Loading...
2007-08-06 MTG34 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 845 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG #34 AUGUST 6, 2007 RES. #347-363 7:00PM BOH #14-16 TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR COUNCILMAN RICHARD SANFORD COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER TOWN OFFICIALS SENIOR PLANNER, STUART BAKER FISCAL MANAGER, BARBARA TIERNEY DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION, STEVE LOVERING CEMETERY SUPERINTENDENT, MIKE GENIER BUILDING AND GROUNDS SUPERINTENDENT, CHUCK RICE PRESS POST STAR TV8 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER SUPERVISOR STEC- OPENED MEETING 1.0RESOLUTION ENTERING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 347, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby enters into the Queensbury Board of Health. th Duly adopted this 6 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: None QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH PUBLIC HEARING SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE FOR ARTHUR BINLEY AND LEE GOLUB- BINLEY NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: JULY 20, 2007 SUPERVISOR STEC- This is for property located at 18 Neighbors Way, off of Assembly Point and they are seeking a variance for a holding tank and we noticed this two weeks ago and with that said I will open the public hearing. I see that at least the applicant’s agent and I’m going to guess the applicant himself is here tonight. If anyone speaks tonight on any of these public REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 846 hearings, we just ask that you state your name and address for the record; and with that Mr. MacElroy, I’ll turn it over to you. DENNIS MACELROY- I am Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design Partnership representing the applicants in this application, Arthur and Sandy Binley and Art’s sister Lee Golub. The are joint owners of this property located at 18 Neighbors Way, which is a private Road located off Bay Parkway, the north end of Assembly Point. We have submitted an application for requesting a holding tank for the wastewater disposal at this property. The existing property has an in ground system. To make it clear that there isn’t any indication of any failure. I have been to the site, I have inspected the site, looked at the surface conditions. The property itself is peninsula shaped. It is approximately on half acre surrounded by water on three sides. There is one neighboring property to the south. The physical configuration of the lot makes it impossible to attain a compliant wastewater system with today’s standards. The primary and maybe only reason is the 100 foot setback requirement to an absorption field. The applicants were considering the application of a holding tank system to provide an option if there were improvements in the future. As you know the Queensbury regulations require that if there is any increase of living space that a certified system be established either through some sort of inspection and reporting by an engineer or preparing a design and submitting a design for approval for a system that was compliant. So, as I previously said, physically you can’t design a system on this piece of property other than a holding tank system. The holding tank system requires a variance from your Board and that’s why we’re here. It’s a four bedroom house. The design that we’ve prepared and you all have a two page design plan, which gives site plan information on the first sheet the physical location of the house, the relationship of the proposed holding tanks; and then on the second sheet the design and specifications for a holding tank system which are absolutely straight from the Queensbury Chapter 136, the regulations. If I can just take a moment I want to mention a couple of the items and the requirements in that Chapter 136-11 holding tanks. It talks about the authorization of the Board of Health granting a variance. There are several items which provide the specifications for a system and I just want to reiterate that is just exactly what we are proposing. COUNCILMAN BOOR- Are you on 136-11? MR. MACELROY- Yeah, well I’m reading from my plan which is taken directly from that yes, 136-11 holding tanks. Under sub-section B one holding tank should be water tight pre-cast concrete septic tank without outlets. That is certainly what we are proposing; number two the holding tank capacity is twice the volume of waste generated and in our case a four bedroom system requires a four thousand gallon capacity, we’re proposing that in the form of two two thousand gallon tanks. An evaluation of ground water, which I have done, ground water level is at most at the level of the lake. I have taken elevations to know that the ground elevation in the area of the tanks are five feet above the ground water level. COUNCILMAN BOOR- The bottom of the tank MR. MACELROY- No, at the grade of the ground. In fact, the bottom of a six foot tank perhaps would be in the ground water. But that’s certainly not unusual or prohibited. COUNCILMAN BOOR- Let me ask you this because we were out there today and there were certainly some rock out croppings. What is the situation if you find… have you done test borings and how far can you go before you hit rock- solid rock? MR. MACELROY- You won’t find solid rock, what you may find is boulders in that area. I don’t have concerns about being able to place two, two thousand gallon holding tanks in that area as proposed on the plan. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- But Dennis, we don’t have any data from a test pit, because if we did we would determine where that water level is. There are two things we could do, I mean that doesn’t negate having a holding tank but if you are going to put a holding tank into the water because you have the hydrologic pressures you are going to have uplift when it’s empty. So, than you need tie downs for it; or you can get the type that are the shallow but wide. I don’t know if they make those in terms of holding tanks, we have seen them before for other purposes, but you could go that direction. But, we don’t know where the ground water is, we know the lake is the ground water level. That is a given. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 847 MR. MACELROY- Correct and it’s not above that. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- We don’t know how much room there is above that. MR. MACELROY- I don’t know what you would need for documentation but let me say that I understand the process I believe. This is a request for a variance that would allow that action. The septic disposal system application may provide this more detailed information. I don’t think the fact that if there is groundwater five feet lower than the existing ground level elevation that it precludes the use of a holding tank. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, if any part of the tank is in ground water you are going to have hydrologic pressure. MR. MACELROY- Right, but that would be part of the specific design plan for that which would be the next step. That is the way I would read this. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- And I don’t have any problem with holding tanks. We are going to have to probably go that next step some how some way if we condition this to go there or what. Something like that. The other question I have is, we were up there today, Roger and I, there is one bedroom downstairs. Are you telling me there’s three bedrooms upstairs? I don’t mean to belittle the house but it’s not a big house. It’s probably one of the most beautiful locations on the lake I have ever seen. But, four bedrooms? MR. MACELROY- Correct COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Here is my concern: it’s for sale correct? MR. MACELROY- That’s correct COUNCILMAN STROUGH- The new owners, I don’t think they should be under any illusion that that could be a four bedroom place. Given the size of the property and given the size of the constraints of the property and caring capacity of the property, the caring capacity of the property is so limited that we are resorting to holding tanks. So the property can only hold so much and I am just afraid that your conventional… you’ve seen what’s going on up there. People buy your house and they want to put up a mansion and they want to put up a mansion on a postage sized lot. We are trying to prevent that. Would you have any problem with say downsizing the holding tanks to say thirty five hundred so that COUNCILMAN BOOR- That’s a three bedroom just so you know COUNCILMAN STROUGH- We can restrict it to a three bedroom in any future development. ARTHUR BINLEY- To answer your question John, I would have to consult with my sister on that particular item COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Well, it’s not so much you it’s the next people. There are going to come up to us and they are going to say listen we’ve got a septic system for four bedrooms, we are meeting the set backs and the blah, blah, blah; we hear it all the time and then they go and build this huge mansion. COUNCILMAN SANFORD- Can I get something clarified COUNCILMAN BOOR- I think there is something that the applicant needs to understand also COUNCILMAN SANFORD- I’m a little bit unclear on and maybe we can discuss it. Dennis, when you made your introductory comments, you mentioned that the current system is working okay. Is that right? MR. MACELROY- Yes COUNCILMAN SANFORD- It hasn’t failed? REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 848 MR. MACELROY- Correct COUNCILMAN SANFORD- And I think you are looking for these holding tanks in anticipation of some future development. I believe our code is pretty clear that basically says you can’t go on a holding tank for new construction or… is that correct Mr. Boor? COUNCILMAN BOOR- Yeah COUNCILMAN BREWER- Not new construction, number one in our code COUNCILMAN SANFORD- I think what I am saying here is you are very straight forward in what you want to do and I think it is prohibited in our code which is to say look, in anticipation of an expansion or some renovation to the home, we would like to anticipate in the future capacity issues and therefore put these holding tanks in. Holding tanks should be utilized in the case of a failed system as an action of last resort. I think it is perhaps problematic. MR. MACELROY- Do you know where that says that in the ordinance? COUNCILMAN SANFORD- It might be in the red book, I don’t know. COUNCILMAN BREWER- About not new construction MR. MACELROY- No in the Queensbury Ordinance COUNCILMAN BOOR- I don’t know if it is in here or it’s probably the red book COUNCILMAN SANFORD- The red book I think MR. MACELROY- Well, that says it shouldn’t be used for new construction COUNCILMAN BOOR- And new construction could be two hundred feet depending upon the perk rate, not a hundred feet which could make it really difficult. If you don’t have good… you know MR. MACELROY- Right, well a holding tank is a holding tank whether the regulation is a hundred feet or two hundred feet COUNCILMAN BOOR- One of the problems we have as a Board is that let say this gets torn down, our code doesn’t allow for them to build a seasonal camp that I am aware of. They would have to meet codes that would have insulation which make it a year around camp; in which case you can’t have a holding tank. I don’t want the buyer to be mislead, thinking that they can tear this down now and build a new house because the new house would have to be built to the specifications of the code. They’d have to have insulated pipes; they’d have to have everything that would allow it to be other than a seasonal camp, in which case you can’t have a holding tank MR. MACELROY- I don’t think that we are promoting COUNCILMAN BOOR- I mean if you keep it the way it is there is not an issue with a holding tank. But I just don’t want a future buyer thinking that they can tear this down and put a new residence up that is year around on a holding tank. It is not allowed. COUNCILMAN SANFORD- It begs the question, your opening comments basically said we want to do this in anticipation of future construction MR. MACELROY- As an option COUNCILMAN SANFORD- Yeah MR. MACELROY- As an option to a future owner. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 849 COUNCILMAN SANFORD- I appreciate that but what we are saying is that option is really… we cannot grant that for that reason because of what Mr. Boor just said. It would be inappropriate for us to say yeah we will grant you the holding tank so that a future owner can do what the code prohibits. MR. MACELROY- Nobody is asking for that COUNCILMAN SANFORD- Well that is your explanation for wanting the holding tanks. MR. MACELROY- To do something that is prohibited? No, no there are other applications of the need for a holding tank or for a compliant system. If there were improvements made to the physical residence COUNCILMAN SANFORD- I know, it begs the point though, that if in fact the current system hasn’t failed and it satisfies the existing residence, which my understanding is based on the comments I heard is a rather modest sized home. Why would you be doing this if you are not looking down the road having something larger erected? MR. MACELROY- The options would be available to a new owner to build something and to make improvements that were within the regulations of the Town of Queensbury COUNCILMAN BOOR- They actually eliminate the option, you put those holding tanks in nobody is putting new construction on that property. COUNCILMAN SANFORD- You see what is happening up there in the Cleverdale area. It is unbelievable the size of the homes they are putting on those properties. You see them from the lake and it is just amazing. COUNCILMAN BOOR- I should have brought the red book, I apologize for not having it MR. MACELROY- Zoning is what dictates the acceptability of the size of the property COUNCILMAN SANFORD- Does anyone have the red book? COUNCILMAN BREWER- I am looking right now SUPERVISOR STEC- John’s got it COUNCILMAN BOOR- I know the red book pretty good COUNCILMAN BREWER- Yeah, I’ve got it Roger MR. MACELROY- The New York State Health Department regulations, appendix 75A specifically deal with new construction; they don’t deal with replacement systems. The health department engineers will tell you that right out. While we use these for design guidelines they aren’t necessarily applicable to an area where the Town has jurisdiction. It will say in here that holding tanks aren’t suitable for new construction. COUNCILMAN BOOR- Or year around residence MR. MACELROY- Correct COUNCILMAN BOOR- And you can’t build… I am unaware that we allow homes to be built that aren’t to code and code would require the type of insulation, the type of protection to pipes and stuff that would make them year around. If I’m wrong on that then you are fine but I am unaware of Dave Hatin issuing permits for seasonal residence that don’t have to comply with State code. I may be wrong and I’ll find out. I’d be surprised if they would allow that. SUPERVISOR STEC- Let’s see if there is any public comment. Is there anyone in attendance that would like to comment on this public hearing? Sir, if you want to come to the microphone and we will ask that you state your name and address; these microphones not only amplify but they also record for the purpose of the record. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 850 BRIAN REICHENBACH- Lake George- I am here today to address the application for a variance by the Binley’s. Based on what has been said so far I would like to add that the application appears to be incomplete. From my reading of the Queensbury Town Code it appears that the applicant would have had to indicate in the application the ground water test results and the flood level. It seems that the public at large and home owners in that area are not able to determine from that application on its face exactly what the risk would be and what the problems might be with the holding tanks at that particular property. Further, I don’t believe that without any failure of the current system or any problem with the current system that they have demonstrated any hardship, which as you know is one of the requirements to grant the variance. The gentleman who spoke in favor of the application, Mr. MacElroy indicated that those issues could be addressed at the later stages of the application process; but I don’t think that would give affected homeowners, landowners and the general public an opportunity to be heard as they have now to indicate any problems with this application. It appears that this application is not complete; it does not have sufficient information. I don’t believe that the homeowners with their own statements can show the hardship required to get the variance. Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC- Thank you sir. Is there anyone else that would like to comment this evening on this public hearing? Mr. Salvador JOHN SALVADOR- Good evening, my name is John Salvador. In addition to all that is said I think what is seriously lacking here is an understanding of the Town’s policy with regards to holding tanks. It seems as though each applicant who comes here and there is another one tonight besides this one, is run around a different set of circumstances and conditions and special aspects; which I don’t think is quite fair. In addition to that we talk about seasonal use and we have no definition for it. What do we mean by seasonal use? We talk about bedrooms and we have no definition in our code for bedrooms. We talk about new construction and we wrestle everyday with whether it’s a renovation or a remodeling or new construction. Until we define these parameters its nonsense to be talking about these things. I would suggest that applications like this be put on hold until the Town solidifies its thinking with regard to the use of holding tanks. I think they have application and there is an appropriate place for them. It has to be uniform. SUPERVISOR STEC- Anybody else this evening? Alright, Rose do we have any correspondence and then we will go back to the Town Board DEPUTY CLERK MELLON- This letter was submitted to the Town Clerk’s Office on Friday August 3, 2007: Please consider the following concerns in your determination of this variance: 1.That the size of the holding tank be consistent with the size of any future house to be built consisting of no more than three bedrooms and two bathrooms (this includes a ½ bath). 2.That there be no more than one holding tank, due to the proximity to Lake water especially on the East/West sides of the property, as the current house is located. 3.That the tank be inspected on a scheduled basis. 4.Are there other septic systems alternatives which would be safer for the area, given its configuration, which would better protect the lake water? 5.Are there State laws to determine what is within legal boundaries to allow this type of septic system? 6.Consideration should be given to the size of the street, neighbor’s way, and the vehicle which would service the system. The concerns above are raised because of the large homes which are replacing existing ones and their impact on Lake George. When a new home is built, especially on waterfront property, there is always a risk to the lake; therefore, your decision should be consistent with the future of Lake George, free of sewage and other run-off pollutants. Thank you. Sincerely, Beverly Turner Pozzi REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 851 COUNCILMAN BOOR- Rose could you read number 5 again DEPUTY CLERK MELLON- Are there State Laws to determine what is within legal boundaries to allow this type of septic system? COUNCILMAN BOOR- To do a follow-up on that, this is the State handbook, the State guide book for exactly what we are talking about. Under the section holding tanks I would like to read at least the first couple of sentences, it is pretty telling. COUNCILMAN BREWER- What page are you on Roger COUNCILMAN BOOR- I am on page fifty-six. The use of holding tanks shall not be approved for new residential construction full-time or part-time occupancy except for occupancy of dwelling is allowed while the wastewater treatment system is under construction. Holding tanks are only intended for use to meet the above noted exception or to correct existing failing wastewater treatment systems when no other alternatives exist. It goes on, so again my concern is for the potential new buyer. It might be marketed as a four bedroom house with a new system and they buy this with the notion that they are going to be able to tear it down and put a new house on it. Clearly that’s not allowed. SUPERVISOR STEC- Is there any other public comment at this point. Mr. MacElroy or Mr. Binley MR. MACELROY- Yeah, a couple questions I had or comments. I’m wondering the first comment who he may have represented? Is it possible to know that? SUPERVISOR STEC- I don’t know, Mr. Reichenbach. I don’t believe he stated his address either COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Lake George SUPERVISOR STEC- Sir, are you here representing… do you want to come to the microphone? I don’t know if you really have to answer the question but the question is are you a neighbor or are you representing a neighbor or just curious? I don’t know the applicant is curious MR. REICHENBACH- I’d prefer to keep my… (unable to make out what was said because he was not at the microphone) SUPERVISOR STEC- Alright, fair enough. Thank you, thank you MR. MACELROY- The comments about ground water level and flood plain, the flood plain level is in elevation three twenty one, that is as per the Queensbury FEMA maps and the ground water level would be consistent with the lake level, which generally fluctuates in the three nineteen to the three twenty range. Lake George is a controlled discharge on the north end and while there are some variations there is a mean high and a mean low level. The level of the lake is fairly predictable. That information while true is not shown on that plan certainly would be part of any design plan. It seems to be a lesser issue here I understand that but I don’t want to give the indication that we are avoiding that information or didn’t have that information to provide. I realize that it is stated within the… it is right on our plans what it talks about and what is required. It is sort of a check list of the information that is provided and I think that we provided all that; the crux of the issue is New York State Health Department regulations for new construction verses an existing system that could be considered as a replacement system for alterations to an existing property. You are considering a misrepresentation of the condition to future buyers and I understand that. The current owners wouldn’t want to promote that as well. So how do we best rectify that, I agree certainly with some of the comments that John Salvador has made as far as the consistency. I have been here at this table on a property not a quarter of a mile away from this getting a holding tank approval for what is a year round property. There is another quite large house a quarter of a mile away from this site that exists on a holding tank that is certainly a year round residence. COUNCILMAN BOOR- I don’t know if any of us on this Board approved the residence you are referring to. I certainly wasn’t on the Board when that came before the Board of Health, if it REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 852 came before the Board of Health. A year, maybe a year and a half ago I visited you on a site where you put in a modular peak system. MR. MACELROY- Yeah COUNCILMAN BOOR- Why would a system like that not… MR. MACELROY- Not be applicable COUNCILMAN BOOR- Not be applicable here MR. MACELROY- I’d love to have the opportunity to propose that but… COUNCILMAN BOOR- Because that wouldn’t preclude a new owner from perhaps improving, knocking down a building. Certainly, I wouldn’t want it any bigger but you know MR. MACELROY- You may know you may recall that I have a special interest in the new technologies that are available because of the application that there is around the lake shore and how that can make for a better situation. We all may not like the expansion of the use or the intensity of the use around the lake shore but with it I will say, with it comes improved infrastructure. There are better septic systems; there are storm water management systems that make the use of that property better for the lake. I believe that. COUNCILMAN BOOR- Well a holding tank would be better too. Make no mistake, a holding tank is as good as it gets from the aspect of stuff not… MR. MACELROY- As far as the advanced treatment technology, the pure flow peak bio-filter system that would be great. I would love to promote that but the health department while they are recognizing those systems, and giving credit to them for reduced areas of the absorption field because you are enhancing the treatment of that effluent you still can’t get away from the hundred foot setback requirement. It could be done the local authority could certainly review it and approve a project in a technology like that on your site, your property, your Town the Health Department wouldn’t necessarily be involved they don’t have jurisdiction. But, it is a departure from the one hundred foot setback requirement. While, I would fee confident about the ability of a treatment system like that to be able to do the job it is something that might not be readily accepted. COUNCILMAN BOOR-My personal opinion is I would like to put the holding tank in. Absent of failing system and I would have a …there is no new construction going in there if a holding tank goes in there. MR. MACELROY-I think that what this whole thing was evolved and generated by the current owner’s consideration of another option for a potential buyer. They are certainly not trying to circumvent regulations or do something because they are potentially selling this it is not for their use. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It begs the question why. Why are you doing this if the system isn’t failing? SUPERVISOR STEC-I think what Roger is saying is if it is not failing why wouldn’t you let the next owner have the option of deciding what option he wants to take. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Because if he has an approval for a four bedroom home with a septic system that is approved it makes it more valuable. SUPERVISOR STEC-It is more marketable right. COUNCILMAN BREWER-That’s the only thing I can think of. MR. MACELORY-It perhaps makes it as valuable as the assessment says it is. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I’m not going to debate that. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 853 COUNCILMAN BOOR-Our job isn’t to make values. MR. MACELROY-I understand that, but that is what drives a lot of issues here. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I actually think Mr. Salvador made some good points. We haven’t been consistent over the past largely because of the definitions don’t line up. My recommendation to this board is we define some of the key things that need to be defined. We come to terms with our policy. In the meantime with this particular one we put it on hold until we can do that. COUNCILMAN BREWER-It would have to be this particular one Richard any other that comes before us until we get that decided. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-You got to look at each one that has unique circumstances. For example Roger and I were also up talking to the next applicant’s and their situation is completely different than this. They have a situation where they have a septic system and it is on someone else’s property. So, you have to look at each application uniquely. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-You do also because also in some cases there are failed systems and others with not failed systems. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Right, that makes it a whole different story because it is a failed system this isn’t a failed system. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right, as opposed to the next one where I consider it a failed system because it is not even on the property….. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-That is my recommendation on this one here. I know that I don’t have the comfort level to move forward with approval. Yet, on the other hand I think we owe it to everybody to make sure that we do our homework in terms of the revisions of the code. We are addressing zoning now anywhere. SUPERVISOR STEC-We are. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Make no mistake I am not completely comfortable it is not like I take great pleasure with reading page 56. This is a good example of probably where a holding tank is a great idea it is also clear that it is not allowed. MR. MACELROY-It is not allowed under the regulations the New York State Health Department for new construction. COUNCILMAN BOOR-You are aware that we have to go by the most stringent of the two by our Code. It says which ever one of these is the most stringent is the one that we go with. MR. MACELROY- If the definition of new construction applies. That wouldn’t always be the case in this situation. COUNCILMAN BREWER- Well you are doing a predicated on a sale for new construction. SUPERVISOR STEC- He hasn’t said that MR. MACELROY- There is other situations that could exist that would be perfectly compliant with those regulations and Queensbury’s and in conformance with Queensbury’s regulations. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Do you think it is likely that if a new buyer came along they would want to read about he property MR. MACELROY- Is it likely or possible yes COUNCILMAN STROUGH- I mean are there foundation issues with the house? I was up there today and it looks like it is a good candidate for a rebuild. If that is the case, the new owners are REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 854 going to have to jockey around storm water control measures and buffering standards if we adopt them. MR. MACELROY- Zoning laws COUNCILMAN STROUGH- And they are going to have to jockey these things around and the tanks may even be in the way. MR. MACELROY- I think the tanks would dictate a great deal what happens, like any septic system on site takes priority COUNCILMAN STROUGH- But I also have concerns about engineering the system so that they stay tied down because I think the bottom of the tank is going to be in ground water. I know we can do it and I know you can do it. You are usually very, very thorough COUNCILMAN BOOR- The most problematic thing is that you don’t have a failed system. I mean what is the hardship? You are hear for a variance and a variance its very nature indicates there is some kind of hardship required for use the property and you have reasonable use of the property. MR. MACELROY- Hardships are typically required for zoning type variances. I’m not sure that your regulations speak to that. COUNCILMAN BOOR- Oh, come on we can put it into a philosophical… MR. MACELROY- Right COUNCILMAN BOOR- But I am telling you I think you have reasonable use of the property; you have a system that isn’t failing. MR. MACELROY- And by your own recognition a holding tank may be a better situation COUNCILMAN BOOR- I’d love to put one in but we are precluded from doing that by these books MR. MACELROY- Okay, we don’t want to take up more of the time. Is there some indication of what the time frame might be of something like that, development of regulation or consistency of policy? COUNCILMAN BOOR- We’ve been having e-mails back and forth on CEA’s and stuff like that this very week. SUPERVISOR STEC- The timeline to get something like this through the process would involve public hearings and whatnot probably is part of our zoning code, it will be the fall. COUNCILMAN BOOR- This fall SUPERVISOR STEC- Yeah, it will be this fall. It will be a coin toss whether or not it is before frost, I think. Maybe before, but I wouldn’t guarantee it. Just to give you a best guess- October. Is there any other public comment on this public hearing? Alright MR. MACELROY- Procedurally, could we request that it be tabled? That the application be tabled SUPERVISOR STEC- I could either close the public hearing and not take an action and table it or we could leave the public hearing open… COUNCILMAN BREWER- Let’s close it Dan SUPERVISOR STEC- I’ll close the public hearing. I don’t think unless we are dying to deny it. What are we going to gain by giving you a little more time to think about some of the suggestions that were made and come back REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 855 COUNCILMAN BREWER- And or if we adopt a code COUNCILMAN BOOR- One of the advantages is that rather than have you do test and borings and stuff for some of the things that John was worried about I wouldn’t do that at this point in time. I just don’t want to see the applicant spend money in a manner that is not going to be useful. COUNCILMAN BREWER- So are we going to…. SUPERVISOR STEC- So the public hearing is closed and we will take no action on it and we’ll leave it as such and you can watch what we are doing or if you come back just let either the building office know or me know if you want to come back to the Town Board and discuss this some more. MR. MACELROY- Thank you very much for the discussion PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED- NO ACTION TAKEN QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH PUBLIC HEARING SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE FOR ROBERT SAMMLER NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: JULY 6, 2007 CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING FROM JULY 16, 2007 SUPERVISOR STEC- This is a continuation of a public hearing from our last meeting three weeks ago to date because we had asked for some additional information and also because the owners weren’t here and I guess we had asked some questions that really the agent that was there that night was not comfortable answering or speaking on behalf of the owners. With that said I’m guessing that one of you is the owner Mr. Sammler and the other is Mr. Burke- Tom Burke CORNELIUS BURKE- Cornelius Burke SUPERVISOR STEC- Cornelius Burke, okay thank you MR. BURKE- From BBB Construction. I live in Bolton Landing and I am going to be acting as the agent/contractor for Mr. Sammler who is here with us tonight. SUPERVISOR STEC- Okay, so with that said and I know that there was some activity this afternoon as far as phone calls and personal contact with some Board Members that were up there looking at the site today. I’m sure by now, although, I didn’t talk to either one of you, I spoke with Tom Burke MR. BURKE- You spoke with my father, that’s correct, yes SUPERVISOR STEC- Your father, and so as far as how things were left and who was suppose to do what by when and so with that all said I’ll turn it over to you and if you want to summarize or answer some of the questions that you think are out there and we will take it from there. MR. BURKE- Based on that previous applicant that was here tonight talking about holding tanks and all the information that each individual here on the Board has talked about I would say that our situation for looking for relief to gain a holding tank on Mr. Sammler’s property couldn’t be more of a picture perfect scenario. He has a failing system which when it rains cannot work. We’ve tried every other engineering feet possible to gain a wastewater treatment system on the property without the use of a holding tank; but we have a disposition where a neighbor has a well REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 856 that is seventy-five feet from, which would be the nearest point of any part of the wastewater system that could have been installed on this property. So, with that being said we were left with no option but to seek another means of wastewater treatment and the only one being would be a holding tank for a three bedroom seasonal residence. COUNCILMAN BOOR- If I could do a follow-up on that because in all honesty today when we, actually over the weekend, when I was reviewing the Board of Health topics that we would be discussing tonight, and I was concerned because we made a request previously for a list we needed to have completed for us to evaluate what you are proposing and we didn’t receive that so I placed a call to the Supervisor actually saying this thing should be pulled. I’m not comfortable with it, we don’t have the information. And yet, Councilman Strough and I when we visited the first applicant we decided we’d swing by and at least take a look at the residence and fortunately the owner was there and we walked the property. It became quite evident that you really have no alternatives and the same page I read for the previously applicant says holding tanks are only intended for use to meet the above noted exception or to correct existing failing wastewater treatment systems when no other alternative exist. That is pretty much the way I see this property. It is a seasonal dwelling so it is not probably going to be pumped out as if it were the year round. As pointed out, the current system isn’t even on the property. It’s clear with the terrain that when it rains its half a postage stamp. A postage stamp is a little more than what we have here. It is also not near the lake, it is on the other side of the road. At first I was kind of niggled on because of the tardiness and getting the information, I’m now quite comfortable with probably what you are requesting. COUNCILMAN SANFORD- I have a follow-up question on that, is there any contemplation of new construction with this building? MR. BURKE- Absolutely not at this point in time. There is no new construction; the only thing that I will say that will be going on is that there had been some settling under this building. This is how we became on the topic of septic as I met the owner at a previous encounter. We want to re-stabilize the peers that are under that building and we have a permit to do that. We kind of wanted to do both at the same time. COUNCILMAN SANFORD- But you are not enlarging the structure or anything like that? MR. BURKE- No, no, no, no there will be nothing SUPERVISOR STEC- I’ve got a real quick question for the benefit of the public. I didn’t mention this in the intro the property is located at 323 Cleverdale Road and what you are seeking is a thirty-five hundred gallon holding tank and that is the size for three bedrooms. If I recall correctly, three weeks ago when we opened the public hearing there was some confusion I think between your brother and the Town Board as far as was it three or four. Your dad told me today it was three. COUNCILMAN BOOR- Your brother said four MR. BURKE- He wasn’t sure. He was kind of taking my place at that point in time because I was absent on a vacation. He was filling the void for that meeting that night and he didn’t have the proper knowledge to answer you. SUPERVISOR STEC- There was a short list of items and to me the most substantial one was the question is it three verses four bedroom. Some of the other ones were showing the alarm on the drawing which is there now and I think that you have… unfortunately, it wasn’t so long that we couldn’t look at it. MR. BURKE- And we had the Town Engineer out there to on… so he witnessed the test, he saw the need. Our engineer and the Town Engineer were in compliance with each other, they agreed SUPERVISOR STEC- It is a three bedroom MR. BURKE- It is a three bedroom, right REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 857 SUPERVISOR STEC- Alright, and that’s what it is sized for. Again, the public hearing is open if there is any members of the public that would to address the Board on this application I just ask that you raise your hand. Alright, seeing none is there any other Board discussion? COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Yeah COUNCILMAN BOOR- One quick one and then you can go John. Again, this is the new information I’ve received. There are things that are required that I’m not sure are on here. One would be a water shut off, not just an alarm but a water shut off to the house SUPERVISOR STEC- It’s on there, it is on there MR. BURKE- A solenoid water shut off yes we have that SUPERVSIOR STEC- It is on there, right there COUNCILMAN BREWER- Where is it on there? SUPERVISOR STEC- On the right hand side, right in the middle of the page it says alarm, audiovisual with water shut off, set at ninety percent volume MR. BURKE- We have a high level alarm, we have an audiovisual alarm and there will be a water shut off alarm that shuts the water off with two hundred gallons of capacity remaining in that tank. It is every single feature of safety would be used. COUNCILMAN BOOR- And then you’ll determine if ground water is such that would make the tank buoyant? MR. BURKE- There is a buoyancy calculation on this map too. It is an engineered calculation and it is overstated, overstated to the point where it is not even taken into consideration the fill that would be used over the tank. He has calculations done with the concrete to use as buoyancy to make sure that there is no floatation; that these tanks don’t float out of the ground. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- I made up a checklist, everyone got to see it. It’s an informal thing to get us started on holding tanks. You did a pretty good job at answering that checklist. I give you a little partial checklist last time you left and you did a pretty good job of fulfilling it. I have one question you have two tanks. One you have labeled as a septic tank. MR. BURKE- That one was going to be designed to hold the wastes, the solid wastes. Were you out on the lot today? COUNCILMAN BOOR- Yes MR. BURKE- So you can see the disposition of getting tanks back into this property. It is a narrow access to get in there and these tanks are considerable with weight. So, the engineer decided the capacity is met by the fifteen hundred gallon tank and the two thousand gallon tank; they’re baffled back and forth. The capacity is there. The solids would remain more in the fifteen hundred gallon tank where as more of a liquid form would be in the two thousand gallon tank. Both would be getting pumped by the scavenger tank when it does come to do the pump out thereby utilizing that full thirty-five hundred gallon capacity. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- The problem with the septic tank verses the holding tank, holding tanks are designed to be sealed; septic tanks necessarily weren’t designed to be sealed to be one hundred percent water proof tight. That is one of the requirements; it has to be a water tight, pre- cast concrete tank. Can you make that septic tank water tight? MR. BURKE- Well, yes it would be no different than the holding tank. I understand what you are saying about water tight. That tank would be set at an elevation such that the overflow that goes into the two thousand gallon tank they would baffle back and forth. All the alarms and everything would be in that two thousand gallon tank. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 858 COUNCILMAN BOOR- I think he is just concerned that there is a potential for liquid or effluent to get above a seam in a two part tank MR. BURKE- We would never use a two part tank. This would be a single… I never like using a two piece tank COUNCILMAN BOOR- I think that is what he is getting at MR. BURKE- Okay COUNCILMAN SANFORD- I think if you labeled the fifteen hundred gallon tank as a holding tank and not as a septic tank we wouldn’t be having this discussion. MR. BURKE- Okay we could do that COUNCILMAN SANFORD- Okay, what you are saying is that these are holding tanks; this is not a septic and a holding tank, their both holding COUNCILMAN BOOR- They are both holding tanks MR. BURKE- It is a term used for a tank and it probably shouldn’t be labeled septic tank I agree with you but the engineer labeled it that way. Why he did that is probably because you don’t usually have a holding tank that’s less than two thousand gallons is my understanding COUNCILMAN SANFORD- Alright SUPERVSIOR STEC- Any thing else John COUNCILMAN STROUGH- No, that was my only concern. SUPERVISOR STEC- Any public comment? Mr. Salvador. Just give him access to the mic please. Thanks JOHN SALVADOR- With the two tank system are we concerned about odors and does that second tank have to be vented and where? COUNCILMAN BOOR- Is it a two baffle MR. BURKE- Yes, there will be a vented system and as with most all holding tanks it should be vented. I am not an engineer to speak that way but the engineers have designed a vent, gases will build up on these tanks, they have to be vented. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- If you have an odor problem there is two ways of solving it. One is to buy these adapters that have a charcoal filter that are replaceable. They go on the end of the vent. The other is to vent it out through the roof as traditionally done or tie it in with the systems vent. You may have odor problems with holding tanks and that is one thing that is a problem we need to address. As we are getting more and more holding tanks in these CEA’s we need to address the odor problem. So, there are two remedies and one is to re-pipe that so that it is less likely to be smelled by putting it up higher or to buy one of these charcoal that just fits right on the end of the vent piece, these charcoal exhaust MR. BURKE- I would be inclined to use that charcoal vent and if in so was required only to stick a pipe straight up out of a yard COUNCILMAN STROUGH- We don’t require it by code but I’m thinking you and your neighbors COUNCILMAN BOOR- Well the other thing is with the proximity to your house it may be a good idea COUNCILMAN STROUGH- If you do run into that there are solutions REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 859 SUPERVISOR STEC- Is there any other public comment? I will close this public hearing and entertain a motion PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE FOR ROBERT SAMMLER RESOLUTION NO.: BOH 14, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, Robert Sammler filed an application for a variance from provisions of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, Chapter 136 to install a 3,500 gallon holding tank on property located at 323 Cleverdale Road in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk’s Office published the Notice of Public Hearing in the Town’s official newspaper and the Local Board of Health conducted public hearings thth concerning the variance request on Monday, July 16 and Monday, August 6, 2007, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk’s Office has advised that it duly notified all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that 1.due to the nature of the variance, the Local Board of Health finds that the variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes and objectives of this Ordinance or other adjoining properties nor otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of any Town plan or policy; and 2.the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and is the minimum variance which would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health to affect the applicant; and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 860 RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health hereby approves the application of Robert Sammler for a variance from the Sewage Disposal Ordinance to allow installation of a 3,500 gallon holding tank on property situated at 323 Cleverdale Road in the Town of Queensbury bearing Tax Map No.: 226.12-1-36. th Duly adopted this 6 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE APPLICATION OF JAMES CURCIO RESOLUTION NO.: BOH 15, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board serves as the Town’s Local Board of Health and is authorized by Town Code Chapter 136 to issue variances from the Town’s On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, and WHEREAS, James Curcio has applied to the Local Board of Health for variances from Chapter 136 to install a replacement septic/leaching system: 1.6.3’ from the side property line instead of the required ten feet (10’) setback; and 2.4.0’ from the front property line instead of the required ten feet (10’) setback; on property located at 62 Nottingham Drive in the Town of Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health will hold a public th hearing on Monday, August 20, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, to consider James Curcio’s sewage disposal variance application REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 861 concerning property located at 62 Nottingham Drive in the Town of Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 289.8-1-2.2) and at that time all interested persons will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish the Notice of Public Hearing presented at this meeting and send a copy of the Notice to neighbors located within 500 feet of the property as required by law. th Duly adopted this 6 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: BOH 16, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns and enters Regular Session of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. th Duly adopted this 6 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT: None REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 2.0PUBLIC HEARINGS ESTABLISHMENT OF TOWN COURT IMPROVEMENTS CAPITAL PROJECT FUND #168 NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: JULY 20, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO PUBLIC COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 862 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ESTABLISHMENT OF TOWN COURT IMPROVEMENTS CAPITAL PROJECT FUND #168 AND ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS RESOLUTION NO.: 348, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury's Facilities Manager has met with the Queensbury Town Board, the Town Justices and the Warren County Sheriff’s Department concerning the need for and the appropriate design of an addition with interior and exterior enhancements to the Town Court building located on Glenwood Avenue, and , WHEREAS such proposed project is anticipated not to exceed $140,000 and it is requested that this project be included as part of the Town’s Capital Improvement Plan and financed through the Capital Reserve Fund, and WHEREAS, the Town Board scheduled and duly held a public hearing on th Monday, August 6, 2007 concerning establishment of the Town Court Improvements Capital Project, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the establishment of the Town Court Improvements Capital Project, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the establishment of a Capital Project Fund to be known as the Town Court Improvements Capital Project Fund #168 which will establish funding for expenses associated with this Project, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs that funding for such Capital Project shall be by a transfer from the Town of Queensbury Capital Reserve Fund #64 in the amount of $140,000 to transfer to Town Court Improvements Capital REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 863 Project Fund #168, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED that the Queensbury Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Fiscal Manager to take all action necessary to establish the following accounts for such appropriations and revenues as necessary: ? Revenue Acct No. – 168-0000-55031 (Interfund Revenue) $140,000; and ? Expense Acct No. – 168-1620-2899 (Capital Construction) $140,000; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Fiscal Manager to amend the 2007 Town Budget, make any adjustments, budget amendments, transfers or prepare any documentation necessary to establish such appropriations and estimated revenues, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that in accordance with General Municipal Law §103, the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town’s Purchasing Agent to publish an advertisement for bids for the design and construction of an addition with interior and exterior enhancements to the Town Court building consistent with specifications prepared by the Town’s Facilities Manager, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Purchasing Agent to open all bids, read them aloud and record the bids as is customarily done and present the bids to the next or special meeting of the Town Board following opening of the bids, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Facilities Manager, Purchasing Agent and/or Town Fiscal Manager to take any and all action necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 6 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 864 AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING CHANGE OF ORDER NO. 1 FOR JAMES H. MALOY, INC., REGARDING IMPROVEMENTS AT RIDGE/JENKINSVILLE PARK NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: JULY 27, 2007 SUPERVISOR STEC- This one I will ask Steve Lovering, our Parks and Recs. Director if he wants to come up to the microphone. This one the Town Board discussed three weeks ago briefly at our Regular Town Board Meeting where we had decided that a public hearing was required. We put the resolution together and set the public hearing two weeks ago at a workshop meeting and I’ll let Steve Lovering describe the particulars but what the jest of it is that the previous project approved was for three fields among other improvements. The bids came in, I think Steve would describe them as favorably or certainly under estimate in which case he poses adding a forth field to the list of work; which he is going to explain would keep it under the total that was authorized, but it is a change order and it does require this public hearing. So, I’ll let you explain it further and then we will take some public comment and Board discussion. DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION, STEVE LOVERING- The resolution before you proposes since we were well under what was budgeted for the project spending $131,000 and change and the bulk of that 96,000 plus goes towards the creation of a fourth athletic field. The other two items: 18,000 would go towards the continuation of a top coat for the paving of the parking lot and the third item: 17,000 goes towards the landscaping plan, which is the trees and other ancillary plantings to kind of spruce up the parking area as you enter the park. So those are the three items that part of the resolution for $131,000. SUPERVISOR STEC- I will open the public hearing and if there is any members of the public that would like to… and we will come back to it and have some discussion. Is there any members of the public that would like to comment at this point I would just ask that you raise your hand. Alright, how about Town Board discussion? COUNCILMAN SANFORD- I may be out on a limb on this one but I’m not going to support this and I would like to give my reasoning. On February 26, 2007 the Town Board agreed to three fields and in the event that there was any funds that would remain after the completion of these three fields the money shall be returned to the capital fund. It was because of those two provisions that I voted to support the project in the first place; that it be the three fields and not… I think at the other time there was a second phase for maybe five in total MR. LOVERING- The total was six that was proposed. The total was six COUNCILMAN SANFORD- Okay, and my feeling was that adding three fields was a pretty big accomplishment. We were anticipating a significant investment but we received reasonable assurances that the need was there. I was comfortable in having those three fields built, seeing how it plays out in terms of utilization of those fields; and now what seems to have happened is the price came in lower than we initially earmarked and instead of returning the money to the capital fund the Rec. Commission feels it might not be a bad idea now to move forward with yet a fourth field. I can appreciate it but it doesn’t reconcile well with the way I look at things from the fiscal perspective. Now I know that the Town of Queensbury has earmarked money in the capital improvement plan, but again my feeling is that if you don’t… simply because you have it you shouldn’t necessarily have to spend it. By Board resolution we can move money in and out of that fund and we have some potential financial uncertainties down the road with the Town of REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 865 Queensbury, so I’m going to with all do respect not support this and I just wanted you to know why. MR. LOVERING- I respect you position and I think that we set out to do this project and we went through our estimates with our architect, it was felt at that point in time we wanted to have six fields but we didn’t feel that six fields was going to be anything that you would support just due to the large dollar amount. As we broke this out it was a decision that we made that three fields would be the way to go because we really didn’t think that we would get such a favorable response. Our goal was to get as many fields as we could because we feel that the need is there. Adding a fourth field is huge. I dare say right now that the three fields will not be enough. I think, like any athletic field complex, you will have time where three or four fields if you support that is used and is not enough and then you will have times where if you go by Morris Field or the Dome you will see those fields lay there unused. That is the business of athletic fields. Down time is necessary. If the question is do we need four fields I do think we need four fields. We were proposing six, will we get to six, I don’t think we will. I don’t think you will see us come back for quite some time asking for additional athletic fields at Ridge/Jenkinsville. I just don’t see that happening. I think that we will move on to other projects more important, more pressing needs. So the fact that we had set aside $976,000 to do this project and came in so far under budget and the fact remains that we are still going to be returning over $75,000 to the general fund so that money will be going back to the CIP Fund. The cost to do an additional field will never, ever be this good. To go in, the resolution outlines, to go in at a later date to put a fourth athletic field, first of all you would never go back and do one field, that would be ridiculous to consider that. But to go back in and do one or two more fields down the line it is going to be more than $96,000 for the simple fact that your contractor is there he is moving the earth now, all of his equipment is there, to have another contractor come in and try to do it for anywhere near that amount is just not going to happen. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- And I agree, providing basic facilities, this isn’t extraneous, basic facilities for our youth. I agree with you I think there certainly is a need for an extra field that’s clear. I too am a fiscal conservator. So, if we are going to save $40,000 and put in an extra field I say do it. I think that is a community priority. COUNCILMAN BREWER- I would agree. I think Richard if you look at the big picture they proposed six fields and instead of trying to take one gulp at the apple, they figured they’d take a couple of bites at it. I think if you have been at Queensbury School or Morris field or the Dome at any given time there is not enough room. I think if we can get the fourth field it is never going to be that cheap again. We might as well do it and still save the taxpayers money in the end. SUPERVISOR STEC- Is there any other public comment COUNCILMAN BOOR- This is an interesting conundrum. It is a rarity, as you pointed out, that something comes in so far under what we anticipated the cost to be. I am pleased with that. I can certainly appreciate where Councilman Sanford is coming from. I certainly want to see improvements with the park. My concern is a little bit different I think than anybody else up here. I live on Sunnyside East and actually my property, the back of it, actually abuts the property MR. LOVERING- It does COUNCILMAN BOOR- No problem with the noise, I kind of like it. There is a growing concern I’ve heard from residence in the Jenkinsville area and also on Sunnyside East. It is something that I think perhaps the rest of the Board is unaware of and it has to do with traffic. The interesting thing about fields is when you say we need more fields, the assumption is that all those fields are being used at the same time otherwise you wouldn’t need more fields. When people come and people go they are all coming either for one field, two fields, three fields, four field, five fields, six fields. If they are coming for four fields and you are booking those fields continuously you’ve got a tremendous amount of traffic coming in and out. That is a very interesting road, Jenkinsville Road. To compound that and I think that it is one of the things that we need to do better when it comes to planning and it has to do with cumulative effects. I think this Board has also done a great job supporting Angio Dynamics who now employs a tremendous number of people but they also use Sunnyside East now because it is the easiest way to get to and from work. The Town in a very magnanimous gesture is going to be selling REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 866 additional water to the Town of Kingsbury for a housing development that is tremendously large, bigger than anything we have ever done in Queensbury, and you know what Sunnyside East and Vaughn Road is going to be the road they use. My concern is if you are going to utilize all these fields then there is going to be a tremendous amount of traffic. I received a couple of calls from individuals at Jenkinsville and it is a concern for them right now because at certain times of day they can’t get in and out. I know it was brought up at the last public hearing and I think we even said we would take a look at traffic and yet now we’re kind of moving ahead with another field still not having looked at traffic. I would support the field, I like the idea of it getting used, I have concerns that we are creating a situation that’s going to cost us. Any savings that you might realize for this one field because of the marginal utility of having the contractors there as opposed to coming back and forth maybe lost if we have to make tremendous improvements to Jenkinsville that at an incredibly weird intersection where Jenkinsville meets Vaughn Road and Sunnyside East and also at the Landfill; that’s an incredible kind of hairpin with people coming up Ridge. There is only two ways to get in and out of that place. I don’t know if we looked at that aspect of maximizing usage of all these fields. So that is a concern of mine. MR. LOVERING- I am not an engineer and I have not had experiences doing traffic studies. I think when that point was originally brought up during the first public hearing, I think if we went back to check the records on my comments at that time were such that I didn’t feel that the weekly use you weren’t going to see a huge spike from. Those fields whether it be three, four or six were going to be accommodating programs that already existed, our fall soccer program the spring girls lacrosse and the spring boys and girls soccer. Those are your three main groups that use those fields and right now they are using the space, they are just on as we explained in the first public hearing or during the first resolution, they are using the space now it is just not very good. If you go over there during the springtime you might see two or three fields being used for soccer and you might see a couple of fields being used for lacrosse all at the same time. Now what is going to happen is that they are actually going to play on some decent athletic fields that are actually level lined and much better, safer to use. I don’t think you are going to see a huge spike during your weekly use. I think where you will see a change in the traffic patterns is probably on weekends, where now there is an opportunity to maybe have a soccer tournament or a lacrosse tournament or maybe the space is used for other non-athletic ventures. So I think that is where you are going to see the biggest change in traffic patterns or more weekend use than weekly. COUNCILMAN BOOR- So when are they used during the week? MR. LOVERING- Right now they are used between softball and… they are not used as much in the summertime right now because the field space is not conducive to those kind of things. We will move some of our activities off the school campus to use those fields but the real spike in usage is in the spring leading up to when the school ends at the end of June and then it picks up again at the end of August or beginning of September. That is your biggest usage and then we would be one of the exclusive users during the summertime, the Town. COUNCILMAN SANFORD- And that too Steve is in the evening Roger. COUNCILMAN BOOR- And Angio Dynamics gets out about six o’clock COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Early evening COUNCILMAN BOOR- Because it takes me a long time to get out of my driveway MR. LOVERING- Right now your major user over there during the summertime is softball, so that really isn’t going to change. You are not going to see a situation where you’ve got forty- eight team men’s’ league playing and all kinds of soccer and lacrosse. It’s kind of portioned out so the summertime your big user is the softball fields. They are using it now, they have got another week or so. COUNCILMAN BREWER- They’re multiuse fields where they are going to play softball on those lacrosse fields anyway. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 867 COUNCILMAN BOOR- Are you saying that each field will not accommodate the type usage that they are experiencing now, in other words, will there be more people using the fields? I mean I would think yes MR. LOVERING-I think there will be more people using the fields but its not going to be all at once. I’m describing that the usages are going to be portioned out. COUNCILMAN BOOR- Then why new fields? If they are not using them all at once, in other words, that would indicate that the one field is not being used and we are using three of them. I would think if you are going to build four you would want to maximize the usage but you want to maximize the usage in a safe way both on the field and getting to and from the field. MR. LOVERING- There will be times where… I was trying to use the example of softball fields, saying that’s your major users and your major traffic right now and in the summer time it is coming from the softball users, it wouldn’t necessarily be from the people using the other athletic fields because they are not ready COUNCILMAN BOOR- Right, on a lacrosse, I’m ignorant on this, at a lacrosse game or soccer game how many contestants and how many audience members per field? Just a rough guess MR. LOVERING- If you had one field going and you had two lacrosse teams or a couple of soccer teams you might have anywhere from fifteen to twenty five players plus you figure a couple of participants watching, a couple of fans for each participant you may have anywhere from fifty to seventy five people for one field. COUNCILMAN BOOR- So at four you are talking about up to three hundred and fifty or something. MR. LOVERING- And that will depend on what kind of a game it is COUNCILMAN BOOR- And that is not, and I am being devils advocate here and I’m not trying to be, but that’s not counting the basketball courts, the tennis courts or the softball fields; which could also be active at any given time when these lacrosse or soccer things are going on MR. LOVERING- Right, but as I described before I think that the usages if you portion them out you will find that in the springtime the athletic fields are going to be heavily used with lacrosse and soccer COUNCILMAN BREWER- And that is not when they are playing softball MR. LOVERING- And not necessarily when they’re playing softball; now your big overlap is going to be probably in June when softball leagues are going and lacrosse and soccer are kind of finishing up there season. That is probably going to be your busiest time. COUNCILMAN BOOR- Again, I could probably go either way with this. I am just concerned about what the potential cost could be to mitigate traffic as we move forward. COUNCILMAN BREWER- What would you suggest Roger? Should hire a traffic engineer just to look at it just to give us some ideas? COUNCILMAN BOOR- Its hard to say COUNCILMAN BREWER- Not predicated on this project COUNCILMAN BOOR- My answer Tim would be it is hard to say who is going to be sitting up here when they come to do another enlargement, expansion, additional field. My concern is I would like to predicate that nothing happen after this until a traffic analysis is done. COUNCILMAN BREWER- I think it would be smart if we approve this project, have somebody look at it now before, if you have a problem getting out of your driveway now it is only going to get worse as these field develop REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 868 COUNCILMAN BOOR- This isn’t about my driveway COUNCILMAN BREWER- Well, I’m not using your driveway as an example but, people are how’s that? COUNCILMAN BOOR- I hear it from my neighbors COUNCILMAN BREWER- How about we have somebody look at it now so maybe we nip a problem in the bud before we create a bigger one COUNCILMAN BOOR- Yeah, and I would like somebody to get a grasp on the actual size of this housing development that’s going in Kingsbury COUNCILMAN BREWER- I think a traffic engineer would look at those things COUNCILMAN BOOR- Yeah, well I’m somewhat agreeing with ya but I don’t think that is going to satisfy what Steve’s asking for tonight. Are you saying that you wouldn’t allow this to go forward without the traffic study? COUNCILMAN BREWER- No I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying that I’m in favor of this project, I would say let this go forward but in the spirit of planning lets look at the roads, lets have a traffic engineer forecast a little bit and see if we can come up with some kind of a solution separate of this SUPERVISOR STEC- Is there any other public comment on this project tonight? Seeing none I will close the public hearing and entertain any motion COUNCILMAN BREWER- I’ll introduce it to approve SUPERVISOR STEC- Introduced by Councilman Strough, seconded by Councilman Brewer any other Town Board discussion COUNCILMAN BOOR- Yeah, I would like to add something, if I vote in favor or this that no more improvement be made until a traffic study is done SUPERVISOR STEC- Let me help you guys out here, let me suggest that we add as movers and seconders see if you would accept this. Add a final resolved- Resolved that the Town Board has decided that no future expansion at Ridge/Jenkinsville Park will be allowed to occur until a traffic study has been done to the Town Board satisfaction COUNCILMAN BOOR- Analyzing the traffic patterns on Jenkinsville, Ridge, Vaughn and Sunnyside East MR. LOVERING- And you are referring to additional athletic space COUNCILMAN BOOR- Any improvements SUPERVISOR STEC- Any expansion COUNCILMAN BOOR- Any dollars, I don’t want to spend anymore. My point being is see this is coming out of the capital improvement plan and that is the very place that we would take money to do a road SUPERVISOR STEC- That’s what I was going to say how about any capital MR. LOVERING- I’m just trying to understand exactly what you are saying. If we want to make an improvement to SUPERVISOR STEC- Alright let me try again; Steve let me try again, any additional capital expenditures. Rose do you want to try to read that back DEPUTY CLERK MELLON- I haven’t even started REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 869 SUPERVISOR STEC- That’s good because I have a photographic memory, a final resolve that says Resolved that the Town Board has also decided that no additional capital expenditures be made at Ridge/Jenkinsville Park until a traffic study is completed for the area in the vicinity of Ridge/Jenkinsville Park to the Town Boards satisfaction. I talk to fast, how much did you get? Well, we’ve got it on tape. John, are you fine with adding that to your motion? COUNCILMAN STROUGH- That’s fine SUPERVISOR STEC- Tim COUNCILMAN BREWER- I’m fine with it but I still don’t see the necessity for tying it to this. I think we can do that anyway SUPERVSIOR STEC- We have a motion and a second is there any further discussion? Hearing none let’s go ahead and vote PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR JAMES H. MALOY, INC., REGARDING IMPROVEMENTS AT RIDGE/JENKINSVILLE PARK RESOLUTION NO.: 349, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously established a Capital Improvement Plan Reserve Fund #64 (Fund #64) for future Town project developments, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 416,2003 the Town Board authorized establishment of Capital Project Fund #138 to fund expenses associated with parking lot improvements, design and expansion of softball fields and replacement of fencing at the Ridge/Jenkinsville Park and the Town Board authorized funding for such Capital Project Fund #138 in the amount of $95,670 and such funds were transferred into such Fund #138 from Capital Improvement Plan Reserve Fund #64, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 210,2004 the Queensbury Town Board authorized a supplemental Ridge/Jenkinsville Park Project and additional expenditures in the amount of $413,266 and funds were transferred from Capital Improvement Plan Reserve Fund #64 to Fund #138 to fund such supplemental Project, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 870 WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 99,2007, the Queensbury Town Board authorized the supplemental Ridge/Jenkinsville Park Project (Project) and expenditures for such work in the amount of $976,000, with the proposed improvements to the Ridge/Jenkinsville Park as follows: 1.creation of three (3) multi-use (soccer, lacrosse, field hockey, etc.,) irrigated, athletic fields; 2.construction of a field house containing bathrooms, irrigation equipment/controls and storage space for maintenance equipment and ancillary field gear (goal netting, flags, signage, etc.,); 3.construction of a paved access road and paved parking; 4.construction of walkways, fencing and landscaping; and 5.professional services for all of the above; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 278,2007, the Town Board authorized engagement of James H. Maloy, Inc. (Maloy) to provide site work/general construction services concerning the athletic field improvements relating to this Project for an amount not to exceed $659,000, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Recreation Commission requested the completion of additional site work by Change Order No.: 1 as follows: ? One (1) additional athletic field (including irrigation): $96,400.00 ? Bid Alternate #1 (landscaping plan): $17,000.00 ? Bid Alternate #2 (finish coat paving) $18,000.00 and WHEREAS, the total amount of such proposed Change Order No.: 1 totals $131,400.00, and WHEREAS, the Town’s Director of Parks and Recreation and the Project Architect, Jim Miller, reviewed the costs of the proposed Change Order No.: 1 and concur with the Recreation Commission’s request, and WHEREAS, adding an additional athletic field during the current Project, as opposed to a future, stand-alone project, can be realized at a cost savings of approximately forty-percent (40%) or $38,560.00, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 871 WHEREAS, the new, anticipated Project costs, including the proposed Change Order No.: 1, total $901,183.00 or nearly $75,000.00 below the $976,000.00 Project amount funded by the Town Board in accordance with Resolution No.: 99,2007, and WHEREAS, the Director of Parks and Recreation has recommended that the Town Board authorize Change Order No.: 1 in the amount of $131,400.00, bringing the total contract amount for Maloy to $790,400.00, and WHEREAS, in accordance with the CIP, the Town Board must conduct a public hearing before approving any specific Capital Project or increase in any specific Capital Project listed on the CIP, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 343.2007, the Town Board set a public hearing concerning such proposed Change Order, duly held such public hearing on Monday, th August 6, 2007, and heard all interested persons, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby finds that the withdrawal and expenditure for the supplemental Ridge/Jenkinsville Park Project and Change Order No.: 1 in the amount of $131,400.00 to James H. Maloy, Inc. (Maloy) is an expenditure for a specific capital project and items of equipment for which the reserve account was established, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the supplemental Ridge/Jenkinsville Park Project and Change Order No.: 1 in the amount of $131,400.00 to James H. Maloy, Inc. (Maloy) and authorizes the Town Supervisor to execute such Change Order No. 1, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board has also decided that no additional capital expenditures be made at Ridge/Jenkinsville Park until a traffic study is completed for the area in the vicinity of Ridge/Jenkinsville Park to the Town Board’s satisfaction, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Director of Parks and Recreation and/or Town Fiscal Manager to take all actions necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 872 th Duly adopted this 6 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: Mr. Sanford ABSENT: None 3.0CORRESPONDENCE DEPUTY CLERK MELLON- Supervisor’s report for Community Development/Building and Codes for the month of July is on file at the Town Clerk’s Office. 4.0INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS FROM THE FLOOR- NONE 5.0PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR RICHARD SULLIVAN – 18 Sylvan Avenue Queensbury. He is concerned that there is a piece of property (TAX ID # 308.8-1-68) adjacent to his daughter and son-in-law who live at 51 Burnt Hills Drive is going to be auctioned off at the next tax auction on August 18, 2007. His intention here tonight is to alert the Queensbury Town Board that if the property does get auctioned off on August 18, 2007 as planned that they review any and all site plans area variances, etc. pertaining to subdivision 7-2001 by Clute enterprises as well as any other agreements between Clute and Schermerhorn concerning this development before authorizing this auction sale of said property. He believes that Supervisor Stec is aware of this and is looking into it. SUPERVISOR STEC- This was brought to his attention about a week ago. He passed it on to the appropriate staff members as well as the Town’s Attorney. He hasn’t heard back from the Attorney as of yet but it is being looked into. He will be sure to let them know that time is of the essence with regards to the upcoming auction. PAUL NAYLOR- 15 Division Road. Questioned the Board about articles in the paper regarding work on Corinth Road being a year or two away? SUPERVISOR STEC- Timeline is that they are working on easements right now for the road. At the next workshop they are going to be talking about electrical, power easement, the utilities and the direction that is going in. They are hoping to get started on the utility work this year. JOHN SALVADOR- ? Spoke regarding resolution 7.11 adopting the Comprehensive Land Use Plan asked the board to discuss this during Town Board discussions. ? Spoke to the Board regarding Crandall Public Library and the taxpayer supported new library that was recently built in the City of Saratoga. PLINEY TUCKER-Questioned the Board regarding Michael’s Road drainage COUNCILMAN BREWER- It is in the Engineer’s hands. He spoke to Dan Ryan approximately a week and a half ago and was told that he would have some preliminary plans to bring back to the Board or to the neighborhood within the next couple of weeks. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 873 MR. TUCKER- Spoke regarding Town owned property at the end of Division Road that is being used as a dump. He was approached by some concerned residents asking him to mention this at tonight’s meeting. COUNCILMAN BREWER- He has been in contact with Keith Sheerer regarding a similar instance with Carey Road and he will have some people out there tomorrow to start the clean up. He will talk to him about Division Road as well. GEORGE DRELLOS- 27 Fox Hollow Lane- Questioned if there has been any feedback on Veteran’s Road/Sherman Avenue? COUNCILMAN BREWER- The Town does own that property and he has talked to Mike Travis regarding this. BERNARD RAHILL- Wincrest Drive- ? Spoke regarding politics and that more citizens should be involved in the decision making in our community for the benefit of the community. ? Spoke to the Board about the Ethics Board ? Concerned about a billboard on Route 9 in Queensbury. He urges the Board to include the following Zoning Code admonition: no words or images that detract from the dignity of any religion be placed on signs or billboards in the Town of Queensbury. ? Recently commended Congresswoman Gillibrand for voting to eliminate the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation which used to be called the school of the Americas. 6.0TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS COUNCILMAN BREWER- ? Questioned Supervisor Stec on whether the topic of perpetual garage sales on the agenda for the next workshop ? He attended a function for the aquarium last Thursday night. He wished them luck. This will be a great asset to the Town of Queensbury and the area. ? Asked to schedule a workshop for discussion of the rebate for this year ? Called Jack Diamond from the City of Glens Falls regarding Sherman Avenue and the property on the river. He asked Dan to send another e-mail to see if they can get a response. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- ? Attended a preliminary hearing on the Aviation Road Corridor to help reduce congestion and improve safety. There will be an informational meeting at the end of August or beginning of September. ? He would like to make a presentation on the historic importance of Blind Rock at one of the upcoming Regular Town Board Meetings. ? Queensbury Senior Citizens have a newsletter that comes out every month. He gave an update up upcoming events for August. COUNCILMAN SANFORD- ? Spoke regarding resolution 7.12 concerning freshwater wetlands. ? Asked the Supervisor to distribute to the Board the current agreement with Time Warner Cable. He wants to meet with the representatives of Time Warner ? Spoke regarding an e-mail that was forwarded to the Board Members from Supervisor Stec on July 18, 2007 concerning Tribune Media. Tribune will not be pursuing the enhanced pilot agreement according to this e-mail that their attorney wrote; they are going with the standard pilot as opposed to pursuing the fifteen year pilot. ? About three weeks ago there was a discussion about the Main Street project and the underground utilities and a workshop was scheduled with B&L. The workshop was REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 874 cancelled and nothing has happened for the last couple of weeks on this. This has been an extremely difficult project and if it has taken a major deviation from the original plan than they need to re-evaluate some of this. He questioned Fiscal Manager, Barbara Tierney on the cost of the Main Street Projects. He wants a breakdown of all three of the projects. He wants to make sure that there aren’t expenditures that aren’t being captured. COUNCILMAN BOOR- ? Interested in what the rebate will be with regards to sales tax. He wants to look at the numbers when they come in for what the revenue side is and how close they are as far budgeting on expenses. ? The Board is doing some good things. Councilman Sanford is working on the wetland delineation and Councilman Strough is spearheading a re-look at CEA’s. The Board is doing a lot with regards to the environment. ? Expressed his condolences to Town Clerk, Darleen Dougher and family and friends of Jon Dougher who passed away this morning. SUPERVISOR STEC- ? Thanks TV8 and Glens Falls National Bank for televising these meetings. This is a good service to the public. ? The Town’s website www.queensbury.net. There is a lot of information on there. ? The Town Highway Department has been doing some work near the Docksider on Glen Lake Road. The Town received a State grant last year to improve storm water that is in conjunction with the Warren County Soil and Water District. In the past, a similar project was done at Lake Sunnyside. Late summer or early fall the Highway Department is going to do some dam stabilization work at the Glen Lake outlet dam. ? Congratulations to the Glen Lake Protective Association for a hundred years of advocacy for Glen Lake. They have done a wonderful job and they should be very proud of what they’ve done for the Lake. ? Spoke about the Connector Road and that project. The construction meeting was last Thursday with Kubricky who was the low bidder for the Town’s Connector Road and Park and Ride project with DOT. The plan is that tomorrow Kubricky will sign the contracts and Wednesday he will have the contracts to sign. Kubricky wants to start as soon as possible. BBL is out there doing the site preparation work for Tribune. ? The old West Glens Falls Building is being dissembled. There is a lot of activity going on over there and there will be for the next couple of months. 7.0RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HIRING OF JACK HICKS AS TEMPORARY LABORER IN BUILDING AND GROUNDS DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 350, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 240, 2007, the Queensbury Town Board authorized the hiring of a temporary Laborer to work for the Town’s Building and Grounds Department REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 875 until such time that a current employee who is out due to an unexpected illness can return to work, and WHEREAS, funds for such position have been budgeted for in the 2007 Town Budget, and WHEREAS, the Town’s Facilities Manager has requested Town Board authorization to hire Jack Hicks as such temporary Laborer, and WHEREAS, Town Policy requires that familial relationships must be disclosed and the Town Board must approve the appointment of Town employees’ relatives, and the Town’s Facilities Manager has disclosed in writing to the Town Clerk and advised the Town Board that Jack Hicks is the son of Ernest Hicks, a Foreman in the Town’s Building and Grounds Department, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the hiring of Jack Hicks as a temporary Laborer to work for the Town’s Building and Grounds th Department effective August 8, 2007 and until such time that a current employee who is out due to an unexpected illness returns to work, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that such temporary Laborer shall be paid $12 per hour as set forth in Town Board Resolution No.: 620,2006 to be paid from the appropriate payroll account, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Facilities Manager and/or Town Fiscal Manager to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 6 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES: None ABSENT: None REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 876 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT WITH DAVID J. DECKER, P.E. & ASSOCIATES FOR PROVISION OF PROGRAM AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES RELATED TO “LAKE GEORGE – PLAN FOR THE FUTURE” GRANT FUNDING RECEIVED BY TOWN AND EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH NEW YORK STATE FOR GRANT FUNDS AND ESTABLISHING APPROPRIATIONS AND ESTIMATED REVENUES FOR GRANT FUNDS RESOLUTION NO.: 351, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 315,2006, the Queensbury Town Board authorized submission of the Environmental Protection Fund Application for State Assistance Payments – Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, Year 2006-2007 in response to New York State’s solicitation of Financial Assistance Grant, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury will receive $500,000 in matching grant funds from New York State for implementation of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, Year 2006-2007, and WHEREAS, a local “match” to the $500,000 grant awarded by the State is required, such match to come in the form of mainly in-kind services with a small portion being matched by voluntary cash contributions from local municipalities and/or other associations of non-profit organizations, in this case, such contributions from nine (9) municipalities and/or associations being in the amount of $7,000 each for a cash contribution of $63,000, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to establish appropriations and estimated revenues for the $500,000 grant award plus an additional $7,000 to be contributed by the Town and $56,000 to be contributed from other municipalities and/or associations, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to also authorize an Agreement between David J. Decker, P.E. & Associates and the Town for the provision of program and project management services in connection with the Town’s grant award, and WHEREAS, a copy of a proposed Agreement between the Town and David J. Decker, P.E. & Associates has been presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 877 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby accepts the $500,000 in matching grant funding to be received from New York State for implementation of the Environmental Protection Fund Application for State Assistance Payments – Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, Year 2006-2007 program and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute a Grant Agreement and any other associated documentation and take any other action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further establishes appropriations and estimated revenues in the amount of $563,000 ($500,000 for grant funds to be received, $7,000 in funds to be contributed by the Town and $56,000 to be contributed from other municipalities and/or associations), such appropriations and estimated revenues to be recorded in accounts to be determined by the Town’s Accounting Office, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Fiscal Manager to amend the 2007 Town Budget, make any adjustments, budget amendments, transfers or prepare any documentation necessary to establish such appropriations and estimated revenues and effectuate all terms of this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further approves of the Agreement for Services between David J. Decker, P.E. & Associates and the Town of Queensbury substantially in the form presented at this meeting for the provision of program and project management services relating to grant funds received by the Town, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the fees paid David J. Decker, P.E. & Associates for rendering 12 , months worth of program management services shall be $94,750 not to include out-of- pocket expenses, such services to paid by a temporary loan from the General Fund until such time as the Town receives its grant funds, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to sign the Agreement and further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 878 Town Counsel and/or Town Fiscal Manager to take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 6 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING LAKE GEORGE TRIATHLON RESOLUTION NO. 352, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Adirondack Triathlon Club, a not-for-profit organization, has requested authorization from the Queensbury Town Board to conduct the Lake George Triathlon to benefit the Glens Falls YMCA Youth Scholarship Program and other local charities as follows: SPONSOR : Adirondack Triathlon Club EVENT : Lake George Triathlon nd DATE : Sunday, September 2, 2007 TIME : Approximately 8:15 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. (Bike Leg Portion) PLACE : Warren County Bike Trail and then Birdsall, Round Pond, Blind Rock, Haviland, Rockwell, Sunnyside, Jenkinsville and Ridge Roads (Map and letter delineating course is attached); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby acknowledges receipt of proof of insurance from the Adirondack Triathlon Club to conduct the Lake George nd Triathlon partially within the Town of Queensbury on Sunday, September 2, 2007, and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 879 RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby approves this event subject to approval by the Town Highway Superintendent, which may be revoked due to concern for road conditions at any time up to the date and time of the event. th Duly adopted this 6 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TOWN OF QUEENSBURY’S ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CHAIRMAN TO ATTEND COMMUNITY MATTERS ‘07 CONFERENCE RESOLUTION NO.:353, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury’s Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman has requested authorization to attend a conference entitled “Community Matters ’07 – Growth & Character: Having It All,” and WHEREAS, in accordance with Town Policy, the Town Board must authorize out-of-state travel by Town employees, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman to attend the “Community Matters ’07 Conference– Growth & Character: Having It All,” to be held in Burlington, Vermont in October, 2007, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that estimated expenses in an amount not to exceed $900 incurred by the Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman at the conference shall be deemed proper Town charges, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 880 BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town’s Accounting Office to take all action necessary to transfer funds and amend the 2007 Town Budget to provide for such conference expenses as follows: FROM: TO: $AMOUNT: 001-8020-4090 001--8010-4090 $900.00 (Planning – Conference & Travel) (Zoning – Conference & Travel) th Duly adopted this 6 day of August, 2007 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXTENSION OF EMPLOYMENT FOR JEREMY WARD AND DANIEL DWYER AS TEMPORARY, PART-TIME LABORERS AT TOWN CEMETERIES RESOLUTION NO.: 354, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor th WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 140, 2007 adopted on March 19, 2007, the Queensbury Town Board authorized the hiring of Jeremy Ward and Daniel Dwyer as temporary Laborers to work 10 weeks this summer under the direct supervision of the Town Cemetery Superintendent, and WHEREAS, the Cemetery Commission has requested Town Board authorization to extend the employment of Jeremy Ward and Daniel Dwyer as temporary Laborers for an th additional two (2) weeks or through August 17, 2007, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the extension of employment of Jeremy Ward and Daniel Dwyer as temporary Laborers to work REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 881 th for an additional two (2) weeks or through August 17, 2007 under the direct supervision of the Town Cemetery Superintendent, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that these temporary employees shall be paid at the hourly rate set forth in the Town’s Agreement with the Civil Service Employees Association and payment shall be paid from the Laborer, Part-Time Account No.: 002-8810-1010 and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Cemetery Superintendent and/or Town Fiscal Manager to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 6 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HIRING OF LAURA MYERS AS PART-TIME CEMETERY SECRETARY RESOLUTION NO.: 355, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Cemetery Commission and Cemetery Superintendent have requested Town Board authorization to hire Laura Myers to fill the vacant, part-time Cemetery Secretary position, and WHEREAS, funds for such position have been budgeted for in the 2007 Town Budget, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 882 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the hiring of Laura Myers as the part-time Cemetery Secretary effective on or about August th 13, 2007, contingent upon Ms. Myers’ completion of a pre-employment physical as required by Town Policy, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that Ms. Myers shall be paid $12.70 per hour as set forth in Town Board Resolution No.: 620,2006 to be paid from the appropriate payroll account, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Cemetery Superintendent and/or Town Fiscal Manager to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 6 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING FRANK ANTOS AS MARRIAGE OFFICER RESOLUTION NO.: 356, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 367 of 2003, the Queensbury Town Board appointed Frank Antos as a Marriage Officer to perform marriage ceremonies within the § Town of Queensbury in accordance with New York State Domestic Relations Law 11-c and any other applicable laws, and WHEREAS, Frank Antos’ term as such Marriage Officer recently expired and Mr. Antos has requested reappointment, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to reappoint Frank Antos as a Marriage Officer in accordance with State law, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 883 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby appoints Frank Antos as a Marriage Officer to perform marriage ceremonies within the Town of Queensbury in § accordance with New York State Domestic Relations Law 11-c and any other applicable laws, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that Mr. Antos will not receive a salary or wage from the Town of Queensbury, but in accordance with State law, he may accept and keep up to seventy-five dollars for each marriage at which he officiates, paid by or on behalf of the persons married, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that Mr. Antos’ term as Marriage Officer shall be effective from thth August 6, 2007 through August 6, 2011 unless he is removed from his appointed office by the Town Board on 10 days written notice. th Duly adopted this 6 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2007 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 357, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the attached Budget Amendment Requests have been duly initiated and justified and are deemed compliant with Town operating procedures and accounting practices by the Town Fiscal Manager, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 884 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town’s Accounting Office to take all action necessary to transfer funds and amend the 2007 Town Budget as follows: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 001-1990-4400 001-1660-4010 2,500.00 (Contingency) (Central Storeroom Office Supplies) 001-1990-4400 001-3510-4130 3,000.00 (Contingency) (Animal Control Town Counsel) th Duly adopted this 6 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION APPROVING CREATION OF BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE AND APPOINTING ITS MEMBERS RESOLUTION NO.:358, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, in 1966, the Queensbury Town Board created and appointed members to the Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification (Committee), and since that time, subsequent Town Boards have appointed and reappointed members to such Committee, and WHEREAS, the current Town Board recognizes and approves the Committee as an organization of resident volunteers and citizens who have interest and/or experience in landscape development as well as the general aesthetics of the Town and wish to assist the Town Board in promoting the attractive physical appearance of the community, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to now appoint/reappoint members to such Committee, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 885 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves and authorizes the creation of the Town’s Beautification Committee (Committee), with the Committee’s objectives to include the following: ? The Committee may recommend projects and provide advice to the Town on beautification of the Town’s public facilities. ? The Committee will co-coordinate with the Town’s Building and Grounds Department in offering advice and services for the holiday decoration of the Town’s public facilities, with the consent of the Town’s Facilities Manager, and in accordance with Federal and State laws and regulations. ? Until given further approval, the Committee’s domain will be limited to the northwest corner of Quaker and Bay Roads where the Committee will be allowed to enhance/decorate. The exception will be the placement of banners, which will remain the jurisdiction of the Building and Grounds Department. ? The Committee shall advise and make recommendations to the Town Board concerning periodic Beautification Awards to be selected and presented by the Town Board torecognize property owners in residential and commercial categories who have recently improved the aesthetics of their property. ? The Committee will meet as often as necessary. All meetings will be noticed on the Town’s website (www.queensbury.net) and are open to the public. ? The Committee will regularly report its discussions and recommendations to the Town Board. and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby appoints the following Committee members: 1.Karen Dougherty 2.Lise Fuller 3.Greg Greene 4.Marylee Gosline 5.Paul Lorenz 6.Drew Monthie and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 886 RESOLVED, that such members shall serve on the Committee until such time as may be set forth by the Town Board, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Committee may present the Town Board with recommendations for purchases of such items as seed money, decorations and awards and the Town Board shall then decide whether or not to expend funds for such purchases in accordance with the Town’s Purchasing Policy, to be paid from the Community Beautification Contractual Account No.: 133-8510-4400, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Clerk to take any actions necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 6 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: None DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE: COUNCILMAN SANFORD- One correction- page 2, third row down, wouldn’t that be limited to the northwest rather than the northeast corner? SUPERVISOR STEC- You are correct that is the northwest corner. Can you change that Rose and John you are fine with that typo correction? DEPUTY TOWN CLERK MELLON- Okay COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Yes SUPERVISOR STEC- Rose, who seconded it? DEPUTY TOWN CLERK MELLON- Councilman Boor SUPERVISOR STEC- Roger, are you fine with that? COUNCILMAN BOOR- Yeah, I’m fine with that SUPERVISOR STEC- Alright, just checking, northwest corner. Any other discussion? Hearing none let’s go ahead and vote REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 887 RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS – TH WARRANT OF AUGUST 6, 2007 RESOLUTION NO.: 359, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve the audit of bills nd presented as the Warrant with a run date of August 2, 2007 and a payment date of August th 7, 2007, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Warrant with a ndth run date of August 2, 2007 and payment date of August 7, 2007 totaling $1,811,269.66, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Fiscal Manager to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 6 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: None PART 2- SEQRA FORM COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN 1.Will the Proposed action result in any physical change to the project site? NO 2.Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological, formations, etc.) NO 3.Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? (under Articles 12, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) NO 4.Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? NO REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 888 5.Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? NO 6.Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? NO 7.Will proposed action affect air quality? NO 8.Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? NO 9.Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? NO 10.Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? NO 11.Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? NO 12.Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? NO 13.Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? NO 14.Will proposed action impact he exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14(g)? NO 15.Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? NO 16.Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? NO 17.Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? NO 18.Will proposed action affect public health and safety? NO 19.Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? NO 20.Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? NO SUPERVISOR STEC- So, our resolution contains a negative SEQRA declaration. RESOLUTION ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY RESOLUTION NO. 360, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board is considering adoption of a new 2007 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Town of Queensbury, which Plan presents recommendations to guide land use in the Town of Queensbury for the next five to ten years, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 889 WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 426,2004, the Queensbury Town Board established and appointed members to the Planning Ordinance Review Committee (PORC), which Committee’s scope was to review and address inconsistencies and problems known to be at issue in, among other things, the Town’s Zoning Ordinance and Map, Subdivision Regulations and Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and th WHEREAS, on May 19, 2005, the PORC adopted a Resolution recommending the hiring of Saratoga Associates Landscape Architects, Architects, Engineers, and Planners, P.C. (Saratoga Associates) to provide professional planning services to the Town, such services to include the updating of the 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Town Zoning Code, and Town Subdivision Regulations, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 394.2005, the Town Board authorized engagement of Saratoga Associates to prepare an update to the Town’s Zoning Ordinance and Map, Subdivision Regulations and Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and WHEREAS, a draft new Comprehensive Land Use Plan (Plan) was prepared by the PORC and Saratoga Associates with the assistance of the Town of Queensbury Community Development staff and input from citizens and elected officials, and various information sources were also utilized, including published materials, interviews and reports generated by local study groups and committees, and th WHEREAS, the PORC held a public hearing on the draft CLUP on July 13, 2006, and th WHEREAS, at their meeting on July 20, 2006, the PORC made subsequent revisions to the draft CLUP and adopted a Resolution referring the revised draft CLUP to the Town Board for its consideration, and WHEREAS, the Town Board prepared further revisions to the Draft Plan and held ththth public hearings on such Draft Plan on October 16, November 20, and December 18, 2006, and WHEREAS, the Town Board made subsequent revisions to the draft CLUP since such public hearings, and nd WHEREAS, the Town Board held additional public hearings on July 2 and July th 16, 2007, and WHEREAS, the Plan was forwarded to the Warren County Planning Board and the Adirondack Park Agency for review and no negative comments were received, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 890 WHEREAS, the Town Board, as SEQRA Lead Agency, has reviewed a Full Environmental Assessment Form to analyze potential environmental impacts of the Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board, after considering the proposed adoption of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Town of Queensbury, reviewing the Full Environmental Assessment Form and thoroughly analyzing the action for potential environmental concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to complete the Full Environmental Assessment Form by checking the box indicating that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board approves of a Negative Declaration and authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to file any necessary documents in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby adopts the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to send copies of this Resolution and Plan to the Warren County Planning Board, Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury Planning Board, adjacent municipalities and any agency involved for SEQRA purposes, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this Plan shall take effect upon filing in the Town Clerk’s Office. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 891 th Duly adopted this 6 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW NO. ___ OF 2007 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 94 “FRESHWATER WETLANDS” CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT IN AND ADJACENT TO WETLANDS RESOLUTION NO. 361, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: ___ of 2007 to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 94 “Freshwater Wetlands,” to regulate development in and adjacent to wetlands, which wetlands may not be currently regulated under State or local laws or regulations, and WHEREAS, this legislation is authorized in accordance with New York State Municipal Home Rule Law §10, Town Law Article 16 and Environmental Conservation Law Article 24, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to set a public hearing concerning adoption of this Local Law, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall meet and hold a public hearing at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, th August 20, 2007 to hear all interested persons and take any necessary action provided by law concerning proposed Local Law No.: ___ of 2007, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs Town Counsel to provide additional amendments in the proposed Local Law to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 94 “Freshwater Wetlands,” such that wherever there are references to REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 892 “Planning Board,” the language shall be amended to read, “Planning Board or any other Town Lead Agency,” and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to forward a certified copy of this Resolution and a copy of the proposed Local Law to the Adirondack Park Agency and Warren County Planning Board for their review, approval and/or recommendation, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish and post a Notice of Public Hearing concerning proposed Local Law No. ___ of 2007 in the manner provided by law. th Duly adopted this 6 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES : None ABSENT:None DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE: COUNCILMAN SANFORD- I do have one minor change that I would like put in there. What the lawyers did was just basically do a quick definitional change which is fine but you may recall from a workshop discussion throughout the existing chapter 94 I requested that when we address the agency or the entity that’s involving this it referenced the Planning Board. We wanted to add to that “or other lead agency board” in the event that we’re dealing with the PUD for instance that the Town Board may be the entity looking for a freshwater permit and not the Planning Board. It was generally agreed throughout 94 that expression or other lead agency board would be added in conjunction with Planning Board. It takes place in a number of different places and I’m not going to try to go through each one of them but the lawyers were there at that meeting, they know what we’re talking about. I would like to move that we approve the resolution but that the lawyers merely add that to the resolution. Is that clear to everybody? COUNCILMAN BOOR- Yes, wherever it references Planning Board it should also reference or board of COUNCILMAN SANFORD- Or other lead agency SUPERVISOR STEC- Right, or other lead agency- other lead Town agency COUNCILMAN SANFORD- Yes COUNCILMAN BREWER- No, lead agent SUPERVISOR STEC- Alright, Planning Board or any other lead agent. That was discussed and I think we can do that on the fly tonight. We need to change it in the minutes that wherever it occurs that it refers to the Planning Board or any other lead agent REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 893 COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Right, didn’t they suggest that you just put the Town there and that covers Planning Board and any lead agency COUNCILMAN SANFORD- That’s why we will leave it up to Mark’s group COUNCILMAN BOOR- But they didn’t do that though, it still says Planning Board COUNCILMAN STROUGH- I think that is what they suggested, just put Town of Queensbury COUNCILMAN SANFORD- Okay, well whatever they want to do COUNCILMAN BREWER- Let them do that SUPERVISOR STEC- Stu, will you contact the attorney’s tomorrow. But the intent is that is what we are setting this public hearing on. The public hearing will be two weeks from tonight, th August 20 at seven o’clock here in the Town Activities Center. RESOLUTION INTRODUCING LOCAL LAW ___ OF 2007, A LOCAL LAW REPEALING LOCAL LAW 9 OF 1998 ENTITLED “A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER ENTITLED ‘COORDINATED ASSESSMENT PROGRAM’” RESOLUTION NO.: 362, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury (the “Town”) enacted Local Law No. 9 of 1998 amending the Code of the Town of Queensbury by adding a new Chapter entitled “Coordinated Assessment Program,” and WHEREAS, since, as of September 1, 2007, the Town and the City of Glens Falls will no longer be employing the same Assessor, as required by State law, it is in the best interests of the Town to terminate the coordinated assessment program in the Town, and WHEREAS, therefore, it is the intention of the Town to repeal Town Local Law 9 of 1998, thereby terminating the coordinated assessment program in the Town, and WHEREAS, a proposed Local Law repealing Local Law No. 9 of 1998 has been prepared, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that: REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 08-06-2007 MTG#34 894 Section 1. The proposed Local Law repealing Local Law No. 9of 1998 is hereby introduced. A public hearing shall be noticed and held by the Town Board on Monday, th August 20, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804 to consider the proposed Local Law. Section 2. The Town Clerk is hereby directed to post and publish a notice of such public hearing accordance with the law. Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. th Duly adopted this 6 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT:None 8.0ACTION OF RESOLUTIONS PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED FROM THE FLOOR NONE RESOLUTION ADJOURNING REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO.: 363, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Regular Town Board Meeting. th Duly adopted this 6 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: None Respectfully Submitted, Darleen Dougher Town Clerk Town of Queensbury