2004-01-26 MTG5
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 237
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING Mtg #5
TH
JANUARY 26, 2004 Res. #73-96
7:04 P.M. BOH Res. #3-4
Local Law #1, 04
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC
COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR
COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER
COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH
COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER
TOWN COUNSEL
ROBERT HAFNER
TOWN OFFICIALS
Mike Genier, Cemetery Superintendent
Ralph VanDusen, Water/Wastewater Superintendent
Mike Shaw, Deputy Wastewater Superintendent
Marilyn Ryba, Senior Planner
George Hilton, Assistant Planner
Jennifer Switzer, Budget Officer
Bob Keenan, Director of Information Technology
PRESS: Glens Falls Post Star
SUPERVISOR STEC called meeting to order….
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH
RESOLUTION NO.: 73, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED FOR IT’S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from
Regular Session and enters as the Queensbury Board of Health.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
BOARD OF HEALTH
PUBLIC HEARING – SEWER VARIANCE – DEAN REALI
NOTICE SHOWN
7:05 P.M.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Is the applicant, Mr. or Mrs. Reali or their agent here tonight? If you would,
please come forward and join us here at this table and state your name and address for the record
and then we’ll go into our public hearing.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 238
MR. DEAN REALI-My name is Dean Reali, 24 Jay Road, Lake George.
SUPERVISOR STEC-This is a sewage disposal variance, if you want to just kind of brief the board
and the public on the situation and what your proposal is.
MR. REALI-We have a house over on Glen Lake and we removed the old septic system which was
metal tanks that were collapsing under our driveway and we updated the septic system but our
leachfield when they finally put it in was about, I think nine feet too close to our well. Instead of the
required a hundred feet, it was ninety-one feet and at that point in time, it was already buried and
because of the size of the lot, there’s not a lot of wiggle room.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, and I noticed that’s the only variance that your seeking from us, is the
ninety-one feet in lieu of the a hundred feet.
MR. REALI-That’s correct.
SUPERVISOR STEC-And Town Planning Staff, is there anything to add beyond that?
MRS. MARILYN RYBA, Senior Planner-No, this is typically something that Dave Hatin from our
Building and Codes Department looks at.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I didn’t see a letter.
TOWN COUNSEL BOB HAFNER-There’s a memo in your file., there’s a memo from January
th
12.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Oh, there is a memo?
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Yes.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, I don’t have it. Would anyone from the public care to comment on
this variance proposal? Anyone while we have an open pubic hearing? No takers. Alright,
comments from Board Members?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-You put the new leachfield in not knowing where your well was?
MR. REALI-No, we knew where the well was, it just they dug it and put it in and by the time we
got home and they had it all buried underneath the ground, they found out later it was too close
when they measured it.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-And so when, it was during the inspection of the final project, that it was
noted that it was too close? Is that correct and was it Dave Hatin that did the inspection?
MR. REALI-I think it was, it was Dave and our septic installer were there, I wasn’t there, I was
working.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I’m a little disappointed that it happened that way but and I’m usually
pretty
SUPERVISOR STEC-Hawkish.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Hawkish on these issues but it is your well and it’s not a tremendous
amount of relief so I don’t really have a problem with it, I’m just a little sorry that it happened
before, you know, they knew about it. It would have been nice to know and then, I think we’re all
going to grant it anyway, I can’t speak for the rest of the board but it would be nice to know ahead
of time but that’s not your problem. So, I have nothing more to say.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Ted, do you have any questions or comments?
COUNCILMAN TURNER-I don’t have a problem with it.
SUPERVISOR STEC-John?
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 239
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yea, what’s the depth of bedrock there?
MR. REALI-I don’t know. I know the well is four hundred and seventy feet deep.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Is the well encased?
MR. REALI-I, yes it is, I think the first a hundred feet or two hundred feet.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, ninety-one feet to his well, is only a nine foot variation, I’m
sure there’s a big huge buffer for a margin of error. But if it was right on the bedrock, that would
make a difference but we don’t know that.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Tim?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-No, I don’t have any questions.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Caroline, would you mind reading in the letter for the record?
DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER read the following Memorandum into the record:
To: Queensbury Town Board
From: David A. Hatin, Director
Building & Codes
Re: Dean Reali Sewage Disposal Variance
24 Jay Road, Lake George, NY
Town of Queensbury
Date: January 12, 2004
On August 14, 2003 Mr. Reali submitted for a sewage disposal permit to replace his existing
septic system. Dan Cook from Cook’s Septic applied for the permit and the permit was
issued based on the drawing submitted which showed that the layout on Mr. Reali’s
property would meet the requirements of the Sanitary Sewage Ordinance.
On August 28, 2003 I was requested to do an inspection of the septic system disposal field.
Upon taking measurements from Mr. Reali’s well to the leachfield, I found that the field was
only 91 feet from the closest leach line to the well. At that time, Mr. Cook was advised that
he must apply for a sewage disposal variance or move the field to meet the 100 ft. setback.
The leachfield is 10 ft. from the property line. Mr. Reali decided to apply for a variance to
maintain the system in its current location.
It is possible to make the system meet the 100ft setback from the well if the Town Board
wished to grant a variance to be approximately zero to one-foot off the rear property line of
Mr. Reali’s property. It would also require that Mr. Reali move two, possibly three leach
lines to accomplish this.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me.
(on file in the Town Clerk’s Office)
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright.
DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-And I do have actually two
SUPERVISOR STEC-I was going to say, is there other correspondence?
DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-I do have two correspondence that we received from
neighbors. (read into the record)
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 240
To whom it may concern:
From: Rourke
19 Jay Road
Lake George, NY 12845
We have no objections to Reali’s variance.
Thank you,
Dick & Sue Rourke
We are close neighbors and I cannot see why there should be any problem in allowing the
setback from his well to the leachfield. We have no objection.
Marilyn and Don Higley
23 Jay Road
L.G.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright. Any other comments from Board Members? I would just, speaking
for me, I think Roger touched on it already but for any other future would be applicants in the
audience or viewing, it is something that concerns the Town Board when we get a variance after the
fact. I know it’s an issue for the Zoning Board as well as the Board of Health here. So, it is
something that we would prefer not to do. However, given the circumstances that it’s nine feet off,
you know from a hundred and the alternative would also still require variance from the side line, I
think that, I don’t think that the relief you’re seeking is significant. So, I don’t personally have a
problem with it. With that said, I’ll close the public hearing and entertain a motion.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOLUTION APPROVING SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE
APPLICATION OF DEAN REALI
BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 3, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, Dean Reali has filed an application for a variance from provisions of the Town
of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, such application requesting that the Local
Board of Health allow a leach field to be located 91’ from his well in lieu of the required 100’
setback on property located at 24 Jay Road, 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 a public hearing concerning the
th
variance request on January 26, 2004, and
WHEREAS, the Town Clerk advises that property owners within 500 feet of the subject
property have been duly notified,
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 241
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
a) due to the nature of the variance, it is felt that the variance would not be materially
detrimental to the purposes and objectives of this Ordinance or to other adjoining
properties or otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of any plan or policy of
the Town of Queensbury; and
b) the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variance is necessary for the
reasonable use of the land and that the variance granted 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,
RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health hereby approves Dean
Reali’s application for a variance from the Sewage Disposal Ordinance to locate a leach field 91’
from his well in lieu of the required 100’ setback on property located at 24 Jay Road, Queensbury
and bearing Tax Map No.: 289.10-1-16.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2004 by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH
BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 4, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED FOR IT’S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns from session and enters
Regular Session of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 242
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
REGULAR SESSION
PUBLIC HEARING – Rezoning Application Of Property Owned By Doug And Teresa Miller
Located On South Side Of Sherman Avenue, West Of Northway, From LI (Light Industrial)
To RC-15 (Recreation Commercial – 15,000 Square Feet)
NOTICE SHOWN
7:15 P.M.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-And I see Mr. Miller is here and I’m assuming his agent is Mr. Lapper.
COUNSEL JON LAPPER-Yes sir, and Project Engineer Tom Nace. I guess we’ll get started to be
as brief as we can while Tom is putting up the map. We are asking for a rezoning to Recreation
Commercial 15 and we’re aware after going through the Town Planning Board process, the
sensitive issue of a loss of Industrial Site and we’re here to talk about that. But at the same time, the
Comprehensive Plan recognizes the need for recreational space and recreational amenities on the
west side of the Northway, south of Aviation Road and this project addresses that need of the town
as well. Also, I’ll point out that the character of Sherman Avenue is completely residential and the
idea of putting a Light Industrial facility there would probably be met with opposition from the
residences. This is, we’ve gone through a very thorough review at the Planning Board level, we did
a visual analysis, flew a balloon to show that the top of the facility wouldn’t be visible. We have
photos of that and the Planning Board Members were at the site at the time. Fortunately, Mr.
Strough was on the Planning Board at the time, so he can speak to that, to verify that. We did a
traffic analysis and after a number of meetings, the Planning Board recommended approval. The
County Planning Board has recommended approval as well and I think, just looking at the
photograph, the aerial photograph on the board, you can see that it’s completely residential in
character in that area and this compliments residential because it provides recreational activities for
the people in town, for the schools, for the existing school programs, it compliments that. So, we
just think that this is a very positive use of that site and certainly a softer use then industrial would
be. At the same time, we all recognize the need and the opportunity for industrial land and I think
offsetting this is the fact that the Town Board created the Industrial Subdivision on Queensbury Ave
which QEDC is in the process of having approved this month at the Planning Board which is nine
industrial lots near the airport, near the Industrial Park by the airport in an area that is appropriate for
industrial. QEDC is also working on industrial, some new industrial lots on Luzerne Road as part of
the cut through project, there will be ten acres industrial. I’m not saying that you can’t have too
much industrial because it’s good to have industrial lots but just, the nature and the location of this
particular parcel because it is residential surroundings, we hope that you’ll recognize that this is a
positive project for the town and that the loss of industrial is not significant here. We’re also able,
because of the type of use to really do a nice buffer here. I’ll let Tom walk you through that. I
realize that we’re not here talking about the Site Plan specifically because once it’s rezoned, it’s a
rezoning, Site Plan would have to get approved by the Planning Board but just to quickly orient you
with what we’ve got here so the board will understand it.
MR. TOM NACE-(referred to map) Very quickly, the site, if you can reorient yourself to the fact
that on this drawing north is this way, the Adirondack Northway is out here, Sherman Avenue
across this side of the site. We’ve laid the site out, as Jon said, with as much buffer as we can.
There’s already an existing hundred foot buffer with the scenic corridor along the Northway, where
it’s adjacent to our proposed facilities, our structures we’re providing additional treed buffer on the
Northway. We’re providing a wide buffer up along Sherman Avenue, plus the site sits down in off
Sherman a little bit so this buffer will be quite effective. The proposed facilities include, and this is
long range, total build-out of the site, include two buildings, two air dome structures. One for a
soccer, indoor soccer facility along with golf driving range and other multi use areas and Doug will
speak more to the actual facilities later. The other smaller dome structure will house six tennis
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 243
courts and a central core building will provide support facilities for both of those structures.
Outdoors we’re proposing a total of six playfields, three softball and three multipurpose, soccer,
field hockey, lacrosse fields. You can see they’re overlapping so obviously, they won’t all be used
at the same time. And we’ve also set aside an one acre parcel up in the northwest quadrant of the
site for use as a small indoor ice rink to be used for a skate training facility and that’s a real quick
tour through the site. The sewage for the site will be handled with onsite septic systems, water of
course will be municipal water service from Sherman Avenue and soils are very good, very deep
sands, well drained sands. All the storm drainage from the site will be handled onsite through
infiltration.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Thanks. At this point, I’d like to ask Doug to just tell you a little bit about
why he’s proposing this and why he sees the need for this facility.
MR. DOUG MILLER-Over the course of the last three or four years, just looking the availability of
training sites for in-season sports at the different schools, all the schools are starting to run out of
spaces, I think we’re all well aware. A number of sports have developed at the point where kids are
working on their training and whatnot year round. A number, it’s amazing, if you look at the
number of kids that we have that travel south to Clifton Park, to Albany, Schenectady, particularly
for soccer, also some for lacrosse and some for indoor track. We have most of the schools in the
area now have indoor track teams during the winter and the, my desire was to have an indoor, full
size athletic field that would accommodate soccer, lacrosse and field hockey. Lacrosse being the
longer of the three fields, three hundred and thirty feet long and soccer taking it to the widest
possibility of two hundred and ten feet wide and that’s what we’ve got included inside. (Referred to
map) You can see the track, a four lane track area that surrounds the fields, this being the four lane
track. Full length outdoor sized lacrosse field, full size outdoor or full length outdoor sized field
hockey and soccer field. The fields, it can also be oriented so you can have three cross-field training
fields or two fields this way and another two backed up this way. Around that is a four lane track.
At this end here, during day time we’ve got a number of people that travel south for indoor driving
range and this would be, there are T slots here that are temporary, they can be moved off to the side
for indoor driving range usage at off hours. What’s not shown here is a court sport area which will
have an area that is roughly eighty-five by eighty-five that will accommodate two basketball courts,
two volleyball courts or an inline hockey area or two tennis courts. In this area, batting cages, some
with machines, some with just open throwing for pitching, batting practice. In talking to people and
looking, getting investors in line here, there’s been a tremendous desire for new tennis facilities, the
ones that we have are just overused and so we’ve put that in as a second phase, six indoor tennis
courts. In the support building will be a multi sport pro shop, concession type stand. Whether, I’ve
had, some interest in, from different people in putting a restaurant in, that may or may not happen.
Then a multi function room for people that may want to rent part of the facility for birthday parties
and that sort, meeting room, teams using it for training purposes, for chalk session if they need.
And then this area here, there a couple of different people that are looking at or interesting in renting
this space for different athletic uses which I’m really not at liberty to go into right now. And as
Tom said, the outdoor fields are three, are sized individually, one would be sized for field hockey,
one would be sized for lacrosse and one would be sized for soccer at the regulation sizes. Now,
anyone of those fields can be used for any of the other two at any time but for NCAA or National
Federation High School Athletic Association Regulations, these three fields would be originally laid
out for that, and then softball fields. This could be a combination softball, baseball field with a three
hundred foot fence, temporary fence. It’s laid out right now, all three fields are laid out at a two
hundred and twenty-five foot fence and then the skate training facility is also part of the project.
That’s all I’ve got, unless there’s questions.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, at this time, we’ll open the public hearing and see if any, anyone in
the audience would care to comment or ask any questions concerning the project and the rezoning
of this parcel. Yes sir. If you come forward, just please have a seat and state your name and
address for the record, please.
MR. JOHN DWYER, 87 Surrey Field-Good evening. My name is John Dwyer, I live at 87 Surrey
Fields, right across the road. I’m a Board Member of the Adirondack Soccer Club and for many
years I was the president of that organization. Doug, was kind enough to show us his renderings
before, Peter Wirfel whose with South Glens Falls. I would like to comment that we send our teams
now for indoor, down to Charbonneau Recreation Center and to Afrim’s in Colonie. And I don’t
know how many teams exactly South Glens Falls has or Adirondack but between the two and I
think Tom has a number of teams, there’s probably thirty to, somewhere between thirty and forty
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 244
indoor teams that currently go from here down to those two facilities. Practice time is extremely
difficult. I can only speak for Queensbury, since I’m on the board, we have very limited indoor use
of the gyms especially during the building project but even without that, considering the activity in
the area for Queensbury kids for indoor soccer, they’re very difficult to get. And the same is also
true with the outdoor fields. Now, we’ve got a building project as you know, one of the things that
we’ve got to, a concern with is, now whatever we do with roads and so forth, we do not destroy or
mitigate the current fields that we have for the different activities because we feel that we don’t have
enough of the fields for all of the activities, soccer being only one of them. So, we’re very
concerned, again, I can only speak for Queensbury, I can’t speak for any other area. I would like to
say, it would be a wonderful thing to give our kids the opportunity to get good training and play
good games in a first class facility which I believe this would be. Also, I think a byproduct of this,
is going to be that we can room more tournaments. We currently, when you try to get the kids to a
higher level, in soccer for example, you need to enter them in tournaments and things like that. This
would be a good facility for the local people, the local clubs to engage in tournament play here
which will get the level of our kids up. Also, it has some benefit because these tournaments usually
run more then just one day, some of them are overnight things and some of the hotels and stuff in
the area might get some benefit. So, all I can say is, I think it’s a very good idea, I certainly hope
you give it favorable consideration. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you. Any other comment from the public? Yes sir.
MR. PETER WIRFEL-My name is Peter Wirfel, I apologize, I’m not a resident of Queensbury.
SUPERVISOR STEC-You don’t have to apologize for that, that’s alright.
MR. WIRFEL-Actually, I’m across the river from South Glens Falls, do you still want my full
address?
SUPERVISOR STEC-No, that’s alright.
MR. WIRFEL-Okay, I wear many hats in the area, I’ve been associated with the Adirondack Soccer
Club as a Coach and Board Member and a Board Member on the South Glens Falls Soccer Club,
newly formed North Country Alliance Soccer Club. Also, helped spearhead the indoor track
program that is now running in South Glens Falls and growing exponentially and I’m aware of all
these programs that are going on in the area. And I can say, there is a crying need for something
like this and which ever town is smart enough to embrace this the first is going to hit a home run.
Now, you hear things in the newspaper about maybe something going on in Saratoga Springs, the
west side, east side Rec things, maybe building a build-dome there but I really think it’s a classic
case of, if you build it, they will come. And we would be able to offer to the students, not just
locally, say Queensbury but of the entire region, a tremendous amount of opportunities for various
sports year round, stuff that they just can not do right now because whether it be South Glens Falls,
Queensbury, Glens Falls, we just do not have the facilities within the school districts. So, I think
this would be a welcomed addition for anyone in all sports and I would urge your consideration for
it. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you, sir. Any other comment from the public at all? Any takers?
Any staff comments?
MRS. RYBA, Senior Planner-At this point we’ll just answer any questions Town Board Members
may have.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, I guess I’ll invite the applicant to come back to the table and at this
point, I’ll open it up to the Town Board for comment and questions of the applicant. Anybody?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Traffic study?
COUNSEL LAPPER-We did a traffic study which the Planning Board looked at and based upon on
that, the Planning Board issued a Neg Dec, so they were satisfied. I mean, Tom can talk in detail
about the number of trips if you want.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, my concern is Jon, and I don’t know if it’s a concern or not but
with this kind of a facility along with the facility that’s there that Glens Falls School has, I know
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 245
there’s been issues with parking problems on Sherman Avenue now, I don’t know what kind of an
affect this will have and to go along with that, when this is developed, how many people are we
talking about at any given time?
COUNSEL LAPPER-Sure, Tim, you can imagine that the Planning Board grilled us on that stuff
and we were there for a few months going through that.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Understood. I wasn’t there, so.
COUNSEL LAPPER-No, of course, that’s totally a legitimate question. The way this was
designed, we have the parking spaces that are shown on the map but there’s also overflow parking
available on the grass if needed. So, certainly, everything would be onsite but we did the traffic
study based upon what the capacity of the facility would be and the trip generation was, it didn’t
mandate any improvements in the highway system. So, it certainly could handle it but Tom can
give you some quotes.
MR. NACE-Sure, as Jon said, one of the differences here is that the facility is further off of the road
and there have been provisions set up in the site layout so that during peak use periods, when there’s
tournaments going on and what have you, the outdoor fields and fringe areas would be available for
overflow parking. But, so I don’t anticipate any parking, you know, that would extent out to
Sherman Avenue.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-No, I don’t so much have a concern about parking on Sherman
Avenue, I have a concern about congestion going across the Northway with a conflict possibly of
whether there’s baseball games or tennis matches or whatever else they do at the field that the
school owns. I mean, I come home that way at night during the school year certainly it’s mobbed
and sometimes it’s hard getting through there, that’s just a fact of life and I just don’t know if it’s a
good thing and I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, if it’s going to be the same way both sides of the
Northway, I guess, is my concern.
MR. NACE-Well, I don’t think, okay the actual usage is going to be different, these aren’t school
fields where you’re going to have different games going on at the same time that are attended by a
large number of spectators. The spectator attendance here will tend to be more toward tournaments,
special tournament times and probably will be greatest with, in the winter when there aren’t other
facilities around for play. Generally, our traffic analysis showed a maximum, at worse case
scenario of a hundred and forty-seven trips entering the site per hour, or a hundred and forty-seven
cars per hour entering the site and the like number leaving. We did, our traffic consultant did a level
of service analysis on Sherman Avenue and on the intersection into the site and looked at adjacent
intersections and there was not any degradation of service in those. As I said again, and Doug can
speak more to it, I think the use you’re seeing at the adjacent field, over at Morris Fields is a
different type of use then you’re going to have here.
MR. MILLER-The other thing with the use, my most intense use will be during the winter months
when the Morris Fields won’t be in operation, obviously and with the possibility of four fields
indoors and the six tennis courts, that’s my highest peak use period is the winter time. So, there
won’t be a conflict per se with the Morris Field site and the Morris Field site has six fields that can
be going at any given time. The most I’ll have outdoors here would be three at any given time. But
my high, my peak volume, my peak traffic volume is during the winter not during the summer.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-So, when this is completely built out, probably the maximum trips is
going to be a hundred and forty-seven per hour, is that what you’re telling me?
MR. NACE-Into the site, that’s correct.
MR. MILLER-Yes, that’s at full build-out with the tennis, full build-out with tennis court, the
second phase completed.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-And how long do you anticipate it will take you to do that?
MR. MILLER-Second phase isn’t anticipated, it’s not going to be this year, second phase is a year
or two down the road and that is not cast in stone, at this point, the fact that the second phase will
come to fruition.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 246
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I’m just thinking of all the things that are happening in that corridor
such as a hundred lot subdivision approved up the road, and certainly more to come. I just have to
consider all those things, I guess, is all I’m saying.
MR. NACE-One of the things to consider Tim is that the location of this facility puts it closer to the
mass of the populace that will be using it so that it will help in that respect to cut down on traffic just
because it’s closer to get to for a lot of the population in Queensbury.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Any other questions from Board Members?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I’ve got a couple. First of all, I’ve worked with Doug on other things in
the past and I know, you know, you do your homework and I’m sure you’ve looked at every
possible angle on this thing and so I’m pretty comfortable with what you’re proposing. It’s, I think
pretty ambitious but it obviously has merits because it’s serving the community a need that obvious,
you know, we’ve got two gentlemen that spoke to it but I think we’re all aware that these types of
activities are in short supply, as far as where they can, they can be played. A couple of questions I
have and I’m not sure there even appropriate so counsel can tell me if they’re not or this counsel can
tell me if they’re not. But if this was residential going to this, I’d rubber stamp it no matter what it
is almost. I have a little bit of concern because it’s Light Industrial and even though there’s an
abundance of it here that isn’t being used, there’s always that potential when you have the Luther
Forest type projects coming. So, if there’s any negative at all, it’s the potential of losing of Light
Industrial. But having said that, they’re not knocking on the door right now and there is other Light
Industrial over there so it’s not as huge a concern as if it was the only parcel there. I guess, one of
the things I would ask legally, and I’ll prep it first by asking maybe Marilyn, in the zoning that’s
being sought, what other type of activities could occur should this fail? I don’t think it will cause I
think you’ve probably got it covered but let’s assume this business does not succeed and it is zoned
as Doug is requesting and Teresa is requesting, what else can go in there?
MRS. RYBA, Senior Planner-Light Industrially zoned.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, as the zoning they’re seeking.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-No, as RC-15.
MRS. RYBA, Senior Planner-Oh, Recreation Commercial, okay. George is looking it up right now.
Allowed would be an amusement center. Allowed would be, and these are Site Plan Review Uses,
Campground. Another use would be
COUNCILMAN BREWER-What page are you on, Marilyn?
MRS. RYBA, Senior Planner-It’s the Zoning Table on the end. I just want to make sure I have
these all correct, Golf Course. Another use is Convention Center, another allowed use would be a
Lodge, another is Motel, another is Outdoor Concert Events, and that’s a Special Use Permit.
Recreation Center, which is being proposed. Restaurant, Retail Business, Seasonal Produce
Business. Oh, excuse me, that’s 3A but they’re the same. Okay, I’ll back up. The Restaurant
would be allowed, Retail would not be allowed in the RC-15. Seasonal Produce Business would be
allowed and then we have place of worship, public or semi-public buildings, school and that would
be it.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay, I guess without getting into the particulars, there’s about three or
four of those that I would not want to see go in there and I don’t know if it’s possible, but I’d like to
see if there would be any way to have this revert back to Light Industrial should this
COUNSEL LAPPER-Yea, I was just going to suggest that, Roger, we did that with the Home
Depot project, that kind of a condition and we talked about it at the Planning Board as well. What
we would propose would be, if it’s not built within two years, it would revert back to Light
Industrial. Doug plans to build it a lot quicker then that but just to be safe.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, I’m just saying if it fails and you back out of the property, I know
it’s not going to.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 247
COUNCILMAN BREWER-How do you know?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-In other words, it’s rezoned and then somebody can go in and put a motel
or an amusement park there, the way I understand it and I would have, I wouldn’t that.
MR. MILLER-And all of those would have to go Site Plan Review anyway, wouldn’t they?
COUNSEL LAPPER-Well, Doug is here and you know that, to build this project and this is, the
only way we could get it was RC-15.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right, I’m just speaking out loud my worst case.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Yea, and this comes up
COUNCILMAN BOOR-And I’m sure Doug’s worst case scenario, too.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Whenever we’re talking about a rezoning, there’s always the inappropriate
uses in the same zone, you know, so you’re right to mention it but we’re here to build this project.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay, and the only one other and that is, and this may not be appropriate
either but what do you guess the assessment will be when all improvements are made to this
property? Maybe that’s not a fair question, I don’t know.
COUNSEL LAPPER-We haven’t really looked at that. Do you want to estimate?
MR. MILLER-We can estimate it at around, build cost and estimated value are two different
numbers, but I would put the estimated value at somewhere around four and a half million.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay now, cause I know like with rides at amusement parks, they’re
considered portable and they’re not, they don’t, we don’t derive property tax off of them and when
you put a tent or, I don’t know if that has property tax value. I was just curious more then anything
else because it’s not really a permanent structure is it?
COUNSEL LAPPER-I can’t give you the answer to that, I assume it’s going to be, most
commercial
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay. It’s not a killer, I mean, I just, it’s curiosity.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Generally, commercial is assessed based upon what it generates, the income
valuation.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay, but I’m happy with it, I like what you’re doing, so.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Jon, made reference to the Home Depot rezoning, yes and do you recall how
the town did that?
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-I do not recall.
COUNSEL LAPPER-It had a provision that it would revert it back to the residential zoning if the
project wasn’t built within a certain period of time.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-That was in the resolution that was passed?
COUNSEL LAPPER-That was in the resolution, yea, because it made the Board feel more
comfortable in case it didn’t happen.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Ted?
COUNCILMAN TURNER-I’d just like to highlight a few areas in the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan as they apply to this project. New Industrial Development from the regional perspective as
well as a local one, Queensbury can provide support industry for larger companies situated in
nearby localities. That’s on page 4. On page 4 again, is strategy, is maximize the potential of areas
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 248
where enough suitable land and transportation access exists for the low impact industrial uses,
assure the installation of infrastructure such as roads, water and sewer necessary to attract and
maintain industrial growth. Page 5, provide more recreational opportunities west of the Northway
and south of Aviation Road, coordinate with the bike trail plans, formulate bike and slash, recreation
trail projects should be supported. Bike slash jogging, pedestrian lanes or sidewalks need to be
implemented along the roads throughout the town. And the last recommendation is, page 3,
Niagara Mohawk property and the land east of it to the Northway should be allowed Light Industrial
uses. This would provide more suitable industrial properties and potential access onto either
Luzerne or Sherman Avenue. A sizeable wooded buffer, discussion suggestions were a hundred
feet along Sherman Avenue should be included and would be achievable since the lots are currently
wooded. So, my pitch is that I still think the theory of Light Industrial is not a good use of that
property, is not so. I think Light Industry can go there very easy.
COUNSEL LAPPER-I guess just simply, we’re not arguing that Light Industrial is not an important
policy for the town because of course it is, but I think Ted quoted, you know, very fairly that the
Comp Plan Strategy S6.3 identified, providing more recreational opportunities. So, I think that
these are competing needs within the town and we’re just arguing that on that side of the Northway
COUNCILMAN TURNER-They said both and it didn’t say where.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Yea, no, but just the one was just on that side of the Northway, you know, so
I think they’re both important needs of the town but I think the two gentlemen that spoke tonight
and our presentation
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Well, you know, the theory of the Planning Board was that, without
sewer, that wasn’t a viable industrial site. Well, there’s a lot of Light Industry that can go in there
that don’t need a lot of sewer, just need septic tanks. So, that’s not a fair argument.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Yea, but the Industrial Park, well a more significant Light Industrial would
generally need sewer but the ones on Queensbury Ave the Town Board just provided sewer in the
South Queensbury Sewer District Extension and I think those are better sites for that reason. And
again, we’re not discounting the need for Industrial, we just think this is an important project for the
town and the town needs recreation as well.
SUPERVISOR STEC-John?
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yea, well, I was on the Planning Board when this got reviewed and
as is my nature to do, I grilled the applicant pretty good.
COUNSEL LAPPER-We can verify that.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yea, and I took a hard look and of course the Planning Board is going
to even take a tougher look at it but overall, I like that it was well buffered. I like the fact that we
have the Northway on the east of the project, you have Sherman Avenue to the north, you’ve got
Arrow to the south, you’ve got NIMO power lines on your west. I mean, you’re well buffered.
Yea, we did Ted, we did take a look at potential Light Industrial uses here and it does have potential
for Light Industrial use. It’s going to be somewhat limited but not impossible because of the fact
that there’s no sewer to locate Light Industrial there. We also considered that some forms of Light
Industrial that might want to locate there, might not be suitable considering it’s proximity to the
residential areas. And not only that but taking a look at the bigger picture, taking a look at our town,
our community and a comprehensive holistic fashion, you could almost argue that this amenity to
the community and I think it would be a positive amenity to the community, for many reasons I’ll
state in a minute why, could actually attract further Light Industrial because it enhances the quality
of life for the community. I mean, much like West Mountain is a private enterprise but I’ve heard
so many people, boy, we’re so lucky to have a ski center in our community and so close. Well, I
think in this case, we’re lucky to have Mr. Miller’s entrepreneurship to provide us with an amenity
to our community that provides us with an all weather facility that allows us and our kids to
participate and watch sporting activities that we don’t have now and I think that’s a big plus for the
community. And like I said, it could attract further Light Industrial because it is a big plus for the
community. And I think that companies looking to relocate or locate in our community look for the
quality of life for the community and I think this is one more step in enhancing our, what I think is
already very good quality of life, this makes it a little bit better. It offers young people a place to go
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 249
during the winter and as a member of the communities that care, one of the things that we’re trying
to do is keep our youth away from what you might call destructive decisions. Well, one way of
keeping away from those kinds of decisions would be to provide them opportunities that are healthy
and good, like sporting activities are. This provides an all weather year round facility for that
purpose and I think will help the youth in our area for that purpose. So, I think the school system, I
hear a lot of people in the school system speak favorably of this project and I think the location is
satisfactory, I think it’s even good. So, and another thing is, I do have two concerns, there may be
traffic impacts but this is going to be done in phases, Phase I and then they’ve got to come back for
Phase II and we’ll take a look and see how things are going.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, we won’t take a look.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-No, the Planning Board will. So, that’s a big advantage to everybody
in the community, we’ll see how this thing develops but I think it’s a good start right here. Another
thing I’m concerned about is, it is adjacent to a NIMO power line which in the scheme of our
Karner Blue Butterfly Habitat Management Plan, works into that but I think the applicant could
provide some benefit to the habitat if only signage warning the public from his property, signage
similar to the signage that we had Richard Schermerhorn do in a neighboring residential
development, warning people of what not to do because this is protected habitat area and I would
hope that the applicant be willing to do something like that. But that again would be a Planning
Board matter. So, with that said and done, I tend to favor the rezoning for this proposal.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Can I ask one more question. Why RC-15 and not RC-3?
COUNSEL LAPPER-Because the, it was just mentioned briefly, the indoor hockey training facility
which is only a small portion of what would be a regulation hockey rink, that is so we can subdivide
for financing purposes that little piece that’s on the northwest corner. So that that could be for
training, that’s not for playing ice hockey games but for training the young kids and so that the, the
RC-15 allows that to be done separately.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-So, that’s going to be somewhat of a separate business?
COUNSEL LAPPER-Yes and there’s also a huge need for the little kids to have training time on the
ice separate from playing games.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-How big is that parcel?
MR. MILLER-One point three.
MR. NACE-I was going to say one point two, I guess you’re right Doug.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Are the restrictions more so restrict in the RC-3 then the 15 or 15?
COUNSEL LAPPER-Three you need three acres so that’s
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I understand that. But pretty much all the same uses would be
allowed?
MRS. RYBA-Except for Retail is allowed in the RC-3 but not in the RC-15.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yea, so let’s go with RC-15.
COUNSEL LAPPER-There, so it’s more restrictive in this zone.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, I’ve got a couple of questions. The separation distance between the
entrance to Hidden Hills and your driveway?
MR. NACE-Let’s see, maybe the map will show better. (referred to map) Our driveway is here and
Hidden Hills driveway is here. If I can remember, west, it’s over six hundred feet.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright Tom. We’ve talked a lot about going from Light Industry, we went
to Light Industrial zoning not too long ago consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 250
concern here about giving up Light Industrial acreage of course is the job creation impact. Can you,
do you have an idea of what the nature in quantity of job creation will be for this project once it’s
built-out?
MR. MILLER-At full build-out it’s projected to be at, between eleven and twelve full time
employees, that’s at full build-out and that does not include coaches that are doing training that
would be essentially subcontracted out.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay and then the last question I had and it’s along the time line, I don’t
necessarily want to pry into your financial business but investors and funding I assume are in place,
what kind of time line are looking to commence if given this rezoning tonight? You know, what
kind of time line, is everything set to go or what is the likelihood that
COUNSEL LAPPER-We have to go to the Planning Board for Site Plan first.
MR. MILLER-We’re still back in the planning phase but the expectations to have the facility up and
running, October time frame.
SUPERVISOR STEC-October, and you can support that?
MR. MILLER-Yes.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay.
MR. MILLER-Borrowing no, no further delays.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Sure. Those were the questions that I had. At this point, it might be
appropriate just for the purpose of the public that are watching because occasionally the Town
Board gets some rezoning requests that attract certain level of public attention. The way, when did
you come before the Town Board to get referred to the Planning Board, do you recall?
COUNSEL LAPPER-Maybe October.
MR. MILLER-No.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Before that?
MR. MILLER-For rezoning?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea.
MR. MILLER-That was back in May.
SUPERVISOR STEC-In May, the town’s procedure for rezonings has been lately that, and staff can
correct me if I’m misspeak, that typically you come before the Town Board in a workshop, similar
to you did in May to present the ballpark idea because the rezoning of properties entirely
discretionary action by the Town Board which means that the Town Board can for any or no reason
at all refuse to rezone property. So, we often times run into the situation where a developer gets
concerned about investing a great deal of time and money to get a project to where you are tonight.
So, the Town Board first screens projects for a broad overview, appropriateness for the area, then
we would forward it to the Planning Board. Which, you’ve gone to the Planning Board, I believe it
was unanimously approved at the Planning Board, does staff recall?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yea, it was unanimous.
MRS. RYBA-The recommendation was made.
SUPERVISOR STEC-The recommendation, for recommendation from the Planning Board, also,
another step not required by law. However, it’s been the town’s procedure that both the Town
Board first looks at it, forwards it to the Planning Board, the Planning Board makes a
recommendation that is non-binding to the Town Board and then it comes back to us and we have
the benefit of the staff’s input and the public input at the Planning Board’s stage. So, that’s where
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 251
we are tonight, for rezoning action and then it will go again back to the Planning Board for Site
Plan. So, I mean certainly, I take the time to explain this in January of the new year here to, because
I know that there’s a lot of concern and a lot of misconceptions about how the rezoning process
works. So, I figured I’d use you as an example for the public that may have concerns.
MR. MILLER-One other step that was in there, too, is also County Planning Board.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Sorry.
MR. MILLER-We were in front of the County Planning Board and again, the same concerns were
addressed about the loss, the potential loss of an Industrial Site and at each step along the way, it’s
been deemed that this is a more appropriate use.
SUPERVISOR STEC-In the scheme of Warren County, the town’s, Queensbury’s location with
regard to the Blue Line is important to the remaining towns inside the Blue Line when it comes to
our actions on, in Light Industry. So, I’m sure that’s, you know, that’s why you got asked those
questions by the County Planning Board. Yea, our purpose tonight and I think John and Roger both
hit on it, is certainly, although we ask those kind of questions, not, the purpose isn’t Site Plan
Review, but we do need to consider what the most intense allowed use could be. There’s a lot of
debate and argument on the Town Board but, although, I think the law, the law may leave less room
for debate as to the appropriateness of a conditional rezoning. Although, I’ve been party to them
before, we’ve been involved with them. The argument may be that they may or may not be wise
but we’ve done it in the past and so far, I think we’ve done it with some level of success. So, I’m, if
and I don’t recall but if the Home Depot project did include a language for reverting back to it’s
original zoning after X months or X years, that probably wouldn’t be a bad idea. I do have a
concern, as Ted pointed out for the loss of Light Industrial land, especially given the recent attention
and certainly the aspirations of the QEDC and the Warren County Economic Development
Corporation, the whole purpose of the Empire Zones, the whole purpose of the, my personal
priorities for bringing higher quality type jobs associated with Light Industrial, the NAO Tech
project that hopefully our area will benefit from spin-offs if not directly from the jobs there. So,
that’s a concern of mine but John, I think pointed out that this could actually make some of our
other industrial land more attractive, so it might be a good investment. Speaking on the other town
priorities, one of my top three priorities is the Town’s Rec Center that we’re moving forward on.
With that in mind, and I believe there is broad public support for what we’re doing out there,
however, to be honest, I get nervous when I get a range of estimates from the Rec Commission
anywhere from five to fifteen or more million dollars for the project. I think a project like this will
certainly add to the variety and to the flexibility of the town wide recreational offerings. I think it
will ease the burden on the school as was pointed out by a School Board Member and frankly, I
think that it could give the Rec Commission, it could ease the burden on the Rec Commission and
on the public for what will certainly be a very expensive publicly funded Recreation Enterprise and
I know that one of the elements that they’re hoping to include is a, some level of an indoor track
field house sort of facility, similar to what you have now. I’m not suggesting at all that the Rec
Commission should alter the plans but certainly that, as your project progresses, I think that it may
give them a level of flexibility that if they start looking at hard dollar and cents numbers, that they
may be able to say, you know what, it might be appropriate to know that, hey that’s in our town
wide offering, it was privately funded, I’m sure it won’t be free but it’s available and it’s certainly a
better alternative then driving to Colonie at five o’clock in the morning for time. So, you know, for
all those reasons and in the grand scheme of Light Industry in the town, although it would be a
sacrifice of some of that Light Industrial acreage, I think all of the benefits to the quality of life here,
to ease the burden on the school and potentially to ease the burden on the cost of our Rec Center, I
think are something that we shouldn’t lose site of. I don’t know if there’s more technical questions
of the board, it’s been in the hopper here for some time and I know that there were questions
coming in here tonight. But, I think, I spoke my peace, I think that overall it’s, you know, it stinks
to give up some Light Industry, I think Roger hit the nail on the head, if it was coming from
Residential, straight from Residential zoning, it would have been a snap, because I am concerned
for the level of residential growth in the town, I’d prefer to see that slowed which I know would not
please you in other fronts but you know, certainly. So, I mean, with that said and I know I’m aware
that there were concern and I’m sure that there may still be concern but does anyone else have
anything else to add, on the board?
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 252
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Certainly, if we’re going to rezone this, I have a concern about
rezoning it and just letting it go, I would want a condition that it would revert back to what it is, if
for whatever reason this fails. Certainly, I think we have to find the words to do that.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I’d like to look at that too, or something like that, yea.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Bob, can you
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Can I have what the if is? If what doesn’t occur? I’ve got a two
year period, I heard.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-If, no it actually, what if they get up and running and then it fails, they
close, they go bankrupt and
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, no
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-That’s not going to be a legal
COUNCILMAN BREWER-No, I don’t
COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s a question, it’s not a
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-That’s not going to be legal.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, I guess I’m saying Roger and I’m not insinuating anybody would do
anything but if we rezone this, I don’t care what kind of a picture we’re looking at fellows, they can
do whatever is in that zone.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-So, I have to be assured that that is what’s going to happen on that
property, I guess is my
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, what you want to say is, basically, if this project hasn’t been
initiated within a two year period
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, maybe not two years.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, whatever.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Consistent with what’s been presented.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yea, consistent with what’s been presented to us.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-With what’s been presented and then it would revert back to previous
zoning.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-And then it will revert back, and I can live with that.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Then it would be subject to, well, I don’t know if we can just leave it
standing that it will auto, it would be subject to being rezoned back to Light Industry? I’m looking
to the attorneys here, you guys know what the language needs to be.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-What was the, I don’t remember what we did in the past. It is not
appropriate to have something that if a business goes under, that it reverts to some other use.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-No.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, no, we’re talking about if he doesn’t start it.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-If the project is not initiated.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 253
COUNCILMAN BOOR-We’re talking initiation now.
COUNSEL LAPPER-That’s fine with us.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Another words, shovels in the ground and going within a reasonable
amount of time, two years.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I don’t want to go two years, John.
COUNSEL LAPPER-We don’t think it’s going to be two years, we’re just asking for that just
because sometimes things take time.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-To start, to start, you said you’re going to start in October.
MR. MILLER-Tim, the reason I’d ask for two years is if I get delayed in Site Plan Review and can’t
get it off the ground this year, I may have to delay it.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-To me you’re in the process of doing the project.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Because, but there’s nothing burning to come in there anyway.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Or how about one year from Site Plan Approval?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Or one year, well, or one year from Site Plan Approval?
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-One year from Site Plan Approval so if there’s any hold ups,
whatever they may be, any unforeseen thing.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-From one year of approval date from the Planning Board, from Site
Plan Approval.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Site Plan Approval, and then that way that gives us, then we know exactly
what we’re talking about.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, it’s got to be realistic.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-But then, no, we’ve got to nail down a time.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Just say eighteen months as a compromise.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s what we did with Home Depot, I think, wasn’t it?
SUPERVISOR STEC-What, eighteen months?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Home Depot was actually eighteen months, I think.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I think you’re right Roger.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Maybe we should get the language that we did with the Home Depot.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-It was eighteen months.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Yea, it was just reverted back to the original zoning in eighteen months.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-And we can certainly, approve this next week with a resolution?
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-And what was the if clause, if what doesn’t happen?
COUNSEL LAPPER-The project isn’t commenced, construction.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 254
COUNCILMAN BOOR-If it, I think a shovel had to go in the ground.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-A project isn’t commenced.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Construction isn’t commenced.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Construction.
COUNSEL LAPPER-We’re certainly fine with that, Tim.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Are you fine with that, Jon, if we do that?
COUNSEL LAPPER-We’re fine with that condition.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Can I read the condition?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-The language, I said, I want to make sure what the language was with
the Home Depot.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Can I read it to make sure that you guys agree?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Marilyn, do you have something to add?
MRS. RYBA-He can go through that first but I just wanted to, I do have a couple of things to add.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Do you want to go ahead?
MRS. RYBA-Sure. Two things, one is I know when you were talking about the process, I wanted
to emphasis for the public as well that rezonings are heard just four times a year. The second is that,
there are a series of questions that are asked and I know in the past, the Town Board has gone
through and reviewed those questions before they do any kind of yea or nay. So, you might want to
consider addressing those questions and answering the questions and the other is, that if anybody
does have any further question on Light Industrial land that staff is prepared with an analysis of
acreage and that’s something that we.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I think we, we have that.
MRS. RYBA-Okay. So, that’s all I have. I just, like I said, wanted to remind you before you go too
much further that you might want to look at addressing those questions as well.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-The nine questions that the Planning Board also faced?
COUNSEL LAPPER-Yes.
MRS. RYBA-Yes.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Do you want me to read the resolved and see if it’s what the five of
you are expecting? Resolved, that the zoning of this parcel shall revert to it’s current LI, Light
Industrial Zone if construction on a project does not occur within eighteen months.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Of?
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Of this resolution.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Of this resolution, okay.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Does that?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s fine with me. I mean, we could always extent if it, if there’s an
unforeseen circumstance where it’s gets close to
COUNSEL LAPPER-We were talking eighteen months from the Site Plan Approval.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 255
COUNCILMAN BREWER-You know, as I read this, the one subdivision thing we’re talking about
bothers me a little bit, Jon. We’re talking about in this application, a twenty-one acre parcel and
you’ve already got it subdivided before we even rezone it.
COUNSEL LAPPER-That’s because, that’s Henri Longevin whose another resident of the town
who proposed that last year over on West Mountain and then when this came along, this is just a
better site, it’s compatible, it would share parking with this but it’s another real need to have the
kids, especially the young kids that need ice hockey time.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Don’t throw the kids on me, I don’t go for that.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Well, it’s the same as the soccer. I mean, it’s just another need in the town
and it’s a great facility.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, it’s a good marriage.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Yea, and there’s a lot of people that are into ice hockey.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I’m not saying it’s not but I mean it’s subdivided in the application
before we even rezone it.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, we’re aware of it.
MR. MILLER-We just want to make you aware of the whole, the entire phases of the project.
COUNSEL LAPPER-That’s the whole project, what you’re looking at there.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Does that answer all your questions? Would you prefer to think on it
anymore or?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Go ahead with the public hearing and I’ll listen.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I think we’ve heard, the public hearing’s open but we have kind of continued
the dialogue. Is there any other public comment concerning this?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I have one more question if the public doesn’t.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, go ahead Roger.
COUNCIMAN BOOR-Marilyn, the questions, when would they be appropriately asked and
answered, right now?
MRS. RYBA-Yes.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-So, we could do that right now?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Do you want to go through them?
MRS. RYBA-Yes, before you make your final decision.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I suggest we do that.
MRS. RYBA-Okay.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-And then, with the public hearing open, if there’s comments after that.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Sure, yes.
MRS. RYBA-Okay, do you want me to read the question and then, if you have questions will
discuss it?
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 256
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yup, will discuss.
MRS. RYBA-Okay, the first question is, what need is being met by the proposed change in the zone
or new zone? And I can read you what the applicant wrote. The applicant wrote that of course, if
he wants to be able to build the sport complex which will be used by area residents.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Marilyn, we have the answers that the Town Planning Staff provided in the
staff notes that the Planning Board looked at last time.
MRS. RYBA-Okay, I can do it either way based on the applicant or on the, okay. The rezoning will
benefit the applicant by allowing the construction of a sports complex on the twenty-one acre
property. Okay, second question is, what existing zones, if any can meet the stated need? Zoning
districts located in other areas in the Town allow Recreation Centers, these are Recreational
Commercial 15 and Recreational Commercial 3 Acre Zoning. How is the proposed zone
compatible with adjacent zones? Staff has included an area Zoning Map, which shows adjacent
properties to the west and east zoned LI, Light Industry. Properties to the north are residential. This
really forms more of a, this proposal would form a transition between the residential and the
industrial zones. 4, What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone? The
property being considered as part of the proposed zone change is vacant, twenty-one plus, minus
acres which is mostly forest and relatively flat. The property meets the lot area requirements of the
proposed RC15 zone which is fifteen thousand square feet, it appears that all other dimensional
requirements can be met. How will the zone, proposed zone affect public facilities? Municipal
water service is available, no public sewer facilities exist in the area. Additional commercial
development will not directly add to the school population and minimal impacts on emergency
services are expected. Question 6, Why is the current zone classification not appropriate for the
property in question? Other properties in the Town of Queensbury exist which do allow recreation
centers. However, these properties may not be vacant, and in the case of the RC-3A zone near the
West Mountain Ski Center, may contain topographic constraints which would limit the development
of these properties. Number 7, What are the environmental impacts? Some of the environmental
issues for the Planning Board to consider include visual impacts, traffic, stormwater, noise and
conformance with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. There was a visual assessment that took place,
looking at vegetation, it would cleared as part of the proposal showing that the structure would not
have a visual impact. Traffic, preliminary review which was discussed tonight, that included level
of service along Sherman Avenue and the study indicated that the level of service would not
substantially be reduced. The applicant’s traffic study indicated that seventy-five percent of the
traffic coming to and exiting the site will enter and exit from the east. Additional comments were
provided by engineering consultants. Stormwater, the applicant has submitted data. Noise, there
was some question about air compressors. These are also items that would be reviewed by the
Planning Board in Site Plan Review. There was an additional comment from the Department of
Environmental Conservation about the Karner Blue Butterfly but the Planning Board did in their
minutes acknowledge that that is something that they could review at the time of Site Plan Review.
8, How is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use
Master Plan? And those were outlined by Mr. Turner which has some conflicting items in terms of
strategy for both industrial use and as well as some other types of recreational facility or
opportunity. Number 9, How are the wider interests of the Community being served by this
proposal? It would result in additional recreation opportunities for residents of the Town of
Queensbury, and I did paraphrase some of that.
SUPERVISOR STEC-So, those were the nine questions. Any additional public comment on
anything you just heard or anything else? Any other discussion by the Town Board or further
questions for the applicant?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I just, on the noise thing, it’s obviously, it’s the Planning Board’s decision
but your confident that it’s not an issue?
MR. NACE-No, those are just small fans in essence that keep the dome inflated, they’re not big
heavy duty industrial compressors.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right and on 6, I guess you escape because there’s no sewer right?
MR. NACE-On 6?
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 257
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Why is the current zone classification not appropriate.
COUNSEL LAPPER-Right.
MR. NACE-Yes.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-I just have a question.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Go ahead, Ted.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-If there’s a need for a roadway out onto Luzerne Road and the piece of
property that’s left there, that Mr. Drellos or his Mother owns, has there been any, have you looked
at that at all?
COUNSEL LAPPER-You mean as a cut-through, Ted?
COUNCILMAN TURNER-As a cut-through.
MR. MILLER-Down through Arrow Head Equipment?
COUNCILMAN TURNER-On the backside of it. There’s room there.
MR. NACE-That would be on the other side of the power lines from our side.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Right on the outside edge of it, right here.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-This is Arrow Head right here.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yea, I know but no, there’s a tower in back of here. There’s room, I
think for a roadway right there.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s all, I think Arrow Head owns that.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Okay.
MR. NACE-Yea, everything to the south of us is Arrow Head.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yup, okay.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Will this generate a significant amount of truck traffic?
MR. MILLER-During construction possibly, but I wouldn’t consider it significant.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-But nothing significant after that.
MR. MILLER-No.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-But if we had Light Industrial in this area, something Light Industrial
could trigger or generate significant truck traffic.
MR. MILLER-Absolutely.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, any other questions or comments by Board Members? I’ll entertain
a motion, I assume we’re talking about the resolution as amended.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-You can close the public hearing.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Good idea. Alright, with that said, I’ll close the public hearing. Any other
comments?
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 258
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
COUNSEL LAPPER-Dan, just one question. We were hoping eighteen months from Site Plan
Approval rather then from rezoning because we don’t know how many months it’s going to take.
SUPERVISOR STEC-No, I thought we said eighteen months from tonight or from when it’s
approved.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-No, I would say a year from Site Plan Approval, the construction
should be started.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-It’s better to have it based on this action.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-If you want to do a longer period
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yea, but we have no idea when he’s going to get approved.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Do you want to do two years, that’s what you first said?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s why you go two because what if he gets approved and he’s got to
go through the whole winter.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, let’s go with the eighteen months and if you want an extension,
you can come back.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I thought you read eighteen months.
MR. MILLER-Eighteen months from Site Plan Approval?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Tonight, from tonight.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, from the rezoning.
MR. MILLER-Okay.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And if you want an extension, you can come back.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yea, it’s not going to be an issue.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Okay?
COUNSEL LAPPER-Okay.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Alright, I’ll entertain a motion.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT OF ZONING ORDINANCE
TO CHANGE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY DOUG AND
TERESA MILLER LOCATED ON SOUTH SIDE OF SHERMAN AVENUE,
WEST OF NORTHWAY, FROM LI (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) TO RC-15
(RECREATION COMMERCIAL – 15,000 SQUARE FEET)
RESOLUTION NO.: 74, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 259
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board is considering a request by Doug and Teresa
Miller to amend the Town Zoning Ordinance and Map to rezone property bearing Tax Map No.:
309.5-1-3 located on the south side of Sherman Avenue, immediately west of the Northway in the
Town of Queensbury from LI (Light Industrial) to RC-15 (Recreation Commercial – 15,000 Square
Feet), and
th
WHEREAS, on or about June 16, 2003, the Town Board adopted a Resolution authorizing
submission of the rezoning application to the Town’s Planning Board for report and
recommendation and consenting to the Planning Board acting as Lead Agency for SEQRA review
of the project, and
rd
WHEREAS, on or about December 23, 2003, the Queensbury Planning Board considered
the proposed rezoning, adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration and made a positive
recommendation to the Town Board to approve the rezoning application, and
th
WHEREAS, on or about November 12, 2003, the Warren County Planning Board
considered the proposed rezoning application and recommended approval, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board duly conducted a public hearing concerning the proposed
th
rezoning on January 26, 2004, and considered the conditions and circumstances of the area
affected by the rezoning,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby amends the Town of Queensbury
Zoning Ordinance and Map to rezone property owned by Doug and Teresa Miller bearing Tax Map
No.: 309.5-1-3 located on the south side of Sherman Avenue, immediately west of the Northway in
the Town of Queensbury from LI (Light Industrial) to RC-15 (Recreation Commercial – 15,000
Square Feet), and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town
Clerk to arrange with a surveyor to update the official Town Zoning Map to reflect this change of
zone, and
BE IT FURTHER,
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 260
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to send a
copy of this Resolution to the Warren County Planning Board, Town of Queensbury Zoning Board
of Appeals and the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the zoning of this parcel shall revert to its current Light Industrial (LI)
zone if construction on a project does not commence within 18 months of this Resolution, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, in accordance with the requirements of the Town of Queensbury Zoning
Ordinance Article XIII and Town Law §265, the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the
Town Clerk to publish a certified copy of the zoning changes in the Glens Falls Post-Star within
five (5) days and obtain an Affidavit of Publication, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that this amendment shall take effect upon filing in the Town Clerk’s Office.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
NOES : Mr. Turner
ABSENT: None
DURING VOTE:
COUNCILMAN TURNER-I like the project, I think there’s a need for it but I think it’s in the
wrong place so I vote no.
PUBLIC HEARING – Proposed Local Law, To Amend Queensbury Town Code By Adding
A New Chapter 97 Entitled “A Local Law Restricting Hours Of Garbage Pick-up In The
Town of Queensbury
NOTICE SHOWN
8:15 P.M.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay, a public hearing concerning our restriction of hours for garbage
collection pickup and just for the purpose of the public, I won’t read the entire law but we’re talking
about all garbage pickup within the Town. Garbage pickup would hereby be prohibited in the Town
of Queensbury between the hours of 10 P.M. and 6 A.M. and enforcement, I’m reading the
highlights, failure to comply with this local law, shall be deemed a violation punishable by a fine
not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars for each day per collection vehicle that a violation
occurs. The rest of it is standard legal mumbo jumbo as it were.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Thank you very much.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 261
SUPERVISOR STEC-You’re welcome. But the meat and potatoes is that we would be preventing
garbage collection between 10 P.M. and 6 A.M. subject to a two hundred and fifty dollar fine per
day per vehicle if it’s violated. So, that’s the local law that we’ve got a public hearing on and at this
time, I’d like to open the public hearing and if there’s any member of the public that would like to
comment on garbage collection, the merits or the dis-merits of this proposed local law, please step
forward. Mr. Tucker, good evening.
MR. PLINEY TUCKER-Pliney Tucker, 41 Division Road. Whose going to enforce this?
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-It’s the County Sheriff.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-The Sheriff.
SUPERVISOR STEC-As it’s a local law, it would be the County Sheriff.
MR. TUCKER-Huh?
SUPERVISOR STEC-The County Sheriff.
MR. TUCKER-The County Sheriff?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes.
MR. TUCKER-Has he agreed to do it?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-It doesn’t matter, if it’s a law, he’s got to.
MR. TUCKER-Oh, beg your pardon.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, that’s why we picked a law and not an ordinance because the local law
is enforceable by the sheriff. If it was an ordinance then it would be up to our own enforcement, as
you know. So, that’s why we proposed this. This is very consistent, although I think the hours
might be slightly different from something, a similar action that the City of Glens Falls took about a
year ago. So, and I know they have their own police force but.
MR. TUCKER-It’s a good law if you’ve got a way to enforce it. If it ain’t, it isn’t worth the paper
it’s written on. So, you figure you’ve got a way to enforce it.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, I think, Pliney if they stop the vehicle, there’s usually dated material
in the garbage and if it’s, you know.
MR. TUCKER-Yea.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-That won’t tell us the time, though, Roger.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I personally, you know, the history, Mr. Tucker brings up a good point, the
history of this local law is that it was centered mostly around the noise debate and the noise
ordinance that we were considering a couple of years ago that was met with, because it was very
general and very broad and try to collect and capture all noise issues in the Town, it was met with a
great deal of resistance from all corners of our Community and one of the big issues was the
enforcement, getting into decibel levels and whatnot. So, I think what we decided to do is segment
the issue a little more by activity because obviously there’s going to be a certain percentage of the
noise issues out there are going to be related to garbage pickup and this one is very easily
enforceable. You’re either collecting garbage outside of the allowed times or you’re not and I’m
highly confident that the Sheriff will happily enforce this law as he does all others.
MR. TUCKER-Okay, thank you.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, Mr. Tucker. Any other comment? Mr. Salvador.
MR. JOHN SALVADOR-Good evening. I’d like to suggest that we change the word garbage to
solid waste and don’t we have a local law involving solid waste control regulation pickup, handling
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 262
of solid waste? I’m sure we do and couldn’t we make this a part of that local law rather then a
whole new Chapter 97? Thank you.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you. Any other comment, questions from the public while the public
hearing is open? Alright, any comments or questions from the Town Board Members for
discussion?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yea, I just talked to Bob, I’d recommend one wording change and that’s
Section 4 and it would read, failure to comply with this local law shall be deemed a violation
punishable by a fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars for each day per collection vehicle
found to be in violation of said law. I think it’s, it reads clearer to me.
SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s a good improvement, I agree with that. Actually, I thought you were
going to question and I’ll ask Counsel, not exceeding. Why don’t we just say, punishable by a fine
of two hundred and fifty dollars?
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Because a Judge is going to read that as not exceeding. I mean,
because ultimately whatever you do ends up to be enforceable has to go before a Judge and that’s
how they’re going to interpret it.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright but per collection vehicle.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Found to be in violation of said law.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Found in violation or found to be of this law?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-That way if there’s ten of them on one day, we can get twenty-five
hundred dollars as opposed to
SUPERVISOR STEC-So long as we identify ten.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right, right.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right, that’s fine.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-And that’s fine, his change is fine with us.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Any other Town Board discussion or modifications or questions? Any other
public comment or questions? I certainly don’t want to steal the Board’s thunder because there
were several people that really were energetic about it, probably most notably Councilman Boor.
But, I mean certainly, I think everyone on the Town Board thinks that we should be doing what we
can to ease the, or provide for restful sleep of our residents and this is I think an easy one to take a
cut at and an easy one to enforce. And just speaking for myself, I personally think that this is the
first of a few ways that we’ll try to address some of the quality of life issues associated with noise
and environmental and another, as most people know, we’ve got a moratorium on outdoor burn
furnaces and we are working towards a local law on that front to mitigate that issue and I do think
that putting these into smaller chunks, as their own standing law, I think really simplifies it and
eases enforcement. So, I think that this is a good step towards addressing a variety of noise issues in
the Town. Any other comments from the Town Board?
COUNCILMAN TURNER-You didn’t get any reaction from the waste haulers?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Nope.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-None?
SUPERVISOR STEC-None, and I think that’s a good thing to point, I did not receive any
correspondence, phone calls, visitations, letters or faxes from any waste haulers and I know that our
official newspaper has done a stellar job making sure that everyone’s aware of, that we’re
contemplating this action. So, but I have not received any complaints so I assume that they’re all
fully on board and I think that’s a good assumption and it’s too late.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 263
COUNCILMAN BOOR-It will be in a minute.
SUPERVISOR STEC-It will be in a minute. Alright, with nothing else from the public, I’ll close
the public hearing and I’ll entertain a motion from the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOLUTION ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO.: 1 OF 2004 TO AMEND THE
QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 97
ENTITLED “A LOCAL LAW RESTRICTING HOURS OF GARBAGE
PICK-UP IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY”
RESOLUTION NO. 75, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: 1 of 2004
entitled, "A Local Law to Restrict Hours of Garbage Pick Up Within the Town of Queensbury”
which Local Law will restrict the hours of garbage pick-up in the Town of Queensbury to control
excessive, unnecessary, unreasonable or unusually loud noise generated by refuse compacting
vehicles and activities, and
WHEREAS, this legislation is authorized in accordance with New York State Municipal
Home Rule Law §10, and
th
WHEREAS, the Town Board duly held a public hearing on January 26, 2004 and heard all
interested persons,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby enacts Local Law No.: 1 of 2004 to
amend the Queensbury Town Code by adding a new Chapter 97 entitled, “A Local Law Restricting
Hours of Garbage Pick-Up in the Town of Queensbury’” as presented at this meeting, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town
Clerk to file the Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the
provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and acknowledges that the Local Law will take effect
immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 264
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
LOCAL LAW NO.: 1 OF 2004
A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE BY ADDING A NEW
CHAPTER 97 ENTITLED “A Local Law
RESTRICTING HOURS OF GARBAGE PICK-UP
IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY”
BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Purpose and Authority.
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Town of Queensbury to control excessive,
unnecessary, unreasonable or unusually loud noise generated by refuse compacting vehicles and
activities. The Town Board has determined that restricting the hours of garbage pick-up to times
considered reasonable for generation of associated noise will promote the health, safety and general
welfare of the community. This Local Law is adopted pursuant to Municipal Home Rule Law §10.
Section 2. Definitions
.
"GP-" means loading, unloading, collecting, compacting or other handling of
ARBAGE ICKUP
containers, dumpsters, garbage cans, recyclables, refuse, trash or similar objects by persons engaged
in the business of garbage, refuse, trash or recyclables collection, whether private or municipal.
Section 3. Restriction on Garbage Pick-up
.
Garbage pick-up is hereby prohibited in the Town of Queensbury between the hours of
10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
Section 4. Enforcement
.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 265
Failure to comply with this Local Law shall be deemed a violation punishable by a fine not
exceeding Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250) for each day per collection vehicle found to be in
violation of this Law.
Section 5. Repealer
.
All Local Laws or ordinances or parts of Local Laws or ordinances in conflict with any part
of this Local Law are hereby repealed.
Section 6. Severability
.
If any part of this Local Law shall be declared invalid by a Court of competent jurisdiction,
such declaration shall not affect or impair in any way any other provision and all other provisions
shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 7. Effective Date
.
This Local Law shall take effect upon filing in the office of the New York Secretary of
State as provided in Municipal Home Rule Law §27.
CORRESPONDENCE
DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER read the following Memorandum into the record:
TO: Town Board
FROM: Jennifer Switzer
SUBJECT: 2003 Sales Tax
DATE: 1/26/2004
th
FYI we have received the 4 quarter sales tax revenue from Warren County. The Town
th
received $1,633,407 for the 4 quarter of 2003. The total sales tax revenue received in 2003
was $6,659,372 in comparison to $6,816, 921 received in 2002. Over all sales tax revenue
received decreased 2.3% from 2002, but surpassed 2003 budgeted sales tax revenue of
$6,100,000 by $559,372. If you have any questions or would like additional data please let
me know.
INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS FROM THE FLOOR – NONE
OPEN FORUM
MR. TUCKER, 41 Division Road-Questioned why the Great Escape is in the Empire Zone?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Noted that the Town Board passed a resolution last year putting them in the
Empire Zone.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 266
COUNCILMAN BREWER-They applied to be in the Empire Zone, went through the process and
the Empire Zone Administration Board qualified them and incorporated them.
MR. TUCKER-Questioned the basis for qualification?
SUPERVISOR STEC-They went through the process, there was certainly much public debate on
the Town Board at the time, it was not an unanimous vote. All the properties under consideration
were lumped into one single resolution that was either take it or leave it, I think is essentially how
the Board felt it was put to them and it was voted on and it was passed.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-My proposal for next year is, because I share the same concerns, that
we have an open public hearing and the group that you’re referring to which is the Committee of the
Warren County Economic Development Corporation, I believe is going to give a presentation to the
public with an open public hearing and that’s the time to ask those questions before we say yes or
no.
MR. TUCKER-Noted that he spoke with Chris Round regarding establishing a fund where
commercial businesses coming in, outside of the recreation fund, pay a percentage into a fund to
purchase land for active recreation, not passive… Requested Supervisor Stec to look into the idea.
MR. TUCKER-Questioned whether the Board met with the Emergency Squad?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes, we had a contract negotiation session with the Rescue Squads.
MR. TUCKER-Questioned why it was a closed meeting?
SUPERVISOR STEC-It was appropriate, it was contract negotiation
COUNSEL HAFNER-It’s for the engagement of hiring people to do services for the Town.
st
MR. TUCKER-As of January 1, with what little political savvy I have, I believe you became the
most powerful politician in Warren County and I think you have a great deal of influence and before
you screw it all up, there’s a couple of things I’d like you to take care of. I’d like you to use your
influence, John Sweeney or whoever you’ve got to talk to, to find out what’s going on with Barber
and AMG. We’ve got four hundred thousand dollars of our money tied up there that we could be
using right here in the Town to promote business and this has been going on for a long time. One
more thing, my Hudson Pointe land deal, would you get a hold of the attorney and find out what’s
going on.
st
MR. SALVADOR-Noted that the Great Escape has published, as of December 1 their rate
schedule for next year and in all cases they do quote their rates plus tax…. Noted rate schedule.
Read the following into the record:
My comments this evening have to do with matters widely known to the core of local and
capital district news media. The Warren County Administration, including the uncle of our
Town Supervisor, as well as the local Law Enforcement and Court Administrations. This
amounts to another of those family secrets everyone knows but no one talks about. Before I
get interrupted by Mr. Brewer with the usual, ‘what does this got to do with us’, I would like
to reference those sections of Town Law and Uniform Justice Court Act which are pertinent
and thus establishing a foundation for my appearing here with the following information.
As Town Supervisor Mr. Stec, one of your duties is specified in Section 29, Paragraph 2 of
Town Law wherein you shall act as the Treasurer of the Town and shall demand, collect,
receive and have care in custody of monies belonging to or due the Town from every
source. Section 31-1A of Town Law, talks about the powers and duties of Town Justices
and compels Town Justices who are in fact officials of the Town to keep or cause to keep
the records and dockets required by the Uniform Justice Court Act and at least annually or
as often as may be required, submit his records and dockets to Members of the Town Board
st
for examination and audit. On December 31 of last year, a Chestertown resident was
ordered to appear in Glens Falls City Court before City Court Justice David B. Krogmann
because a three year Stay in a 1998 harassment case which the Chestertown resident now
has an Appeal, had been revoked by acting Warren County Judge Felix Catena. Judge
Catena, a Montgomery County Court Judge signed an Order lifting the Stay on a motion
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 267
from the Warren County Special Prosecutor Mr. Gary Hobbs. The Chestertown resident
had been ordered by Catena in September of 2003 to surrender to Krogmann to begin
serving a nine and a half month jail sentence imposed in December of 2000 as a result of
being found guilty by a jury and a trial held before Queensbury Town Justice Michael
Muller. The gentlemen of this Board should know that I attended this trial and have
followed this matter very closely because of my keen interest in justice. Upon being served
with Notice in September of 2003 that the resident was to begin serving the remaining nine
and a half months, the resident began to seek the reinstatement of the Stay revoked by Judge
Catena, again, based on the pendency of an Appeal. The Chestertown resident had an
extreme difficulty in finding a sitting Judge who could and would order the Stay to continue.
Repeated Court denials over a three month period caused City Court Judge Krogmann to
th
finally order on or about December 19 the Chestertown resident to appear on December
st
31 of 2003, this was his last day of official duty as City Court Judge. Judge Krogmann did
not send the Notice of Appearance to the Chestertown residence rather he sent it to the
residence Assigned Counsel whose was told by the same Judge Krogmann that she, the
resident’s Counsel could not represent the resident because Counsel had not been assigned
in this matter. Although the Chestertown resident was never served with the Notice to
stst
Appear in City Court on December 31, word did reach the resident that December 31 had
been established as the appearance date. Upon appearing before Judge Krogmann with the
expectation of being ordered to begin serving the nine and a half month remaining jail
sentence, the Chestertown resident was surprised to learn that acting Warren County Judge
Richard Giardino of Fulton County had signed an Order for a last minute Stay and that the
Chestertown resident’s release on bail would continue allowing an Appeal of Queensbury
Town Justice Muller’s original sentencing of almost one year’s jail time in this harassment
case. At this point, with Judge Giardino’s Order entered in City Court, the Court could have
adjourned leaving everyone to continue preparations for their chosen New Years Eve
festivities. Not so fast, Judge Krogmann apparently had other intentions. Judge Krogmann
made an announcement from the bench, that Queensbury Town Court could not find the five
thousand dollar bail proceeds that the Chestertown resident had paid to the Court for the
resident’s release in February 2001 after serving seventeen days in Jail on a harassment
charge. Further, the Queensbury Town Court had not turned over the bail sum of five
thousand dollars to the Glens Falls City Court as required by the Uniform Justice Act.
Wow. Mr. Stec, as the preeminent financial officer of this Town, you are charged with
ferreting a determination that these bail monies have not been temporarily lost or misplaced
and that the five thousand dollars first collected in 2001 remains somewhere within the
Town treasury. Do not fail to fall into the trap of disregarding this responsibility, it will not
go away. This is one of those, one of the reasons which lead to the Appellate Division of
State Supreme Court to remove Victor Grant from Office of Town Supervisor of the Town
of Lake Luzerne. A cause of action outlined in the removal petition was his failure to keep
the funds of his town, including Court funds intact and was reported by the State
Comptroller to the Warren County District Attorney’s Office. Your inquiry as to the
whereabouts of the five thousand dollar bail money should not be sidetracked by the fact
that Judges Catena, Krogmann and Muller have been named in legal proceedings pending in
Warren County Court in which this Chestertown resident is challenging the Title to Office
of these and other Judges within the Fourth Judicial District as well as the Warren County
Sheriff, Mr. Larry Cleveland and the Special Prosecutor in this case, Mr. Gary Hobbs for
failure to timely and properly file their Oath Of Office and more importantly, in the case of
Judge Muller, an undertaking known as a Performance Bond. Absent Former Judge
Muller’s filing of an Oath Of Office and his failure to post an undertaking, has caused his
office to be vacated as a matter of law. He was therefore without authority to set and collect
the five thousand dollar bail money which he apparently proceeded to lose. Had the former
Judge Muller posted an undertaking as required by law, the taxpayers would be indemnified
for the loss of funds. Without such indemnification it now appears that former Judge Muller
is personally liable for keeping the Town treasury whole. Rest assured, the Chestertown
resident still holds receipts for the bail amount of five thousand dollars. Your assurance is
hereby demanded that this matter of the missing five thousand dollars will be thoroughly
and expeditiously pursued to a solution which protects the Town taxpayer. One question for
which I find no reasonable answer is, why did Judge Krogmann even mention that former
Judge Muller had lost the bail money? He didn’t have to. A thorough reading and study of
all the actions of the Queensbury Town Court leads me to a conclusion that the Chestertown
resident was being setup to forfeit the five thousand dollar bail money for some technical
procedural failure. Mr. Stec, these antics, are uncalled for in the land of the free.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 268
This is a very, very serious matter.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I take every aspect of my job very seriously, especially in the first twenty-six
days, John, I’ll be happy to look into that issue for you and for the taxpayers and residents of the
Town of Queensbury.
MR. SALVADOR-Yea, the point is, that we’re supposed to be protecting from such wrongdoings
through the posting of a bond, I mean that’s
SUPERVISOR STEC-I’ve been aware of this for exactly five minutes and thirty seconds and I can
assure you that we will, it will be our first order of business to look into it because the allegations
that you make are serious and I want to see if they’re true and what exactly can be done to rectify it.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay, if you have any questions, I can help you.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Perhaps, you can give me a copy of what you just read, that might be, of
course we have you on video tape now as does the Town.
MS. BARBARA BENNETT, Dixon Road-Noted that she saw on TV a picture of the Board with
the Great Escape proposing to build a hotel and questioned what meeting it was?
SUPERVISOR STEC-The Planning Board Meeting that was held last Tuesday of last week.
MS. BENNETT-I heard that Howard Johnson is proposing something on Aviation Road.
SUPERVISOR STEC-They did come before the Town Board for their initial time, I think it’s safe
to say that they were, although politely and cordially welcomed, I don’t think that their project was
certainly well received as proposed and they were sent away to basically have further discussion
with the school whose the most immediate concerned neighbor.
MS. BENNETT-What I saw said it was held last Monday which is at a workshop?
th
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes, we had a workshop on the 19, on Monday.
MS. BENNETT-On Martin Luther King Holiday.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes.
MS. BENNETT-I thought the meetings were rescheduled so you wouldn’t be having one on a
holiday.
SUPERVISOR STEC-We rescheduled the regular meetings to avoid holidays but that’s at least the
second holiday that we’ve met on.
MS. BENNETT-That brings up the point that workshops and Board meetings are separate things.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, they are and they aren’t. The way that we conduct and the nature of
the business that we conduct is different between the two but according to New York State Law,
there is no such thing as a workshop, they’re all Town Board Meetings. It was advertised, I know
that our reporter from the Post Star was in fact there and we did send a press release to the radio
stations and both newspapers that we were having that meeting.
MS. BENNETT-I’ve been told and it’s the way it’s been that workshops were for the Board was to
discuss details of ongoing issues, the public can be present but they can’t participate.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, we generally, the structure of the meeting is different in that we don’t
generally seek public input at a workshop but that agenda item is very typical for a workshop, that
we will meet with a developer to talk about a project, especially at the preliminary stages. So, that
wasn’t out of the norm, having it on Martin Luther King Day was a little out of the norm but again,
it was certainly noticed and the press was there.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 269
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Dan, if I might, Barbara the workshops typically are a little less formal.
We certainly don’t have to let the public speak but I can’t recall a time when we’ve said no and it’s
been my experience in the two years that I’ve been here that we’ve never passed a resolution during
a workshop. They’re typically to either brainstorm or to share ideas because you know it’s illegal
for us to meet as a quorum, three of us, so it’s one of the few chances we get to have a less then
formal get together. We certainly talk about important issues but we, only in the instance of an
emergency would we do a resolution.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I would go the step further, again to draw the distinction, there are certain
items that we are required to entertain public comment but our practice of this Open Forum at our
regular meetings is entirely that, it’s a practice, it isn’t a requirement. So, it is a courtesy that we
extend to the public and I think it’s wise, I think it’s good policy and I think it’s excellent politics to
certainly welcome public input. But as far as what’s required by the law, technically, what we’re
doing here isn’t required…
MR. SALVADOR-This deals with the Empire Zone, it is criminal what’s going on in the Empire
Zone. We have properties on Canada Street in Lake George in the Empire Zone. The Bolton Road
in Lake George, in the Empire Zone, hardly a depressed area. The types of areas they talk about in
the legislation, abandoned rail sightings, abandoned waterfront facilities, those are considered
depressed areas. Jobs is not the only criteria for recognition as an Empire Zone, there are other
criteria for qualification. Some day, these organizations, when they apply for their tax exemption,
they’ve got to show that they’re a minority corporation, that’s one of the criteria.
OPEN FORUM CLOSED
TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Very briefly, Howard Johnson’s did come before our Board at a workshop
seeking rezoning and as Dan accurately characterized, we were less than enthusiastic but also
recognized that we weren’t actually the neighbor involved here and Dan recommended that they
speak with the school. I happened to attend, I’m on a committee with Chris Round and John
Strough, also attended this last one with the School Board and the topic obviously came up. They
asked a few questions about the proposal and they said that they had met as a whole and they were
unanimous that they were opposed to such a use and I had recommended that Dr. Howard send a
letter to you, Dan.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I received two letters from Dr. Howard. I will just add to what Councilman
Boor just said, I did receive a letter from the Superintendent of Queensbury School stating their, I
believe the quote in two different locations in the letter was, adamant opposition. Again, certainly
the intention of our meeting last week was not to alert the public that this was certainly pending, I
think it’s very fair to characterize that there was very little or no support from the Town Board that
evening. I think we’ve had a chance to mull it over, I think that the public is aware and we’ve had a
chance to hear from the public. We did recommend that they approach the school, I don’t think
they have yet but we’ll let them do that and perhaps they’ll dazzle the School Board with their
brilliance. I want to let the public know that we did basically send them on their way to discuss the
issues that we saw that they would have the school and hopefully they’ll be able to come to some
sort of understanding but I think that it’s extremely unlikely that the Board will consider rezoning
that property. So, again I go back to, that’s why I went into the discussion before about the process,
an applicant comes to the Town Board and before they entire the pipeline and start spending tons of
money and tons of time, because as soon as they do that, then they start having a more vested
interest in the project and they start to dig heels in more and they we do get into more vicious
battles. As a courtesy and again, I think it’s a credit to our Town Board and the past Town Board,
as a courtesy to these applicants, we do meet with them to save that from happening so that they
don’t get into the position where, now they’ve invested tens of thousands of dollars and when we
start telling them no, they start contemplating legal action. So, I think it’s in the public’s interest,
the taxpayers interest that we have these informal meetings with them so that we can head off poor
projects or questionable projects earlier on which I think is, where this one’s heading but certainly
I’m going to do my best to keep an open mind and see what comes back. But based on the letter I
got and the discussion that the Town Board had, I really don’t think that the public should lose
much more sleep in the likelihood of that project happening… I wanted to comment on the sales tax
receipts for the fourth quarter last year and I know that last year it was said a few times that we were
going to have a year that was off from 2002. That did happen, it was down as the memo pointed
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 270
out, two and half percent from the previous year. However, I think it’s also extremely important to
point out that that was driven by the first two quarters and not the last two quarters of last year and I
would also state that this six point six, six million dollars that we received in 2003, although slightly
down from the six point eight of 2002, would still by itself be well above previous records. So, we
had an understanding year in 2002 and we almost had the same level of outstanding year this past
year. This was the sixth consecutive year that actually receipts for sales tax exceeded the budgeted
amount by greater than five hundred and fifty-nine thousand dollars. So, I think clearly, my purpose
here is that quarterly we do see these numbers come from the County and I just want to use that to
start laying the groundwork for my proposal which is certainly going to be coming again in August
if not sooner this year for a significant tax rebate. Basically, we received five hundred and fifty-nine
thousand dollars more last year then we had budgeted for and again, going back to the last six years,
that was the lowest amount that we under budgeted by. So, I think we’re certainly talking about the
very healthy sales tax revenue in the Town and I just wanted the public to be aware of where those
numbers are coming in at… I wanted to update the Board that last week I did have the opportunity
to talk to the Mayor of Glens Falls, I was downtown for another event and I stopped in on the
Mayor, I did catch him in City Hall and I was able to inquire about the eleven acres that we’re
concerned about that the Town is interested in buying from the City of Glens Falls that’s located
down between Hudson Pointe and Faith Bible. It would make our two parcels contiguous which is
of the interest for the Parks and Rec Department. Talking to Town Staff, we can’t contemplate any
rational use of that land by the City so we’re very hopeful that in the interest of ongoing
Intermunicipal cooperation that we see some reciprocity and allow the purchase of this at fair
market value. As we proposed, the Mayor seemed extremely receptive to that. He did recall that he
had had a brief conversation about it with my predecessor late last year and we will go ahead and,
he said that he would be talking to his staff and try to get something going, hopefully in February.
So, I told him that I would be back to talk to him in a month but I was certainly encouraged by the
conversation that we had. So, I just wanted to update the Board that that issue that I think is
important to all of us, is moving in a positive direction.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-My wish list number one, creation of a Glens Falls Queensbury
Committee for the purpose of identifying common goals and issues and the two municipalities
working together would more likely generate greater and more significant cultural activities and
active, passive recreational development and augment the municipal sharing of resources and
identify the mutually significant issues.
SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s very similar to what I proposed a couple of years ago for having joint
quarterly meetings between the City of Glens Falls Common Council and the Queensbury Town
Board which I think is also on my list of priorities as well.
RESOLUTIONS
9:05 P.M.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Noted that Resolution 7.1 has been amended and the following resolution
was introduced:
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO HUDSON POINTE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
REGARDING DEDICATION OF 30 FOOT STRIP OF LAND BY
THE MICHAELS GROUP, LLC
RESOLUTION NO.: 76, 2004
INTRODUCED BY : Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY : Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, by prior Resolution, the Queensbury Town Board authorized
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 271
development of the Hudson Pointe Planned Unit Development, (PUD), and
WHEREAS, by Planning Board Resolution No.: SB5-03, the Town Planning
Board approved the final stage of Subdivision No. 5-2003, such Subdivision
being the Quincy Subdivision to be developed by The Michaels Group, LLC,
and one of the Planning Board’s condition of such approval was that:
“prior to the acceptance of the proposed Quincy Lane by the
Highway Department, that proof that the Hudson Pointe PUD has
been modified to include the 30 foot wide strip that is part of this
subdivision and that the modification has been accepted by the
Town Board,” and
WHEREAS, The Michaels Group, LLC wishes to dedicate Quincy Lane to the Town of
Queensbury and therefore, in accordance with the Town Planning Board’s Resolution, needs Town
Board approval to modify the Hudson Pointe PUD before the Town Highway Department may
accept Quincy Lane, and
WHEREAS, before the Town Board may amend, supplement, change, or modify a PUD, it
must hold a public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Town Law §265, the Municipal
Home Rule Law and the Town of Queensbury Zoning Laws,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall hold a public hearing on Monday,
rd
February 23, 2004 at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury to hear all
interested parties concerning the proposed amendment to the Hudson Pointe Planned Unit
Development described in the preambles of this Resolution, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk’s Office to
provide 10 days notice of the public hearing by publishing a Notice of Public Hearing in the Town’s
official newspaper and posting the Notice on the Town’s bulletin board, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Community
Development Department to provide the Town Clerk’s Office with a list of all property owners
located within 500' of the PUD so that the Town Clerk’s Office may send the Notice of Public
Hearing to those property owners, and
BE IT FURTHER,
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 272
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Clerk’s Office to
send the Notice of Public Hearing to the Clerk of the Warren County Board of Supervisors, Warren
County Planning Board and other communities or agencies that it is necessary to give written notice
to in accordance with New York State Town Law §265, the Town’s Zoning Regulations and the
Laws of the State of New York.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
DISCUSSION BEFORE INTRODUCTION:
SUPERVISOR STEC-This was modified in that we are setting a public hearing whereas before we
were going to accept the dedication of Quincy Lane. Some legal issues came up, if you just want to
brief the Board and the public.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Part of the process that we go through before accepting a road for
dedication is to get the approvals of respective Department Heads. We always, we start with the
Highway Superintendent, if he doesn’t want it, it sort of stops there cause he’s in charge of taking
care of it but we also get the input from Ralph and Mike to see if there’s any water or sewer. We
also get two people in Chris Round’s Department. Dave Hatin makes sure that the signs are there
and things are done according to how we do roads and Craig Brown who looks to make sure that the
things that are required in the Planning Board approvals are followed through with. I mean, we’ve
been Counsel a long time and this is the first time that Craig has found something really significant
that we couldn’t fix during the week before the meeting, that wasn’t done as part of the Planning
Board approval. But that’s why we do that, that’s the system working. He went back to look at the
Planning Board approval and the Planning Board said before you dedicate this road that we had
before us, Quincy Lane to the Town, you have to amend, you have to give a thirty foot strip to the
PUD that’s right next door to make sure that it was owned by the Homeowner’s Association there
and would be protected from use. There’s no cut zone and they didn’t want a developer to be able
to use it for a road. That hadn’t taken place, Jon Lapper didn’t know about it until we alerted him it
about it last week but before, the Planning Board said before accepting the road here that this had to
go through. What we have to do, it’s a pretty simple matter, Jon Lapper is going to take care of the
details that need to be and he’s working with Craig Brown and I talked with him earlier today. But
first we have to set a public hearing for the PUD change because it’s technically a rezoning but it’s
one that had already been approved and directed by the Planning Board so we imagine it’s not one
of controversy. But it needs to be done so we’re setting the public hearing. We had hoped that it
would be a five day public hearing period so you could act on it quicker but that’s not the case, it’s a
ten day period. So, we have to set it for your second meeting in February.
RESOLUTION SETTING HEARING CONCERNING UNSAFE MOBILE
HOME LOCATED ON PROPERTY OWNED BY CLIFFORD REED
RESOLUTION NO.: 77, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 273
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury’s Director of Building and Codes Enforcement
(Director) has inspected a mobile home on property owned by Clifford Reed located at 58 Ogden
Road in the Town of Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 308.19-1-31) and has found that it has been
damaged and is in a state of disrepair, and
WHEREAS, the Director advised Mr. Reed to take appropriate measures to remove the
th
mobile home from the property as more specifically set forth in the Director’s August 12, 2003
letter to Mr. Reed presented at this meeting, and
WHEREAS, the Director has advised the Queensbury Town Board that in his opinion the
mobile home is dangerous and unsafe to the general public and therefore would like the Town
Board to take action if the property owner fails to remove the mobile home, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Queensbury Town Code Chapter 60 and New York State
Town Law §130(16), the Town Board may, by Resolution, determine whether in its opinion a
structure is unsafe and dangerous, and if so, order that notice be served upon the owner or other
persons interested in the property that the structure must be renovated or demolished and removed,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that after reviewing the evidence presented at this time, the Queensbury Town
Board is of the opinion that the mobile home owned by Clifford Reed and located at 58 Ogden
Road in the Town of Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 308.19-1-31) appears to be dangerous and unsafe
to the public, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board shall hold a hearing concerning this matter on February
nd
2, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Director of Building
and Codes Enforcement to serve a notice setting forth its determinations upon the property owner or
his executors, legal representatives, agents, lessees, or any person having a vested or contingent
interest in the property, the contents, service and filing of the notice to be in accordance with the
provisions of Queensbury Town Code Chapter 60 and New York State Town Law §130(16).
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2004, by the following vote:
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 274
AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT OF BIDS FOR
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
RESOLUTION NO.: 78, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 49,2004, the Queensbury Town Board authorized the filing
of an application for State assistance from the State’s Household Hazardous Waste State Assistance
Program, and
WHEREAS, the Town’s Solid Waste Facilities Operator wishes to advertise for bids for the
furnishing of all materials and performing all work necessary for the collection and disposal of
household hazardous waste in connection with the Town’s Hazardous Waste Day proposed to be
th
conducted on Saturday, June 5, 2004 as described in bid specifications presented at this meeting,
and
WHEREAS, General Municipal Law §103 requires that the Town advertise for bids and
award the bids to the lowest responsible bidder(s) meeting New York State statutory requirements
and the requirements set forth in the Town’s bidding documents,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the
Queensbury Purchasing Agent to publish an advertisement for bids in the official newspaper for the
Town of Queensbury for the furnishing of all materials and performing all work necessary for the
collection and disposal of household hazardous waste in connection with the Town’s Hazardous
th
Waste Day to be conducted on Saturday, June 5, 2004, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Purchasing Agent to
open, read aloud and record all bids received and present the bids to the next regular or special
Town Board meeting.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 275
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION APPROVING REVISIONS TO QUEENSBURY WATER
DEPARTMENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS
RESOLUTION NO.: 79, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 210 of 1987, the Queensbury Town Board accepted the
Queensbury Water Department’s Design and Construction Standards (Standards) and by Resolution
No. 116.2000, approved revisions to such Standards, and
WHEREAS, the Water Superintendent has again proposed revisions to the Standards as
presented at this meeting and has requested Town Board approval of such Standards,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the Queensbury Water
Department’s Design & Construction Standards as revised and presented at this meeting and further
authorizes and directs the Water Superintendent to distribute the new Standards and take any action
necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE:
MR. RALPH VANDUSEN, Water/Wastewater Superintendent-Every few years we would update
the design and construction standards to meet current technology and what these are, these are a set
of standards that would list the types of materials that are used in the water system, the procedures
that have to be used to install those and the inspection procedure that contractors or homeowners are
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 276
expected that the Town will be implementing at the time that the infrastructure is installed. The
Roman Numeral five of the standard is a, at the bottom half of the page is a summary of what we
felt were the significant changes. Most of the changes were just small word changes or small details
in some of the illustrations or maybe updating part numbers or manufacturer’s numbers of the
components. A couple of things I’d like to mention that are some relatively significant changes in
these standards over the others. The Highway Department has been pushing us for years, that prior
to the Town accepting a road that the water services should be installed before the road is
blacktopped. The reason for that is just that, depending on soil conditions, we may be able to push
across the road underneath the blacktop and we may not be able to. Well, what we’re finding is as
we get in wetter areas or areas with more rock or more things in the ground like sewer lines or that
sort of thing, it becomes much more difficult to be able to dig a hole on one side of the road, push
across and then dig a hole on the other side and not disturb the blacktop. This regulation requires all
new subdivisions before the water mains are turned over to the Town, that all services will have to
be installed by the developer at that point. Quite honestly, it’s cheaper to install that tap before it’s
blacktopped, the developer, in all likelihood save money in this regard. The downside, I guess I’ll
say to the Town is that instead of us doing the work, it’s somebody else so we need to make sure we
inspect that, that they’re following the same standards that are listed in this booklet, the same
standards that we’ve been using for years. We think that’s doable. The Highway Department is
very anxious for us to do that and this would require any subdivision that’s installed after this is
adopted will have to follow that. The engineers that do most of the projects in our Town have been
advised of this for the last six months that it was coming. Most of the developers are aware of it
already, so it’s not going to be a shock to them, they’re aware of that. The other item is the final
item on that page, is the maintenance responsibility. It’s been very common that when we install a
shutoff at the property line, if we put that in before the lot is cleared which is really common that
that will occur, when the lot is cleared, it’s common that the contractor doing that damages the
shutoff. Or someone does, we’re not there to see who damaged it but when we get there to turn it
on, we can’t because it’s been damaged and it has to be repaired. We’ve had instances that we’ve
had to go back three or four, in one case, five times to repair a shutoff prior to somebody actually
moving in the house for the first time. When you try and track out who was it, you know who
damaged it, we’ve never been able to, of course everybody points their fingers at everybody else but
we’ve never been able to make that determination as to exactly who it was. This regulation puts the
onus on either the developer or the property owner, depending on the situation, it’s their
responsibility to make sure that’s maintained up until the point where the shutoff is actually made
active, turned on and the customer has water for the first time. So, all of a sudden now there’s an
incentive for them to tell their subcontractors to be careful otherwise it’s going to cost them money
to fix it. Okay, the current standard is posted on the Town’s website in the Water Department
section. As soon as the Board passes this, I’m confident that when we submit this to Bob Keenan,
the updates will be changed and within a few days of approval that they’ll be on the website as well.
(vote taken)
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT OF BIDS FOR
HYDRAULIC BREAKER FOR JOHN DEERE 510D FOR
TOWN WATER DEPARTMENT
RESOLUTION NO.: 80, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Water Superintendent wishes to advertise for bids for
the purchase of a Hydraulic Breaker for a John Deere 510D as specified in the Water Department’s
Bid Specification #04-01 for the year 2004 presented at this meeting, and
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 277
WHEREAS, the purchase of a hydraulic breaker has been included in the Water
Department’s 2004 Budget, and
WHEREAS, General Municipal Law §103 requires that the Town advertise for bids and
award the bids to the lowest responsible bidder(s) meeting New York State statutory requirements
and the requirements set forth in the Town’s bidding documents,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town’s
Purchasing Agent to publish an advertisement for bids for a Hydraulic Breaker for a John Deere
510D as specified in the Water Department’s Bid Specification #04-01 in the official newspaper for
the Town of Queensbury, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Purchasing Agent to
open all bids received, read the same aloud and record the bids as is customarily done and present
the bids to the next regular or special meeting of the Town Board.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AWARDING BID FOR PURCHASE OF BRASS FITTINGS
FOR USE BY TOWN WATER DEPARTMENT
RESOLUTION NO.: 81, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury duly advertised for bids for the purchase of brass
fittings for use by the Town’s Water Department, and
WHEREAS, the Town’s Purchasing Agent and Water Superintendent have reviewed all
received bids and have made their bid award recommendation to the Town Board,
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 278
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby awards the bid for the
purchase of brass fittings for use by the Town’s Water Department to the lowest
responsible bidder, E.J. Prescott, for an amount not to exceed $6,877.70 to be paid
for from Account No.: 40-8340-4320, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Purchasing Agent,
Water Superintendent and/or Budget Officer to take such other and further action as may be
necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE:
MR. VANDUSEN, Water/Wastewater Superintendent-Maybe I should said it when we were
talking about the standards but when I said the contractor, the developer will install water
connections at the time before the line is transferred over to the Town, that’s true but any pipe that’s
currently there today on any road that’s got a waterline now, we still will be making those taps. So,
this would be the fittings that are used to install those taps, a portion of those taps, mostly associated
with the installation of meters. So, a huge percentage of this is going to be used by the meter men
when they install meters in customers home, there are some brass fittings there as well.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-How many of these did you order?
MR. VANDUSEN, Water/Wastewater Superintendent-This is a one year supply.
(vote taken)
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CEMETERY DEPARTMENT’S
PURCHASE OF USED DUMP TRUCK FROM WATER DEPARTMENT
RESOLUTION NO.: 82, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously adopted purchasing procedures which
require that the Town Board must approve any purchase in an amount of $5,000 or greater up to
New York State bidding limits, and
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 279
WHEREAS, the Town’s Water Superintendent has advised the Town Board that during the
Year 2004 Town Budget process the Town Board allowed for the Cemetery Department’s purchase
of a used 1993 Ford Dump Truck from the Town’s Water Department for an amount not to exceed
$6,000 (exclusive of $214 in inspection and windshield costs which were paid for in the Year 2003
Budget), and
WHEREAS, the Town’s Fleet Committee also approved of such purchase and the Water
Superintendent has now requested Town Board approval of such purchase,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the Cemetery
Department’s purchase of a used 1993 Ford Dump Truck (VIN #: 1FDJF37H7PNA31111, Town
Property Card #3260) from the Town’s Water Department for an amount not to exceed $6,000 to be
,
paid for from Account No.: 02-8810-2020and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Water Superintendent,
Cemetery Superintendent, Town Budget Officer and/or Town Supervisor to take such other and
further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE:
MR. VANDUSEN, Water/Wastewater Superintendent & Member of the Fleet Committee spoke to
the Board regarding the purchase of the used Dump Truck from the Water Department to the
Cemetery Department…. (vote taken)
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INCREASE IN CONTRACT AMOUNT
AND CHANGE ORDER WITH KILBY BROTHERS, INC. IN
CONNECTION WITH CONSTRUCTION OF SOUTH QUEENSBURY –
QUEENSBURY AVENUE SEWER DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO.: 83, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 280
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 314.2002 the Queensbury Town Board authorized
acceptance and award of the bid for the pump station and force main construction in connection
with the creation of the South Queensbury – Queensbury Avenue Sewer District from the lowest
responsible bidder, Kilby Brothers, Inc., for an amount not to exceed $1,640,000 as delineated in
Kilby Brothers, Inc.’s Bid Form dated July 19, 2002, and
WHEREAS, as a result of four (4) items being added to the scope of Kilby Brother’s
contract, the Town Board, by Resolution No.: 413, 2002, authorized an increase in Kilby Brothers,
Inc.’s contract from $1,640,000 to $1,653,789.09, and
WHEREAS, Jarrett-Martin Engineers, PLLC has advised that Kilby Brothers, Inc., had
certain cost overruns, underruns and performed additional work not originally anticipated, set forth
in Change Orders #1-#4, and therefore the contract amount will correspondingly increase by
$70,863.23 as follows:
Original Contract Amount $1,653,789.09
Sum of Unit Price Item Overruns Force Main Pipeline Installation along Apollo Drive $ 2,832.51
Gravity Sewer, Force Main Pipeline along Queensbury
Sum of Unit Price Item Underruns Avenue, NMPC ROW & Quaker Rd., NMPC Gas Main -$ 10,594.82
Change Order #1 Sicard Connection $ 974.26
Change Order #2 Water Meter on Pump Station Service Line $ 92.00
Solenoid Valve/Louver Repair/Power Cable/
Change Order #3 NMPC Charges $ 3,000.00
Change Order #4 Additional Rock Excavation $ 74,559.28
FINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: $1,724,652.32
Net Difference: [Final Contract Amount –Original Contract Amount] $ 70,863.23
and
WHEREAS, the Town Board previously provided for an additional appropriation of
$132,000 for construction contingencies and therefore the Project’s total, bottom-line budget will
not increase as a result of the change in the contract amount with Kilby Brothers, Inc., and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize the increase in cost budgeted for the
Town’s contract with Kilby Brothers, Inc.,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 281
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the increase in Kilby
Brothers, Inc.’s contract concerning the pump station and force main construction in connection
with the Town’s creation of the South Queensbury – Queensbury Avenue Sewer District from
$1,653,789.09 to $$1,724,652.32 as described in the preambles of this Resolution, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Wastewater
Director, Deputy Wastewater Director and/or Town Supervisor to execute the necessary change
orders pertaining to the changes in contract described in this Resolution provided that no change
order shall be approved or executed at any time that the sum of all orders and change orders,
expenditures and encumbrances will total more than the total appropriation for this Project, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that, upon completion of such work, the Town Board further authorizes
payment for these services with such amounts to be paid from the appropriate General Fund
Account(s) and such amount to be refunded in full to the General Fund by future Sewer District
users upon creation of the Sewer District, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor,
Wastewater Director, Wastewater Deputy Director and/or Town Budget Officer to take any and all
action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE:
MR. MIKE SHAW, Deputy Wastewater Superintendent spoke to the Town Board regarding the
Change Order…
COUNCILMAN BREWER-When we put something out to bid and this has been my biggest
complaint for a long time, we put something out to bid, we get a price, we accept the price and then
four months down the road, we get a request for more money. If it’s our change, then absolutely we
should pay it but if it’s the contractor coming in here saying, I’m sorry, I’ll vote no.
MR. VANDUSEN, Water/Wastewater Superintendent-There’s a couple of things. One, typically
on a contract like this you don’t bid this as a lump sum, you bid it as a unit price.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 282
COUNCILMAN BREWER-But where did they come up with one point six million dollars then?
MR. VANDUSEN, Water/Wastewater Superintendent-The engineer initially gives you an estimate
of how many units. When a contractor is going to bid, he has to have some gut feeling that there’s
one cubic yard of rock or a million cubic yards of rock and the engineer will give estimates of what
they are, in each of these categories, how many cubic yards or feet. And the contractor bids based
on, every contractor has said, you bid on this following assumption, that it’s this many cubic yards.
Then when you put it in, it’s measured actually what did it turn out to be and in some areas you
have more cubic yards then was anticipated and in some areas you have less and these change
orders, when you look, some of these are increasing because there were more units, some are
decreasing because there were less units and some were additional work that were asked for.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Bottom line is Ralph, it never ends up being cheaper.
MR. VANDUSEN, Water/Wastewater Superintendent-Except the second item is a negative ten
thousand dollars showing that it’s a credit.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-But the bottom line is what I’m talking about.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, we’re actually below the total contingency though.
MR. VANDUSEN, Water/Wastewater Superintendent-It’s below the engineer’s estimate.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Do you anticipate any further change orders?
MR. SHAW, Deputy Wastewater Superintendent-No, this closes is out. If you look at the project as
a whole, we’re under budget.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea, you’ve got a hundred and thirty-two thousand dollar contingency and
you need a net difference tonight of almost seventy-one thousand.
MR. SHAW, Deputy Wastewater Superintendent-That’s why you put a contingency in a
construction project.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I think Tim’s point is well made and I understand what you’re saying that it’s
bid per unit and you don’t know what the units are until you get there but I think and that wasn’t
clear here. But I think the message that we want to convey to you, to the public, to anyone we do
business with is, we want, I mean, that’s the risk you run when you give us a bid. But I understand
what you’re saying in this case.
MR. VANDUSEN, Water/Wastewater Superintendent-As an example, the waterline transmission
project that we’re working on, one of the questions that came up initially is just, we know that we
need to do some soil borings to tell what the soil characteristics are, whether there’s going to be
groundwater in certain areas or there’s going to be rock in certain areas. So, what frequency do you
do those soil borings. You know, do you do them every five thousand feet, every thousand feet,
every five hundred, every two hundred and fifty. Well, the more you do, the more accurate you can
define it but the more you spent in engineering ahead of time may be needlessly. So, you come up
with a balance and just say, okay we’re going to pick and in case of the waterline, we picked every
five hundred feet for that entire length of that project we did a test boring because we wanted to be
as accurate as possible.
MR. SHAW, Deputy Wastewater Superintendent-You know sometimes if you have overage, and if
you look at the attached sheet of the change orders, the rock is the issue, the other change orders
were actually changes in the field and were approved through me and it was under the five thousand
dollar original amount that we agreed I could change. They estimate these things the best they can.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I’m fine with it, I just wanted to make that point, that’s all.
(vote taken)
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 283
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRADE-IN AND PURCHASE OF MOWER
WITH BAC VAC FOR TOWN CEMETERY DEPARTMENT
RESOLUTION NO.: 84, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously adopted purchasing procedures which
require that the Town Board must approve any purchase in an amount of $5,000 or greater up to
New York State bidding limits, and
WHEREAS, the Town’s Cemetery Superintendent has advised the Town Board that he has
obtained proposals for the trade-in of a 1997 mower for a new Hustler Mower with Bac Vac and has
requested Town Board approval to trade-in the 1997 mower and purchase the new Hustler Mower
with Bac Vac from Notar & Son Small Engine, Co. for an amount not to exceed $9,521 (purchase
price of new mower and bac vac in the amount of $11,950 minus trade allowance for current mower
in the amount of $2,429), and
WHEREAS, the Town’s Purchasing Agent has recommended approval of this transaction,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the Cemetery
Superintendent trading in the 1997 mower and purchasing the new Hustler Mower with Bac Vac
from Notar & Son Small Engine, Co. for an amount not to exceed $9,521 (purchase price of new
mower and bac vac in the amount of $11,950 minus trade allowance for current mower in the
,
amount of $2,429),to be paid for from Account No.: 002-8810-2001and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Cemetery
Superintendent, Purchasing Agent, Budget Officer and/or Town Supervisor to take such other and
further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 284
DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE:
MR. MIKE GENIER, Cemetery Superintendent briefed the Town Board regarding the process
involved in the purchase of the mower of this resolution and the following resolution .. (vote taken)
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRADE-IN AND PURCHASE OF MOWER
FOR TOWN CEMETERY DEPARTMENT
RESOLUTION NO.: 85, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously adopted purchasing procedures which
require that the Town Board must approve any purchase in an amount of $5,000 or greater up to
New York State bidding limits, and
WHEREAS, the Town’s Cemetery Superintendent has advised the Town Board that he has
obtained proposals for the trade-in of a 1995 mower for a new Hustler Mower and has requested
Town Board approval to trade-in the 1995 mower and purchase the new Hustler Mower from Notar
& Son Small Engine, Co. for an amount not to exceed $7,200 (purchase price of new mower in the
amount of $9,495 minus trade allowance for current mower in the amount of $2,295), and
WHEREAS, the Town’s Purchasing Agent has recommended approval of this transaction,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the Cemetery
Superintendent trading in the 1995 mower and purchasing the new Hustler Mower from Notar &
Son Small Engine, Co. for an amount not to exceed $7,200 (purchase price of new mower and bac
vac in the amount of $9,495 minus trade allowance for current mower in the amount of $2,295),to
,
be paid for from Account No.: 002-8810-2001and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Cemetery
Superintendent, Purchasing Agent, Budget Officer and/or Town Supervisor to take such other and
further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 285
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF 2004 FORD F550 4X4 CAB
& CHASSIS FOR USE BY TOWN HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
RESOLUTION NO.: 86, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously adopted purchasing procedures which
require that the Town Board must approve any purchase in an amount of $5,000 or greater up to
New York State bidding limits, and
WHEREAS, the Town Highway Superintendent has advised the Town Board that he wishes
to purchase a 2004 Ford F-550 4x4 Cab & Chassis for use by the Town Highway Department, and
WHEREAS, the Town’s Fleet Committee has approved of such purchase, and
WHEREAS, New York State Bidding is not required as the purchase is under New York
State Contract No.: PC58421,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the Highway
Superintendent’s purchase of a 2004 Ford F550 Cab & Chassis from Genesee Truck Sales in
accordance with New York State Contract #PC58421 for an amount not to exceed $25,074, to be
paid for from funds budgeted in the current year from Account No.: 004-5130-2020, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Highway
Superintendent, Town Budget Officer and/or Town Supervisor to take such other and further action
as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 286
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE:
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Was this reviewed by the Town’s Fleet Committee?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yes and it’s in the budget.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I always see a Whereas, for example when they’re talking about the
dump truck that went from the Water Department to the Cemetery Department, there was an
Whereas, the Town’s Fleet Committee also approved such purchase and I don’t see that Whereas
here.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I know it did go.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-If the Town’s Fleet Committee did approved it, shouldn’t it be in the
Whereas?
SUPERVISOR STEC-It must be an oversight.
MS. JENNIFER SWITZER, Budget Officer-It’s based upon generally who the department is that’s
initiated the resolution and because Ralph is much more sensitive to it.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Let me ask this question, could it ever get to us without them approving it?
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-Yes it could.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, see that’s why it might be a good idea to have it in there so we
would know.
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-Yes, absolutely.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-It’s already been approved when you approved the budget.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right but I think what helps Bob, is know that it has a stamp of approval
of the Fleet Committee. We take a lot of heat from the press and the public doesn’t understand and
I think it’s important to know that these things are reviewed and that they’re not just coming from a
department.
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-It’s something that I can mention to Pam and when I review them,
I can look for it as well.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea and I’ll mention it to Rick myself but I know that it was reviewed
because I did just get a brief, all the ones that are in the budget did go through the committee. But
that’s an excellent point, towards the tail end of the budget year, if we get something come in, it
may not. So, in this instance it is in there but certainly it is our practice that we want that in that to
go through and also be included on the resolution. (vote taken)
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF TWO (2) FORD F250 XL ¾
TON PICK-UP TRUCKS FOR USE BY TOWN HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
RESOLUTION NO.: 87, 2004
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 287
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously adopted purchasing procedures which
require that the Town Board must approve any purchase in an amount of $5,000 or greater up to
New York State bidding limits, and
WHEREAS, the Town Highway Superintendent has advised the Town Board that he wishes
to purchase two (2) Ford F250 XL ¾ Ton Pick-Up Trucks for use by the Town Highway
Department, and
WHEREAS, New York State Bidding is not required as these purchases are under New
York State Contract No.: PC58722,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the Highway
Superintendent’s purchase of two (2) Ford F250 XL ¾ Ton Pick-Up Trucks from Genesee Truck
Sales in accordance with New York State Contract #PC58722 for an amount not to exceed $21,453
per truck or a total amount not to exceed $42,906, to be paid for from funds budgeted in the current
year from Heavy Equipment Account No.: 004-5130-2020, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Highway
Superintendent, Town Budget Officer and/or Town Supervisor to take such other and further action
as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE:
SUPERVISOR STEC-Again, I think it’s just fair to note that also this one does not reflect that it
went to the Fleet Management Committee but it did and we will take effect to make sure that that
happens in the future. (vote taken)
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 288
RESOLUTION APPROVING YEAR 2002 VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE
WORKER SERVICE AWARD PROGRAM RECORDS FOR
WEST GLENS FALLS EMERGENCY SQUAD, INC.
RESOLUTION NO.: 88, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously authorized engagement of PENFLEX,
Inc., to provide the 2002 Standard Year End Administration Services for the Town’s Volunteer
Ambulance Workers Service Award Program, and
WHEREAS, as part of the Service Award Program, it is necessary that the Town Board
approve each Emergency Squad’s Year 2002 Service Award Program Records, and
WHEREAS, the Town Supervisor’s Office has received and reviewed the records from the
West Glens Falls Emergency Squad, Inc. and found them to be complete, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to approve these records,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the 2002 Volunteer
Ambulance Worker Service Award Program Records for the West Glens Falls Emergency Squad,
Inc., and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to
take all action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE:
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 289
Town Board held discussion regarding program and Town Counsel Hafner briefed the Board on
how the program came about….
SUPERVISOR STEC noted that Jennifer is in the process of scheduling a meeting with Penflex, the
Town Board and the Emergency Services regarding this program and how it works…(vote taken)
RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2003 AND 2004 BUDGETS
RESOLUTION NO.: 89, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
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 Budget Officer,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town
Budget Officer’s Office to take all action necessary to transfer funds and amend the 2003 Town
Budget as follows:
HIGHWAY
FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT:
01-5010-4090 01-5182-4305 530.
(Conf. Regis & Attend.) (Street Lights)
04-5110-4820 04-5142-4820 200.
(Uniforms) (Uniforms)
TOWN CLERK
FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT:
01-1410-4400 01-4020-4400 330.
(Misc. Contractual) (Misc. Contractual)
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the
Town Budget Officer’s Office to take all action necessary to transfer funds and
amend the 2004 Town Budget as follows:
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 290
FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT:
01-1950-9013 01-6989-4720 150,000.
(Transfer To Ec. Deve.) (Consultant Fees)
WASTEWATER
FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT:
032-8120-4400 032-1950-4430 955.
(Misc. Contractual) (Property Taxes)
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE:
SUPERVISOR STEC-There’s a few miscellaneous items, all very minor, under a thousand dollars
in nature with the exception of Economic Development, coming from Economic Development to
Consulting Fees for the amount of a hundred and fifty thousand dollars.
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-Previously, Henry, the Controller had accounted for in a different
way. I moved it to, instead of transferring it to an Economic Development Fund, I moved it within
Economic Development within the General Fund so that you can track the expense more closely
then it being in a fund in no where land where you don’t actually see.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-You can track the movement of the money better, is that what you’re
saying?
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-Yes, I can track movement of the money much better this way.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-So, QEDC is basically going to be treated as a consulting firm?
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-Yes. (vote taken)
RESOLUTION AMENDING SALARY OF
COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY COORDINATOR
RESOLUTION NO.: 90, 2004
INTRODUCED BY : Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY : Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, by previous Town Board Resolution, the Queensbury Town Board set salaries
for the Year 2004, and
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 291
WHEREAS, there was an oversight in such Resolution, such that the salary for the
Computer Technology Coordinator was not increased for the year 2004, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to properly amend the salary for the position,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs that the salary
for the Computer Technology Coordinator, William Shaw, be set at $39,330 per annum effective
st
January 1, 2004, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor
and/or Budget Officer’s Office to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate
the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE:
SUPERVISOR STEC-Somehow in our deliberations last year when we were setting salaries, we
overlooked somehow Mr. Shaw’s adjustment which is why we’re kind of catching up with it now.
(vote taken)
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK §701 ENTITLED
“HEALTH INSURANCE – RETIRED EMPLOYEES”
RESOLUTION NO.: 91, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 292
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to amend its Employee Handbook §701 “Health
Insurance – Retired Employees” to amend the amount that retirees’ widowed spouses pay for
monthly health insurance premiums,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the amendment of
Employee Handbook §701 entitled “Health Insurance – Retired Employees” to read as follows:
“Health Insurance – Retired Employees
Full-time employees who retire from the Town of Queensbury may be eligible to receive a health
insurance benefit for themselves and their spouses. To be eligible for such coverage, the retiring
employee must be age fifty-five (55) or older, eligible to receive a pension from the New York
Employees Retirement System (NYS ERS) and have at least ten (10) years of service with the
Town. Such health insurance will continue until the death of such retired employee as long as the
retiree makes all required contributions.
Upon the death of such retiree, the Town shall provide health insurance coverage for the retiree’s
spouse for an additional six (6) months on the same cost sharing terms as before the retiree’s death.
Thereafter the retiree’s spouse may continue health insurance coverage pursuant to the Consolidated
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) or may retain coverage by paying the Town
50% of the for those spouse’s whose husbands/wives had
full monthly health insurance premium
at least 20 years of service or 100% of the full monthly health insurance premium for less
than 20 years of service.
Eligible retirees who choose health insurance offered by the Town contribute a portion of the total
premium, depending on the plan selected. The percentage or dollar amount of the employees’ share
is determined from time to time by the Town Board.”
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor
and/or Budget Officer to take all action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution and the
Town Supervisor’s Office to distribute copies of this Resolution to all Town employees and amend
the Employee Handbook accordingly.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2004 by the following vote:
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 293
AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE:
SUPERVISOR STEC-This is an initiative of Councilman Brewer’s that he brought to the Board, we
discussed it and we’re reinstating, with a change, of a policy that we used to have. (change reflected
in resolution) This affects one person to date but that could easily change in the future but it affects
retirees spouses in insurance coverage … (vote taken)
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SENIOR PLANNER TO ATTEND 2004
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE
RESOLUTION NO.: 92, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury’s Executive Director of Community Development
has requested Town Board authorization for the Senior Planner to attend the 2004 American
Planning Association (APA) National Planning Conference, and
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously authorized allocation of funds for
conference expenses within the Planning Department’s 2004 Budget, 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 Senior Planner to
attend the 2004 American Planning Association Conference to be held in Washington, D.C. from
thth
April 24 through April 28, 2004, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that all necessary and reasonable expenses incurred at the conference are
proper Town charges and that all expenses shall be paid for from the appropriate Town Account.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 294
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, Resolution 7.18 was regarding a Sanitary Sewer Agreement between
the Town and Schermerhorn Construction regarding project on Bay Road, we decided to pull it until
next week’s meeting because there was some last minute changes that came up today that we
decided to make and I fully expect that we won’t have any trouble taking that issue up next week.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-And you’ll be getting another version of the agreement tomorrow.
I’ve had an opportunity to talk with all of you but you Tim, so if you want to call me tomorrow
about the changes, we’ll be able to update you on the changes that we had.
SUPERVISOR STEC-But we’re very close and I’ll be very happy to have that contract behind us.
RESOLUTION APPROVING MAP SHOWING LANDS TO BE ANNEXED
TO THE CITY OF GLENS FALLS - VETERANS FIELD INDUSTRIAL
PARK (NORTHWAY BUSINESS PARK)
RESOLUTION NO. : 93, 2004
INTRODUCED BY : Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY : Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 246,2003, the Queensbury Town Board approved the
annexation of the Veterans Field Industrial Park Property (Northway Business Park) by the City of
Glens Falls (City), and
WHEREAS, the City and the Town agreed upon various details of the annexation and
executed an Annexation Agreement dated as of June 1, 2003 which specified certain terms and
conditions of the annexation, and
§
WHEREAS, in accordance with New York State General Municipal Law 717 and
Section 9 of the Annexation Agreement between the Town and City, the City forwarded a copy
of the City’s Local Law No. 6 of 2003 authorizing the annexation and a “Map Showing Lands
Annexed to the City of Glens Falls” prepared by Chazen Engineering & Land Surveying Co.,
P.C. and dated 11/25/03 (Map), and
WHEREAS, such Map is in format satisfactory for filing in accordance with the General
Municipal Law and therefore the Town Board wishes to adopt a Resolution approving the filing
of such Map,
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 295
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the “Map Showing Lands
Annexed to the City of Glens Falls” prepared by Chazen Engineering & Land Surveying Co., P.C.
and dated 11/25/03 (Map) presented at this meeting relative to the annexation of the Veterans Field
Industrial Park Property (Northway Business Park) by the City of Glens Falls and approves of the
City of Glens Falls’ filing of such map in accordance with New York State General Municipal Law
§717 and Section 9 of the Annexation Agreement between the Town of Queensbury and City of
Glens Falls, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town
Counsel to take such other action as may be necessary to carry out the intent of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Stec
NOES : Mr. Brewer
ABSENT: None
DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE:
SUPERVISOR STEC-Just for the public, this is the I believe the final action that needs to be taken
regarding the annexation of the Veteran’s Industrial Park. This was all part of the Master Sewer
Agreement that was passed last year. So, what we did was we basically, by this action, are
verifying that the map of what lands are to be annexed is in fact what was agreed to. So this
essentially, when it gets filed complete the annexation of this property to the City of Glens Falls.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-It will become the official boundaries of the City now.
SUPERVISOR STEC-So, this action will in fact change the boundaries of the Town and I’ll just say
for myself, that we did have a split vote when we passed this sewer deal. I think one of the
stumbling blocks for me, the biggest stumbling block for me was the annexation of this property but
however, I did, be on the short end of the three-two vote. You know, we do have a deal and I
publicly stated that I will honor the deal that the last Board reached. I tell you, the public and the
members of the Board that I still have some serious concerns about, akin to the concerns that some
Board Members here have expressed in the past for the same sort of gerrymandering of boundary
lines when it comes to discussion about the Empire Zones. I think what we’re doing here is exactly
the same thing that some Board Members had a concern about regarding the boundary lines of the
spider web affect, if you will, of how we did the Empire Zone. My concern about annexation is that
there will be a lack of accountability for what goes on in that property in that there will be no
elected official that will have any control over neighbor’s concerns. Who are they going to call?
They’re going to call Councilman Brewer and yell at him about some concern that’s going on, on
that property and his answer will have to be, that’s not Town property, that’s part of the City, you’ll
have to take that up with the Mayor’s Office. And regardless of who the Mayor or the Council may
be at the time, they don’t have a constituent interest in resolving issues in that property and for
philosophical reasons, I really had a lot of problems with the annexation. I’m going to honor it
because I said I would honor it and I imagine it won’t be unanimous tonight but I’m sure it will pass
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 296
and I still have grave concerns and I certainly hope that the City, the current and future City Fathers
prove me wrong in that this will indeed be what it is intended to be, an Industrial Park and nothing
more. That was the original intent of the entire discussion around Veterans Field. I believe that
some protections are in the agreement but certainly, you can hire an army of lawyers to work your
way out of a bad contract but that’s not what’s on the table tonight. What’s on the table tonight is
verifying that indeed the map that is here, so in my opinion, this is not a vote on the sewer deal but
verifying that in fact the map matches what we had agreed to previously. But again, I wanted to
take this as an opportunity, perhaps my final opportunity and the final opportunity of any elected
member of the Town of Queensbury to publicly comment about this property while it’s still a part
of the Town of Queensbury.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I understand your concerns and I know that both you and Tim, had issues
with this and it’s understandable. I guess, the only thing I would like to do is try and put a good
light on it, it may not be what we all wanted but the fact of the matter is that, as property owned by
Glens Falls within the Town of Queensbury I think was pretty clear that it was not going to get
developed at all and thereby not generate any Warren County taxes which also help us and the fact
that we’ve already started the sewer lines, would make it pretty ridiculous to vote no on this.
(vote taken)
ACTION OF RESOLUTIONS PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED FROM FLOOR - NONE
ATTORNEY MATTERS
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-You will be getting the Draft EMS Contracts that Dan had wanted
you guys to get, they’ll be going out tomorrow for your review and the revised Schermerhorn
Agreement.
SUPERVISOR STEC noted that the Town Board will be conducting a Workshop Meeting on
Wednesday at 6 PM for contract negotiations with the Rescue Squads and personnel matters… I had
one personnel matter but now we have two so I do need a very brief, hopefully Executive Session…
I do want to take this opportunity to thank Evergreen and Bank North for sponsoring the broadcast
for the next three months and to advertise the Town’s website. There’s a great deal of information
available about the Town including the meeting agendas and minutes and a great other variety of
documentation for anyone at www.queensbury.net …
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION
RESOLUTION NO.: 94, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHO MOVED FOR IT’S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from
Regular Session and enters Executive Session to discuss Personnel Matters.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Regular Town Board Meeting, 01-26-2004, Mtg #5 297
Councilman Brewer left meeting during Executive Session.
RESOLUTION TO RECONVENE
RESOLUTION NO.: 95, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHO MOVED FOR IT’S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from
Executive Session and enters Regular Session of the Town Board.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Stec
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer
RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING
RESOLUTION NO.: 96, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHO MOVED FOR IT’S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from their
Regular Town Board Meeting.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer
No further action taken.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
DARLEEN M. DOUGHER
TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY