Loading...
1993-10-18 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 18, 1993 7:02 P.M. MTG#72 RES#574-604 BH#39-41 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Supervisor Michel Brandt Councilman Pliney Tucker Councilman Nick Caimano Councilman Susan Goetz Councilman Betty Monahan TOWN OFFICIALS Jim Martin, Dave Hatin PRESS Post Star, Moreau Sun PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN MONAHAN PUBLIC HEARINGS MOBILE HOME PERMIT - DOUGLAS E. COONS PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 7:03 P.M. NOTICE SHOWN Supervisor Brandt-I'm going to open the public hearing at this time. Is there anyone that would like to come and speak on that application? Okay, then I'm going to close the public hearing on that matter. Would the Board like to address that? RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVOCABLE PERMIT TO LOCATE ONE MOBILE HOME OUTSIDE OF MOBILE HOME COURT FOR DOUGLAS E. COONS RESOLUTION NO.: 574,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is authorized pursuant to ~113-12 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury to issue permits for mobile homes to be located outside of mobile home courts under certain circumstances, and WHEREAS, Mr. Douglas E. Coons has filed an application for a mobile home outside a mobile home court, revocable permit in accordance with said ~113 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury to locate a mobile home on property situated at Moon Hill Road, Queensbury, New York, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury held a public hearing with regard to the aforesaid permit, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby determines that a hardship or special circumstances have been sufficiently proved for the following reasons: Financial burden as far as the conventional home, to place a brand new double wide, to be erected on the site it has had the Zoning Board Approval. Noted Mobile Home had been on site, grandfather clause came into effect. Other mobile homes in the area so it is consistent with the neighborhood. and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby determines that the application complies with ~113 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury and authorizes the issuance of a revocable permit in accordance with the terms and provisions of ~113-12 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE Councilman Monahan-Noted the mistake in the heading of the resolution that it stated two mobile homes, should be one mobile home. Attorney Dusek-Noted the Board should indicate the reasons for granting the permit. Councilman Monahan-Asked Mr. and Mrs. Coons to restate their reasons. Mrs. Coons-Financial burden as far as the conventional home will be a brand new doublewide to be erected on this site. It has passed Zoning Board approval. Attorney Dusek-Questioned if there has been a mobile home located on the site in the past? Mrs. Coons-There was a grandfather clause. Councilman Monahan-Noted there are other mobile homes in the area and is consistent with the neighborhood. Attorney Dusek-Noted these reasons should go into the resolution. PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED ADOPTION CENTRAL QUEENSBURY QUAKER ROAD SEWER DISTRICT BENEFIT TAX ROLL PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 7:05 P.M. NOTICE SHOWN Supervisor Brandt-I'm going to declare the public hearing opened. Do you want to lead it off and we'll open it for comments and questions. Mike Shaw, Director of Wastewater-Sure I can briefly go over the changes in the 94 roll compared to 93. Basically all the updates were changed as far as name changes, address, tax map numbers, and acreage were updated. Commercial water usage was updated that's based on prior year water usage. On the point menu there was one change. Last year on the commercial water usage we had three points for every two hundred forty gallons of water usage. This year we've change that and adjusted to one and a half points per one hundred twenty gallons of water usage. Basically what this does is it lowers the base rate for commercial properties using less than the eighty four thousand gallons a year other than that it's basically the same. Supervisor Brandt-Okay. Is there anybody that would like to speak to us on this question, tonight? Councilman Monahan-Mike how many parcels are there involved in the sewer tax? Mr. Shaw-Off the top of my head I would say seven hundred eight four. I could be wrong a little bit one way or the other. Councilman Monahan-Mike I've gotten some calls from people. It was something that we discussed a long time ago and I don't know what we ever did about it. That is when they were watering their lawns it through it way out when you do it by prior year use even though now they've got dedicated meters. Some people until they get trapped by this don't know there is such a thing as dedicated water meters. Is there some way by using other quarters or something that aren't during the summer time when they are watering their lawns that we could make some adjustments for things like that? Mr. Shaw-Basically we have the dedicated water meters. Councilman Monahan-A lot of people like I've said have not known about that. Then they are caught when they get this horrible sewer bill and then they find out about them it's to late because it's based on prior year water usage. Mr. Shaw-The only problem in using other quarters I see other than summer quarters if your worried about outside water usages. If it's a business the business may go up and down as the season changes. Councilman Monahan-I'm thinking of a homeowner really. Mr. Shaw-A homeowner you have different things happen as a homeowner. Sometimes they aren't home during the summer they have summer camps or something. Sometimes in the winter they have more people home at the house or maybe less maybe some of the kids are off to college. Councilman Monahan-It seems to be sprinkling their lawns and gardens that are throwing this out before they know about dedicated water meters. Mr. Shaw-Anybody residentially wise what we've done with this roll and we did it last year we did away with water usage for all residents. We don't use water usage as a determining factor for residents we only use acreage. Councilman Monahan-Any residences do not have to be concerned about the water consumption. In other words you don't really need a dedicated water meter then. Mr. Shaw-They do for the 0 & M charge Betty that comes quarterly. For the Benefit Tax Roll which is billed January 1st, on the County Tax Roll they won't see any affect at all because that's not in the calculations. Commercial wise as far as I know most commercial people have come forth they have installed their dedicated meters and are working properly. Councilman Monahan-But, as I said your a year behind time and if you don't know to do that. Mr. Shaw-We're basing on a known fact that's why we use prior year water usage. If you start guessing then it creates a lot of other problems. Councilman Monahan-We're doing an unnecessary burden on some people because of this way cause it's never gone through the sewers. Mr. Shaw-=Right. Councilman Caimano- When does this take effect? Mr. Shaw-Pardon me? Councilman Caimano-What bill does this take effect with? Mr. Shaw-January 1, 1994. It will be on the County Tax Roll. Councilman Monahan-I would want to make a suggestion for any other years when we change these sewer taxes, that is that we do the same thing when we have a big change in land taxes, that a notice go out to people ahead of time of these public hearings saying, this is what you paid, this is what the impact of the new study. That's why I asked you the number of parcels. That really wouldn't be a terrific burden on that sewer district to mail out that many notices. Mr. Shaw-In the past especially when we changed from the previous sewer rent to benefit tax roll we did several mailings. Councilman Monahan-But, every time we changed the method of calculating the tax. Mr. Shaw-I did not do that this year. Councilman Monahan-We are making a major impact on some people. Yes, we have the public hearings and so on and so forth, but I think in all fairness I would suggest in future years when we change a formula that they be notified before a public hearing what the impact is going to be on them if that's adopted. Mr. Shaw-Sure we can do that. Councilman Monahan-Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Is there any other input on this propose sewer tax? I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7:15 P.M. At a Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, held at the Queensbury Activities Road, Queens-bury, New York, Center, 531 Bay on the 18th day of October, 1993. RES. 575.93 PRESENT: Supervisor Michel Brandt Councilman Betty Monahan Councilman Susan Goetz Councilman Nick Caimano Councilman Pliney Tucker ABSENT: None IN THE MATTER OF THE ASSESSMENT ROLL OF THE CENTRAL QUEENSBURY QUAKER ROAD SEWER DISTRICT THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, COUNTY OF WARREN, AND STATE OF NEW YORK WHEREAS, a benefit assessment roll assessing the expense of improvements pursuant to Section 202 of the Town Law has been prepared by this Town Board for and in consideration of certain district improvements consisting of general sanitary sewers in the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District of the said Town of Queensbury, which said roll has been heretofore completed and filed in the Office of the Town Clerk; and WHEREAS, due notice of the completion of said benefit assessment roll and the time and place where this Board would meet to hear and consider any objections that might be made to said roll, and for adopting the same, was duly given by the Town Clerk by a publication of due notice thereof in the Post- Star; and WHEREAS, the Town Board met at the time and place specified and a hearing was duly had upon said benefit assessment roll and all persons desiring to be heard having been heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the benefit assessment roll of the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District for the payment of the expense of public improvements within said Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District, pursuant to Section 202 of the Town Law of the State of New York be and it is hereby approved, confirmed, and adopted, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is instructed to annex to said benefit assessment roll a warrant which shall be signed by the Supervisor and countersigned by the Town Clerk commanding the Receiver of Taxes collect from the several persons named in said assessment roll the sum or sums opposite their respective names and to pay the same to the said Supervisor of the Town. The foregoing resolution was offered by Councilperson Mr. Nick Caimano and seconded by Supervisor Michel Brandt and adopted by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: None DATED: October 18, 1993 RESOLUTION ENTERING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 576, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and moves into the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt Noes: None Absent:None PUBLIC HEARINGS - BOARD OF HEALTH MR. PETER JOHNSON - SEWER VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NOTICE SHOWN Jim Hutchins representing Mr. Johnson Supervisor Brandt-I'll declare the public hearing opened. Are there any questions from anyone from the Board to start with? Do you want to give us a brief overview for the public. Mr. Jim Hutchins-Basically this is a request for a permit for an individual household wastewater system for replacement. The lot is located in Cleverdale has lake frontage. There is approximately 206 feet deep on one side, 230 feet deep on the other side. We are asking for a setback variance from Lake George not the Queensbury standards, but the Lake George Park Commission standards which require a 200 foot setback. What we are asking for is a setback of 162 feet. The soils are basically granular and any questions beyond that I can go deeper. Councilman Caimano-I recall these are high perc soils that you are going to mix? Mr. Hutchins-These are not high perc soils. I've got a percolation rate of 18 or 19 minutes. They were granular, but the perc rates kind of fooled me a little bit I would expected something quicker. Councilman Monahan-So stabilize rate... Mr. Hutchins-Nineteen minutes was the stabilized rate which surprised me a little bit. Councilman Caimano- When was the test taken what time of the year? Mr. Hutchins-It was in the summer. Supervisor Brandt-Are there any questions or comments from the public on this application? NO PUBLIC COMMENT Supervisor Brandt-It's a public hearing on a request for a variance and it's your chance to speak up on it. If there is no comment then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING A SANITARY SEW AGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE FOR MR. PETER JOHNSON RESOLUTION NO.: 39,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, Mr. Peter Johnson previously filed a request for a variance from certain standards of the Lake George Waste Water Manual, such standards being more specifically that requiring that there be a 200 foot separation between an absorption field and the Lake George Shoreline, and WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was given in the official newspaper of the Town of Queensbury and a public hearing was held in connection with the variance request on October 18, 1993, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk advises that property owners within 500 feet of the subject property have been duly notified, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, a) that due to the nature of the variance, it is felt that the variation will not be materially detrimental to the purposes and objectives of the Lake George Waste Water Manual or to other adjoining properties or otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of any plan or policy of the Town of Queensbury; b) that the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and that the variance is granted as the minimum variance which would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health to affect the applicant; and c) that the Local Board of Health imposes a condition upon the applicant that he must also secure the approval of the New York State Department of Health, and d) that the Local Board of Health imposes a condition that there will be 3 gpm (gallons per minute) faucets and showerheads and water saving toilets of 1.6 gallons. BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health grants the variance to Mr. Peter Johnson allowing the placement of the absorption field 162 feet from the Lake George Shoreline, rather than placing it at the mandated 200 foot distance, on property situated on Cleverdale Road, Queensbury, New York, and bearing Tax Map #: Section 13, Block 3, Lot 24. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE Councilman Monahan-Recommended to add in the resolution .3 gpm faucets and showerheads and water saving toilets of 1.6 gallon. Attorney Dusek-Recommended that it be added as a condition and to put it in as Clause D. JAMIE HAYES C/O ADIRONDACK COFFEE SERVICE - SEWER VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NOTICE SHOWN Tom Nace representing Adirondack Coffee Service Supervisor Brandt-I'm going to opened the public hearing. Tom Nace-For the record my name is Tom Nace from Haanen Engineering representing Jamie Hayes. Supervisor Brandt-Do you want to give us a brief overview of this application please? Mr. Nace-Basically we're looking at commercial lot at the Corner of Luzerne Road and Western Avenue it used to be a car dealership. Jamie Hayes, Adirondack Coffee would like to convert the building to use as a specialty coffee shop. We've been through zoning variance and site plan review with the Town Boards and this is our last stop shopping, I guess for a septic variance the problem it's a very tight site. We're putting in a completely new septic system and because the constricted site we cannot meet the required 20 foot setback from the building and the 10 foot setback from the property line. What we proposed is a 10 foot setback from the building and a 5 foot setback from the property line fronting on Western Avenue. We feel because the building does not have an occupied basement and because there will never be any adjacent residence constructed on Western Avenue that these are reasonable requests. Supervisor Brandt-It's a public hearing is there anybody that would like to make comment on this application? Councilman Monahan-Tom where is the closet sewer? Mr. Nace- There is a sewer across the street in the plaza, but it's a private sewer and we cannot get into it because of capacity problems and the shallowness of the sewer. We would have to go down on Corinth Road pass the junction of Luzerne or just about at the junction of Luzerne. It would be prohibited to do it for just this small project. We've talked to the City and we're not even sure that the capacity exists. Supervisor Brandt-Any other comments or questions? I'll declare that public hearing closed then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED DISCUSSION HELD Councilman Monahan-Recommended that due to the tightness of the area that they require the 1.6 gallon toilets and the .3 gpm faucets. RESOLUTION APPROVING A SANITARY SEW AGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE FOR JAMIE HAYES C/O ADIRONDACK COFFEE SERVICE, INC. RESOLUTION NO.: 40, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, Jamie Hayes c/o Adirondack Coffee Service, Inc., previously filed a request for two (2) variances from certain provisions of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, such provisions being more specifically that requiring that there be a 20 foot separation between the absorption field and the dwelling, and a 10 foot separation between the absorption field and the property line, and WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was given in the official newspaper of the Town of Queensbury and a public hearing was held in connection with the variance requests on October 18, 1993, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk advises that property owners within 500 feet of the subject property have been duly notified, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, a) that due to the nature of the variances, it is felt that the variations will not be materially detrimental to the purposes and objectives of this Ordinance or to other adjoining properties or otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of any plan or policy of the Town of Queensbury; b) that the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variances is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and that the variances are granted as the minimum variances which would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health to affect the applicant; and c) that the Local Board of Health imposes a condition upon the applicants that they must also secure the approval of the New York State Department of Health, and d) that the Local Board of Health imposes a condition that there will be 3 gpm (gallons per minute) faucets and showerheads and water saving toilets of 1.6 gallons. BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health grants the variances to Jamie Hayes c/o Adirondack Coffee Service, Inc., allowing the placement of the absorption field: 1) 10' from the dwelling, rather than placing it at the mandated 20' distance; and 2) 5' from the property line, rather than placing it at the mandated 10' distance; on property situated on 4. S. Western Avenue, Town of Queensbury, New York, and bearing Tax Map #: Section 117, Block 11, Lot 4. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 41, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from the Queensbury Board of Health and moves back into Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt Noes: None Absent:None PRESENTATION GLEN LAKE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION MEMBERS PRESENT FROM GLEN LAKE ASSOCIATION AND RESIDENTS FROM GLEN LAKE AREA - Michelle Mayer, Virginia Etu, Linda Daly, Chuck Odgen, Bob Sullivan, Tom Mayer, John Brown PRESENTED BOARD MEMBERS WITH PACKET REGARDING INFORMATION GLEN LAKE- EURASIAN MILFOIL Spoke to the Town Board regarding the problem with Eurasian milfoil in Glen Lake. Asked the Town Board for their support in studying the problem of Eurasian milfoil in Glen Lake. Supervisor Brandt noted there were two steps. One to make a close analysis of what the problem is and then how to solve it. It was the decision of the Town Board to review this proposal. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION APPROVING MINUTES RESOLUTION NO. 577,93 RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the minutes of August 16th, 23rd, and September 13th, 1993. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt Noes: None Absent:None RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW NO. _, 1993 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 127 TO BE ENTITLED, "PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT" WHICH CHAPTER SHALL PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES AND THE CONSOLIDATION OF CERTAIN OTHER TOWN DEPARTMENT ACTIVITIES AS MORE SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH THEREIN. RESOLUTION NO. 578, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHEREAS, at this meeting there has been presented for adoption by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Local Law No. _, 1993, A Local Law to Amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury by Adding a New Chapter 127 to be Entitled, "Public Utilities Department," which chapter shall provide for the establishment of the Department of Public Utilities and the consolidation of certain other Town department activities as more specifically set forth therein, WHEREAS, such legislation is authorized pursuant to the Municipal Home Rule Law of the State of New York, and WHEREAS, prior to adoption of said Local Law, it is necessary to conduct a public hearing, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall meet and hold a public hearing at the Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, at 7:00 p.m., on the 1st day of November, 1993, to consider said Local Law No. _, 1993 and to hear all persons interested on the subject matter thereof concerning the same to take such action thereon as is required or authorized by law, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED AND ORDERED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to publish and post the notice that has also been presented at this meeting concerning the proposed Local Law No. _,1993 in the manner provided by law. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Caimano ABSENT:None DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE: SUPERVISOR BRANDT PRESENTED BOARD MEMBERS WITH THE NEW ORGANIZATION CHART THAT REFLECTS THE PROPOSED LAW AND ANALYSIS OF THE SAVINGS AS PROPOSED Supervisor Brandt-Noted he his bringing this forth as a second generation of public utilities department. The first local law had hearings on before the budget was finished. Listened to the public and worked on it during the budget process. It came to a second generation of the law which is proposed here. Would like to set a public hearing and close the other one because the laws are different. Councilman Caimano-Questioned if a resolution should be made to close out the old law before the new one is set or if it could be done together? Attorney Dusek-Stated you have to start the process all over at this point. Councilman Caimano-Questioned if this should be done after the budget process is over? Supervisor Brandt-Noted there is a proposed budget that shows figures to show what is proposed. Stated there are things to talk about and this could be modified. Councilman Caimano-Stated if you don't have the public hearing on the public utilities until the budget process is over then when it comes forward it will be exact. Asked to wait until the budget process is over. Supervisor Brandt-Noted there are a propose set of figures the exact figures will occur as the budget is adopted, but this is public process you don't have to close the public hearing and adopt the law immediately it's a matter of dialogue. Noted keeping the public dialogue opened is very healthy. Councilman Monahan-Stated if you set the public hearing on November 1st, the public hearing on the budget has to be by law Thursday, November 4th, noting the scheduling of this is very tight. PRESENTATION MADE BY HANS HOENCK REGARDING PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Mr. Hoenck -Thank you very much for letting me have the opportunity to make a few comments on behalf of the Advisory Group. For those of you that might not know what the Advisory Group is I will just briefly describe it to you. We are a group of volunteers that were approached to assist the Town in matters relating to fiscal problems, project problems, or project advise. Our activity is a non-binding one that your probably can understand very well. It's just an advisory one and our membership is sometimes seven, eight, or nine, depends on whose available. We are strictly a non-partisan group not reflecting on any matters that relate to politics. I would like to have the opportunity on behalf of this group tonight to give you a little background on the discussion we had relative to the organizational structure in the Township of Queensbury. MR. HOENCK READ THE FOLLOWING LETTER INTO THE RECORD As members of the advisory group to the Town Supervisor, Mike Brandt, we have on many occasions listened to, reviewed and discussed proposals to improve the quality and efficiency of the present town organization structure. It was our intent to concentrate on obvious shortcoming, seek improvement in these areas and leave well functioning parts as they are. Again, I want to emphasize our recommendation that following are non-binding because we are not elected. This would be up to the Town Supervisor and Board in the ultimate sense. It is the consensus of these deliberations that the proposed town organization chart #3, I assume you have a copy of this can be transformed into a well functioning and highly efficient structure. First of all, it should improve communications. Number of Department Manager positions held to six. A very manageable size to permit effective oversight by Town Supervisor/Town Board. Accountabilities within these departments are logically placed with only a small number of changes that we recommend. Personnel changes are held to a bare minimum. There hopefully is a possibility to find a very qualified individual within the present organization to fill the position of the Department of Public Utilities Manager. That would only leave the need to hire a broadly experienced engineer for the indicated engineering position. Departmental recommendation: Engineering. This position would add considerable strengths to the Town management function. With an ever growing complexity in technology application the function would be valuable to all departments. More valued to some departments and less value to other. All departments ultimately might find a need for this particular function. In particular the Department of Public Utilities, as most activities here involve engineering. Solid Waste: Since the Town is mandated again, I refer to another position that reports through the Town Supervisor to the Board. Since the Town is mandated to close landfill location and operation, considerable attention will be required to close this location in accordance with mandated guidelines, especially environmental. Accounting and Finance Function" The addition of a purchasing and inventory control function should improve the bidding process and consumption of assets. Overall recommendations: The Town Board through its Supervisor, should establish a clear meaningful outline of job responsibilities for each department manager through job descriptions. Department managers to report periodically as in agreed format to Town Supervisor/Town Board. Lastly, the Town Supervisor to meet periodically with department managers as a group and individually to foster maximum understanding and cooperation for the purpose of achieving desired results. That's the end of the formal letter I'm reading to you. I'm available for any additional comments if you should desire. Supervisor Brandt-Would you like to put that in the formal record? Mr. Hoenck-Yes, I would like to put this letter in the formal record. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you very much. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUPERVISOR TO SIGN JOINT APPLICATION FOR PERMIT AND APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY PERMIT REGARDING P ASCO AVENUE EXTENSION RESOLUTION NO. 579,93 INTRODUCED BY:Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Joint Application for Permit and Application for Public Water Supply Permit relative to the Pasco Avenue Extension on behalf of the Town of Queensbury and to place the seal of the Town of Queensbury on said document. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: Mr. Caimano ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AMENDING 1993 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 580,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury desires to amend the 1993 Town Budget, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves, authorizes, and directs that the 1993 Budget be amended as follows: 1) Increase Estimated Revenues in Account #4-4-3501 in the amount of $19,700.00; 2) Increase Appropriations in Account #4-5110-4630 by the mount of $19,700.00; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the 1993 Town Budget is hereby amended accordingly. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT WITH BUSINESS AUTOMATION SYSTEMS FOR PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE & SERVICES FOR COMPUTERIZED ZONING PROCESS TRACKING SYSTEM RESOLUTION NO.: 581, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of entering into an agreement with Business Automation Systems for the purchase of necessary software and services to develop a computerized zoning process tracking system, and WHEREAS, the Director of Accounting Services has advised that the Zoning module from Business Automation Systems is an integral part of the overall Town-wide information system already in place from Business Automation Systems and therefore, it would be inappropriate to obtain proposals from other suppliers, and WHEREAS, the Director of Accounting Services also advises that the purchase of the Zoning software module from Business Automation Services is not subject to competitive bidding, because it comprises a "professional service" involving "special or technical skill," the use of "professional judgment," and a "high degree of creativity," said criteria being listed in the OSC Financial Management Guide, subsection 8.0060, p. 12, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the purchase of the necessary software and services from Business Automation Systems for a zoning process tracking system, at a cost not to exceed $5,900.00, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to execute, on behalf of the Town of Queensbury, a contract to be in a form approved by the Town Attorney, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby notes that the cost of the services is not to exceed $5,900.00, and that no bidding is required under law and that in this particular case, alternative quotes are not practical, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this proposal shall be paid for from Account No.: 001-1680-2032. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION TO AMEND 1993 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 582,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHEREAS, certain departments have requested transfers of funds for the 1993 Budget, and WHEREAS, said requests have been approved by the Chief Fiscal Officer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the funds be transferred as follows, for the 1993 budget: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: FROM: TO: AMOUNT: 01-3510-1640 (Dog Control Officer) 01-3510-4760 (Vet Services) $ 900.00 01-3510-1640 (Dog Control Officer) 01-3510-2001 (Misc. Equipment) 25.00 01-8020-4742 (Non-Reimburseable Eng. Services) 01-8010-4100 (Telephone Use) 200.00 and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the 1993 Town Budget is hereby amended accordingly. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TOWN CLERK TO SUBMIT PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE FOR ROBERT & CAROLYN MARTINDALE TO TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 583, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has previously approved a form entitled, "Petition for a Change of Zone" for rezoning matters, and has directed that the same be used for rezoning requests, and WHEREAS, the Town Attorney for the Town of Queensbury has recommended that any and all applications for rezoning must first go to the Planning Department and Planning Board for recommendations regarding the same, and WHEREAS, following such recommendations, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury will then review the Zoning Applications and take such other action as it shall deem necessary and proper, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs that the following application be submitted to the Planning Board for the Town of Queensbury for report and recommendation: ROBERT & CAROLYN MARTINDALE - Tax Map No.:s: 30-1-20; 30-1-19; 30-1-18; 30-1-17.2; 30-1-17.1; 30-1-16; 30-1-13; and 30-1-14; Route 149, approximately 2 miles east of Route 9, Queensbury, New York, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates that it desires to be Lead Agent for the SEQRA review of this project and directs that the Zoning Administrator's Office notify any other involved agencies of this. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Caimano ABSENT:None RESOLUTION TO AMEND 1993 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 584, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, certain departments have requested transfers of funds for the 1993 Budget, and WHEREAS, said requests have been approved by the Chief Fiscal Officer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT WATER DEPARTMENT: RESOLVED, that the funds be transferred as follows, for the 1993 budget: FROM: 40-8310-4060 (Service Contracts) 40-8320-4400 (Misc. Contractual) 40-8320-2899 (Capital Construction) HIGHWAY: FROM: TO: 40-8310-4070 (Equipment Repair) $ 400.00 40-8310-4200 (Insurance) 9,100.00 40-9950-9098 (Transfer to Treatment Plant Capital Project) TO: 004-5110-1440 004-5110-1470 (Heavy Equip. Operator) (Working Foreman) $ 1,969.00 004-5110-1440 004-5110-1450 (Heavy Equip. Operator) (Motor Equip. Operator) FROM: 004-5110-1400 (Laborer A) 004-5130-2040 (Heavy Equip.) 004-5110-4220 (Training/Education) ATTORNEY: FROM: 01-1420-4090 (Conference Expense) 01-1420-2010 (Office Equipment) 01-1420-4140 TO: 004-5110-1450 (Motor Equip. Operator) 004-5110-1450 (Motor Equip. Operator) 004-5110-4620 (Paving Materials) TO: 01-1420-4050 (Books, Pub.s & Subscription) 01-1420-4050 (Books, Pub.s & Subscription) 01-1420-4050 27,500.00 2,872.00 $ 5,679.00 14,839.00 86.00 $ 400.00 250.00 200.00 AMOUNT: AMOUNT: AMOUNT: AMOUNT: (Travel) (Books, Pub.s & Subscription) 01-1420-4100 (Telephone Use) 01-1420-4050 (Books, Pub.s & 200.00 Subscription) ASSESSOR: FROM: TO: AMOUNT: 001-1355-1670 (Real Prop. Info. Sys. Clerk) 001-1355-1080 (Tax Service Ass't.) $ 19,750.00 and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the 1993 Town Budget is hereby amended accordingly. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE QUEENSBURY CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT AND THE PEGGY ANN WATER DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO.: 585, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHEREAS, there has heretofore been created and established a water district known as the Peggy Ann Water District, and WHEREAS, the aforesaid water district did not and does not have an independent water supply; rather, it receives its water supply from the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of making sure that the Queensbury Consolidated Water District is properly compensated for use of the District Treatment Plant and Transmission Facilities, and WHEREAS, an agreement has been presented at this meeting, which agreement is designed to accomplish the foregoing desires and purposes of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, as the Governing Board of both the Queensbury Consolidated Water District and the Peggy Ann Water District, hereby approves and authorizes the agreement between the two districts and further provides that the cost of the agreement shall be paid for in the first instance, from quarterly water rents assessed against the residents of the District, together with an additional payment from the appropriate budgeted account within the Peggy Ann Water District. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW REGULATING PARKING ON A PORTION OF LUZERNE ROAD IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY RESOLUTION NO.: 586, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHEREAS, at this meeting there has been presented for adoption by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, a Local Law which would provide for the regulating of parking on a portion of Luzerne Road in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, such legislation is authorized pursuant to the Town Law, Vehicle and Traffic Law, and the Municipal Home Rule Law of the State of New York, and WHEREAS, before the Town Board may take action with regard to the proposed Local Law, it is necessary to conduct a public hearing on said proposed Local Law, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the proposed action is determined to be a Type II Action under the rules and regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation relative to SEQRA, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED AND ORDERED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall meet and hold a public hearing at the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York at 7:00 p.rn., on the 1st day of November, 1993, to consider said proposed Local Law and to hear all persons interested on the subject matter thereof concerning the same and to take such action thereon as is required or authorized by law, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED AND ORDERED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to publish and post the notice that has also been presented at this meeting concerning the proposed Local Law in the manner provided by law. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REPAIR OF ROAD TEST SITES RESOLUTION NO.: 587,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, by previous resolution, authorized the employment of engineers to study the realignment and/or reconstruction of Peggy Ann Road, and WHEREAS, as part of that engineering review, tests were conducted, such tests leaving areas of the road that need to be replaced, repaired, sealed, and/or paved, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury supplements its previous agreement with the Town Highway Superintendent and authorizes the replacement, repair, sealing, and/or paving of those road test sites in the paved area of the road, as shown on a map developed by Morse Engineering, P.c., bearing project no. 93-082, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor shall forward a copy of this resolution, together with a copy of the map prepared by Morse Engineering, P.c., bearing project no. 93-082 to the Highway Department. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION TO DISCONNECT TV AND AUDIO MONITORING SYSTEM LOCATED IN HIGHWAY GARAGE RESOLUTION NO.: 588, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHEREAS, there exists a security t.v. and audio monitoring system in and outside the Town Highway Garage which the Town Board wishes to have altered or modified, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds to arrange for the audio monitoring portion of the security system to be fully-disconnected and the video and audio monitors inside the Town Highway Garage to be removed with the video monitors outside of the garage to be left in place. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Monahan ABSENT:None DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE: Councilman Caimano- What is the purpose of this? Supervisor Brandt - I like to see this disconnected. We're talking about the audio monitoring portion of a security system in the Highway Garage which I'm not comfortable with because it can be used to listen to what people are saying when they are at work. I don't think we should be doing that and the same with the video system. I don't think people are comfortable working under the watchful eye of a video system all the time. To me it's a bit of an insult to our employees. I have no problem with the video system monitoring the outside of the building and I think this is to leave that capability. But, I also think in this resolution it should be for the Superintendent of Building and Grounds to handle this rather than the Highway Superintendent. The building is actually under Buildings and Grounds and under that charge properly. I think it should be the Superintendent of Building and Grounds so in that resolution I would like to change it to say that. Councilman Monahan-Mike how come this is coming up? Has anybody requested, I know the union has been aware of this for years that it's been going on and it's been going on for a specific reason so how come this is surfacing now? Supervisor Brandt-I certainly have been requested by many employees to get rid of it. I see a lot of reasons to get rid of it so I'm sponsoring it. Councilman Monahan-Mr. Naylor would you mind telling us the reason, please. I was here when it happened, but would you mind telling the other board members why this was installed in the first place relative to the safety of our employees, please? Paul Naylor, Highway Superintendent -You said it all in a nutshell Betty. That's what it's all about it was put in there was safety. What difference does it make it's an old road and we've gone over it many times. Councilman Monahan- I think for the new members of the board before they maybe incur some kind of a liability by having our employees not in safe conditions that perhaps you ought to tell them why we put that in, in the first place. Paul Naylor, Highway Superintendent-That's what is was put in there for the safety of the employees and equipment so they could be monitored and the front gate so we could monitor who was going in, who was going out, who would be taking stuff, and who wouldn't. Councilman Monahan-But, if I recall correctly we did have a couple of incidents where it seemed like trucks had been..... Mr. Naylor-We sure did. Things happened they stopped happening after it was done. Councilman Monahan-Trucks had been interfered with. Mr. Naylor-Let's say lug nuts were loosened up. Councilman Monahan-It put our drivers and men in a very unsafe situation when they were out on the Highway is that correct, am I putting it correctly? Mr. Naylor-Your putting it right on the button. Councilman Monahan-That's why it was installed in the first place. It wasn't to eavesdrop. It wasn't to get into their private business. Mr. Naylor-That's what we got foreman's for. Councilman Monahan-It was to protect their safety because of certain incidents that happened. We didn't want them out on the road maybe losing brakes, losing other things, and we had reason to think that those trucks had been interfered with am I correct when I say that? Mr. Naylor-Your exactly right. Councilman Monahan-Thank you. Supervisor Brandt -You said it also protected against theft. Mr. Naylor-It was put in there for safety reasons Mike that's what it was put in there for. A lot of things happened, we don't eavesdrop. What we do is we play those tapes every 24 to 36 hours and we put them on high speed. If something don't smell right like lights turn up in front of the garage that shouldn't be there we stop it put it on slow. The men are all out on the road why would we care what's in the back garage whose watching who in the back garage that's what I got foreman's for. There are three foreman to watch the shop and the men that work there don't have to be watched it's the other ones that don't that's what production all about you know that. Supervisor Brandt-I think that your encroaching very much on people's right to privacy, I disagree with it. When it comes to theft I'm told there is a refrigerated water cooler that left the building last year so obviously it didn't do very much for that. Mr. Naylor-Must be it didn't. Supervisor Brandt-I think it's a misuse of government. Councilman Monahan-I also took it upon myself to contact our insurance agency. I could not contact our agent directly, but I contacted the person who assisted him. I asked if this security system had a baring on the way our insurance is rated. I was assured it would be one of the factors that play into this the security of the buildings and equipment. Supervisor Brandt-That building has a security system beyond this does it not? What your saying the security system of the building is not compromised by removing television monitors from inside the building, I don't see where that's a factor at all. Councilman Monahan-Except the steps that we're taking to make sure the trucks are safe. Supervisor Brandt-I don't think the government has a right to look in on people's work and monitor everything they are doing and saying. There are other ways to work with your employees and I'm personally offended by it and I want it removed. Councilman Monahan-Mike, you ought to check the security system that is in the Post Office that the postal employees work under. Councilman Goetz-Then they freak out and shot each other. Supervisor Brandt-Maybe that's to much government, too, I don't know. I know this is Town government and I don't like what's happening. Councilman Goetz- I want to ask Paul a question. You mentioned suspected tampering with the trucks did it happen inside the garage or outside? Mr. Naylor-Inside the garage. (VOTE TAKEN) DISCUSSION HELD REGARDING SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM - FENCES Executive Director, Mr. Martin went thorough the form as follows: Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Does action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617 .12? Supervisor Brandt-In your opinion does it? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-No. B. Will action received coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6? Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-C. Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality, noise levels, existing traffic patters, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic or other natural or cultural resources, or community or neighborhood character? Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish, or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a changed in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effect not identified in Cl- C5? Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-C7. Other impacts including in use of either quantity or type or energy? Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-D. Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Reasons for supporting determination. After careful review of the environmental assessment there are no foreseen impacts. The following resolution was passed. RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF LOCAL LAW NUMBER 10, 1993 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY CHAPTER 179, ~179-74 THEREOF ENTITLED "FENCES" RESOLUTION NO.: 589,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering the action of the adoption of a Local Law which would amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179, ~ 179-74 thereof, entitled, "Fences" to modify the height restrictions for fences set forth in said ~ 179-74, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified to act as lead agency with respect to compliance with SEQRA which requires environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a(n) Unlisted/Type I Action pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board after considering the action proposed herein, reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form, reviewing the criteria contained in Section 617.11, and thoroughly analyzing the said action with respect to potential environmental concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to complete and execute Part III of the said Environmental Assessment Form and to check the box thereon indicating that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section 617.15, the annexed Negative Declaration is hereby approved and the Town Attorney's Office is hereby authorized and directed to file the same in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION TO ENACT LOCAL LAW NUMBER 10, 1993 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, CHAPTER 179, ~179-74 THEREOF, ENTITLED "FENCES." RESOLUTION NO. 590, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of enacting a Local Law to amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179, ~ 179-74 thereof, entitled, "Fences," to modify the height restrictions for fences set forth in said ~ 179-74, and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Local Law has been presented at this meeting, a copy of said Local Law also having been previously given to the Town Board at the time the Resolution was adopted which set a date and time for a public hearing, and WHEREAS, on August 23, 1993, a public hearing with regard to this Local Law was duly conducted, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby enacts the proposed Local Law to amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179, ~179-74 thereof, entitled, "Fences," to be known as Local Law Number 10, 1993, the same to be titled and contain such provisions as are set forth in a copy of the proposed Law presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to file the said Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and that said Local Law will take effect immediately and as soon as allowable under law. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING AND TO DESIGNATE THE TOWN AS LEAD AGENCY REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, CHAPTER 179 THEREOF ENTITLED "ZONING" RESOLUTION NO. 591, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of amending, supplementing, changing and/or modifying the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, the same having been previously codified and made a part of the Code of the Town of Queensbury as Chapter 179 thereof entitled "Zoning," and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the said Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179 thereof entitled "Zoning" is in the form of a Local Law and is presented to this meeting of the said Town Board with this resolution and is incorporated herein, as if more fully set forth herein, for all purposes, and WHEREAS, a completed Part I of a Long Environmental Assessment Form has also been presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury may, from time to time, pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law and the relevant sections of the Municipal Home Rule Law of the State of New York, amend, supplement, change, modify or repeal the Zoning Ordinance as codified by Ordinance of Local Law, and WHEREAS, in order to so amend, supplement, change, modify or repeal the Ordinance as codified, it is necessary to hold a public hearing prior to adopting said proposed amendment, and WHEREAS, it is also necessary to provide notice to other governmental bodies or agencies as required by law, and WHEREAS, it is also necessary to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act in connection with conducting an environmental review of the proposed action which consists of adopting the proposed amendment, and WHEREAS, it would appear that the action about to be undertaken by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is an unlisted action under the provisions of and regulations adopted pursuant to said State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates that it desires to conduct a coordinated review and be the lead agency in connection with any reviews necessary pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act and directs that such notices be sent by the Zoning Administrator to such other involved agencies as may be required under SEQRA to notify the agencies of this action and that the Town Board desires to be lead agent in a coordinated review and that a lead agency must be agreed to within 30 days, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall hold a public hearing on November 22nd, 1993, at 7:00 p.m. in the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, at which time all parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, upon and in reference to the proposed amendment, supplement, change and/or modification to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance as codified and a part of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179, thereof entitled "Zoning," and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed to give 10 days notice of said public hearing by publishing a notice in a form to be approved by the Town Attorney and substantially in conformance with the Notice presented at this meeting, for purposes of publication in an official newspaper of the Town and by posting on the Town bulletin Board outside the Clerk's Office said notice, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to give written notice of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury as codified and a part of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179, thereof entitled "Zoning," a copy of the Environmental Assessment Form, a copy of this resolution and a copy of the written notice previously described 10 days prior to the public hearing to the following: Warren County, by service upon the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, and such other communities or agencies that it is necessary to give written notice to pursuant to Section 264 of the Town Law and Municipal Home Rule Law of the State of New York, the Code of the Town of Queensbury and the Laws of the State of New York, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of said proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance as codified and a part of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179, thereof entitled "Zoning," a copy of the Environmental Assessment Form, the Notice of Public Hearing and a copy of this resolution to the Warren County Planning Agency and the Town of Queensbury Planning Board for their review in accordance with the laws of the State of New York and Code of the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Zoning Administrator is also hereby directed to send a copy of the proposed amendment, Notice of Public Hearing, a copy of the Environmental Assessment Form and a copy of this resolution to the Adirondack Park Agency. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None DISCUSSION HELD REGARDING SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SIGN ORDINANCE Executive Director, Mr. Martin went through the form as follows: Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Does action exceed any Type 1 threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.12? Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-B. Will action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6? Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-C. Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following. C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources, or community or neighborhood character? Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-If anything maybe a positive impact. C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified by CI-C5? Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-C7. Other impacts? Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-d. Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? Board Members-No. Attorney Dusek-On your negative dec you could put down for reasons supporting the determinations. No impacts-revises current regulations concerning temporary signs in Town of Queensbury. RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF AMENDMENT TO SIGN ORDINANCE RESOLUTION NO.: 592, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering the action of the adoption of a proposed Amendment to the Sign Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified to act as lead agency with respect to compliance with SEQRA which requires environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is a(n) Unlisted/Type I Action pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board after considering the action proposed herein, reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form, reviewing the criteria contained in Section 617.11, and thoroughly analyzing the said action with respect to potential environmental concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to complete and execute Part III of the said Environmental Assessment Form and to check the box thereon indicating that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section 617.15, the annexed Negative Declaration is hereby approved and the Town Attorney's Office is hereby authorized and directed to file the same in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None DISCUSSION HELD Councilman Monahan-Questioned the difference in the copy received in her packet and the one being reviewed tonight? Attorney Dusek-Noted normally what would happen the Board would get a corrected version tonight if it had been changed from Friday to today, Board received corrected version on Friday. The reason why the Board received the additional marked up copy is that it is different than what you had at the public hearing, noting a local law is never changed after the public hearing. If a change is made the Board has to make a determination as to whether it is significant or a insignificant changed. If you find that it is insignificant you can adopt the local law tonight. If you find it is a significant change you should hold another public hearing. The only change that has been made is to the application of fees for sign applications pending and not issued. If the Board feels comfortable, I think you could find it is a insignificant change. It was the decision of the Town Board that this was a insignificant change. The following resolution was passed. RESOLUTION DECLARING CHANGES INSIGNIFICANT SIGN ORDINANCE RESOLUTION NO. 593, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano Supervisor Brandt-I like to propose that the changes offered by the Town Attorney are insignificant. Councilman Caimano-I'll second it. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt Noes: None Absent:None RESOLUTION TO AMEND SIGN ORDINANCE RESOLUTION NO. 594, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of amending the Sign Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Amendment has been presented at this meeting, a copy of said Amendment also having been previously given to the Town Board at the time the Resolution was adopted which set a date and time for a public hearing, and WHEREAS, on September 27, a public hearing with regard to this Amendment was duly conducted, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby enacts the proposed Amendment to the Sign Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, the same to be titled and contain such provisions as are set forth in a copy of the Amendment presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to file the said Amendment with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and that said Amendment will take effect immediately and as soon as allowable under law. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None DISCUSSION HELD REGARDING SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM - ROAD DEDICATION F AWN LANE, AUTUMN LANE, PEACHTREE LANE Executive Director, Mr. Martin-A. Does action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.12? Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Will action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6? Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-C. Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following. C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Supervisor Brandt-It is insignificant. There is some effect, but it is insignificant. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Supervisor Brandt-Again, yes, but insignificant. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in CI-C5? Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-C7. Other impacts including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy? Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-D. Is there, or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? Board Members-No. Supervisor Brandt-What language do you want to add to this? Attorney Dusek-I think this one has it inserted already. Councilman Tucker- Have we received the recreation fees on all of these? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yes, on Phase I only. Councilman Tucker-All three roads are involved in Phase I? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Only in Phase I. Councilman Tucker-I'll move it. Councilman Caimano-I'll second it. RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF ROAD DEDICATION RESOLUTION NO.: 595, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering the acceptance of Autunm Lane, Fawn Lane and Peachtree Lane, offered for dedication by Forest Wood Homes, Inc., and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified to act as lead agency with respect to compliance with SEQRA which required environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is an unlisted action pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, after considering the action proposed herein, reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form, reviewing the criteria contained in Section 617.11, and thoroughly analyzing the project with respect to potential environmental concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby finds that the proposed responses inserted in Part 11 of the said Environmental Assessment Form are satisfactory and approved, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to complete and execute Part III of the said Environmental Assessment Form and to check the box thereon indicating that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the annexed Negative Declaration is hereby approved and the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file the same in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF AUTUMN LANE, FAWN LANE AND PEACHTREE LANE RESOLUTION NO. 596, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, Forest Wood Homes, Inc. has offered a deed to dedicate to the Town of Queensbury Autunm Lane, Fawn Lane and Peachtree Lane, which is more particularly described in the survey map presented at this meeting and the original deed being presented to this meeting, and WHEREAS, Paul H. Naylor, Superintendent of Highways of the Town of Queensbury has advised that he has inspected Peachtree Lane, Fawn Lane and Autunm Lane in the Sherman Pines Development and proposed to be dedicated to the Town of Queensbury and he advises that, to the best of his knowledge, they meet with Town specifications and with his approval, and WHEREAS, Thomas K. Flaherty, Superintendent of Water of the Town of Queensbury, has advised that he has made an inspection of water mains and appurtenances along said road proposed for dedication and finds that the installation is in accordance with the requirements of the Town of Queensbury Water Department, and WHEREAS, the form of the deed and title to the road offered for dedication have been reviewed and approved by Paul B. Dusek, Town Attorney for the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has considered the environmental effects of the proposed action by previous resolution and issued a Negative Declaration pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the aforementioned deed for dedication of the said road be and the same is hereby accepted and approved, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized to execute, sign and affix the Town seal to any and all documents necessary to complete the transaction, and that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause said deed to be recorded in the Warren County Clerk's Office, after which said deed shall be properly filed and maintained in the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the road be hereby added to the official inventory of Town Highways, to be described as follows: Road Number: 496 Description: Beginning at Sherman Avenue and continuing in a south\easterly direction, a distance of 1579' and .29 hundredths of a mile and ending at Peachtree Lane Name: Autumn Lane Feet: 1579' Road Number: 497 Description: Beginning at Peachtree Lane and continuing in a northerly direction, a distance of 135' and .02 hundredths of a mile and ending at Dead End Name: Fawn Lane Feet: 135' Road Number: 498 Description: Beginning at Autunm Lane and continuing in a distance of 823' and .15 hundredths of a mile and ending at an easterly direction, dead end. Name: Peachtree Lane Feet: 823' Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION TO INSTALL STREET LIGHT ON CORNER OF DREAM LAKE ROAD AND BAY ROAD RESOLUTION NO. 597,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of arranging for the placement of one 250 watt high pressure sodium street light on Dream Lake Road and Bay Road on Niagara Mohawk pole #119, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that a 250 watt high pressure sodium street light be installed on Niagara Mohawk pole number 119 at Dream Lake road and Bay Road, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury shall make all arrangements through Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt Noes: None Absent:None DISCUSSION HELD Councilman Monahan-Spoke to the Board regarding phone calls and letters from Insurance Consultants asking if the Town is going to be using Insurance Consultants. Noted the insurance agent the Town presently has, has done an excellent job and had saved money. Recommended to the Board to stay with the firm they are with and not use a consultant this year. It was the decision of the Town Board to stay with the firm that they already have. Councilman Caimano-Questioned the Town Attorney regarding the closing of the AMG/Astro-Valcour closing. Attorney Dusek noted that this is something that should be discussed in executive session. DISCUSSIONS SIDEWALKS - WAL-MART Executive Director, Mr. Martin- Spoke to the Board regarding Wal-Mart Plaza sidewalks. Noted Wal-Mart was willing to install the curb cuts that would provide a sidewalk. Looking for the Town to accept maintenance and liability of the sidewalks. Spoke with the Highway Department and they have advised against it. Previous discussion was held it was noted that Mr. Martin would ask Wal-Mart if they would accept maintenance and liability over the sidewalk area, they will not. Questioned the Town Board as to what direction they want to take? Supervisor Brandt-Noted there is a policy question of sidewalks in general. Noted the Town should pass an Ordinance giving the maintenance of sidewalk to the property owners town wide, Town Board members in agreement. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Questioned if they would like the curb cuts installed? Town Board Members-Yes. Supervisor Brandt-Noted it is the Town Boards intent to move ahead with the law and that Wal-Mart should go ahead with the installation of curb cuts in anticipation of the law, Town Board members in agreement. Attorney Dusek to draft local law. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Spoke to the Board regarding Planning Board salaries noting that two people are in excess of the limit. Asked the Town Board to pass a resolution raising the limit to $1,200.00. The following resolution was passed. RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO.4, 1993 RESOLUTION No. 598, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby amends Resolution 4,1993 which provided that the amounts to be paid to the Chairman, Secretary, and members of the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals would not exceed $900.00, that resolution is hereby amended to read not to exceed $1,200.00, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the salaries for the Chairman, Secretary, and members shall come from the Town General Budget and from the accounts designated therein for that purpose. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt Noes:None Absent:None OPEN FORUM COMMENT PERIOD - HUDSON POINTE PUD Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I'll try to deal with these in chronological order. I'll start with the Planning Board letter dated September 29, 1993. Dear Town Board Members: On behalf of the Queensbury Town Planning Board, I am writing this letter in response to recent disclosures pertaining to the Hudson Pointe PUD. Specifically, our concerns arise from the letter our board received from Attorney Jeffrey Freidland, bringing to our attention various inconsistencies in the proposed plan. Our board wishes to go on the record to express our displeasure to the many changes and omissions that have been incorporated into the plan. When this board rendered our favorable recommendation for this project, it was our impression that your board would review the same plan that we had reviewed. This has not happened. Many changes apparently have been incorporated into this application since it left our board. Although the applicant returned to our board for a recommendation to include the "Southern Exposure" subdivision into their PUD, we did not have the opportunity to express our input to other changes and modifications that apparently have been made. Therefore, on behalf of the Planning Board, I am requesting this project be recalled to our board for further evaluation. Sincerely, Craig MacEwan Letter of August 26th, 1993, From Jeffrey Friedland (on file Town Clerk's Office). October 4th, 1993 To: Jim Martin From: Paul H. Naylor Re: Hudson Pointe Plans Jim, I have reviewed these plans until I am blue in the face. I am still not satisfied, there has got to be a better way. An Engineer will have to look hard at this road system and come up with a better plan, I cannot buy it the way it is. Respectfully, Paul H. Naylor, Highway Superintendent To: Queensbury Town Board Members Subject: Hudson Pointe PUD From: Southern Adirondack Audubon Society Date: October 12, 1993 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: The issue of the Hudson Pointe Planned Unit Development has been of the utmost concern for the Southern Adirondack Audubon Society. The purpose of this letter is to address our comments to the Town. Southern Adirondack Audubon members have been involved since last November. We have been carefully reviewing all the documents, particularly the DEIS, attending the majority of the meetings and walking the proposed site on numerous occasions. We cannot agree with the DEIS as it has been presented. The major objection we have is the development of the pointe and the sites situated along the bluff from Archaeological site Sherman Island 7, down to the pointe. These areas are of vast importance as ecological and cultural resources. They should be considered as significant resources worthy of being conserved, reserved or preserved, rather than being subject to exploitation for a housing development. The unique characteristics of this area offer us a mature hemlock forest, sandy sensitive bluffs, a beautiful view shed and cultural remains of Native Americans that can be important in relating their story of occupation in the area. The use of conservation easements and their enforcement is an issue of great concern. Not enough of the ecologically sensitive areas are to be included in these easements and no guarantees have been made for enforcing their protection as stipulated by the DEIS. Supervision by a Homeowners Association is not sufficient in either continuity or vigorous control. Are the deed restrictions limiting access to the river and the cutting of vegetation within the 50 foot buffer zone enforceable? Will there be markers to delineate this 50 foot buffer? Will no cutting of vegetation as opposed to selective cutting be adhered to? There is a discrepancy in the DEIS regarding the cutting of vegetation. This is found in comparing Appendix K (numbers 10 and 11) with Section 2.0, third paragraph on page 2-1. How will reparations be made if violations area committed; for example in the case of the removal of a healthy 125 year old hemlock? Runoff and erosion are other significant concerns particularly with the storm water management plan. The 200 percent increase in cubic feet per second, according to their own statistics, for the 10 year plan, represent a significant impact on this area. The inadequacy to the storm water management could cause pollutant loading (which would include herbicides and pesticides) to enter the groundwater and shortly thereafter the Hudson River. Please refer to the Haanen Engineering letter of June 25, 1993. The inclusion of two forty foot docks is a major change to the original plan. These large docks are more conductive to motor boats than canoes. With the increased use of this flood plain will come a greater impact to this sensitive area. Other concerns with this site are the exclusion of bathrooms of some type; and the question of who will take these docks out of the water during the winter seasons. Will this area also invite swimming and the development of a beach? Who will inform the swimmers and boaters of the dangers of the large increase in water flow from the power plant up the river? Also, there would be significant impact to this site if an emergency access road is to be built down to the water. A memorandum from Alan Koechlein to Joe Prall, dated March 9, 1993, gives testament to the evidence of misuse at the present time and likely increase to abuse to the floodplain. The cultural history of the area is a very viable issue. The reports issued by Ed Curtain and his archaeological findings offer important information regarding Native American occupation dating back to the late Archaic period (2000-3000 BC). As very little is known about the prehistory of Queensbury, (as stated in Section 3.9 of the DEIS), these sites may have enormous potential. Although the implications of the DEIS are to protect these sites the question of further research and the storage and or exhibition of the findings remains unsettled. Artifacts that come from these sites should remain in the Queensbury Glens Falls area. If these perhaps the National Register, then it would make this location in Queensbury very important indeed. If the plan goes through for the creation of the Champlain Hudson Corridor these sites would certainly be included and an asset to the community. Other concerns deal with the wildlife and the flora. If development were to take place would a wildlife corridor to facilitate the animal use and or reaction be implemented? What changes will take place during migration by the waterfowl that make use of this area? Will many of the protected plant species be irrevocably lost to lawns and driveways? So many of these issues remain unsettled. Also unsettling are the vast changes that have been made in the plan since it was first submitted. There are changes in lots and lot sizes, changes in density location to makeup for loss of pointe lots, changes in the recreational aspects and the trail system, and the addition of the two forty foot docks intended for canoes. There just doesn't appear to be a sufficient diversity of houses to warrant a PUD rather than a simple subdivision. This PUD with its economic impact on the developers should not be considered as an excuse or reason for automatic approval. In section 5.6 the statement that it would be financially unacceptable to the project sponsor for the board to consider the no action alternative is ludicrous. This sounds like pure manipulation. The project sponsor will deem any loss to an opportunity cost. In conclusion we feel that the environmental damage to these precious resources is inevitable and unable to be mitigated should the project proceed as submitted. Therefore, a course of no action to the bluff areas and the pointe should strongly be considered. There seems to be no justification for resource exploitation in the form of development to this site. In saving these natural and cultural resources we will make an investment that will appreciate in value for future generations. Once these areas are gone, they are gone forever! Sincerely, Linda M. White, Southern Adirondack Audubon Society. To: Queensbury Town Board Date: October 13, 1993 Supervisor Ladies and Gentlemen: My wife and I want to express our concerns on the Hudson Pointe Development for your information. We feel that if this project is continued it should not be allowed PUD designation. It should be compelled to comply with the Queensbury Zoning Plan, as other development has. That any development be kept back from the sensitive bluff area, no docks or structures to be allowed on the lower level. Please remember when the Indians visited that area (and they did) the river was much lower than it is now, considered the flooded area caused by the Feeder Dam. This area should be eventually included in the green way along the Hudson. The Michaels Group and others make light of EMF concerns by high voltage lines. Just because the Health Department hasn't drafted guide lines doesn't mean we shouldn't be cautious about where we locate development. Remember what happened at Buffalo Love Canal and even our local PCB problems. The developer maintains the water table is deeper than 50 feet. The people who lived here prior to the town water know many of us pumped our water using shallow well pumps which will only lift slightly over 20 feet. To further prove my point, I have spent my youth on the Hudson Big Bay and can show you countless springs and brooks coming out 8 or 10 feet above the current level of the river in this area. Niagara Mohawk has always posted this area KEEP OUT DANGER HIGH VOLTAGE. Now all of a sudden it is okay to locate as many as five hundred (500) people, many of them children in harms way. The power houses which used to be protected these buffer zones were manually operated now they are automatic without even a watchman. If they think they can keep scores of curious children from investigating they are creating an accident waiting to happen. I have read most of the draft EIS and was surprised to find many contradictions. One example is the cutting of trees and brush on the bluff area one place the Draft says, no cutting in another it says selective cutting. The developer seems to interpret the word mitigate as cure all. They feel as long as they mention mitigated that the problem automatically disappears. I would like some details on how they intend to solve their many problems. This project will compete with the already overloaded real estate market in the whole town and county, and tend to reduce the value of all property due to supply and demand. I have tried to eliminate some of the many other problems with this development as I am sure you will tire of reading them over and over. Thank you for your careful consideration. Very truly yours, Sterling W. Akins and Ruth B. Akins To: James Martin From: Joanna Brunso Date: October 8, 1993 Dear Mr. Martin: I have reviewed the Traffic Impact Study of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Hudson Pointe Planned Unit Development and find that it is acceptable and that no further mitigation is necessary than that proposed in the study. This development, when fully developed, will further the deterioration oflevel-of-service at Exit 18 of the Northway. Although the Corinth Road Corridor Study performed by the Transportation Concepts indicated that this interchange will fail in 1994, work is currently underway to add a 300 foot turn lane and signal improvements at the bottom of the ramps. These improvements will improve the level-of-service and push out the failure year. However, in the long run, the corridor study indicates that this interchange must be reconstructed to provide for five lanes (two lanes in each direction and a turn lane in the middle). Since the Town of Queensbury is expanding in the area west of Exit 18 and along West Mountain Road, it may be prudent for the Town to consider a commitment from which developer for a fair share of the Town's share of these eventual improvements. Thank you for the opportunity of commenting on this proposed development. Very truly yours, Joanna Brunso, Acting Staff Coordinator, Glens Falls Transportation Council To: Mr. James Martin Date: October 18, 1993 Re: Hudson Pointe DEIS Gentlemen: As requested by the Town of Queensbury and as per our Contract with the Town, Morse Engineering, P.c. has attended the Public Meeting on the Hudson Pointe project. We offer the enclosed list of comments for evaluation by the Developer and inclusion in the FEIS. I trust that when the Town has an opportunity, it will copy our organization on all written comments received for our ultimate evaluation of the FEIS and the preparation of a finding statement in association with your Department. Very truly yours, Richard Morse, President Hudson Pointe Morse Engineering's Comments On The DEIS 1) Concerns for access on bluff - The Developer should establish a plan to prevent access to the bluff and a contingency plan in the event informal access is started. 2) The Developer should define who will use the boat storage and picnic shelter on the point, i.e., Homeowners' Association member or general public. 3) The Developer should proposed a technique to preclude vehicle access on the emergency road proposed for the point property. 4) Concerns raised with the reference to Niagara Mohawk PCB dump sites should be addressed (see sketch submitted at Public Hearing). 5) Would the Developer clarify if the proposed sidewalk on the west side of Sherman Island Road to Morningside Circle is still proposed (letter of December 2, 1992 from Michaels Group to Dr. Jack V. Irion). If so, please note on Site Plan. To: Town Board From: Jim Martin Date: October 18, 1993 Re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact States (DEIS) for the Proposed Hudson Pointe PUD I have reviewed the DEIS for the above references project and I have the following comments: 1) Possible PCB contamination. Comments have been received from the public which state that PCB's are present on the project site. Comment: Soil analysis tests should be conducted indicating contamination levels (if any) at random pointe throughout the site. Specific sites which are of special concern are the sites where trash dumping is visible. The response to this comment should include a description of the soil testing procedure used and the basis for the number of selected testing sites and the location of testing sites. 2) Conservation easements. The DEIS states that some of the open space areas will be under conservation easements maintained by the homeowner's association or the Town of Queensbury. Comment: Conservation easements are an integral part of the mitigation plans for this proposed development. Therefore, all attempts to workout the details of these easements should be made prior to the statement of this proposal. Using a base map of the project boundaries, a map should be supplied indicating those areas which will be covered by the conservation easement. A narrative should be supplied in addition to the outline in Appendix K which gives detailed answers to the following questions: a) Who will own the land covered by the easement? b) What will be the enforcement measures taken for violations of the easements? c) How much land is covered by the easements? d) How will the boundaries of the easements be marked and maintained? e) Will regular inspections be made of the areas covered by the easements. If so how often and by whom? 3) Dedication of land. Will the project proposal include dedication of land for parks and/or recreation? if so, where and how much? 4) Sewage disposal. Comment: Clarification should be supplied as to the specific approach to be used for the disposal of wastewater from the dwelling units. Will modified solid be used or will a variance be sought from he NYS Dept. of Health? 5) Alternatives. More detail needs to be provided on alternatives as to the concept proposal. Comment: A set of review criteria needs to be developed for each alternative. Each alternative can then be inserted into a matrix. This matrix will then allow for consistent and accurate assessments of each alternative. The criteria should be tailored to the unique circumstances associated with this proposal. For example, one criteria might be; potential for impact on bluffs. Such a review method will require detailed a consistent information on each alternative proposed. Alternative should include but not be limited to; the no action alternative; a project designed using the clustering concept and conventional density standards; other proposed sites for the project; etc. 6) EMF's. The project sponsor has indicated that existing standards associated with magnetic fields are being met. Comment. Recent information indicates that EMF's may not cause cancer but may accelerate its development. The benefit and cost of reconfiguring the lines through the project area should be explored. Reconfiguration would include repositioning of improved, insulated cables on the transmission towers. 7. Traffic pattern. Comment: The assessment of the alternative project designs should include an analysis of the impact of leaving the existing southerly most entrance to the Southern Exposure subdivision open. 8. Archeological concerns. Comment: An on-site evaluation should be done of the potential impact of the activities proposed along the shoreline. This evaluation should be done by the consulting archeologist. That represents, I believe all the comments. Councilman Monahan-Jim, I'm have some more to add. I didn't see in there maybe it is there because the index system was not very good. My original comments from the Zoning News, January 19th, 1992 about the EMF's. I'm putting in Electromagnetic Fields and Land-Use Controls, American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service Report Number 435. I'm putting in New York State Department of Public Service, What is New York State Doing About Electric and Magnetic Fields? Dr. Driscoll card is attached. I'm putting in the English edition of the Swedish National Institute of Occupational Health, No 7/1992 New Evidence of Cancer from Electromagnetic Fields. (on file Town Clerk's Office). I found the whole EIS riddled with speculative statements, conclusion being drawn. This says it seems it is likely, which I did not considered proven conclusions. The potential financial impact they gave only the positive side none of the negative. It was very speculative concerning as far as materials and jobs. The one about landfill charges was speculative in conclusion. The sewers we need to know more about the percolation rate particularly by river and wetlands all the way down. The mitigation I felt that there were a lot of questions and as I said, potential environmental impacts could cause, likely that they weren't definitive. I didn't bother to list all of them because some of them are ones that other people have picked up. I agree with you that they didn't go into the alternatives. The community need was because they wanted to bring money into their own company, I didn't really see that as a community need frankly. Archeological and mitigation how effective? Concerned about normal working hours, water resources, density. Their objectives. I thought that's the one they were talking about they wanted to make jobs for their own people. I thought that objectives had nothing to do with our community development objectives that part as far as I'm concerned is crazy, I shouldn't say crazy, but it's a non-valid answer to what it's suppose to be. I go back to what the Attorney said that I agree on waterfront residential cannot be part of a PUD according to our Ordinances and I have the worksheets from the committee that I think will back that up. Then, how is the Town going to enforce the Conservation Easement owned by the Homeowners Association? How will canoes get down to the parking lots and still protect the bluff, the structures that are in the sensitive area? It says motorized boats will be prohibited then if that's true why do they need docks protruding forty feet into the river? There are contradictions in there, etc. Supervisor Brandt-Refresh my memory. When is the comment period closing? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-It closes with the adjournment of this meeting. Supervisor Brandt -So if there are people here that want to make comment we should invite that at this point? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yes. Supervisor Brandt-I'll open it to anyone that wants to make comment. Mr. Brewer-The letter that Jeff Friedland sent is that going to be included? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I don't have a copy of it. Councilman Caimano- W e just got it tonight. Mr. Brewer-I understand. I just don't want it to be left out. Councilman Monahan-Why don't you read the date in Nick? Councilman Caimano-It's a letter from Jeffrey Friedland, Miller, Mannix and Pratt, dated October 18th, 1993 (on file in Town Clerk's Office) Executive Director, Mr. Martin-That letter attaches the letter from the State Historic Preservation Office of September 22, 1993 from David Gillespie (on file Town Clerk's Office) Supervisor Brandt-Is there any other comment that anyone wants to make on the official record before we close? Steve Chagnon-I have property on Palmer Drive which is on the river. My comments on Hudson Pointe after doing a review of that document there. One of the things that I've noticed is there is no special consideration given. The area that's being developed is different than other areas that are being developed in the township. This area sits on a very porous aquifer that's next to a source of drinking water for a lot of communities downstream. I don't see it addressed very well in that document and I haven't really heard it being addressed at any of the previous meetings, but I do want to bring it to your attention. The perc test there indicate the area is very porous and they suggest some remedial work to be done around septic systems to mitigate the flow of leachate from the septic tanks directly into the river almost from just going through this very porous ground. I think that we have enough problems up along the shoreline in Lake George right now and the Lake George Basin with putting septic tanks in a condition where the leachate eventually ends up in the water source. To see that the mitigating measures that are suggested here, I don't think they are going to adequately do it myself. I think that any development of this area at all within this whole sand berm, that's a geological sand berm that's left there that your going to have to have off site sewage treatment of some sort to treat anything in there because whatever you put in there is going to end up in the river in a very short period of time it's what their perc test say and what they've said in their DEIS. Also, in their DEIS they indicate they have no way even with their mitigating measures to handle the nitrogen flowing from the development into the soil. We know its going right into the river they tell you that, I forget the paragraph, but it's there. The other thing was a concern to me was the access to the site and they are proposing to access the site through establish developments. The thing is that from my experience of developments around where the construction vehicles both the construction equipment vehicles and the employees vehicles traveling down through there they usually go at a pretty high rate of speed. The trucks and things will drop off debris and create a lot of dust and actually pretty dangerous conditions for any already established neighborhood. You've got kids up there playing around there are no curbs, sidewalks, or safe zones to tell kids where to stop and where trucks to start it creates a real hazardous condition. I would suggest that one, any development to be done in this property that a road a construction road at least be created down that one neck of property they have that goes down to Corinth Road. Probably that road should be put in with the idea of developing for future traffic, but the inhabitants of that development. Again, it's a safety measure for the established developments already. People have already made their life investments in these other developments and to all of a sudden throw upon them a traffic condition that they have no control over and that can seriously effect there kids and everything else it's just not fair to other people. The proposed density of a hundred sixty three homes in this PUD even the numbers that would be allowed by current zoning potentially doubles the existing number of homes that exist now along the river. According to a survey done by Tim he counted one hundred seventy seven homes between Sherman Island Road and the Northway bridge. He just did a rough count and he started there and started counting one day. If your talking one hundred sixty three and a hundred and seventy seven already there your doubling that density in a real small area. It's just too much for such a small area it's way out of line with what's existing. The other thing is in looking at the DEIS and talking with various groups around the Nature Conservancy and Adirondack Mountain Club they all agreed that the impact on the river is going to be something that nobody really wants. However, they have all kind of shyed away and they said there aren't any studies done, but a study should be done on the impact of the increase boating just on the river basin that would go from the dam down to the Northway bridge. As a resident on that body of water now, I've watched traffic problems with boating in the summer time it's just very dangerous. To talk about raising the potential of the number of boats on there by five hundred percent really requires some kind of study. Both environmental impact such as bank erosion by waves from big motors to just the safety conditions or hazardous conditions created to swimmers and water skiers by the large number of boats in such a small area. I think I'm almost done. I would suggest that some kind of an impact study of this nature be done before any further progress goes with this plan because it something that we're going to need regardless of what happens. The thing is right now everyone that I have talked too says, yeah its a disaster, but we don't handle it. As a resident there we know its a disaster already and we're asking you to handle it before we create something worse. The other thing, of course, to mention is the traffic. We're talking about doubling the number of housing and we already know about the traffic and I think that in the DEIS they say there is a minimal impact on traffic, I would ask them to kind of redo their study. What they are saying and what's reality out there on the road are two different things. The other one comment that I have is two comments. One has anybody considered what the impact on the bluffs are going to be when you put the proposed hundred plus kids in that site? I love kids, I've got a couple myself and I have no problems with it. I think it's a great place for kids to play, but your talking about the banks up there and your talking about having the kids live there and those banks are very sensitive to foot traffic. I think Reverend Storms brought up at an earlier meeting how are you going to keep the kids from digging holes up in the back? They love to do it and the environment there is not suitable for quick recovery to the normal wear and tear the kids put on the turf. The other thing I noticed and this is the last comment is in the DEIS they talked about pruning the bush along the bluffs and they said they would take out trees or any vegetation with a six inch or smaller caliber. I think you are talking about your going to kill what ever is growing up on the banks basically because the six inch caliber tree is a pretty good size tree and I think probably that number should be reduced to less than one inch. Primarily because the soils there are very porus the roots that hold the plants there need to take hold. If you take a smaller plant out then the other smaller plants are just not going to have any space to grow. There is not going to be enough protection for them to take over and that's my comments. Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Is there anyone else that wants to put comments on the record? Mrs. Akins-This is a letter from Anne Ruchalski. Dear Mr. Brandt and Members of the Queensbury Town Board. I realize that this is the last night for the public comment on the DEIS for the Hudson Pointe PUD project. I would like to emphasize one last time that I feel the DEIS is incomplete, contradictory, and vague. If a PUD is necessary for the land, topics such as the density, conservation easements, wetlands, sewage treatment, soil erosion, and impact on the community need to be more concise and clear. If a PUD is necessary, as a citizen of Queensbury, I need to feel safe in knowing that our Hudson River and surrounding wild life are protected. I support no development on the Hudson Pointe. Sincerely, Anne Ruchalski. I just have one more thing. If I was writing this historically for Queensbury its always been known as Hudson Pointe, I don't mean Hudson Pointe, I'm very nervous tonight, Potter's Point. Supervisor Brandt-Known as Potter's Point. Mrs. Akins-And Little Bay down in there. Supervisor Brandt-Are you willing to leave that letter so we can put in right in the official record. Mrs. Akins-Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you very much. Michelle Burch-Besides all these concerns, I question the need of this size project. When it comes time to vote I would hope that you vote no for rezoning of this. If something has to go in, I suggest my opinion is maybe we could look at affordable housing. Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Anyone else that would like to leave comment on the record. It's our last chance tonight to do it. Councilman Caimano-Are we officially closing the public comment period then? Supervisor Brandt-With the close of this meeting. Is there anything else to come before us other than open forum? Mr. Brewer-Does any of the other board members have any comments at all? Councilman Caimano-Not yet. I haven't had a chance to read this letter yet there is a lot of meat in Freidland's letter. Mr. Brewer-I mean about the DEIS? Councilman Caimano-Not yet. Supervisor Brandt-I made certain comments I think, I don't want to embellish them anymore. Gene Lashway-Highway Department. Spoke to the Board regarding his concern for rabies. He is one of the four highway department men assigned to pick up dead animals on the side of the road. Spoke with Dr. Evans regarding rabies shots. The cost is $360.00 for three shots a piece for the four highway department men. Asked the Town Board to pass a resolution regarding this. The following resolution was passed. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RABIES SHOTS HIGHWAY EMPLOYEES RESOLUTION NO. 599,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes an expenditure not to exceed $1,500.00 for the purpose of allowing those Highway employees who are designated to pick up dead animals or what is otherwise known as road kills to obtain rabies vaccination shots through Dr. Evans Office or facilities, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this should be paid for from an appropriate account to be identified by the Town Supervisor. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt Noes: None Absent:None L. Paul Daigle, Queensbury-Presented petition to Board of residents opposed to the reflecting political signs of Paul Naylor, Highway Superintendent. Spoke to the Board regarding his concern for the signs noting they are hazardous to drivers. Asked the Town Board to rendered their opinion on whether they are reflective, Attorney Dusek to research matter with Executive Director, Mr. Martin. Rick Missita-West Mountain Road. Noted in regard to problem of the signs being a hazard to the driver the signs being referred to meet New York State Traffic Control Device Code. Fred Champagne-Candidate for Town Supervisor. Asked is this matter becomes political that all candidates running look at the 15 foot distance from edge of road to sign. Questioned the Board regarding Mr. Palmer being a member of the committee for the Department of Utilities, noted Mr. Palmer is now running for Second Ward Councilman. Questioned the by-partisanship of the group when organized? Supervisor Brandt -Stated Mr. Palmer resigned from the group when he decided to run for office. Mr. Champagne-Asked if there were minutes of the meetings of the Advisory Board, are they on file? Supervisor Brandt-No minutes. Mr. Champagne-Asked who else signed the report made by Mr. Hoenck besides Mr. Hoenck? Asked if the committee was appointed by the Board or Mr. Brandt? Supervisor Brandt-By myself. Look into the law since it is a Supervisors Advisory Committee that are not required to keep minutes and not subject to the opens meetings law. Town Clerk, Dougher-It was signed by no one. George Wiswall-Candidate for Councilman Ward Two-Noted Dick Palmer and himself agreed not to put up any SIgnS. Dick Palmer-Candidate for Second Ward. Hopes that the Town will always have people to give their services. Noted that when he decided to run for the Second Ward he resigned. RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS RESOLUTION NO. 600, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt RESOLVED, that the Audit of Bills appearing on the Abstract of October 18th, 1993 and numbering 93374200 through 93403605 totaling $518,515.51 is hereby approved. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt Noes: None Absent:None Abstain:Mr. Caimano (#000127 Post Star) Mrs. Monahan (#000453 Community Workshop) RESOLUTION ENTERING EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 601, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and moves into Executive Session to discuss three matters of litigation, one matter real property values, and attorney/client privilege. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt Noes: None Absent:None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 602, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Executive Session and moves back into Regular Session. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt Noes: None Absent:None DISCUSSION HELD Attorney Dusek-Noted that the Town Board is in agreement on the General Motors pickup truck litigation. That the Town should stay a part of the classification as you already are. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SETTLEMENT OF ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION NO. 603, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, there is an assessment proceeding entitled Beverly C. Tobin against Helen Otte, Assessor of the Town of Queensbury, Board of Assessment Review of the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, a proposed settlement of this assessment claim has been presented to the Town Board, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves a settlement of an Assessment on Tax Map No. 8-1-127 for 1993, such that the current assessment of $37,000 shall be reduced to $26,000 and the Town Attorney is authorized to sign the Stipulation and to obtain any necessary Court Orders and file such other papers as may be necessary to settle the case. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt Noes: None Absent:None DISCUSSION HELD Councilman Caimano-Requested that Attorney Dusek do a quick analysis of the problem regarding QEDC, AMG/Valcour. Also, requested Attorney Dusek report back to the Board no later than November 1st, as to what happened and what course of action should be taken. RESOLUTION ADJOURNING MEETING RESOLUTION NO. 604, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Regular Meeting. Duly adopted this 18th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt Noes: None Absent:None No further action taken. On motion, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk Town of Queensbury