Loading...
2007-06-04 MTG24 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING JUNE 4, 2007 7:00 P.M. MTG#24 RES# 255-281 LL#2 RD# 552 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR COUNCILMAN RICHARD SANFORD COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER TOWN COUNSEL MARK NOORDSY TOWN OFFICIALS WATER SUPERINTENDENT, BRUCE OSTRANDER FISCAL MANAGER, BARBARA TIERNEY SENIOR PLANNER, STU BAKER WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, MIKE SHAW DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES, DAVE HA TIN FACILITIES MANAGER, CHUCK RICE PRESS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC 1.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARING- ADOPTING SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY ON BAY ROAD OWNED BY DONNA ST. JOHN FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ONE ACRE (SFR-1A) TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE OPENED PUBLICATION DATE: May 25, 2007 SUPERVISOR STEC-I will open this public hearing. These first two public hearings are two out of five rezoning requests that have been in the Town Boards hopper for a long time. The Town identified in a Workshop along with Stu Baker from a list of potential ones, ones that we felt were clean enough and simple enough that we could do in advance of wrapping up the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which the Town Board is eager to do and has been having conversations with Stu who has been heading that project up along with the Planning Ordinance Review Committee. We do expect in the very near future to be setting a public hearing on that and Stu will probably talk to the board a little bit more about that in the very near future. To not want to hold up any more people than we needed these first two are identified through a Workshop process with Stu as ones that we felt were straightforward. It could be that we are currently consistent with the current comp plan therefore being eligible for consideration to be rezoned. This first one is for three residential lots on Bay Road north ofthe Harvest and south of ACe. We would be looking at changing from a residential zone to professional office zone, which, of course, the surrounding neighborhood is all zoned professional office. The public hearing is opened if there are any members of the public that would like to comment on this public hearing I just ask that you raise your hand I will call on you one at a time we will have people come to the microphone, anybody, any Town Board discussions. COUNCILMAN BOOR-A couple questions. Stu it is reference in here a couple times it is .62 acres is that the one parcel or all three. SENIOR PLANNER, MR. BAKER-That is all three parcels. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 2 COUNCILMAN BOOR-The only other one is on page 8 of21 it says submittal date it gives October 31, but no year. It may not be critical, but it probably should say a year it can be corrected after the fact because this has been sitting on the shelve for two years and I am not sure that is when this was done. SENIOR PLANNER, MR. BAKER- This is actually the SEQRA form that was as it was submitted by the applicant I believe that was 2005. COUNCILMAN BREWER-In 2005. SUPERVISOR STEC-We have some that are two years old. COUNCILMAN BOOR-That is all. COUNCILMAN BREWER-The same thing down the next line, Roger. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yes. SENIOR PLANNER, STU BAKER-Yeah, the same date. SUPERVISOR STEC-Is there any public comment on this. Again, come to the microphone we ask that you state your name and address for the record. These microphones not only amplify they also record for the purpose of the record. MIKE LEMERY, 452 BAY ROAD, DONNA ST. JOHN PROPERTY-That property there is .64 by itself and I just thought you to say all three properties were .62. COUNCILMAN BOOR-That is why I was confused. This is for all three and yet it only references .62, which to me looks like it is only one property. Ifwe need to correct that, we will have to do that. SENIOR PLANNER, MR. BAKER-You can do that this evening as you go through the SEQRA. MR. LEMERY - Y ou have a full survey of this. You have a full site plan of an office on there everything I just want to know that is all going to go professional office. COUNCILMAN BOOR-We are going to rezone it in its entirety. Like, I said when I thought of it as three properties only being .62 acres I said this doesn't look right. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Does it tell the size of the properties on the map. COUNCILMAN BOOR-If you look at page 5 of21. It says total contiguous acreage owned and control by project sponsor it says .62 acres. We have the project sponsor here and he is saying that is only one ofthe parcels. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Right. I am just asking if it was on the map the size of the parcels combined. SENIOR PLANNER, MR. BAKER-The correct acreage for all three parcels is 1.06 acres. SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, 1.06 acres. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Should we put that in there then. SENIOR PLANNER, MR. BAKER-Yes, please. SUPERVISOR STEC-Is there anyone else that would like to comment on this public hearing. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PART 11 SEQRA 3 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 4 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact 8e Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. 0 D DYes DNa Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, 0 0 DYes DNa other than for agricultural purposes. Other impacts: 0 0 DYes DNo I 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non- en~ered species? NO 0 YES Examples that would apply to column 2 Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident 0 0 DYes DNa or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of 0 0 Dves DNa mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. Other impacts: D 0 Dves DNa I IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Wi~osed Action affect agricultural land resources? , NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 0 0 Dves DNa The Proposed Action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of D 0 Dves DNa agricultural land. The Proposed Action would irreversibly convert more than 10 D 0 Dves DNa acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. Page 15 of 21 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 5 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change The Proposed Action would disrupt or prevent installation of D 0 Dves DNa agricultural/and management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff). Other impacts: 0 D DYes DNo I I IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources? (If necessary, use the ~al EAF Addendum in Section 617.20, Appendix 8.) , NO DVES Examples that would apply to column 2 0 0 Dves DNa Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of 0 0 OVes DNo aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. Project components that will result in the elimination or D D DVes DNa significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. Other impacts: D 0 OVes DNa I I IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pr~ric or paleontological importance? NO DVES Examples that would apply to column 2 0 0 DYes DNo Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within 0 D Dves DNa the project site. Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive 0 0 Dves DNa for archaeological sites on the NVS Site Inventory. Page 16 of 21 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 6 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact 8e Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change Other impacts: 0 0 OVes DNo IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREA nON 13. Will proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future op~aces or recreational opportunities? I)J NO 0 VES Examples that would apply to column 2 The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. A major reduction of an open space important to the community. o o o o o o Dves DNo Dves DNa DYes DNa Other impacts: I IMPACT ON CRmCAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 14. Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6NVCRR 617 .14(g)? tiJNO DYES List~e ~nvironmental characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA. Examples that would apply to column 2 D 0 Dves DNa Proposed Action to locate within the CEA? Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quantity of the 0 0 DYes DNa resource? Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quality of the 0 0 DYes DNa resource? Proposed Action will impact the use, function or enjoyment of the D 0 DYes DNO resource? Other impacts: D D DYes DNo I Page 17 of 21 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 7 1 2 3 Small to Potentia' Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change IMPACT ON TRANSPORTA nON 15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? ~NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 0 D DYes DNa Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. 0 D Dves DNa Other impacts: 0 0 DYes DNa I IMPACT ON ENERGY 16. Will Proposed Action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? ~NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 0 0 DVes DNo Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of energy in the municipality. Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an 0 0 Dves DNo energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industria/ use. Other impacts: 0 0 DVes DNa I NOISE AND ODOR IMPACT 17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? f(:J..NO DVES Examples that would apply to column 2 D D DVes DNa Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). 0 0 DVes DNa Proposed Action will prOduce operating noise exceeding the 0 0 DVes DNa local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a 0 D DYes DNa noise screen. Other impacts: 0 0 Dves DNa , Page 1 8 of 21 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 8 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 18. W111~"e' AdJo, ..... p'b1;, he." 00' ..fety? NO DYES roposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of 0 0 DVes DNa hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic fow level discharge or emission. Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes. 0 0 OVes DNa in any fonn (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquefied 0 0 DVes DNo natural gas or other flammable liquids. Proposed Action may result in the excavation or other 0 D Dves DNa disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. Other impacts: 0 0 DVes DNa I I IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OFCOMMUNrrYORN8GHBORHOOD 19. W~POSed Action affect the character of the existing community? NO DVES Examples that would apply to column 2 0 0 Dves DNa The pennanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating 0 0 Dves DNa services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. Proposed Action will conflict with officially adopted plans or 0 0 Dves DNa goals. Proposed Action will cause a change in the density of land use. D 0 Dves DNo Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, 0 0 OVes DNa structures or areas of historic importance to the community. Development will create a demand for additional community 0 0 Dves DNo services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) Page 19 of 21 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 9 Other impacts: I 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated by Impact Impact Project Change 0 D Dves DNa 0 0 DYes DNa 0 D Dves DNO I Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. 20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adWl. el environment impacts? "f-.NO DYES If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If you Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Page 20 of 21 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 10 Part 3. EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be mitigated. Instructions (If you need more space, attach additional sheets) Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s). 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance, consider: · The probability of the impact occurring . The duration of the impact · Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value · Whether the impact can or will be controlled · The regional consequence of the impact · Its potential divergence from local needs and goals · Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. Page 21 of 21 ... REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 II 12-12-79 (3199)-9c SEQR State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance Project Number _ Date 6-4-07 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Queensburv Town Board as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant environmental impact and a Draft Impact Statement will not be prepared. Name of Action: St. John Rezonina ReQuest SEQR Status: Type 1 Unlisted Conditioned Negative Declaration: Yes No Description of Action: Donna St. John Is reQuesting to have her DrODerty rezoned from Single Family Residential One Acre (SFR-1Al toProfesslonal OffIce CPOl. Location: (Include street address and the name of the municipality/county. A location map of appropriate scale is also recommended.) 452 Bay Road, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York 12804 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 12 SEQR Negative Declaration Page 2of2 Reasons Supporting This Determination: (See 617.7(a)-(c) for requirements of this determination; see 617.7(d) for Conditioned Negative Declaration) If Conditioned Negative Declaration, provide on attachment the specific mitigation measures imposed, and identify comment period (not less than 30 days from date of pubication In the ENB) For Further Information: Contact Person: DClniel G. Stee, Town SUpervisor Address: 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 Telephone Numb~5' 18) \ 761-8229 For Type 1 Actions and Conditioned Negative Declarations, a Copy of this Notice is sent to: Chief Executive Officer, Town I City I Village of Other involved agencies (If any) Applicant (If any) Environmental Notice Bulletin, Room 538, 50 Wolf Road, Albany NY, 12233-1750 (Type One Actions only) DISCUSSION HELD COUNCILMAN BOOR-The only thing I would add is sometimes it is confusing to the audience when we answer those questions. It may sound like how can you say no that there will not be a physical change. The clarification here is we are only talking about a zoning we are not talking about any specific project no buildings, no removal so it is strictly the zoning that we are talking about here. In those areas you might say how can REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 13 they say there is going to be no change it is because the zoning in and of itself is not changing anything physically on the property. Hopefully that will elevate some misperceptions. RESOLUTION ADOPTING SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY ON BAY ROAD OWNED BY DONNA ST. JOHN FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ONE ACRE (SFR-IA) TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) RESOLUTION NO. 255, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board is considering a request by Donna St. John to amend the Town Zoning Ordinance and Map to rezone property bearing Tax Map No.: 296.16-1-13 located on Bay Road, Queensbury from Single Family Residential One Acre (SFR-IA) to Professional Office (PO), and WHEREAS, two properties immediately to the north of the referenced St. John property bearing Tax Map No.'s: 296-16.1-11 and 296.16.1-12 are recommended by both the current 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the draft revised 2007 Comprehensive Land Use Plan for change of zoning to encourage office development, and WHEREAS, before the Town Board may amend, supplement, change, or modify its Ordinance and Map, it must hold a public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Town Law S265, the Municipal Home Rule Law and the Town of Queensbury Zoning Laws, and WHEREAS, the Town Board duly conducted a public hearing conceming the proposed rezoning on June 4th, 2007 and heard all interested parties, and WHEREAS, as SEQRA Lead Agency, the Town Board has reviewed a Full Environmental Assessment Form to analyze potential environmental impacts of the proposed rezoning, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has considered the conditions and circumstances of the area affected by the rezoning, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 14 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby determines that the proposed rezoning will not have any significant environmental impact and a SEQRA Negative Declaration is made, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby amends the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and Map to rezone property owned by Donna St. John located on Bay Road bearing Tax Map No.: 296.16-1-13, and two properties immediately to the north of the referenced St. John property bearing Tax Map No.'s: 296-16.1-11 and 296.16.1-12, from Single Family Residential One Acre (SFR-IA) to Professional Office (PO), and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to forward a copy of this Resolution to the Town's Zoning Administrator to update the official Town Zoning Map to reflect this change of zone, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk and/or Senior Planner to send a certified copy of this Resolution to the Warren County Planning Board, Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury Planning Board and any agency involved for SEQRA purposes, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, in accordance with the requirements of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and Town Law S265, the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to publish a certified copy of the zoning changes in the Glens Falls Post-Star within five (5) days and obtain an Affidavit of Publication, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this amendment shall take effect upon filing in the Town Clerk's Office. Duly adopted this 4th day of June, 2007, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT:None REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 15 PUBLIC HEARING ADOPTING SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTIES ON DIX AVENUE AND QUAKER ROAD BY WARREN TIRE FROM COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL ONE ACRE (CI-IA) TO HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE (HC-INT) OPENED PUBLICATION DATE MAY 25, 2007 SUPERVISOR STEC-I will open this public hearing. As, I mentioned for the first public hearing this is one of the other two the other five that the Town Board looked at. As Roger pointed out too, we are just talking about a rezoning. Actually this is about an existing structure that had been used for this use in the past just a few years ago then the Town has changed the zoning and disallowed a certain use that its desire to consider re- allowing. The public hearing is opened if there are any members of the public that would like to address the board regarding this public hearing I would ask you to raise your hand. NO PUBLIC COMMENT SUPERVISOR STEC-Seeing none any Town Board discussions. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I just want to point out that it is not owned by Warren Tire it is going to be leased or rented. SUPERVISOR STEC-Correct. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I will also point out that Dan that this is a use that was previously there the rezoning is for whatever reason just the use was taken out of there as far as I can understand it. I still think that this use should apply in that zone I think that is the basis for us doing this. SUPERVISOR STEC-Any other discussions, any public comment. SENIOR PLANNER, MR. BAKER-Just a point of clarification. The proposal the board is considering is including not only this parcel shown as selected on the screen, but also these two parcels as well, so it is all three parcels would be changed from commercial industrial to highway commercial intensive. SUPERVISOR STEC-The SEQRA status of this Stu? SENIOR PLANNER, MR. BAKER-The SEQRA status I believe it is unlisted. SUPERVISOR STEC-Any comments from the public, I will close this public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PART II SEQRA REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 16 14-16-2-(9/95) - 7c Part 2 . PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency SEQR General Information (Read Carefully) · In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been reasonable? The revie\ not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. · The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trig response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. · The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. · The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. · In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumulative effects. Instructions (Read Carefully) a. Answer each of the 20 questions in Part 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question, then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur, but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in Part 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply ask that it be looked at further. e. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact, then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to Part 3. f. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 3. Examples that would apply to column 2 · Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. · Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. . Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. · Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. · Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. · Excavation for mining purposed that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (Le., rock or spoil) per year. . Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. . Construction in a designated f1oodway. Other impacts [81NO OVES 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change 0 0 OVes ONo 0 0 DVes ONo 0 0 DVes DNo 0 0 DVes DNo 0 0 DVes DNo 0 0 DVes ONe 0 0 OVes ONo 0 0 OVes ONo 0 0 DVes DNo 0 0 OVes ONo IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (Le., cliffs, dunes, geological, formations, etc.) [gJNO DVES Specific land forms: Page 6 of 12 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 17 14-16-2(9/95) - 7c IMPACT ON WATER 3. Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? (Under Articles 12, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECl) [8JNO DVES Examples that would apply to column 2 . Developable area of site contains a protected water body. · Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. · Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. . Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. Other impacts 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? [8JNO DVES Examples that would apply to column 2 · A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. · Construction of a body or water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. Other impacts 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? [8JNO DVES Examples that would apply to column 2 . Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. · Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action. · Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. · Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system. . Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. · Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. · Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. · Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. · Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. · Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. Other impacts: 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? [8JNO DVES . Examples that would apply to column 2 . Proposed Action would change flood water flows. Page 7 of 12 SEQR 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderat large Mitigated By e Impact Impact Project Change D 0 DVes DNo 0 0 DVes DNo D 0 DVes DNo D 0 DVes DNo 0 0 DVes oNo 0 0 DVes DNo 0 0 DVes DNo D 0 DVes DNa 0 D DVes DNo 0 0 DVes DNo D 0 DVes DNo 0 0 DVes DNo 0 0 DVes DNo 0 0 DVes DNo 0 0 DVes DNo 0 0 DVes DNo D 0 DVes DNo 0 0 DVes DNo 0 0 DVes DNo 0 0 DVes DNo D 0 DVes DNa D 0 DVes ONo REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 18 14-16-2 (9/95) - 7c SEQR 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderat Large Mitigated By e Impact Impact Project Change . Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. 0 0 DYes DNo . Proposed Action is compatible with existing drainage patterns. 0 0 DYes DNo . Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. 0 0 DYes DNo Other impacts: 0 0 DYes DNo IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? ~NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 0 0 DYes DNo . Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. · Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. 0 0 DYes DNo · Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 Ibs. per hour or a heat source producing more 0 0 DYes DNo than 10 million BTU's per hour. · Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. 0 0 DYes DNo · Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing 0 0 DYes DNo industrial areas. Other impacts: 0 0 DYes DNo IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? [8JNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or 0 0 DYes DNo near site or found on the site. . Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. 0 0 DYes DNo · Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural 0 0 DYes DNo purposes. Other impacts: 0 0 DYes DNo 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? DNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 0 0 DYes DNa · Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. · Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of 0 0 DYes DNo age) or other locally important vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? [8JNO DYES 0 0 DYes DNo Examples that would apply to column 2 The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) Page 8 of 12 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 19 14-16-2' (9/95) - 7c · Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. · The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. . The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g., cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff). Other impacts: IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES O. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? ~NO DYES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.20, Appendix B.) Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use pattems, whether man-made or natural. · Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. · Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. Other impacts: IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 2. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? [gJNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2? · Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or national Register of historic places. · Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. . Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. Other impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION O. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or ,recreational opportunities. [gJNO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2? . The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. . A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Other impacts: Page 9 of 12 SEQR 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Maderat Large Mitigated By e Impact Impact Project Change 0 0 DYes DNo 0 0 DYes DNa 0 D DYes DNo 0 D DYes oNo 0 D DYes DNo D D DYes DNa D D DYes DNa 0 0 DYes oNo 0 D DYes ONo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes DNa 0 0 DYes ONo 0 0 DYes ONo 0 D DYes DNa 0 D DYes DNo REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 20 14-16-2-(9/95) - 7c IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NVCRR 617.14(9)? ~NO DVES list the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA. Examples that would apply to column 2 . Proposed Action to locate within the CEA? . Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource? . Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quality of the resource? . Proposed Action will impact the use, function or enjoyment of the resource? Other impacts: IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION O. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? ~NO DVES Examples that would apply to column 2 . Alteration of present pattems of movement of people and/or goods. . Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. Other impacts: IMPACT ON ENERGY O. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? lZINO OVES Examples that would apply to column 2 . Proposed Action- will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of energy in the municipality. . Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. Other impacts: Page 10 of12 SEQR 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change 0 0 OVes ONo 0 0 OVes ONo 0 0 DVes DNo 0 0 DVes DNo 0 0 DVes DNo 0 0 DVes ONo 0 0 OVes ONo 0 0 DYes ONo 0 0 DVes ONo 0 0 OVes ONo 0 0 DVes ONo REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 21 , 14-16-2 (9/95) - 7c SEQR Examples that would apply to column 2 ~NO DVES 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change 0 0 oVes oNo 0 0 DYes DNo 0 D DYes DNo 0 0 DYes DNo 0 D oVes oNo 0 D DYes DNa 0 0 DYes DNo 0 0 DVes DNa D 0 DVes DNa 0 0 DVes DNa 0 0 oVes DNa 0 0 oVes DNa 0 0 oVes DNa 0 0 DYes DNa 0 0 oVes DNa 0 0 oVes DNa B R oVes DNa nVes DNa NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? ~NO oVES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, schaal or other sensitive facility. · Odars will occur routinely (more than one haur per day). · Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. · Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. Other impacts: IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 18. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? ~NO oVES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (Le. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event af accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. · Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes' in any form (Le. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) · Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquefied natural gas or other flammable liquids. · Proposed action may result in the excavation of other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. Other impacts: IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 19. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? · The pennanent population of the city, town, or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. · The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. · Proposed Action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. · Proposed Action will cause a change in the density of land use. · Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. · Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) · Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. · Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. Other impacts: O. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? DNO DVES If any action in Part 2 is identified as a potential large impact or if you cannot determine the magnitude of impact, proceed to Part 3. Page II of 12 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 22 . 14-16-~ (9/95) - 7c SEQR Part 3.EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be mitigated. Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: O. Briefly describe the impact. 1. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change( s). 2. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance, consider: · The probability of the impact occurring · The duration of the impact · Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value · Whether the impact can or will be controlled · The regional consequence of the impact · Its potential divergence from local needs and goals · Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact (Continue on attachments) Page 12 of 12 RESOLUTION ADOPTING SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTIES ON DIX AVENUE AND QUAKER ROAD OWNED BY WARREN TIRE FROM COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL ONE ACRE (CI-IA) TO HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE (HC-INT) REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 23 RESOLUTION NO. 256,2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board is considering a request by Warren Tire to amend the Town Zoning Ordinance and Map to rezone property bearing Tax Map No.: 303.19-1-71 located on Dix Avenue and Quaker Road, Queensbury from Commercial Industrial One Acre (CI-IA) to Highway Commercial Intensive (HC-Int), and WHEREAS, two properties on the north side of the referenced property bearing Tax Map No.'s: 303.15-1-31 and 303.15-1-30 are surrounded on three sides by the subject property; and WHEREAS, the current 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan recommends large scale commercial uses in this neighborhood, and WHEREAS, in accordance with the Town Ethics Code, S 14-5. Standards of conduct, "elected Town Officials shall disclose campaign contributions of $100 or more from a person or entity who is specifically and significantly affected, positively or adversely, by an action of the Town Board. Such disclosure requirement applies to contributions made within the previous two years prior to the date of the relevant Town Board Resolution and shall be made through inclusion within the relevant Town Board Resolution," and the Town Supervisor has disclosed that Warren Tire contributed $500 to the Town Supervisor's campaign fund in the summer of2005, and WHEREAS, before the Town Board may amend, supplement, change, or modifY its Ordinance and Map, it must hold a public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Town Law S265, the Municipal Home Rule Law and the Town of Queensbury Zoning Laws, and WHEREAS, the Town Board duly conducted a public hearing concerning the proposed rezoning on June 4th, 2007 and heard all interested parties, and WHEREAS, as SEQRA Lead Agency, the Town Board has reviewed a Full Environmental Assessment Form to analyze potential environmental impacts of the proposed rezoning, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has considered the conditions and circumstances of the area affected by the rezoning, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 24 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby determines that the proposed rezoning will not have any significant environmental impact and a SEQRA Negative Declaration is made, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby amends the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and Map to rezone property owned by Warren Tire located on Dix A venue and Quaker Road, Queensbury bearing Tax Map No: 303.19-1-71, and two properties on the north side of the referenced property bearing Tax Map No.'s: 303.15-1-31 and 303.15-1-30, from Commercial Industrial One Acre (CI-IA) to Highway Commercial Intensive (HC-Int), and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to forward a copy of this Resolution to the Town's Zoning Administrator to update the official Town Zoning Map to reflect this change of zone, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk and/or Senior Planner to send a certified copy of this Resolution to the Warren County Planning Board, Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury Planning Board and any agency involved for SEQRA purposes, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, in accordance with the requirements of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and Town Law S265, the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to publish a certified copy of the zoning changes in the Glens Falls Post-Star within five (5) days and obtain an Affidavit of Publication, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this amendment shall take effect upon filing in the Town Clerk's Office. Duly adopted this 4th day of June, 2007, by the following vote: REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 25 AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES: None ABSENT:None PUBLIC HEARING ENACTING LOCAL LAW TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 88 "FIRE PREVENTION AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION" OPENED PUBLICATION DATE: May 25, 2007 SUPERVISOR STEC-I will open a public hearing we have set this we have had a workshop on this. The State has recently updated their own building code and the Town is attempting to make sure that ours is consistent with their's. In many instances, I think the Town's have been previously more advanced or perhaps more up to date. In any event we needed to make some changes there are several I won't go through them all there are many in this chapter. This chapter addresses the duties of Fire Marshal and Code Enforcement Officers there are some words where sections were added where granting Fire Marshal and/or Code Enforcement Officer some of the responsibilities to inspect and basically perform their duties. There are a lot of changes, but I think it is fair to say that most of them are pretty vanilla. Mark is there anything that you would want to add to that. TOWN COUNSEL, NOORDSY - Y ou pretty well summed it up just complying with the new State Code. SUPERVISOR STEC-I do not believe that there is anything controversial or any wholesale changes that I think anyone would really take objection too, but I guess beauty is in the eye ofthe beholder. Anyways the public hearing is opened if there are any members of the public that would like to comment again I would just ask people to raise their hand. NO PUBLIC COMMENT SUPERVISOR STEC-Any discussion by Town Board members, Dave Hatin is here in case any Town Board member or any member of the public wanted to ask a question. Dave is pretty much the staff expert on all ofthis mostly applies to him and his department. Seeing no public comment, I will close the public hearing and entertain a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO.: 2 OF 2007 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 88 "FIRE PREVENTION AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION" RESOLUTION NO. 257, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 26 WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: 2, of 2007 to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 88 "Fire Prevention and Building Construction," in accordance with recent changes to New York State Laws and Regulations related to the administration and enforcement of the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code of the State of New York, and WHEREAS, this legislation is authorized in accordance with New York State Municipal Home Rule Law S 1 0 and Town Law Article 16, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a Type II action as set forth in 6 NYCRR 617 .5( c )(19)- which provides that official acts of a ministerial nature, including the issuance of building permits, are predicated solely on the applicant's compliance or noncompliance with the relevant local building codes and as set forth in 6 NYCRR 617.5(c)(27) concerning adoption of regulations, policies, procedures and local legislative decisions in connection with any action on the Type II list, on which building permit review and issuance is listed, as are local laws adopted concerning procedures for issuance and overseeing of such building permits, and WHEREAS, the Town Board duly held a public hearing on Monday, June 4th, 2007 and heard all interested persons, and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Local Law has been presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby enacts Local Law No.: 2, of 2007 to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 88 entitled "Fire Prevention and Building Construction," as presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to file the Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and acknowledges that the Local Law will take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State. Duly adopted this 4th day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES : None ABSENT: None REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 27 LOCAL LAW NO.: 2, OF 2007 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND CHAPTER 88 "FIRE PREVENTION AND BUILDING CODE CONSTRUCTION" OF QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Purpose and Intent. This local law provides for updates and amendments to Chapter 88 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, titled Fire Prevention and Building Code Construction. These updates are made in accordance with recent changes to New York State Laws and Regulations related to the administration and enforcement of the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code of the State of New York (the Uniform Code). This local law is adopted pursuant to section 10 of the Municipal Home Rule Law. Except as otherwise provided in the Uniform Code, other state law, or other section of this local law, all buildings, structures, and premises, regardless of use or occupancy, are subject to the provisions this local law and Chapter 88 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury. Section 2. Amendment to ~88-3 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury. S88-3 shall now read: The Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adopts and ratifies any previous adoption of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and the State Energy Conservation Construction Code (henceforth collectively referred to as the "Building Code" or the "Uniform Code"), if any, and all subsequent amendments thereto. In the event of conflict between the Uniform Code and the Town Code, the more stringent standard shall apply. Section 3. Amendment to ~88-7 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury. S88-7 shall now read: Director of Building and Code Enforcement. Except as otherwise provided by law, ordinance, rule or regulation, the Director of Building and Code Enforcement shall administer and enforce all provisions of laws, codes, ordinances, rules, regulations and orders applicable to the location, design, materials, construction, alteration, repair, equipment, maintenance, use, occupancy, removal and demolition of buildings, structures and appurtenances thereto, receive, review, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 28 and approve or disapprove applications for Building Permits, Certificates of Occupancy, Temporary Certificates and Operating Permits, and the plans, specifications and construction documents submitted with such applications, and upon approval of such applications, to issue Building Permits, Certificates of Occupancy, Temporary Certificates and Operating Permits, and to include in Building Permits, Certificates of Occupancy, Temporary Certificates and Operating Permits such terms and conditions as the Director of Building and Code Enforcement may determine to be appropriate; conduct construction inspections, inspections to be made prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy, Temporary Certificates and Operating Permits, property maintenance inspections, inspections incidental to the investigation of complaints, and all other inspections required or permitted under any provision of this local law not specifically delegated as responsibilities of the Fire Marshal, except that the administration of the Zoning Ordinance shall be vested in the Zoning Administrator as herein provided. Further, the Director of Building and Code Enforcement shall have all authority, powers, duties and responsibilities provided to the Building Inspector, as such position is defined and provided for under Town Law 9 138. Section 4. Amendment to ~88-8 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury. 988-8 shall be amended such that the current paragraph shall be subsection A, and new subsection B shall read: B. The chief of any fire department or volunteer fire company providing fire fighting services for a property within this Town shall promptly notify the Director of Building and Code Enforcement and the Fire Marshal of any fire or explosion involving any structural damage, fuel burning appliance, chimney or gas vent. Section 5. Amendment to ~88-12(A) ofthe Code of the Town of Queensbury. The second sentence of 988-12(A) shall now read: In addition to the exemptions contained in 19 NYCRR 92103.3(a)(1), no permit shall be required for construction work which is not structural in nature and does not entail the installation of plumbing, heating or ventilation systems or components in addition to such systems already in use. No permit shall be required for work of an ordinary replacement or maintenance nature, except as otherwise stated in this chapter. The exemption from the requirement to obtain a building permit for work in any category set forth herein shall not be deemed an authorization for work to be performed in violation of the Uniform Code or the Energy Code. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 29 Section 6. Amendment to ~88-12(B) of the Code of the Town of Queensbury. The following sentence shall be added after the first sentence in S88- 12(B): The forms shall reqUIre, at a mInImUm, that the following information be submitted: a description of the proposed work; the tax map number and the street address of the premises where the work is to be performed; the occupancy classification of any affected building or structure; where applicable, a statement of special inspections prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Code; and at least 2 sets of construction documents (drawings and/or specifications) which (i) define the scope of the proposed work; (ii) are prepared by a New York State registered architect or licensed professional engineer where so required by the Education Law; (iii) indicate with sufficient clarity and detail the nature and extent of the work proposed; (iv) substantiate that the proposed work will comply with the Uniform Code and the Energy Code; and (v) where applicable, include a site plan that shows any existing and proposed buildings and structures on the site, the location of any existing or proposed well or septic system, the location of the intended work, and the distances between the buildings and structures and the lot lines. Section 7. Amendment to ~88-17(A) of the Code of the Town of Queensbury. S88-17(A) shall read: Whenever the Director of Building and Code Enforcement, Fire Marshal or Zoning Administrator has reasonable grounds to believe that the work on any building or structure is proceeding without a permit or is otherwise in violation of the provisions of any applicable law, code, ordinance, rule or regulation or is not in conformity with any of the provisions of the application, plans or specifications on the basis of which a permit was issued or is being conducted in an unsafe or dangerous manner, which fall under his respective jurisdiction, he shall notify either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or the person, firm or corporation performing the work to immediately suspend all work. In such instance, any and all persons shall immediately suspend all related activities until the stop-work order has been duly rescinded. Section 8. Amendment to ~88-17(B) ofthe Code ofthe Town of Queensbury. The following sentence shall be added after the last sentence of S88-17(B): REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 30 The Director of Building and Code Enforcement, Fire Marshal or Zoning Administrator, as the case may be, shall cause the Stop Work Order, or a copy thereof, to be served on the owner of the affected property (and, if the owner is not the permit holder, on the permit holder) personally or by certified mail. The Director of Building and Code Enforcement, Fire Marshal or Zoning Administrator shall be permitted, but not required, to cause the Stop Work Order, or a copy thereof, to be served on any builder, architect, tenant, contractor, subcontractor, construction superintendent, or their agents, or any other Person taking part or assisting in work affected by the Stop Work Order, personally or by certified mail; provided, however, that failure to serve any Person mentioned in this sentence shall not affect the efficacy of the Stop Work Order. Section 9. New ~88-17(C) of the Code of the Town of Queensbury. There shall be a new S88-17(C) as follows: C. The issuance of a Stop Work Order shall not be the exclusive remedy available to address any event described in subdivision A or B of this section, and the authority to issue a Stop Work Order shall be in addition to, and not in substitution for or limitation of, the right and authority to pursue any other remedy or impose any other penalty under this local law or under any other applicable local law or State law. Any such other remedy or penalty may be pursued at any time, whether prior to, at the time of, or after the issuance of a Stop Work Order. Section 10. Amendment to ~88-18(A) of the Code ofthe Town of Queensbury. S88-18(A) shall read: A schedule of required inspections shall be made available to all applicants for permits, which schedule shall require at a minimum, inspections upon the following, where applicable: work site prior to the issuance of a Building Permit; footing and foundation; preparation for concrete slab; framing; plumbing, electrical and fire stopping, including underground and rough-in; fire resistant construction; fire resistant penetrations; solid fuel burning heating appliances, chimneys, flues or gas vents; Energy Code compliance; and a final inspection after all work authorized by the Building Permit has been completed, and at such other intervals as may be determined by the Director of Building and Code Enforcement and/or the Fire Marshal. Section 11. Amendment to ~88-19(A) of the Code ofthe Town of Queensbury. S88-19(A) shall read: REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 31 A certificate of occupancy shall be required for any building, structure or portion thereof containing habitable space. A certificate of occupancy shall include, at a minimum, the following: the Building Permit number, if any; the date of issuance of the Building Permit, if any; the name, address and tax map number of the property; if the Certificate of Occupancy is not applicable to an entire structure, a description of that portion of the structure for which the Certificate of Occupancy is issued; the use and occupancy classification of the structure; the type of construction of the structure; the assembly occupant load of the structure, if any; if an automatic sprinkler system is provided, a notation as to whether the sprinkler system is required; any special conditions imposed in connection with the issuance of the Building Permit; and the signature of the Code Enforcement Officer issuing the Certificate of Occupancy and the date of issuance." A certificate of compliance shall be required for any structure, building or portion thereof for which a certificate of occupancy is not provided. Section 12. New ~88-23 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury. There shall be a new S88-23 as follows: S88-23 OPERA TING PERMITS. A. Operating Permits shall be required for conducting the activities or using the categories of buildings listed below: (1) manufacturing, storing or handling hazardous materials in quantities exceeding those listed in Tables 2703.1.1(1), 2703.1.1(2), 2703.1.1(3) or 2703.1.1(4) in the publication entitled "Fire Code of New York State" and incorporated by reference in 19 NYCRR section 122S.1; (2) hazardous processes and activities, including but not limited to, commercial and industrial operations which produce combustible dust as a byproduct, fruit and crop ripening, and waste handling; (3) use of pyrotechnic devices in assembly occupancies; (4) buildings containing one or more areas of public assembly with an occupant load of 100 persons or more; and (S) buildings whose use or occupancy classification may pose a substantial potential hazard to public safety, as determined by resolution adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 32 Any person who proposes to undertake any activity or to operate any type of building listed in this subdivision (a) shall be required to obtain an Operating Permit prior to commencing such activity or operation. B. An application for an Operating Permit shall be in writing on a form provided by or otherwise acceptable to the Director of Building and Code Enforcement and Fire Marshal. The application shall include such information as the Director of Building and Code Enforcement and Fire Marshal deems sufficient to permit a determination by the Code Enforcement and Fire Marshal that quantities, materials, and activities conform to the requirements of the Uniform Code. If the Director of Building and Code Enforcement or Fire Marshal determine that tests or reports are necessary to verify conformance, such tests or reports shall be performed or provided by such person or persons as may be designated by or otherwise acceptable to the Director of Building and Code Enforcement or Fire Marshal, at the expense of the applicant. C. The Director of Building and Code Enforcement and/or the Fire Marshal or an inspector authorized by the Director of Building and Code Enforcement and/or the Fire Marshal shall inspect the subject premises prior to the issuance of an Operating Permit. D. In any circumstance in which more than one activity listed in subdivision (A) of this section is to be conducted at a location, the Director of Building and Code Enforcement and/or the Fire Marshal may require a separate Operating Permit for each such activity, or the Director of Building and Code Enforcement and/or the Fire Marshal may, in his or her discretion, issue a single Operating Permit to apply to all such activities. E. Operating permits shall be issued for such period of time, not to exceed one year in the case of any Operating Permit issued hereunder. An Operating Permit may be reissued or renewed upon application to the Director of Building and Code Enforcement and/or the Fire Marshal, payment of the applicable fee, and approval of such application by the Director of Building and Code Enforcement and/or the Fire Marshal. F. If the Director of Building and Code Enforcement and/or the Fire Marshal determines that any activity or building for which an Operating Permit was issued does not comply with any applicable provision of the Uniform Code, such Operating Permit shall be revoked or suspended. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 33 G. The fee specified in or determined in accordance with the provisions set forth by resolution of the Town Board S88-14 of this Chapter must be paid at the time of submission of an application for an Operating Permit, for an amended Operating Permit, or for reissue or renewal of an Operating Permit. H. Nothing contained in this S88-23 shall be construed to authorize or permit an activity in a zoning district which is not authorized by Chapter 179 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, or any other applicable provision of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, or any other applicable local law, state or federal law or regulation. Section 13. New ~88-24(D) of the Code of the Town of Queensbury. There shall be a new S88-24(D) as follows: D. No remedy or penalty specified in this section shall be the exclusive remedy or remedy available to address any violation described in this section, and each remedy or penalty specified in this section shall be in addition to, and not in substitution for or limitation of, the other remedies or penalties specified in this section, in S88-17 (Stop Work Orders) of this Chapter, in any other section of this Chapter, or in any other applicable law. Any remedy or penalty specified in this section may be pursued at any time, whether prior to, simultaneously with, or after the pursuit of any other remedy or penalty specified in this section, in S88-17 (Stop Work Orders) of this Chapter, in any other section of this Chapter, or in any other applicable law. In particular, but not by way of limitation, each remedy and penalty specified in this section shall be in addition to, and not in substitution for or limitation of, the penalties specified in subdivision (2) of section 381 of the Executive Law, and any remedy or penalty specified in this section may be pursued at any time, whether prior to, simultaneously with, or after the pursuit of any penalty specified in subdivision (2) of section 381 of the Executive Law. Section 14. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or part of this Local Law or the application thereof to any person, individual, corporation, firm, partnership, entity, or circumstance shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such order or judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder thereof, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or part of this Local Law, or in its application to the person, individual, corporation, firm, partnership, entity, or circumstance directly involved in the controversy in which such order or judgment shall be rendered. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 34 Section 15. Effective Date. This Local Law shall take effect upon filing with the New York State Secretary of State. PUBLIC HEARING - QUEENSBURY CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT- CONNECTOR ROAD WATER LINE OPENED PUBLICATION DATE: May 25, 2007 SUPERVISOR STEC-I will open this public hearing. This is a project that the Town has been working on various aspect of it the Connector Road, Main Street, that whole area the Exit 18 corridor. Of course, everyone is probably aware it is our intention to provide water and sewer down this connector road. By way of update, I think the board is aware of this, but the bid for the construction of the connector road is going to be advertised in the next couple of weeks it will be due back to the Town for a bid opening on July 2. Hopefully if all goes well and there are no surprises with the bids we may be ready to pass a resolution on July 16 to accept the bid. In the meantime, this is specifically about the water district connector road water line we are talking about installation of about eighteen hundred linear feet of eight-inch ductile iron water main along the connector road and water valves and connections to the existing water main and hydrants at approximately eight hundred foot intervals. With that said, the public hearing is opened if there are any members of the public that would like to comment on this public hearing. We have five public hearings and I know what most of you are for you are here for the next that is fine. Is there anyone at all that would like to comment on this any Town Board members? Bruce, I think is here if anyone has any questions for Bruce. NO PUBLIC COMMENT SUPERVISOR STEC-Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and entertain a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING IMPROVEMENTS TO QUEENSBURY CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT- CONNECTOR ROAD WATER LINE RESOLUTION NO. 258, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board duly established the Town of Queensbury Consolidated Water District (the "District") in accordance with New York Town Law, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to improve the District's water transmission facilities by installing a new water main along a new Connector Road to be constructed between Luzeme Road and Main Street in the Town of Queensbury, which new water main will provide water service, fire protection and a redundant connection between the two REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 35 existing 12" water lines on Main Street and Luzerne Road, all in accordance with Town Law Section 202-b, and WHEREAS, Barton & Loguidice, P.e., professional engineers, have prepared a Map and Plan concerning such proposed improvements together with an estimate of the cost of such improvements, and WHEREAS, the Map and Plan was duly filed in the Queensbury Town Clerk's Office and made available for public inspection, and WHEREAS, although the Town of Queensbury is a town partially within the Adirondack Park, the District does not contain State lands assessed at more than thirty percent (30%) of the total taxable assessed valuation of the District, so permission of the State Comptroller to the proposed expenditure is not required under Town Law 9202- b(5), WHEREAS, on May 21 S\ 2007, subsequent to the filing of the Map, Plan and Report with the Town Clerk, the Town Board adopted an Order (Public Hearing Order) reciting (a) the proposed improvements; (b) the maximum amount proposed to be expended for the improvements; (c) the fact that a Map, Plan and Report describing the improvements is on file in the Town Clerk's Office; and (d) the time and place of a public hearing on the proposed Water District improvements, and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed Water District improvements was duly held on Monday, June 4th, 2007 and the Town Board has considered the evidence given together with other information, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize the proposed Water District improvements in accordance with Town Law g202-b, and WHEREAS, the cost of the improvements will be paid from the current funds in the 2007 operating budget of the District and therefore, the annual cost of the District for debt service and operation and maintenance costs to the typical property and the typical one- or two- family home will not be increased, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby determines that these actions are Type II actions under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and therefore are exempt from SEQRA review, and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 36 RESOLVED, that it is the determination of the Queensbury Town Board that: I. The Notice of Public Hearing was published and posted as required by law and is otherwise sufficient; 2. It is in the public interest to authorize and approve the improvements to the Queensbury Consolidated Water District as described in the Map, Plan and Report on file with the Queensbury Town Clerk, such improvements generally being the: (a) installation of approximately 1800 linear feet of new 8-inch ductile iron water main along the new Connector Road; and (b) installation of water valves at the connections to the existing water mam. (c) installation of hydrants at approximately 800-foot intervals along the transmission mains. and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and approves the improvements to the Queensbury Consolidated Water District as set forth above and in the previously described Map, Plan and Report and construction of the improvements may proceed and service provided subject to the following: 1. the obtaining of any necessary permits or approvals from the New York State Department of Health; and 2. the obtaining of any necessary permits or approvals from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes the expenditure for the improvements as set forth above and in the Map, Plan and Report, in an amount not to exceed $121,200, to be paid for from the 2007 operating budget, capital construction line item no: 040-8340-2899 and engineering line item no.: 040-8310-4710. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 37 Duly adopted this 4th day of June, 2007, by the following vote: A YES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERING POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND ADOPTING SEQRA POSITIVE/NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING THE HILAND PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY OWNED BY THE MICHAEL'S GROUP LLC OPENED PUBLICATION DATE: MAY 24, 2007 SUPERVISOR STEC-As we open this pubic hearing I will note that we are here to take public comment. We are looking for any new information surrounding the Hiland Park Planned Unit Development. We are going to gather as much as you want to give us tonight. The Town Board is not anticipating taking any action on this at all tonight. In fact, we will play it by ear, but I am almost sure that at the conclusion of whatever comments we are going to receive tonight will probably leave the public hearing open for future date to allow some more information to come in that the Town may seek or that somebody else may provide. I do not know if Richard wants to add anything more or if Mark wants to add anything more. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I will just add a couple things Dan. I think you pretty well introduced it appropriately. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-We passed a resolution I guess reopening the SEQRA based on new information some people may question why we did that. There is pretty much three reasons. I guess the most prominent reason was we were requested to do it by the Planning Board. There was an application in front of the Planning Board and they requested that the Town Board take a look at the SEQRA findings or the EIS findings. PUD's for those of you who are not familiar stands for Planned Unit Development and they fall within the jurisdiction of the Town Board. This particular PUD is some seven hundred and twelve acres. It borders many roads Meadowbrook, Haviland what are some of the other ones. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Sunnyside. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Sunnyside and... COUNCILMAN BOOR-Rockwell. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-And Rockwell so it is very very huge. The initial PUD SEQRA /EIS was performed back in 1987. Recently the Meadowbrook Road area has experienced flooding and groundwater problems following relatively modest rainfalls not even very huge storms. You may recall it wasn't to long ago that we had problems that caused a similar situation with the planned project on Cronin Road on the Bay Meadows Golf Course. In addition, we recently just this week had DEC take a look to re-delineate the wetlands on the particular project or property in question. That has shown that the wetland located on that applicants property has gotten larger in essence offering proof that groundwater conditions have in fact changed over time. What we are going to be doing here is looking at the state of affairs that exist now take a look at this project to see if it is suitable to fit as currently configured. With that, we might as well open it up to public hearing then later we will talk as a board. Let me just make one more comment I don't want to monopolize this. I have spent a lot of time reviewing what we call the blue book, which is our Code and I do have a few comments. First of all, it is very clear the intent of the blue book in many sections regarding the intent of how the Town should be REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 38 addressing wetlands and the impact. First of all, I will start offby in there; you see wetland and adjacent area commonly referenced. An adjacent area is defined as properties or land within a hundred feet of the boundary of a wetland. I will just give you a couple of statements I will be right with you here. It talks in terms of activities that would require a permit. What we are talking about is if a project is within that hundred feet of a boundary the Code of Queensbury says, no person shall conduct a regulated activity on any freshwater wetland or adjacent area unless such person has first obtained a permit pursuant to this chapter. They are referencing the Town of Queensbury Freshwater Permit. Moving on they have the requirements the standards if you will in order to grant the permit and there are numerous, but they do specify five of them. Two that jump right out at me at least is that they specify that any proposed activity must be reasonable and necessary. That there is no reasonable alternative for the propose activity on a site, which is not a freshwater wetland or adjacent area. In other words, it is not presumed that because you have a project it is necessary and reasonable. Standards for decisions there are ten of them listed. At least one that comes to mind is whether the project will prevent disruption of a natural drainage pattern it is key that you cannot have that happen. Then under 179-12-030 under considerations it talks about in determining whether there should be any variances to the standards the Town Board shall consider the potential impacts on environmental resources including wetlands, surface water, floodplains, and plant and wildlife. In addition, we need to consider the general ability of the land to support the development including such factors slope, depth to bedrock, depth to water table and soil type. I mention some of these as some background is because the intent has been clear all along that when the various agencies the Town Board in this case because it is a PUD but the Planning Board typically in terms of subdivision and site plan need to adhere to these standards. I think what has happened over time there has been an evolution of culture change, which has caused for whatever reason and I don't think a healthy reason a relaxation of applying the code to these projects. As we go into this hearing, you are going to see that this particular project initially was certainly within the hundred feet of the wetland now due to the re-delineation by the DEC it appears to be actually inside the wetland itself. I will give that as some background and open it up for the public. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Richard just one question does DEC have a time line as far as when they will finish flagging it or whatever? COUNCILMAN SANFORD-They did flag it. COUNCILMAN BREWER-They flagged it do we have an accurate map? COUNCILMAN BOOR-We don't have a survey yet. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-We don't have it on the map. They gave us I hate to say it I was going crazy here. At about six, fifteen this evening I opened up by email before I came here and we got a recent map that is it. COUNCILMAN BREWER-John got it I didn't get it before we came. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Basically, what they are saying in there they consider the wetland has changed by five hundred feet or less to DEC that is a minor adjustment. In our case five hundred feet essentially is the universe of the whole project the project that we are talking about is not that big. There has been an enlargement of the wetland and I did some calculations and talked to Dan Ryan when he came in because he has a more skilled eye at it. Now, the proposed project appears to at least the drainage basins perhaps parking area and what have you are not necessarily merely within the adjacent area some of it is actually in the wetlands so it is very problematic. Nevertheless, where I see this going is independent of the disposition of the particular project I believe there is the need for us to carry this exercise forward in order to provide a better sense of guidance in the future for the Planning Board because of the mere scope of the PUD. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I have no issue with that. My question would be is do we focus on the SEQRA and this is more for Mark then any of us unless we happen to know REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 39 the answer. Does this just apply to that one project or does it apply to the whole PUD or a portion on one side of the road and not the other side of the road I don't know. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Tim, I think in this instance I think we are going to be looking at the particular project. I think it is in the best interest of the Town and this board and certainly the Planning Board that part of the guidance that we want to give the Planning Board is a method by which they can have SEQRA's done for specific projects as they come forward near or in these wetland areas. In other words, it is very clear that there is enough diversity in this seven hundred acre PUD that a one time EIS in 1987 or whatever no longer covers the types of situations. We want to provide the Planning Board with the ability to do SEQRA's as projects come forward on various parcels within the PUD so that they don't have to keep on referring back to the Town Board every time. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I have no issue with that either, but how do they do that. I am just trying to understand when you do a SEQRA you have to include the whole project. COUNCILMAN BOOR-The whole project is not the whole PUD. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Understood. How do you break that out to do each particular project? COUNCILMAN SANFORD-That is a very good question Tim. It is very confusing, I actually think what you are saying is there are two things that are being done. One thing what we basically are going to probably at the end of the day it is not unreasonable to recognize that we are going to realize that in this seven hundred and twelve acre PUD there are going to be certain properties that are totally suitable. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Right. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-For many different uses and there are going to be some that are not. What, I think we are going to want to do is not expect to be making a definitive determination on all seven hundred and twelve. To empower the Planning Board to do an unlisted action a long form SEQRA and provide them with some guidance we are not there yet as to what they should be looking at in terms of criteria. Like the assistance, that maybe they demand compliance with freshwater permit regs, which quite honestly not necessarily here, but throughout the Town in my experience over the last five or six years mostly on the Planning Board has not been strictly adhered, too. In terms ofthe specific project that was referred to us, I think we can provide more specific guidance. I appreciate the complexities of your question and I think we will work through them. As, Dan mentioned earlier we do not have enough information here to definitively go through the SEQRA until it gets better represented on the map through a survey and what have you. Based on the preliminary information it looks like the enlargement is going to be limiting to the current proposed project, however, we do not want to get out ahead of ourselves. I think what we will probably want to do tonight is open the public hearing... COUNCILMAN BREWER-Take comment. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Take the comment. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Then when we get the map apply it. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Then what we will want to do is we will want to wait until we have the actual surveying and mapping done. Then come in and probably work through SEQRA Part II depending upon conclusions that material impacts perhaps take reasonable time to prepare a Part III for consideration and discussion of this board. SUPERVISOR STEC-Let me jump in with a couple questions maybe to the whole board, but specifically to Stu and maybe Mark. We talk about and Dan Ryan was out there with DEC biologists for this last week delineating DEC wetlands I know that there are Army Core wetlands. Do we need for this exercise do we need to worry about the other flavors of wetlands in getting them delineating or for what we are doing is what has been done so REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 40 far adequate. Ifwe need to do more if we are going to do this and somebody says, I do not want somebody to fault us for saying you looked at DEC's wetland definition, but you didn't look at these others. Ifwe don't have to it would be nice to know that answer now. SENIOR PLANNER, MR. BAKER-On the map behind you Dan I am now showing DEC, which is the darker area both this purple and the darker here plus the Army Core wetland they are both on there. I believe the project itself is up on this portion of the parcel. I do not know if the Army Core wetlands the boundaries have changed at all, what we are looking at here is just an approximation of either. COUNCILMAN BOOR-This is the old map. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-This is the old map. Let me offer this for the research I have done Dan you are absolutely right. A DEC delineated wetland requires a DEC freshwater permit for any disturbance within a hundred foot area adjacent to the actual boundary of the wetland. The Army Core requires something less I believe it might be as little as twenty or thirty feet. However, the Town of Queensbury Code, which I believe we have the right to do and it may actually be a consequence or an outcome of our SEQRA review down the road is we may provide the guidance moving forward within the PUD. The Town of Queensbury standard applies independent of whether or not it is a DEC or an Army Core wetland. I think that really the Town probably again; this is why it is good we are not going to be making a decision because all of these probably are going to have to be verified with legal sources. Probably we can should we see it prudent as the lead agency here put that kind of a parameter in place where independent of the wetland we are looking at no disturbance within a hundred feet of a wetland independent of Army Core or DEC that decision certainly has not been made at this point. SUPERVISOR STEC-Mark do you have anything to say before we start taking public comment. TOWN COUNSEL, NOORDSY-I think what Richard referred to there are two issues. One that I understand you will be considering when you talk about opening SEQRA. The regulations I sent you a section with not a lot of introduction I apologize about that. The section of the SEQRA regs that I sent you is with regard to supplemental environmental impacts statements. That gives the grounds that you might find after you receive information that might be applicable to requiring a supplemental EIS, which would be applicable to the whole PUD. However, could have findings in it that are now going to say with regards to each specific project we are going to have this study or we are going to have a report regarding the impact on wetlands. If you did that you would be requesting a supplemental EIS on the whole PUD, but you could make findings that would apply to each project. The other issue as I understand it is enforcement of the existing laws I think you have two issues here from what I hear Richard saying. One is dealing with the environmental findings and the other is with regard to the enforcement ofthe existing laws. Certainly, you need to receive information to see what you get and then to see if you are within the grounds of the regulations and then you can move on from there. SUPERVISOR STEC-With that entered as an introduction maybe it is less clear now than it was fifteen minutes ago. What we are looking for tonight certainly is any new factual information associated with the seven hundred and twelve acre Planned Unit Development that we have been referencing. With the understanding that obviously some of the projects are complete, the others the projects are underway, other projects have yet to turn a shovel. We are not exactly sure exactly what we are going to do at the end of all of this other than we have a couple of goals that I think are noteworthy. I think the board understands are more important perhaps our Attorney understands where we are trying to go. We are going to take public comment tonight. Again, I wish I could give better direction of what we are looking for, but certainly, we are looking for any new information presumably from neighbors, property owners in there about the environmental issues in particular wetland issues. I do know that one person had asked the reason why this is here tonight is that one person asked to make a Power Point presentation. I just assume perhaps get into that first that might have the most content. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 41 Certainly, that may enlist some other reactions from some other people. We will take as much comment as you all want to take. RICHARD BESTHOFF - W A VERL Y PLACE-Good evening. We have in our area a huge storm water management problem in the Meadowbrook Road corridor. That entire corridor is just totally flooded when it rains. Now, I am not talking about a fifty-year storm. I am not talking about a hundred-year storm. I am talking about normal rainfall. We all know that water seeks its lowest level so we have to start on Meadowbrook Road on the northeast comer where Amedore Homes is now building they bought the property from Rich Schermerhorn. I don't know if everyone here is aware of what is going on over there. The new road the new Meadowbrook Road is going to be four feet higher than the old Meadowbrook Road. You can see that from the street. You can see that from where the new sewers are going to be. My question is where is that water going to run. I can tell you where it is going to run it is going to run down. They just put in a new culvert, a new culvert was put in under Meadowbrook Road where the water at one side there is an eighteen-inch culvert on the other side they put in a twenty-four inch culvert. That water is going to drain right behind the Waverly homes after it drains behind the Waverly homes it is going into the wetlands and right on down. You go across the street where the Amedore Homes are the Michaels Group owns that property. I do believe that it is already in the planning stage for Waverly II that could be built on the high ground right across from where Amedore is going to be building. That, like I say high ground that means the water is going to seek its lowest level and that water is going to drain down into the wetlands into the streams and you are going to have more flooding as the water goes down to where the proposed Michael Group six thousand square foot property is going to be. Lets go past the new structure that the Michaels Group is going to be putting up and we are going to go just down a little bit we are going to find that Rich Schermerhorn just put up new apartments over there that had an impact of the water management. Ifwe back up just a little bit we find this property there is a farm that is owned by a gentlemen by the name of Doug Coon he has waterfront property most of the time. I will show you that when we get to the power point presentation. All of the building and future building that is going on has impacted or will impact on the wetlands and Halfway Brook that is something that we have to take into consideration. We also have to take into consideration that the soil is clay so not too much is absorbed to start with. More land that is taken away from any absorption at all the greater potential for flooding and we see more and more. In the past, some of our Waverly homes have taken water backed up from the wetlands. If we go all the way down to Cronin Road there are homes down there where I know, I spoke to one of the woman there when it floods her children's toys are floating in the backyard this is absurd. I think we have to take a look at the whole picture before we allow them or anyone to break ground. I believe that an in-depth study has to be made the in-depth study of the impact of storm water runoff. I think that this should be accomplished before anymore groundbreaking takes place. I would like to go over some pictures here if it is okay. POWER POINT PRESENTATION BY MR. BESTHOFF-Ifwe take a look this here is the Michael's Group's sign that is speaking about Class A luxury office space six thousand plus square feet full walkout basement well I hope they have a sump pump in the basement because I am sure they are going to take water like some of our homes do. This is the knoll right here, here is their sign there is the road that runs right along here this sign here shows where the property is. If you look just behind that little knoll this was taken February 15, I do believe and if we look, we can see all the water right in the back of this property. Okay, let's go to the next picture please. This here shows the wetlands right behind the Waverly homes and some of these homes here had a problem with water that backed up from these wetlands here the water was going back into these homes. Next, picture please. This here is just another view. This again is the knoll where they want to build and here is the water right in the back. Next, picture please. Again, try to just put some correlation this here shows the sign where they want to build and its right over here. As you can see all these cattails or whatever that is all wetland back there and these are the Michael's Group homes, this is the Waverly homes right over here. Next, picture please. Now, this is really good over here is that very same sign. This is the road this is Meadowbrook Road this shows the wetlands here running all the way down all the way down and around behind the REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 42 proposed property. Next, picture please. Again, this is just a little bit closer. The knoll is right here where they want to build. Here are the wetlands here are all those cattails or whatever that grow in that kind of land this is the way the water flows. Next, picture please. These are the trees behind the knoll where they want to build and this just shows the property the Waverly homes. Next, one please. Now, here is Doug Coon's farm. This picture was taken from the road and you can see he has waterfront property right here. Now, something has to be done the more building the more water is going to be flowing down there he may as well get the house moved backed the barns moved further this is terrible. Next, picture please. Again, this is just down the road a little bit further south showing right from the road the picture was taken here is water here, here is water here, and here his fence running around to keep the horses in. This here is also taken from the road. This is all Doug's property here this is all the water, waterfront property. Now, we take a look here is his barn there is his house back there taken from the road look what we got he could go fishing here ifthey were to stock this, this is ridiculous. Next, picture please. Again, from the road there is his fence where he keeps the horses in this here is waterfront property this is the flooding that we get like, I said it is not from a fifty-year storm, it is not from a hundred year storm this happens all the time. Next, one. Again, another picture there is Doug's property up here taken from the road this shows you the flooding. We are not just talking about a trickle we are taking about deep water here. Again, just to reinforce it there is the home here is that water. You can see his fences are here and he has to keep the horses out from going into the water. Next, one. Pretty much the same thing. Okay, this picture is taken just on an angle to show that this is the house, barn over here and here is the fence this just goes to show you the water just runs right down. Next, one. Then we go down to the brook. Here is the bridge here the Girls Scout Camp is right back in here this brook here usually is like I don't want to say a trickle, but it is maybe two or three feet wide. This is what happens when we get that kind of a storm. It comes right down here and goes under this bridge. Next, picture please. This is the property on the other side this is on the east side of the bridge normally this is a fact this water here is up on his property here and I was kidding with the fellow I was wondering if I could go and fish out his window, you know there are fish in this brook also. The water just spreads out so far and something has to be done before we allow anyone to build anywhere. No one has anything against the Michael's Group, Schermerhorn, Amedore, nobody has anything against these people, but I think we should do a lot more planning and a lot more investigating before we go any further. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to comment on this public hearing this evening, yes, sir. BILL LUETH -WAVERLY PLACE-CHELSEA PLACE-There is not an awful lot I can add to my neighbor's excellent presentation beyond to say that specifically I live in one of the feature residents there and have personally experienced wetting down I have had to tear out carpeting. I guess smarmily my big concern is that any future construction would serve as a dam to keep that water there for a longer period and continue my fret. SUPERVISOR STEC-What year was your place built sir. MR. LUETH-It was completed in 2004. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you. MR. LUETH-And in 200S I had my wetness and I live with reservation. That pretty much sums up what I have to say because I think to use the cliche you got the picture from my neighbors presentation. SUPERVISOR STEC-A picture says a thousand words that is why we had him go first. MR. LUETH-Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you. Anyone else this evening. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 43 MIKE SIEGEL-CHELSEA PLACE-I am sure that you are all aware the board is aware that any non-permeable area that is made permeable by either putting a building or putting a parking lot on it is going to affect other parcels that today are not designated as wetlands. You have DEC wetlands you have the Army Engineer wetlands if you go by their designations when we start building and adding impermeable areas those wetlands are going to spread there is nothing you can do about it, it is going to happen. I would ask you to please bear that in mind and if you can counsel the Planning Board. I do not know legally what you can do as far as the Planning Boards action, but certainly, you can counsel them. The fact that not only do they look at what is designated by the agencies, but what is not designated but can be affected. We have already seen the affect of added wetlands that were not there before. So, bearing that in mind you asked what you could do I say be very careful and counsel the Planning Board on any future plans or buildings. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Mike let me just comment to one thing that you said. As much as this board does not interfere with the Planning Board we make appointments to it, but once they are appointed we do not try to interfere with their decisions sway them one way or the other. However, you do bring up a good point and that is, that this is a PUD and PUD's are under the authority of the Town Board. What we can do is we can put mandatory stricter criteria in when review is done within a PUD. I think one of the things I am going to be recommending is that no waivers, no freshwater permits be allowed within this PUD. I don't want to see any construction within a hundred feet of a wetland. That is certainly something that we can do and then the Planning Board would have to honor that. They would not be allowed to grant a waiver there may be other things. It is very clear for anybody that was familiar with this property went with Robert's Farm. I think you don't really have to be very old or to have lived in this community very long to see the amount of development that has occurred on Meadowbrook. It is more than reasonable to understand why these problems are happening it is because the soils can't handle what is left. You made that point very clear you can't keep putting impermeable things in a place and expect the water to just stay there forever it has to go somewhere. MR. SIEGEL-We have to remember that Queensbury is a vibrant community and it is going to grow. There is no holding it back and I don't think we want to hold it back. COUNCILMAN BOOR-That is the other point I want to make. I don't want this to be misconstrued, as I don't want to see development within this PUD. I just do not want to see the kind of development in this PUD that affects taxpayers that are already in this Town paying their taxes I do not want to see them suffer because inappropriate decisions were made at any board. I think there are things we are going to be able to do that will mandate how certain aspects of projects within this PUD are viewed and how decisions are rendered at Planning Board and maybe even the Zoning Board level though I don't if that is going to have the same impact as what we are facing right now. MR. SIEGEL-Thank you very much. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Mike before you leave I just want to comment on something you said. I have two books here one is the Final EIS for Hiland Park and this one here is the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. I spent time reviewing some of this stuff particularly paying attention to the soil types and you reference the soil types. I am not going to go into their technical names because I probably can't pronounce them, bottom line just like you said the higher elevation of that site doesn't drain particularly well, but it does absorb some water. MR. SIEGEL-Right. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-You pave it, it absorbs no water. You go into the actual wetland and the studies that were done with this EIS statement the way they basically classified it and discussed it that it doesn't drain. If you are moving water into an area that doesn't drain, where does it go? MR. SIEGEL-It creates another wetland. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 44 COUNCILMAN SANFORD-It moves and expands so I think your point is a very valid one. MR. SIEGEL-I just want to say I was the Land Use Committee Chair for Lake George Association for seventeen years and I have seen a lot of this happen. I have studied those books for many many nights so it does not come lightly what I say. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thanks Mr. Siegel. DOUG COON-Hi, I am Doug Coon. I am the guy who owns the farm. I have talked to Mr. Boor and Mr. Sanford they are aware of the problem I have been there since 1980. My lower field was always usable I could run a tractor on it I didn't need four-wheel drive. As you can see by the pictures this all started to happen when the development went with the Schermerhorn and the other properties especially now just to my south the new apartments right adjacent to me. It converges the water runs from south of my property then also from the Michael's Group and that development up there it converges right onto my area there is a stream that goes across me and that floods very regularly. When it does so the culvert that goes across Meadowbrook just isn't big enough to handle it. I know, I have talked to Dan Ryan sense the Planning Board meeting and he said one of the solutions he wasn't sure it was to be a solution, but he was leaning towards it is to make that culvert bigger. He says that water could then be moved quicker then it would flow all right on the other side the east side of Meadowbrook Road that is I hope going to be one of the solutions. I want that problem rectified in my field obviously, because I don't want lakefront property there. I think what Richard had said and the gentlemen just now I think it is important to take a look at the whole picture before you go ahead with new development and I think you are on the right road to that with your study. I hope the study encompasses all the PUD eventually that is still not built out yet as I understand and it is going to need to be looked at in a closer way. As far as our area is concerned with Waverly Place and my area there is definitely an increase in water problems as you are aware of in the last few years it has to be because of development because it sure wasn't there before hand not in 1980 or 1981 or even recently. I just want to thank the board for listening to me I hope we can get it solved I want my field back. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Doug, let me ask you one question if you don't mind. When did it start or get to the point where the field was not usable anymore in the last year, two years, six months. MR. COON-No, probably. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Three or four years. MR. COON-Four or five years ago I was at this board once. SUPERVISOR STEC- This one or the Planning Board Doug? MR. COON-No, the Town Board. I came to the Town Board once probably four or five years ago and complained and brought that up to them and said, hey I have a new occurrence happening here I just want to make you aware of it I hope it doesn't continue, but it has. SUPERVISOR STEC-You said you have been there since 1980. MR. COON-1980. SUPERVISOR STEC-You go back that far and to be able to say, hey in the twenty-seven years this is a relatively new occurrence you have been there to see it. MR. COON-Some of the area down near the road would flood very occasionally, but that would be a real rarity. You would have to have a frost in the ground and then a huge thunderstorm or a lot of rain all at once then the area near Meadowbrook, but not my whole field that never happened so yeah this is very recent. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 45 COUNCILMAN BOOR-I don't know who else we have in the audience, but certainly, the pictures of your property are somewhat dramatic. You go on the other side of Meadowbrook and I have seen worse case scenarios than what you have in some instances I mean it is amazing the size of the lake that is created over there. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-The comer of Meadowbrook and Cronin when you get a heavy rainstorm and this is no exaggeration one lady her husband goes kayaking on the properties. MR. COON-I believe you are right. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you Mr. Coon. Anybody else this evening on this public hearing. BETTY MONAHAN - I wonder if any of you know or have read a document study that you have and that is the Halfway Brook Watershed that Warren Washington County did. You know at that time that Queensbury was the biggest impact on the Halfway Brook Watershed and probably the most important for the type of pollutants we were putting into the brook. As Mr. Siegel said of that area the more you put under roof the more pollutants you are going to have in the Halfway Brook Watershed, which affects much greater areas, of course. The second thing is when you talk about how you are going to do the DE IS I get a little concerned about that you don't segment the process, which is not allowed when you talk about what the Town Board is going to do and what the Planning Board is going to do so I am a little concerned about how you go about this. SUPERVISOR STEC-I apologize for interrupting Betty, I think that this was the concern that Tim was bringing up and I think everyone on the boards shares it. This is why a couple of us asked our Attorney to be here I think actually Mike made a point a few minutes ago that Roger added, too. Our Attorney is going to make sure that we stay in bounds. We can all collectively come up with what is the right thing or the right outcome to look for and what isn't. I think everyone in the room we are going to have a pretty good idea we will share an idea of what is the right thing. The Attorney is going to make sure that we do not overstep our bounds legally or that the Town Board stays in the Town Board regulated turf that we can administer as opposed to what can we throw to the Planning Board. We want to do exactly what you are saying we want to make sure we don't segment. If there is an appropriate way to get to the end goal to address the concerns that you have that is hopefully what our Attorney is going to be able to do. MRS. MONAHAN-Unfortunately, because the Attorney did not use the microphone I could not hear all of what he was saying. TOWN COUNSEL NOORDSY -Sorry. SUPERVISOR STEC-He is a soft-spoken guy. MRS. MONAHAN-I would request that everybody make sure that they speak into their microphones please. I would just comment that I was very amazed when I saw the last housing at Waverly go up because I thought it was so close to the wetlands. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And you are right Betty segmenting and you taught me about planning way back. Segmenting is what we have been doing. MRS. MONAHAN-Yeah. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Certainly development does impact surface and sub-surface hydrology. It impacts the wetlands. The wetlands we need to protect in case anybody doesn't know wetlands act as filtration systems for Mother Nature. If you change the water flow, the water height, the flora, or any changes in that wetland echo system it will disrupt the system. They are very good at what they do for example some community's use wetlands they bring wastewater in on one end and then they bring your drinkable water out of the other end that is how well a wetland can filter and cleanup it doesn't sound too appetizing. What we have been doing though we have been taking a look and I REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 46 think you were suggesting this one project at a time rather than looking at the whole picture. MRS. MONAHAN-Which is your job to look at the cumulative. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-We are paying for it now. As it was, suggested the eighties boom, the nineties boom, and now we are here in the two thousands, and we are paying the price. Take for example a new bridge that is going over Ridge Road, Halfway Brook goes under it. They have to raise it and widen it because now all the discharge all the impermeable ground that we made and we have increased the flow of the stream to the point where we are causing other problems downstream even out of our Town. What we are all suggesting here and what you were suggesting is that we have to take a look a comprehensive a wider look and a deeper look at what we are doing. MRS. MONAHAN-You are correct. Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you, Betty. Anyone else this evening on this public hearing, Mr. Rahill. Again, while Mr. Rahill is coming to the microphone we will not be taking any action on this this evening. I think it is safe to say we will leave the public hearing open. We will be taking any written comment that anyone wants to provide and perhaps ifthere is more engineering data that becomes available and the board needs to revisit it we will resume the public hearing at a later date perhaps in July. BERNARD RAHILL, 37 WINCREST DRIVE-I don't live in the area, but I have driven past the area I drove past the area when it was a farm. I am familiar with the area in the sense I happen to like trees you can call me a tree hugger if you want, but they have a very good effect on wetlands. Driving by it looked like Bagdad to me specifically because nobody was worrying about segmenting when they clear-cut the trees. I think this is something that I addressed ten years ago, fifteen years ago. The Planning Board and the Town Board has to think about clear-cutting and allowing people to clear-cut land when we have an endangered area in terms of water and the possibility of water pollution and air pollution as a result of the wetland it is a very important matter and I don't think it is addressed. Once again, I would like to emphasize that in a situation you paid a hundred and sixty four thousand dollars or more to Saratoga Associates to work on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. What they told you I don't think you paid them to have them tell this they told you, you are in the Catbirds seat. Therefore, if you are going to make a decision on these wetlands and the development of property in Queensbury they told you you are the boss. Therefore, this message should be sent down to the Planning Board and to the Zoning Board of Appeals. You are the boss they are the boss you can call the shots. You can tell them where they can develop and where they don't develop, but it is up to you, you have the power. Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you Mr. Rahill. Anyone else this evening want to comment. Weare looking for any new information regarding the PUD for the Hiland Park area that we have been talking about. STEVEN GRIFFERTY-I represent the Michael's Group. I am here to put some statements on the record, of course, we will reserve comment and written filings if the board is leaving the record open. COUNCILMAN BREWER-How do you spell your last name please? MR. GRIFFERTY-My last name is spelled Grifferty. I would just like to say that for a framework here it is my understanding that the Planning Board may have requested the Town Board to intervene. It is our understanding also that they may have been prompted to do so, but be that as it may. The Town took a hard look at the facts in creating the Hiland's PUD a number of years ago when that was established by the Town and the hard look did determine what the uses and densities of that property would be at that time. You had before you this evening some anecdotal information and you had statements made, but really, I don't believe any evidence to the effect of a growth in wetlands. When looking at this and taking a hard look as again you have already done, it is important and has been brought out that we keep in mind that we not segment or REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 47 discriminate against any particular owner they are all proposing densities, which were originally proposed within the PUD approved by the Town. In that contexts we would hope that you keep your minds and objectivity open in reviewing the facts and that we don't get carried away on a train of emotion in trying to make our decisions here that we really do in fact look at evidence and not anecdotal information. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I didn't get your first name. MR. GRIFFER TY -Steve. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Steve you raise a very valid point. If, I could take a minute I would like to help you out with this because you are absolutely right we shouldn't go on rumors it shouldn't be anecdotal. What I like to do is read a report this is dated May 30. This is from Vision Engineering, which is our engineer who is sitting several rows behind you, Dan Ryan and it is addressed to the Town of Queensbury Community Development Department. It references site 2-2007 the Michael's Group Office Building. It is to Crain Brown, Zoning Administrator, Chris Hunsinger, Planning Board Chair, and Planning Board members. I am going to read it verbatim. As you all know, the Planning Board Resolution adopted April 17, 2007 for Site Plan 2-2007 required re-delineation of the freshwater wetlands known to exist on the parcel of land owned by the Applicant. On May 30, 2007, representatives from NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and I, that is Dan Ryan, visited the project site to verify and field delineates wetlands based on criteria outlined in the NYS Freshwater Wetlands Delineation Manual. Previously "mapped" wetlands, according to the DEC records, limited the wetlands areas to the vicinity directly adjacent to the stream channel, which exists on the western portion of this property (riparian zone). Also, as shown on the project site plan, Federal wetlands are also known to exist, although much closer to the proposed development. Because there has been substantial changes in the hydrology of the area due to development over the past ten years, conditions conducive to wetland creation are now more prevalent. The NYS Freshwater Wetlands Delineation Manual has specific guidelines for field verification of wetlands, which are primarily recognized by the soils and the vegetation observed. Here is the important part. Based on the latest, field delineation performed by DEC biologists, it is evident that the local hydrology has changed, this expanding the previously "mapped" wetlands to a broader area, which now encompasses larger portions of the Applicant's parcel. Until the field delineation can be surveyed, mapped, and included on the Applicants site plan, the specific implications of the changes cannot readily be determined. However, based on the general wetland locations delineated in the field by DEC, it appears that more restrictions according to the Town Code may be required for the project. Now, I can read the rest of it, but this is not anecdotal these are professionals in their field. They were with our engineer and they made a determination that in fact the hydrology has changed. The hard look that took place twenty years ago is not the hard look that took place a week ago. The hard look that took place a week ago shows that the hydrology has changed and the wetlands are larger it is not what is being shown on your project. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-What is the date of that letter. COUNCILMAN BOOR-May 30,2007. MR. GRIFFERTY -I would ask the board has that letter been shared with the applicant. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I don't know ifit has or not. Listen, listen just so you know we were the ones that asked for this delineation and there is nothing to share with you we don't have the survey that's why Dan is leaving this open we don't have the map. SUPERVISOR STEC-Roger hit the heart of it. The rest of it does say that he is working on completing that drainage. Once it is available he is going to provide it we don't have it yet. COUNCILMAN BOOR- You will get it as soon as it is available. SUPERVISOR STEC-We don't have it yet. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 48 COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Just for in a follow-up to what Mr. Boor read to you. On my way to this meeting tonight, I checked my email. I received an email around five thirty today it is a letter from DEC addressed to Mr. Ryan I will read portions of it. They talk about how they delineating the wetlands with ribbons. DEC Freshwater Wetland Permit will be required to proceed with planned development if it includes any regulated activity in the wetland or within a hundred foot adjacent area. It goes on to talk about a map that they approximated the location of the boundary. They state this map shows that DEC staff has determined the boundary of the wetland to be different from the boundary shown on the official filed map. Once again they talk in terms of minor adjustment to the Freshwater Wetland Map has been noted a Freshwater Wetland Permit is required. You may recall in the very beginning in my introductory remarks based on a very preliminary review of the site plan the applications maps and this new DEC delineation not only does it appear that the Michael's Group project infringes upon this adjacent area it appears it is in the wetland at this particular point in time not within a hundred feet of the wetland. MR. GRIFFERTY-Mr. Sanford all of you are saying now and I appreciate the fact that you are trying to be diligent is still anecdotal because you don't have any evidence before you. COUNCILMAN BOOR-You will get it when we get it. MR. GRIFFERTY -I would ask that you reserve your comments to look at what the hard evidence is. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I think the Supervisor said and I think we all agree that we are not preparing to make a conclusion tonight because we definitely want to see that surveyed and put down on a map. MR. GRIFFERTY-I understand that. To the extent Mr. Chairman, Supervisor if parts of letters are read I would request that the entire letter be made available. I request that as an Exhibit the letter speaks for itself! don't think we need it read, but that it completely submitted to the record. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I anticipate you will get a copy of this. COUNCILMAN BOOR-You will get a copy. MR. GRIFFERTY-Also, be part of this record. Thank you. I do not have any more comments. The following letter read by Councilman Boor [rom Vision Engineering dated May 30, 2007 Re: Site Plan 2-2007 the Michaels Group Office Building To: Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator, Chris Hunsinger, Planning Board Chair, Planning Board Members: As you all know, the Planning Board Resolution adopted April 17, 2007 for Site Plan 2- 2007 for Site Plan 2-2007 required re-delineation of the freshwater wetlands known to exist on the parcel of land owned by the Applicant. On May 30, 2007 representatives from NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and I visited the project site to verify and field delineate wetlands based on criteria outlined in the NYS Freshwater Wetland Delineation Manual. Previously "mapped" wetlands, according to DEC records, limited the wetland areas to the vicinity directly adjacent to the stream channel, which exists on the western portion of this property (riparian zone). Also, as shown on the project site plan, Federal wetlands are also known to exist, although much closer to the proposed development. Because there has been substantial changes in the hydrology of the area due to development over the past ten years, conditions conducive to wetland creation are now more prevalent. The NYS Freshwater Wetlands Delineation Manual has specific guidelines for field verification of wetlands, which are primarily recognized by the soils and vegetation observed. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 49 Based on the latest field delineation performed by DEC biologists, it is evident that the local hydrology has changed, thus expanding the previously "mapped" wetlands to a broader areas, which now encompasses larger portions of the Applicant's parcel. Until the field delineation can be surveyed, mapped, and included on the Applicant's site plan the specific implications of the delineated in the field by DEC, it appeared that more restrictions according to the Town Code may be required for the project. For your convenience, I have outlined some of the Code requirements, which should be further evaluated and considered in the Planning Board's review of this project based on the recent DEC wetland re-delineation: 1. Section 179-6-060-Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations 2. Section 1 79-6-1 00- Wetland Regulations (Permit Requirements) 3. Shoreline Setback Requirements for PUD In addition to verification of wetlands present on the project site, the resolution requires review and consideration of the Meadowbrook Road Drainage Study I am currently in the process or completing. I will forward the findings of that report once it is available. Thank you, and please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions, comments, or require addition information. Sincerely, Daniel W. Ryan P.E. Vision Engineering, LLC (Letter ready by Councilman Sanford from DEC - Clerk did not receive a copy) SUPERVISOR STEC-Is there anyone else that would like to address the board this evenmg. MARK HOFFMAN, FOX HOLLOW LANE-I understand that all of the attention has been paid to hydrology on this issue tonight. I wanted to just throw out that there is something else that we have learned in the last twenty years, which are the unhealthful effects of a totally automobile dependent community. I would just like to advise the board and whatever boards are involved in the entire Hiland project that whatever further development occurs in this project should include meaningful pedestrian and non- motorized amenities so that people are not totally dependent on their automobiles. COUNCILMAN BOOR-You are not referring to kayaks. DR. HOFFMAN-No. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the board on this public hearing? Again, we are going to be leaving this open, which means that we will be taking more comment written or otherwise at another meeting in the future. If anyone has additional information we are looking forward to getting a report from our engineer based on the preliminary letter that most of it was read in tonight that he talked about from his visit to the site with DEC biologists last week. Is there anyone else that would like to address this public hearing tonight? I will leave this public hearing opened and we will not be taking any action on it. PUBLIC HEARING TO REMAIN OPENED REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 so 2.0 CORRESPONDENCE DEPUTY TOWN CLERK O'BRIEN-Supervisor Report for Community Development- Building and Codes for the months of April and May on file in Town Clerks Office. 3.0 INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS FROM THE FLOOR NONE 4.0 PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR BERNARD RAHILL-37 WINCREST DRIVE-Spoke to the board regarding a quote from Patrick Fitzgerald. Spoke to the board noting Queensbury should be very proud of the Planning Board Chairman, Bob V ollaro, who has stood up for the judicial system in the Town of Queensbury and for the development in the Town of Queensbury. Spoke to the board regarding an article that was in the New York Times Sunday Magazine regarding law firms in the United States that believe in taking noting he alludes Bob V ollaro for standing up and representing the community in this matter. Asked the board to decertify the Post Star as the official Newspaper of the Town of Queensbury. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It is something that you would probably get support; however, there are requirements concerning legal notices and timing so a weekly publication would not cut it and unfortunately, we only have one daily publication in the Town our hands are pretty much tied on that. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I have a prepared statement of the topic you just brought up. I am not going to specifically reference the application in question because I am unfamiliar with it being on the Town Board and not the Planning Board. I did read the boo in today's paper and I have this comment to read for the record. I used to be amused, but not I am just disgusted. I am talking about Mr. Tingley's outrageous boo of former Planning Board Chairman, Robert Vollaro. For about ten years, Mr. Vollaro spent countless hours providing voluntary services to the Town of Queensbury more than anyone else Mr. Vollaro reviewed, analyzed all applications in great depth. To read this kind of stuff in the Post Star I just have to shake my head. This is not about abuse of power and discouraging businesses from moving to a community rather this is about community service. How irresponsible editorial comments by a politically bias editor can discourage citizens from voluntary service on community boards. A while back, I read an interview from Mr. John Bums. He was Bureau Chief for the New York Times and he recently stated early in his career that all journalists need to understand that they sit in the bleachers and they do not belong in the arena I think Mr.Tingley should heed this advice that is what I have to say. MR. RAHILL-Spoke to the board regarding the Hudson River and Kyle York's perception that we have a lot of PCB's floating down the Hudson River at the present time towards our Water Treatment Plant. Thinks it is important to find out who the source is, that is suppose to be investigating the quality of our water in the Hudson River. Spoke to the board regarding Round Pond and Guido Passarelli regarding the possibility of purchasing the land or receiving the land in some way, shape or form. SUPERVISOR STEC-Put in a contact to Mr. Passarelli waiting to hear back from him. MR. RAHILL-Questioned in regards to the Hudson River. SUPERVISOR STEC-Passed that information as far as who is on the Citizens Advisory Committee to Town Counsel, Mark Noordsy. Our Water Superintendent is very familiar with the issues as far as the safety of the Towns water. The PCB island although it may have grown according to some of the documents that we have shown he has been in close contact with DEC and Department of Health over many years on this issue. It is something that the State regulates and monitors for our water very closely. MR. RAHILL-Questioned if they found out the identity of the individuals on the Advisory Committee. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 51 SUPERVISOR STEC-No. MR. RAHILL-Would like to see some response from the State. COUNCILMAN BOOR-We would like to see it also. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Round Pound I share your interest placed two calls never received a return call. I believe that is probably indicative of a lack of interest on his part to have a discussion regarding the Round Pond property. PLINEY TUCKER, 41 DIVISION ROAD-Spoke to the board regarding the Resolution 6.1 regarding the Connector Road. SUPERVISOR STEC-This resolution is required by NYS DOT in order for us to be eligible to receive two hundred and ninety eight thousand dollars from federal aid for the construction of the Connector Road. MR. TUCKER-Asked if anything is going to start on it before they get the money. SUPERVISOR STEC-It is going out to bid now will have a due date back here for bid opening on July 2. Ifwe receive good bids, we might be ready to award the bid on July 16 and hopefully start construction of the connector road right after that. MR. TUCKER-Is concerned with the two hundred thousand dollars with the City of Glens Falls. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Barbara Tierney at my request sent a letter to the Glens Falls Common Council making it very clear what the contract stated when the Veterans Fields process took place. Upon contract award and construction start two hundred thousand is to come to the Town of Queensbury, they are aware of it that is as good as we can do because we have not started the project yet. MR. TUCKER-Spoke to the board regarding Resolution 6.19 regarding Engagement of Engineering Services of Barton and Loguidice in Connection with Replacement of Septic System at Town Office Complex. SUPERVISOR STEC-To design the system to put the Town Hall and Town Highway Department on the sewer on Bay Road. It is about six thousand dollars of engineering design costs. MR. TUCKER-It says replacement of septic system. COUNCILMAN BOOR-The title is a little misleading. SUPERVISOR STEC-We are going to connect to the sewer. MR. TUCKER-Spoke to the board regarding Ward 4 and the parkland along the Hudson River most of it isn't very secure noting that a boy was seriously injured on the parkland at the end of Division Road. Requested four months ago that it be secured that signs be posted of what they can do on there noting it hasn't been done. Asked if the Recreation Commission doesn't have time to get this done could they hire a private contractor. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Understands what Mr. Tucker is saying about someone getting hurt on Town land it happens everyday of the week it happens on my property my father-in-Iaw's property. I am constantly after Steve Lovering about signs we put them up they take them down. Literally, they took apart the bridge at Hudson Pointe this spring you cannot watch them twenty-four hours a day. We cannot hire somebody to be down there twenty-four hours a day seven days a week we try to police them I am constantly in contact with Steve. The thing the residents need to do if you see them you call the Sheriff. We have had signs made up explaining to people what to do when they see a four-wheeler or motorcyclist damaging the property on any of our Town Parks. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 52 MR. TUCKER-The answer you get from the Sheriff Department is there is no since of us arresting anybody because nobody at the Town will process it. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I think that is an unfair statement. If they arrest the person, I am here to tell you we will prosecute them. If there is an issue that they break the law they damage something on Town property we have an obligation, too. MR. TUCKER-Someone representing the Town has to arrest them. COUNCILMAN BREWER-We do not have the authority to arrest anyone we will talk after the meeting. MR. TUCKER-Asked Supervisor Stec to update the public regarding the Tribune Media Building figures of what the Town has to give away to get them to stay here. SUPERVISOR STEC-I do not have a lot of specifics, but I will tell you what I know. LORETTA AND MIKE SHAW, 28 FOX FARM ROAD-Presented a letter and a packet of information to the Town Board regarding the deed for the conservation easement regarding the use the property at Indian Ridge. Where the nature trail and bicycle trail are planned for by the Queensbury Land Conservancy and by the Town of Queensbury Department of Park and Recreation noting he his providing this information for the Town Board for the planning purposes. (Letter and packet not given to Clerk) COUNCILMAN STROUGH-They did consider moving the trails and may move them. The problem with moving them is that it takes down more trees and we are trying not to do that. MR. SHA W-A lot of the existing trails are definitely not a hundred and fifty feet. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-We could use the existing trails you are going to have to balance that. MR. SHAW-No impervious surfaces next to the watershed of the Rush Pond area might just add to flooding. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-New York State it requires a previous surface. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It has to allow water.... COUNCILMAN STROUGH-There is going to be a storm water plan. MR. SHAW-Read letter from his neighbor on Fox Hollow who said the plan was now to build an eight or ten foot wide bike trail. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Twelve is preferred by the State and Federal Highway, but ten is a minimum. JOHN SALVADOR-Spoke to the board regarding a report issued by the Codes Division of the Department of State pertaining to 35 Knox Road a project in North Queensbury on Assembly Point to give a copy of report for board members. Thinks they should withhold the final CO on this project. Spoke to the board regarding the decision and article in newspaper concerning the Golden Coral project. Spoke to the board regarding his concern for the retaining wall regarding this project. Read from the New York State Building Code of the State of New York regarding retaining walls. Spoke to the board regarding the bonds for the Crandall Library project. Read in the paper regarding his concern with the APA determination that the mooring of boathouses if they are not moved in a season it becomes a new land use noting that they do own the land. GEORGE DRELLOS-27 FOX HOLLOW LANE-On behalf of the Soap Box Derby Committee thanked the Town for the commitment of thirty five hundred dollars noting is REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 53 was a huge success. Spoke to the board regarding the Village proposal asked if this is going to be a town wide vote. SUPERVISOR STEC-No, just within their boundaries. MR. DRELLOS-Spoke to the board regarding Veterans Road where it meets Sherman A venue noting he has spoken to Mike Travis and Councilman Brewer regarding traffic concerns. There is the old road that is on the right of the new road of Veterans Road. Highway Superintendent, Mike Travis is checking to see if the Town still owns the old road, which is next to the new road asked if they could put a turning lane noting his concern with more traffic with the new Connector Road. SUPERVISOR STEC-We can look into that. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Would suspect once the Connector Road is in place and a pattern is established there may be a lot 0 adjustments that are necessary in that general area. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Will talk to Highway Superintendent, Mr. Travis tomorrow. MRS. MONAHAN-Sunnyside. Spoke to the board regarding the Judge's decision regarding Golden Coral. Agrees with everyone regarding Mr. Vollaro good service was appalled at the decision itself due to the impacts on the wetlands and more pollution going into the Halfway Brook Watershed hopes the Town will consider if you have grounds to appeal this decision. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Never has seen a Judge's decision with such personal tone. He essentially did not address the merits of the case but actually went after an individual. 5.0 TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS COUNCILMAN BREWER- · Thanked Mr. Drellos for his comment regarding the Soap Box Derby COUNCILMAN STROUGH- · Spoke regarding the proposed North Queensbury Fire District - Two hundred million dollars of Queensbury Real Estate is Fire Protection Tax Exempt lions share of that is located in central and southern Queensbury -Forming a separate fire district would dump the burden on the rest of Queensbury and would become the rest of the taxpayers burden - North Queensbury residents would enjoy the use ofthe Municipal Center, ACC, Airport, and a hundred million dollar other fire protection tax exempt properties and not have to pay anything towards it - The other side of the coin the down side - Central Queensbury generates most of the Town's sales tax about eight point four million dollars - Revenue that pays for the following departments - Highway, Animal Control, Building and Codes, Planning, Zoning, Accounting, Assessor, Parks and Recreation, Historian, Cemetery, Fire Marshal, Geographic Information Systems and many other departments this is all paid for through the sales tax we do not have a Town tax for that - North Queensbury gets it for free just like the rest of Queensbury- Rebate on the County tax comes from the sales tax - The rebate reduces the county tax burden a reduction that we all enjoy even those who reside in North Queensbury it is the fruit of those sales taxes generated out of central Queensbury - The residents currently get about twenty five percent of that rebate in North Queensbury - Adding another layer of bureaucracy is rarely if ever reduces taxes - Adding five commissioners or twenty five commissioner would not better or make fire protection less expensive - The State Audits have uncovered that fire districts that many of the fire districts are improperly spending thousands of your tax dollars - The... Journal writes an article says stay away from the poison pill- The solution to reducing our tax burden lies in consolidation not at the formation of additional fire districts - Another Ithaca Journal article entitled Consolidation a REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 54 Cheaper Form of Doing Business asks do we really need five fire district - If all the fire companies wanted to go to fire districts in Queensbury we, too would have five fire districts - A Rochester Newspaper The Democratic Chronicle has a subtitle the article Reworking Rochester a Better way with the subtitle Fire Districts Underscore Need for Rethinking Structures. It states that five districts are exacerbating Monroe County's very taxing situation. The Monroe Fire Districts collected thirty-two percent more in property tax revenue in 2006 when compared to 2002. It went on to say using a reasonable approach may have saved taxpayers money - Another article in this paper was titled Monroe taxpayers are often unaware of the bills incurred by their fire districts - Fire districts are under attack in Rochester, but that is not the only place - In the Star Gazette they report that Governor Spitzer is investigating ways to remedy the path oral of special district abuse fire districts are listed among those as part of the problem- Property taxes could be cut as much as ten percent in government structures were rationalize that means to consolidate to make more efficient - New York's eight hundred and sixty three fire districts are not only inefficient, but also expensive the article says - local government should encourage to take steps towards greater efficiency and cooperation quite contrary to what the fire districts are in their areas - It goes on to say that it sounds to reason that there is a lot less overhead with fewer districts - .. . Jericho has an article entitled, State Audit Finds Variances in Spending of Fire Districts - Again, investigating improper spending by fire districts - "State Auditors say they have uncovered a number of troubling details over the years regarding spending at many fire districts in the state". - Once formed a fire district is close to impossible to reverse it requires an act of the State Legislature to undo no matter how much misery it costs the taxpayers- Another reason is if Queensbury went to a separate fire district everyone else's taxes fire protection taxes would go up - Worried that the same kind of mentality same kind of thinking is going to occur with the village formation - the people are going to hear what they want to hear and people are only going to tell them what they want to hear they are not going to hear the other side that this is a downside an opposite side of the coin. COUNCILMAN SANFORD- · Resolution 6.16 pleased to announce is a resolution that will be approved by this board taking the first major step forward to replacing that culvert from Homer A venue to Quaker Road all commercial property owners agree. It was a difficult situation it was on private property we got an easement out of the situation it needed to be done. Thinks it is the first step to address some of those concerns on Homer. · Spoke regarding Tribune Media Modified Pilot offered this as a strategic approach. First, I will go on record, I am not opposed to a pilot or a modified pilot. However, in terms of just negotiating 101, I don't feel comfortable giving them a modified pilot without having consideration in return of a commitment I think they need to be part and parcel if you do that you run two basic risks. One they will take it and put it in their pocket and they will go to a Town fifty miles away or a hundred miles away and say here is what I got from the Town of Queensbury can you match it that doesn't rub me the right way. The other thing is you give them this option then if they decide down the road that they are willing to make a commitment the obvious response is going to be what else are you going to give me. I really think that the people who are championing this need to just line up the strategy and be able to say to these guys look it we are favorably inclined to do this you will get our commitment when we get yours. Hopefully we can discuss this because I think, as a Town Board at least that is how I am lining up I am not prepared to do it without the commitment. SUPERVISOR STEC- · I think that is exactly how those that have been doing the most talking about this that has been predominantly EDC they have been doing exactly what you suggested we do not want a date switch scenario. I know that they have had that in mind certainly those are questions that we can have with them offline or in a workshop or both, but it will be on next week. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 55 COUNCILMAN SANFORD- · The Town Board would have to approve it. I think you might want to talk to the people at the County and the other people who are dealing with it after a workshop if, I represented the consensus to tell them this is the way that we feel. · Sent Supervisor Stec an email noting he did not have Chuck Rice, Facilities Manager email. SUPERVISOR STEC- · Forwarded the email to him. COUNCILMAN SANFORD- · Wanted to make sure you are aware of it. It is important it is a security issue noting it is probably just a minor adjustment. COUNCILMAN BOOR- · When I went to the Republican Committee to seek their endorsement, the first thing I asked when I got to the microphone is that the Post Star had certainly made out that this is a very divisive board it is the 3-2 power structure. I asked the committee can anybody name three issues that this board has had a 3-2 vote on and nobody could. I would offer that question to this board can anybody think of three instances where there was 3-2 decision on this. SUPERVISOR STEC- · I could, but no because I don't want to rock the boat tonight and get through our agenda. COUNCILMAN BOOR- · Thinks it is important that you can say you do. SUPERVISOR STEC- · I don't think it is a helpful exercise. COUNCILMAN BOOR- · Name three instances where there has been a 3-2 vote. SUPERVISOR STEC- · Selection of the Planning Board Chairman. COUNCILMAN BOOR- · No, that was 4-1 he was the only one that voted no. SUPERVISOR STEC- · No, it is a year ago. I am definitely not going to argue with you I remember that was a 3-2 vote. COUNCILMAN BOOR- · The point, I am trying to make and where I am going with this is the Post Star and certainly, the reporter here you are a fine young man I don't know, but this REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 56 doesn't reflect on you. It was very disconcerting to read in the paper that Mr. Tingley thought this board couldn't get anything done because we were arguing over a mousetrap. I think to myself if this is the best that can be said about this very divisive board, I would offer this. I don't know how the citizenry feel, but I would be somewhat concerned if every vote was unanimous. If there was no discussion on any item if we just nodded each other and said, yup, yup, yup, I wonder what kind of service that is to the public. It was very disconcerting, beyond that, it is a very serious issue, and I am talking about the trapping. It is not coincidental that DEC on May 31 is addressing the very thing that we are trying to do locally. It is to protect pets and small infants from being entrapped and being killed in some instances by these snares, jaw traps. We have gone to our Attorney in the workshop we have had this discussion, which is was wholesome discussion. COUNCILMAN BREWER- · It was said in jest. COUNCILMAN BOOR- · That's my point Tim is we have a reporter here he goes back and god only knows what gets printed because it is probably not going to be what this reporter writes that's where I take exception with the paper. I think this board does one hell of a job and yeah we don't agree all the time, but I reiterate if we did, we wouldn't be serving you well the public. It is about time maybe Mr. Tingley and maybe Mr. Mahoney should show up at one of these meetings, actually be here, and actually watch how we conduct business and then write an editorial. As, Mr. Sanford said it is one thing to editorialize the news, but it is another thing as an editor you are making the news. I am getting tired of misrepresentations of this board we do a good job we don't also agree, but I think we do a really good job serving this community. SUPERVISOR STEC- · You are including all five members. COUNCILMAN BOOR- · Yes, I am I said this board. When, I say that we disagree I would include you in that also. I think we do disagree a lot, but I think it is healthily and I think it is a good thing there is nothing wrong with that. Again, I hope the Post Star understands that I think they can do a better job serving the public. As, Councilman Sanford said I think a couple weeks ago I hate to think that the televised broadcast is the only source that is uncensored and accurate if something doesn't change I am afraid that is what we are faced with. I appalled TV 8 for being here. I applaud Glens Falls Bank as I am taking some of your lines I am sorry see we are in agreement here Dan I applaud them for sponsoring us. I think it is important because if it wasn't for this venue I wonder what the public would think happens at these meeting. Thank you. COUNCILMAN BREWER- · Michaels Drive you know that Dan Ryan and I have been out there several times Dan was with me once. A week ago Saturday we were out there again with the final meeting with the residents. Dan Ryan has come up with hopefully a solution to the problem that exists over there. The neighborhood was there in force we discussed it with them. I told them I think I have support on this board we have done drainage issues in the Town. We all support doing work to solve those problems. I hope to have Dan Ryan at our next workshop to discuss the options that we have. I just wanted to make sure you guys were aware that it is coming and hopefully we can have a debate about it. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 57 COUNCILMAN BOOR- · What it shows that water problems are unique to any particular area of Town. It is a Town wide issue and is something that we are going to have to address. SUPERVISOR STEC- · Added this to next week's workshop the agenda. The main event there, of course, we are starting at six thirty with our new first agenda item of the workshop they will all be there. Stu is going to help us wrap up the comp plan that is our goal for Monday night. I also have EDC coming in to brief us on the Tribune Pilot. There are three entities that need to agree on the pilot agreement that would be the School District, Town, County of the three the School has the most financially at stake then the County and then the Town. They have been talking to the other two already informally I think they are on the agenda for June II themselves at the School Board. They have already talked to the County Board and they may be back to the County Board. The County Board will likely consider a resolution on June 15 at our board meeting. I know that they would like us to wrap this up because the IDA is going to have a public hearing on the morning of the twenty- fifth. We are going to have a workshop on the Tribune on the eleventh hopefully all questions are answered there or answered immediately in the next couple days after that so that we can have our resolution on the eighteenth. I have the Tribune Pilot discussion, comp plan wrap up, workers comp and disability insurance selections and Michael's drainage. Thanked Glens Falls National Bank and TV 8. Believes in was in 2003 that Roger was the first one that publicly said we ought to really pursue televising these meetings. I think the whole board at the time that was Dennis board everyone agreed that it was a great thing to do for our community we have been doing that for three or four years now. I am sure we are not always proud of every exchange that has been televised, but I think it has been real and genuine from everybody on the Town Board level mentioned the Town's website www.Queensbury.net · Tribune Enhance Pilot. It is a fifteen-year deal as opposed to a ten-year deal. The IDA can grant the ten-year deal without coming to the Town Board, School Board, or County Board. They are looking for and have been discussing all along a fifteen year enhanced version. I do not have the details memorized, but I know that they are pointing out they are certainly not giving away the store. They are aware they there are other communities that have more tools available in their arsenal than Warren County does as far as enticement go, but the good news is that they seem to like being in Warren County right now I don't think they are anxious to leave. Richard's points are valid about how we negotiate with them I do believe that is how EDC has been handling it. The physical update as far as the Tribune matter maybe a lot of people don't know this. I think it was reported in the newspaper the Planning Board did approve their site plan a couple weeks ago unanimous. They will be going on the Connector Road the Connector Road is going out to bid now. We are going to have a bid opening on July 2 and hopefully awarded a bid on the sixteenth so hopefully in the second half of July the Connector Road, Park, and Ride will be under construction. Sewer Extension No.6 for Luzerne Road we are going to be passing that tonight. That is another example you want to talk about cooperation that is a private developer working with EDC, and the Town, and the Rescue Squad to come up with a Map, Plan, and Report that serves all those parcels that are involved. We have already done a public hearing on it we are going to hammer out SEQRA and an approval hopefully tonight of that. Then as soon as that gets done in the very near future from what I have been told, the construction on the sewer will start. The Rescue Squad building is almost finished they are going to be moving in sometime in June. Their delays probably have worked to our advantage in that if they were ready two months ago when sewer wasn't in addition to my phone ringing off the hook from Sandy all the time all four of yours would have been, too. It looks like that the sewer timing is going to be close to when they are going to need it. They will probably be on that holding tank for a couple weeks. We handle the water on the Connector Road earlier tonight. A lot of that is coming into place now it has taken longer than any of us thought it would or wanted it to, but the good news is REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 58 that the timing of all these things coming together has worked out and that they have all taken an equally amount of time to get done. They are going to be wrapping up at the simultaneous moment. COUNCILMAN SANFORD- · When I think of these sewer extensions, I am going to use as an example of contrast the Cedars. The Cedars wanted sewer to accommodate their second building and they did the Map, Plan, and Report and paid for the sewer extension. Then they are going to now be paying as a user. SUPERVISOR STEC- . Right. COUNCILMAN SANFORD- · In this particular situation the major tenant, i.e. hopefully Media has not yet made a commitment. Who is going to be paying for the initial installation of the sewer? SUPERVISOR STEC- · The sewer district extension includes the Schermerhorn Apartments at the corner of Pine and Luzerne Road. Then it is also going to incorporate the Rescue Squad and the QEDC parcel that we hope Tribune is going too. They worked out their shares as far as who is paying for what based on a linear kind of thing. Schermerhorn is paying his proportion for his development beyond Schermerhorn's needs, which is the Rescue Squad and the Tribune site those capital costs have been addressed through a grant from Theresa Sayward's Office, QEDC, and Warren County EDC monies. The Rescue Squad and. ..are going to be the beneficiaries of having sewer free. COUNCILMAN SANFORD- · Will talk at a workshop the EDC organizations get their monies from us and maybe it is part of the deal. The way, I see it is unlike the Cedars, which paid their own way it looks like this is another if you will enrichment to the deal. SUPERVISOR STEC- · That is certainly a fair characterization EDe. I think most of the EDC money came from QEDC they both were funded by the Town. COUNCILMAN BREWER- · Other communities are providing shovel ready sites for businesses to go. COUNCILMAN BOOR- · That is kind of what we are afraid of is that we sweetened this deal and then they go to one of these other sites that is shovel ready. COUNCILMAN BREWER- . I understand that. COUNCILMAN SANFORD- · Then we have built a sewer that doesn't work for really anything other than the squad. That is one of the concerns that I have is getting ahead of ourselves in REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 59 terms of the cart in front of the horse. That's why when we negotiate I am going to encourage all the parties put these considerations forward in terms of a commitment until there is a commitment I am not comfortable. SUPERVISOR STEC- · Tim and I marched in the Lower Adirondack Fireman's Parade. · Memorial Day Parade went very well. Thanked Councilman Brewer and Councilman Strough for their efforts along with those in the City. 6.0 RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING OF THE FIRST INSTANCE 1000/0 OF FEDERAL AID AND STATE "MARCHISELLI" PROGRAM-AID ELIGIBLE COSTS OF MAIN STREET CONNECTOR ROAD CONTRACT NO.1 _ PROJECT PIN NO.: 1756.69 AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR SUCH PROJECT RESOLUTION NO.: 259, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 512,2006, the Queensbury Town Board authorized the Town of Queensbury to pay in the first instance 100% of the federal and non-federal share of the cost of construction work for the Main Street Connector Road: Contract No. I, Town of Queensbury, P.I.N. 1756.69 (the "Project"), and WHEREAS, such Project is eligible for funding under Title 23 U.S. Code, as amended that calls for the apportionment of the costs of such program to be borne at the ratio of 100% federal funds and 0% non-federal funds, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury wishes to again advance the Project by agam making a commitment of 100% of the non-federal share of the costs of construction, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby reaffirms and authorizes the Main Street Connector Road: Contract No.1, Town of Queensbury, P.I.N. 1756.69 (the "Project"), and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 60 RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Fiscal Manager to pay in the first instance 100% of the federal and non-federal share of the cost of construction work for the Project or portions of the Project, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the sum of $130,500.00 (One hundred thirty thousand five hundred dollars and no cents) has already been appropriated from 161 5110.2899 and made available to cover the cost of participation in the above phase of the Project, by a temporary loan from the General Fund in anticipation of federal funds to be provided through Account No.: I 61-0000-54910, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the additional sum of $493,000.00 (Four hundred ninety three thousand dollars and no cents) is hereby appropriated from Account No.: 161-511O-2899 and made available to cover the additional cost of participation in the above phase of the Project, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that funding for the project shall be provided through an additional $167,500.00 in federal funding Account No.: 161-0000-5491O for a total federal funding of $298,000.00, $200,000 from the City of Glens Falls Account No.: 161-0000-52797, and temporary funding from the General Fund of $125,500.00, Account No.: 161-0000- 0630, to be repaid no later than upon the completion of the Project, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that in the event that the full federal and non-federal share costs of the Project exceeds the amount appropriated above, the Town Board shall convene as soon as possible to appropriate such excess amount immediately upon the notification by the New York State Department of Transportation, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute all necessary Agreements, certifications or reimbursement requests for Federal Aid and/or Marchiselli Aid on behalf of the Town of Queensbury with the New York State Department of Transportation in connection with the advancement or approval of the Project and providing for the administration of the Project and the Town's first instance REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 61 funding of Project costs and permanent funding of the local share of federal aid and state-aid eligible Project costs and all Project costs within appropriations therefore that are not so eligible, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the New York State Commissioner of Transportation by attaching it to any necessary agreement in connection with the Project, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Fiscal Manager to take all action necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall take effect immediately. Duly adopted this 4th day of June, 2007, by the following vote: A YES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ADOPTING SEQRA DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE REGARDING QUEENSBURY TECHNICAL PARK SEWER DISTRICT EXTENSION NO.6 RESOLUTION NO.: 260,2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to establish an extension to the Queensbury Technical Park Sewer District to be known as the Queensbury Technical Park Sewer District Extension No.6, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 62 WHEREAS, the Town Board is duly qualified to act as lead agency and accepts lead agency status for compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) which requires environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is an unlisted action in accordance with the rules and regulations of SEQRA, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board, after considering the proposed action, reviewing the Short Environmental Assessment Form and thoroughly analyzing the action for potential environmental concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to complete the Short Environmental Assessment Form by checking the box indicating that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board approves of a Negative Declaration and authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to file any necessary documents in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Duly adopted this 4th day of June, 2007, by the following vote: A YES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: None PART 11 SEQRA PART II IMPACT ASSESSMENT (TO BE COMPLETED BY LEAD AGENCY) A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR PART 617.4? IF YES, COORDINATE THE REVIEW PROCESS AND USE THE FULL EAF. NO B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR PART 617.6? IF NO, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION MAY BE SUPERSEDED BY ANOTHER INVOLVED AGENCY. NO C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 63 WITH THE FOLLOWING (ANSWERS MAY BE HANDWRITTEN, IF LEGIBLE) C 1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic pattern, solid waste production or disposal. Potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly. NO C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly. NO C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly. NO C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use ofland, or other natural resources? Explain briefly. NO C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly. NO C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C I-C5? Explain briefly. NO C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy? Explain briefly. NO D. WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMP ACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA (CEA)? IF YES, EXPLAIN BRIEFLY NO E. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACTS? IF YES, EXPLAIN BRIEFLY. NO RESOLUTION APPROVING QUEENSBURY TECHNICAL PARK SEWER DISTRICT EXTENSION NO.6 RESOLUTION NO. 261, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to establish an extension to the Queensbury Technical Park Sewer District (hereinafter the "District") to be known as the Queensbury Technical Park Sewer District Extension No.6 (hereinafter the "Sewer District Extension"), and WHEREAS, a Map, Plan and Report has been prepared by Jarrett-Martin Engineers, PLLC, engineers licensed by the State of New York regarding the proposed Sewer District Extension to permanently serve: 1) the West Glens Falls Emergency Squad's new emergency medical services building, 2) a new apartment complex developed by REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 64 Schermerhorn Residential Holdings, LLC, 3) commercial development along the proposed Main Street Connector Road, and 4) an additional parcel on Luzerne Road near the City of Glens Falls boundary owned by Laconia Realty, such parcels bearing tax map identification no.'s: · 309.10-1-45 - Schermerhorn Residential Holdings, LLC (Deed Reference {BookIPage}: 3015/23) · 309.10-1-83.2 - West Glens Falls EMS (Deed Reference {BookIPage}: 3015/264) · 309.10-1-83.1 - Queensbury Economic Development Corp. (Deed Reference {BookIPage}: 1477/192) · 309.10-1-82.1 - Queensbury Economic Development Corp. (Deed Reference {BookIPage}: 1314/225) · 309.10-1-84.4 - Queensbury Economic Development Corp. (Deed Reference {BookIPage}: 1302/77) · 309.11-2-23 - Laconia Realty Corp. (Deed Reference {BookIPage}: 1415/254); such parcels located generally along Luzerne Road and the proposed Main Street Connector Road, and as more specifically set forth and described in the Map, Plan and Report, and WHEREAS, by previous Resolution, the Map, Plan and Report has been accepted and approved by the Town and has been filed in the Queensbury Town Clerk's Office and is available for public inspection, and WHEREAS, the Map, Plan and Report delineates the boundaries of the proposed Sewer District Extension, a general plan of the proposed sewer system, a report of the proposed sewer system and method of operation, and WHEREAS, on April 2nd, 2007 subsequent to the filing of the Map, Plan and Report with the Town Clerk, the Town Board adopted an Order (the "Public Hearing Order") reciting (a) the boundaries of the proposed Sewer District Extension; (b) the proposed improvements; (c) the fact that all costs of the improvements will be paid for by the property owners and/or grant funding and not the Town of Queensbury; (d) the estimated cost of hook-up fees (if any) and the cost of the Sewer District Extension to the typical property and the typical one or two family home (if not the typical property); (e) the proposed method of financing to be employed; (f) the fact that a Map, Plan and Report describing the improvement is on file in the Town Clerk's Office; and (g) the time and place of a public hearing on the proposed Sewer District Extension; (h) that all the expenses of the District, including all extensions heretofore or hereafter established, shall be a charge against the entire area of the District as extended, and WHEREAS, copies of the Public Hearing Order were duly published and posted and were filed with the Office of the State Comptroller, all as required by law, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 65 WHEREAS, prior to publication of the Public Hearing Order, a detailed explanation of how the estimated cost of hook-up fees (if any) and the cost of the Sewer District to the typical property and typical one or two family home (if not the typical property) were computed was filed with the Town Clerk for public inspection, and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed Sewer District Extension was duly held on Monday, April 16th, 2007 and the Town Board has considered the evidence given together with other information, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has considered the establishment of the Sewer District Extension in accordance with the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and has adopted a Negative Declaration concerning environmental impacts, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to establish the proposed Sewer District Extension as detailed in the Map, Plan and Report in accordance with Town Law, Article 12A and consolidate the Sewer District Extension with the Queensbury Technical Park Sewer District in accordance with Town Law s206-a, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby determines that: 1. Notice of Public Hearing was published and posted as required by law and is otherwise sufficient; 2. An application for permission of the Office of the State Comptroller to extend the District is not necessary, given that all costs associated with the extension of the District and construction of the facilities therein shall be borne by the property owners and/or grant funding and the Town will not be issuing bonds to finance the extension of the District; 3. All property and property owners within the Sewer District Extension are benefited; 4. All property and property owners benefited are included within the limits of the Sewer District Extension; 5. It is in the public interest to establish, authorize, and approve the Queensbury Technical Park Sewer District Extension No.6 to the existing Queensbury Technical Park Sewer District as described in the Map, Plan and Report on file with the Queensbury Town Clerk; REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 66 6. In accordance with New York State Town Law s206-a, it is in the public interest to assess all expenses of the District, including all extensions heretofore or hereafter established, as a charge against the entire area of the District as extended; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby approves, authorizes and establishes the Queensbury Technical Park Sewer District Extension No. 6 in accordance with the boundaries and descriptions set forth in the previously described Map, Plan and Report, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that construction of the improvements may proceed and servIce provided subject to the following; 1. The obtaining of any necessary permits or approvals from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; 2. Permissive referendum in the manner provided in New York State Town Law Article 7; and 3. The adoption of a Final Order by the Queensbury Town Board; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this Resolution is subject to permissive referendum in the manner provided by the provisions of New York State Town Law Articles 7 and 12A and the Town Board authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to file, post and publish such notice of this Resolution as may be required by law and to cause to be prepared and have available for distribution proper forms for the petition and shall distribute a supply to any person requesting such petition, and if no such petition is filed within 30 days, to file a certificate to that effect in the Office of the County Clerk. Duly adopted this 4th day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES NOES Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor None ABSENT: None REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 67 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HIRING OF KAITLIN O'SHAUGHNESSY TO WORK FOR DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION RESOLUTION NO. :262,2007 INTRODUCED BY Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY :Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Department of Parks and Recreation has requested Town Board authorization to hire Kaitlin O'Shaughnessy to work part-time for the Department as a seasonal Recreation Counselor, and WHEREAS, Town Policy requires that familial relationships must be disclosed and that the Town Board must approve the appointment of Town employees' relatives and Kaitlin O'Shaughnessy is the daughter of Town Recreation Program Specialist Lori O'Shaughnessy, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the hiring of Kaitlin O'Shaughnessy to work for the Town's Department of Parks and Recreation as a part-time, seasonal Recreation Counselor effective June 5th, 2007, to be paid at the appropriate hourly wage approved for seasonal recreation positions, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Director of Parks and Recreation and/or Town Fiscal Manager to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 4th day of June, 2007, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HIRING OF KELLY O'SHAUGHNESSY TO WORK FOR DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION RESOLUTION NO. :263,2007 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 68 INTRODUCED BY Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Department of Parks and Recreation has requested Town Board authorization to hire Kelly O'Shaughnessy to work part-time for the Department as a seasonal Park Attendant, and WHEREAS, Town Policy requires that familial relationships must be disclosed and that the Town Board must approve the appointment of Town employees' relatives and Kelly O'Shaughnessy is the daughter of Town Recreation Program Specialist Lori 0' Shaughnessy, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the hiring of Kelly O'Shaughnessy to work for the Town's Department of Parks and Recreation as a part-time, seasonal Park Attendant effective June 5th, 2007, to be paid at the appropriate hourly wage approved for seasonal recreation positions, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Director of Parks and Recreation and/or Town Fiscal Manager to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 4th day of June, 2007, by the following vote: A YES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT:Mr. Brewer RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS- WARRANT OF JUNE 4TH, 2007 RESOLUTION NO.: 264,2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 69 WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve the audit of bills presented as the Warrant with a run date of May 31 sr, 2007 and a payment date of June 5th, 2007, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Warrant with a run date of May 31 s" 2007 and payment date of June 5t\ 2007 totaling $470,675.42, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Fiscal Manager to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 4th day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer RESOLUTION APPROVING NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE FOR SMALL CITIES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT AWARD IN CONNECTION WITH TOWN HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM - CASE FILE #5516 RESOLUTION NO.: 265,2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has established a Housing Rehabilitation Program which provides grants to cover 100% of the cost of rehabilitation up to a maximum of $20,000, whichever is less, and WHEREAS, the Town has received grant funds from the New York State Governor's Office for Small Cities Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) to cover up to 100% of eligible project costs, and WHEREAS, a single family property Case File #5516 has been determined to be eligible for rehabilitation grant assistance and the owner of the property has requested REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 70 such assistance, and WHEREAS, property rehabilitation specifications have been provided to three (3) qualified contractors for bid, and WHEREAS, the low bid cost to complete the work specified is four thousand six hundred dollars and no cents ($4,600.00), and WHEREAS, Shelter Planning & Development, Inc. has overseen the grant process and has verified that it has been followed in this case and recommends approving this grant, and WHEREAS, a lien will be filed against the property for the benefit of the Town for a period of five years from the completion ofthe rehabilitation, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury approves a CDBG Grant for Case File #5516, Queensbury, New York, in the amount not to exceed/our thousand six hundred dollars and no cents ($4,600.00) twenty thousand dollars and no eents ($20,000.00) and authorizes and directs either the Town Supervisor or Executive Director of Community Development to execute a Grant A ward Agreement and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 4th day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPROVING HOUSING REHABILITATION LOAN IN CONNECTION WITH TOWN OF QUEENSBURY HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM - CASE FILE #5076 RESOLUTION NO.: 266,2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 71 WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has established a Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program which provides a deferred loan to very low income eligible property owners for the owners cost of rehabilitation, and WHEREAS, a single family property, Case File #5076, has been determined to be eligible for a loan through the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program and the owner of the property has requested such a loan, and WHEREAS, property rehabilitation specifications have been provided to five (5) qualified contractors for bid, and WHEREAS, the low bid cost to complete the work specified is forty three thousand one hundred twenty dollars and no cents ($43,120.00), and WHEREAS, the property has previously been approved for a HOME grant in the amount of thirteen thousand one hundred twenty dollars and no cents ($13,120.00), an AHC grant in the amount often thousand dollars and no cents ($10,000.00) and a CDBG grant in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars and no cents ($15,000.00), and WHEREAS, Shelter Planning & Development, Inc. has overseen the grant process and has verified that it has been followed in this case and recommends approving this deferred loan, and WHEREAS, the property owner will enter into a Loan Agreement with the Town of Queensbury which will be recorded with the Warren County Clerk's Office with the principal balance ofthe loan due in full upon the transfer oftitle of the property, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves a rehabilitation loan for Case File #5076 in an amount not to exceed five thousand dollars and no cents ($5,000.00) and hereby authorizes and directs either the Town Supervisor or Executive Director of Community Development to execute a Grant Award Agreement and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 4th day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES: None ABSENT:None REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 72 RESOLUTION APPROVING HOUSING REHABILITATION LOAN IN CONNECTION WITH TOWN OF QUEENSBURY HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM - CASE FILE #5426 RESOLUTION NO.: 267,2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has established a Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program which provides a deferred loan to very low income eligible property owners for the owners cost of rehabilitation, and WHEREAS, a single family property, Case File #5426, has been determined to be eligible for a loan through the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program and the owner of the property has requested such a loan, and WHEREAS, property rehabilitation specifications have been provided to three (3) qualified contractors for bid, and WHEREAS, the low bid cost to complete the work specified is twenty one thousand one hundred twenty five dollars and no cents ($21,125.00), and WHEREAS, the property has been approved for a grant for Twenty thousand dollars and no cents ($20,000.00) through the Housing Rehabilitation Program, and WHEREAS, Shelter Planning & Development, Inc. has overseen the grant and loan process and has verified that it has been followed in this case and recommends approving this deferred loan, and WHEREAS, the property owner will enter into a Loan Agreement with the Town of Queensbury which will be recorded with the Warren County Clerk's Office with the principal balance of the loan due in full upon the transfer oftitle of the property, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves a rehabilitation loan for Case File #5426 in an amount not to exceed one thousand one hundred twenty five dollars and no cents ($1,125.00) and hereby authorizes and directs either the Town Supervisor or Executive Director of Community Development to execute a REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 73 Grant A ward Agreement and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 4th day of June, 2007, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TOWN FISCAL MANAGER, ACCOUNTANT AND DIRECTOR OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TO ATTEND MUNIS USER CONFERENCE RESOLUTION NO.: 268,2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury's Fiscal Manager has requested Town Board authorization to attend the MUNIS User Conference, along with the Accountant and Director of Information Technology, in Boston, MA in September, 2007, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has authorized allocation of funds for conference expenses within the Town's 2007 budget, and WHEREAS, in accordance with Town Policy the Queensbury Town Board must authorize out-of-state travel by Town employees, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the Town Fiscal Manager, Accountant and Director of Information Technology to attend the MUNIS User Conference to be held in Boston, MA from September 9th - 11 th, 2007, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that all necessary and reasonable expenses incurred by the Town Fiscal Manager, Accountant and Director of Information Technology at such conference are proper Town charges and shall be paid for from the appropriate Town Account(s). Duly adopted this 4th day of June, 2007 by the following vote: REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 74 A YES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF JIM BEATY TO PROVIDE APPRAISAL IN CONNECTION WITH ARTICLE 7 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING- MICHAEL CANT ANUCCI V. TOWN OF QUEENSBURY RESOLUTION NO.: 269,2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, Michael Cantanucci commenced an Article 7 Real Property Tax Assessment Proceeding in 2005 against the Town of Queensbury challenging the assessment on his property located at 39 Brayton Lane, Queensbury (tax map parcel no.: 239.12-2-70) and 39 Brayton Lane, Queensbury (tax map parcel no.: 239.12-2-89.2), and WHEREAS, the Town is required to file an appraisal on July 1 st, 2007 with the Warren County Supreme Court in order to defend the Article 7 Petition, and WHEREAS, a fee quotation of $1,500 for an appraisal of both properties was obtained from Jim Beaty at 379 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY, and WHEREAS, counsel for the Lake George School District has advised that the School District will split the cost of the $1,500 appraisal providing that such appraisal is for settlement purposes only in that the School District is not willing to authorize splitting the cost of Beaty's trial preparation or time at trial, and WHEREAS, the Town Assessor has recommended that the Town Board engage the services of Jim Beaty to prepare the needed appraisal, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the engagement of Jim Beaty to furnish a trial-ready appraisal report in connection with an Article 7 Real Property Tax Assessment Proceeding commenced by Michael Cantanucci concerning assessment(s) on his property located at 39 Brayton Lane, Queensbury (tax map parcel no.: 239.12-2-70) and 39 Brayton Lane, Queensbury (tax map parcel no.: 239.12-2-89.2), for the 2005 assessment year, at a total cost of $1 ,500, with the Lake George School District to REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 75 split the cost of the appraisal or at least $750 of the expense and the Town to pay the other half of the cost or no more than $750, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that such expense shall be paid from Account No.: 001-1355-4740, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Assessor, Town Supervisor, Town Fiscal Manager and/or Town Counsel to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 4th day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT:None DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE: COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Asked what is the magnitude of the discrepancies between the appraisals. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I am sure the deferential is more than five hundred dollars. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-It is not a problem this time around, but I think Helen's people should lie that out in the resolution. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Or in a memo to let us know. SUPERVISOR STEC-I will tell that to Helen. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WARREN COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY TO USE TOWN PROPERTY RESOLUTION NO.: 270,2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Warren County Historical Society (Society) has requested permission to use the back lot at the Town-owned property located at the former Bay Ridge Firehouse, 195 Sunnyside Road, for an old-fashioned July 4th picnic fundraiser on Wednesday, July 4th, 2007 from 12:00 noon to 2:00 p.m., and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 76 WHEREAS, the Society has provided a certificate of liability insurance naming the Town as an additional insured party, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the Warren County Historical Society (Society) to use the back lot at the Town-owned property located at the former Bay Ridge Firehouse, 195 Sunnyside Road, for an old-fashioned July 4th picnic on Wednesday, July 4th, 2007 from 12:00 noon to 2:00 p.m., and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further directs that the Society shall have the responsibility to clean and/or repair the site to the satisfaction of the Town' Facilities Manager after the event. Duly adopted this 4th day of June, 2007 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr, Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT::None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SETTLEMENT OF BREACH OF CONTRACT CASE ORIGINALLY COMMENCED BY CTC DRILLING & BLASTING INC. - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT - WESTERN SURETY COMPANY RESOLUTION NO.: 271,2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, CTC Drilling & Blasting Inc. previously commenced an action against Western Surety Company, a bonding company, concerning an alleged breach of contract concerning work performed constructing a pump station and force main for the South Queensbury - Queensbury A venue Sewer District, and WHEREAS, Western Surety Company, thereafter commenced a third-party claim against the Town and James H. Kilby, the owner of Kilby Brothers, Inc., the general contractor for the construction work, claiming that the bonding company had been damaged by the Town of Queensbury' s alleged breach of contract with Kilby, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 77 WHEREAS, the first party claim previously was settled, and WHEREAS, Western Surety Company previously prevailed over James H. Kilby by way of a summary judgment motion, and WHEREAS, Town Counsel has recommended a settlement proposal to the Town Board and the Town Board has reviewed the case with Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the settlement of the case brought against the Town of Queensbury by Western Surety Company, concerning a breach of contract claim, as follows: I) The Town will pay $12,000.00 to settle the matter in full, and 2) The Town's settlement will contain no admission ofliability, and 3) Western Surety Company will provide a General Release insulating the Town from any further claims made on behalf of Western Surety Company, and 4) The third-party complaint will be discontinued with prejudice. and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs payment of the settlement amount to counsel, McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP upon receipt of a satisfactory General Release and an executed Stipulation of Discontinuance, to be paid from the appropriate account as shall be determined by the Town Supervisor and Town Fiscal Manager, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Town Fiscal Manager and/or Town Counsel to execute settlement documents and take any additional steps necessary to effectuate the proposed settlement in accordance with the temis of this Resolution. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 78 Duly adopted this 4th day of June, 2007, by the following vote: A YES : Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HIRING OF REBECCA CALLAHAN TO WORK FOR DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION RESOLUTION NO. :272,2007 INTRODUCED BY Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY : Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Department of Parks and Recreation has requested Town Board authorization to hire Rebecca Callahan to work part-time for the Department as a seasonal Park Attendant, and WHEREAS, Town Policy requires that familial relationships must be disclosed and that the Town Board must approve the appointment of Town employees' relatives and Rebecca Callahan is the stepdaughter of Parks and Recreation Department Foreman Bruce Baird, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the hiring of Rebecca Callahan to work for the Town's Department of Parks and Recreation as a part-time, seasonal Park Attendant effective June 5th, 2007, to be paid at the appropriate hourly wage approved for seasonal recreation positions, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Director of Parks and Recreation and/or Town Fiscal Manager to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 4th day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr, Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES : None ABSENT: None REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 79 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HIRING OF THOMAS MC NALLY TO WORK FOR DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION RESOLUTION NO. :273,2007 INTRODUCED BY Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY : Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Department of Parks and Recreation has requested Town Board authorization to hire Thomas McNally to work part-time for the Department as a seasonal Recreation Leader, and WHEREAS, Town Policy requires that familial relationships must be disclosed and that the Town Board must approve the appointment of Town employees' relatives and Thomas McNally is the son of Town Justice Robert McNally, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the hiring of Thomas McNally to work for the Town's Department of Parks and Recreation as a part-time, seasonal Recreation Leader effective June 5th, 2007, to be paid at the appropriate hourly wage approved for seasonal recreation positions, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Director of Parks and Recreation and/or Town Fiscal Manager to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 4th day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND MINOGUE'S BEVERAGE CENTER, TIRE WAREHOUSE AND TIME WARNER CONCERNING CULVERT REPLACEMENT REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 80 RESOLUTION NO.: 274, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, Town of Queensbury Supervisor Daniel Stec and Ward 2 Councilman Richard Sanford have discussed with representatives of Minogue's Beverage Center, Tire Warehouse and Time Warner an arrangement to replace the culvert running through the property owned by the foregoing businesses, and WHEREAS, the goal of this project is to enhance storm water drainage in the area, and WHEREAS, this proposed action IS a Type II action under the SEQRA regulations (6 NYCRR 617.5(c)(2)), and is not subject to environmental review under SEQRA, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board authorizes an Agreement between the Town and the above referenced property owners providing for a conveyance of easement rights for said culvert to the Town so that it may carry out future maintenance and repairs of the culvert, and providing for an allocation of costs for the culvert replacement as set forth below: Minogue's Beverage Center 27% Tire Warehouse 27% Time Warner 21 % Town 25% and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes Supervisor Stec, Councilman Sanford and Town Counsel to work with the property owners on the preparation of a written Agreement concerning the foregoing, which Agreement shall be provided to the Town Board for review and approval. Duly adopted this 4th day of June, 2007, by the following vote: REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 81 AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION CLARIFYING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENS BURY AND TOWN OF QUEENSBURY UNIT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC. CONCERNING SENIORITY DATES RESOLUTION NO.: 275, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, Article III Section 5 of the Town of Queensbury's Agreement with the Town of Queensbury Unit of the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc, ("CSEA") provides as follows: "Any full-time, seasonal or temporary employee who is subsequently hired on a permanent basis by the Town without a break in employment or bargaining unit title shall receive all benefits of title seniority as of the date he was originally employed in that title as a full-time, seasonal or temporary employee." and WHEREAS, questions have arisen regarding the interpretation of the above, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board agrees that Article III, Section 5 of the Town's Agreement with the CSEA shall be interpreted so that it applies to both full time and part time seasonal or temporary employees who are subsequently hired on a permanent basis by the Town without a break in employment or bargaining unit title. No retroactive benefits will be applicable, but retirement, longevity, and vacation leave will be re-computed accordingly. Duly adopted this 4th day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2007 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 276,2007 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 82 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec 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 Fiscal Manager, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town's Accounting Office to take all action necessary to transfer funds and amend the 2007 Town Budget as follows: FROM: TO: 004-5130-4220 (Property Liability Insurance) $ AMOUNT: 004-5130-2040 (Heavy Equipment) 4,332.00 004-5142-4641 (Snow & Ice Melting Agent) 004-5130-4200 (Property Liability Insurance) 2,960.00 00 1-7020-1 020 (Recreation Admin OfT) 001-711 O-l 020 (Parks & Recreation OfT) 1,500.00 001-7020-1020 (Rec. Admin OfT) 001-7110-4824 (Parks & Recreation Programs) 1,400.00 FROM: TO: 001-7020-201O (Rec. Admin. Office Equip.) $ AMOUNT: 00 1-7020-1O 10 (Rec. Admin. Salary) 1,800.00 001-8020-10 10 (Planning Salaries & Wages) 001-8020-4110 (Vehicle Repairs) 1,500.00 Duly adopted this 4th day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES OF BARTON AND LOGUIDICE, P.C. IN CONNECTION WITH REPLACEMENT OF SEPTIC SYSTEM AT TOWN OFFICE COMPLEX RESOLUTION NO: 277,2007 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 83 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 177,2007, the Queensbury Town Board authorized the establishment of the Town Complex Upgrade of Sanitary Sewer Systems Capital Project as a result of failing leach fields at the Town Office Complex, and WHEREAS, Barton & Loguidice, P.C. (Barton) has offered to provide engineering services related to the design, permitting and bidding services related to the replacement of the failed septic system, and WHEREAS, Barton has offered to provide such services for an amount not to exceed $6,616 as more fully set forth in Barton's December 21 S\ 2006 and May 31 S\ 2007 letters to the Town's Facilities Manager, and WHEREAS, in accordance with the Town Ethics Code, ~14-5. Standards of conduct, "elected Town Officials shall disclose campaign contributions of $100 or more from a person or entity who is specifically and significantly affected, positively or adversely, by an action of the Town Board, Such disclosure requirement applies to contributions made within the previous two years prior to the date of the relevant Town Board Resolution and shall be made through inclusion within the relevant Town Board Resolution," and the Town Supervisor has disclosed that Richard Straut, an employee of Barton, as an individual contributed $200 to the Town Supervisor's campaign fund in the summer of2005, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the engagement of Barton and Loguidice, P.e., for engineering services related to the design, permitting and bidding services related to the replacement of the failed septic system at the Town Office Complex for an amount not to exceed $6,616 as more fully set forth in Barton's December 21 S\ 2006 and May 31 S\ 2007 letters to the Town's Facilities Manager, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes the Town Supervisor to sign any necessary Agreement for such services in form acceptable to the Town Supervisor, Facilities Manager, Town Fiscal Officer and Town Counsel, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 84 BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes payment for such services from Account No.: 167-1620-4710 and amends the Project Budget by decreasing appropriations in Account No.: 167-1620-2899 by $6,700 and increasing appropriations in Account No.: 167-1620-4710 (Engineering) by $6,700, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Facilities Manager and/or Town Fiscal Manager to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 4th day of June, 2007, by the following vote: A YES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND AUTHORIZING AWARD OF BID FOR SITE WORK/GENERAL CONSTRUCTION IN CONNECTION WITH THE SUPPLEMENTAL RIDGE/JENKINSVILLE PARK PROJECT RESOLUTION NO. 278, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 99,2007, the Queensbury Town Board authorized the supplemental Ridge/Jenkinsville Park Project (Project) and expenditures for such work, and WHEREAS, General Municipal Law S 1 03 requires that the Town advertise for bids and award the bid to the lowest responsible bidder meeting New York State statutory requirements and the requirements set forth in the Town's bid documents and specifications, and WHEREAS, the Town's Purchasing Agent published an advertisement for bids for the site work/general construction and the electrical portions of the Project consistent with specifications prepared by the Town's Parks and Recreation Director, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 85 WHEREAS, on May 29th, 2007, the Purchasing Agent duly received and opened all bids, and WHEREAS, the Purchasing Agent, Recreation Commission and Parks and Recreation Director have recommended that the Town Board authorize the bid award for the site work/general construction to the lowest responsible bidder, James H. Maloy, Inc., for a total bid amount not to exceed $659,000, and WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Director has advised the Town Board that there may be times when Change Orders may become necessary for such bid award and Contract and therefore has requested that the Town Board authorize him to approve and sign certain Change Orders not to exceed the amount of $5,000 per Change Order, and the aggregate of all Change Orders also not to exceed the total amount of $5,000, that he deems necessary or appropriate, provided that the Director first confer and receive authorization from the Recreation Commission, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby accepts and awards the bid for the site work/general construction portion of the supplemental Ridge/Jenkinsville Park Improvements from the lowest responsible bidder, James H. Maloy, Inc., for a total bid amount not to exceed $659,000, to be paid from Capital Construction Account No.: 138- 7110-2899, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute an Agreement between the Town and James H. Maloy, Inc., and/or any other needed documents related to the bid award, in form acceptable to the Town Supervisor, Parks and Recreation Director, Town Fiscal Manager and Town Counsel, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes the Town Parks and Recreation Director to approve and sign Change Orders pertaining to such Agreement not to exceed the amount of $5,000 per Change Order, and the aggregate of all Change Orders also not to exceed the total amount of $5,000, that he deems necessary or appropriate, provided that the Director first confer and receive authorization from the Recreation Commission, and] BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Purchasing Agent, Parks and Recreation Director, Town Fiscal Manager REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 86 and/or Town Counsel to take any and all action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 4th day of June, 2007, by the following vote: A YES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION REJECTING BID FOR ELECTRICAL WORK IN CONNECTION WITH THE SUPPLEMENTAL RIDGE/JENKINSVILLE PARK PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING RE- ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS RESOLUTION NO. 279, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 99,2007, the Queensbury Town Board authorized the supplemental Ridge/Jenkinsville Park Project (Project) and expenditures for such work, and WHEREAS, General Municipal Law S 103 requires that the Town advertise for bids and award the bid to the lowest responsible bidder meeting New York State statutory requirements and the requirements set forth in the Town's bid documents and specifications, and WHEREAS, the Town's Purchasing Agent published an advertisement for bids for the site work/general construction and the electrical portions of the Project consistent with specifications prepared by the Town's Parks and Recreation Director, and WHEREAS, on May 29th, 2007, the Purchasing Agent duly received and opened all bids, and WHEREAS, the Purchasing Agent, Recreation Commission and Parks and Recreation Director have recommended that the Town Board reject the electrical bid as only one such bid was received and by re-advertising, it is hoped that the Town will receive additional, favorable electrical bids, and WHEREAS, the Town Board accordingly wishes to reject the electrical bids received and readvertise for bids, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 87 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby rejects the electrical bids received by the Town in connection with the Supplemental Ridge/Jenkinsville Park Project referred to in the preambles of this Resolution and opened on May 29th, 2007 and authorizes and directs the Purchasing Agent to readvertise for bids as delineated in the preambles of this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Purchasing Agent to open all bids, read them aloud and record the bids as is customarily done and present the bids to the Town Board. Duly adopted this 4th day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF BEEKMAN PLACE, BOGART COURT AND POLLAZZO COURT IN THE HAVILAND ROAD SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION NO. 280,2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, Amedore Land Developers, LLC has offered a deed to the Town of Queensbury to dedicate Beekman Place, Bogart Court and Pollazzo Court in the Haviland Road Subdivision to the Town of Queensbury as more particularly described in a survey map prepared by VanDusen & Steves Land Surveyors, LLC dated January 2nd, 2007, and WHEREAS, the Town Highway Superintendent has inspected the road and recommended its acceptance contingent upon the developer completing the top coat ofthe black-top within two years of the date of acceptance or by June 41\ 2009, and if applicable, all drainage easements being in place, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 88 WHEREAS, Amedore Land Developers, LLC has provided the Town with a $46,000 cash escrow to ensure placement of the top coat on the roads by June 4th, 2009 consistent with the Town Highway Superintendent's requirements, and WHEREAS, the Town Water Superintendent has confirmed that installation of water mains and appurtenances has been made in accordance with Town Water Department standards, and WHEREAS, the form of the deed and title to the roads offered for dedication have been reviewed by Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby accepts and approves the deed for dedication of Beekman Place, Bogart Court and Pollazzo Court in the Haviland Road Subdivision, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute, sign and affix the Town seal to any and all documents necessary to complete the transaction including an Escrow Agreement in form acceptable to Town Counsel and the Town Fiscal Manager, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs Amedore Land Developers, LLC to record the deed in the Warren County Clerk's Office, after which time the deed shall be properly filed and maintained in the Queensbury Town Clerk's Office, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to add the roads to the official inventory of Town Highways as follows: Name: Beekman Place Road Number: 552 Description: Beginning at Haviland Road and continuing in a southerly to westerly direction a distance of 1296' and.25 hundredths ofa mile and ending at a dead end. Feet: 1,296' and.25 ofamile Name: Bogart Court Road Number: 553 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-04-2007 MTG#24 89 Description: Beginning at Beekman Place and continuing in a northerly direction a distance of 406' and .08 hundredths of a mile and ending at a cul-de-sac. Feet: 406' and .08 of a mile Name: Pollazzo Court Road Number: 554 Description: Beginning at Beekman Place and continuing in a southeasterly direction a distance of 361' and .07 hundredths of a mile and ending at a cul-de-sac. Feet: 361' and .07 ofamile Duly adopted this 4th day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT:None 7.0 ACTION OF RESOLUTIONS PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED FROM THE FLOOR NONE RESOLUTION ADJOURNING REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO. 281, 2007 RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Regular Town Board Meeting. Duly adopted this 4th day of June, 2007, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor Noes: None Absent: None Respectfully Submitted, Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk Town of Queensbury