Loading...
2007-07-16 MTG32 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 765 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG #32 July 16, 2007 RES. #328-342 7:00PM BOH #11-13 TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR COUNCILMAN RICHARD SANFORD COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER TOWN OFFICIALS SENIOR PLANNER, STUART BAKER FISCAL MANAGER, BARBARA TIERNEY DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION, STEVE LOVERING BLDG & GROUNDS SUPERINTENDENT, CHUCK RICE PRESS POST STAR TV8 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH SUPERVISOR STEC- OPENED MEETING 1.0 RESOLUTION ENTERING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 328,2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby enters into the Queensbury Board of Health. th Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: None QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH PUBLIC HEARING SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE FOR ROBERT SAMMLER NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: JULY 5, 2007 SUPERVISOR STEC- We are in the Board of Health. We have a public hearing this evening on Sanitary Sewage Disposal variance for Robert Sammler and this was set two weeks ago and it’s to install a 3500 gallon holding tank on property located at 323 Cleverdale Road in Queensbury. If there is any members of the public, for starters, if the owner or his agent would like to address the Board on this application we just ask that you come forward. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 766 COUNCILMAN BOOR- Are they here? SUPERVISOR STEC- I’m not even sure if the applicant is here. COUNCILMAN BOOR- Not a good idea! SUPERVISOR STEC- Yeah, it is a public hearing. Any comments from the public on this application? Any comments from Town Board Members? COUNCILMAN BOOR- Yeah, I’ve got a host of questions with regards to what is being sought here. It’s not clear if it is a year around residence, it’s not clear if they are seeking a 3500 gallon holding tank and I think its four bedrooms and the house is 37 X 20. Sounds to me like potential expansion. Again, without the applicant here… COUNCILMAN SANFORD- Can we table this? SUPERVISOR STEC- Well, while Roger is talking I’m just trying to think of what to do next. We can leave it open. COUNCILMAN BOOR- How ever you want SUPERVISOR STEC- How about this I’ll suggest this, we’ll leave it open and we’ll finish the Board of Health’s business. If the applicant happens to come in the meeting before the end our meeting we can always re-adjourn the Board of Health if not we’ll leave it open until two weeks from now. So, again, is the applicant or the owner of 323, Mr. Sammler, 323 Cleverdale Road present? Certainly, if anyone sees them walk in, if you recognize them, let them know that he needs to get our attention. But I will leave this hearing open and we may revisit it later this evening or we may revisit it at a later date. So we will leave that hearing open and we can move on to 1.2 Rose. RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE APPLICATION OF ARTHUR BINLEY AND LEE GOLUB-BINLEY RESOLUTION NO.: BOH 11, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board serves as the Town’s Local Board of Health and is authorized by Town Code Chapter 136 to issue variances from the Town’s On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, and WHEREAS, Arthur Binley and Lee Golub-Binley have applied to the Local Board § of Health for a variance from Chapter 136, 136-11, which requires an applicant to obtain a variance for a holding tank and the applicants wish to install a holding tank system as a replacement wastewater system on property located at 18 Neighbors Way, off Assembly Point Road, in the Town of Queensbury, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 767 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health will hold a public th hearing on Monday, August 6, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, to consider Arthur Binley and Lee Golub-Binley’s sewage disposal variance application concerning property located at 18 Neighbors Way, off Assembly Point Road, in the Town of Queensbury and bearing Tax Map No.: 226.15-1-29 and at that time all interested persons will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish the Notice of Public Hearing presented at this meeting and send a copy of the Notice to neighbors located within 500 feet of the property as required by law. th Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: BOH 12, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED IT ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns and enters Regular Session of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. th Duly adopted this 16 day of July , 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES: None ABSENT: None REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 2.0PUBLIC HEARINGS TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY TO QUEENSBURY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 768 NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: JULY 6, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING OPEN SUPERVISOR STEC-This has been in and out of the news a lot and actually this transfer has been something that has been discussed on and off by the Town Board for many months now. We set this public hearing two weeks ago for tonight. This involves a half acre piece of property that the Town currently owns. We got it in a property swap about a year ago now from QEDC and then we carved up the parcels that we needed for the rescue squad and for the park and ride lot and this left over piece now. In September of last year we had authorized a transfer of this piece back but we never completed that because actually in that resolution it said it was good for one hundred and eighty days. The idea being that we didn’t want to transfer it back if the deal didn’t happen now maybe we would want that half acre, so we were holding it. Obviously, we are well beyond a hundred and eighty days from last September. Of course, obviously the events of the last few weeks and as a matter of fact tomorrow a public announcement is expected to be made but it looks like we do have committed project now on the connector road. What this would allow and I understand this is the last piece of the puzzle that needs to be accomplished is to conduct this public hearing on the transfer of this half acre back to QEDC who in turn in the property closing will transfer that to BBL/ Tribune- that entity. So if there are any members of the public that would like to comment on this public hearing on proposing the property transfer back I just ask that you raise your hand and I’ll call on people one at a time if there are any. Mr. Salvador JOHN SALVADOR- Good evening SUPERVISOR STEC- Good evening MR. SALVADOR- I think I read in a newspaper where the Glens Falls IDA is objecting to the Pilot Program that’s being put together on this project SUPERVISOR STEC- That is not true unless that has happened in the last few hours COUNCILMAN STROUGH- That was another project John MR. SALVADOR- A different project SUPERVISOR STEC- Different project, thank you though. Is there anyone else that would like to comment on this public hearing? Alright, any Board Member comments before I close the public hearing? Okay, I will close this public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY TO QUEENSBURY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION RESOLUTION NO.: 329, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, by Resolution 451 of 2006, the Queensbury Town Board resolved to transfer a portion of its property located adjacent to the new West Glens Falls Emergency REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 769 Medical Squad comprising approximately 1.43 acres to the Queensbury Economic Development Corporation (QEDC) to be used for economic development purposes in exchange for (1) a 0.49 acre parcel of property located across from the Connector Road on Luzerne Road; (2) a non-exclusive stormwater easement; and (3) a non-exclusive 5’ green space easement, and WHEREAS, the Town and the QEDC have discussed the proposed project on Luzerne Road and have determined that it is in the best interests of the Town to transfer the 1.43 acre parcel to the QEDC in exchange for (1) a non-exclusive storm water easement and (2) a non-exclusive 5’ green space easement, and th WHEREAS, on July 16, 2007, the Town Board duly held a public hearing pursuant to §1411 of the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law to discuss the proposed transfer to the QEDC, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that, after due deliberation thereon, the Queensbury Town Board hereby determines that the 1.43 acre portion of the property known as tax map parcel number 309.10-1-83.1 is currently vacant and no longer required for use by the Town, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further determines that the transfer of the aforementioned property to the QEDC is in the public interest and will maintain and promote economic development in the Town since it is the intention of the QEDC to transfer such property to BBL Tribune, LLC and such entity intends on constructing a 66,000± square foot office building on such parcel and the adjoining lot, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby declares that the maintenance and promotion of economic development, an increase in employment opportunities and the potential increase in tax revenue within the Town, and the receipt of a non-exclusive stormwater easement and a non-exclusive 5’ green space easement, is adequate and fair consideration for the transfer of the real property to the QEDC, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and approves the transfer of a portion of its property known as tax map parcel number 309.10-1-83.1 and located REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 770 adjacent to the new West Glens Falls Emergency Squad comprising approximately 1.43 acres to the QEDC to be used for economic development purposes in exchange for: 1. A non-exclusive stormwater easement, covenant and restriction in a form acceptable to the Town Supervisor and Town Counsel over the property currently owned by the QEDC and known as tax map parcel number 309.10-1-84.1, which will provide stormwater drainage facilities that will: A. be built and maintained by the Town, at its expense; and B. be sufficient to meet all the stormwater drainage requirements for the Town’s Park and Ride Facilities to be constructed on the Town’s retained property; and 2. A non-exclusive 5’ green space easement located on the transferred property along the edge of the retained property where the Town shall have the right to install such lights as it may deem appropriate for the Park and Ride facility; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that such transfer to QEDC is contingent upon QEDC’s agreement that if the transferred property is not combined with the QEDC’s remaining Connector Road property and transferred to BBL Tribune, LLC for the specific economic development project described to the Town Board within 180 days of this Resolution, the QEDC will transfer such property back to the Town, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby grants a revocable license to BBL Tribune, LLC to use the property that the Town owns, and that is known as tax map parcel number 309.10-1-84.3, for the purpose of ingress and egress to property to be conveyed to and/or owned by BBL Tribune, LLC. Said revocable license may be revoked by the Town Supervisor without further Resolution of the Town Board, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Counsel to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution including the execution of any and all documents necessary to complete this transaction, including, without limitation, any REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 771 agreement in a form acceptable to the Town Supervisor and Town Counsel and the deed, real property transfer report and capital gains affidavit. th Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATIONAND AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTIES BETWEEN EAST DRIVE AND WEST DRIVE FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (LI) TO SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL 20,000 SQUARE FEET (SR-20) NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: JULY 5, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING OPEN SUPERVISOR STEC- Stu if you want to give a brief synopsis of the rezoning. SENIOR PLANNER, STUART BAKER- This is a proposal sponsored by the Town Board to change the zoning on properties between East Drive and West Drive on the north side of Luzerne Road from Light Industrial to SR-20. SUPERVISOR STEC- Okay, I will open this public hearing. If there is any members of the public that would like to comment on this public hearing of this proposed rezoning, I ask you to raise your hands. Okay, hearing none is there any Town Board comments before we close the public hearing. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- I just want to make a comment that I did drive over here, I did an aerial investigation. All of these properties located along side East and West are currently residential; there are about three vacant lots that haven’t been developed yet. They are all within this residential area. Now how this got zoned light industrial in the first place I don’t know. I’m one of the last people who wants to give up light industrial to residential; but in this case it made no sense at all for it to be zoned light industrial. It’s clearly residential, it’s clearly developed as residential and it’s clearly going to stay residential. COUNCILMAN BOOR- I’m in total agreement and you pretty much said everything that I was going to say. I’m really not in favor of going from residential to light industrial either but the very nature of the area as it’s developed right now pretty much dictates that residential is the only appropriate use so I’m comfortable with what we are proposing to do here. SUPERVISOR STEC- Since we have EDC Board Members, because this does get tracked and sometimes concerns are expressed about losing these types of zoned properties, light industrial in particular in this instance. However, in certain instances in the past when we’ve done similar rezonings the argument has been exactly the situation we have here the current use is residential and if it’s minimal in nature it’s the kind of thing the Board has supported in the past. But we are mindful of protecting our light REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 772 industrial base because that is where hopefully future job creation will occur. I too will support this. Are there any members of the public that would like to address this hearing? I’ll close this pubic hearing and entertain a motion. COUNCILMAN BREWER- We have to do a SEQRA first SUPERVISOR STEC- We have to do a SEQRA, I’m sorry. Stu, if you would walk is through SEQRA please. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PART 2 – SEQRA FORM SENIOR PLANNER, BAKER- Yes, we will walk through the SEQRA long environmental assessment form. 1.Will the Proposed action result in any physical change to the project site? NO 2.Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological, formations, etc.) NO 3.Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? (under Articles 12, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) NO 4.Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? NO 5.Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? NO 6.Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? NO 7.Will proposed action affect air quality? NO 8.Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? NO 9.Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? NO 10.Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? NO 11.Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? NO 12.Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? NO 13.Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? NO 14.Will proposed action impact he exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14(g)? NO 15.Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? NO 16.Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? NO 17.Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? NO 18.Will proposed action affect public health and safety? NO 19.Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? NO REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 773 20.Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? NO SUPERVISOR STEC- So, that gives our negative SEQRA declaration. RESOLUTION ADOPTING SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATIONAND AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTIES BETWEEN EAST DRIVE AND WEST DRIVE FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (LI) TO SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL 20,000 SQUARE FEET (SR-20) RESOLUTION NO. 330, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board is considering amending the Town Zoning Ordinance and Map to rezone the following properties located between East Drive and West Drive in Queensbury from Light Industrial (LI) to Suburban Residential 20,000 Square Feet (SR-20): 308.12-1-8 308.12-1-9 308.12-1-10 308.12-1-11 308.12-1-12 308.12-1-13 308.12-1-14 308.12-1-16 308.12-1-18 308.12-1-19 308.12-1-20 308.12-1-21 308.12-1-23 308.12-1-24 308.12-1-25 and WHEREAS, the current 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan recommends retaining the residential character of these properties and this neighborhood, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 774 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 §265, the Municipal Home Rule Law and the Town of Queensbury Zoning Laws, and WHEREAS, the Town Board duly conducted a public hearing concerning the th proposed rezoning on Monday, July 16, 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 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 the following properties located between East Drive and West Drive in Queensbury from Light Industrial (LI) to Suburban Residential 20,000 Square Feet (SR-20): 308.12-1-8 308.12-1-9 308.12-1-10 308.12-1-11 308.12-1-12 308.12-1-13 308.12-1-14 308.12-1-16 308.12-1-18 308.12-1-19 308.12-1-20 308.12-1-21 308.12-1-23 308.12-1-24 308.12-1-25 and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 775 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 §265, the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to publish a certified copy of the zoning changes in the Glens Falls Post-Star within five (5) days and obtain an Affidavit of Publication, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this amendment shall take effect upon filing in the Town Clerk’s Office. th Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATIONAND AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY ON QUAKER ROAD FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (LI) TO HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE (HC-INT) NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: JULY 5, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING OPEN REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 776 SUPERVISOR STEC- Alright Stu, if you want to give a brief background on this one as well, please. SENIOR PLANNER, BAKER- Actually the proponents of this project are here and I think can make a very brief presentation on the proposal. SUPERVISOR STEC- Sure, I told them… well, you know what I meant Vick. If you want to describe, essentially down on Quaker Road on the north side near the former Earltown properties for geographic reference people. You’ve got a proposed project that you have been working with us. I know the Planning Ordinance Review Committee and staff down stairs are very aware of it. You’ve met with the Town Board on numerous occasions and in order to make your proposed office park/retail park work you needed to rezone a portion of the property in the back from light industrial to highway commercial intensive. Is that about fair? So, anyways are there any members of the public that would like to address the Board on this proposed rezoning tonight? Again, the one before this one and this one were part of five that were identified by the Board and staff a month or so ago that we felt that were straight forward enough and had enough support that we could move them forward independent of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which is most of you are aware we are in the middle of our public hearing on that as well. We will conduct some more of that public hearing this evening and we did coincidentally receive approval from the Warren County Planning Board for their end so now the only one now the only one left to hear from is the APA. We should hear from them sometime in August. SENIOR PLANNER, BAKER- We don’t need to hear from APA on this. SUPERVISOR STEC- Oh, we don’t? SENIOR PLANNER, BAKER- No SUPERVISOR STEC- Whose the other one? There were two we were waiting to hear from. SENIOR PLANNER, BAKER- We heard from the Warren County Planning Board today on the Comprehensive Plan. COUNCILMAN BOOR- It’s not in the park is it? COUNCILMAN SANFORD- Yeah, part of it will be. COUNCILMAN BOOR- Is it? That’s the APA SUPERVISOR STEC- I think the APA needed to hear… forty-five days. Or was it the Park Commission? There was two. SENIOR PLANNER, BAKER- For the Comprehensive Plan it was Warren County Planning Board and the APA SUPERVISOR STEC- The APA, so anyways that problem, my point is that process separate from this is moving forward but we decided a month or so ago to move five projects forward and this is the fourth of the five that we are considering. So, with that said is there any member of the public that would like to comment on this proposed rezoning? Any Town Board Member comments who want to add. COUNCILMAN BOOR- I just have one. On page six of twenty-one, it says will any mature force over a hundred years old or other locally important vegetation be removed by this project? Will the hundred year old Elm tree be removed? It is probably the biggest in Queensbury. You can’t miss it, it’s the biggest. VICK MACRI- I believe that is within the regulated wetlands- federal wetlands. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 777 COUNCILMAN BOOR- Alright, so you have no intension of cutting that down. That’s what I’m getting at. MR. MACRI- You are throwing something at me, I’d have to locate it but it’s the one right in front that you are talking about? COUNCILMAN BOOR- It is not a show stopper it’s huge it is to the left…. MR. MACRI-Left of the…. COUNCILMAN BOOR-A majority of what you could do anything with. SUPERVISOR STEC-This may answer some of Roger’s concerns you actually pointed this out in the past. We are just looking at the rezoning itself tonight. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I want to make sure it says no. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I am not sure that Elm tree is your project going to affect that? MR. MACRI-I believe that is within the federal wetlands and it won’t be affected. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It is not a big deal I would just hate to see it get cut down just because it is easier to cut it down. MR. MACRI-Why don’t we make note of that when we go in for site plan review we will identify it and work with you to make sure that it doesn’t happen. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thanks Vick. Any other board member comments or questions? COUNCILMAN BREWER-No. SUPERVISOSR STEC-Any comment from the public on this? COUNCILMAN BOOR-One other thing this is more for Stu. On Page 14 16B. It says size and acres and they are referring to the pond it says 12.7 and yet this is Army Core Wetland not a DEC wetland isn’t 12.4 the threshold for DEC Wetland. COUNCILMAN BREWER-What number Roger? COUNCILMAN BOOR-Page 4 of 21, item 16B. It says size and acres and they are referring to a pond that says 12.7 and yet they show this as an Army Core Wetland. SENIOR PLANNER, BAKER-That’s correct. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I know isn’t the threshold where DEC gets involved potentially 12.4 acres? SENIOR PLANNER, BAKER-I don’t know offhand the DEC threshold. MR. MACRI-DEC has already reviewed and had taken a non-jurisdiction on that. COUNCILMAN BOOR-When we go through these things and I see things that don’t make sense. MR. MACRI-We have a letter from DEC. SENIOR PLANNER, BAKER-To my knowledge DEC doesn’t have jurisdiction over properties… COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s my point. That at 12.4 they can have jurisdiction. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 778 MR. MACRI-We reviewed that with them we have a letter from them. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay, good enough thank you that’s all I have. SUPERVISOR STEC-Any other comments from the public? I will close this public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PART 2 – SEQRA FORM SENIOR PLANNER, BAKER-Keep in mind in this case the proposed action is the change of zone only. The subsequent development of the project will be subject to site plan review and further SEQRA review at that time by the Planning Board. 1.Will the Proposed action result in any physical change to the project site? NO 2.Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological, formations, etc.) NO 3.Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? (under Articles 12, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) NO 4.Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? NO 5.Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? NO 6.Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? NO 7.Will proposed action affect air quality? NO 8.Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? NO 9.Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? NO 10.Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? NO 11.Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? NO 12.Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? NO 13.Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? NO 14.Will proposed action impact he exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14(g)? NO 15.Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? NO 16.Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? NO 17.Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? NO 18.Will proposed action affect public health and safety? NO 19.Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? NO REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 779 20.Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? NO SUPERVISOR STEC- Okay, so our resolution concludes a negative SEQRA declaration. I’ll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION ADOPTING SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATIONAND AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY ON QUAKER ROAD FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (LI) TO HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE (HC-INT) RESOLUTION NO. 331, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board is considering a request by Forest Enterprises, Inc., to amend the Town Zoning Ordinance and Map to rezone a portion of its property bearing Tax Map No.: 303.15-1-25 located on Quaker Road, Queensbury from Light Industrial (LI) to Highway Commercial Intensive (HC-Int), and WHEREAS, the current 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan recommends large scale commercial uses in this neighborhood, 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 §265, the Municipal Home Rule Law and the Town of Queensbury Zoning Laws, and WHEREAS, the Town Board duly conducted a public hearing concerning the th proposed rezoning on Monday, July 16, 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 acknowledges that the future proposed development of the subject property will require additional SEQRA review by the appropriate local boards, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has considered the conditions and circumstances of the area affected by the rezoning, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 780 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 owed by Forest Enterprises, Inc., bearing Tax Map No.: 303.15-1-25 located on Quaker Road, Queensbury from Light Industrial (LI) 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 §265, the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to publish a certified copy of the zoning changes in the Glens Falls Post-Star within five (5) days and obtain an Affidavit of Publication, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this amendment shall take effect upon filing in the Town Clerk’s Office. th Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 781 NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ENTERING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 328A INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby enters into the Queensbury Board of Health. th Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2007 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: None QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE FOR ROBERT SAMMLER NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: JULY 6, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING OPEN SUPERVISOR STEC- For the public, we’ve gone back to the public hearing for the sanitary sewer disposal variance for Robert Sammler, 323 Cleverdale Road. You are seeking a 3500 galloon holding tank on property there, correct? MIKE BURKE- That’s correct. SUPERVISOR STEC- The public hearing was opened, it’s still open. If there are any members of the public that would like to comment on this, I’d ask people to raise their hand. I’m sure the Board is going to have questions. With that said, we’ll open it to some Town Board questions for you. Roger, I know you said you had a couple of … COUNCILMAN BOOR- I misplaced the map that he gave us. SUPERVISOR STEC- Want to borrow mine, here COUNCILMAN BOOR- Thanks. Is the system you have there now failing? MR. BURKE- Yes, it’s backing up COUNCILMAN BOOR- Okay, is this a year around residence? MR. BURKE- That I’m not a hundred percent sure, but I don’t believe it to be a year around residence, no. COUNCILMAN BOOR- You are not the… you don’t live there? REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 782 SUPERVISOR STEC- Your name for the record. MR. BURKE- Mike Burke SUPERVISOR STEC- Mike Burke and your relation to the applicant? MR. BURKE- Contractor SUPERVISOR STEC- Okay, you are the contractor COUNCILMAN BOOR- What kind of contractor? MR. BURKE- What kind of contractor? COUNCILMAN BOOR- For a septic system MR. BURKE- Yeah, we are doing the septic system COUNCILMAN BOOR- Are you aware are they going to try and enlarge this house or expand it or change it? MR. BURKE- No, the only thing we have to do with the house is we are putting in new peers underneath the house. There is no crawl space or basement there. It’s just on peers. COUNCILMAN BOOR- So there is going to be no elevation change or excavation that would create a basement? MR. BURKE- No COUNCILMAN BOOR- And you are seeking a variance from the hundred foot set back from the well MR. BURKE- The well, yeah. COUNCILMAN BOOR- And 3500 galloon, that’s for a four bedroom house isn’t it? MR. BURKE- Yes. COUNCILMAN BOOR- This house is a four bedroom house? MR. BURKE- It’s… COUNCILMAN BOOR- It’s 37 X 20 with a porch on it MR. BURKE- They call it four bedroom, it’s more like a camp COUNCILMAN BOOR- My issue being… I’m inclined perhaps to approve this but there would be a stipulation that no expansion could take place with an approval. MR. BURKE- With an approval, we have no plans to expand anything COUNCILMAN BOOR- You’re not the owner. MR. BURKE- Yes COUNCILMAN BOOR- I’m just telling you that’s my personal feeling. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels. You have a house here that is 37 X 20 with a porch on it. You are calling it a four bedroom and my concern is that we grant a holding tank that would accommodate legitimately four bedrooms and then they come back and say well we have the capacity to take care of this kind of effluence that we would like to expand, we’d like to put another story on it, we’d like to refurbish it, or we want it turned into a year around residence, which holding tanks are not suppose to be provided for. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 783 MR. BURKE- I can’t speak on behalf of the owners as far as his plans for the future are going to be. COUNCILMAN BOOR- I guess that is my dilemma. I have no problem approving this but do you have the authority and do you want go forward if there are caveats and requirements placed on it that might restrict future development, can you speak to that? MR. BURKE- I don’t want to overstep my bounds. I would have to speak to the owner first. Is there any way we can do an approval and if there is an issue come back before we do any work with the septic system? COUNCILMAN SANFORD- I think we better put it off to our next meeting COUNCILMAN BREWER- It’s better off if the owner knows right up front before we do anything… COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Not only that but there are some discrepancies between what our code asks for and what you are offering. For example, a four bedroom residence requires a four thousand gallon capacity in the tank and you show a septic tank and a holding tank? MR. BURKE- Yes COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well the septic tank can’t be a septic tank; it’s got to be a holding tank COUNCILMAN BREWER- Or a septic tank COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Or a septic tank that has been outfitted to be water tight MR. BURKE- Okay COUNCILMAN STROUGH- And you have to show that. In addition to that, you have to show the hundred year flood plain because it can’t be within a hundred year flood plain. MR. BURKE- Okay COUNCILMAN STROUGH- And you don’t show the alarm system MR. BURKE- There is an alarm system going in it COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Okay, but you don’t describe it COUNCILMAN BOOR- In order to approve it… COUNCILMAN STROUGH- And describe what kind of alarm system you are going to put in. You don’t put any of that in. In other words, you should refer to 136-11 of our code when you come back. Like Roger said we’re more at ease with a holding tank if there are some assurances that the structure is going to stay the same. I mean you can alter it but I mean the size of it we don’t want altered. MR. BURKE- Okay COUNCILMAN STROUGH- We don’t want someone putting in a holding tank and then putting in some huge four bedroom place. MR. BURKE- Okay COUNCILMAN STROUGH- We don’t want to give them permission to do that. But, refer to 136-11 of our code and it will describe the kinds of things we will be looking for next time we see you. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 784 MR. BURKE- Okay COUNCILMAN BREWER- When do we want to put this off until? SUPERVISOR STEC- What we can do is three weeks from tonight we can just leave the th public hearing open and come back to it August 6. If you want to let the owners know and they might want to… COUNCILMAN SANFORD- If at all possible if the owners could attend the meeting it might be helpful so that we are not in the same predicament again where you can’t speak for them and we have issues. MR. BURKE- Yeah, I can’t say what their plans in the future are. COUNCILMAN BOOR- Yeah, and also I don’t see where the holding tanks or anything are on this particular drawing. I mean there might be another drawing but I don’t have it. COUNCILMAN BREWER- There is another small one Roger COUNCILMAN BOOR- And the lot is forty feet by what MR. BURKE- The lot is forty by eighty five COUNCILMAN BOOR- So you have a forty by eighty five foot lot MR. BURKE- Yes, eighty foot is on the bottom. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- And what is the location of the high ground water? MR. BURKE- The location of the high ground water I would have to double check on that for you. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Because the code says the holding tank may be subject to severe floatation forces and area of high ground water so that has to be determined. MR. BURKE- Okay SUPERVISOR STEC- Alright, so we’ll leave this hearing open and we’ll come back seven o’clock on the sixth of August. Three weeks is our next regular meeting. COUNCILMAN BOOR- Sorry, but we’ve got to have that SUPERVISOR STEC- Rose, you’ll make sure that gets carried over to the next agenda. DEPUTY CLERK MELLON- I will. SUPERVISOR STEC- Alright, we’ll leave this hearing open. MR. BURKE- And you need the specs for the pump SUPERVISOR STEC- Yes. If you’ve got any questions you can talk to Dave Hatin and he should be able to answer them. MR. BURKE- Thanks SUPERVISOR STEC- Thanks. Alright, so we’ll leave this public hearing open and I’ll entertain a motion to come back out of the Board of Health. PUBLIC HEARING TO REMAIN OPEN- TO ADDRESS AT TH AUGUST 6, 2007 MEETING REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 785 RESOLUTION ADJOURNING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: BOH 13, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED IT ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns and enters Regular Session of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. th Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING LOCAL LAW NO.: ___ OF 2007 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER ENTITLED “TRAPPING” NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: JULY 6, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING OPEN SUPERVISOR STEC- I will open this public hearing. If there is any members of the public that would like to comment on this public hearing I’ll call on people one at a time. I ask that you just raise your hand. JOHN SALVADOR- Good evening. With regards to the prohibition, people obtain licenses from the State of New York to trap and they do trap in our area within 500 feet of a residence. They are on State land; they are not on private property. What do these people have to do with regard to this ordinance? Is this another permit, another… SUPERVISOR STEC- No, this is a prohibition. COUNCILMAN BOOR- There’s no permits COUNCILMAN BREWER- It’s not allowed MR. SALVADOR- It’s a prohibition SUPERVISOR STEC- Its local in the Town of Queensbury prohibition, above and beyond the licensing procedures MR. SALVADOR- Definitely, the 500 feet? SUPERVISOR STEC- From a residence MR. SALVADOR- Highways? SUPERVISOR STEC- 150 COUNCILMAN BOOR- 150 feet REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 786 MR. SALVADOR- 150 feet, all of them apply. All of this land is within those distances. People trap beaver, muskrat, otter, mink- people get licenses for this from the State of New York, would they be prohibited then? COUNCILMAN BOOR-They would be prohibited by local law, the State doesn’t prohibit them. MR. SALVADOR-Are they are going to be in violation of your Ordinance. SUPERVISOR STEC-They would be in violation of the Town Code. COUNCILMAN BOOR-They would be in violation of local law John. MR. SALVADOR-Of your Ordinance? COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yes, local law. MR. SALVADOR-What do they do to mitigate this? COUNCILMAN BOOR-Did you read it. It is a two hundred and fifty dollar fine what is your question. MR. SALVADOR-If they are permitted by the State and by the way the wildlife belongs to the State of New York not in the Town of Queensbury. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Correct. MR. SALVADOR-They regulate it. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Correct. MR. SALVADOR-Would these people be in harms way if they did this. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-John we are concerned about children and pets in an increasingly higher density community known as Queensbury. We want to prevent what happened a while back I think it was Warrensburg where a dog was killed in a trap. Again, we are not telling people they can’t trap we are trying to make it safer for an area that is no longer as rural as it once was I think it is pretty simple okay? SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you. Anyone else, yes sir. FRANK WALTER-RESIDENT OF QUEENSBURY-I am not quite sure why we are here. I have been a trapper for over fifty five years I have trapped in and around Queensbury for over forty years. I have never come across anything quite like this, this proposed local law quite honestly. This is sort of legislation that one expects from Long Island, and downstate and New Jersey in fact, there has been such legislation down there in the past. Trappers are an easy target we are few in number we are misunderstood I love that. We have a little group here tonight and I think if you look at we are the average ages of something over fifty. I think by and large we are a very responsible group are members have been officers of state trapping organizations, local organizations; we are a pretty good group I think. Again, I don’t quite know where this is coming from. This Town has a lot of weighty matters that you are considering. Planning, Zoning, and Economic issues I don’t understand why we are dealing with this. I question the increasing reports that are sighted as a basis for this law. A risk of injury I think these are very spacious arguments. I am not aware of what reports the Town has, but perhaps there have been some. This seems more like some kind of a personal quest. When this thing first surfaced I did send a letter to each of the board members not to sure anybody read it that was back in May. I tried to set out some of my thinking in particularly with respect to the law as I understand it. I was a little dismayed that I received no response from any on the board. Not so much as a thanks for sharing your thoughts I heard nothing. You say this has been discussed at workshops, boy we would of loved to have attended the workshops and enter into a discussion with you people before it came to a hearing here. In any event I think probably than rattle on I can read a couple of passages REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 787 from my letter, which are the basis of my comments here tonight. I don’t want to get into the distance requirements the nitty gritty of the bill to much because we could talk about that all night. I think I go to the core of the issue that is the fact that trapping is addressed in the Environmental Conservation Law, Article 11, Fish and Wildlife. Specifically title eleven of that article, which deals with trapping. It is clear to me from reading the law that the various court decisions that wildlife is deemed I think there is no question on this that wildlife is deemed to be owned by the State and that the control of wildlife including the preservation, propagation, and manner of taking is reserved to the State. I appended to my letter some excerpts from the conservation law. As a historical note three downstate counties Long Island, of course, Rockland, and perhaps Orange in the past have enacted laws restricting trapping in their counties. The State took those counties to Court and was upheld. The State challenged those laws and they prevailed in court because the authority to regulate trapping is granting only to the State. Interestingly enough this concept is reinforced by the fact that after that court decision upholding the State the State Legislature has considered a bill for a number of years I think since about I better not give a date for many years. A bill that was introduced in the legislature by one Pete Granis we always referred to it as the Granis Bill. Assemblyman from Manhattan…that sort of fits and that bill I can read you a brief passage from the memorandum that accompanied the bill. Justification currently three counties across the State have enacted local laws to impose more limits on the use of traps throughout their counties. The State has challenged the laws pasted in Suffix and Rockland Counties and has been upheld in court because the authority to regulate trapping on other than county property is granted only to the State. Legislation is necessary so that the counties may place limits. The point is and this bill relates to municipalities regulating the use of traps. In a nutshell the bill has gone nowhere in the State Legislature. It made it out of the Environmental Conservation Committee several times I believe it never came to a floor vote nothing ever happened in the State Senate so that bill went nowhere. The point is if it was felt in order for municipalities to legislate with respect to trapping we have to amend the law that’s what this was all about. Conversely if that’s the case municipalities do not have the authority to regulate trapping that’s what this bill was trying to do it hasn’t become a law yet. We do have extensive regulations on trapping we are regulated with respect to the size of traps where we can place them. That is all set forth in the Trapping Regulations in the Fish and Wildlife Law. I have to come to the conclusion not being a lawyer, but knowing enough of the law to be dangerous that any action by a municipality to try to restrict trapping in any fashion is arbitrary and is contrary to the State Law and precedence. I think it only invites unnecessary litigation that where I would see it going. Of course, this Town seems to be comfortable in litigation of late in one case or another. That is my principal point, but I have a couple other curious things. The notice of hearing, which you read speaks about property owners I took that as a typographical error or something. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Can you tell us what pages you are going to read from the resolution. MR. WALTER-The notice of public hearing the very first page. COUNCILMAN BOOR-We don’t have that is what I am trying to tell you. MR. WALTER-I thought it was read when we first started out. COUNCILMAN BREWER-She just read the introduction of the resolution. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Go ahead, sorry. MR. WALTER-The hearing would be held concerning the adoption to amend the code by adding new chapter Trapping. The proposed law would prohibit property owners from placing or setting traps. SUPERVISOR STEC-Right. MR. WALTER-I don’t think that is what we are talking about, but that is the way the notice read. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 788 SUPERVISOR STEC-Just to interrupt and try to answer that you are correct that is in the resolution that is the first whereas. The local law itself …. MR. WALTER-Doesn’t speak about property owners. SUPERVISOR STEC-Does not mentioned property owners. MR. WALTER-That’s a little glitch. SUPERVISOR STEC-The body of the local law, of course, is where the rubber meets the road here. You are correct that the intent is certainly not property owners it is about trappers. MR. WALTER-A couple other points I would just like to address briefly. The definition of traps is not appropriate the definition lumps everything into one. It is not the definition that the Environmental Conservation uses or the trappers in general, which is generally, accepted usage. Body gripping traps are separate from foot gripping traps they are two different tools. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It is too bad that you don’t have a copy of the resolution do you have the full resolution. MR. WALTER-I have a copy of the proposed local law. COUNCILMAN BOOR-They discussed more than body gripping traps. MR. WALTER-There is a definition I am just saying it try’s to cover everything in one sentence. Beyond that the limit of 500 feet is extremely excessive. That’s about a tenth of a mile, that’s a long way. I would mention I have done nuisance control work for beaver in the Town on a private basis. I’m not a Town employee or an agent or anybody. On Ridge Road at Tom Kubricky’s, at Dave Kruczlnicki’s and at Frank Parillo’s marina on Dunham’s Bay and in all cases I would have been within 500 feet of a house or a neighbor’s house or something. It simply would have been impossible to use the tools that you have to use- cage traps, box traps don’t work for beaver. Also, the proposed law is oblivious to the difference between the land and water trapping. Land trapping we all have concerns with. There is very little opportunity to land trap in Queensbury anymore because we to built up. Every year I go out and look at a place and say gee there I caught a fox in that field last year and now there is a house there. I think the responsible trappers are very careful on land about staying away from residences and worrying about pets and everything else. West Mountain Road used to be prime fox habitat and now of course that is all gone. Water trapping is a different matter when we are dealing with muskrat, mink. Small traps are used; they are about four inches in diameter. Little traps certainly nobodies going to get hurt and they are set down in the water. The biggest thing you have to worry about is people stealing your trap. We are blessed in this Town with lots of water. We have Halfway Brook; we have Dunham’s Bay, Warner Bay Clendon Brook. There is opportunities all over, particularly for muskrat and mink trapping and these limits being proposed here will flat out put us out of business. They just prohibit us. So, I think that is basically what I have to say. I’m mostly concerned with the legal authority that the local municipalities have to enact any legislation restricting trapping. I honestly, from what I know, I follow these cases over the years over the years pretty carefully, I’ve discussed this with the State Trappers Association, with their executive director and everybody is of the same mind that you just can’t do it. You might try to do it on some basis of public safety but I don’t think that is going to fly in the courts with such a law we may all end up talking to Judge Kroggman, I don’t know. COUNCILMAN SANFORD- You did a nice job outlining the same issues that some of us wrestled with here. You are correct on pretty much everything that you said. Really it comes down to just what you just recently said- the proposed local law is being adopted for the expressed purpose of the public health safety and general welfare of the citizens. That is the basis that we have to enact this. We have no right or no authority to enact regulations relating to the hunting and trapping of wildlife. You correctly stated it. I do have an appreciation for all that you said and it’s not a right/wrong issue in my mind. Its one of opinion and in your course of your statements, I think often you basically made many of the REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 789 points that we went through, which is when you talked about when you used to trap a fox and now there is a house there. Increasingly, the density within Queensbury has grown, it is highly residential. We have to balance the rights of trappers with the public safety of no longer a very rural community. It is certainly not a situation where I can sit up here and say I support this and I’m right. On the flip side I can’t say that hearing you that you are right and I’m wrong on this. I think it is a matter of what’s appropriate and we thought when we put this together we were dealing with this in a way which was reasonable compromise. Again, the goal here is not to be punitive to people who trap but to make sure that we are looking for the best interest of small children who often will play within 500 feet of a residence as well as pets and dogs that every once in awhile get caught in a trap. We think that we want to make sure that we are being proactive in addressing those concerns that we have been hearing about, reading about. It’s the responsible thing to do. Yet, it doesn’t necessarily take away or diminish your arguments. So, I just wanted to say that. MR. WALTER- I understand what you are saying, by the way, my understanding is that dogs are supposed to be on a leash in this Town. COUNCILMAN BOOR- And on their own property. MR. WALTER- Okay. Small children, our biggest problem with children are theft of traps. I think you have to differentiate between land and water. There is a big difference. I think we all have to- we all have to be very careful on anything on land. COUNCILMAN SANFORD- You sound like an extremely responsible person. I’m sure that most of the people that trap are. However, if I recall the incident that took place a few years ago, the trap was not identified. It was in close proximity to where people were active. I believe the dog might of received some kind of a spike through his skull. I think this took place, if I’m not mistaken, up in Pack Forest up in Warrensburg. Do you recall reading about that? MR. WALTER- I’m aware of that situation. Let me have the chance to address that. It wasn’t a spike through the skull, but he dog was running loose. When that occurred it was several years ago and I thought oh, boy, because we all trap in Pack Forest. I thought oh, boy, here comes trouble. Pack Forest is associated with Syracuse University. I thought oh, boy. It’s a school of Forestry and they consider that thing and the following years there were signs up at all the entrances to Pack Forest and the signs said take note: this is a multiple use area, it’s used for fishing, hunting, hiking, trapping and all these activities so be aware. Putting folks on notice and all dogs shall be on a leash. That’s how they handled it up there, that’s Syracuse University. Even better, last fall I came out of the woods in Pack Forest and there was a conservation officer at my truck and we stood there talking. I kind of had to give him a little lesson in trapping because I don’t think he knew too much about it and as we were talking a truck was coming down the road and he said oh, excuse me. He went out and he stops the truck. There was a guy running his dog. I guess he didn’t want to walk the dog so he’s running his dog. The dog was loose and he is riding along in a pickup with the dog trotting along beside. He took that guy to task and told him to put the dog on a leash. I think that tells you something. COUNCILMAN SANFORD- Was that trap identified by the owner? MR. WALTER- Yes it was. COUNCILMAN SANFORD- I guess the Post Star got it wrong. They stated that it was not…. MR. WALTER- Well, you may be thinking of one last fall where the trap did not have a tag on it. But in that Pack Forest, that fella is a professional trapper, he’s a good trapper and he was well off the road back in the woods and the dog was running loose. Matter of fact, I understand, he subsequently met with the women who owned the dog, had her over to his house, they talked and I think before it was all done the women went away satisfied. That’s my input. I hope we don’t have to see each other in court. SUPERVISOR STEC- Yes, sir. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 790 MR. WALTER- Thank you SUPERVISOR STEC- You’re welcome. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Board on this hearing? Yes, sir AL WEST- My name is Al West. I’m a thirty-eight year resident of the Town of Queensbury and I’m a fifty-five year trapper. Much of what Frank had to say I completely agree with. The ultimate responsibility for regulating trapping falls to the State; that is pretty clear. In the past there have been incidents in Rockland County and in Suffolk County. Eventually the State Attorney General’s Office challenged that and won. I would think that if this law were to pass here in the Town of Queensbury I would surmise that would be challenged here. I do have to raise the question about public safety. I don’t know of any cases of where a child has been captured in a trap. I would also like to point out to you that I attended a meeting today in Herkimer that the State is in the process of enacting even further regulations in regard to body gripping traps. I, as a member of the State Trappers Association, am deeply involved in that. I strongly urge you to reject this motion. Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC- Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Board on this… yes sir? JIM COMSTOCK- My name is Jim Comstock. I’m from Wilton. SUPERVISOR STEC- Good evening JIM COMSTOCK- I guess that most of the points have been covered. I guess I may have a few questions here. Myself I’m a trapper of forty years. I’m what they call a NWCO- a Nuisance Wildlife Control Officer and I don’t know that if anybody on the Board is aware that they are even licensed in the State. How is this going to affect NWCO’s, I know I’ve read in there that says agent of and it doesn’t specify what agent would be affected if some thing like that were to go through. The things that I respond to is I look at myself as being somebody who helps people out of problems. When people have a problem with a bat in their bedroom in the middle of the night I come and take it out or if they have a rabid raccoon that is trying to scratch their way into the house or something like that I take care of those things. Likewise, I take care of beaver problems, muskrat. I do a lot for New York State DOT, Warren, Washington, and Saratoga Counties. If a law like that was to go into effect and be passed kind of indiscriminately, I don’t know if anybody has looked at all the ramifications of how it might affect not just me in my business but it’s how it affects the people who call me that have problems. There is an incredible amount of that that goes on. I just have a couple of questions, maybe for Mr. Boor. I guess you were the one who initiated this? COUNCILMAN BOOR- A neighbor of mine, yeah. He came to me and asked if I would put it before the Board. So, yes I brought it to the Board. MR. COMSTOCK- Okay. Were you aware of the Suffolk County and Rockland County situations before or the dispensation of those cases? COUNCILMAN BOOR- No, but I was aware through our attorneys because as it was pointed out earlier in the conversations we didn’t approach this from a trapping standpoint but from a public safety. It was made very clear to us that we couldn’t approach it from the manner that you are referring to at which these other counties also approached it. MR. COMSTOCK- Right, to date I would imagine that no children have been injured in Queensbury due to trapping. COUNCILMAN BOOR- Not that I’m aware of MR. COMSTOCK- Okay, for the record I just would reiterate the points that have been made that no where have I heard in the United States at least in fifty years and maybe longer that there have been any incidence between people and traps. There have been no injuries at REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 791 all. What we are dealing with is a hypothetical situation. You are looking to pass legislation to preempt a possible problem but you stand a better chance of getting struck by lightening several times than having your child caught in a trap because it has never happened. As far as incidents between dogs and people they do happen on a rare occasion. As Al West stated the State of New York is going through a process right now where in a forty-five day period of comments about the regulation that just ended the other day. If I asked you a question a would you know what running full setwas? COUNCILMAN BOOR- Absolutely not. Would you know a connibear from a number two long spring? SUPERVISOR STEC- I would that one. MR. COMSTOCK- Okay COUNCILMAN BOOR- I know what certain types of traps are but again this is not what the intent of this is. This is a public safety issue. MR. COMSTOCK- Right COUNCILMAN BOOR- There are some... In part B it says body gripping traps shall mean a trap that grips a mammal’s body or part, including but not limited to steal jaw, leg hold, paddle leg hold traps, connibeartraps and snares. Cages, box traps and common mouse traps shall not be considered body trapping with regards to your licensing and nuisancing on B- the provisions of this local law shall not prohibit Federal, State, County or Town employees or their dually authorized agents from placing or setting traps for the purpose of protecting general health, safety and welfare. The provisions of this local law shall not prohibit Federal or State employees or their dually authorized agents from placing or setting such traps in the interest of protecting threatened or endangered species. So there are… and we’ve got others I can keep reading. Your type of vocation would not necessarily be impacted. MR. COMSTOCK- Okay. I’m not just concerned about that particular thing just because it’s what I do. I do also some fur trapping and of course… COUNCILMAN BOOR- Well that might be…. And again that would only possibly be impacted if you were within a hundred and fifty feet of a trail or five hundred feet of a house. MR. COMSTOCK- Right. The reason I asked about the different types of traps and what they are and perhaps the different types of sets, the only way a person can make, I believe, and intelligent decision on whether to pass something like this or not is if you are very well versed in all the aspects of the trapping. There are a lot of things that go into this and mere distance that you would lay out has nothing to do with whether a trap would be dangerous or not dangerous. COUNCILMAN BOOR- I don’t think that is being argued. I think it’s the reasonableness of an expanding population in which was once a very rural area and we are essentially just trying to keep the trade, the hobby, the vocation that you enjoy separated from a more intense residential environment. Just so anybody in the audience… nobody’s got anything against trapping or trappers. This has nothing to do with that. It has to do with public safety. Nobody is trying to take your right away. I don’t… MR. COMSTOCK- But that is what it does. The thing is it’s not even the trap or even the size of the trap its how it is set and all kinds different things that go into it that can make either a trap either benign or dangerous. COUNCILMAN BOOR- Well, you are not necessarily helping your case when you make a statement like that. Your ability to responsibly trap does not necessarily mean that all those people that trap are responsible. So as much as the two gentleman that got up and I’m sure the others in the audience that are here because they are interested enough in this topic to be here. I don’t think anybody is suggesting that they are not responsible. But make no mistake, you may not represent the entirety of those who trap and it is the one irresponsible trapper REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 792 that we are concerned about. It’s not those who are responsible. It’s the public safety aspect. It’s not the trapping. MR. COMSTOCK- By passing legislation to do that you are not necessarily going to stop that person who is irresponsible from setting a trap anyway and all you are going to do is endanger and limit the people who were responsible. COUNCILMAN SANFORD- Well, you put a stop sign where you feel you need to have a stop sign even though some people may run the stop sign COUNCILMAN BOOR- You can’t make them stop COUNCILMAN SANFORD- Well, what we’re trying to do is make a statement regarding to public safety that we feel is responsible and in the best interest of an increasingly growing community. Again, I appreciate your point of view. It is certainly not a zero one proposition. I don’t know what more we can say about it. I appreciate where you are coming from. COUNCILMAN BOOR- We all do. This was not something we rushed into. This was brought to me four or five months ago by this individual. We have been looking at it in various forms and various approaches, what’s responsible, what’s appropriate, what’s reasonable, what’s unreasonable? MR. COMSTOCK- I guess as a trapper I would know more about what would be reasonable and what would not be reasonable from the standpoint of what traps are dangerous or how they could affect people or animals better than anyone else because I do it. Yet, I don’t know… had you conferred with anybody from the trapping community to find out. For instance, they are measuring muskrat traps at three and four inches. They pose no threat to anybody period. The only possibility of interaction is usually between a dog and a trapper and most of the time it is because the person who owned the dog violated the law and did not keep that dog on a leash. When you mentioned a few minutes ago about being on your own property, if you are on your own property with your own dog there is no problem. There is not going to be any traps on your property, but if your neighbor decides… COUNCILMAN BOOR- I find traps on my property all the time. So, come on help me out. MR. COMSTOCK-Well, I don’t know who they are or what they are doing COUNCILMAN BOOR- Neither do I and I actually only live about a half a mile from the gentleman who brought this to me I’ve dealt with it. I chuck them when I find them. MR. COMSTOCK- My point is if they are doing something illegal anyway they are not going to stop whether there is a law that says they can’t set a hundred and fifty feet. That would not change a thing. All that you are going to do is penalize the people COUNCILMAN BREWER- How about I make this suggestion Roger and the rest of the Board to maybe bring this to a head. Maybe this suggestion this gentleman’s made that we sit down with the trapper and have them help us make this law so that we can be responsible for them to. As it is I was ready to vote for this and now that I have sat here for twenty minutes and got an education I don’t know if I can support this. Only because for me I don’t know enough about what we are doing with this law with the State going to court against these other laws. I never knew about that. I’m not saying anybody did or didn’t. COUNCILMAN BOOR- No, and they are in the process… one of the gentleman, I guess it was Mr. West might of brought it up. The State is in the process of revamping laws regarding trapping. They have got to be five feet up and there has got to be signs or flags. It is not as if this is a foreign topic that just surfaced in Queensbury. COUNCILMAN BREWER- No, I understand that. COUNCILMAN BOOR- Tim, let me just finish COUNCILMAN BREWER- In the spirit of the law Roger I am with you. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 793 COUNCILMAN BOOR- Okay. Again, it is a public safety. COUNCILMAN BREWER- I don’t see that effectively serving that purpose though is what I am trying to say MR. COMSTOCK- Well, when you are talking public safety it’s generally talking people. The public is people. COUNCILMAN BOOR- Or pets MR. COMSTOCK- Okay but it is generally people so it is a non-issue with people. It only becomes a very minor issue between dogs and trappers. The two cases that mentioned were concerned with a 220 connibearset on land with what they call a bucket set. It is baited and it attracts dogs. That is the precise law that’s now being revisited by the State. There is going to be new regulations so that particular instance won’t happen again. That is the only two cases that you can name. COUNCILMAN BOOR- I can’t name any. MR. COMSTOCK- Yeah. COUNCILMAN BOOR- I read a host of them not necessarily all New York. It is not as if it doesn’t happen. MR. COMSTOCK- What also happens is in states like Massachusetts where they are very hard and they have a referendum and they take away the rights of the trappers. What it ultimately hurts is the municipality and it ends up hurting the landowner because the restrictions become so difficult that the trappers quit and then the animals don’t stop multiplying. Here I am an advocate of trapping for say for my business this is the best thing you guys do for me. The harder you make it on trappers I’m going to make tons of money because everybody is going to be calling me because we’ve got animals overrunning and we can’t do anything about it. In Massachusetts when you call a guy to do a beaver job you are looking at $500 to start. I charge $90. COUNCILMAN BREWER- Maybe you ought to move to Massachusetts MR. COMSTOCK- I’d love to. I was all set to go COUNCILMAN BREWER- No, I’m only kidding you SUPERVISOR STEC- Thank you sir. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Board on this public hearing? Mr. Tucker PLINEY TUCKER- 41 Division Road. I’m going to talk about money. Who is going to enforce this if you pass it? COUNCILMAN BREWER- Animal Control Officer COUNCILMAN BOOR- Animal Control Officer, it’s in the resolution. SUPERVISOR STEC- The Animal Control Officer MR. TUCKER- Will he get more money for doing it? SUPERVISOR STEC- No MR. TUCKER- Same COUNCILMAN BOOR- I think as these gentlemen pointed out it is a rarity. It’s not like its going to happen everyday. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 794 SUPERVISOR STEC- I don’t think he will be very busy. COUNCILMAN BOOR- Its not like it is going to happen every month- seriously MR. TUCKER- Yeah, I know. But if you ask the question, you get the answer. SUPERVISOR STEC- Yes MR. TUCKER- Thank you SUPERVISOR STEC- Thanks Mr. Tucker. Anybody else this evening on this public hearing? I’ll close the public hearing. Town Board discussion on it? COUNCILMAN BOOR- Want to go first Tim COUNCILMAN BREWER- Yeah, like I just said a minute ago Roger I’m with you with the intent of this for public safety. I just don’t think we’ve really nailed it down to serve its purpose. That is just my feeling. From the conversations and the comments that we have heard tonight, I think maybe we are just doing it to do it and I don’t think it serves a purpose as a written. So, I really can’t support it right at this time. SUPERVISOR STEC- Any other discussion? COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, I’m kind of torn but I keep thinking of the millions of acres of public land and private land that are well away from residences and road where trapping is still legal, still allowed, can still be done. I balance this with the public safety issue, maybe we have been fortunate and haven’t had a lot of local incidences of it but I think that sometimes you have to be proactive. I don’t see this as being so restrictive it is going to end trapping. It is going to limit it 500 feet from residences and 150 feet from highways and every where else will be allowed. I’m weighing in on favoring it. SUPERVISOR STEC- Rich COUNCILMAN SANFORD- I think I’ve made my comments already. SUPERVISOR STEC- Alright Roger COUNCILMAN BOOR- Yep, me too SUPERVISOR STEC- I got a little bit of knowledge with Department of Environmental Conservation. I am an outdoorsman and I guess I have the benefit of different perspective at the County level. I know an awful lot about Adirondack issues and Northern Warren County and the other counties in the Adirondacks and this is an important issue to them. That’s not to say that there is complete overlap between the Town of Queensbury issue and an Essex County issue but my personal opinion is I think that this is a little too restrictive. I’m not a hundred percent convinced that we have got the legal authority to do it either although certainly that is not my decision to make. That is somebody else’s. I’m not sure I’m in favor of it but… COUNCILMAN BOOR- What would you change with it? You said it was too restrictive so what would you delete? SUPERVISOR STEC-For starters if we are going to have one because I did say that I wasn’t sure that the Town should be in this business of regulating trapping. I know we are not regulating trapping. COUNCILMAN BOOR-We are not regulating trapping so please don’t misstate it is very clear…. SUPERVISOR STEC-I just tried to apologize for misstating it. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay. If you think it can be better tell me how it can be better. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 795 SUPERVISOR STEC-I think five hundred feet is certainly a lot where it came from is the firearms. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Discharging the firearm is five hundred feet. SUPERVISOR STEC-It doesn’t have to be five hundred feet we can change it. COUNCILMAN BOOR-The reason it is five hundred that is for public safety there is a consistency to it and again I would remind the public it is not like we jumped out of bed and just threw this thing together. There was a lot of thought that went into the distances and what we are doing here. I want to understand why you think it shouldn’t coincide with the safety issue of the five hundred feet that is for discharging of firearm. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Just for, to get everything in perspective my driveway is almost five hundred feet. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It is an eight iron okay. SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s the other thing, too. I know you can make the argument unless they are on their own properties dogs should be on their own leashes. You shouldn’t be on somebody else’s property without permission and that includes trapping. Obviously in certain cases there are people that are violating that. When someone is putting traps on property they don’t own and you are finding them on your property. Is it going to be difficult to legislate the correct behavior in all instances, it’s not, I don’t think we are trying to do that. I am not sure this is the right thing to do. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Roger how about we determine whether like somebody mentioned water trapping is that considered that’s a trap right so that wouldn’t be allowed. COUNCILMAN BOOR-According to this definition it’s a trap. That’s why I am asking for advice this isn’t as Richard said this isn’t a zero one if it can be made better fine. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Define those differences in the trapping believe me I am with you a hundred percent with the intent, but is it going to be effective I don’t think so. Maybe we determine where the traps can be such as the water traps maybe they can be allowed I don’t know. I don’t know if somebody told me the name of a water trap I couldn’t tell you what it looked like. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I don’t think that is important the name of it. COUNCILMAN BREWER-To have an idea of what it is. SUPERVISOR STEC-The other thing that I am bothered by I am not sure that we addressed the guy that does this for a living not so much from the guys need for him to make a living. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It is right here he can get authorization then he is legal it is right in there we didn’t just jump out of bed and do this. SUPERVISOR STEC-What is the board’s pleasure. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I think for the sake if we can make it a little bit better by talking to these fellows than we should do it. UNKNOWN-Is the public comment still open? COUNCILMAN BOOR-We can reopen it if you like. I have no problem reopening it. SUPERVISOR STEC-Do you have something you would like to add sir. Please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record please. I will reopen the public hearing. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 796 GEORGE GEDNEY-I live here locally. I have been involved I have been a hunting instructor for a long time my comment is this. I have been hunting bird dogs since I was fourteen years old. Right now in my kennel I probably have four or five thousand dollars worth of bird dogs it is my hobby I have hunted all over this area. My only comment is we all have had issues with traps it is a minor, minor issue. All I ask the board is get some information from the experts. The problems that the State is trying to address are going to make it safer for guys like me who run bird dogs. The trappers can’t tell me I need to have my dogs on a leash that is not what the law says they are addressing their sport. I just came back from a conference I believe that given the time and what the State is looking at trapping is going to be much safer for domestic pets, but you need to communicate with these folks they know what they are talking about. The things that they are talking about we are changing the height bird dogs don’t go five feet up a tree they are trying to address this. The proximity to dwelling and other things is not the issue it is these guys trying to come up with ways in their sport to make it safer for guys like me. I spent sixty seventy days a year running bird dogs I have run them all over the country. I know people that have gotten caught in little leg bolt traps you open them up the dog hops out. It is the bigger traps the land sets that are body gripping traps that are causing the problem it is relatively minor. The thing is they are working on it if they can work with you they will make it safer. The State is addressing it so is the whole Country. The issue is not proximity to a road it is just what these guys can do to make it safer. I have more invested in it than anybody, because I am out there everyday running my bird dogs. It has been in the Queensbury area and I am very familiar where this stuff is coming from. I have hunted in that area out near the river where the dog was killed for probably eighteen, nineteen years. I do know where they set traps and for most of the time they are trapping K-9’s, foxes and other things out there. Yes, there are trails out there some of the trails are on land that people are not suppose to be on, but they is just the way it goes it is a high intensity use area. I think most of the trappers are doing a good job at it that’s because I am out there all the time. I think maybe some of the trapping practices have changed and the State is addressing it there is no question they are addressing it. I think that the feedback from the pros will help you instead of just jumping at it. I am not picking on anybody trapping is a very tough hobby. The skills that trappers need is amazing and they are going to trap where the critters are. They are not going to trap in the middle of the Adirondacks where there is just nothing to trap that is not the object of it they are going to go where they are. In this day and age the more populated areas tend to draw them in. I live over in Stonehurst we are seeing coyotes all the time over there they are in my yard my dogs bark at them at night. That is just the way it is because we got stuff in our yards that critters like. We have streams we are out near stream beds and everything else and that is where they want to be so working with them would be a huge positive instead of just shutting them out. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-If I understand you correctly, you are saying that there will be an increase in trapping around residential houses now because that attracts the critters, as you put it. MR. GEDNEY-As it increases it is just the nature of how it goes. Anybody can drive around here and see deer and things in people yards turkeys everything else. Wildlife wants to be in these areas and that’s the idea. If you even changed the proximity and some of the trapping practices don’t change I don’t think it is going to better it much. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I don’t think he is insinuating we should put traps in our yard Richard by any means. MR. GEDNEY- No, I like the idea of just talking to these folks. They know what they are doing. COUNCILMAN BREWER- Yeah, I would agree MR. GEDNEY- And the State is even working with the trappers. They are going out and getting a ton of input from them and they are trying to come up with ways that the sport can continue, it can be safer, profitable and still the communities still have the abilities to manage these things. We just saw a washout on beavers over hear in Hadley, I can’t imagine the damage that is going to occur people got to pay for. So, a little patients; I’m not a REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 797 trapper, that is another sport but I think a little patients is going to help out everybody. That is really my comment on that. Sorry to take the time. SUPERVISOR STEC- Thank you very much. No, that is quite alright. Yes sir, if you would like to come back up to the mic- Mr. West. AL WEST- Just a quick thought- if you take in the Town of Queensbury 500 feet from a residence or 150 feet from a road what is left? Quite frankly the trapping and we talked earlier about the growing amount of population and the amount of houses in what not. I myself have discontinued canine trapping- trapping foxes because of that. I just don’t want to have the problems. Trappers have been forced to go out into more rural areas as a consequence. However, there is still a lot of… we just talked about water trapping and there is a lot of water trapping whether they be kids of people like us that trap muskrats and mink right here along Quaker Road, along Bay Road, underwater traps that will not adversely affect anybody. The final comment that I would like to make is that all of the things that I am hearing here are the rederick that I am hearing from the animal rights people down to the language that I see in this bill. That is all that I think it’s just a replay of the animal rights agenda. Thank you. COUNCILMAN BOOR- Al, if you could stay there for a minute MR. WEST- Sure COUNCILMAN BOOR- This has nothing to do with animal rights. This has nothing to do with… we are not concerned about whether or not the beaver gets trapped, whether or not the fox gets trapped. We’re concerned about dogs and children. I would hunt. I have no problem with people that trap. This isn’t an animal lover’s issue. That is not what this is about. Just so you know, I don’t know where we are going to end up with this but jeez don’t mischaracterize it as that because there isn’t anybody up here MR. WEST- I beg to differ with you sir. You are saying that we are going to severely restrict trapping because of what is somebody gets caught. Does that mean that you turn around and restrict cars because somebody might get hit or you restrict hunting because somebody might get shot? Nothing is one hundred percent. COUNCILMAN BOOR- We are already doing that Al. You can’t discharge a firearm within 500 feet of a house so we already do that. So we already have stop signs, we already have street lights. We do have measures that regulate each and every one of the examples that you have given. All we are trying to do is… it is a public safety issue. I appreciate every argument that you have made and I am softening up on it. When you start characterizing us as animal lovers, that’s not working for ya, it’s not working for ya buddy- I’m telling ya. MR. WEST- No, I said… I didn’t say that, what I said was that much of the language in this bill is a replay of the animal rights agenda even down to the wording. COUNCILMAN BOOR- Well, give me an example. I need an example because… MR. WEST- I’ll give you an example, the definition of body gripping traps. COUNCILMAN BOOR- Right MR. WEST- The definition of a body gripping trap is far different than including anything that strikes any part on an animal. A body gripping trap is a … COUNCILMAN BOOR- We have body gripping trap, but what are you talking about strikes an animal? That is not in here, what are you talking about. MR. WEST- What I am saying is that you are including things as body gripping traps that are not. COUNCILMAN BOOR- Can you give me an example REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 798 MR. WEST- And I’m giving an example, a steal jawed, leg hold trap is not a body gripping trap. COUNCILMAN BOOR- It doesn’t captivate the animal? MR. WEST- We are getting things twisted around. A body gripping trap captures the animal and in most instances quickly dispatches an animal. A foot gripping trap catches and animal strictly by the foot and is a restraining device. COUNCILMAN BOOR- So we can eliminate body gripping and… extremity gripping MR. WEST- So, my point is that I have seen this before in legislation that is introduced in the State, it is just a standard replay. Thank you SUPERVISOR STEC- Thank you sir. Mr. Wild MIKE WILD- Good evening gentlemen. My intent wasn’t to be here to weigh in on this matter tonight. But as a tax payer I feel I have to. The biggest concern is the legal challenge that might result and may cause the Town money and taxpayers’ money like myself. The secondly, I see no reason why we wouldn’t cooperate with the trappers to make sure the law is written in a reasonable way that accomplishes what everybody trying to do. Thank you. COUNCILMAN BOOR- Mr. Wild you opened up an excellent opportunity to go out into another area. So, I want to do this because for anybody who read today’s Post Star we got a Bravo today. The reason we got the Bravo is because we didn’t cost the taxpayers’ money with a lawsuit. It is very important for the record that people understand that the contract that we sign with a new law firm has a ceiling on it. So there are no additional costs to these lawsuits, they have a cap. I’m certainly not encouraging people to go out an sue the Town of Queensbury but there is no additional revenue that the taxpayers’ pay when a lawsuit comes up. There is a cap on the legal fees. The notion that it is going to cost the taxpayers’ more money is not correct in this year because there is a cap on the legal fees. MR. WILD- That’s great and that is good negotiating but why spend the resources defending something that may be easily challenged? Apply those resources to something that may be more relevant to the needs of the Town instead of defending a proposed law that may be challenged very easily and is also a feel good law. We haven’t had an issue or a problem in the Town, so we are basing it on public safety when we haven’t had a concern. COUNCILMAN BOOR- Well, we haven’t had an incident… MR. WILD- What I am saying is that we haven’t had an incident yet, there may have been some concerns but the point is take our resources and apply them to something that really applies and will add value to the Town instead of defending something that is a projection. Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC- Thank you sir. Yes sir DON HARRINGTON- Most of you people know me I’m Don Harrington. You two guys over here have been safety. Most trappers that I know if they are going to use land traps even water traps they have to get permission from the landowner. I know where you are coming from on the man that wanted it over on Sunnyside, he thought I was hunting, I was trapping muskrats. Not on his side of the road, under a bridge, no big deal. I’m the only one going to get hurt going down in there if anybody got hurt. I don’t understand your….. COUNCILMAN BOOR-One of the things about being a public servant…. MR. HARRINGTON-If came after me thought I was hunting on his property I was not hunting on his property. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I am just telling you it is our responsibility when people come to us…. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 799 MR. HARRINGTON-Most people have to get permission. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-That is an interesting point we did discuss that. I am not an expert by any means on this. What I found out maybe you could clarify it is that when you are dealing with agricultural land believe it or not there doesn’t have to be permission.to do trapping on it. MR. HARRINGTON-Most farmers want to know about everybody I know they will give you permission to trap their land and I think you have to have permission. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Again, I read there was an article written on trapping in the New York Times and I brought it up and I remember….. MR. HARRINGTON-There you go New York Times again. This isn’t New York this is the Adirondacks you know. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Dan actually concurred that there are peculiarities in terms of the conservation laws and the permission issue. That in certain cases a person can go and put traps in this case agricultural land without first getting permission from the landowner is that correct. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It gets very complexed it goes back to federal subsidy law and stuff. MR. HARRINGTON-You are still dealing with a safety issue. If you have five hundred acres that is around your house you want nobody to trap it you post it. Or recreation areas if you don’t want them on Town of Queensbury property you post it No Trapping whatever. Most of the Town of Queensbury property has posted signs no use after dark, no hunting, this is the way it has been that I know of. Where is the safety coming in here I don’t know of anybody who has got hurt on a trap yet. Maybe I have or one of the trappers might have got caught by themselves, but no one hurt I don’t understand where you are coming from that is all I can say. SUPERVISOR STEC-I am not sure Richard about the trapping, but I do know that the DEC law there are peculiar differences between the way that permission the requirements are handled for ATV’s verses snowmobiles. That is something that is very peculiar that snowmobiles have a lot more free rein going on other people’s property than ATV. I don’t know nuances may be on the trapping law. There are odd differences between two things that are seemingly related. MR. COMSTOCK-I guess you kind of step back and you try to analyze kind of what is going on and what it is all about. Since there have been no incidents virtually recorded anywhere in the United States in recorded history between people this is all about dogs simply put this legislation is just for dogs. The thing is if you say, oh its only 500 feet what is the big deal? When you talk about an area that is gaining in population where houses are increasingly closer together, 500 feet… if there is two houses that are 1000 feet apart there is not trapping there, a fifth of a mile. If you look at what the square footage is for an acre, how many acres would it take for two houses at a 1000 feet apart, where would you put a trap? Where in the Town of Queensbury has anyone looked at a map to see the density to describe which areas would…? COUNCILMAN BOOR- You could trap all over my property, I have ten acres. MR. COMSTOCK- You don’t allow it. COUNCILMAN BOOR- Well, I’m just telling you. It is posted, but it is of little use I’m afraid. MR. COMSTOCK- Alright, but it would take considerable acreage you couldn’t just have a building lot and set a trap for even a muskrat or a mink or a raccoon in the conventional sense. I think a lot of times people to don’t realize even what a trap is or how people… when you are a trapper and you are done setting your traps they think well this huge thing with REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 800 teeth that chops their legs off and all this stuff. The way you spring a trap is that you step on it after you set your trap and you haven’t caught anything and you are going to pick it up you just step on it. The thing pops under your feet, the end. They’re not these huge menacing powerful devices and there are so many things that have been done. Would you know what off set jaws are, center swiveling, they make padded jaw traps; there are all kinds of things that they do that if you actually catch an animal by accident. The last thing you want to do is hurt it. I got a call a few years ago on the River Road down along Bacon Hill and the coyotes were killing sheep. They had already killed ten sheep. He called me and the first thing he said to me we have got to do something; I’m not going to have any left. They are just taking them one at a time. I said I will be there in a few days. He lost number eleven while he was standing in the barnyard on a foggy morning. So, I said obviously I can’t waste anymore time, I’ll come right up. The point was I said to him, the first thing, are there any dogs on your property, do you have a dog, do you have any pets, do you have any neighbors that have any pets, are their any neighbors with pets that stray? He said one neighbor had a dog that was perhaps a mile away and the dog was so old that it never went from the house. I said in knowing that I will set the traps only because I am taking your word that I’m not going to have an interaction with anything. The last thing anybody who sets a trap wants to do is catch a dog, anybodies pet. I have a dog I wouldn’t want to have my dog caught or catch my dog. I think that when people look at things that happen, especially with trapping, they try to hold trapping and us to standards that nothing else is held to. We have lost two space shuttles, how much can you do to actually enact, to get the result that you want by passing legislation because its not going to stop somebody who you say is already trapping on your property now illegally what’s to stop them anyway? SUPERVISOR STEC- Thank you sir. Anybody else? Yes, Mr. Walter MR. WALTER- We are going to beat this thing to death COUNCILMAN BOOR- Just for politeness please don’t repeat anything that you have already said. If you’ve got some new points to make okay MR. WALTER- I wanted to mention something that I forgot. Back in May when I sent you all a letter and I included excerpts form the Fish and Wildlife Law and I highlighted certain passages and this is one that happens to be important. There is a section number here. I would hope your Counsel would have reviewed all of this stuff. Limitations of powers of boards of supervisors and county legislative bodies, so this applies to counties but I would think that by extension this would apply to towns. That’s what I think. It reads “boards of supervisors of counties and county legislative bodies shall not except as expressly provided in the Fish and Wildlife Law exercise powers vested in them by any other law to provide for the protection, preservation or propagation of fish, game and wildlife, or prescribe or enforce collection of penalties for the violation thereof. COUNCILMAN BOOR- See, we are not doing that. MR. WALTER- Well, maybe not COUNCILMAN BOOR- Read it again, we are not doing any of those things. MR. WALTER- It says you cannot exercise powers vested in that legislative body by any other law, like… COUNCILMAN BOOR- It is the finish of the sentence that kind of ruins it MR. WALTER- To provide for the protection, preservation, propagation of fish, game and wildlife COUNCILMAN BOOR- This law isn’t to provide for the protection, propagation of fish and wildlife. Okay MR. WALTER- Okay, I take your point, but I do believe that you simply do not have the authority to legislate REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 801 COUNCILMAN BOOR- Under that law we do not, but under that’s not the law that we are enforcing- its public safety law. MR. WALTER- Right and I do not believe that that is going to trump the fish and wildlife law. That is going to be the issue COUNCILMAN BOOR- I understand, you’ve made good points MR. WALTER- Just as a practical point, you are talking about some kind of restrictions on trapping. If I’m running a long mink line, I might be running through eight or ten counties, and eight or ten towns and two or three counties. Let suppose every town had their little quirks in their laws. I would have to have my lawyer in the side seat telling me well, now you are in this town and this is the rule here. It would become… its chaos that’s the word I used in the letter, in my May letter. It would just become chaotic if every municipality could have their own little legislations regarding trapping. It would be… COUNCILMAN BOOR- I get a sense, I’m not trying to be humorous, but I get a sense that the passion you have for this would make you very aware if there were peculiar laws in one municipality that didn’t exist throughout the State otherwise you wouldn’t be here because you would pay very close attention to this kind of stuff. MR. WALTER- It would be like every town set their own speed limit on the Northway. That’s the analogy. COUNCILMAN BOOR- That’s a federal highway MR. WALTER- That’s the analogy though COUNCILMAN SANFORD- Well, when you get close to Clifton Park the speed limit drops ten miles an hour. MR. WALTER-That is a federal requirement. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I know, but the point he is trying to make is because the population density when you are on a federal highway you come into a population density it typically drops to fifty five miles per hour because of the density. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Public safety. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Public safety is what about. MR. WALTER-I think public safety is a specious argument quite honestly you guys are stretching a point. Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you Mr. Walter anybody else. RICHARD BROWN, QUEENSBURY-43 years have been trapping for a few years. I keep hearing public safety children and dogs. I think the best thing the board could do is get rid of this, drop it let it go. Start up something that says we should have a leash law should abide by it. Right down here on the bike path we have signs no dogs. Every time I ride it, walk it, dogs, dogs, dogs. What do I see next to them kids riding bikes being chased by dogs. If you want public safety in the Town of Queensbury do something about the dogs. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you Mr. Brown anybody else on this public hearing. I will close this public hearing for the second time this evening. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED - NO ACTION TAKEN SUPERVISOR STEC-What is the board’s druthers here? COUNCILMAN BREWER-I will make my last statement. I think we ought to kick back at least for a couple of weeks and have a chat with the fellows that discussed this. Four main REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 802 people have talked tonight about traps and trapping and maybe get a better education and maybe get a better law for what we are trying to do. SUPERVISOR STEC-As far as tonight goes you are looking for no action. COUNCILMAN BREWER-No action. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I could go with that, but I am not going to let this thing go away. I think certainly none of us here know everything. I would be willing to talk to each and everyone of you guys that came up. It is an interesting point because I am not sure what gentlemen it was that came up and asked if we knew the differences between these traps. The relevance there is apparently somebody believes that maybe some of these traps shouldn’t be allowed within five hundred or a hundred and fifty feet. I would be very curious to know if anybody when we have these meetings is willing to say that for the record that they don’t believe that this type of trap would be safe within five hundred feet or a hundred and fifty feet of a public highway path or bike trail. I will entertain that we table it we will have a discussion on it and we will go from there. SUPERVISOR STEC-What I have heard and I have just heard John in my ear unless Richard disagrees in an effort to move this on to what I thought would be the longer of the two public hearings is that Rose the public hearing is closed we won’t take any action on this. In essence what we will do at a later date we will have another workshop perhaps at that time we have got their names. If you all want to either call Town Hall or whatever and give us contact information for you all we would like you at the table so that if we pursue this in the future you can participate in that dialogue in a workshop is that fair to everybody. So we won’t take action on it the public hearing is closed on it, which means that if we meet in a workshop and we craft something new and we don’t ever touch this again then that’s okay, too that is how it works. That is what we will do tonight with that said why don’t we move to the next public hearing Rose. RESOLUTION ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO.: ___ OF 2007 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER ENTITLED “TRAPPING” RESOLUTION NO. 332, 2007 TABLED BY RES. 333,2007 INTRODUCED BY: WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: __ of 2007 to amend the Queensbury Town Code by adding a new Chapter entitled "Trapping” to prohibit property owners from placing or setting traps, deadfalls or other devices commonly used to capture or kill wildlife within 500’ of a residential structure or within 150’ of the boundaries of any public highway, school district property, playground, park, daycare facility and any marked or designated trail, walkway or path located on public property, and WHEREAS, this legislation is authorized in accordance with New York State Municipal Home Rule Law §10 and Town Law §130, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 803 th WHEREAS, the Town Board duly held a public hearing on Monday, July 16, 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.: ___ of 2007 to amend the Queensbury Town Code by adding a new Chapter entitled "Trapping” 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. th Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: NOES : ABSENT: RESOLUTION TO TABLE 332, 2007 RESOLUTION ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO.: ___ OF 2007 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER ENTITLED “TRAPPING” RESOLUTION NO.: 333, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED IT ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby tables Resolution No.: 332, 2007 Resolution Enacting Local Law No.:___ of 2007 to Amend Queensbury Town Code By Adding A New Chapter Entitled “Trapping” th Duly Adopted this 16 day of July, 2007 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING -CONTINUATION OF COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLA N REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 804 PUBLIC HEARING OPEN SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay this public hearing has been opened for two weeks. Stu did a presentation we took an awful lot of public comment two weeks ago. As, I mentioned previously we did hear today from the Warren County Planning Board that they approved this. This also was referred to the APA and the APA has forty five days so sometime in the next couple weeks we should be hearing from APA. This has been going on for a very long time we had at least four public hearing sessions last fall before the Town Board took that and made some of our own changes. Then reconstituted a public hearing, which again we had two weeks ago. Our first session we left it opened we took some written comment we gave people the opportunity to provide written comment to Stu Baker. What I would like to do tonight is to take more public comment we will not be acting on this tonight again because we need to wait until we hear from APA hopefully we will get that in the next two, three weeks. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Dan one of the things I have had several phone calls with people that have had some input on this. One of their concerns were in a night like tonight where we are going to be talking about this that we would consider closing this thing. I think it would be great that we announce when we think the final hearing will be. Not tonight in other words if we continue this and let's say the next regular meeting….. SUPERVISOR STEC-We could do that. COUNCILMAN BOOR-You might say we will have one more this can’t go on forever yet I don’t want people not to know that they missed their opportunity either. SUPERVISOR STEC-Frankly, I was contemplating closing it tonight. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay. SUPERVISOR STEC-For the reasons that as I previously stated. We took an awful comment last fall on it we didn’t change it a whole lot between then and now. We are going to take two more hearings on it. This has been the most heard public hearing series in a long time. Frankly with that said we also know that we have this Part B or Appendix hanging out there. Frankly if we do anything more than a very minor change to the draft we really need to advertise a whole other public hearing. Not to discourage public comment and say you can talk we are not going to change it unless there are true subsistent changes. If we can close it tonight adopt something in August and then come back again with Part B and perhaps some of the little changes that weren’t so big that we stop the process, but were more than the typographical or dramtical change we can incorporate them so that’s where I was going with it. COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s fine. SUPERVISOR STEC-If the board doesn’t have too many problems with that. If we could have this public hearing open forever and accomplish nothing with that said the public hearing is opened it was opened a couple weeks ago it is still open now. If there is anyone that would like to address the board on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan I would prefer to take comment from anybody first that didn’t speak at the last meeting especially since that last public hearing on traps went an hour and fifteen minutes. Be happy to do that I think there are other people like Mr. Wild that wanted to talk on that. Mr. Wild do you want to go first I will put you on the spot I know you are here for that although your comments on the other were appreciated. Good evening Mr. Wild I didn’t mean to douse you with water and say come on up, but you are very familiar with all of us so I am sure you understood what I was trying to say. MIKE WILD-I am very familiar with the plan and thanks I have been involved since the beginning with the visioning process and alike and I’ve realized that the Board has a very difficult time with this. There is a lot of special interest that have been voicing their opinions and their concerns from environmentalists and antigrowth groups to developers and to landowners who are trying to preserve their space and vision in terms of what they REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 805 want. It is very difficult. The concern I have is the awareness of the public on what the end result of this plan may be. My purpose tonight is to really try to caution the Board in moving forward without a real good understanding of what this plan will result in. I know what the goals are. Everyone understands clearly what the goals are, but what is the end result of this plan and what will it mean to our community. I know that I have spoken in front of this Board before about landowners’ rights and preserving their ability to retain the value of their land. I have been assured and reassured numerous times by members of this Board that that won’t be the case. The case is that they have the ability to put X number of houses on their property before and they will be able to do it again. I now understand that is true through the process of helping rewriting the new zoning. The problem I have is do people really understand what that means? Mr. Strough and I have sat next to each other on that committee to rewrite the zoning PORC Committee. We have had numerous discussions which I enjoyed. The problem is that when you take this land and it is relating to the conservation subdivision design. What that means is that you actually reserve anywhere between fifty percent or more of your property as open space, as free space that’s not going to be developed, you won’t put a house on. It is going to be open land or its going to be treed land or whatever it may be but you can’t put houses on it. The end result is that you are going to take the same number of units and put it on half the land or one third of the land which is really going to mean the development that is going to occur in the Town is going to be Townhouses, attached housing, apartments, what have you. That being the case I don’t believe the people that wanted to slow the growth in the Town of Queensbury will be satisfied with the results of this plan. Basically the marketplace is saying that we want affordable housing. The populations on the demographics are turning towards more of an agent population. So they are not going to want the large land, the big homes. They are going to look for these town homes, these attached housing. The end result is I think we are going to spurt even more development in the Town which will create more congestion and put more pressure on the roads and the people who want bike lanes. That is all great, I’m not saying that is a bad idea but we really need to focus on do you truly understand what the end result is going to be. If I’m right, and I think that we have had some discussions in the past about what the marketplace is demanding, and let the marketplace determine what’s going to happen with property values and what’s being developed that this Town may hit another growth spurt because there is going to be retirees. This is a desirable Town, no two ways around it. This Town… we were very successful in terms of making this Town a great place to live. I believe that the Town and the Comprehensive Plan that as it’s produced may end up with the result that no one wants more growth, high density, higher traffic and the like. So, again, I caution the Board. Make sure you truly understand what the end result is going to be. The last time this process happened, about ten years ago, it was going to slow growth, larger lots. That’s basically what happened. Now we are saying we are going to go to smaller parcels, more attached homes. The marketplace is going to scream for stuff like that. This Town is going to continue to grow and where’s the economic, the industry to back it up to support it? COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Interesting and kind of an addendum to what you are trying to say here. Stu just gave us an e-mail that shows the population of the Town currently at 27,543 verses the 2000 census of 25,441. So that is already an 8.2 percent growth in six years. The growth in Queensbury has been significant so that reinforces what you said, Queensbury is a desirable place to live, reinforces what you said. We need to look at what we are doing as far a zoning and we will. MR. WILD- Thank you John. I doubt that people truly understand. It sounds like we are going to have less development, more open space; which is the basis of the plan. I’m not sure that is what’s going to happen. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR STEC- Thanks Mr. Wild. Is there anybody else that would like to address the Board this evening on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan? Yes Ma’am. KATHY BOZONY- Hi I’m Kathy Bozony from the Lake George Association and I specifically would like to speak about the possibility of creating a shore land or waterfront overlay district and I am looking at not what is being recommended in recommendation B14 where there is an expansion or a relocation of a structure in decrease of permeable area or an increase in floor area ratio, but I am looking at possibly REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 806 utilizing Lake George Park Commissions regulation stating 500 feet from mean high water mark. I would like to see this happen throughout the entire watershed. With site plan review for this development we’ve seen in Queensbury, in Bolton, in other towns complete clear cut of properties that have gotten building permits with no site plan review and no direction to the contractors, the developers and the homeowners how to do a better project. How to try and retain vegetative buffer, keep a filtered view if that is something that can be done and really try to diminish the degradation of water quality by sediment flowing into the water. You all have probably received recent slide show of sediment flowing into the water and if you think about what is attached to that sediment with negative and positive ions you’ve got pollutants and nutrients attached to all that sediment that has gone into the lake. I talked to a lot of homeowners that live in these small bays on Lake George specifically and their bays are no longer clean. They are not firm surfaces that they can walk on, they have algae in them. I have talked to homeowners that their kids have to go everyday and clean that dead algae out of their nd swimming area. A couple of the things that I did comment on for the July 2 public hearing that I was not able to attend is 1) the waterfront overlay district, 2) I think the dark sky standards, I think the rest of the Lake is really looking at that as well for not just for the benefit of the residence but for the wildlife living in the area. Recommendation B13 is septic system testing when properties in critical environmental areas or these waterfront overlay districts are transferred from one owner to another. I’ve heard that some of the public says that this will cost homeowners quite a bit of money. It may be true. The purpose is to ensure that wastewater treatment systems provide adequate environmental protection within these areas around the Lake. The recommendation right now is saying that they would like to put this as a medium term action which means that within the next three to five years COUNCILMAN BOOR- Like to see it quicker than that MS. BOZONY- Yes, the Board of Health will look at it as a possibility to see whether or not it is even doable. I would recommend that this is immediate or short-term action which take place over the next one to two years. Along with this waterfront overlay district again I am looking at some changes in the wording and possibly looking at the Lake George Park Commissions section 6453.8 critical environmental areas where they write “the commission hereby designates the waters of Lake George, all land lying under such waters and within 500 feet of the mean high watermark of such waters and wetlands located adjacent to the waters of Lake George and all that land 500 feet of such wetlands to be critical environmental area pursuant to section 617.4”, and this is part of the SEQRA. As an aside, as this Comprehensive Plan is possibly adopted, I would really like zoning to follow suite and look at four areas that I have seen as I review applications in the past two years that have what I call a little bit of ambiguity and there is areas for the regulations to… makes it very difficult for the Zoning and Planning Boards to actually make their decisions based on what is written in the regulations because of the way it can be interpreted. May I go through these four issues? COUNCILMAN BOOR- Sure MS. BOZONY- It is not part of the direct Comprehensive Plan but I would like it to be somehow included in the future redevelopment of the Plan. The floor area ratio calculation, I think that basement square footage should be included in the far calculation if the walls of the basement are greater than the crawl space, five feet for example. This would eliminate the ability to emit portion of a building project all elevations. If you look at the building permits, often that basement elevation is not even in the drawings and even when they appear in front of the Planning Boards they’ve got a first and second floor and no basement elevation. As it turns out that basement elevation is a full third floor on the house. If the full intent of why the floor area ratio was created to control the amount of living space on these small parcels on the water than it is being misinterpreted. Basically the regulation states right now that the far calculation includes all floors of the primary structure and covered porches including the basement, but it is misinterpreted. The other calculation as well as the far is on the impervious percentage calculation. It is suggested that only the portion of the land related to the construction site on the shore front parcel, the land that is on the water be included in the calculation verses other adjacent parcels that are added to it for change in the impervious surface percentage or REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 807 far calculation. Height of building on the shoreline; I saw on the Comprehensive Plan you are readdressing to tuck into the actual terrain of the parcel. The height of the building should be representative of the existing land and not the final grade constructed, which often elevates the height of the approved building. The intent of the building height restriction on lakefront small lots is to maintain the character of the neighborhood and to reduce visual impacts from the water and land surrounding Lake George. The only other thing is somehow accuracy of the applications that are submitted… it would be really nice if they are more fully reviewed and if they are not accurate or they are not complete they are not put on the agenda. I just thing that some… COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Yeah, before you leave Mrs. Bozony, I think we did not coordinate this but it is interesting. Last week I had sent to the members of this Board as well as the Planning Board and Zoning Boards the kind of issues you just brought up; which were some of the issues that were of course addressed at the watershed conference, which the LGA was part of as well as the Fund for Lake George and the Lake George Conservancy and others. Here is what I have been looking for in feedback. I have gotten some very good feedback already. If within a CEA, and we want to clearly define the Lake George CEA. The following changes would trigger a site plan review, any increase in impermeability, any increase in building height, building size, floor area ratio, any septic system alteration, any change in on-site structure location and you may have some other ideas so I will forward you this. In addition to this, I said also if its located in a CEA, like Lake George CEA, any subdivision proposal would be required to go through SEQRA possibly type I, we could define it that floor area ratio would include basements into the calculations, exactly what you said, that the floor area ratio, matter of fact should be reduced to .20 instead of .22 because it is being abused at .22. Only the lot upon which the structure is located would be used to determine a floor area ratio not lots that you buy down the road; shoreline buffering standards as proposed at the recent Lake George Watershed Conference will be defined and opposed and I already sat down with Drew Monthie and said listen we’ve got to draw up a model ordinance, not just Queensbury, but Bolton and the other ten municipalities I believe, that are on the shores of Lake George also adopt these model ordinances. Also clearing standards, as you suggested and as proposed at the Lake George Water Conferences should be defined and those standards imposed and storm water standards as proposed at the recent Lake George Watershed Conference will be defined and proposed and anything else. This is… we have already got a start, an interesting start, with some interesting feedback coming back from the Boards generally in support of this. Some have said, I think we’ve already go the law on the books we are just ignoring it; which may be the case. We’ve got to sit down and analyze this. It is interesting how we are all on the same page here. MS. BOZONY- That’s great. I think that everybody will benefit and in the long run I don’t think it is going to cause property owners a lot more money. The value of the property will remain constant with the water quality COUNCILMAN STROUGH- And if the environmental quality of the Lake degrades everyone goes down the drain with… MS. BOZONY- Exactly, and a lot of these measures are relatively simple and relatively inexpensive and it is a matter of really sharing some information. I know I have shared a lot of information with you and I am spending a lot of effort trying to get it out to as many people as I can COUNCILMAN BOOR- I think the entire Board is in favor of everything that you have suggested and I know that Don Sipps spoke at the last meeting and a Planning Board Member Tom Seguljic has been working on the grey issues. One of the nice things that we have got going for us is that there actually is a survey in a CEA that used to be on the old map of the 500 feet which I want to see back on there. I would love to see everything that you mentioned as well as Mr. Strough and Don Sipp and Tom Seguljic incorporated what some of the construction occurs on lakeside properties… its beyond belief how it gets through our planning department. We had one recently that was brought to my attention where it was suggested that this thing was well above the twenty eight feet and it sure was and then they said we are going to raise the elevation and I’m thinking to myself well you know there is septic issues there because it takes a year for soil to be REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 808 considered native soil. I am wondering how they are going to put a septic system in on soil that isn’t considered native. So, we’ve got a department that is not looking at all the cylinders when they are putting these applications together and I am hoping that we can limit that kind of development. It does nothing for the Lake, as you pointed out. Everybody thinks they are going to be a good steward of the Lake and they are going to build a big house. The bottom line is there is such a thing as overdevelopment, there is such a thing as too much storm water. The very muck and slime you are talking about is a result of that. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Like Roger, I have been dealing with community issues for ten years and I have been attending your meetings and other meetings for ten years. Like I said at the watershed conference, it is about time we stop talking and started doing. MS. BOZONY- That’s great, I am very excited to see your support and we will all be in this together because it is something that is a watershed wide issue. It is very critical. Again, you all have a lot more on your plate with just Queensbury but this is Lake George and you’ve got Sunnyside and Glen Lake as well with the same types of issues going on. COUNCILMAN BOOR- It reminds me, I was going to bring it up under Town Board Discussion but since you are at the microphone and you are certainly interested in this nd type of thing, and I would offer this in invitation to anybody in the public. On the 22, a Sunday we are going to have a meeting with regards to the waste water management district on Rockhurst that is going to be at the firehouse in Cleverdale. I think it starts at 9:30 in the morning. SUPERVISOR STEC- I think you are right, 9:30 COUNCILMAN BOOR- And I certainly would welcome anybody who has concerns about the Lake and its health to see what is being proposed because I think it is a pretty good project. It is not the same as running a large sewer pipe up there but there is down sides to that also. I would encourage people to attend that. It might be a model that we can extend to other areas of the Lake. MS. BOZONY- It is definitely a start in an area that’s very compromised for awareness. COUNCILMAN BOOR- And I know that parts are going to require annual inspections, mapping because so many times as a Board of Health somebody will come up to us and say well, we want to put a new system in. They have no idea what system they have now or where it is located. It makes it very difficult for us to make intelligent decisions. Hopefully, this type of mapping and procedure will be of benefit in the long run. MS. BOZONY- Thank you very much SUPERVISOR STEC- Thank you Ms. Bozony. Is there anybody else that would like to address this public hearing on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, any first timers? John go ahead COUNCILMAN BOOR- I’ve got to tell you John, I got some complaints about the amount of time you spent the last time JOHN SALVADOR- Let them come forward COUNCILMAN BOOR- I hear ya SUPERVISOR STEC- The floor is yours Mr. Salvador MR. SALVADOR- The representative from the LGA is exactly right. I believe we already have in our ordinance a shoreline overlay district; we just don’t call it that. We have in our zoning ordinance Article 6. The title of Article 6 is Environmental and Performance Standards. These apply across the Town. A section of that Article 6 is entitled Shoreline and Wetland Regulations. They apply across the Town without REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 809 exception. It does little good to have all of this in writing if we don’t have people who can interpret it properly. I spoke at length at the last meeting about the CEA. The CEA was mapped in this Town at one time. This was before we got into this fancy GIS system where they can change these maps with a stroke of a keyboard. Leon Steves mapped the CEA in North Queensbury on our zoning maps. We should still have those in the file. In any case, if we don’t pay any attention to it all this writing in the world goes no where. There is no question that… by the way, I should mention the fact the very first zoning ordinance that this Town adopted had a requirement in it had a requirement in it that the building inspector, because we didn’t have a zoning administrator then, the building inspector was suppose to register all seasonal use dwellings. There was a reason for it. They were on small lots and we wanted to prevent what’s going on right now, by having a record of what that property consisted of, so that at the time someone wanted to do a conversion there would be a basis to bring it up to some kind of standard. That fell off the radar screen in 1978 and I don’t think any were registered at least there is no records downstairs. The next thing we did in 1988, 1989 we undertook a program to register all on site septic systems in North Queensbury in the Lake George Park. We undertook that program on behalf of the Park Commission, where are the records? There were very, very stringent registration requirements involving mapping, sizing, location everything. What did we do with the records? You recall the agonizing pains we went through with the use of holding tanks. How many years did it take us to realize that, that was not allowed, especially for year around residential use. Roger, I think you asked the gentleman this evening if the dwelling was going to be a year round use, it sounded like a trick question. But, anyway I will just end here tonight with what we have got to do is impress upon the people who are making the day to day decisions of what this Code means what we are looking for. It does little good to make you know a very stringent Code that no one pays any attention to. I can recall on the issue of permeability I can recall debating that at length, Jim Martin, Leon Steves, Dick Merrill, Betty Monahan, we debated that at length, permeability, floor area ratio. The floor area ratio was a number that was swinging between eighteen and thirty percent. What if this, what if that and how do we do this and is this in and is that out, we settled on twenty two. But, we had an understanding of what was in and what was out. That has been forgotten. The permeability another factor that was debated at length particularity with regard to small lots. I can remember the discussion about whether or not the area of the infiltration unit the leach field was to be considered permeable or non permeable. We consider it permeable today and it is just counter to all just good engineering, good scientific appreciation of what goes on in the soils, a phenomenon called capillary action we call it evapo-transpiration we even slope the top of the leach fields so that the water runs off and not down. But, we count is as permeable. It is nonsense. Now if we counted that as permeable, there is one bedroom gone on all these mega homes. One bedroom gone and the septic system smaller. Little things like that, you will keep the public hearing open I trust? SUPERVISOR STEC-We just were discussing if we were going to close it, thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Board on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Public Hearing this evening? Anybody? Mr. Bryant. AL BRYANT- Bronk Drive I will make it brief because I spoke at the last public hearing. The last time I made a comment that this Comprehensive Land Use Plan was a little on the vague or general side and I was told that this is Part A of the total package that Part B was going to be worked on later, but there was a file on the internet on the town web site and I did find that file it is on the PORC Committee meeting 10-16-2006 the file name is J Strough Materials 7-12-06. It is a hundred and fifty five page documents which is a real comprehensive land use plan. It goes neighborhood to neighborhood talking about the historical aspects of each neighborhood what the future the vision is for that particular neighborhood and what needs to be done in that neighborhood to maintain the character of the neighborhood. In further investigation at the last public hearing you said well this is Plan A and Plan B and that will be the total plan but frankly when you look at Plan A there is no reference to Plan B except in the table of contents. It is listed as an appendix. There is no reference in Plan B as to Plan A and in reality Plan A all it does is tell us that we all like, clean air and clean water and we want bicycle paths and less traffic congestion. I wasn’t going to speak tonight but an individual got up here and talked about the trapping and the cost of legal resources and so REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 810 forth and so on. I just wanted to end with a rhetorical question. Since we all want clean air and clean water and all these good things do we have to spend a hundred thousand plus dollars to write a sixty six page introduction which really has, is not comprehensive at all, when you already have a magnificent document that you can start from and complete a Comprehensive Plan Use Plan. Getting back to what the other citizen said maybe we should use our resources a little more wisely. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- And I did not charge anything for that Al. MR. BRYANT- It is a bargain and its actually a magnificent document, it really is. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Thank you. MR. BRYANT- Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC- Is there anyone else that would like to address on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Public Hearing? All right, as I mentioned earlier, I will close this public hearing and again so now the remaining item before the Town Board can adopt this is we need to hear from the APA after we have heard from APA assuming that we hear in the affirmative then we will move forward with a resolution in the future. COUNCILMAN BREWER- Can we close it without hearing from APA? SUPERVISOR STEC- Yes we can. COUNCILMAN BOOR- Dan, the question I have is Kathy got up and spoke as I referenced Don Sipp did, are those things going to be incorporated in to what the APA looks at? SUPERVISOR STEC- They are looking at our draft. SR. PLANNER BAKER- They are looking at our draft, yes. If the Board wants to make additional changes to the draft that can be done. COUNCILMAN BOOR- I would like pretty much everything that was mentioned in there. SUPERVISOR STEC- I think that would require yet another public hearing which is why I suggested earlier that if we can to include some of those things we can do that when we get to Part B, we can do Part B with modifications to Part A, that is what I had suggested. COUNCILMAN BOOR- That is fine as long as they get in there. SUPERVISOR STEC- So, we have got, you did take comprehensive notes on both of these hearings, Stu so obviously I think it is always a living document we can start red lining a draft but the draft that went to APA with the exception of some minor typographical kind of formatting things is a draft that is on the table in front of the Town Board in August. With some minor things some more significant things those are things that we can incorporate and consider when we also consider the Part B. COUNCILMAN BOOR- I do have a question, how can APA have this if we just closed it tonight. Somebody made a very valid thing and we want it in it, how come they are already reviewing it? Doesn’t that make kind of a joke out of having this public hearing tonight? SUPERVISOR STEC- No, because then we would have to re-advertise the public hearing. COUNCILMAN BOOR- My point is this public hearing is not anything that is going to be reviewed by the APA so what purpose did is serve to have this people come to the microphone tonight? REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 811 SR. PLANNER BAKER- That APA doesn’t require that we forward comments from the public hearing they require that we forward the draft plan under consideration. COUNCILMAN BOOR- I am assuming that people come up here because they believe they have something important I believe that if it is really good we should incorporate it. SUPERVISOR STEC- What I am saying is the answer to that is then we would need to incorporate it into a new draft set a new public hearing. What we did and we have done this many times before, is we took a snap shot in time we are setting the public hearing, we sent the draft that we had, people are commenting on the public hearing APA is going to comment on the public hearing. COUNCILMAN BOOR- Just the change or additions? SR. PLANNER BAKER- The APA would need to review any substantial changes. COUNCILMAN BREWER- If we incorporate the changes that were given here tonight we have to send another copy to APA and start the time line all over. SR. PLANNER BAKER- And Warren County Planning as well, yes. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- We have a list of the suggested changes that people have made, the public and the board and we have a list that the Warren County Planning Board has suggested and we will no doubt get a list from the Adirondack Park Agency with suggestions, so we are going to have to include those suggestions into a final format and have a final hearing and then adopt that anyways. COUNCILMAN BREWER- It can go on forever. SUPERVISOR STEC- We have had four of these hearings, last time and we closed that public hearing to do just this, this was supposed to be the final. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- So, if the APA makes suggestions we ignore them? COUNCILMAN BOOR- That is the answer, that is what I am asking. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- If the APA makes suggestions we try to include them and we will include all the forms and then have one public hearing on all the proposed changes is what I am saying. COUNCILMAN BREWER- And then what happens if you have proposal on that, John? SR. PLANNER BAKER- The concern is that as long as you continue to hold public hearings you will continue to get comments and the process can go intimately. COUNCILMAN BOOR- I do not like the idea that the APA got this during a time period when public might have thought they might have actually had some input. COUNCILMAN SANFORD- Gentlemen, how many years has this been? SUPERVISOR STEC- It has been two years and at least six public hearings. COUNCILMAN SANFORD- This is like the lizard that lives for a hundred and fifty years feeding off its own tail, lets just close this public hearing. SUPERVISOR STEC- The hearing is closed. Do you understand that this is not the first time that we have crossed this threshold when we have had stuff that had to get sent to the APA and God knows who. We have done these before, this is not the first time that we have done this. We set a public hearing we said here is the draft that we are taking comment on and we sent it to all the people just like we did many other things. They can provide comment to us or not, Warren County in this instance did not provide any suggestions or comments or resistance to us. So, we took public comment if we said the REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 812 public comment is so significant that we want to do a third iteration of a final draft eight months after PORC finished its work on this then we can do that, but what I think a lot of people are saying is that, then there would be a fourth draft and a fifth draft, it is not to say COUNCILMAN BOOR- My point is as long ago as the first public hearing the five hundred foot over lay was discussed why doesn’t the APA have that? th SUPERVISOR STEC- It wasn’t in the June 15 draft, what ever, this is the document that the APA got, correct Stu? SR. PLANNER BAKER- That is correct. SUPERVISOR STEC- I think it is clear Stu to assume that the changes that were suggested the Board is probably going to want to consider them when hopefully in the near, very near future we are considering as Part B. As Richard pointed out this has gone on for an awful long time. So, the public hearing is closed we are not taking action, we are still waiting to hear from APA and we will consider this after we have heard from APA and if APA sends us any show stoppers or we change our collective minds then we can COUNCILMAN BOOR- I am not concerned about show stoppers I am concerned about things we do want in it that they are not reviewing. th SUPERVISOR STEC- The answer to that is they are reviewing the June 15 draft that we sent them when we set the public hearing. 1.0 CORRESPONDENCE DEPUTY CLERK MELLON- Supervisor’s report for Community Development/Building and Codes for the month of June on file at the Town Clerk’s Office 2.0INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS FROM THE FLOOR NONE 3.0PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR PLINEY TUCKER-41 Division Road Questioned if the Supervisor had done anything with the problem of Glens Falls Ready Mix? SUPERVISOR STEC-Noted he did not have any new information on this. MR. TUCKER-RE: Res. 7.2 Connector Road Bids Have you received a check from the City of Glens Falls? SUPERVISOR STEC-We have not invoiced them yet. We have not signed the contract yet. The Mayor assures me that when we send them a bill they will send us a check. MR. TUCKER: Zoning Board challenging the decision on the Shooting Range at Mike Brandt place. Was the news article right when they claimed that some of the principals were not even notified that they were going to appeal the case? COUNCILMAN BOOR- That is a Zoning Board issue. MR. TUCKER- Questioned Councilman Boor on a cap of legal fees, does this cap pertain to each case? COUNCILMAN BOOR- All litigation REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 813 SUPERVISOR STEC- The whole thing for the year COUNCILMAN BOOR- My point is, when the paper says another frivolous lawsuit that is costing the taxpayers money; well, it is not costing the taxpayers a dime above what the cap was. We have a one year contract with this law firm at a cap. COUNCILMAN SANFORD- In years past we were seeing an upward trend in our legal expenses, we did the RFP and we were concerned, we put in and it was agreeable to the new law firm a $200,000 a year ceiling. What they agreed to was no matter how their bills ran up over that twelve month period of time they would get no more than the $200,000. What has happened over the years is there has been a whole lot of assessment law suits and things of this nature. Where they are trending now is on a pro-rated basis above that $200,000, approximately it might trend out at $260,000. The bottom line is that we are almost certain to hit that ceiling this fall and that will be it in terms of our obligation in terms of legal expenditures to this firm for 2007. That is not to say that we shouldn’t be prudent with our decisions and how we utilize legal services, we certainly should but from a purely factual point of view these types of issues that have been surfacing lately really won’t contribute one way or another to any added cost for the Town. SUPERVISOR STEC- Thank you Mr. Tucker. MIKE WILD- Addressed the Board regarding the discussion about the legal fees. It is very obvious that it was negotiated a reduced rate for this year and it is a one year contract. Does the Board have a projection of what they are going to need to budget for next year? You are implying to the Town and to the taxpayers that you are saving us money because you are going to pay $200,000 this year and in reality it is going to be $260,000. The Town needs to do something to address the litigation costs. COUNCILMAN SANFORD- We may not even be bidding it out. I sat down with our law firm a few weeks ago on this very topic. I told them I had some concerns. I get a copy at my request of all the legal bills that are presented of the Town and I keep a running total of them. I said to the principal of the law firm I don’t like the trend because you are trending higher than the cap and I ‘m not sure what that will mean. It is something that we have to discuss as a Town Board and also talk to our law firm as to what their sense of expectation are moving forward. If they say look, we can’t provide these services at this cap level, we are going to be looking for additional moneys next year. We are going to evaluate a course of action at the Town. MR. WILD- Spoke regarding the money spent on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. You need to be really careful with the resources. The fact is that this Board did not follow through with defining what that land use plan is going to be prior to the developing of the zoning. I don’t think you are truly representing to the taxpayers of this Town where this money is going, who’s at fault and who’s in charge. SR. PLANNER BAKER- The actual cost on the extension of the Saratoga Associates contract for the work on the zoning was $9,000 JOHN SALVADOR- Spoke regarding the notice he submitted to Queensbury Town taxpayers concerning Crandall Public Library. Questioned Supervisor Stec on a having a workshop on this subject. SUPERVISOR STEC- Stated that he needs to arrange that with the Library. MR. SALVADOR- With regards to legal services, the Town’s current law firm was already engaged with the Glens Falls IDA as a client of theirs. He stated that we would have a serious conflict if the Town has any kind of questions with the IDA and the Town of Queensbury with regard to the use of our tax moneys to fund their deficit. He read an article in the paper that there has been some sort of an agreement with the developers of the Golden Corral. He stated his concern with the construction plans and the retaining wall of this project. He read a paragraph from the building code of New York State regarding retaining walls. There are some pretty stiff requirements with REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 814 regards to retaining walls. He stated that there are very few people who are competent to execute such a design in the wetland. The Town’s Engineer is responsible for that and we want to make sure that design meets the criteria. 4.0TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS COUNCILMAN BOOR- nd ? Wants to reiterate on Sunday the 22 at 9:30AM there will be a wastewater management district meeting. He is hoping for a good turnout. He encouraged the other Board members to attend. COUNCILMAN SANFORD- ? We all received a 712 zoning changes to our wetland regulations that was sent to us by our law firm. This follows up on a meeting that I had with them and we reviewed chapter 94 and 179. This needs to be scheduled ASAP. I would like to have it on at our next workshop. It will then have to be referred to the County Planning Board and the APA and then we will need to schedule a public hearing. We definitely have to repair some of the wording in those regulations. ? Spoke regarding resolution 7.7- the Ridge/Jenkinsville Park project. He did some research on this today and feels that there is going to be a need for a public hearing. The old resolution that was passed back in February specifies the scope is consisting of three fields and now there is an interest in adding a fourth field. The resolution also specifies that if there was cost savings, those savings would be returned to the capital reserve. Because there are costs saving it is being requested that the cost savings be applied to a fourth field. I think that the public that did show up for the first meeting were dealing with the representation of three fields and that if there we any savings that it would go back. I think the public needs to have the opportunity to comment again. I think this should sequence out in a manner that will be acceptable to the timeline. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- ? Attended the third annual forum of the Lake George Watershed Conference. The pamphlet that he received from them has a lot of information that deals with a lot of the issues of Lake George. As far as Lake George and Glen Lake there is many environmental issues that we have to deal with and need to be a little bit more serious about dealing with those issues than we have in the past. ? Cornell Cooperative Extension puts out a great summary of septic systems. It gives you a quick overview of septic systems, what to do if septic systems fail, how to maintain your systems, how they work, how to conserve water and so forth. COUNCILMAN BREWER- ? He has gotten some complaints with regards to traffic issues at garage sales. He wants to have this topic put on for a workshop discussion. ? Wants to send a letter to the City about Sherman Avenue and that property. Lets try to get an answer, if they want to do it fine, if not that is fine also. This has been going on a year and a half or two years on this topic. Asked Supervisor Stec to send a letter to Dale Granger, the new DPW informant. SUPERVISOR STEC- ? The next few workshops are very busy. He is looking to split them up over the rdth next two workshops on the 23 and 30. ? The Town’s website www.queensbury.net ? Thanks to TV8 and Glens Falls National bank for sponsoring/televising these meetings. ? Asked TV8 if they could start putting the date of the meeting on the screen as well as the Town’s website. ? Tribune will be making an announcement tomorrow that they are going to be relocating their facility to a new building on the connector road; which the Town REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 815 Board, Town staff, Planning and Zoning Boards have been involved in this either directly or indirectly. Everyone should be very proud of our accomplishments. This is probably the single biggest economic development achievement in the last five years. 5.0RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO TOWN COURT BUILDING RESOLUTION NO.: 334, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury's Facilities Manager has met with the Queensbury Town Board, the Town Justices and the Warren County Sheriff’s Department concerning the need for and the appropriate design of an addition with interior and exterior enhancements to the Town Court building located on Glenwood Avenue, and , WHEREAS such proposed project is anticipated not to exceed $140,000 and it is requested that this project be included as part of the Town’s Capital Improvement Plan and financed through the Capital Reserve Fund, and WHEREAS, in accordance with the Town’s Capital Improvement Plan Policy (CIP), the Town Board must conduct a public hearing before approving any specific Capital Project listed on the CIP, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall meet and hold a public hearing at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, th August 6, 2007 to hear all interested persons and take any necessary action provided by law concerning establishment of any required capital reserve account and the funding of the proposed improvements to the Town Court building, and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 816 RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish and post a Notice of Public Hearing concerning the proposed Capital Project in the manner provided by law. th Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND AUTHORIZING AWARD OF BID FOR CONSTRUCTION OF MAIN STREET CONNECTOR ROAD AND PARK AND RIDE FACILITY RESOLUTION NO. 335, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 85,2003, the Queensbury Town Board authorized engagement of Barton & Loguidice, P.C. (Barton) for the design of the Main Street Connector Road, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 474,2006, the Queensbury Town Board authorized establishment of the Connector Road Capital Project Fund #161 (Connector Road) and Fund #134 (Gateway Plaza/Park & Ride) to establish funding for expenses associated with this Project, and WHEREAS, Barton has prepared bid documents and specifications to advertise for bids for: ? Share 1 – Construction of the Main Street Connector Road - which work includes providing all labor, materials, machinery, tools, equipment, and other means of construction necessary and incidental to the completion of the work shown on the plans and described in these specifications including, but not necessarily limited to the following: Establishment of proposed new roadway corridor, clearing and grubbing, excavation, embankment in place, removal and disposal of unsuitable material, erosion and sediment control, establishment of subbase pavement structure, installation of drainage structures and installation of traffic signal; and ? Share 2 – Construction of the Park and Ride Facility - which work includes providing all labor, materials, machinery, tools, equipment, and other means of REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 817 construction necessary and incidental to the completion of the work shown on the plans and described in these specifications including, but not necessarily limited to the following: Establishment of proposed new paved parking lot facility, clearing and grubbing, excavation, embankment in place, removal and disposal of unsuitable material, erosion and sediment control and installation of drainage structures; and WHEREAS, General Municipal Law §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 such advertisement for bids, and nd WHEREAS, on July 2, 2007, the Purchasing Agent duly received and opened all bids, and WHEREAS, the Purchasing Agent and Barton have made a bid recommendation to the Town Board, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby accepts and awards the bid for the construction of the Main Street Connector Road and Park and Ride Facility as delineated in the preambles of this Resolutionto the lowest responsible bidder, Kubricky Construction Corporation, for an amount not to exceed: Share 1 Share 2 Total Bid $491,515.00 $218,445.68 $709,960.68 with Share 1 to be paid from Capital Construction Account No.: 161-5110-2899, and Share 2 to be paid from Capital Construction Accounts No.: 134-8020-2899 and No.: 134-8020-4400, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute Agreements and/or any other needed documents related to the bid award, in form acceptable to the Town Supervisor, Barton, the Town Fiscal Manager and Town Counsel, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 818 BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Purchasing Agent, Town Fiscal Manager and/or Town Counsel to take any and all action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PHONE SERVICE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND CORNERSTONE TELEPHONE COMPANY RESOLUTION NO. 336, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury previously entered into agreements with Cornerstone Telephone Company for phone service, and WHEREAS, the Town wishes to enter into phone service agreements with Cornerstone Telephone Company, under the terms of New York State contract pricing with applicable services, which will provide for the reduction of tariff rates on the Town’s local and long distance calling and will provide wide area network services, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves and authorizes the phone service agreements with Cornerstone Telephone Company substantially in the form presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes that operational and connection charges for new and changed services be charged to Central Communications, and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 819 RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the agreements on behalf of the Town of Queensbury and take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HIRING OF TEMPORARY LABORERS IN TOWN HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO. : 337, 2007 INTRODUCED BY Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY : Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town Highway Superintendent has requested Town Board authorization to hire three (3) temporary Laborers to work for the Town’s Highway Department, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the hiring of three (3) temporary Laborers to work approximately 18 weeks for the Town Highway Department commencing in July, 2007, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that such temporary employees shall be paid $12 per hour as set forth in Town Board Resolution No.: 620,2006 to be paid from the appropriate payroll account, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Highway Superintendent, Deputy Highway Superintendent, Town Fiscal Manager and/or Town Supervisor to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 820 th Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPROVING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AWARD AND DEFERRED LOAN FOR CASE #5519 IN CONNECTION WITH TOWN OF QUEENSBURY HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM RESOLUTION NO.: 338, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor 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 been awarded grant funds from the New York State Governor’s Office for Small Cities Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program to cover eligible project costs, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has also established a Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program which provides a deferred loan to very low income eligible property owners for the owner’s cost of rehabilitation, and # WHEREAS, a single family property Case File 5519has been determined to be eligible for rehabilitation grant assistance and a loan through the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program and the owner of the property has requested such assistance and 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 five thousand dollars and no cents ($25,000.00), 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 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 821 approving these grants and loan, 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 of the rehabilitation, and WHEREAS, the property owner will enter into a Loan Agreement with the Town of Queensbury which will be filed with the Warren County Clerk’s Office with the principal balance of the loan due in full upon the transfer of title of the property, , NOWTHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury approves a CDBG grant for Case File #5519 in the amount not to exceed Twenty thousand dollars and no cents ($20,000.00), and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED that the Town of Queensbury approves a rehabilitation loan for Case File #5519 in an amount not to exceedFive thousand dollars and no cents , ($5,000.00)and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute Grant Award and Loan agreements and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND QUEENSBURY YOUTH BASEBALL AND SOFTBALL RESOLUTION NO.: 339, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 822 WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has received a request for funding in the amount of $1,100 from the Queensbury Youth Baseball and Softball which will be hosting the Cal Ripken 12 Year Old New York State Championship Tournament in the Town of thth Queensbury from July 13 through July 17, 2007, and WHEREAS, such event is expected to draw hundreds of participants and supporters to the Town of Queensbury and the surrounding area’s hotels and motels, restaurants, stores and other businesses, thereby benefiting the general economy of the Town and all of Warren County, and WHEREAS, by prior Resolution, the Queensbury Town Board provided for the Town’s receipt of occupancy tax revenues from Warren County in accordance with the Local Tourism Promotion and Convention Development Agreement (Agreement) entered into between the Town and Warren County, and WHEREAS, the Agreement provides that specific expenditure of the funds provided under the Agreement are subject to further Resolution of the Queensbury Town Board, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to provide funding to the Queensbury Youth Baseball and Softball in the amount of $1,100 with occupancy tax revenues received from Warren County, and WHEREAS, a proposed Agreement between the Town and the Queensbury Youth Baseball and Softball has been presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves and authorizes funding to the Queensbury Youth Baseball and Softball for hosting the Cal Ripken 12 Year th Old New York State Championship Tournament in the Town of Queensbury from July 13 th through July 17, 2007 and authorizes the Agreement between the Town and the Queensbury Youth Baseball and Softball substantially in the form presented at this meeting, and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Agreement, with funding not to exceed the sum of $1,100 and to be provided by occupancy tax revenues the Town receives from Warren County, to be paid for from Account No.: 001-6410-4412, and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 823 RESOLVED, that such Agreement is contingent upon the Town Fiscal Manager confirming that the Town has unallocated occupancy tax funds available from Warren County. th Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CHANGE ORDER NO.: 1 TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES H. MALOY, INC., IN CONNNECTION WITH THE SUPPLEMENTAL RIDGE/JENKINSVILLE PARK PROJECT RESOLUTION NO.: PULLED INTRODUCED BY: WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: *DISCUSSION HELD: SUPERVISOR STEC- Okay, do you guys want a minute? You are here, you stuck around. The direction that this is going is that we are going to set a public hearing at our next th workshop for the 6. I think the main concern that I and other have as far as is that okay with you is what does this do for your timeline for being able to get the work done? If we have a public hearing on this it will be three weeks from tonight. We can set the public hearing at our next workshop, which is two weeks before, which satisfies the law. If we don’t act on this tonight, which is what the discussion has been, and we want to put this to a th public hearing, which we believe is required, then that public hearing will be August 6. JACK LABOMBARD- You are telling me something different than the last time I spoke with you. SUPERVISOR STEC- Correct, this all happened in the last couple of hours, three hours. RECREATION DIRECTOR, STEVE LOVERING- I’m not sure I understand the public hearing part. COUNCILMAN SANFORD- Capital project…. (tape stopped) it further resolves and I will cut to the chase that in the event there are funds remaining in the capital project fund after the completion of the project or in the event the project is not undertaken the money in the capital project fund shall be returned to the capital reserve fund. So, when we had that last public hearing that was pretty much the understanding that the public had in terms of what the plan was. At this particular point in time and I think you have done a nice job outlining where you’ve been in terms of it came in significantly less and you are saying since it is significantly less why don’t we while they are there have them put in another field and absorb that now and take care of business ahead of schedule. The only problem I have and I guess it is singular to some degree is one of the reasons I was supportive of the original concept was because it was going to be three fields and not necessarily a commitment to the plan B or the part II, which was the additional two fields. I might be alone on that. Independent of what I feel about this basically seems that this will require, it is not a matter of it being discretionary, but require the public hearing because that is what we always do when we allocate money out of the capital improvement fund. I spoke with our attorney on it just to make sure that he agreed with what I was saying. He wrote me this “confirming our telephone conversation a little while ago you asked me if another public hearing was required with regards to proposed resolution 7.7 that would authorize a change order to add REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 824 a forth field but does not require any additional funds. Resolution 99,2007, which authorizes the expenditure of funds does refer to three fields when describing the project and does recite that the capital improvement plan requires a hearing for the expenditure”. Then he goes on to question to some degree whether or not the capital improvement plan requires public hearings for anything in that he refers to any necessary public hearings, but we have always had them with the capital improvement plan. In fact, tonight, just a little while ago we established one for a hundred and forty thousand on 7.1 for the court building and of course we are having a public hearing on it. It is pretty much the same thing in this case, the additional expenditure is a hundred and thirty one and change. So that is where it stands now and I checked with the attorney and I said if there is any question as to whether or not there is a need, we have a couple of avenues. We could either do the safest and easiest thing, which is to schedule the public hearing, be squeaky clean and at the end of the day take a vote; or go to the State Comptrollers office for an opinion, which is typically done in these situations. I feel there is greater down side if we did that because of the time. By the time they get back to us would be prohibitive and if we took an action, assuming it could be done with a change order, and to prove that it couldn’t then you wouldn’t have the opportunity to schedule the public hearing and get the construction done. So, in terms of sequencing, it certainly makes sense to go the route that we are now saying that we really are required to go in. MR. LOVERING- I understand what you are saying; I guess maybe there was just a different understanding of what is required. I guess we sort of look at this as a public hearing was set, the Town Board approved a budget of nine hundred and seventy six thousand dollars to do improvements at Ridge/Jenkinsville. We have gone out for competitive bid, crossed our T’s and dotted our I’s, and came back well under what was anticipated the cost of those athletic fields and now what we are saying is this is similar to any other kind of change or you might proceed with at a different project; whether it be adding lights or changing fixtures, anything that would increase what you are wanting to spend on that project, as long as you are under the nine hundred and seventy six thousand. I guess … COUNCILMAN BOOR- Steve, I think the problem is and you hit it on the head is that you did dot your I’s and cross your T’s, that’s the problem. The language is so specific in there with the three fields and it is so specific that any remainder will go back to the CIP. If you hadn’t put that in there it wouldn’t require another public hearing. But that language is in the resolution that we voted on. MR. LABOMBARD- Roger, it doesn’t specify how much of the remainder and even at this fourth field that we are going to put in we are still going to be seventy five thousand dollars… COUNCILMAN BOOR- That is not the point, I’m going to support it Jack. The point is that the resolution says that anything under the bid that you got, that’s a great bid, goes back into the CIP, it’s in the resolution. We can’t pretend that it’s not in the resolution. So, it goes back in and then you come to us and you say, since it was so low we’d like to take the hundred and thirty thousand and put another field in and we can take it out of the CIP. If that language wasn’t in there we wouldn’t be having this conversation. COUNCILMAN SANFORD- Yeah, what he is saying really nails it down pretty clearly. I also had a pretty lengthy discussion on the phone with the attorney on this and I mentioned things like, since the resolution specifies in pretty specific terms the three field and stuff, I said playing devils advocate what if they say we want to put a swimming pool there now? Of course, someone would say you definitely need a public hearing for that. Now the question is since you specified the three fields a fourth field for a hundred and thirty one thousand bucks is a material deviation and coupled with what Roger said with the return of the money back into the CIP it just requires it. MR. LOVERING- I think if we had not put three athletic fields in there I quite sure somebody on the Board would have said wait a minute we are agreeing to three fields; so we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 825 COUNCILMAN BOOR- To me it is the return the CIP, anything under budget that’s the killer. In other words, it says, if that had come in at fifty bucks the whole project, you would have to put the nine hundred thousand back into the CIP. COUNCILMAN BREWER- I guess the big question is Steve, if we delay this for three weeks can you still do what you want to do? MR. LOVERING- I anticipate still being able to do what we want to do. But, as I’m sure Roger probably would know, when you are dealing with contractors and once we approve this and say yes, they have to go out specifically and find a tree company to clear the wooded area. It adds to our schedule. Can we do it, yes; are we guaranteed that we will get the project done… COUNCILMAN BREWER- Will it jeopardize the price you are going to get on the third, fourth field? MR. LOVERING- I don’t think it is going to jeopardize the price, I think it potentially jeopardizes getting everything done, seeded and put to bed and the project done during the growing season; which we think best is middle of September. COUNCILMAN BOOR- I think you are going to get the support and I think the contractor is going to read the Board, and you can read the Board, I don’t think there is an issue with doing what you want to do. But, if we do it wrong and the ruling comes back then you are going to have a schedule problem. MR. LABOMBARD- There was some people on the Commission that thought we didn’t have to come to the Board at all. COUNCILMAN BOOR- You should have read the resolution SUPERVISOR STEC- It would have been wrong COUNCILMAN BOOR- You should have read the resolution Jack, it is very clear that the money has to go back into the CIP; the discrepancy between what was appropriated… MR. LOVERING- I agree with that, but I guess what we were reading was that once the project is completed COUNCILMAN BOOR- But the project as presented at a public hearing was for three fields COUNCILMAN SANFORD- I will be honest with ya, I voted in support of the resolution COUNCILMAN BOOR- We all did I believe COUNCILMAN SANFORD- Because it was three fields; in other words I may be alone on this Board, but if it was open ended and that wasn’t nailed down I wouldn’t have been in my comfort zone. You may recall the conversations I had; I said I like the idea of three fields and then after they are done we will see if there is a need for more and if there is not I didn’t feel there was an absolute certainty we were going to go to part II. So another words, I am a perfect example of how I use the public hearing. The public hearing as it framed the issue is how I developed the comfort zone to vote an approval of the first resolution. Other people that spoke, spoke in the context of that framing. Now you are saying, wait a second the scope enlarged and it is a different field. COUNCILMAN BREWER- Well, the master plan indicates more than field. You were just indicating you were going to do three this time. SUPERVISOR STEC- Well, that was what the public hearing… that’s what the resolution says REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 826 COUNCILMAN BREWER- Right, and I understand that and I think they understand that. My question is can we proceed in hopes that we can get the fourth field in SUPERVISOR STEC- Can you do it, if you get the official green light in three weeks can it be done? MR. LOVERING- Yeah, we will make it work. We will do everything we can to make it work. SUPERVISOR STEC- I’m supportive of it MR. LABOMBARD- It is disappointing to me personally that we have to keep jumping through hoops on something that is just a no brainer, common sense. The bids came in so far under that we can add another field and still have some money left over. Rather than saying, you guys did a hell of a job, you make us jump through hoops COUNCILMAN BOOR- Well, you could have said is we would like appropriated nine hundred thousand dollars, we think we can get three fields but if we could do more we want to spend the entire nine hundred thousand and do as many fields as possible. If you had worded it that way…. MR. LABOMBARD- That’s all hindsight…. COUNCILMAN BOOR- But you understand MR. LABOMBARD- We started with six fields COUNCILMAN BOOR- But you understand the risk, if we just allowed you to do this and the Comptroller comes back and says you can’t do this then you are in trouble, we are in trouble and the project might just stop COUNCILMAN SANFORD- Money is money too guys, and I may not be representing or speaking for anybody other than myself on this, but this Town is faced with some potential uncertainties in the near term. I don’t know what the likelihood is of this North Queensbury Village being formed but you are going to hear a couple million dollar sucking sound if that happens. All of the sudden we are going to be talking what about the future of this rebate, what about the Town tax, do we have to reinstate it? You start talking a hundred and thirty thousand here a hundred and thirty thousand there pretty soon you start taking about some real money. We have to balance the needs of the Town with recreation and with everything else. We are into some uncharted territory with some big events happening in the Town of Queensbury. Hopefully, that won’t prove to be something that we have to deal with but if we do…. COUNCILMAN BREWER- Well, I truly believe this is a need and I think we can do it. I think we will be safe doing it. SUPERVISOR STEC- So, what I think we are saying is that we will pull this for tonight COUNCILMAN STROUGH- No we have to vote on the public hearing COUNCILMAN SANFORD- He is going to do that at the workshop SUPERVISOR STEC- Which I said already once tonight. We don’t have a resolution to set a public hearing. We’ve got three weeks between this regular meeting and the next regular meeting. So, in this instance we are not under the gun to set the public hearing tonight. At our next workshop, which will be a week from tonight there will be a resolution on there; in fact Barbara I was just thinking because there are three… well now we did pass that resolution, so we don’t need to worry about an audit in between do we… okay so scratch that idea. In any event there will be one resolution on our lengthy workshop agenda for the rd 23 right at the beginning of the meeting COUNCILMAN BOOR- It will be right at the beginning REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 827 SUPERVISOR STEC- Right, and I think we have already had our discussion. I’m not necessarily including you, this is a discussion item, unless somebody wants to correct me right now. What I will do there will be a resolution to set a public hearing at our next rd workshop the 23 for two weeks from that night; which will be the next regular town board thth meeting, August 6. August 6 we will have the public hearing, I will be surprised if more than five people speak at it and then we will see what happens, we’ll take our vote and th presumably on the 7 you can be calling them and saying we’ve got the green light lets do it. MR. LABOMBARD- The good news I won’t be here for either meeting SUPERVISOR STEC- We won’t need you for sure at the next workshop and I think we can probably survive… COUNCILMAN BOOR- This is a technical aspect of procedure. If you screw up the procedure, you run the risk of losing the…. MR. LABOMBARD- Alright, you’ve convinced me. Is this subject basically done for now? SUPERVISOR STEC- I think so yes MR. LABOMBARD- Spoke regarding the Tribune Media Pilot Project. He stated that he doesn’t really have a good concept of it but is aware that Tribune Media has not lived up to their part of the resolution. They have not included the school in on the discussion of the enhanced pilot and in the resolution it stated that if the school board is not included then it becomes null and void. He stated that he is worried about it. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT FUNDS FROM NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT STATE ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION FOR RENOVATION OF RECORDS ROOM TO MAP STORAGE AREA AND ESTABLISHING APPROPRIATIONS AND ESTIMATED REVENUES FOR SUCH FUNDS RESOLUTION NO.: 340, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 63,2007 the Queensbury Town Board authorized submission of an application for a Local Government Records Management Improvement Fund Grant (LGRMIF) from the New York State Education Department State Archives and Records Administration (SARA) to be used by the Town for the purchase of map towers, map storage materials and workstation table for storage and retrieval of Town Maps, and WHEREAS, the grant application was submitted and the Town has been awarded the LGRMIF grant in the amount of $12,843, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize acceptance of such grant funds and establish appropriations and estimated revenues for the grant award, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 828 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby accepts the $12,843 in Local Government Records Management Improvement Fund Grant (LGRMIF) grant funds to be received from the New York State Education Department State Archives and Records Administration (SARA), such funds to be used by the Town for the purchase of map towers, map storage materials and workstation table for storage and retrieval of Town Maps, and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Clerk to execute the LGRMIF Grant Acceptance Form presented at this meeting and any other associated documentation, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby establishes appropriations to be recorded in Account No.: 001-1460-2001 and estimated revenues to be recorded in Account No.: 001-0000-3989 in the amount of $12,843 for such grant funds received by the Town, BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Fiscal Manager to make any necessary adjustments, budget amendments, transfers or prepare any documentation necessary to establish such appropriations and estimated revenues and authorizes the Town Supervisor, Town Clerk and/or Town Fiscal Manager to take all other action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS – TH WARRANT OF JULY 16, 2007 RESOLUTION NO.: 341, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 07-16-2007 MTG#32 829 WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve the audit of bills thth presented as the Warrant with a run date of July 12, 2007 and a payment date of July 17, 2007, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Warrant with a thth run date of July 12, 2007 and payment date of July 17, 2007 totaling $378,947.56, 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. th Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT: None 6.0 ACTION OF RESOLUTIONS PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED FROM THE FLOOR NONE RESOLUTION ADJOURNING REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO.: 342,2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Regular Town Board Meeting. th Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: None Respectfully Submitted, Darleen Dougher Town Clerk Town of Queensbury