough. I'd have to say, this is what we're going to do, here's the escrow account to guarantee we're going to do it, here's where I'm going to start and here's the contractor and here's the potential client. COUNSEL LAPPER-I'm sorry, you're not talking about the front buildings, you're talking about the hotel? COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right. COUNSEL LAPPER-Okay and I guess what, again, not to be argumentative at all but what we're saying is that under the law, the back building is structurally sound, was not part of the fire that happened in November. So, there was a fire November 30th, the front buildings were damaged and we're proposing to address that. The back building is in the same condition that was in prior to November 30th, there was no issue and no Order at that time. The Order had to do with the fire that took place in the Blacksmith Shop and we're just proposing to keep the building in the back the way it is for the time being. It's a cinder block, masonry block structure. COUNCILMAN BOOR-When you say the way it is, are you referring to the way it is now? COUNSEL LAPPER-Yes. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Exactly? COUNSEL LAPPER-Well COUNCILMAN BOOR-You believe that's safe? I'mjust asking, it's a question, it's not a COUNSEL LAPPER -The building has to be secured so that COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right. COUNSEL LAPPER-The law goes into detail about vagrants and underage people can't get into it and we believe that right now that it is secured to the extent that it needs to be, secured any better then it is, that can easily be done. But it's patrolled as I said, every half hour and that's the way, I mean, it is unfortunate to have vacant buildings in town. It would be best for all concerned if that was put in service but for the time being, we are proposing that it stays as it is. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Mr. Lapper, isn't a fact that you had a fire in that back building that you're proposing to, propose to retain. COUNSEL LAPPER -There was a fire approximately two years ago, in that back building, a small fire. Some kids got in and set some mattresses on fire. COUNCILMAN STEC-Jon, these twice hourly security patrols, are they, is there a log book? I mean, is there a way for the town to audit that some sort of record is being kept that indeed these are happening every half hour or so? MR. ORLANDO-Sure, yes. COUNCILMAN STEC-Now what will happen with the front fa<;ade of the building? You're going to remove the office, there's going to be a hole. COUNSEL LAPPER-That would have to be secured. COUNCILMAN STEC-Secured how? I mean Glens Falls is talking about boarded up windows ordinances. I don't want a boarded up side of a building at Exit 19. Right, I mean COUNSEL LAPPER-We can certainly talk about visually what, you know, what that should look like. Plants some shrubs, you know, there could certainly be discussion of that but it would be, when you look at it, you've got the two buildings right now, one has heavy smoke damage and one the roof is partly caved in. So those would be completely removed and the site would be regarded. COUNCILMAN STEC-Now, I know Mr. Hatin has his opinions about the condition of that rear mean hotel building and I'm sure we'll be talking with him. But I remember a few weeks ago and we discussed recently, perspective tenants. You know, I, we were, I was given the impression that there was talk of revitalizing that hotel. Not in a potential, in the future but that there was somebody that wanted to come in there and we were going to renovate that hotel and make it operable. COUNSEL LAPPER-When I was here two weeks ago, I mentioned that there were, or actually two weeks ago I sent a letter and I was here two weeks prior to that, that we have received offers from various parties to use the facility. That, negotiating those and Pyramid determining what to do with the hotel building is something that could not be accomplished in a couple of weeks. They still have to come to terms with whether or not they want to stick with their plans to redevelop that into a commercial center. It's a very, it's valuable piece of property for redevelopment because of it's visibility from the Northway and proximity to Aviation Road. As a fallback, there are parties, numerous parties interested in taking over that property. That addresses the issue that some members of the public said, you know, its an older building, it's not going to ever be put back in service. This wasn't something that Pyramid went out and solicited offers on but they received offers and they've been speaking with these parties. So, that shows that there really is an interest but in terms of, the timing of negotiating that or making the decision that they will stop advertising, I mean, they've been vigorously pursuing leasing for that site but to date, have been unsuccessful for a commercial tenant. We're talking about a temporary fix right now to take down the buildings but with the understanding that they're going to continue to vigorously pursue the redevelopment of that site and if that is not successful, at some point, they would have to make the decision whether or not to sell or long term lease the building for a hotel. COUNCILMAN STEC-But I think what some of the, the rest of the board might be, is that we'd like to see a plan for that, a commitment to, hey, if we don't use the hotel, this is what's going to happen here. COUNSEL LAPPER-I guess what I would, to respond to that and not at all to be impolite but the, there's the visual issue that none of us residents of the town are happy that there's a commercial property that's under utilized at the entrance to the town and that's a given and it's been there for a number of years. They spent what was reported in the papers, over three million dollars for the site. They certainly are not happy about servicing the debt on that and having it sit there vacant. That's not a good situation for the town, it's not a good situation for the property owner, it's not their goal to maintain that for any longer then that has to be, that situation. But at the same time, when I look at Town Law Section 60, or Queensbury Town Ordinance, Section 60, there are rules about what you have to do with a vacant building and it has to be secured and they want to comply with that. And they want to do what you're asking in terms of getting rid of the real problem in front, the problem that got us here, the recent fire but not to destroy the value of the building in the back in the short run. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I'm not really sure what you're offering this board. COUNSEL LAPPER-Okay. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Can you tell me what you're offering us? COUNSEL LAPPER -The Blacksmith Shop restaurant building would be demolished and removed from the site and the Howard Johnson's Motel Office building which is right up at the road with the triangle orange roof, what have you. Both of those would be demolished and all of that debris removed from the site and the site re-graded. So, those would be gone. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay. COUNSEL LAPPER-So, that those, the buildings that have the structural problems would be removed so there wouldn't be safety hazard of having those buildings that if somebody got into could be dangerous and the rest of the structure would be retained for the time being. COUNCILMAN BOOR-That's what I'm asking, I guess is what we're talking about for the rest of the structure and help me if I'm wrong here, it sounds like you want to board it up for an indefinite amount of time until somebody is willing to sign a short term agreement because you want to turn it into a mall and put money into it to refurbish it? COUNSEL LAPPER-We're not talking about boarding it up because it would look worse if there were, I mean, it has glass and we're not talking about putting plywood on the glass because that would visually be less of attractive. So, it would be leaving the glass, having the patrols so that kids are not taking rocks and breaking the glass and getting inside. So, patrolling it as frequently as it's been and to leave the building in it's present condition, knowing that there are offers to lease it which they'll continue to discuss with these people that are making the offers and to continue to pursue leases to redevelop the whole site. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I guess that's the incongruence of short term, long term. You want to retain the ability for the mall to develop it as a part of the mall and yet, you want to have, if I'm correct in what you're saying, you want to have somebody come in and invest, what would have to be a considerable amount of money to refurbish this block building to make it into a motel and I, from COUNSEL LAPPER-Those are alternate plans. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I know but they're not congruent. COUNSEL LAPPER-No, it would be one or the other. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yea, but when would you make the decision? That's the question I'm asking you is, when can this board say that you're going to go short term, you're going to turn it into a motel or you're going to go long term and the mall is going to incorporate? COUNSEL LAPPER-And the answer, I'm not trying to be evasive at all but that, I can't tell you, I don't know when they would make that decision. COUNCILMAN BOOR-See that's the problem we have as a board. COUNSEL LAPPER-But I guess, in all fairness, the issue that you're addressing there is the issue of having this vacant building on the site, not the issue of having a fire damaged unsafe structure. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well that, you may be correct but I'm not convinced that you're correct on that. COUNSEL LAPPER-Okay. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I don't know how safe that building is, I have not been on the inside of it and I don't know, I've heard that there's holes in the roof and COUNSEL LAPPER-There are two holes in the roof, I believe, which were caused when Pyramid allowed two fire companies to come in and conduct some drills and they apparently punctured the roof in order to have these realistic fire drills and so that's what, that's what happened factually, that's why there's holes in the roof. My understanding is that those two holes were not caused by vandalism or fire, they were caused by the fire department. But that's two small holes over the course of a very large block building with over a hundred rooms and a big pool area. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I guess one just wonders, you know, whatever you're going to do to this, is this building going to get better over time? I doubt it. COUNSEL LAPPER-Well, it's not Pyramid's intent to keep it the way it is for a considerable period of time cause it's not helping anybody, it's not helping them. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right. COUNSEL LAPPER-And they have offers that, you know, could be negotiated in a matter of months probably but again, it's a question of when they make that decision and they're still, and what they're struggling with since I was here a month ago was whether to give up the idea of redeveloping this into a commercial center cause that would be the highest and best use. They never anticipated when they spent the money to buy this that it would be sitting there vacant for four years. MR. BOOR-I know and you, not to be flippant but you understand that that's not our problem. COUNSEL LAPPER-Yes. MR. BOOR-That was a business decision that a private corporation made and we don't have access to your books and we don't know why you would not immediately lease it back or why you would let it get to the condition that it's in now. Those are your decisions. COUNSEL LAPPER -Well, in hindsight, it certainly would have been better if it had been leased as a hotel but they never thought it would go four years and that's why they made that decision and it's unfortunate but that was a business decision at the time. But in terms of vacant buildings in the town, when Taco Tom's was vacant for a number of years, the town didn't come and say, it's not good for economic development to have this vacant building on a healthy commercial strip of Quaker Road. Granted, it wasn't vandalized but it wasn't a case of, there's a policy against vacant buildings. So, we're proposing to address the real issue which was the fire and the buildings that were really damaged and leave the rest as it was before the fire. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay, thank you, Mr. Lapper. I'm going to ask you to have a seat for a moment and I'd like to ask Dave Hatin to come forward and kind of give us a report on, I guess we'd like a report, Dave on the larger hotel section of the part of the building, the portion of the building, is that, what's the condition of that? MR. HA TIN, Director of Building & Codes-Well, if I can just take a minute, I'll read a letter that I gave Bob Orlando back on November 30th, the day of the fire and my first paragraph of my letter that I gave him basically addresses the problem with the existing hotel itself. It's come to my attention the old Howard Johnson's Motel and Blacksmith Shop Restaurant have been a target of minor and vagrant vandalism as well as two fires over the last two years. Also, from my walk through the building it appears the building is being used as a party spot for people who break into the building, hold parties as well as do damage to the building while there. It is also apparent that the roof is starting to show signs of problems as there are roof leaks that have developed in areas of the building which are not related to fire department training. I think Mr. Lapper and Mr. Orlando have taken a great stride tonight to try to appease the board but they still not address the one issue with the hotel itself which is, there are roofleaks not caused by fire department training which we're caused by lack of maintenance to the building which are slowly deteriorating the building. We had a couple of inches of rain yesterday, we've had several inches of snow and rain over the last three months and that all takes it's toll on a building. Any time you have a leaky roof, it's going to start to degrade the structural elements of the building. Can I sit here today and tell you how long it's going to take before the building will become a problem? No, but it is a problem right now. I've showed you the pictures the last unsafe structure meeting we had that showed the mold and mildew that's created by that leakage from the roof. I haven't heard anything here tonight to address that issue. Mr. Lapper is correct that we don't target vacant buildings for demolition. However, if we have vacant buildings that are becoming unsafe, whether it's from vagrants and minors or weather conditions from lack of maintenance, whatever, we do make people secure and repair as necessary those buildings. I haven't heard that addressed here tonight. That would be my concern with the existing motel, if it sits there and continues to degrade and we get another four years of no action from Pyramid, now it can become a structural problem. And I think there's still an issue for the board that it is an unsafe structure until that issue is resolved and I haven't heard anything tonight to answer that and I don't know if they're prepared to answer that tonight or not but we did discuss it this morning in my office and I also discussed it with all the board members, that those are my concerns. They have addressed part of the problem but not the entire problem. Removal of the combustibles from the building will hopefully help eliminate any fire from being started in that building unless somebody wants to break in the building and haul combustible materials back in there. But we still have to deal with that, I mean, the fire that was in there two years ago did cause some structural damage but the building was secured and we didn't have any more problems until the Blacksmith Shop. The Blacksmith Shop basically brought a lot of problems to light with that building. Until that point, we didn't have any problems with the building other then that one fire. COUNCILMAN STEC-Dave, let me ask you a quick question. Where I work, we've got a few, I mean, it's a hundred year old site and we've got a few buildings that are abandoned and they officially abandoned them shortly after I started work there and one of the things that we were required to do, was remove all, you could not store combustible materials in those buildings because the sprinkler systems had been deactivated and what not. Is that a fire code thing or is that an insurance thing, were we fulfilling an insurance requirement or? MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-I would say it was probably more of an insurance issue than a building code issue. There's nothing that says vacant buildings can't stand forever. What the code does say and in fact, the new international code says it even better, is that if vacant buildings are a nuisances or showing signs of disrepair that they will be repaired or removed and I think that's pretty much where we're at with the hotel. It's either got to be repaired, so in the future, if they want to turn it into a hotel, it can be or they've got to remove it and I think that's really the issue with the hotel and I would not tell the board to stop them from demolishing what they're offering or removing the combustibles, I think that's a great stride towards removing hazard but it doesn't address the entire issue. COUNCILMAN STEC-Would you have anything that you would suggest? Let's say we would want to entertain, you know, this course and demolish the two buildings that they're talking about, is there any wickets that you would suggest that we impose say in X, Y, and Z will be done to the hotel and if not, then after, X days or X months, you will demolish it and contingent upon all this, an escrow account would be, I mean, is there anything that you would say that we could get us to meet them half way? MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Obviously the offer has got to come from them but I think the board is certainly, and Bob could probably advise you better, has the authority to, you know, modify that agreement if you wish. I don't think we should let the building sit there forever as the condition there in now because it's not going to get any better and my personal feeling is the hotel will never be used again as it is. And I've already told Pyramid and I've told the board members, I think they should bite the bullet now and just get rid of it, that's the ultimate goal here is to get rid of it and replace it with something of value. But they seem to be fighting that and short of demolishing the building, I haven't heard any other offers to do anything else with the buildings other then, you know, open ended verbal commitments. So, I mean that's, I think you have to look at, what you, the board has to look at and I think everybody has to look including Pyramid is, that if somebody gets injured in that building, whose going to be liable? Obviously, it's the town and Pyramid together are going to share in that liability unless those buildings are gone. Unless you can find a way to convince a jury that you've done everything to make those buildings safe and I don't think we've reached that point. COUNCILMAN STEC-Bob, that's the next question is going to be, what is the town's liability here? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-We've done some research on that, actually today after our meetings earlier today where I met with you, Dave and the case, there are many cases where people have tried to include the town in lawsuits where someone has gotten injured in an unsafe building. The cases, the vast majority of the cases that we found, held that as long as the Town Board did it's, you know, didn't, wasn't negligent in some way then there was no liability because they're doing a public function and they would not be second guessed by the courts. But that does not stop them, the town from being included in the lawsuit and having to defend it. So, I mean, it's, I'm sorry, that's the way the cases are. I mean, there were lots of cases where we found the town did not lose but all those were cases where the town was sued. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Well, it sounds to me Dave, like the real issue is, do you deem the motel section an unsafe structure? MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-As it sits right now, I do. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Well, see, if we deem it, as a Town Board as an unsafe structure and retain, if that's how we feel as a group, then we're under no obligation to change the Order that's, we imposed already. COUNCILMAN TURNER-That's right. COUNCILMAN STEC-Right, well, what you're saying Dennis, is we've already deemed the main portion of the hotel an unsafe structure. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Right. COUNCILMAN STEC-I mean, it wasn't just the two buildings that we're, that they're talking about upfront. That included MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Right, yea, my letter covered the entire complex, for lack of better words, I guess and not just the Blacksmith Shop and not just the office. Alright, it included the hotel as well, hotel, motel. COUNCILMAN BOOR-And nothing has been done, correct? MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Nothing has been done since the fire, the buildings have been secured and that's it. So, as far as I know, perhaps they know. I mean, it's their property, I haven't been on the property in a month. So, but as of my last visit, nothing had been done since the fire. COUNCILMAN STEC-I mean, I'm hearing for the main part of the hotel, I mean, the issues are security, combustibles and the structural integrity of the roof, mostly, right? MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Right. It is sustaining damage at this point in time, unless, I haven't heard anything tonight that says it's been fixed. So, I have to assume it still is. COUNCILMAN STEC-Well, I would think that, yea, the security and the removing of combustibles is easy and inexpensive. I mean, the real issue is, you know, how big a deal is the roof, you know, how dangerous is the roof as it currently stands. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Right, water damage does cause structural damage eventually. Buildings are not made to take on water. Pools are but buildings are not and that's what you have there. You have a building that's taking on water and it does lead to other problems. I mean, all of us own property, we know, we wouldn't want water in our homes. This is no different. MR. BOOR-Is that hollow block construction or solid? MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-I don't know, to tell you the truth, Roger I don't. I would assume it's probably a cinder type block. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Are the utilities all within the walls and in the floors and in the ceilings? MR. HA TIN, Director of Building & Codes-The wiring and plumbing is still there. But all the fixtures and electrical and plumbing have been removed. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yea, I know but is it contained within the wall or between the floors or under the floors? MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Yea, I think it's a mixture of both. I don't have the exact knowledge because that building was built back in the sixty, sixty-five, so. SUPERVISOR BROWER-In sixty-five. COUNCILMAN STEC-Dave, has the power been cut off to the, those buildings? MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-As far as I know, it has, yes. COUNCILMAN STEC-I mean, we don't have an issue with an electrical fire? MR.HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Not right now, no, all the utilities, as far as I know, have been disconnected. COUNCILMAN STEC-So, I mean, really, we're to the roof. You've got a building that's got a questionable roof. That's the issue. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Yes. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you, Dave. COUNCILMAN STEC-I mean, you know just to, I know that Bob and Jon are going to give a reply but, I mean, I would suggest what you really going to need to do, if you want to, if you're going to insist on pursuing this is, you're going to have to get some sort of engineer to certify the integrity of that building and I don't know, who you're going to find that would want to sign their name to that, but I mean, you know, I think that's the kind of, I mean, that's just a suggestion. COUNSEL LAPPER-I think what I'm hearing, what it comes down to is a question of whether there are two leaks in the roof, whether or not that makes the building structurally unsound, that has to be removed and I guess, just looking at the law itself, I've highlighted a few sections, the law constantly talks about an order outlining the manner in which the building is to made safe and secure or demolished and removed. So, what we're saying is that the fact that there are two holes in the roof in the worst case, if that is something that maybe is not structurally now but will ultimately become structurally, that would be a decision for a structural engineer. It's a block building as we said, it's not being used so it doesn't seem to the owner, that they need to spend money fixing it up because they don't know whether or not that it's going to be renovated or demolished ultimately. But even what Dave is saying, it seemed to me was that in the future this may become something that is structurally unsound. So, all we're asking you is to allow a building that has two holes in the roofto not have to be knocked down. If, you know, at some point in the future it became structurally unsound, the town would have all the remedies of this law. But we do not believe that it is structurally unsound now and it seems really going overboard to demand a hundred and, hundred plus room hotel to be knocked down because there are a couple of holes in the roof. You know, beyond that, if I just, just to focus in on the law itself, what, the Town Board shall consider report and resolution, reports by the building inspector and by resolution determine if in it's opinion and the report so warrants, such building is unsafe and dangerous and order it's repair if the same can safely, can be safely repaired or it's demolition and removal. I don't think anybody can suggest that the building is beyond repair. So, if it's not beyond repair, I don't think it can be order to be removed and all we're saying is that there is a substantial value in what's there because it can be put back in service. It is unfortunate that there's not a plan, just like there is to demolish, that the next week, to put this back in service. We would all not like to see a vacant building but just looking at the law, the landowner has the right to repair, to secure and repair. If what's necessary, I mean, certainly if this became adversarial, we would have to get a structural engineer to prove that point. All we're asking is for some fairness. We aren't here because there was a problem with that motel building, the problem was that nobody likes the way it looks but there wasn't a problem with that building until the fire and the fire was up front and there wasn't a problem to the motel caused by the fire. So, Pyramid is proposing to spend a bunch of money to remedy that situation, probably more thoroughly then you thought they were going to come back and talk to you and to leave the rest. If there is a structural issue that has to be addressed in the roof, you know, that's something else. We don't believe SUPERVISOR BROWER-Are you prepared to take action on the, you never answered the question if you'd be prepared to take action on the front two buildings even if we don't remove our Order for the main hotel? COUNSEL LAPPER-Well, I guess the simple answer is that if you order the building in the back to be removed, we're going to have to wind up in court because Pyramid feels that they can't, they can't justifying taking down that building because of the value. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I guess the one thing I would add and I'm not sure how the rest of the board feels, under no circumstance is that thing going to stay without you having an escrow account for the full cost of demolition and removal. That's the, that's the absolutely best I would ever consider in this situation and that's just myself. COUNSEL LAPPER-Well, that, I mean COUNCILMAN BOOR-And that, you know, that has nothing to do with going to court. COUNCILMAN STEC-Jon COUNSEL LAPPER-I want to just respond to that, I think that's important. What the law says is that if it's, if you issue an Order saying it has to come down and it doesn't come down, you have the right to hire a contractor and put it on the taxes for the property owner. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right. COUNSEL LAPPER-We're saying that it is not a structure that needs to come down because it's not unsafe. It has roof leaks and previously, kids had broken into it and now it's being better patrolled. Roger, we're not trying to be adversarial and we're not trying to fight about it and we're coming to you with a real offer but if the answer is that you're saying that it has to come down, we have no choice but to fight about it. COUNCILMAN BOOR-My answer is that I want to see some money from you because you guys don't do what you say you're going to do and what you consider a fix and what we consider a fix, what we consider a safe building, what you consider a safe building, they may be miles apart. We don't have to go to court to figure that out. I just have to have a guarantee that if you guys don't follow through with what you say, that we don't have to all come back here again and go through this whole thing again, that we've got a fund that we can go, that's it, we're taking it, this things coming down. COUNSEL LAPPER-Your remedy is right in the Town Code and you have passed a resolution that requires action within approximately two weeks. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right. COUNSEL LAPPER-And what Bob is committing to with respect to the front building is, we're not asking for an extension of that, we're asking obviously for it to be changed so that the motel building can stay but we're proposing to comply so that in the next two weeks, the building will be demolished. COUNCILMAN BOOR-You're complying with a portion not the entirety of what we're asking. COUNSEL LAPPER-Right and we think that what you asked for went beyond what is fair and reasonable because the damaged took place in the front buildings and we're proposing to, a hundred percent address that. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, you know, I could say, I don't want to be adversarial either but I have to protect the interest of the town and that's what I'm trying to do, I think that's what all of us are trying to do and I don't think you setting up an escrow account hurts you one bit. It actually shows you have some good faith. COUNSEL LAPPER-But they don't want to take the motel building down so COUNCILMAN BOOR-You don't, no, that's going to force you to make the repairs that we deem necessary rather then just keep coming before this board with rhetoric and promises and we've got three people that have contracts and we've got, you know, that gets old. COUNSEL LAPPER-I don't want to get legalistic but if I'm just looking at Section 60-6, contents of notice, this was, I think the notice that we got was deficient and what it says, A, the description of the premises, B, a statement of the particulars in which the building is unsafe or dangerous and C, an Order outlining the manner in which the building is to be made safe and secure or demolished and removed and the Order only said, demolish and remove. It didn't address the manner in which the building is to be made safe and secure. I didn't hear Dave say that the motel building can not be made safe and secure. Perhaps what we're arguing about is whether somebody needs to go spend money to fix a roof that may never need to be fixed but I think that's the extent of what we're discussing. So, it just seems to me with all respect that it's overkill to talk about demolishing a hundred plus room hotel because the roof mayor may not need to be repaired. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I don't think there's any question that the roof needs to be repaired. You're not stating that it doesn't, are you? COUNSEL LAPPER-It's a question of whether that has caused structural damage. If it's in a block building, I don't know the answer, I'm not an engineer. COUNCILMAN STEC-Jon, the two fire company induced holes in the roof, what's the dimensions of it, how big are they? COUNSEL LAPPER-I don't recall. I was in it with Dave but I don't recall. COUNCILMAN STEC-I mean, the size of that table, a lot bigger? COUNSEL LAPPER-I don't recall. MR. ORLANDO-Certainly smaller then the table. COUNCILMAN STEC-Has anyone repaired that? You know, throw a sheet of three quarter inch plywood over the hole to keep the weather out or? COUNSEL LAPPER-No. COUNCILMAN STEC-Ifwe go this route, I mean, you talked a lot about securing that building but I know and you, but you've read from the ordinance several times, it says secure and repair. Will there be any repairs? Are you proposing any repairs to that building? COUNSEL LAPPER-The way the COUNCILMAN STEC- The three quarter inch plywood I referenced to the two holes in the roof, that. COUNSEL LAPPER-Under the law, the town is supposed to tell the landowner the manner in which the building is to be made safe and secure and all we got was an Order saying it had to be demolished, so that, it didn't address that. COUNCILMAN STEC-But you came here tonight with an offer. COUNSEL LAPPER-Right. COUNCILMAN STEC-And I'm asking you, does that offer include making some minimum repairs? COUNSEL LAPPER-Well we're prepared, Pyramid is prepared to get a structural engineer to determine whether or not that needs to be done. COUNCILMAN STEC-Well, I mean, you've got a hole in the roof, you don't need an engineer to tell you've got to cover the hole in the roof. That's why I'm asking, I mean, you know, to me, and not being a construction engineer, the bear minimum required is that you've got an exposure to the elements, a hole in the roof that needs to be covered, you know, if nothing else to keep the rain out. I mean, I'm not saying that, you know you're going to get every roof leak and I'm not saying that every, you know, a half a dozen roof leaks makes a building unsafe. But I mean, you've got two holes in the roof. You haven't mentioned at all, hey, we're going to do some COUNSEL LAPPER-In all honesty, up until this morning when we met with Dave, we've just been trying to fight the, it doesn't need to be demolished and we really haven't considered the issue of whether or not the roof needs to be repaired cause we were fighting the bigger fight about whether or not the building has to come down. COUNCILMAN STEC- Y ou know, I'll say it again, I think the issue we're talking about here is the roof. I mean, you can get the combustibles out, you increase security and with no power, I think you're at a minimal risk there but, heaven forbid you have to put somebody on the roof. You know, I mean it'd be nice to know that the roof meets some sort of minimum standard. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I guess that's .. about validity there, I mean, what if there's another fire there and you've got firemen on this roof? I mean, you know, that's not a very safe thing, is it? COUNSEL LAPPER-I don't know. COUNCILMAN BOOR-You've got holes in the roof, alright. COUNSEL LAPPER - I just don't know the answer. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay. COUNCILMAN STEC-See, like I said, I was given the impression that before we were talking about, we've got three perspective buyers that want to come in here and renovate this and open and operate it as a hotel. And now what I'm doing, I'm just pressing to get a couple sheets of plywood thrown over a couple of holes on the roof and I'm not getting the sense that you want to go that route, so I'm trying to think. COUNSEL LAPPER-I guess probably the smart thing is for us to investigate what that, what the real issue with the roof, I mean, no one has been up there. At the same time, the problem is that the Town Board Order is running in a matter of days. Do you have a workshop next Monday? COUNCILMAN STEC-No, they're out of town. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Can I just mention one thing. I've heard the different Town Board Members say that they've wanted to see more then words, you know, see action and it seems to me from listening to you that you're very close, you know with this one issue that you keep talking about of how structurally unsound that last building is. By extending it just one day until your next meeting, you would give them time to demolish the two things, remove the combustibles and have time to get someone in here who could respond and then Dave could be able to look at what, you know, response that is. SUPERVISOR BROWER-It seems like we need a report from a structural engineer as to the viability of the building and you've already increased your patrols to every half hour. We might want to even see that increased to a higher standard. COUNSEL LAPPER-The security personnel tell Bob that that's sufficient and Bob is the mall manager. SUPERVISOR BROWER-How long has that occurred? MR. ORLANDO-How long have we been on half hour patrols? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Yea. MR. ORLANDO-Since November 30th. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Since after the last fire. COUNCILMAN STEC-What was the frequency before that? MR. ORLANDO-Every hour. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, I would have no problem with what Bob suggested, I mean, we want to be fair here but by the same token, it's got to be, there's got to be some action, he can't just be rhetoric. COUNCILMAN STEC-Right. It expires on the 20th and our next regular would be the 25th? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Until the next meeting the 25th. COUNCILMAN STEC-I mean, I don't have a problem, I don't think anyone, I think five days is certainly reasonable. COUNSEL LAPPER-Well, that wouldn't be enough because we'd have to do it. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Well, let me ask you this. If the board's willing to extend the period to the 25th of February, our decision and your report first, obviously, are you still willing to go ahead with the demolition of the first two parts of the building? COUNSEL LAPPER-I think that the answer from the company is going to be that they need this whole thing to be agreed, they need to have a plan that's acceptable to the town so we would probably ask to come back with a structural engineer report which we can submit to Dave in advance of that meeting. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-But Jon, you still, you've started out with, you agreed that those two buildings you're willing to demolish. COUNSEL LAPPER-Bob has a contract that he can sign in the morning and the work will start immediately but if the posture of the town is that the building in the back has to come down then the posture of the property owner is that they're going to have to fight for that. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I don't see any good faith. SUPERVISOR BROWER-But Jon, it sounds like to me the issue is over the structural integrity of the building in the back. COUNSEL LAPPER - I'm not talking about good faith, I'm just telling you what my instructions are. SUPERVISOR BROWER-If our Code Enforcement Officer is correct COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, I thought you already admitted that the structural integrity of the front was unsafe. SUPERVISOR BROWER-It may be unsafe. COUNCILMAN BOOR-You have been on record as saying that. COUNCILMAN STEC-Right. COUNSEL LAPPER-It certainly is unsafe in it's present condition. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, then you know it has to come down. COUNSEL LAPPER-I think that the landowner can take the position that it can be repaired because anything COUNCILMAN BOOR-The front? COUNSEL LAPPER -That it can be, I'm not saying it should be but it can be prepared. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, that's your gamble, that's your roll of dice. COUNSEL LAPPER-But we're not here to do that, we're here to try and accomplish this and to get it done. But my instructions from the company are that if this is not agreeable to the town, if the Order is that the back building has to come down and that stands, then we're going to have to challenge that. It's not the way I want to go, it's not the way the property owner wants to go. So, I guess what I would propose is, in order to come back with this structural engineer's report which wasn't anything that we contemplated until speaking with Dave this morning, if you would agree to extend this, but it would have to be a few days beyond the 25th because the work would then have to take place. You wouldn't want it to expire that night of the Town Board meeting. We'll get a structural engineer's report and we'll be back at your next meeting and hopefully, we can all agree on what has to be done to the back building. COUNCILMAN STEC-I think Bob hit the nail on the head, Jon, that I think we can get to some place in the middle but I think that you're going to have to expect that you're going to have to make some sort of investment in that back building. I mean, you just can't boarded it up and say it's good to go, you're going to have to do some work on that roof. COUNSEL LAPPER-Well, it sounds like you're going to want some work on roof but we would have to get a report from an engineer before we can concur. COUNCILMAN STEC-And I would hope that engineer's report it would detail the problems and the proposed resolution to the problems. COUNCILMAN BOOR-And I wouldn't want it specifically for the roof. I think we have a feeling that the roof is a problem but I think the whole building needs to be looked at, not just the roof. I mean, we haven't had the opportunity to go through this thing and we're not structural engineers. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Well, certainly we saw photos in much of this building and the Blacksmith Shop certainly seemed to have the heaviest damage of the entire building. Yes, Dave. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-I think what the board is looking for, and this is the sense I get just listening to everything is some type of commitment from Pyramid and also to show some good faith, that there's no reason why they couldn't move ahead with the demolition of the two front buildings right now. Alright, that's a given, I think everyone is in agreement those buildings have to come down. We can argue about the back buildings all day long and we may very well wind up in court but I think we've identified some of the problems and they've agreed to that and Jon has gone on the record stating, as you said Roger, that it is unsafe. Why doesn't Pyramid show some good faith between now and the next board meeting when they present that structural report of having the front buildings down, of securing the buildings and getting that structural report and let's argue about the back buildings then. I mean, if we let it sit there longer, we're just postponing the inevitable here. The buildings have been declared unsafe, the Order expires February 20th, they were coming here tonight hoping for a clear cut deal. I think the board is looking for some good faith effort on Pyramid's part, as we've all said, we've had a lot of promises with no end results. COUNCILMAN STEC-But Jon, before you respond to that, I'd add that I think that, I mean, hopefully, you got the vibe from the board that I don't think anyone's dug their heals in saying, that their building has to come down. I mean, you propose something that's reasonable and safe and you know I think that, it's likely that we can modify the Order on that third building. But, whether or not, regardless of what we do, it doesn't change whether or not those two front buildings or safe or unsafe. COUNSEL LAPPER-I like what I'm hearing from all board members tonight, but I guess my instructions from the company are that, if we can't come to an agreement on what the plan is going to be tonight, then they're going to have to go and ask the judge for injunction to prevent the town from demolishing the back building by the 20th and, cause right now, there's an Order and that's what it says. So, if, it was only this morning, again, that we were talking about repairing the back building because up until now, the only Order from the town is demolish the whole thing. So, in fairness, if it's a question of two weeks, Bob's contract and contract price is not going to change in two weeks, I know you'd like action but if you're asking an investigation, a structural investigation of the back building, we need to know what the deal is or they need to know what the deal is before they spend their money demolishing the building and whether or not they have to waste their money on legal fees to go to court which is absolutely not what they want to do. The want to work with the town to fix up the mall, to fix up the whole property, to continue to improvement, to improve the tax base. So, I guess, with all respect to Dave, if we're talking about two weeks, let them hire an engineer, get a report, we'll come back and talk about that and hopefully have something that everybody can agree on in two weeks and the work will start immediately, you know, within a day or two thereafter. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I have a question that, I've made an assumption and I don't know if it's accurate or not, if you were to take the first two buildings down, is their a brick fa<;ade that is on the front of the hotel portion? COUNSEL LAPPER-I don't know how much of that, I mean, it's a two story building on top and a one story on the bottom, I mean we can go take a look at that, I don't know the answer. I don't know if Bob knows the answer. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Is it, was it separated from the Blacksmith Shop or was it all one piece? COUNSEL LAPPER-No, you could enter from the restaurant into the hallway where the rooms are so obviously, something would have to be secured there. MR. ROUND, Executive Director-I have a couple of comments. Is it possible to modify the Order so that you do, so that you're not asking for demolition at this point, of the back building and I don't think Dave is asking for demolition of the back building. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I think that's what we offered to do, we offered to stay on the back building. MR. ROUND, Executive Director-No, I don't think, you haven't asked, I don't think you have. I think what Mr. Lapper is asking for is that you, they don't want to commit to a portion of the project for fear that you're going to require demolition because the way the Order is currently written requires demolition of the rear structure. COUNSEL LAPPER-That's right. MR. ROUND, Executive Director-So, if the Order was proposed to be modified so that we continue to include the two structures that they have offered for demolition and then modify the Order so that it does not include the last structure, the hotel structure and still require as a part of that, an engineer's inspection. I don't know that we're actually talking about a structural integrity report of the hotel but at least some inspection and offer some remedy to the repair to the roof and I think you get both in that case and I don't think we've said that. I think that's what everybody is agreeing to but there's COUNCILMAN BOOR-There's only one minor problem with that and that's, should the front come down, the back not come down and there's a quagmire on the back, as we were just discussing, what's it look like? Is it just open stairways? Or is it going to be MR. ROUND, Executive Director-I think you have the ability to require it to be secured and I think the folks in front of you are aware of what the aesthetic concerns of the board are and you always have the ability to commence this proceeding again if that building is not made safe. So, I'm just looking for the win, win here. You want the buildings down now, they've offered to take them down, modify the Order and proceed with investigating the hotel structure further. COUNCILMAN STEC-What do you think, Jon? COUNSEL LAPPER-I'll have to turn to Bob but it sounds hard to argue with that. Okay, it sounds fair. COUNCILMAN STEC-So, we modify that on the fly tonight or are we talking about modifying that Order on the 20th, extending it tonight, give you time to prepare it and then modify it? MR. ROUND, Executive Director-I'll look to Dave and to Bob, I don't know how that would work. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Well, the Order as it is right now, is written, the only way, I don't think there's any time when it says you can or can't modify it. To my knowledge, you can modify it tonight. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Oh, we can modify it tonight. COUNCILMAN STEC-Well, that's what I'm saying, I mean, how do we COUNCILMAN BOOR-Do we have enough thought into what we're asking? I mean, it's, the specifics are that the front would come down, we do a stay of execution, so to speak on the back and we're not going to have anything in writing that dictates what it's going to look like should it stay up? MR. ROUND, Executive Director-I think that's what, in order to make yourself comfortable, I think that's what you want COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right, I mean, I don't want plywood there. MR. ROUND, Executive Director-You know, by the end of the week or whatever time is comfortable is that you've got some plan to remedy the aesthetics of the, you know, secure that remaining hotel structure and provide that it's acceptable to you and to Dave. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-What's the wish of the board? COUNCILMAN STEC-What makes it a winner for me, is that if, two, six months from now, whatever, we're not satisfied with what's going on with the third building, that there's nothing that precludes us from coming right back here with Dave and going after the third building. But, you know, if we can, you know bird in the hand, if we can get the first two buildings now, as offered and a promise that we're going to work on the third building together in a partnership, you know, it's worth a couple more months to me. SUPERVISOR BROWER-And that hotel section is quite a ways off the main road so it would be less obvious from the street. COUNCILMAN STEC-Well, and the argument that the front two buildings are the more unsafe of the two, I think is a compelling one. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right. COUNCILMAN STEC-So, we're addressing the main issue immediately which is the most important thing and then, you know, I think a little bit of time to figure out that third building, what we're going to do and I think you understand where we're coming from, you know what our concerns are but I think that's a pretty fair compromise. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Well, we're trying to stay within the boundaries of the law and at the same time, provide a degree of assurance that you know, no one is going to get injured in this facility. So, I think that's a reasonable idea. I am concerned about Dave's consideration that the structural integrity of the bigger building may be at risk but we won't know that without an engineer's report and I'm sure you'll provide that to us. Do I have a motion from a board member? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Wait, shouldn't we detail what that motion should have SUPERVISOR BROWER-Yes. COUNCILMAN STEC-Yea, well that's what I was asking. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-And I think we're going to want Jon and Mr. Orlando to go on the record agreeing to this. Yea, that's a good suggestion. Chris suggested that I, we have a recess or I draft while you guys go on with the rest of your meeting. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-And then we come back in ten or fifteen minutes, give me some time to draft it up. Can I just make sure that I have the key points? The removal of Howard Johnson Office, demolished, removed, site re-graded. SUPERVISOR BROWER-The Blacksmith Shop as well. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-The removal of the Blacksmith Shop, demolished, removed, site re-graded. Some sort of closure in an esthetically appealing manner of the surface behind those two to the main hotel. Removal of all combustibles in the hotel that's being left behind. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Which would include the mattresses, that are there currently? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Yes, that's, they've used that interchangeably when I've heard Dave talking about, I think what he's talking about but any other combustibles that are there besides the mattresses. COUNSEL LAPPER-Well, we're talking about the mattresses, we're not talking about removing the carpeting, if that's combustible. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-No. COUNCILMAN STEC-No, like I said, my background and again, it's an insurance issue which isn't the town's business in this case but the storage, you know, things that are easily removable. COUNSEL LAPPER-Right, not fixtures. COUNCILMAN STEC- Yea, I mean, I don't think you have to pull things off the walls that are nailed to the walls or the floors or COUNSEL LAPPER-Yea, that's our intent. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-I understood that they've already increased security at the site and I heard the Town Board say they wanted to see some, you know, the written logs or something. MR. ROUND, Executive Director-Mont11ly report of the logs. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-That type of a thing. COUNCILMAN STEC-And if we can include that, you know the security in our Order. COUNSEL LAPPER-Yea, I'd like it to say that they, that will continue every half hour. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Continue every half hour. SUPERVISOR BROWER-What do you use, a clock system? COUNCILMAN STEC-He's got some sort of a security sheet, I'm sure, a log sheet that says, I toured northwest property. MR. ORLANDO-Yea, we'll bring a log sheet. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-And the last thing which I heard people say that I think is very important, is that there will be a structural engineer report that will at least address the structural integrity and the affect of the leaks and holes in the roof and if the findings are that they're a problem like Dave explains that they are, what the remedy would be. COUNCILMAN STEC-I would still encourage and suggest to cover the holes. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Is that what, Roger, is that? COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yea, what Dan just said, I think the holes need to be covered, even if they consider it COUNCILMAN STEC-Yea, I mean, if you've got two holes that we're cut in there with chainsaws that you know about, I mean, you ought to cover them. Again, just as a fire safety issue. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Ted, anything else I leave out that you guys wanted? I mean, I can write something up. SUPERVISOR BROWER-A report by our next Town Board meeting, February 25th. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-And report by next Town Board meeting, yup, that's what we said. COUNCILMAN STEC-Now, are we going to address a time line for making decisions on the third building or is that another Order all together? COUNSEL LAPPER-We'll be back on the 25th to talk about it. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Well, I would think that you would want that the other building that you had, after the report, right? You want to get the report and then you'll act, is that sufficient? COUNCILMAN STEC- That's fine, yea. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Is that sufficient for the Town Board? COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yea. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-I mean, I can't see them not agreeing to that. COUNSEL LAPPER-But also, part of this is that you modify the Order so that the back building doesn't have to be TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Oh, yes, yes. COUNCILMAN BOOR-As indicated. COUNCILMAN STEC-Or add repair, secured and repaired slash. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Well, we're going to change the Order to this. COUNCILMAN STEC-Yea. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-I mean, this will be the new Order, replacing the other and you guys will go on the record on that you're authorized by Pyramid to agree to that. COUNSEL HAFNER-We like this a lot better then the other. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Well, yes but you made a point of citing the law in the, and the procedure we have to follow if we're going to revise that and not continue with the plan the Town Board has done, I think we need your acquiescence so it can't be used against if we have issues later on. CORRESPONDENCE Deputy Town Clerk Barber noted that the following reports have been received and filed in the Town Clerk's Office: 2001 Animal Control Annual Report, Building & Codes January 2002 Mont11ly Report, Town Clerk's January 2002 Monthly Report. OPEN FORUM 8: 10 P.M. Mr. Pliney Tucker, 41 Division Road referred to the five and a half acre piece of property west of the water plant that the attorney was going to research when that was going to become town recreation land. Supervisor Brower noted that he'll ask counsel when he returns to the meeting. Mr. Tucker noted that the town had a two million dollar investment in a landfill in Hartford that was never built and questioned whether the town ever recovered that money? Supervisor Brower-No, the county has a fifty percent stake in the landfill in Hartford, the property. Mr. Tucker questioned whether it was a legal landfill, approved by the State of New York? Supervisor Brower-As far as I know, yes but it hasn't been opened or contemplated to be opened at this time. Mr. Tucker referred to the Hatch Act and questioned whether a town official could get an official answer to find out whether or not County Supervisor Nick Caimano is in violation of the Hatch Act? Supervisor Brower-Okay. Mr. Tucker referred to roadside cleanup and noted that last fall we had discussed putting a package together and authorizing Jim Coughlin to spend ten thousand dollars and hire people to clean it up but it didn't happen. Supervisor Brower-We used summer youth employment through the Employment and Training Office but last year they didn't have the funding, I don't believe to provide the kids like they had the year before but I believe there is funding this year. Jim Coughlin wants me to go down with him to talk with Bill Resse whose in charge of Employment and Training at the county and talk about the summer potential. Mr. Tucker recommended that if we can't get these kids, that we do it ourselves. . .. You're going to get me an answer on the Hatch Act, right? Supervisor Brower-Yes, I will. Councilman Stec-I'd like to see that too when you get it, Dennis. Mr. Dick Merrill, Sunset Trail referred to the roadside cleanup and noted that if you travel along Upper Bay Road and Ridge Road, it's a disgrace and I'm embarrassed by the appearance of the roads. It's become one massive transfer station. So, I would encourage you to take and put together a serious program to clean the roads. Mr. John Salvador noted that another potential site for the library has fallen by the wayside and questioned whether the town has representation at the county level? Supervisor Brower noted that he was on the county's Expansion Committee. Mr. Salvador referred to letter he submitted to Councilman Boor in the earlier part of the year concerning Dunham's Bay Road and questioned what can be done to get that on the front burner? Councilman Boor-I guess I have to do more then what I've done. I've mentioned it to a few people who seem somewhat disinterested and I have not taken it upon myself to go any further with it. Mr. Salvador noted that the county now uses salt rather than sand and feels that it's a greater impact on the lake, more detrimental... Dunham's Bay Road is a problem, drainage, surface treatment, access, slopes and for a town road, it's in a miserable state of repair... Councilman Boor-Have you spoken with the Highway Department? Mr. Salvador-It's difficult for me to speak with the Highway Department, I still have an outstanding complaint against the Highway Department and dealing with Fuller Road. Councilman Boor-I promise you that I will speak with somebody over there and hopefully I will get an answer, if not some results. Mr. Salvador suggested a site visit to point out the problems. .. Referred to drainage project for Cleverdale Road that the town was looking for funding and noted that it was brought forth because of the sediments that were finding their way to the lake. If we're not using road salt anymore, then we don't have the sediments finding their way to the lake so maybe we don't need this project.... Noted that Bill Lamy at the Lake George Basin Sewer Committee Meeting asked to schedule a meeting with Supervisor Brower and the consultant. Supervisor Brower-Yes, we haven't scheduled a meeting officially but it's either going to be March 11th or our next meeting, either a workshop or a regular Town Board meeting that they will be attending. They could come to the first meeting but I said I wanted the cost data associated with the information and they said that might take an extra week to compile and I said, don't bother coming if you don't have the cost information. Mr. Salvador-What's the purpose of the meeting? Supervisor Brower-The engineer he's coming to update the board on the alternatives sited and the potential costs that they see associated with the various alternatives. Mr. Salvador-We are in the SEQRA process and that meeting will take place in the SEQRA process? Supervisor Brower-Yes. CORRESPONDENCE Deputy Town Clerk Barber read the following letter into the record: February 11, 2002 Town Board Town of Queensbury Re: Queensbury Youth Baseball & Softball Dear Supervisor Brower and Town Councilmen, Our son Matthew will be five years of age on February 19th and eligible under the rules of the Little League sanctioning organization to participate in T -ball (their rules specify that participants must reach the age of 5 by July 31st of the calendar year of participation). Queensbury Youth Baseball and Softball however, restricts participation to children reaching age 5 on Jan. 1st. We learned through friends, and confirmed with local officials that Hadley-Luzerne-Stony Creek complies with Little League eligibility rules, and that they would permit Matthew to participate if Queensbury would give him a waiver to play outside his home district for the current year. In the process of following up on this information we spoke with Bob Davis, NY District II Commissioner of Little League and learned that local organizations may waiver players for participation in a neighboring district. We were also told that each local organization may permit or preclude the 5-year-age group, but if it is allowed, then eligibility must conform to Little League sanctioning rules - in other words, participants must reach five- years-age by July 31st, not Jan. 1st. Matthew and I attended registration at Central Queensbury Fire House this past Saturday to register for T- Ball. Mr. Cozzens repeated the local rules to me that he had quoted to my husband on the phone and declined to allow Matthew to register. I then requested a waiver so that Matthew can play in Hadley- Luzerne. Mr. Cozzens said he knows nothing of waivers, then dismissed us by commenting to an official accompanying him that "Little League is becoming a real pain in the ass". In view of the Town's generous support of the local organization ($45,000 over the past three years) to assure affordable participation of Queensbury children, I am requesting that you exert the influence necessary to assure that participation is also accessible in accordance with governing rules. We prefer to enroll Matthew in Queensbury; if that cannot be accomplished we insist on a one-year waiver to play in Hadley-Luzerne. Finally, we understand that the Town's 2002 support of Queensbury Youth Baseball and Softball requires that registration fees remain at 2001 levels. It appears that the T -Ball registration fee has increased 50% from 2001. Thanks in advance for your help in getting these issues resolved in favor of Town residents and League participants. Sincerely, Glenda 1. Benware (letter on file in the Town Clerk's Office) Town Board held discussion and agreed to research further. OPEN FORUM CLOSED 8:35 P.M. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FREE TIRE DISPOSAL DAY RESOLUTION NO.: 98,2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury's Solid Waste Facilities Operator has recommended that the Town Board authorize the free disposal of tires for one day on Saturday, May 4th, 2002, at the Town's two Transfer Stations for Town of Queensbury and City of Glens Falls residents only, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize the free tire disposal day, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the free disposal of up to eight (8) tires per family for Town of Queensbury and City of Glens Falls residents only for one day on Saturday, May 4th, 2002 from 7:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the Town of Queensbury's two Transfer Stations, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes the Town's Solid Waste Facilities Operator to take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 11th day of February, 2002, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISED AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND QUEENSBURY SENIOR CITIZENS, INC. RESOLUTION NO.: 99,2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 33,2002, the Town Board authorized an Agreement with the Queensbury Senior Citizens, Inc., for the year 2002, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Senior Citizens requested certain changes to the Agreement and met with the Town Comptroller to discuss their proposed changes, and WHEREAS, upon meeting with the Town Comptroller, the Queensbury Senior Citizens have agreed to certain modifications to the Agreement as enumerated in a Memorandum from the Town Comptroller to the Queensbury Senior Citizens dated January 16, 2002 and presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, a copy of the revised Agreement has been presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the revised Agreement between the Town of Queensbury and the Queensbury Senior Citizens, Inc., as presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Agreement with funding to be paid for from the appropriate Town Account. Duly adopted this 11th day of February, 2002, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF ESCROW FUNDS AND CLOSURE OF ESCROW ACCOUNT IN CONNECTION WITH CENTRAL QUEENSBURY QUAKER ROAD SEWER DISTRICT EXT. #6 - EVEREST ENTERPRISES, INC. RESOLUTION NO.: 100,2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 316.99, the Queensbury Town Board established and authorized Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District Extension NO.6 and executed a Sewer Extension Agreement with the Developer, Everest Enterprises, Inc. (Everest), and WHEREAS, Everest agreed to deposit funds in escrow with the Town to cover costs related to construction of the sewer facilities, engineering and other related expenses, and WHEREAS, by Town Board Resolution No.: 443.99, the Town Board authorized the return ofa portion of escrow funds to Everest and retained the balance of escrow funds as requested by the Deputy Director of Wastewater (Deputy Director), and WHEREAS, by Town Board Resolution No.: 218,2000, the Town Board authorized the return of an additional portion of escrow funds to Everest and retained the balance of escrow funds again as requested by the Deputy Director of Wastewater (Deputy Director), and WHEREAS, the Deputy Director has advised that Everest has completed all remaining punch list items and one year warranty period and therefore recommends that the Town release the balance of escrow funds held by the Town, plus any interested earned in January 2002, to Everest and close the escrow account, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the return of approximately $2,617 in escrow funds plus any interest earned in January 2002, to Everest Enterprises, LLC, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Comptroller's Office to refund the escrow funds, close the escrow account established for Everest Enterprises, LLC, and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 11th day of February, 2002, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF ESCROW FUNDS AND CLOSURE OF ESCROW ACCOUNT IN CONNECTION WITH CENTRAL QUEENSBURY QUAKER ROAD SEWER DISTRICT EXT. #2 - UPPER GLENS FALLS DEVELOPMENT CORP. RESOLUTION NO.: 101,2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 496,94, the Queensbury Town Board established and authorized the Cronin Road Extension NO.2 to the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District and executed a Sewer Extension Agreement with the Developer, Upper Glens Falls Development Corporation (Development Corp.), and WHEREAS, the Development Corp. agreed to deposit funds in escrow with the Town to cover costs related to construction of the sewer facilities, engineering and other related expenses, and WHEREAS, by Town Board Resolution No.: 460,96, the Town Board authorized the return of a portion of escrow funds to the Development Corp. and retained the balance of escrow funds as requested by the Deputy Director of Wastewater (Deputy Director), and WHEREAS, the Deputy Director has advised that the Development Corp. has completed all remaining punch list items and one year warranty period and therefore recommends that the Town release the balance of escrow funds held by the Town, plus any interested earned in January 2002, to the Development Corp. and close the escrow account, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the return of approximately $1,440 in escrow funds plus any interest earned in January 2002, to the Upper Glens Falls Development Corporation, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Comptroller's Office to refund the escrow funds, close the escrow account established for the Upper Glens Falls Development Corporation and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 11th day of February, 2002, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR SEALED BIDS FOR SALE OF USED DUMP TRUCK RESOLUTION NO.: 102,2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Purchasing Agent wishes to advertise for bids for the sale of a 1990 Chevrolet one-ton dump truck formerly used by the Town's Building and Grounds Department as the truck is in poor condition and poses a possible hazard and target for vandalism when it is left in the Town's parking lot, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize such advertisements for bids and award the bid to the highest bidder, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Purchasing Agent to publish an advertisement for bids in the official newspaper for the Town of Queensbury for the sale of a 1990 Chevrolet one-ton dump truck formerly used by the Town's Building and Grounds Department, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Purchasing Agent to open all bids received, read the same aloud and record the bids as is customarily done and present the bids to the next regular or special meeting of the Town Board. Duly adopted this 11th day of February, 2002, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer RESOLUTION AWARDING BID FOR MOBILE CATCH BASIN HIGH VELOCITY COMBINATION SEWER CLEANER FOR USE BY THE TOWN HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO. 103, 2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the Town's Purchasing Agent duly advertised for bids for the purchase of one (1) new and unused Mobile Catch Basin High Velocity Combination Sewer Cleaner for use by the Town's Highway Department, and WHEREAS, Robert's Equipment submitted the lowest responsible bid for a sewer cleaner, one (1) Aquatech BlO on a 2002 Sterling Cab and Chassis, in the amount of$157,251 and the Highway Superintendent and Purchasing Agent have recommended that the Town Board award the bid to Robert's Equipment, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby awards the bid for one (1) Aquatech BlO on a 2002 Sterling Cab and Chassis to Robert's Equipment for an amount not to exceed $157,251 to be paid for from Highway Heavy Equipment Account No.: 04-5130-2040, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Highway Superintendent and/or Purchasing Agent to take any and all action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 11th day of February, 2002 by the following vote: AYES Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADIRONDACK RUNNERS TO CONDUCT 16TH ANNUAL SHAMROCK SHUFFLE ROAD RACE RESOLUTION NO. : 104, 2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Adirondack Runners Club has requested authorization from the Queensbury Town Board to conduct its 16th Annual Shamrock Shuffle Road Race as follows: SPONSOR EVENT: DATE PLACE: The Adirondack Runners Club 16th Annual Shamrock Shuffle Road Race Sunday, March 17th, 2002 Beginning and ending at Glens Falls High School and going through the Town of Queensbury (Letter and map showing course is attached); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby acknowledges receipt of proof of insurance from the Adirondack Runners Club to conduct the 16th Annual Shamrock Shuffle Road Race partially within the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby approves this event subject to approval by the Town Highway Superintendent, which may be revoked due to concern for road conditions at any time up to the date and time of the event. Duly adopted this 11th day of February, 2002, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF STREET LIGHT ON MANNIS ROAD RESOLUTION NO.: 105,2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to arrange for the placement of a street light on Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Pole #5 on Mannis Road in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, such light would be located within the boundaries of the Queensbury Lighting District and Extension, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves installation of a high pressure sodium lamp on Niagara Mohawk Pole #5 on Mannis Road in the Town of Queensbury with payment for the lighting to be billed to the Queensbury Lighting District and Extension, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor's Office to make all necessary installation arrangements with Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation and take any other action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 11th day of February, 2002, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2002 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 106,2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the attached Budget Amendment Requests have been duly initiated and justified and are deemed compliant with Town operating procedures and accounting practices by the Town Comptroller, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Comptroller's Office to take all action necessary to transfer funds and amend the 2002 Town Budget as follows: HIGHWAY: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 01-1990-4400 (Contingency) 01-5010-4720 (Highway Consulting Services) $ 1,970. Duly adopted this llh day of February, 2002, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer Town Counsel Hafner returned to meeting and read into record the following resolution: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION OF ORDER DATED DECEMBER 17TH, 2001 CONCERNING THE DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL OF STRUCTURE OWNED BY PYRAMID COMPANY OF GLENS FALLS WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Director of Building and Codes Enforcement and the Queensbury Town Board previously determined that the old Howard Johnson's Motel and Blacksmith Shop Restaurant buildings owned by the Pyramid Company of Glens Falls which are located at 524 Aviation Road in the Town of Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 302.05-1-96.1) have been vandalized, sustained structural damage as a result of fire and are unsafe to the general public, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Director of Building and Codes Enforcement and the Town Board determined that such buildings were unsafe and by Order dated December 17th, 200 I, ordered Pyramid Company of Glens Falls to immediately begin demolishing and removing the structures located at 524 Aviation Road in the Town of Queensbury and to complete the demolition and removal process by February 20, 2002, and WHEREAS, on February II, 2002, the Town Board heard further evidence of proposed actions by Pyramid Company of Glens Falls which Pyramid Company stated would render the buildings to no longer be unsafe to the general public, and WHEREAS, the Town Board considered such evidence and further evidence from the Town of Queensbury's Director of Building and Codes Enforcement, and WHEREAS, the Town Board considered modifying its Order of December 17,2001, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby revises its Order of December 17, 2001 concerning buildings owned by the Pyramid Company of Glens Falls as follows: I. The Pyramid Company of Glens Falls will demolish, remove and re-grade the site of both the Howard Johnson's Office and the Blacksmith Shop Restaurant located at 524 Aviation Road in the Town of Queensbury; 2. The Pyramid Company of Glens Falls will remove all combustibles that are not permanent fixtures in the building, including mattresses; 3. The Pyramid Company of Glens Falls will continue to provide patrols of the remaining hotel structure, ... (we'll come back to this, Dave has further language that he wants to add there, we'll come back to that, let me get the whole Order out) 4. The Pyramid Company of Glens Falls will provide satisfactory proof of items #1, 2 and 3 above to the satisfaction of the Town of Queensbury's Director of Building and Codes Enforcement; 5. The Pyramid Company of Glens Falls will provide the Queensbury Town Board and Director of Building and Codes Enforcement, by February 25th, 2002, with a structural engineering report concerning the remaining hotel building which will at least address the damage to the roof, the water damage inside the building, structural integrity of the building and proposed remedies, if required. The Town of Queensbury's December 17,2001 Order as hereby revised, will no longer require demolition of the remaining hotel building after demolition of the Howard Johnson's Office and Blacksmith Shop Restaurant; 6. The Pyramid Company of Glens Falls will deal with the aesthetic issues of the demolition and will submit its proposal concerning such issues at the next Queensbury Town Board Meeting of February 25,2002; 7. The Pyramid Company of Glens Falls will close off, make weather-tight and secure any exposed surfaces of the hotel building caused by demolition and removal of the Blacksmith Shop Restaurant and Hotel Office; 8. The Pyramid Company of Glens Falls will provide Queensbury Town Counsel with a written agreement concerning these terms by Thursday, February 14,2002. For the record, the reason for this is so that the Town of Queensbury will not give up any of its rights under the existing Order of December 17, 2001; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this Modification is contingent upon completion of all the numbered items above and if completion of such items do not occur by February 25th, 2002, then the Town Board's Order of December 17, 200 I continues unmodified. Discussion Before Introduction: Town Counsel Hafner-And the one issue that Dave wanted to talk about was the patrols, he would like the Town Board to consider making the resolution require patrols inside the building. Mr. Hatin, Director of Building & Codes-That's right, when the demolition is done and the remammg hotel, motel is left, I think it would be appropriate that they provide an inside patrol as well as an outside patrol to ensure that nobody is, no vagrants are gaining access to the building and creating problems. I mean, let's face it, that's how the problem occurred because nobody was going inside the building and obviously the patrols on the outside did not catch these people inside the building. So, I think it would be appropriate that they provide a watch key station, I believe they punch a watch key now, inside the building somewhere that assures that somebody does enter that building, maybe not every half hour but at least once an hour to ensure that there is nobody, no vagrants or no people using the building for anything at all. Councilman Stec-Because it wasn't incorporated, I assume that the mall has got concern with that or? Mr. Hatin, Director of Building & Codes-I believe they do, yes. Counsel Lapper-Bob feels that that's just too much to ask. Mr. Orlando-Well, the fact is that we have, you know the asset of the mall which the security a number one priority and additional walking through a vacant building takes them away from the number one responsibility and I understand Dave's concern, Ijust, I Supervisor Brower-Well, theoretically, the combustibles will be removed so what are they going to, I don't know. Councilman Stec-Oh yea. Mr. Orlando- I just think that ... Councilman Stec-I don't think an hourly walk through is needed but I would suggest Councilman Boor-No, what about once a day or something? Mr. Orlando-Yea, I mean once a day Councilman Stec-Once or twice a day, sure. Councilman Boor-I mean, just to see if there's evidence that people have been in there, then you may be, take a more proactive. . . Councilman Stec-Right, you're going to see if there's evidence that people have been in there. Mr. Orlando-I think that's fair and reasonable. Whether we're going to actually add additional detect station, you know, to the grounds, you know, we may just keep a written log... but I don't have a problem with them going in there once a day, that's fine. Mr. Hatin, Director of Building & Codes-As I stated to them in the hallway, if the building wasn't there, we wouldn't have to worry about this problem. If the building is going to remain, I still think it's an issue that the board should, I believe they should make a visit to the building at least once an hour. I think that ensures that we don't have any problems. Once a day, I mean if they go there during the day time, the problems have not occurred during day time, they've occurred at night. Councilman Stec-I would suggest that we require that it occur in the evening hours. I mean, that makes sense to fit in your schedule anyways because you don't need any patrol, after the mall closes, sometime, ten o'clockish, between ten and midnight, I mean, that's probably when most of the problems are occurring. Mr. Hatin, Director of Building & Codes-No, well, actually the last fire called occurred about five o'clock in the morning but. Mr. Orlando-Fair and reasonable to me. Town Counsel Hafner-Is that what the Town Board wants? Mr. Hatin, Director of Building & Codes-You have the final say. Supervisor Brower-I think once a day in the evening, would be adequate, yea. Town Counsel Hafner-Roger, Ted, do you agree with that? Councilman Turner-Yea. Councilman Boor -Yea, I think that's alright. Town Counsel Hafner-Then I would propose that we change number 3 to just add at the end, including an inside patrol at least once per day during the evening. Supervisor Brower-Any other, have we left anything off? Board members? Councilman Boor-The only uncertainty I have is, did we address the hole in the roof in that? Counsel Lapper-Yes. Town Counsel Hafner-It address that just by Councilman Stec- Yea, make it weather proof. Town Counsel Hafner-the structural report of the engineer and I understood Councilman Stec-No, you read in there Counsel Lapper-And remedies. Town Counsel Hafner-Yes, and remedies. Councilman Stec- Yea. Town Counsel Hafner-But, that we, if the report comes back with things that make the Town Board and Dave think that it's unsafe, I understood the board would then act again and follow, you know, follow it's town code. Isn't that, did I write down Councilman Boor-No, that's fine. Town Counsel Hafner-what you guys decided? Councilman Boor-That's fine. Town Counsel Hafner-That's what, how I interpreted you. Councilman Boor-I just don't want it understood that if it's structurally, the integrity is great but we don't have to fix the hole in the roof type scenario. Counsel Lapper-Right, it's in there. Town Counsel Hafner-Well, that's not actually in there. Councilman Stec-I thought you Town Counsel Hafner-You had a structural report which will address Counsel Lapper-Remedies. Councilman Boor-Yea but is that addressing the hole in the roof? I mean, you can have a structurally fine hole in the roof. Town Counsel Hafner-Okay, I did not understand that that was concern. I had understood that the final thing was, you're going to get a report and then if it came back that it was unsafe Councilman Stec- That would make it a courtyard. Town Counsel Hafner-An atrium. If, is that something that the Town Board wants? Councilman Stec-Yea, well, I think it's not controversial. Town Counsel Hafner-That' they're going to fix the roof? We did not put that language in there, that they had to fix the roof. Councilman Stec-We can add it. Councilman Boor-Well, I just don't want something that somebody can be walking up there and fall through and I don't want firemen going to another fire and having holes in the roof. Councilman Stec-Add a number, the mall agrees to repair immediately the two holes in the roof. Town Counsel Hafner-Do you agree to board it up, Bob, Jon? Counsel Lapper-I guess we want to say subject to whatever the report says in terms of what the issue is because it says remedy. Councilman Boor-I consider a breach of safety to have a hole in the roof, I guess is what I'm saying. Counsel Lapper- Yea, we know that that's what the report is going to say but we want to rely on what the engmeer IS says. Town Counsel Hafner-As to Supervisor Brower-As to how to fix it or secure it? Town Counsel Hafner-As to how to fix it, how to fix the roof? Counsel Lapper-That's what it said to remedy. Councilman Boor-Okay. Counsel Lapper-Structural problem and the remedies... Councilman Boor - I just Town Counsel Hafner-Okay, then we'll add to that paragraph, that the Councilman Stec- To take immediate remedial action to Town Counsel Hafner-That the remedies include correcting Councilman Boor-The hole in the roof. Town Counsel Hafner-the holes in the roof. Councilman Boor-Right. Town Counsel Hafner-I think that's sufficient. So, we'll add that to paragraph 5. Councilman Stec- The two fire company holes in the roof. Mr. Hatin, Director of Building & Codes-Well, there's other holes in the roof besides the fire company, I mean, that's evident from... Councilman Stec-Well, alright. Town Counsel Hafner-That that's what the understanding of remedies is, is not just to deal with the total unsafe but to deal with the safety the roof and the holes in the roof. Councilman Turner-The safety of the total roof. Town Counsel Hafner-Yes, okay. Supervisor Brower-Okay, anything else board members? I'd like to ask, Mr. Salvador, yes sir. Mr. Salvador-Yes, I have a question, I'm confused. Is the building unsafe because of the way it's being operated or is the building unsafe because a fire has occurred in the building and has affected the structural integrity of it? Supervisor Brower-We don't know. Mr. Salvador-Okay. Town Counsel Hafner-That's going to be the result of the report. Supervisor Brower-We don't know the complete answer to that but hope to by February 25th. Mr. Salvador-Usually, when an engineer makes an evaluation of the structural stability of a building, he measures it against what the building is going to be used for. If it's just an empty shell, it's, there's really no problem, it's very stable in its present condition. But it depends on what it's going to be used for as to how the engineer is going to evaluate the integrity of the building and believe me, a hole in the roof has nothing to do with structural integrity of a building. Councilman Boor-Well, I think I would only go back to my scenario if there's a fire. I would assume that if the fire that starts has yet to do structural damage, I wouldn't want to think that just the mere presence of a fireman on the roof would be dangerous. Is that clear? Mr. Salvador-I just, I don't know, it's up to the applicant but to me you're looking for an engineer to undertake some kind of a study of this structure to determine whether or not certain action is going to be required and I don't think he's going to give you an answer. Supervisor Brower-Thank you, Mr. Salvador. Okay, Bob, anything further to add? Town Counsel Hafner-I think I said more then I expected to tonight. Supervisor Brower-This is resolution 5.10, do I have any motion relating to it? Councilman Stec-I'll move it. Supervisor Brower-Moved by Councilman Stec. Councilman Turner-Second. Supervisor Brower-Seconded by Councilman Turner. Further discussion? Hearing none, let's vote. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION OF ORDER DATED DECEMBER 17TH, 2001 CONCERNING THE DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL OF STRUCTURE OWNED BY PYRAMID COMPANY OF GLENS FALLS RESOLUTION NO.: 107,2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Director of Building and Codes Enforcement and the Queensbury Town Board previously determined that the old Howard Johnson's Motel and Blacksmith Shop Restaurant buildings owned by the Pyramid Company of Glens Falls which are located at 524 Aviation Road in the Town of Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 302.05-1-96.1) have been vandalized, sustained structural damage as a result of fire and are unsafe to the general public, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Director of Building and Codes Enforcement and the Town Board determined that such buildings were unsafe and by Order dated December 17th, 200 I, ordered Pyramid Company of Glens Falls to immediately begin demolishing and removing the structures located at 524 Aviation Road in the Town of Queensbury and to complete the demolition and removal process by February 20, 2002, and WHEREAS, on February II, 2002, the Town Board heard further evidence of proposed actions by Pyramid Company of Glens Falls which Pyramid Company stated would render the buildings to no longer be unsafe to the general public, and WHEREAS, the Town Board considered such evidence and further evidence from the Town of Queensbury's Director of Building and Codes Enforcement, and WHEREAS, the Town Board considered modifying its Order of December 17,2001, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby revises its Order of December 17, 2001 concerning buildings owned by the Pyramid Company of Glens Falls as follows: 9. The Pyramid Company of Glens Falls will demolish, remove and re-grade the site of both the Howard Johnson's Office and the Blacksmith Shop Restaurant located at 524 Aviation Road in the Town of Queensbury; 10. The Pyramid Company of Glens Falls will remove all combustibles that are not permanent fixtures in the building, including mattresses; II. The Pyramid Company of Glens Falls will continue to provide patrols of the remaining hotel structure (including an inside patrol) at least once a day during evening hours, to ensure that no vagrants are gaining access to the building and creating problems; 12. The Pyramid Company of Glens Falls will provide satisfactory proof of items #1, 2 and 3 above to the satisfaction of the Town of Queensbury's Director of Building and Codes Enforcement; 13. The Pyramid Company of Glens Falls will provide the Queensbury Town Board and Director of Building and Codes Enforcement, by February 25th, 2002, with a structural engineering report concerning the remaining hotel building which will at least address the damage to the roof, the water damage inside the building, structural integrity of the building and proposed remedies, if required. Such remedies shall include correction of existing holes in the roof. The Town of Queensbury's December 17, 200 I Order as hereby revised, will no longer require demolition of the remaining hotel building after demolition of the Howard Johnson's Office and Blacksmith Shop Restaurant; 14. The Pyramid Company of Glens Falls will deal with the aesthetic issues of the demolition and will submit its proposal concerning such issues at the next Queensbury Town Board Meeting of February 25,2002; 15. The Pyramid Company of Glens Falls will close off, make weather-tight and secure any exposed surfaces of the hotel building caused by demolition and removal of the Blacksmith Shop Restaurant and Hotel Office; 16. The Pyramid Company of Glens Falls will provide Queensbury Town Counsel with a written agreement concerning these terms by Thursday, February 14,2002. For the record, the reason for this is so that the Town of Queensbury will not give up any of its rights under the existing Order of December 17, 2001; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this Modification is contingent upon completion of all the numbered items above and if completion of such items do not occur by February 25th, 2002, then the Town Board's Order of December 17, 200 I continues unmodified. Duly adopted this 11th day of February, 2002, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer TOWN BOARD DISCUSSION 8:54 P.M. Supervisor Brower just to update the board members, the sewer negotiating team from Queensbury met today and we revised the language in the contract that we had worked on last week and Bob Hafner will be in a position to provide that to the city tomorrow to Mark Nordsy and there's a potential we'll have a meeting with the city either this week or next week and possibly both weeks. At this point in time, we first have to get the document in their hands and we've moved on it expeditiously to avoid any delays and yet it's complicated. Councilman Stec-Speed wagon? Supervisor Brower-I haven't seen it on West Mountain Road yet, I'm hoping to though. Mr. Round, Executive Director-Mr. Kenny was here at last meeting and talked about lighting on Route 9 and we did make contact with New York State DOT. Bob Hafner drafted you a memo about just reaffirming the process for the addition of street lighting along Route 9. There was some concern that the process might be different because it is a state road and the process is identical. I contacted New York State DOT Planning and Engineering Department and they are not responsible for placing lighting along the street. The town would go through it's normal process to do so. I made contact with Dick Towbridge, whose the manager for Niagara Mohawk for this particular function. They'll place pole mounted lighting along, additional lighting, there are some lights on the corridor already, they would provide for additional lighting. Normal process, board resolution, identify which poles you want it on. It's my impression though that the town and Mr. Kenny was interested in something more, in some pedestrian scale lighting. They do provide for a particular budget that they would allow and then there are probably some incremental costs associated with pedestrian lighting and I think the next step for us to do if we want to pursue that is to set up a site walk through with Mr. Turner and maybe Mr. Kenny and representatives of the corridor and identify just exactly where they want them, the number of lights, etcetera and come up with some kind of concept plan that Niagara Mohawk would react to and provide a cost and then the next step would be identifying whose the responsible party for the additional costs because it's not going to be all Niagara Mohawk's costs. So, we'll proceed with that in the next couple of weeks. That's Roger's Ward, if you'd like to attend we'll coordinate with your schedule. Councilman Boor-Yea. Mr. Round, Executive Director-What I put in front of you, it's not completed, it is a work in progress. I had hoped to have a finished document to you tonight but what this is, this identifies the format. What we have done, we've summarized the comments received from the public both during the public hearing and written correspondence to date. The close of the comment is the 15th. I don't know, Caroline, do we have minutes, yet? Deputy Town Clerk Barber-I just finished them, just waiting for Dar to proof read them. Mr. Round, Executive Director-We have minutes, we've been a little bit delayed because the Clerk's Office has been overloaded with it's normal work and we all know and sickness and so we don't have it complete. We did meet with the Park Agency as well but what this does is identify the comments and suggested staff response to those comments. Some of the comments, as you know, were more a comment that wasn't asking for a change but offered an opinion so it's difficult to respond to an opinion in some instances. But there are several items that do need Town Board feedback. I have a pretty good feeling of the direction that the board wanted to go in. I got an email from Dan Stec, I've talked to Dennis, Ted and Roger on several items. We had targeted the 25th to put a revised ordinance for adoption in front of you. We're not going to achieve that goal because we had meeting with the Park Agency on Friday, they still have not yet gained a comfort level in the regulation that we have proposed, they have several additions and revisions that they'd like to see. They will not, contrary to what they had made a commitment to previously, they will not act on the Zoning Ordinance on February 15th, they're going to act on it on March 15th. So, they've delayed it another month. They have offered that they would allow us to act on it prior to the 15th provided that we would include a clause that they would write that would allow them further review and if the ordinance was adopted, contrary to an opinion, as you might imagine, it's kind of a convoluted process. So, what we'd like to do is receive that feedback, get them an ordinance that they are happy to pass on and then put that in front of you. So, there has been some delay. What I would like to do is communicate with you on the 25th exactly what those changes are, put that ordinance in front of you on the 25th, not for action but just to allow you additional time to review what those particular changes are. I'll walk you through those changes and get your concurrence that those, that's the direction that the board would like to take. I think it was pretty evident, the board's position on several of the items and I think that was the elimination of the PO zone at West Mountain and Gurney Lane, I think there was consensus on that. The Ryan property at the intersection of 149 and Ridge Road was to zone that Neighborhood Commercial. We did speak to the Park Agency, they will allow us to zone it Commercial. There was a single property on Route 9, I believe it's the Wakita Motel was not to include that in the HC Mod but to include that in the HC Intensive because it adjoins other commercial lands. The purpose of the HC Mod was to buffer against the residential lands adjacent to it. Dan Stec had commented on Dixon Road property that's currently Parkland Recreation that we're going to zone SFR20. I think that's something that we need to have further discussion on. Dan had suggested a one acre zone, we're proposing a twenty thousand square foot lot size. All the adjoining properties are zoned twenty thousand square feet so we would propose, continue to include the twenty thousand square feet density. That doesn't mean that they would be allowed to develop in that kind of intensity because they would have to construct a road, etcetera so you're likely to see a much lower density then the twenty thousand square foot would allow you. We have additional feedback on some definitions and clarifications, one of them being buffering along the Northway. But some of those things are included in this document and we'll get you a complete document at the end of this week that would include all those changes, identifying which action items we're proposing and then talk to you about that on the 25th. So, I guess what I'm looking for tonight is that, if you're in agreement with the schedule then that's the direction that we're going to take and get your confirmation on the 25th for the actual revisions and we'll have that zoning ordinance in front of you at that time and you can act on it at a later date, likely in March. Supervisor Brower questioned the status of the 5.5 acre piece of property west of the Water Plant that Mr. Tucker was inquiring about. Town Counsel Hafner-We still have not gotten a response from Mike O'Connor, we will continue to seek it from him and see if we can figure that out, so we'll track that down. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO.: 108,2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session to enter Executive Session to discuss personnel matters. Duly adopted this 11th day of February, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer RESOLUTION TO RECONVENE AND ADJOURN REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO.: 109,2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Executive Session and enters Regular Session of the Town Board, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns it's Regular Town Board Meeting. Duly adopted this 11th day of February, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer No further action taken. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK TOWN OF QUEENSBURY