Loading...
2008-11-17 MTG #50 1 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG# 50 NOVEMBER 17, 2008 RES#520 - 544 7:00 P.M. BH 28-29 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC COUNCILMAN ANTHONY METIVIER COUNCILMAN RONALD MONTESI COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER TOWN COUNSEL ROBERT HAFNER TOWN OFFICIALS BARBARA TIERNEY, BUDGET OFFICER SENIOR PLANNER, STU BAKER WATER SUPERINTENDENT, BRUCE OSTRANDER WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, MIKE SHAW SUPERINTENDENT OF CEMETERIES, MICHAEL GENIER PRESS TV 8, POST STAR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN ANTHONY METIVIER 1.0 ENTER QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION ENTERING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 520, 2008 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and moves into the Queensbury Board of Health. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2008 by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec Noes: None Absent:None PUBLIC HEARING – JOHN HECKMAN’S APPLICATION FOR SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE OPENED NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE November 7, 2008 DENISE MAC ELROY ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN REPRESENTING JOE ROULIER AGENT FOR JOHN HECKMAN 2 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 SUPERVISOR STEC-We set this public hearing a couple of weeks ago. It is located at proposed basement expansion approximately three foot from existing septic tank inside of ten feet and three feet from existing seepage pit instead of twenty feet the location is 68 Rockhurst Road. DENISE MAC ELROY-The situation as described there is an existing Rockhurst lot, which has an existing structure on it. The proposed project calls for the addition of some basement area improving the foundation in that area. There is existing basement on the lake side this expands that to a square area in the roadside of the structure. The existing wastewater components the septic tank and the seepage pit as they exists will now come into closer proximity to the foundation. The requirements there are horizontal setback requirements in the Ordinance that now will be lessened with the presence of that foundation closer to those existing structures so that is the jest of the variance request. SUPERVISOR STEC-Do the board members have questions before we take public comment? COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yeah, I do. I was up there yesterday it looks like they already put the expansion on. MR. MAC ELROY-No. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-They didn’t expand the cellar that is not expanded? You know the deck where the patio is? MR. MAC ELROY-That is on the lake side. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-No on the…road brand new concrete porch. MR. MAC ELROY-I am not sure how old that is John I apologize because I am somewhat new to the project, but that was done in some previous effort that is where the septic tank is. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-The reason why I ask is because it looks new there is an access panel. MR. MAC ELROY-That is the access to the septic tank. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Is the septic tank already there? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct those are existing components the septic tank is to the…. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-So why are they getting a variance for something that is already there Dennis? MR. MAC ELROY-Because the foundation wall is going to be expanded on the basement the septic components are in place they already exist. It is now that they are changing the location of the foundation….. COUNCILMAN BREWER-This is after the fact and the foundation is already there? MR. MAC ELROY-No not after the fact. They haven’t poured that new foundation yet or constructed that new foundation in that section of house it is on piers that section of the house is supported there is not a basement foundation there; there is not an enclosed… COUNCILMAN BREWER-There is not a slab or anything? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct it is on piers in the corner. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I know you didn’t draw this up Dennis it is not very clear. 3 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 MR. MAC ELROY-Proposed in that sketch the proposed additional basement that would be there is a house there first floor area there a foundation will be constructed beneath that it will replace the piers that support the structure, but now there will be perimeter wall there. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Currently the house is sitting on piers? MR. MAC ELROY-In that section. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-In that section? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. COUNCILMAN BREWER-So why didn’t he get a variance previous I am sorry to interrupt if the house was there and the seepage pit is there. MR. MAC ELROY-I don’t know how long those have been in placed it probably predates any regulation on that. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-My other question then Denise is the seepage pit as opposed to an infiltration pit that is unusual to have just one? MR. MAC ELROY-Not in the era this was… COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I have seepage pits too, but I have three. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. This is laid up block seepage pit that is how it is reported to me the contractor did investigate what that actually is that is what is in place and have been serving that property for whatever period of time. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-It is also their only parking spot there is no other parking spot that is the only parking spot for this cottage. MR. MAC ELROY-But, again those already exist we are not changing the septic components we are simply proposing to change…. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, I am just a little bit worried about the integrity of the unit we don’t know how old it is. Is it time to change it is it time to put a holding tank in here right across the street we approved a holding tank for another person up there. MR. MAC ELROY-My understanding as it was reported to me what the condition of that is that is was a concrete block seepage pit with a concrete cover on it. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Do we know and can we get verification that the cover is designed to take the kind of weight because that is their only parking space. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Just a question as an engineer why do you think we have a variance of so many feet away from the seepage pit or the septic tank. MR. MAC ELROY-To the foundation? COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Yes. MR. MAC ELROY-Working room typically. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Seepage. MR. MAC ELROY-Yeah. In a dwelling area you may be familiar that it is not always held to a garage area that might be on a slab, but where you may have habitable space or 4 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 where that foundation is there is a separation distance twenty feet for disposal component ten feet for a septic tank. Septic tank is a solid closed system the disposal unit is supposed to leach out the effluent. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-How big is this expansion that we are going to do the foundation? MR. MAC ELROY-Again, it is under the existing structure it is on the sketch I don’t have that right to scale, it is probably in the area of a hundred and twenty square feet. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Ten by twelve? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Is this going to be another bedroom? MR. MAC ELROY-No. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-What is it going to be? MR. MAC ELROY-It is additional basement area. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-What are they going to use it for? MR. MAC ELROY-I don’t know that I have the answer to that other than storage area whatever. There is existing basement to that I haven’t discussed that directly with the owner certainly we could provide that information. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I have a feeling on Rockhurst I mean it is called Rockhurst for a reason. The more we try to cram in there the less quality of water around it in terms of the lake. I have some real concerns about that I think John’s thought of a holding tank is not a bad one I am only one vote on the board. SUPERVISOR STEC-I haven’t opened the public hearing yet have I Karen? DEPUTY CLERK O’BRIEN-No. SUPERVISOR STEC-I will open the public hearing if there are any members of the public that would like to comment on this application for this variance right now I would ask that you raise your hand one at a time I will call on you. These microphones not only amplify, but they record for the purpose of the record so just please state your name and address when you come up. CHRIS NAVITSKY, LAKE GEORGE WATER KEEPER-I would like to thank the board for the opportunity to provide comment we have a couple thoughts or considerations for this proposal I think some of it already has been touched by the board members. First what is the condition of the existing system? When was it installed? If there is any information on existing maintenance or pumping of the system and what was the system designed for the number of bedrooms I think that touches on the potential expansion? The second concern was regarding the parking area over existing seepage pit that obviously impacts the infiltration rates. Today I went by the site and there is actually water ponding over where the seepage pit is that shows that there is impacts from surface water at the minimum that should be redirected away from the seepage pit area. We have questions about the ability to construct the proposed foundation three feet from the system without impacting the seepage pit. When you excavate you are obviously going to be that is three feet from the foundation wall, but you have a footing width and your excavator width so is that going to scrape right up against the seepage pit? What stability will there be for that seepage pit? Will there be seepage from the pit into the excavation? Also are they going to put foundation drains around the building? You usually do around footings does that mean we are going to get discharge of the effluent right out the foundation drain. Also this seepage pit is seventy three feet from the lake so again we think that it is also a possible consideration for a holding tank. In this situation it is very 5 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 tight, constricted it has obviously been impacted by parking and what not. Also and I think Mr. Mac Elroy provided some information, but if you are constructing bringing in concrete tanks can that seepage pit actually hold that weight to the construction equipment. Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Is there anyone else that would like to address the board on this variance? RON GRIDLEY-I live next door to this proposed addition when I was sitting in the back of the room I thought I was at another lecture this evening because this evening doesn’t sound like anything that we had last month. SUPERVISOR STEC-The one you are thinking of is on after this one. MR. GRIDLEY-I am sorry no wonder I am glad I noticed the difference. SUPERVISOR STEC-Is there anyone else that would like to address the board on this variance application. DEPUTY CLERK O’BRIEN-This was emailed today and is from Thomas Sargent. I am sending this email in response to the Notice of Public Hearing I have received regarding a th public hearing on Monday, November 17, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activity Center to consider an application by John Heckman for Sewage Disposal Ordinance for his property at 68 Rockhurst Road. I reside at 59 Rockhurst Road, which is across the street and down a couple houses from the Heckman property. I have no objection to the variance requested by Mr. Heckman. SUPERVISOR STEC-Is there anyone else from the public that would like to comment. Denise if you want to come back maybe the board might have a couple more questions we will see if there is anymore public comment. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Denise I have one other question it probably will be a good one raised by Mr. Navitsky. The foundation drain that is going to be within that three foot area and obviously it goes to the lake there is no other water. MR. MAC ELROY-It is a very good point it was a question that I asked and I speculated who would comment on that. SUPERVISOR STEC-Did you guess right? MR. MAC ELROY-No I thought John would say it actually. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-He beat me to it. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I beat him to it. MR. MAC ELROY-Two ways to approach that three ways I suppose. The first no footing drains in that area. Is that the best situation maybe not….. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-You would have a new expanded wet bedroom. SUPERVISOR STEC-It is not going to be a bedroom Ron. MR. MAC ELROY-Then you would do a better job at water proofing the exterior of the foundation. You said it would go to the lake not all footing drains have to daylight to the lake. Potentially you could bring that footing drain to another infiltration device. In that area it is limited to where it could be it would have to be on the lake side of the structure that would be another solution or another approach to that. I specifically commented to the contractor that you just couldn’t have the typical footing drain in that situation. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-They are going to have construction work there they are going to be working awful close to this we don’t know the history, integrity. Chris 6 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 Navitsky brought up a good point it has been compacted it is the only parking space. I would feel better and obviously with Ron and I have a feeling there are other board members here as well I would feel better if this landowner came back with their proposed project, which seems to be okay with me putting in better foundation if it is going to be for additional storage area rather than living area and put in a holding tank that is designed to take the weight of a car above it so that he can use it for parking because that is the only parking that he has here unless they use some of the neighbors parking which I understand they do use. I think I would be more comfortable with that….. MR. MAC ELROY-You are specifically requesting a holding tank? COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yeah. MR. MAC ELROY-As opposed to confirming the integrity of the existing seepage pit. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-That doesn’t become a point anymore my feeling is that the cinder block unit that has been parked over and with compaction of the ground may not work in ideal conditions. I would feel better and lets see if any board members agrees that while they are going to be doing the contracting to put a holding tank in there and one that is designed to take the weight…. MR. MAC ELROY-H20 loading sure. SUPERVISOR STEC-Denise you said you had three options you listed two what was the third one because I was going to say if that’s not the third one that would have been the fourth one. MR. MAC ELROY-I think the no footing drains at all. Footing drains with reinforcement or better waterproofing of that foundation. The footing drain that wouldn’t daylight. SUPERVISOR STEC-Those are the three. I think the holding tank this is one of those situations where a holding tank may very well be the way to go as a fourth option. Of course, the fifth option is always the option that no applicant wants, but the fifth option is nothing we are here trying to work with you. I mean, again knowing the nature of Rockhurst the size of the lots the soils or lack of soils up there that we are dealing with the proximity of the lake, the density, and looking at this site and how tight everything is it is like just about any lot on Rockhurst a holding tank is probably an ideal alternative I would think. Again because you are already messing with the basement, foundation you are into excavation anyways so I don’t think it is a tremendous inconvenience at least the install it may be on the operation side a little bit more inconvenient. MR. MAC ELROY-That would also require a variance for a holding tank. SUPERVISOR STEC-My question to Bob would be if we wanted to go in that direction could we approve the holding tank tonight or is that a new public hearing that we would need to start over again. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-I think that is a different enough of a system that we would need an application because we also have to deal with John’s issues about the strength of the holding tank to be able to hold parking. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Denise hasn’t had the chance to evaluate that situation and that would give you an opportunity to evaluate that. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-Let me ask you this. This is a unique application in that you are not asking for a new septic system it is already in. What if he goes back and discovers his new system that can withstand the weight of a car can he come back at that point or does he still need to apply for a holding tank? COUNCILMAN BREWER-I would say he probably could Tony, but if its cinder block I am guessing it is probably not a new system. 7 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 SUPERVISOR STEC-You said it was block right? MR. MAC ELROY-That is how it was reported to me. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Laid up block. COUNCILMAN BREWER-They just don’t do that now. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I have been kind of always amazed at if you live on the lake and you want your grandkids to swim on the lake and enjoy the lake why wouldn’t you want to do the thing that is the safest or effluent getting to the lake I see a holding tank as being an ideal situation especially on Rockhurst. SUPERVISOR STEC-I am gathering now from the chatter of the last five minutes it sounds like all five board members are heading in that direction. MR. MAC ELROY-I would ask that the application be tabled and we can reevaluate the owner’s desires and intent to proceed in that direction. If it is appropriate to submit a revised application or a new application whatever is suggested whether it is a holding tank or verification that what is there is….. SUPERVISOR STEC-I think from a practical sense we have heard enough tonight to close this public hearing and not act on it for tonight. If you want to head in the other direction I think at that point you are probably going to need to do a new application and a new public hearing do you agree Bob? TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-Yes I think it is drastic enough and the issues that you raised. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Denise where does that lead the applicant in terms of winter it is approaching if they were anticipating putting in concrete we are another month away from any kind of decisions? SUPERVISOR STEC-The way our calendar would work if we headed in a holding tank direction assuming we get an application turned in we are setting public hearing on the first for the fifteenth so four weeks from tonight is your time line we are on borrowed time. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-In laying concrete. COUNCILMAN BREWER-You can pour in the dead of winter if you want. SUPERVISOR STEC-Hearing no objections I will close the public hearing we won’t take action on it we will wait and see. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Do you need a motion to table Dan? SUPERVISOR STEC-No, we won’t take any action on it. So we won’t take action on it we will give you a chance to talk to your client. Either at a future date we may act on it or you may very well end up submitting a new application we will do this over again. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED - NO ACTION TAKEN CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – MASTOLONI FAMILY LLC/EDWARD MASTOLONI’S APPLICATION FOR SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE ATTORNEY BRIAN RICHENBACH AND ENGINEER TOM NACE PRESENT 8 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 OPENED NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2008 SUPERVISOR STEC-This is a public hearing that we had about four weeks ago. We had asked the applicant to do some research as to whether or not there are existing easements for drainages. A drainage line that is located in the area and also we wanted our engineer to go and take a look at the site and a look at the plan I know that he has done that as well. I think the board had some other questions and we did get a letter from you Mr. Richenbach. Karen we have that as part of the record right, his letter I can paraphrase it, but if we got it handy we would probably make it part of the record. DEPUTY CLERK O’BRIEN-I have a letter from Dan Ryan. SUPERVISOR STEC-I will continue the public hearing Mr. Richenbach if you want to let us know what your research found out on that drainage line issue. ATTORNEY RICHENBACH-Thank you Mr. Supervisor. I did do some research on the existence of a right-a-way or an easement for the drainage line that exists currently from across Bay Parkway across my client’s property and into the lake I could not find anything of record so there is no easement or right-a-way and we checked back to the beginning of the last century or there a bouts I can’t give you the exact date that it was but it was a very long time ago. I would like to indicate to the members of the board that there has been one change. We received a copy of an email from Mr. Ryan regarding the drainage pipe that exists in the area. My client had proposed at the outset to remove that and I understand Mr. Ryan’s opinion is that it may not be the best course so we are obviously open to whatever suggestions Mr. Ryan has. My client is not willing to pay for maintenance and upkeep of a system that benefits other persons land. If it is in the best interest of the Town for that line to remain there he will enter into whatever agreements are necessary for that. We feel that is a different issue than the variance that we are here for tonight and that we were here for last month I would like to separate those two issues. I will assure the board that we will take whatever steps are necessary and prudent for that drain line in the future we would ask that the application for the variance be considered separate and apart from that whatever steps need to be taken for that. SUPERVISOR STEC-Brian if you don’t mind I will interrupt you and I will ask Karen to just go ahead and read that email it is the Town’s Engineer and we asked him to look at so if you wouldn’t mind reading that for the record. DEPUTY CLERK O’BRIEN-This is from Dan Ryan. As requested, I visited the project on Neighbors Way Assembly Point for the septic variance. Tom Nace was able to meet me at the site and provide a set of plans for me to review. We walked the site and Mr. Nace showed me the concerns voiced by the adjacent land owners at the last public hearing. Based on my limited observations and knowledge of the project, I am confident to state that the septic system proposed should not have any impact on the drainage in the area, nor should the system pose any threat to the lake by transmitting effluent into the drainage system. A typical setback required for a septic absorption area to drainage structure is 35 feet for drainage channel or pipe and 50 feet for open catch basin in accordance with NYSDEC. I would state that this might be an opportunity for the Town to acquire a drainage easement so that this culvert can be maintained and repaired/replaced as necessary in the future. It drains a fairly large low lying area and should not be removed. Not sure if the road the culvert extends beneath is a Town highway. It is obvious that the condition of the culvert may warrant replacement at some point in the near future. This would be a good opportunity to make some efforts to improve the drainage and prevention of sediment load to the lake in this location. If left to the private owners to maintain eventually a problem will arise related to flooding in the low lying area. Not sure who this might affect. Please call if you have any questions or need additional information. Thank you. Daniel W. Ryan, P.E. SUPERVISOR STEC-He did get a hold of you Mr. Nace and he did go up there and we asked him to give it a quick look not reengineer the system, but to just eyeball it from an engineers perspective on the Town’s behalf and he did that. I certainly understand Mr. 9 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 Richenbach suggesting that the Town consider these as two separate issues we may or may not do that I think some of your neighbors think they should be considered together. Does the Town Board have any other questions before we take any new comment? COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I kind of agree they are separate issues, but I am really concern with the drainage easement. I would like to at least perhaps with our Town Counsel have some kind of an agreement that we will maintain that culvert and that drainage easement because it is in the interest of the Town and the adjoining neighbors, but we need some kind of clearance from the property owner that we can do that, that is as far as we can go with that as a separate issue. ATTORNEY RICHENBACH-It is a separate issue, but I will assure the board that my client has no dog in that fight. He is not willing to pay for the maintenance or the replacement of the drainage pipe. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-We don’t want him to. ATTORNEY RICHENBACH-However, I don’t think he is adverse to the drainage pipe remaining in place as a Town facility he wants some assurance that the beach is going to stay safe his grandchildren swim there as per your previous comments. He doesn’t want anything draining into the lake nor do any of us that shouldn’t be draining into the lake. With those concerns in mind he absolutely will work with the Town to do whatever is reasonable and appropriate. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-What would we need. COUNCILMAN BREWER-We would need an easement. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-We will need the easement. It is a Town road right? COUNCILMAN METIVIER-Where the culvert is it is a Town road. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-I think it is a Town road by use so we would need an easement. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Where would we let that water drain to just in his yard or keep it underground? TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-That is where it has been draining that sounds like it’s the natural drainage path. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-I went back today and looked at it since it was wet it actually is wet on the Otyokwa side of the property today very wet because of all the rain that we have had. It is going to drain on his property so the question is…. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Do we want the liability of that though? COUNCILMAN METIVIER-I didn’t think you could take water from one property and drain it onto someone else’s that is an issue within itself. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-If it is already what’s happening you are keeping the same drainage path that’s what I understand. COUNCILMAN BREWER-If there is an existing problem like Tony is describing why would we want to put ourselves at risk to take that on. If there is a problem there I don’t want anything to do with it. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-There is a culvert that is damaged. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Understood. 10 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 COUNCILMAN MONTESI-On Town property. If we don’t fix the culvert we only make the problem worse. If we fix the culvert then the flow will continue the way it has been, but it is going to go on his property. SUPERVISOR STEC-Bob. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-I think you said this is a Town road probably by use based on its size I would think it has to be a road by use that means we don’t own the culvert it isn’t on our property we only have the right to have a road on top. The reason why we often get involved in drainage things like this is because the Town Highway Superintendent has the right in fact the duty to maintain Town highways. If you change the drainage flows that can affect the safety of the highway so that’s why I brought out that this is an issue that we need some input I thought from the Engineer and the Town Highway Superintendent to see whether he thinks there are concerns. I am not an Engineer I can’t tell if you block it up it sounded to me that it could be a situation where you could have issues with changing the drainage flow and affecting the stability of the safety of our Town Highway. If there is no impact to the Town Highway then I think Tim’s point makes sense the Town doesn’t want to get into it because that is an expense and a risk. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-That isn’t why Ryan said though he said that….. SUPERVISOR STEC-It would be a good idea to keep it. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-And it may be in need of repair. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-It is definitely in need of repair. COUNCILMAN BREWER-What is going to be the outcome. My own personal opinion and you guys can have your own or do what you want, but I would say I would have Dan Ryan look at it more detailed and have Mike Travis look at it more detail. If we are going to put a pipe there and water is going to flow freely through it and create a problem on Mr. Mastoloni’s property me personally don’t really want anything to do with it. If we are going to open up a hole and let water flow through it onto his property and potentially create a problem. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-My understanding is that is what it is doing now. COUNCILMAN BREWER-If we improve the flow doesn’t that mean more water will go on maybe I am way out in left field I don’t know? MR. NACE-I don’t think you are looking at improving the flow you are looking at a culvert at the top of an area that is rusted out. It is a structural problem that could in the future impede the flow I don’t think it is now. I think what Dan is suggesting that it needs to be repaired so that it doesn’t impede the flow in the future. SUPERVISOR STEC-Dan Ryan. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Right. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-If it is rusted on the top and it breaks through now we have a hole in the road and it is whose responsibility it is ours. SUPERVISOR STEC-Right. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Who owns the property on the south side of Bay Parkway? COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Caffry. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-It is Otyokwa Association. 11 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 COUNCILMAN STROUGH-It is Otyokawa Association now is there restrictions on the development of that property because it looks like a lot of wetland? MR. MASTOLONI-Yes, I believe it has been donated and it is forever wild I forget how many acres maybe Tony might know. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-I don’t know how many acres it is like a bird sanctuary now they consider it like a bird sanctuary. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Right now you are kind of draining that property so that it doesn’t flood. If it did flood that would probably adversely affect other properties right. It is not developed so you are not going to get the impacts and the pollution of development there because it is not developed it is a natural preserve kind of. I don’t see any ill effects from pollutants coming from that drainage. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-Right. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-It appears that it does need drainage that wouldn’t be here these are topics that we do have to deal with, but they are kind of aside from the septic system. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-I was thinking as we were talking that you aren’t going to get any pollutants onto your property from that water across the street. ATTORNEY RICHENBACH-I think there may be very residual effects on Mr. Mastoloni’s property. The other detrimental affect is that his property is burdened by the pipe, but I think it drains into the lake I don’t believe it drains onto to Mr. Mastoloni’s property. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-I tried to follow it down we still haven’t determined how far down it goes have we? MR. NACE-It goes all the way down to within five or six feet of the lake. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-It really does okay. MR. NACE-It is over on the northeast corner of his property you will see a hedge row there. SUPERVISOR STEC-How many feet long would you estimate from the road Tom from the road to the outlet of the pipe approximately how many feet? COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Probably three hundred feet. MR. NACE-I think so far…. SUPERVISOR STEC-Some of it is under the road then a lot of it is underground. MR. NACE-It is three to four hundred feet. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Three to four hundred feet. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-It is obviously a drainage area that we really can’t change. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-We shouldn’t. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-We shouldn’t. I mean at the minimum we spent enough time on it we think if we can get an easement that would push that issue off to the side and then we can deal with the septic. Bob what would we do would we draft an easement type of thing and give it to Counsel Richenbach? 12 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-We need the description, but we can come up with language or he can propose language if he prefers. I would think you would want it part of this because while some people have taken the position that it isn’t related we are not sure with changing water flows how if it isn’t maintained how that could impact parts of Mr. Mastoloni’s property we don’t know that. I would take the position if that is what the Town wants is to get a drainage easement that you make it part of the resolution realizing that there is a bigger expensive than I thought it is not only a culvert, but it is a pipe. SUPERVISOR STEC-An easement for the drainage in a form acceptable to Town Counsel? TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-Yes. SUPERVISOR STEC-Would be how we would word it if we added that to a resolution approving. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Would we be responsible for the whole length of that pipe Bob? SUPERVISOR STEC-Whatever we get an easement for. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yep you would have, too you can’t do part of it. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-It is up to the Town Board as to what they want. I don’t think you need some input from the Highway Superintendent it doesn’t make sense to own part of this if it is all one continuous pipe underground. Being able to fix it from Point A to Point B and it stops somewhere you have to have the right to make sure the flow goes to the end. MR. NACE-Tim one thing to consider the pipe is very shallow the whole length of it the top of the pipe is only a foot underground or less as you get down to the lake. So it is not as far as you are thinking very expensive in terms of normal storm sewer. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I am not necessarily thinking expensive Tom I am thinking liability I already said what I said so. MR. NACE-Understood. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Back to the septic system. I had asked and I didn’t see anything I had asked for a maintenance agreement of the landscaping and planting and shrubbery. A plan to prevent parking owner easement documentation that is applicable to this case. Assess alternatives such as a holding tank show fifty percent expansion these are my notes from last meeting. MR. NACE-Presented map to board members. I will walk you through the changes that were made here. In the upper right hand corner of the drawing I added a note labeled or titled easement requirements. It requires the owner of one lot to provide permanent easement and access for construction and maintenance and operation of the septic system and the force main. I have shown over at the proposed absorption system I have shown those existing shrubbery to be relocated over adjacent to the alley to Neighbors Way to prevent cars from moving onto the septic system. I provided a note there that says the relocated shrubs are to be supplemented with additional shrubs as required to provide barrier to vehicular access to the septic field. Maintain shrubs to provide perpetual barrier and landscape buffer. As Mr. Caffry had asked I have labeled Neighbors Way property as lands of Jane C. Caffry Trust. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Neighbors Way belongs to Caffry? MR. NACE-To the Jane C. Caffry Trust. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Is it an easement Tom? 13 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 MR. NACE-Yes, it is there is an access. COUNCILMAN BREWER-The Caffry’s own through there? MR. NACE-That is correct. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Did you get an easement aren’t you going to be running some of your plumbing up through there? MR. NACE-No our plumbing only runs across from one of Mastoloni’s properties to the other the easement requirement note covers that. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I was over there yesterday who owns Lot 9? MR. NACE-That is part of the main Mastoloni’s property. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-It appears to be all the same, but there is a property line between the two. When I drove over there yesterday I said I recognize this we have dealt with this before. This piece of property was looking for a septic system I can’t remember what a couple years ago? SUPERVISOR STEC-Two years ago. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I felt at that time the argument was that on the lot where this two story framed house was located on Lot 9 that it would be a great location for a holding tank because the water table is so high there. I guess you can’t put in a traditional septic system I don’t know if a mounded system has been invested. My comfort level isn’t really there piping something way up to what may be somebody else’s property. COUNCILMAN BREWER-It is his property John. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-It is right now, but I can’t look at it that why. I have to look at it your heirs and what they may do with the property. Three is easily one, two, three, four different areas I am seeing here. You have Lot 9, the lot where your house is. You have another house here on Lot 11 you have Lot 10. You own all those I assume that might not be the case always. My comfort level of locating a system up on someone else’s piece of property is just not there yet. MR. NACE-Lot 9, 10, and 11 even though they are labeled as lots of the original subdivision are now combined under one deed. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-They are. MR. NACE-That is correct. SUPERVISORS STEC-There are two lots really. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-There are two lots that could be sold separately. SUPERVISOR STEC-The peninsula the point there and the rest. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Lot 10 and Lot 9… MR. NACE-Are shown as part of the original subdivision. SUPERVISOR STEC-One parcel now. MR. NACE-Right now they are all one parcel and will remain that way. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Again that is a separate parcel then the parcel that this house is on. 14 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 MR. NACE-Correct. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-That could owned by a different party in the future that is entirely possible. SUPERVISOR STEC-That is why we are proposing the easement that is the only way to do that. If we are going to allow this you have to have some sort of easement right. MR. NACE-We are taking a lot where the furthest you can get a way from the shoreline of Lake George is somewhere in the order of seventy feet. We are moving the septic back to where we have over two hundred feet from the lake to me it is an advantage. COUNCILMAN BREWER-It is a vast improvement. SUPERVISOR STEC-I remember it was a previous owner I think it was the Binley’s there was discussion I can’t remember what the exact application was for, but there was discussion then about a holding tank on the peninsula piece I believe no action was taken I don’t know if it was withdrawn, but I don’t think we voted on it. ATTORNEY RICHENBACH-My recollection Mr. Supervisor….. SUPERVISOR STEC-It was you right Brian you were there. ATTORNEY RICHENBACH-I was here on behalf of Mr. Mastoloni because at that time Mr. Mastoloni did not own that property it was not the same lot so the situation has significantly changed now. One easement and there will be room to make as Mr. Nace has said to put the system two hundred feet from the lake as opposed to inside seventy. SUPERVISOR STEC-I am not bothered by the easement myself. In general when we talk about things up here on tight parcels a holding tank is something that I am generally not opposed to the holding tank is a good option to look at. I see that you are getting it relatively pretty far away from the lake by doing that the easement doesn’t bother me. I guess my question is why didn’t we pull the trigger on a holding tank two years ago? ATTORNEY RICHENBACH-I think the short answer would be the application was withdrawn. The more detail answer would be that at that time the Binley’s didn’t have access to the property that Mr. Mastoloni had to put the system on. SUPERVISOR STEC-Or perhaps then they would have been seeking exactly this. ATTORNEY RICHENBACH-It may have been exactly. MR. MASTOLONI-Excuse me what we are trying to do here I don’t understand what the difficulty is. We have a house that was built in 1875 a hundred and thirty four years ago and it properly has a septic system dating back to that time, which is probably nothing more than a fifty gallon tank, which is probably thirty five feet from the lake. Here I am trying to put an up to date state of the art septic system in which will be also almost two hundred feet from the lake. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I don’t have a problem with that. What, I have a problem with is Mr. Mastoloni you will not always be the owner here. You have a septic system that will be on somebody else’s property there is supposedly shrubs around it. Over time what is written on these plans and I will tell you a hundred times over this is what happens everyone forgets about who owns what, whose duty it is to do what, whose is suppose to maintain this, and that, and the other thing. So you have shrubbery which is supposed to prevent parking on this to maintain the integrity of the infiltration system. If it was the same owner as this piece of property that would be an issue…. COUNCILMAN BREWER-But the issue is John it is the same owner. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-But it won’t be. 15 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 COUNCILMAN BREWER-How do you know that? COUNCILMAN STROUGH-You have to look at it that way. MR. MASTOLONI-Excuse me sir may I explain. I have elected to keep these separate because first of all I don’t want a mega mansion going up on that property ever. That is one of the reasons I have kept the property separate. Otherwise it would be two acres of land and you would be permitted I believe according to the regulations to put a twenty thousand square foot home up there taking away the rest. In my personal trust and everything I have arranged that these pieces should never go together that easement is always there for the corner the new piece of property. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Can we write that into the deed that whoever owns lot ten is going to have to be responsible for the maintenance of the shrubbery to somebody else’s infiltration system? TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-You could. I wasn’t sure from the last meeting who you were going to place the responsibility for maintaining the shrubs that was one of the questions that we asked you for input on. It would make sense that it would be the person who is benefited you could put that in an easement. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-This is a strange lot number it doesn’t fit in accord….. SUPERVISOR STEC-It is called a half acre and a one and a half acre John. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-What is the lot number Tom? COUNCILMAN BREWER-There is no lot number. MR. NACE-Parcel number twenty nine is the point and twenty eight is the main house. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Up where the garage is up here is twenty eight? MR. NACE-Correct. SUPERVISOR STEC-If you look at the easement language John he is talking about dash twenty eight and twenty nine he is saying the point is twenty eight or twenty nine? MR. NACE-I believe that is twenty nine. SUPERVISOR STEC-You are saying an easement requirement is on this a permanent easement shall be provided to the owner of parcel 226.15-1-29 the point. COUNCILMAN BREWER-That is exactly what he has on here John what you asked. SUPERVISOR STEC-From the owner of parcel twenty eight. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-What I am saying Tim would it be better because these plans will get stored away and over time everyone forgets about it. If you wrote it into a deed whenever it transferred property the people that buy the new property are going to read that deed and see what their obligations are. SUPERVISOR STEC-That easement will be in the deed. ATTORNEY RICHENBACH-That is a permanent easement not a record. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-This easement doesn’t deal with…. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I am talking about maintenance of the shrubbery. SUPERVISOR STEC-I am saying we can amend the easement language that you have on here to include other responsibilities and they will be recorded with the deed. 16 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Another thing we are trying to prevent parking on this so we have shrubbery on the west side and on the north side you have a garage on the east side what do we have on the south side protecting it from cars going on the infiltration bed? MR. NACE-There are a couple of existing trees out along….it is all landscaped lawn area. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-How do you get access to the garage? Is it firm, Bay Parkway? COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well here is the garage door, you could drive from Bay Parkway right onto the septic field, right there. I do not see any vegetation. MR. NACE-No, that cloud in there is a hedge row of trees. There is a bunch of cedars and a couple of hard woods in there. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-So, you write into the deed that they have to stay? COUNCILMAN BREWER-Is there a hole cut there for the garage? ATTORNEY RICHENBACH-..garage doors so they face the west and access it from his current driveway. COUNCILMAN BREWER-So, you are going to put the garage doors on the west? MR. NACE-Right. ATTORNEY RICHENBACH-Part of the circular drive. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Yea, ok. SUPERVISOR STEC-All right, I think the concern that we are hearing now is assurances that it will be landscaped in such a way that cars will not drive on the new leach field so and a good way to do that is trees, but trees die and shrubs get run over by tractors, so the concern that I think we were trying to address I think can be addressed in an easement. I think that is probably it. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Can you explain to me again, how he comes into the garbage? I am not trying to be a pain the butt. ATTORNEY RICHENBACH-It is not his current means of ingress to the garage but he is going to move the doors and take those shrubs out COUNICLMAN BREWER-To the west. ATTORNEY RICHENBACH-the west side and come in from his own driveway. COUNICLMAN BREWER-He is going to come off from here, ok, then he is going to take these and put them where? No where? MR. NACE-Probably just get rid of a couple. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Why didn’t we put shrubs all the way round. MR. NACE-That is the end of the existing leach field over here we could certainly put them over here there is a good hedge row. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Unless we write that in it is going, I mean. COUNCILMAN BREWER-John, you cannot write everything in there 17 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 SUPERVISOR STEC-I guess I do not think it really matters are they shrubs, are they bollards or are they some sort of landscaping enclosure, I do not think anyone wants a chain link fence there but, something that will, that can be referenced in an easement that should be maintain so that people are not driving on it. I think that is COUNCILMAN BREWER-I see what you are saying though you could come in right here, but why would you want to come in here? MR. NACE-Designed to prevent vehicular traffic. Designed and maintained. SUPERVISOR STEC-And maintained and include that as part of the other easement language as far as the actual mechanicals …are we making progress? At this point lets take some, since we have got some information on the table we will take some public comment. We had a lot of public comment at our last meeting on this we are looking for anything new comments, comments we did not hear before or obviously any comment on what we have been talking about the last fifteen or twenty minutes. So, if there are any members of the public that would like to address the Board on this variance application, again I would just ask that you raise your hand I will call on you. Yes Ma’am MRS. MARY GRIDLEY-Good evening my name is Mary Gridley and my husband Ron and I live next door so we are apparently 54 Bay Parkway. I am just concerned over how you administer easements. I have spent some time trying to look back in deeds you know and with all due respect to the Counsel and legal aspects of trying to govern it seems to me that easements kind of lose from in sale from over time. Sometimes lawyers neglect you know, to record these easements and sometimes I have even found you know, today I was looking through some there are even termination agreements to easements. I know Mr. Mastoloni I have a copy of one that Mr. Mastoloni was involved in and that was going back to 1999, you know where an agreement that they had on maintaining something to do with septics was terminated. So, how do you police it? How do you govern you know all of this. I have a concern over that. I do not see how and I have great respect because I think they maintain their home beautifully, they have done tremendous improvements it is a real pleasure you know to see the property but I am still you know, I am still concerned over the water that puddles that can puddle, I have seen it happen. In the ditch that is right across the street, how do you assure, I mean I know all the technology of engineers how do they really ensure that what is down on paper in theory will definitely work? You know nature has its own recourse, so how can you regulate that is my concern and I know that you are taking, you are trying to separate you know the two rulings and I find it difficult how you can you know, close your mind at one you cannot have tunneled vision. I am just suggesting that it would be kept together. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-Well if we take over an easement for the drainage that is out then you obviously can be assured that the Town is going to take care of that part of it. So, I think that would be in everybody’s best interest there. MRS. GRIDLEY-We have you know, we have even I think there is an easement for a phone, telephone pole on our property and the winters have been so bad you know, nobody, even though, they do not come and take care of that and the water is worse because of we have lost so many trees there it has been terrifically hit this past couple of years. So, that is more reason that we do not have the root system taking up, absorbing all of this water. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-We can take care of the water problem it is just the septic is just the other issue. You know, honestly, just a phone call if you see something is wrong or it is not operating, working properly you know you pick up the phone and call the town or whom ever and get somebody out there to look at it. I mean when you are dealing with septic like this anybody that might someday potentially own that property is going to have an interest in making sure that septic system is going to work. So, you know you can be assured in that respect that you know, without it the house is worthless, useless. 18 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 MRS. GRIDLEY-It seems to me that it is also difficult to suggest that one property can exist without its own septic and one septic can handle all the property. I think that is a bit of a concern. Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you, is there anyone else Mr. Caffry, you look like your making your way up here. MR. JOHN CAFFRY-My family is the adjoining property owner and I think we are satisfied that our concerns about the septic have been addressed. I agree that it would be a good idea to have the easement for the maintenance of the pipe and the septic system on the one property also addressed the shrubbery issue to. I also want to clarify some of the ownership issues just so the Board understands and so Bob understands before he starts drafting things. I have been through the title to our property and some of the adjoining stuff in pretty good detail, I have not really looked at Mr. Mastoloni’s title too much. The Town Road there is a Town Road by deed. I have seen the deed. That end of Assembly Point was developed by the Adamson Family some of you may know Charlie Adamson and they subdivided it I am going to say in the 20’s and then sold off all the perimeter lots and the middle was originally subdivided also but at some point somebody decided that wasn’t such a great idea and it all went into Otyokwa Corporation which is a homeowners association. It is not officially there is no conservation easement on it but I think the opinion of the members is pretty unanimous that is it going to stay just the way it is. I know Phil Morris once wanted to do a land swap and move the road away from his house into the Otyokwa Property you would have swapped something or something and that got shot down. The only use it really gets is the surrounding owners can have a small parking area there if they want to. So, that, so the pipe that drains through Mastoloni’s property really is an old drainage pipe from Otyokwa probably went in probably before anybody worried too much about technicalities like easements. It may have an easement by implication or whatever. But, it is a town road by deed, I have seen the deed. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-How wide is the right of way, John? MR. CAFFRY-It is wider than the pavement, I can tell you that I do not remember exactly how wide it is. It is probably what is shown on the plans there if you look at the pavement it is somewhat wider than the or somewhat narrower than the corridor. My family owns Neighborsway also the Mastoloni’s property where that garage is and you ask about access to Bay Parkway there is no access to Bay Parkway when we acquired Neighborsway it included a triangle but kind of thing between the Town Road and between the Mastoloni’s property fortunately we both use the same surveyor so there is no surveyor issue there. So, that triangle there it does not give them direct access from the garage to the road there, so now they are talking about going across their own property to connect to the driveway. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-So, those shrubs are actually on your property? MR. CAFFRY-I do not know exactly where the shrubs are and exactly whose property they are on, you know, I have not seen a survey of the shrubs. They are in the vicinity; they are along the line more or less. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-You could take them down any time you wanted. MR. CAFFRY-So, the one thing I would point out that kind of ties the two issues together is if he is going to put a driveway across his property to connect to the existing circular driveway that would be across the pipe you are talking about. So, you may need to kind of coordinate those efforts. But, I think those are the main points I had about the ownership there. I wish the Adamson’s had deeded that Neighborsway to the Town back when they deeded the road, but somehow they forgot to. Mastoloni’s has an undeeded right of way to use Neighborsway to reach his various houses there just as Provenzano does and nobody questions that. Bob if you want to see that deed let me know. SUPERVISOR STEC-All right, thanks. 19 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Bob, I think that is an important point that John raises, that when Mr. Mastoloni’s wants to gain access to that garage by changing the doors he will go over that drainage easement, that maybe something. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Which they said was shallow. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Yea, if it is that shallow maybe something that he needs to address at least for our comfort level. SUPERVISOR STEC-Is there anyone else that would like to address the Board this evening on this variance? Seeing none I will close this public hearing and maybe if the applicant and their agents want to come back I think we are starting to firm some thoughts up. If I can summarize where I think we are right now and certainly Board Members correct me if they are wrong. I think that given adequate and I am going to probably want you to address the question that Ms. Gridley asked about enforceability and I know that you could probably explain it a lot better than I could. But, it is certainly a very valid concern for a homeowner near by to have. But, I think that you know we explored the question why not a holding tank before and what is different now and I think that we have addressed that and so I think at least in my mind the question is can we come up with easements language that is going to address the concerns and be enforceable for all parties in the future that are going to allow for lot twenty nine if we calling it on the point to flow their effluent up to a leach field that is at least two hundred feet away from the lake which is a good thing, and then protect that leach field through whatever means you know, through whatever barriers, landscaping I do not care what we call it, I mean obviously I think everyone wants it to be attractive. But, something that is going to prevent a vehicle from driving on it, parking on it. I think if we did those things I think, and then it sounds like a majority of the Board if not the whole Board would be willing for the Town to acquire an easement for the drainage line that might make it might be a good thing for the Town and it might also put some of the other neighboring property owners concerns a little bit more at ease, then we might be able to approve this. Is that everyone’s understanding? COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Lets add to that, that one of the reason why we have in our code that they have to show or should show fifty percent expansion in case of some of these lines failing. You can show that you can adjust these lines to remedy the failed lines. So, in otherwords, what I would like to see to raise my comfort level is showing a potential easement maybe closer to the garage where a fifty percent expansion is possible should this bed fail. SUPERVISOR STEC-Tom is that feasible to go to the west there basically where it is typed lot 10 is that an area that could be used? COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Or go to the south or what have you but, MR. NACE-As you go further west the soils are not as desirable which is the reason we kept it where it is. As in ninety percent of these replacement and this is a replacement of a if you do not want to call it a failed system a substandard system certainly by its location. But in ninety percent of the cases you are not really able to find a fifty percent replacement area, ok, most of these lots are on the lake we squeezed for space and if you look back to the Health Department requirements for a replacement system it is not a hard and fast rule that you have to have fifty percent replacement. In reality if this system failed what we would do is dig it up and replace it in kind or in place. SUPERVISOR STEC-What about the area that is labeled existing leach field, is that something what when you are done could be used as a future expansion, will that be recovered in COUNCILMAN BREWER-There is not an awful lot of area there though Dan. MR. NACE-That is the existing leach field for the SUPERVISOR STEC-Oh, you are going to leave that. 20 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 MR. NACE-house, that remains. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Obviously you can dig it up and import soil or worst case scenario is a holding tank. MR. NACE-That is what is normally done and very few of these replacement system around the lake have space for that fifty percent. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-So, in essence though there should not be any parking on either one of those leach fields. MR. NACE-That is correct. The existing leach field if you went up to look at the site it is fairly well protected by existing tress and there are a couple ..in there. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I know some of those are on Mr. Caffry’s property. MR. NACE-That is correct. COUNCILMAN BREWER-You would have to get an easement from the Caffry’s to go across that John. If you are worried about coming across from Bay Parkway across that triangle if you will to get to here or COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Make them come just right down here. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I am not saying he couldn’t he could do a lot of different things but I think his integrity shows that he is not going to. SUPERVISOR STEC-Bob could you just briefly comment on as far as your comfort level or any concerns you might have about putting requirements like this in a deed as an easement? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-I think that we can put in enforceable language in an easement that will deal with the concerns that I heard. One thing that I think is raised by was it Mrs. Gridley, her comments is that it sounds like we probably want the Town to also be able to enforce the easement and for that to happen it would have to be in the easement we would have to be a party that was benefited by it and we are asking Bryan to prepare something for me to review. We need he probably wants to put something in there about that it was part of the approval for the septic system and that the Town could enforce the maintaining the septic area so that no parking could happen. So, that would be something the Code Enforcement Officer could do, because she is right if it was two property owners one could terminate it from the other. SUPERVISOR STEC-The language in the easement could come right out and make a reference to this variance approval? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Easements are very flexible. ATTORNEY RICHENBACH-As he has indicated the easement would name the Town as a benefited party, a benefited party would have the right to enforce the easement. SUPERVISOR STEC-So, the answer to the question is if all of a sudden there is disastrous situation and the two property owners were fine and living in their own waste that the Town has the gas here from an easement perspective to also get involved in, it could not be dissolved by mutual agreement of two parties. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-It would take our mutual agreement to dissolve it. SUPERVISOR STEC-It would have to be the two property owners and the Town in the future. 21 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 ATTORNEY RICHENBACH-Like a marriage cannot be dissolved by the two parties the State is a party so the State has to give its consent to dissolution of a marriage same concept. SUPERVISOR STEC-The State does such a great job with the things its touches. ATTORNEY RICHENBACH-I will withhold comment. SUPERVISOR STEC-The public hearing is closed I am not sure if we have much more that we need to try to, you are comfortable I guess we have not heard from you all you see the direction that we would like this to go the easement that is officially worded to protect everyone’s interest you are comfortable with that? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-In two easements, one drainage and one dealing with the septic issues. UNKNOWN-I think it is, on behalf of Mr. Mastoloni’s I think it goes even farther than it has to because he is not against any bad faith at any point in the past that there is no reason to believe that he is going to have any bad faith in the future. Who wants to take care of the lake more than someone who lives on the lake. I have grown up on the lake Mr. Mastoloni’s couldn’t pay me enough to do anything here tonight or on his behalf that would be injurious to the lake. He is just not going to do it. So, those assurances of what will make the Board feel better we are happy to provide those. SUPERVISOR STEC-Robert Frost, Good fences COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Miles to go before we sleep. SUPERVISOR STEC-But, I am completely comfortable with what you are saying. The point was made Mr. Mastoloni’s may not own these properties, twenty, thirty, forty years from now it is going to be somebody else and UNKNOWN-From your mouth to Gods ears. SUPERVISOR STEC-You never know. Fifty years. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And the road less traveled. That is why I would like to see better assurances that there will not be any parking on these leach fields. UNKNOWN-That is as many literary references that I can handle. SUPERVISOR STEC-Which is a stretch for an engineer. Not Mark Frost, Robert Frost. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Can I just make sure from my record, since I am going to have to help, I have to draft the resolution, one is the drainage easement that we talked about that is one of the conditions, the second is the easement dealing with granting the peninsula property the right to have its septic system on the bigger one point four eight acre parcel. That second easement is going to include language about design and maintenance so that parking cannot occur there and it is going to have additional language that the Town is one of the parties that is benefitted so we can enforce it. There was discussion about Mr. Caffry’s issues that were raised before in his letter and I believe that they were addressed in the new plans but I do not have Mr. Caffry’s letter so if I think that has to be part of our resolution that those issues which I think you dealt with in the new map are one of the requirements. Was there anything else other than those three big pictures? COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Make sure we understand though, the applicant is going to go back and work with you and draw up the language and we are going to review it again and then we will vote on whether we find it acceptable or not. COUNCILMAN BREWER-No, no lets make it acceptable to the Attorney. 22 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-I heard you guys say different things. That is why I am going thorough it. I am sorry. SUPERVISOR STEC-Typically our resolutions say either in the form acceptable to Town Counsel or sometimes Town Counsel and Town Supervisor I would recommend that we continue to word the resolution that I have no problem at all if Bob wants to share what he has got with the Board before actually execute it and give the Board a chance to say Bob, I am not comfortable with that. COUNCILMAN BREWER-But, is this going to delay TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-I think we want to see the easements to make sure that they are the right language before SUPERVISOR STEC-The question is do we want you to be comfortable with it or do we want it to come back here for a new resolution? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-That is a Town Board decision. SUPERVISOR STEC-I am trying to tell you what I think. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-It is a timing, even if you pass a resolution tonight, it is contingent on them providing it to us before they have the permit to go forward with the SUPERVISOR STEC-I think yes, because that will make sure it gets done. I am comfortable in a form acceptable to Town Counsel but I think what John is pointing out is as a courtesy why don’t you fire off a copy of it before you run with it just to make sure that we have a chance to screen TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-You know how I work Dan. SUPERVISOR STEC-Bob we think that..like it. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-So, will we let the applicant know tonight that we are conditionally approving it? SUPERVISOR STEC-As soon as everyone stops talking I am going to have somebody make a resolution. To approve this with the three conditions that Bob just laid out, the easement for the Town accepting an easement for the drainage COUNCILMAN BREWER-I thought you were going to let him do it. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-You are doing great. SUPERVISOR STEC-Right, the easement between the two properties including the Town as an interested party whatever the correct phrase is to allow the peninsula parcel to pump its effluent up to this area described in the application and then the third part would being that it would be that easement would be worded in a way that would cover COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Safeguards. SUPERVISOR STEC-preventing parking on it and maintenance to make sure that we maintain the system. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Dan, the only thing we did not touch on was Mr. Mastoloni is going to cross that drainage pipe we have to make an assurance that either it is buried deeper or there are something to prevent that pipe from being damaged from being driven over. If it is a foot underground I do not know what .. MR. NACE-Actually what would happen with bring a driveway in there that is a low spot and it is much lower than the garage level so he would have to build up over the top of the pipe anyway. 23 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 COUNCILMAN BREWER-As long as it is safe that is all that matters. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-I think that needs to be an issue in the easement. SUPERVISOR STEC-All right, that is your resolution, very well stated Councilman Montesi is there a second, COUNCILMAN BREWER-I will second SUPERVISOR STEC-Seconded by Councilman Brewer who also agrees with your wisdom. Is there any other discussion? Hearing none go ahead a vote Karen. UNKNOWN-Questioned if the easements are revocable? SUPERVISOR STEC-The Town is a party, it is permanent as long as the three parties including the town, it is as permanent as it can be permanent. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-The Town can change its mind in the future, circumstances might change. SUPERVISOR STEC-It is up to the Town and the two property owners, three parties would have to agree. Vote taken RESOLUTION APPROVING MASTOLONI FAMILY LLC/ EDWARD MASTOLONI’S APPLICATION FOR SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO.: BOH 28, 2008 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Mastoloni Family LLC/Edward Mastoloni filed an application for variances from provisions of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, Chapter 136 to install a replacement septic system: 1.1’ from the property line instead of the required 10’ setback; and 2.14’ from the house instead of the required 20’ setback; on property located at 50 Bay Parkway and 18 Neighbor’s Way in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk’s Office published the Notice of Public Hearing in the Town’s official newspaper and the Local Board of Health duly conducted a public hearing th concerning the variance requests on Monday, October 20, 2008, and 24 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 WHEREAS, the Town Clerk’s Office has advised that it duly notified all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that 1.due to the nature of the variance, the Local Board of Health determines that the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes and objectives of this Ordinance or other adjoining properties nor otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of any Town plan or policy; and 2.the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variances is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and is the minimum variance which would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health to affect the applicant; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health hereby approves the application of the Mastoloni Family LLC/Edward Mastoloni for variances from the Sewage Disposal Ordinance to install a replacement septic system: 1.1’ from the property line instead of the required 10’ setback; and 2.14’ from the house instead of the required 20’ setback; on property located at 50 Bay Parkway and 18 Neighbor’s Way in the Town of Queensbury and bearing Tax Map No.’s: 226.15-1-28 and 226.15-1-29, contingent upon the following conditions: 1.the applicant’s provision of a drainage easement in form acceptable to Town Counsel; 2.the applicant’s provision of an easement, in form acceptable to Town Counsel, granting the peninsula property the right to have its septic system on the bigger 1.4 acre parcel, such easement to include language concerning: a) design, landscaping and maintenance so that the leech field will be properly maintained and so that parking cannot occur on the leech field; and b) that the Town is one of the parties that is benefitted so that the Town may enforce it; 3.that the answers given by the applicant’s engineer in response to Attorney th John W. Caffry’s October 17, 2008 letter be made permanent conditions. 25 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Montesi, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier NOES : Mr. Strough ABSENT: None COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Too many loose ends for me. RESOLUTION ADJOURNING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 29.2008 BOH RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns as the Board of Health and moves back into regular session. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2008 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: None 2.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2.1 Public Hearing – Amendment to Ordinance 28 Establishing Through Highways and Stop Intersections in the Town of Queensbury, County of Warren, New York NOTICE SHOWN th PUBLICATION DATE: November 7, 2008 SUPERVISOR STEC-We set this public hearing a couple of weeks ago this is to entertain a stop sign at the intersection of Revere, Triphammer and Honey Hollow Roads. We were requested by members of the homeowners association to consider this. Any time we have a stop sign we have to amend our Ordinance Number 28 and so we are here now to conduct the public hearing and take comment on the proposed stop sign, again at the intersection of Revere, Triphammer and Honey Hollow Roads in the Bedford Close Subdivision. Is there anyone that would like to comment on this public hearing? Mr. Hajeck MR. DAN HAJECK-Dan Hajeck, 58 Revere Road Opposed to the stop sign on Revere and Triphammer. I think the main reason is why they would like the stop sign is for speed is that a true statement or? COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, I can answer, address that, I don’t know that it is for speed I know Dr. Kirkpatrick came approached us a few months ago, wanted a series of stop signs in the neighborhood. Approached me, him and I talked several times I talked to the Highway Superintendent and his intention is not for speed for safety. That is an issue through the neighborhood there is no doubt, no question about that. But, this stop sign that Mike Travis and I went over there and looked at through the whole neighborhood. He chose that on his own free will and said as far as safety goes I think this is the proper place to put it. Because, you live there and you know that there are hardly any stop signs through there. MR. HAJECK-Correct. 26 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 COUNCILMAN BREWER-It goes to safety precaution that is the reason we chose that, or I should say Mike chose that intersection. MR. HAJECK-My concern is quality of life as far as eighteen years of living on four way intersection, stop, start. The stop sign would be at the bottom of a grade when you come down Revere Road being the winter season, November how long would it take before the stop sign would be installed? COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, if we approve it, ten days after we approve it or the posting of this I think it says. MR. HAJECK-So, it would bring it into the winter season as far as having people stop on a grade. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Pardon me? MR. HAJECK-So, you are trying to train people to stop on a grade in the middle of the winter basically, would be a new stop sign. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, I do not know that we are training anybody but. MR. HAJECK-All right, as far as the uniform what we all have to go by for us installing signs there hasn’t been any fatalities there in a year, there hasn’t been five accidents within a year and it also says right in the manual that you cannot install stop signs for speed control. Having said that, being against the stop sign you are not going to stop the people from still coming through the neighborhood. The people will still come down Pitcher Road I feel, cut thorough Brickoven and for whatever reason the Holy Grail is to come out onto Corinth Road on Revere. Now, why people continue to cut through I do not know, I do not have an answer for that. Boy, that is all I can really say, dead set against it, noise pollution and I certainly would not have bought my house if I knew the stop sign was there. SUPERVISOR STEC-Ok. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to comment in this public DEPUTY TOWN CLERK O’BRIEN-Sir, can I get your name SUPERVISOR STEC-Hajeck COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Would this be the only stop sign in COUNCILMAN BREWER-I do not think it is the only sign in the whole neighborhood MR. HAJECK-On the main drag we call it the main drag I mean, I certainly know what the people are trying to do there is little kids, people fly through once in a while people don’t really pay any attention and it is an inviting road to go fast on. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Mr. Hajeck is there any other stop signs in the whole Bedford Close? MR. HAJECK-Oh, yea, certainly on Triphammer there is a stop sign, Honey Hollow there is a stop sign, Lanterhill, North Church coming up Revere and then certainly at Brickoven on Revere and Brookshire Trace onto Revere. You have to kill the flow of traffic coming through I just feel that if you put a stop sign there that they are only going to come down Pitcher Road farther then cut over Brickoven. You are only sending them down two streets I feel. Do you follow what I am saying there? SUPERVISOR STEC-Say it one more time. COUNCILMAN BREWER-He says they are going to come down two streets and cut over a different road 27 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 MR. HAJECK-Instead, they turn from Pitcher Road onto Lantern Hill or North Church to come down Revere you are just going to continue to go down Pitcher Road and you are going to take a right onto Brickoven that will dump you back onto Revere which dumps you back onto Corinth Road. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Doesn’t Pitcher Road go to Corinth Road? COUNCILMAN BREWER-No, it goes to VanDusen COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Oh, VanDusen ok that is right, yea. COUNCILMAN BREWER-It is pretty much the same thing SUPERVISOR STEC-That is what I would do, I would go down Pitcher to VanDusen. MR. HAJECK-Well, you would certainly think that but that is usually not the case sometimes. Certainly the noise of the stopping and starting I mean winter sand, people once they stop they are only going to go faster once they stop and then pickup speed to go out, I feel. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to comment on this public hearing? Yes, Sir. DR. DOUG KIRKPATRICK-I will make this brief, Doug Kirkpatrick representative of the Homesowners Association with respect to the stop signs. When we discussed this last month I questioned about location and number of stop signs had come up. Quoting back to just the shear numbers that were out as far as what the neighbors preference where the majority of them were Revere Road and Honey Hollow and Triphammer. You guys had seen that data during that time as well. I want to indicate the continued support for the stop signs but I also agree with Dan Hajeck that you know, personally I think there is a grade at that base of that hill, you know four way stop signs I think were deemed to be more desirable by the neighborhood. The Revere and Lantern Hill, North Church Lane stop sign which is a four way stop is not on grade as well. Even though my data as far as my you know polling of the neighbors did not support that more people felt as though that the location at the bottom of the hill was more desirable. I am not sure the engineers when they went around and looked at that as well, but I wanted to add my personal opinion as well. Not supported by my data or my polling but that the four way intersection at the top of the hill which would be Revere, Lantern Hill and North Church Lane would be more desirable, from the stand point of COUNCILMAN BREWER-Move it up one block? DR. KIRKPATRICK-I think so. I think that does what we want it to do which was place some impediments between traffic between West Mountain Road and Corinth Road. The point about potential people cutting thorough other areas certainly exists, certainly can be dealt with under further hearings. But, I think the cut thorough that we are looking to try and stop which is directly from North Church to Revere on through would be benefited by. SUPERVISOR STEC-Doc, just so I can be clear, you are suggesting a four way stop rather at Lantern Hill and Revere Road? DR. KIRKPATRICK-That is my personal belief that, that would be a better choice, because it is not the base of the hill it is up at a relatively flat area Mr. Hajeck’s point is that you know, coming down traveling toward Corinth Road there is in fact an incline in that area. You know again, my data my polls, you know the polls that I sent out the preference was for the intersection that you guys are currently proposing and I wanted to add my personal opinion to that as far as location. COUNCILMAN BREWER-The poll says that it should be at the other one SUPERVISOR STEC-The one that we are having the hearing on 28 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 COUNCILMAN BREWER-The one we are having the hearing on and our Highway Superintendent believes that we should have it at. But, your personal preference and Mr. Hajeck’s are at the other Lantern Hill, Revere and North Church Lane. DR. KIRKPATRICK-I don’t know if can specify for Mr. Hajeck’s personal opinions of where he wants it he doesn’t want it in front of his house I understand that. SUPERVISOR STEC-He was nodding his head, any port in the storm I get it. DR. KIRKPATRICK-Personally I think that there is a hill there and it does represent some issues and the engineers perhaps had other feelings on that and I do not want to mess with, preempt that. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Not the engineer our Highway Superintendent. SUPERVISOR STEC-Doc, if I could ask you another, do you have a flavor for is the traffic that we are talking about is it that are using Revere Road as a flow through for this are they neighbors in Bedford Close are there literally people from the public that are pulling off from Pitcher Road to go down North Church Lane and down Revere Road to get Corinth Road? DR. KIRKPATRICK-There is a large; I believe a large number of public people traveling through SUPERVISOR STEC-Outside the neighborhood. DR. KIRKPATRICK-because the cut thorough you guys remember you saw this last time SUPERVISOR STEC-I remember you showed us last time. DR. KIRKPATRICK-Basically this V here represents what the have to take in order to you know, basically, well look at it upside down, basically this is what they would normally be doing taking a left on Corinth Road the alternative is Pitcher Road to VanDusen and over but the cut through is very attractive because it offers no impediments. There are no stop signs between West Mountain Road until you get to Corinth. So, actually SUPERVISOR STEC-But where are they going on Corinth Road? I mean if you are trying to go that direction on Corinth Road you are going you are heading toward the intersection with West Mountain Road and if you are coming down West Mountain Road you got to drive past Pitcher Road, am I not understanding? DR. KIRKPATRICK-I guess you would have to really truly drive it to see that, but what the out of the neighborhood traffic is the folks that are coming from West Mountain Road, you know, from the areas from Luzerne Road and northward heading toward the Northway, trucking south by the Northway. People are, it is a very easy transition turning from West Mountain Road onto Pitcher onto North Church onto Revere and you hit one stop sign that is the one right here on Corinth Road. It is absolutely the quickest way because this intersection is not perfect and this one is out of the ways. It is absolutely a major thoroughfare and there are a large number of individuals that do not live in the neighborhood that travel through there and that is our biggest concern right now, because of safety and the problems created by the large amount of vehicular traffic that is not associated with the neighborhood doesn’t have concerns that we have about our children and the people that are utilizing this area. I think the preference again, was stated by my polls, was perhaps even more than one stop sign but I understand SUPERVISOR STEC-Do you recall approximately how many people, you know, just your poll, five people, fifty people? Just give us, for the record, give us a ball park. 29 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 DR. KIRKPATRICK-Precisely, actually I have one additional one here, so let me supplement that here a little bit here. A hundred and thirty seven homes there were ninety seven poll responses, I have them all here, I would say one percent poll rate at this point in time with a ninety two percent supportment for stop signs on Revere Road. COUNCILMAN BREWER-What is the error of margin, three percent? DR. KIRKPATRICK-Zero I have them all right here. This is, we endeavored to make this as up front as possible. So, that everybody had a chance to participate and there were certainly some detractors but large majority of the people really felt strong. There were eight people that did not support it out of the one hundred and thirty seven that we sent out. I understand their concerns. But, this again, my point was primarily just to offer my own opinion about the position, I do not want to add any more into this mix than we have to. But, I think forty three presented, forty three of the people polled prefer the intersection that we are dealing with this evening the next most popular one was the one up the hill Revere Road and Lantern Hill Road and I guess my personal opinion at that one probably represents, if we were going to put a singular stop sign it represents in my opinion the most desirable stop because the houses are a little bit more of a distance, it is on a flat level. COUNCILMAN BREWER-It is Lantern Hill, Revere, North Church SUPERVISOR STEC-If we were going to put a single stop sign in that is the one that you think most people would say, put it? DR. KIRKPATRICK-I think so, because I know all the neighbors in the immediate vicinity support that and it is an area that is flat and level doesn’t require much acceleration to get up the hill or as much potential for sliding thorough it coming down, the hill is not huge but it is present, there is a grade. SUPERVISOR STEC-So maybe we have the right public hearing then, I am trying to figure out what we are saying. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, what he is saying he wants us to consider moving it to the next intersection, can we do that Bob with this hearing? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-You need a public hearing for the intersection that you are talking about. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I guess we should talk to Mike and ask him why he chose that, I think what he told me was for safety sake he would rather stop them for potentially in the center of the neighborhood if you will rather than have a short distance going in or coming out. DR. KIRKPATRICK-I understand that and this again, my take at this is my personal opinion not based upon COUNCILMAN BREWER-Not based upon what the response was. DR. KIRKPATRICK-…science here my polls but my personal opinion in terms that it is and you guys can do with that as you wish. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-There is a safety factor with the slight incline there that may prove to be you know an unsafe condition, and we want to change it to the new intersection that would require a new public hearing but it also gives us a chance to have Mike look at that too, our Highway guy. SUPERVISOR STEC-Let me suggest this then, we won’t yet but we will close the public hearing tonight not take action on this one give everyone a chance to go back and float this other idea have our Highway Superintendent take a peek at it and if you can get back to us in the next two weeks, this is literally a take the resolution and set the public hearing for this and just change the intersection name and we can, what is four weeks. 30 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 COUNCILMAN BREWER-It doesn’t matter to me. SUPERVISOR STEC-You all don’t mind, Doc you brought this to us on behalf of your homeowners, you know we are trying to DR. KIRKPATRICK-I want to be clear to, I am speaking on behalf of my self in terms of that so I do not want to misconstrued this my data suggests the intersection that you folks have chosen I am adding my personal opinion to that. If you want to waive my personal opinion and move on that is fine. COUNCILMAN BREWER-So the data says that where Mike chose is the place to go but SUPERVISOR STEC-I thought you had said that if there was one stop sign that we were going to put in it would be at Lantern Hill and Revere. COUNCILMAN BREWER-That is his personal preference. SUPERVISOR STEC-Oh, that is your personal opinion. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Not what his data shows that he brought to us. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-His data also reinforces his personal preference, he says forty three percent preferred COUNCILMAN BREWER-Lets back up a minute. DR. KIRKPATRICK-Let me clarify again for one more second, I do not want to misconstrue my poll results and my personal opinion is. The concept is of the poll results forty three percent of the people that want the stop signs preferred the Revere, Honey Hollow, Triphammer Road which is currently where you folks were talking about. Twenty four percent which is a little more than half had preferred the Revere and Lantern Road. My personal opinion is that it represents a better choice. Now, I do not want you know what we, I brought this to you folks and I appreciate all the time you have put into it but the concept of course is that this is what the data shows like what you guys have here and if your town folks feel that is best I am more than willing to bow to that judgment. It is my personal opinion that the stop sign above represents a better choice. SUPERVISOR STEC-Let me ask this, if the goal here initially was to discourage a cut thorough from people outside the neighborhood the only way to get to Revere Road other than North Church Lane is Lantern Hill. So, I don’t, if you are saying a stop sign somewhere on that way it would just make it a little less attractive for everyone to use that cut thorough the neighborhood I do not think one would do the trick and I do not think it matters which of those two intersections that, that stop is in. So, if one will do the job and it doesn’t matter what intersection then I think maybe you look at the intersection geometry as far as the slopes and all that and if you have got people on one corner that say we really don’t want this and the other corner doesn’t mind then I think that I another thing. If you wouldn’t mind specifically talking to some of the people, those eight lots between those two corners and if there is a consensus lets move it to the other one I do not think that is a big deal, we would be happy to do that. DR. KIRKPATRICK-I have their polls here and there is SUPERVISOR STEC-I mean if you put it that way, the forty three percent I do not think that, I would be surprised if the forty three percent are all like darn it, it has to be this one. I think the larger goal is that they want to make it less attractive for everyone to come off from and I still, if I am heading to the Northway and I am coming down West Mountain Road and I turn on Pitcher I am going to go to VanDusen and turn down, or I will turn down Luzerne and then down VanDusen I mean but. 31 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 DR. KIRKPATRICK-Again, personal opinion is I am not sure that one is enough. SUPERVISOR STEC-Is there anyone from the public that wants to comment on this? I am going to close this public hearing and I am going to suggest that we do not take action other than after tonights meeting we will catch up with the Highway Superintendent float the other alternative to him, Mr. Hajeck and Dr. Kirkpatrick if you wouldn’t mind floating this to the neighborhood and say hey you know the Town is willing to do one or the other but its, it seems like there is a reason to look at the other intersection and see if there are any real significant opposition to that. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I think we ought to find out what Mike’s SUPERVISOR STEC-I said we will talk to Mike. But, I would also like to hear from the neighborhood and if you can turn it around and get something back to us in the next week and a half we could put it on the agenda. But, then again we are training people right around Christmas time and their heads are somewhere else right, Dan? So, I know Dan so I had to laugh at his training comment, sorry. Lets take a look at that other intersection. The public hearing is closed we will not take any action on it. 2.2 Public Hearing – Local Law Prohibit Parking On South Side of Sunset Lane in the Town of Queensbury NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: November 7, 2008 SUPERVISOR STEC-This was brought to our attention not too long ago but it is an old problem up there on Assembly Point particularly as I understand it in the winter time you have a tight area in there and we would be looking at prohibiting parking on the south side of Sunset Lane beginning at its intersection with Assembly Point Road and continuing in a westerly direction a distance of approximately two hundred and seventy nine feet. So, and again I think that in the winter time with the ice fishermen it becomes a problem I am not sure if it is as much a problem in the summer time with the summer visitors to Assembly Point. As an aside although this as written right now does not provide for it to be seasonal. I did have a conversation with Councilman Metivier not too long ago about this and Bob got me an answer just before this evenings meeting that it is not that big a deal we could make it seasonal if we chose to, I just thought I would mention that in case the public had a strong opinion as to the seasonality of it. If we wanted to limit the no parking to a season we can. I also talked to Mike Travis today and he told me that he did not know what the legal answer was but he absolutely no problem with making it seasonal, in fact he said that from his perspective he would even prefer it to be seasonal. But, he thought it was a question for the lawyer, he does not have a problem with it. So, as written it is for year round but Bob said that seasonal since it is less restrictive we can error in that direction and if we chose to modify it to seasonal we can. So, with that as a preamble if there is anyone that would like to comment on this public hearing, again prohibiting parking on the south side of Sunset Lane up on Assembly Point we will take your comment. Anyone at all. While people are mulling over what they want to do, is the Board COUNCILMAN METIVIER-You just stated that we could actually modify this? SUPERVISOR STEC-Because we are proposing we advertised to make it very restrictive and if we make it less restrictive and we have done that over the years before us. When Bob told me the answer I actually finished the reason, because I knew that if it is, as long as it is not becoming more restrictive then we had advertised we can, it is a minor enough change where we could do this. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-I will tell you what me concern is, that everybody whose effected by that in the summer time is gone because they shut the water off so they are not around anymore so. SUPERVISOR STEC-To close it in the summer? 32 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 COUNCILMAN METIVIER-What is that? SUPERVISOR STEC-They not around to COUNCLMAN METIVIER-They are not here now so they cannot speak out tonight, so if next spring they show up and find out that they cannot park there, because I mean it is a bad situation in the winter it is not so bad in the summer time. But, it is still a problem. My point is if we find out that it has caused a lot of problems for some of these people who can’t be here tonight we can come back to it, that is fine. SUPERVISOR STEC-If I am understanding you that would be an argument in favor of making it seasonal so that it is not COUNCILMAN METIVIER-No, we will leave it alone for now. SUPERVISOR STEC-Ok. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-And then if we discover that we can change it. SUPERVISOR STEC-Make it seasonal later. All right you want to go with that option. All right, ok now I understand you. I am fine with that. Is there anyone that would like to comment on this public hearing? Seeing none I will close this public hearing. It sounds like at least Tony’s recommendation is leave it as written year round probation as described. If we run into a problem we can always amend it then. RESOLUTION TO ENACT LOCAL LAW PROHIBITING PARKING ON SOUTH SIDE OF SUNSET LANE IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY RESOLUTION NO.: 521, 2008 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to consider adoption of a Local Law which would prohibit parking on the south side of a portion of Sunset Lane in the Town of Queensbury beginning at its intersection with Assembly Point Road and continuing in a westerly direction, a distance of 279’±, and WHEREAS, such legislation is authorized in accordance with New York State § Town Law, Vehicle and Traffic Law 1660(18) and the Municipal Home Rule Law, and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Local Law has been presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, the Town Board conducted a public hearing concerning the proposed th Local Law on Monday, November 17, 2008, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 33 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby adopts and enacts the Local Law Prohibiting Parking on the South Side of a Portion of Sunset Lane in the Town of Queensbury, to be known as Local Law No.:8 of 2008, 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 the Local Law will take effect immediately and as soon as allowable under law, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Highway Superintendent to post no parking signs on the appropriate section of Sunset Lane and take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2008 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT: None 2. 3 Public Hearing – Authorizing Water District Improvements Along Main Street in the Town of Queensbury Consolidated Water District NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: November 7, 2008 SUPERVISOR STEC-Our Water Superintendent Bruce Ostrander is here as well as a couple of our engineers from Barton and Loguidice and it looks like Ralph is getting ready. We have two public hearings on this subject the first one is water district improvements on Main Street the second one would be approving creation of a West Queensbury Sanitary Sewer District and B&L did work on that with us and I know that Mike Shaw is in the back of the audience and he can come up here when we get to the next public hearing. With that said why don’t I turn it over you Ralph and Bruce and you can make your introductory and we can take public comment. MR. RALPH VANDUSEN-In the 1930’s an eight inch water line was installed on Main Street supplying the people in the area of West Glens Falls. They purchased water from the City and it supplied that small district, Main Street and some of the side streets between the City line and the Northway. 1975 when the town’s new filtration plant went on line on Corinth Road a twelve inch line was run underneath the Northway and tied in or stopped just short of that eight inch line. Later on the two were connected. As part of the road project right from the very beginning when they first started talking about rebuilding the road the Superintendent at the time was very much interested in replacing that eight inch line. It is an unlined cast iron pipe is a little bit of the history with leaks in that area and certainly a history of rusty and discolored water. Hydrant flows in the 34 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 area are less than most areas of the town just because of the limiting capacity of the existing pipe. In that regard hired Barton and Loguidice to do a map, plan and report to do an evaluation of incorporating as part of the road project the replacement of that existing eight inch line. Unfortunately the project has been delayed and this is actually the third rendition of the map, plan and report. The scope of the project has not really changed too much it is more of an update of cost. What this project includes right now would be replacing approximately four thousand two hundred and fifty feet of eight inch unlined cast iron pipe with twelve inch which would match the twelve that is there it would tie into that existing twelve. The project also includes the installation of approximately a thousand feet of twelve inch ductile iron pipe on the newly installed realignment of Big Boom Road where that will tie in on Main Street. That will completely bring all the water line in that Main Street corridor up to todays current standards and hopefully last for another seventy five to a hundred years before anyone has to do anything with that. The project cost for that replacement of the pipe the upgrading of the pipe and the installation of the twelve inch on the Big Boom Road is right now estimated to be a million three hundred thousand dollars. The Town has the option of financing that, borrowing the money if they choose what we have looked at is a thirty year bond at 4.88% would provide a first year debt service of just over eighty three thousand dollars. Eighty three thousand five hundred and twenty seven dollars if the town chose to borrow the entire amount, which would be the I will call it the worst case or most expensive scenario or impact on the residents it would tend to increase the advelorum tax rate to those people in the existing Queensbury Consolidated Water District by just over four cents, four and a half cents per thousand dollars of assessed value. That means the typical single family home in the Queensbury Consolidated District their taxes would increase by seven dollars and twenty six cents a year and just for your reference that average single family home if you combine the O&M cost the Operation and Maintenance cost and the impact on taxes and this is assuming that you borrowed the money their total water bill would be just over two hundred and fifty nine dollars for the year. That is less than half of the State average that the Comptroller’s Office sees for new water districts right now. SUPERVISOR STEC-Say that again louder please. MR. VANDUSEN-The water rates are too cheap you should raise the rates, no. SUPERVISOR STEC-See that is why you will never get elected. That dog don’t hunt. There is no such thing, Ralph. MR. VANDUSEN-But the average resident in Queensbury is right now getting very, very affordable water compared to most of their neighbors in the State. COUNCILMAN BREWER-We would like to keep it that way. SUPERVISOR STEC-We like it like that. COUNCILMAN BREWER-We would like to take this hundred and sixteen thousand out of contingency out of this number here. I don’t like those contingencies. MR. VANDUSEN-And I will answer any questions that you have. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-This is time to, this project is, we are going to put the pipe in irregardless of when the road gets widened? MR. VANDUSEN-What is being discussed right now within the project is the utilities, water, sewer and the over head utilities would be installed as the first phase of the project. That would be envision as next year and then the road itself would be finalized the following construction season, it is a two construction season project and Don Fletcher is here he can address the rest of the project if you are interested. SUPERVISOR STEC-Anything else to add Ralph I will COUNCILMAN BREWER-It is a two season project Ralph? 35 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 MR. VANDUSEN-One for water/sewer and utilities and one for the road. SUPERVISOR STEC-I will open the public hearing if there is any member of the public that would like to comment on authorizing the water district improvements along Main Street in the Consolidated Water District just ask that you raise your hand. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Ralph just one other question, where is that pipe going to go, in the center of the road? MR. VANDUSEN-That is a good question, when you start looking at the utilities that are in the ground and what has got to go in with burying utilities the water line would actually be underneath the new blacktop. So, what the Superintendent has currently asked us to do is leave services for vacant lots that if indeed they do get built you do not have to go tear up the road you can tie into that service. But, the water line would be underneath the proposed blacktop. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-The existing line is underneath the road too? MR. VANDUSEN-The current line is currently underneath the road, yes. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thanks Ralph, the public hearing is open if anyone would like to comment on this one regarding water and again the wastewater one will be following. Mr. Tucker MR. PLINEY TUCKER-Pliney Tucker 41 Division Road Going back a little bit Ron Montesi was around but the rest of you guys wasn’t around when this thing first showed up. I don’t know if Ralph remembers it or not but there was a lot of conversation that there would be Federal and State Funds available for upgrading this water line is that still? COUNCILMAN BREWER-There is always that possibility and I think he mentioned it in the map, plan and report. For inkind COUNCILMAN MONTESI-It would be the Department of Health for grants? SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea. Please Ralph MR. VANDUSEN-What Pliney is referring to is when the project was first mentioned and actually nothing has changed in that regard that if any water line have to be replaced as, becomes necessary to replace any of those water lines because of the road construction then as part of the project cost the money that comes in from the State would actually pay for a portion of that cost. What that means is if there is an eight inch line and you have to replace the line and the town chooses to put twelve then the State would typically reimburse the cost of the eight inch and town would be responsible for increasing the size up to twelve. That was what was discussed what Pliney is referring to and absolutely nothing has changed in that regard. So, I think there is an excellent possibility that you will be getting a portion of that cost back as part of this project. MR. TUCKER-One thing has changed the price of it has gone up quite a bit. MR. VANDUSEN-The price of everything has gone up. MR. TUCKER-The whole project was what you are going to get for the water line when it first started. SUPERVISOR STEC-Is there anyone else that would like to address the Board on this public hearing? Yes, Doctor DR. PATRICIA EVANS-My name is Patricia Evans and I own the North Country cat hospital at 13 Main Street I am actually here to comment on the next public hearing on the sewer district but I do have a question, will the property owners be mandated to hook 36 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 into this new water system? Will they have to do it at their own expense as has been told to us about the sewer system? What is going to be the cost to the individual property owner for hooking into the water system? UNKNOWN-There is no cost. DR. EVANS-There is no cost? SUPERVISOR STEC-Ralph why don’t you MR. VANDUSEN-Any customers like yourself that currently have town water to your building now would be connected into the new line at no cost. DR. EVANS-I understand that but there are many, many properties on Main Street that are not hooked into the water. MR. VANDUSEN-If there is a vacant piece of property that chooses to hook in at a later date then they would be treated just like they would be today, they would have to pay a connection fee for that. DR. EVANS-Every home on that street is connected to the water system right now? MR. VANDUSEN-That is correct. DR. EVANS-Ok. That answers that question. Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Are there any other comments on this public hearing? Any comments or questions from Board Members before I close it? I will close the public hearing. Any discussion I will entertain a motion. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WATER DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS ALONG MAIN STREET IN THE QUEENSBURY CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 522, 2008 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 120,2003, the Queensbury Town Board authorized and approved improvements to the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, such improvements being the replacement of a water main along Main Street in the Town of Queensbury as described in a Map and Plan (Map, Plan and Report) prepared by Barton & Loguidice, P.C., professional engineers (Barton) dated November, 2002, and WHEREAS, the Town Water Superintendent previously advised the Town Board that it was necessary that Barton update the Map, Plan and Report for the proposed Water District improvements to (a) reflect increased estimated project costs for the projected construction schedule, (b) meet procedural requirements for special districts and (c) add an additional water main to the design drawings along the approximately 1,000 feet of Big Boom Road to be realigned and the connection to the Main Street water main; the 37 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 Town Board authorized Barton to update such Map, Plan and Report and Barton provided a revised Map, Plan and Report dated August, 2006, and WHEREAS, the Town Water Superintendent again advised the Town Board that it would be necessary that Barton update the Map, Plan and Report for the proposed Water District improvements to reflect further increased estimated project costs for the projected 2009construction schedule, and the Town Board authorized Barton to update such Map, Plan and Report, and WHEREAS, the revised Map, Plan and Report dated August, 2008 has been prepared by Barton and filed in the Queensbury Town Clerk's Office and is available for public inspection, and WHEREAS, the Map, Plan and Report describes the proposed improvement, exactly what work is proposed to be done and an estimate of the cost, and WHEREAS, the Town Board accepts such revised Map, Plan and Report as the Map, Plan and Report for the Water District improvements, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize such improvements to the Queensbury Consolidated Water District and the replacement of the currently obsolete, inadequate or worn-out water main along Main Street, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 119,2003, the Queensbury Town Board, as SEQRA Lead Agency, conducted a coordinated SEQRA review and, after considering the action, approved a SEQRA Negative Declaration for the Project, and rd WHEREAS, on November 3, 2008, subsequent to the filing of the Map, Plan and Report with the Town Clerk, the Town Board adopted an Order (the “Public Hearing Order”) reciting (a) the proposed improvements; (b) the maximum amount proposed to be expended for the improvements; (c) the fact that a Map, Plan and Report describing the improvements is on file in the Town Clerk’s Office; and (d) the time and place of a public hearing on the proposed Water District improvements, and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed Water District improvements was th duly held on Monday, November 17, 2008 and the Town Board has considered the evidence given together with other information, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize the proposed Water District improvements in accordance with Town Law §202-b, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 38 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 RESOLVED, that it is the determination of the Queensbury Town Board that: 1. The Notice of Public Hearing was published and posted as required by law and is otherwise sufficient; 2. It is in the public interest to authorize and approve the improvements to the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, such improvements being the replacement of a water main along Main Street in the Town of Queensbury as described in the Map, Plan and Report on file with the Queensbury Town Clerk; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and approves the improvements to the Queensbury Consolidated Water District as set forth above and in the previously described Map, Plan and Report and construction of the improvements may proceed and service provided subject to the following: 1. the obtaining of any necessary permits or approvals from the New York State Department of Health; and 2. the obtaining of any necessary permits or approvals from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT:None 3.4 Public Hearing – Approving Creation of West Queensbury Sanitary Sewer District NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: November 7, 2008 SUPERVISOR STEC-Likewise in a similar vein Ralph and Mike I do not know if you would like to shed a little bit more light on what we are doing with wastewater and this would approve the creation of West Queensbury Sanitary Sewer District and I believe you already got an idea of what one of the questions are and certainly we have done a lot of new sewer districts in the last few years. Route 9 and South Queensbury to name a couple and I imagine that this one will be handled in a similar way as far as the tie in requirements go. Why don’t I let you lead us thorough your presentation. MR. RALPH VANDUSEN-Since the beginning of discussions relating to rebuilding Main Street or the transition of the Main Street Corridor from residential to what we are seeing it develop into now, there has been interest in creating a public sewer on that street. Right now the entire section is serviced by individual septic systems and a lot of businesses, a lot of commercial development have switched over and are still using those 39 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 private septic systems or installed new but there has been a great deal of interest and requests to the Town to create a sewer district in that area that would provide municipal sewers for them. In that light the town at the same time hired Barton and Loguidice to do evaluation of replacing the water line they hired Barton and Loguidice to do an evaluation of the cost to create a sewer district. Keeping in mind not only do we want, does the town want a sewer the section of between the Northway and the City Line but there was some commercial growth and development to the west of the Northway and the potential for more customers in the future coming from the west or from some of the side streets, coming into Main Street. So, from the very beginning we were asked to when you are designing this don’t just look at that small ribbon along Main Street give some thought as to where some future growth might go if we are going to be putting in a gravity sewer line lets put it in so it is sized so that if we do need to grow by a little bit that the capacity is there that we are not limiting ourselves for future growth down the road. In that light the plan as it is currently drawn as is proposed now would be a gravity sewer line from the City Line heading west roughly to the intersection of Big Bay Road. It would currently end at on the western edge of Big Bay Road. It will consist of approximately six thousand three hundred and fifty feet of gravity sewer main we have an estimated project cost of one million five hundred and sixty thousand dollars. Now, I mentioned earlier that the Town had asked us to take a look at the size this pipe and provide for future growth outside the district boundaries in the area to the west of this district and also with some of the side streets. So, the plastic sewer line that we are looking at would be large enough to handle some additional flow coming from the west. In all likely hood any growth in that area would probably have to pump to get it there. To try and get gravity much farther west would be a little difficult. We are also, I will call them stubs, sewer lines have been installed across Main Street on each of the side streets to the north to allow for future connection from that direction if indeed that ever becomes a reality. Again, keeping in mind that we don’t want to have to go dig up the road if we do not have to for future growth. Just liked we talked about in the water district. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Ralph just a question, that would include the existing sewer district that included McDonalds, and the hotel and motel on the west side MR. VANDUSEN-We tend to think of it not as business but the reality is it would stop roughly where the Stewarts complex is, that would be in the current district that would be the west…property. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-The next question is, there is a large industrial park that is un-sewered that probably hasn’t had much growth because of the lack of sewers. Potentially that would probably in my eyes be the next biggest customer in terms of capacity is, will a line be able to handle something like that Carey Industrial Park? MR. VANDUSEN-The short answer is yes the long is obviously it depends what goes in there and if a high intensity water industry goes in that is using a million gallons of water a day then the answer is no. But for the type of development you are seeing that is going on in that section, yes, it should be able to handle that. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Thank you. MR. VANDUSEN-As far as cost go we are looking at the district portion meaning that area within the initial district there share would be one million four hundred thousand, the town general fund would put in a hundred and sixty thousand dollars for future for use for future expansion out side the existing district and then the town could be reimbursed as future customers came in or future district extensions came in that use that capacity and that would be up to the board to set that payment schedule. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Could be, would be MR. VANDUSEN-That is up to the people on that side of the table. It would be your decision. Using a thirty year bond and 4.88% interest the same as we used in the water district the first year debt service is $89,830.00 the Director of Wastewater has asked that we use a funding mechanism that is similar to the other sewer districts in that there is a 40 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 point value so that the cost is broken down to $162.44 per point your typical residential home would be 3 points or $487.32 for the first year. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-What was it three what? MR. VANDUSEN-$487.32 COUNCILMAN STROUGH-That is just capital costs. MR. VANDUSEN-That is just capital if you look at overall total first year cost for a typical single family home it is projected that there cost would be $662.32 the State Comptrollers limit is $667.00 so they are right at that limit. Again, there is a map that show that, but it is basically a gravity sewer line that is going to run from Big Bay Road down to and tie into the existing sewer line at the City. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-That is a pretty good deal too, because a septic tank pump out is a couple hundred bucks, right? MR. VANDUSEN-I would be thrilled to pay that at my house, I will tell you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thanks for the advertisement. Mike the question is going to be the transition over to this new district, somebody who is not tied in I imagine it is going to be, it is not going to be handled differently than we have handled Route 9 Sewer right? WASTEWATER DIRECTOR MIKE SHAW-Correct our current code allows a parcel to be connected within a year and then currently if they want an extension they go before the Board for an extension or ask or request an extension. SUPERVISOR STEC-They could apply to the Board for an extension, we have granted extensions for a variety of reasons underlying for more than two years now. DIRECTOR SHAW-Correct the cost of that connection will be borne by the property owner we will leave a stub at the property line for them to connect at. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-That is fair. Everyone all the time if they hook up right a way or if they wait they still have to pay their connection fee. DIRECTOR SHAW-Correct COUNICILMAN BREWER-Right COUNCILMAN METIVIER-What is that fee? DIRECTOR SHAW-The connection fees area basically what it costs them to connect. We only charge a ten dollar inspection fee. SUPERVISOR STEC-A ball park to tie in I know every property is different but what might that range be? DIRECTOR SHAW-That certainly is a wide open ball park because you do not know SUPERVISOR STEC-Digging up a parking lot or not. DIRECTOR SHAW-How deep their lines are how long their lines are what kind of plumbing issues they have inside their house. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-You take that Pizza Hut the hook up is probably in the back of the building where the septic is so you would have to run a line a little longer. DIRECTOR SHAW-And certainly with a restaurant they are required to have grease traps. If you take a residential along that corridor they sit kind of close to the road and 41 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 you would think they have old plumbing inside so they would have to do some plumbing inside I would certainly think it would be a two thousand dollar range. SUPERVISOR STEC-Two thousand for a residential type property. DIRECTOR SHAW-That certainly is a guess it varies for a lot of conditions, but that is less than a septic system would cost. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-And if they do not tie in, they still have to pay the six hundred dollars a year right? DIRECTOR SHAW-They have a one year period to make the connection and after that if they want an extension they have to come before the board but the way the extensions are granted they are considered connected if they get an extension in other words they will be billed as if they were connected. SUPERVISOR STEC-So, the savings that a property owner would have would be based on they would avoid the expense of the actual physical connection otherwise they would get billed for the privilege of being in the sewer district. DIRECTOR SHAW-Correct. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-And that only comes to be a problem when some of the commercial ventures where you are guesstimating what their usage is going to be and they are paying based on that. So, it is incumbent upon them to want to hook up. DIRECTOR SHAW-Right, and we are not really guesstimating because we do have all those businesses and houses along that corridor are connected now to water and we do have water meter reading that we can base it on. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I am thinking of the one business that is up set with us. DIRECTOR SHAW-Correct I do not think we have those types of situations on that corridor there. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And the one million five hundred and sixty five thousand dollars the total project includes the buy in with the city? DIRECTOR SHAW-Correct. Includes financing at 4.88% was estimated at that time for a thirty year bond. SUPERVISOR STEC-All right, anything else? I will open the public hearing and if there are any members of the public that would like to comment or ask any questions regarding the creation of the West Queensbury Sanitary Sewer District, Mr. Daniels? MR. DAN DANIELS-When this sewer line goes through is there going to be a line on either side of the road? Two lines or one line. SUPERVISOR STEC-One line, Ralph do you want to describe where the line will be? That is a good question. MR. VANDUSEN-There will be one line on the south side of the road and then for each parcel on the north side there would be a stub that goes across to serve that parcel. At each of the, I will call them cross roads that go to the north there would also be a man hole left at that location. So, for future connections could tie into that. But there would be one gravity sewer line on the south side. MR. DANIELS-Now, when we are talking about this stub, it is going to hook into the south side of the road and go across the water line which is under the road? MR. VANDUSEN-That is correct. 42 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 MR. DANIELS-How far will it go onto the north side of the road when you say a stub. MR. VANDUSEN-The stub this would be an eight inch gravity sewer line will go across, from the sewer main across the road underneath the water line underneath the sidewalk underneath the buried electrical, telephone that sort of thing to the edge of the right of way, the easement, yes. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Fore-instance, Mr. Daniels restaurant it would come up someplace COUNCILMAN METIVIER-Within a very few feet of his building. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Does he have a choice, I mean can he have it pushed down to the end of the property so that, because his septic is in the back so you wouldn’t want it MR. VANDUSEN-What we would typically do, the inspector on the job would meet with each property owner and say we are going to leave a connection for your building, where is it best for you? SUPERVISOR STEC-As much as possible we try to accommodate that? MR. VANDUSEN-Yes. MR. DANIELS-Well I have three different buildings there and each one has its own septic system in the back, and each one will get a stub? MR. VANDUSEN-Each building will have a separate … MR. DANIELS-An eight inch stub? MR. VANDUSEN-They are six inch. MR. DANIELS-Six inch. MR. DANIELS-So, if I have a four inch line that is going out the back I would hook the four inch line into your six? MR. VANDUSEN-You would have to meet the towns code for making that connection. You would re-pipe it to run to the six. Yes. MR. DANIELS-All right, then I was you know I watch these different proceedings all the time about people coming before you all the time about getting the extensions SUPERVISOR STEC-Right. MR. DANIELS-One year, two years, three years everybody keeps coming in it seems very repetitive and I was wondering to myself over the last couple of years why don’t you not bother having all these people come in and waste all your time by giving option of hooking in, they are going to be charged after a year and if they want to take two years or three years to hook in when they hook in what is the difference if they don’t hook in for five years, you are charging them for it anyways. It is like another thousand dollar tax and just let them make the decision because some people have come before you and say well it is going to cost me thirty five thousand dollars to hook into the thing I would rather pay the thousand dollars a year. We are going to have another hundred and fifty people coming in and every time we have another extension of the sewer you are going to have a thousand people coming before you, how many people how many times do you want to go through this? COUNCILMAN BREWER-The number is usually pretty minimal compared to how many people are hooked to it though. If we get a half dozen people on the Lake George Road that come in that is a lot, usually in a year. 43 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 MR. DANIELS-But, it does take a lot of your time and the sewer district keeps getting bigger and bigger. Certainly a chain operation will just go ahead and do it but COUNCILMAN BREWRE-Or new construction. MR. DANIELS-Any of these homeowners that don’t have like Mike said, two thousand dollars, three thousand dollars they just may not be able to do it, it is pretty expensive for a lot of people. Thanks. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thanks Mr. Daniels. Is there anyone else that would like to address the board on this public hearing? Dr. Evans? DR. PATRICIA EVANS-Again my name is Patricia Evans and I own the North Country Cat Hospital at 13 Main Street. First I wanted to thank this Board for the Beautification Award I received this fall, I take great pride in keeping my property looking nice and for the enjoyment of my clients and the public who pass by. That being said I would like to comment on the on going Main Street reconstruction project specifically the newest mandate namely the creation of the sewer district. As you know Main Street is in desperate need of a larger roadway to relieve the commuter congestion. How this project grew from that one basic need to the extravagant vision that has been proposed and designed is an example of government at work to spend the taxpayers money. As I said earlier in March at the previous Public Hearing on the Eminent Domain Proceedings these economic times are near depression levels. With the crumbling economy major infer-structure improvements might need to be post phoned or at least scaled back. When the sewer district was added to the design I was concerned about the cost to each property owner. At a meeting in the former emergency squad building several years ago I asked you Mr. Stec about this and you said to me that hookup to the sewer district would be optional but those whose existing septic system were adequate would not have to hook into the sewer line but those businesses needing the added capacity would now have a sanitary sewer system. Apparently that option has been rescinded and now property owners will have to hook into the sewer system. To add insult to injury property owners will have to make their own arrangements for this hookup at their expense, they will have to disconnect and decommission their existing septic systems even though they function well and they even have to pay a permit fee of ten dollars to the Town of Queensbury to be allowed to do this. Once those initial costs are paid we will then be paying yearly in our taxes, just to enlighten all those property owners and this Board who make these decisions regarding our taxes. My January 2008 Town and County tax notice less the County Tax totaled Three hundred and eighty three dollars and ninety two cents, pretty modest. This number consists of five items emergency medical, fire protection, Crandall Public Library, the West Queensbury Lighting District, and the Queensbury Water District. Now, with the proposed sewer district an average of six hundred dollars will be added to each property town tax that is almost the double the total of all the other town taxes and yet Queensbury touts its fiscal policy of quote no town tax. I doubt that most people who live on Main Street are aware of this. So, to conclude how many cats do I need to spay, how many tv sets does Mr. Whitney need to repair how many shoes does Mr. Merrill need to resole? How many ice cream cones, pizzas, donuts and bagels have to be sold to pay this added tax every year? And we are the fortunate ones, we are commercial properties generating income. Where does the homeowner find an extra six hundred dollars every year to pay for a sewer system that will benefit a few but perhaps not necessary for most. Please don’t get me wrong I very much want to see the roadway widened and the new shoulders and sidewalks installed and please consider us the property owners when you mandate a sewer system and name us the beneficiaries yet we will carry the burden of the cost for years to come. Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Is there anyone else that would like to address the Board on this public hearing? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. RESOLUTION APPROVING CREATION OF WEST QUEENSBURY SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 523, 2008 44 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 118,2003, the Queensbury Town Board established, authorized and approved creation of the West Queensbury Sanitary Sewer District (Sewer District) as described in a Map, Plan and Report prepared by Barton & Loguidice, P.C., professional engineers, (Barton) dated December, 2002 and revised September, 2004, and WHEREAS, the Town Wastewater Director previously advised the Town Board that it is necessary that Barton update the Map, Plan and Report for the West Queensbury Sanitary Sewer District to reflect estimated project costs for the projected construction schedule and to meet procedural requirements for special districts, the Town Board authorized Barton to update such Map, Plan and Report and Barton updated the Map, Plan and Report in November, 2006, and WHEREAS, the Town Wastewater Director advised the Town Board that it is necessary that Barton again update the Map, Plan and Report to reflect increased estimated project costs for the projected 2009 construction schedule and the Town Board authorized Barton to update such Map, Plan and Report, and WHEREAS, the revised Map, Plan and Report dated August, 2008 has been filed in the Queensbury Town Clerk's Office and is available for public inspection, and WHEREAS, the revised Map, Plan and Report delineates the boundaries of the proposed Sewer District, a general plan of the proposed sewer system, a report of the proposed sewer system and method of operation, estimated project costs for the projected 2009construction schedule and meets procedural requirements for special districts, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 117,2003, the Queensbury Town Board, as SEQRA Lead Agency, conducted a coordinated SEQRA review and after considering the action, approved a SEQRA Negative Declaration for the Project, and rd WHEREAS, on November 3, 2008 subsequent to the filing of the Map, Plan and Report with the Town Clerk, the Town Board adopted an Order (the “Public Hearing Order”) reciting (a) the boundaries of the proposed Sewer District; (b) the proposed improvements; (c) the maximum amount proposed to be expended for the improvements; (d) the estimated cost of hook-up fees (if any) and the cost of the Sewer District to the typical property and the typical one or two family home (if not the typical property); (e) the proposed method of financing to be employed; (f) the fact that a Map, Plan and Report 45 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 describing the improvements is on file in the Town Clerk’s Office; and (g) the time and place of a public hearing on the proposed Sewer District, and WHEREAS, copies of the Public Hearing Order were duly published and posted and were filed with the Office of the State Comptroller, all as required by law, and WHEREAS, prior to publication of the Public Hearing Order, a detailed explanation of how the estimated cost of hook-up fees (if any) and the cost of the Sewer District to the typical property and typical one or two family home (if not the typical property) were computed was filed with the Town Clerk for public inspection, and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed Sewer District was duly held on th Monday, November 17, 2008 and the Town Board has considered the evidence given together with other information, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to establish the proposed Sewer District as detailed in the Map, Plan and Report in accordance with Town Law Article 12-A, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby determines that: 1.Notice of Public Hearing was published and posted as required by law and is otherwise sufficient; 2.All property and property owners within the Sewer District are thereby benefited; 3.All property and property owners benefited are included within the limits of the Sewer District; 4.It is in the public interest to establish, authorize, and approve the creation of the West Queensbury Sanitary Sewer District as described in the Map, Plan and Report on file with the Queensbury Town Clerk; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby approves, authorizes and establishes the West Queensbury Sanitary Sewer District in accordance with the boundaries and descriptions set forth above and in the previously described Map, Plan and Report and construction of the improvements may proceed and service provided subject to the following: 46 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 1.The obtaining of any necessary permits or approvals from the New York State Department of Health; 2.The obtaining of any necessary permits or approvals from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; 3.Permissive referendum in the manner provided in New York State Town Law Article 7; and 4.The adoption of a Final Order by the Queensbury Town Board; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this Resolution is subject to permissive referendum in accordance with the provisions of New York State Town Law Articles 7 and 12-A and shall not take effect until such time as provided therein and the Town Board authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to file, post and publish such notice of this Resolution as may be required by law and to cause to be prepared and have available for distribution proper forms for the petition and shall distribute a supply to any person requesting such petition and if no such petition is filed within 30 days to file a certificate to that effect in the Office of the County Clerk. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT:None 3.0 HEARINGS 3.1Hearing – Ordering Demolition Of Unsafe Structure Owned by Damian and Patricia Kilmartin and Located at 13 Columbia Avenue, Queensbury SUPERVISOR STEC-We had set this hearing a while back, Dave Hatin is here in case the Board has any questions I will point out that it gives a deadline to demolish the thth structure by December 17 and if it is not finished by December 17 this would authorized the Director of Building and Codes Enforcement to take the necessary action to have the structure demolished for not to exceed fifteen thousand and that amount would be billed back against the property taxes. So, with that said Dave do you have anything is there anything different with the property since you set this hearing? 47 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND CODES DAVE HATIN-There has been no change in the property. Just so the Board is aware, this is a vacant piece of property where I did find two vagrants living. They seem to be in and out of their occasionally just by visits to the property it seems to be a, things moved around, so this property is open to the public and being utilized by vagrants. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Do you have photo’s Dave? DIRECTOR HATIN-Yes. COUNCIMLAN BREWER-That is what we are looking for. COUNCILMAN MONTSI-Dave will the, do you feel that we are going to have to demolish it or is there DIRECTOR HATIN-I have had no contact with the owners of record. I have left certified letters, I have letters on their door step by the address that we have and no response. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Would you have to go to bid to DIRECTOR HATIN-Yea, we will put it out to bid and also I talked to Bob Hafner who is also seeks a State Supreme Court Action, Order I should say, to cover the town with this. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-So, it is conceivable you haven’t had any contact with these people it is conceivable that even taking the building down you may not have any contact with them. DIRECTOR HATIN-That is correct. SUPERVISOR STEC-They are not present tonight, are they the owners? DIRECTOR HATIN-I am not aware if they are? SUPERVISOR STEC-A lot of these pictures are making their way, nothing has changed since we declared this an unsafe structure. DIRECTOR HATIN-No, I started this about three months ago and nothing has changed. SUPERVISOR STEC-This is just a hearing so I do not need to open or close anything it is just a hearing between us and Dave. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-If the property owner were here you would give them a chance to speak. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-So, what is the next step do we make a resolution to SUPERVISOR STEC-We pass this resolution to have it ordered demolished or if not demolished, Dave could have it demolished and then it would show up on their taxes. A picture says a thousand words and you have several pictures here Dave. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-You did confirm that the Kilmartin’s were not here? SUPERVISOR STEC-I will do that one more time, is anyone that owns this property here the Kilmartins, 13 Colombia Avenue, Damian and Patricia not here, not seeing any Bob, thanks. If the Board does not have anything for Dave, close this hearing and entertain a motion. RESOLUTION ORDERING DEMOLITION OF UNSAFE STRUCTURE OWNED BY DAMIAN AND PATRICIA KILMARTIN AND LOCATED AT 13 COLUMBIA AVENUE, QUEENSBURY 48 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 RESOLUTION NO. 524, 2008 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury’s Director of Building and Codes Enforcement (Director) inspected a mobile home on property owned by Damian and Patricia Kilmartin located at 13 Columbia Avenue in the Town of Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 309.7-1-27) and found that vagrants were living in the abandoned mobile home, the structure is showing signs of neglect and lack of maintenance, unhealthy conditions exist inside and it is in general disrepair, and the exterior of the structure is not being maintained, and so the structure is generally in disrepair, unusable and unsafe, and WHEREAS, the Director advised Mr. and Mrs. Kilmartin to take appropriate measures to ensure that the structure be immediately vacated and then demolished as more th specifically set forth in the Director’s August 26, 2008 letter to the Kilmartins, and WHEREAS, the Director advised the Queensbury Town Board that in his opinion the structure is dangerous and unsafe to the general public and therefore would like the Town Board to take action if the property owner fails to vacate and remove the structure from the property, and th WHEREAS, on Monday, October 20, 2008, the Town Board declared the structure on the property to be dangerous and unsafe to the public, and WHEREAS, the Town Board held a hearing concerning this property on Monday, th November 17, 2008 and notice of this hearing was served in accordance with the provisions of New York State Town Law §130(16) and Queensbury Town Code Chapter 60, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby orders Damian and Patricia Kilmartin to immediately vacate and demolish the structure located at 13 Columbia Avenue in the Town of Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 309.7-1-27) and complete such work by 5:00 th p.m., December 17, 2008, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that if the garbage is not removed and the roof and structure not th boarded up and secured by December 17, 2008, the Town Board hereby authorizes and 49 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 directs the Director of Building and Codes Enforcement to make the necessary arrangements to demolish the structure, such demolition work not to exceed an amount up to $15,000.00, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that in accordance with New York State Town Law §130(16) and Queensbury Town Code Chapter 60, reparation/removal expenses may be assessed against the real property and the Town Board may authorize and direct Town Counsel to institute an action to collect the cost of the repairs or removal, including legal expenses, if necessary. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier NOES: None ABSENT:None PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR (Limit – 4 Minutes) 4.0 MR. ANDREW TERRY-8 Mountain Hollow Way In March we had a flood, since then many residents are still have the effects, since March I have had three floods in my residence. We were promised some type of drainage system to alleviate the situation, what are we doing about this and how long will it take? SUPERVISOR STEC-We have been trying to work with the Hayes Group since this initially came to our attention. The Town did site them a Court Appearance and that has been delayed because they did submit an application before the Planning Board, within the last two weeks. They should be going in front of the Planning Board in the near future. I know that they have an engineer that is working on it. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Mr. Ryan and I were over that, at the last incident at that time they had just submitted their paper work. Engineer Ryan is looking in to the situation. SUPERVISOR STEC-Noted the reason why the Town has a hook here as far as Planning Board and Code Enforcement on them is that what has been constructed out there the town’s position is that reality on the ground does not match their original approval. The site plan does not match the as built condition they need to rectify that. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-We want to see with you a long term solution. I think in your homeowners association after X number of years of the building has passed it will become the homeowners association’s responsibility. We don’t want this to be a burden on you. MR. PLINEY TUCKER-41 Division Road, Queensbury I asked two weeks ago I asked about the contracts with the Highway Dept. SUPERVISOR STEC-It was a contract with all the department, a resolution to be brought before the Board tonight. Noted that the Union did approve it. 50 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 MR. TUCKER-Re: Health Insurance A couple guys asked me to have the Town Board explain in a public meeting they mentioned the fact that they have third party billing. SUPERVISOR STEC-There is going to be a third party, with a resolution to be acted on tonight. Their co-pays have been increased and there is a re-imbursement allowance in the contract that will allow the town to reimburse the employees of the difference of the increased co-pay. To have the higher co-pay the difference to the town and the taxpayer is a lower premium. MR. TUCKER-re: County Taxes Queensbury’s share increase was 5.39% is that before the rebate SUPERVISOR STEC-That is including the rebate. The Queensbury’s increase will be significantly less than 5.39%. MR. TUCKER-Res. 519.2008 SUPERVISOR STEC-We are correcting an error, we inadvertently had the wrong number of years, should be 5 years. MR. TUCKER-Will this have any effect on the lawsuit? SUPERVISOR STEC-This is about the lawsuit. MR. TUCKER-Questioned the lawsuit brought by Mr. Salvador SUPERVISOR STEC-We will not comment on that, it is ongoing litigation. 5.0RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND TOWN OF QUEENSBURY UNIT OF CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC. (CSEA) RESOLUTION NO.: 525, 2008 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi st WHEREAS, on or about January 1, 2003, the Town of Queensbury (Town) entered into an Agreement with the Town of Queensbury Unit of the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. (CSEA) regarding employment of the Town’s CSEA members, and st WHEREAS, the Agreement terminated on December 31, 2007, and WHEREAS, the Town and the CSEA negotiated terms and have come to an agreement concerning a new Collective Bargaining Agreement to be executed between the parties, and 51 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 WHEREAS, the new Collective Bargaining Agreement will include health insurance cost sharing information and such formula has been presented at this meeting along with the October 21, 2008 Memorandum of Agreement agreed to by the Union, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves, affirms and ratifies the October 21, 2008 Memorandum of Agreement between the Town of Queensbury and Town of Queensbury Unit of the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute a new Collective Bargaining Agreement for the years 2008 through 2010, such new Collective Bargaining Agreement to incorporate the October 21, 2008 Memorandum of Agreement terms and health insurance cost sharing information, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs a 3.5% retroactive salary increase for the Union Members for 2008 and authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to make the appropriate corresponding transfers from the appropriate contingency funds, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Budget Officer to take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi NOES : None ABSENT: None Discussion held before vote: Supervisor Stec-Thanked the negotiating team, Councilman Brewer, Councilman Montesi, Barbara Tierney and our Special Counsel Larry Paltrowitz and also thanked Sue Sheehan the Union President and her team for a spirited and vigorous negotiation which resulted in a fair contract in my humble opinion. 52 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING DONNA PARTRIDGE AS MEMBER OF TOWN OF QUEENSBURY CEMETERY COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 526, 2008 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury previously established the Town of Queensbury Cemetery Commission in accordance with applicable New York State law, and WHEREAS, the present term of Cemetery Commission member Donna Partridge st will expire on December 31, 2008 and the Town Board wishes to reappoint Ms. Partridge st to the Commission for a three year term commencing January 1, 2009, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby reappoints Donna Partridge as a member of the Town of Queensbury Cemetery Commission to serve a three year term stst to commence January 1, 2009 and expire December 31, 2011. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION APPROVING NEW FEE SCHEDULE FOR SERVICES PROVIDED AT PINE VIEW CEMETERY AND CREMATORIUM RESOLUTION NO.: 527, 2008 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Cemetery Commission has requested Town Board approval for increases in the prices charged by the Pine View Cemetery and Crematorium in order to assist in offsetting an increase in operating costs as set forth in the Commission’s Memorandum to the Town Board, with proposed new fee schedule, dated th November 5, 2008 and presented at this meeting, 53 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the new fee schedule for services provided at the Pine View Cemetery and Crematorium as presented at this meeting and as follows: Pine View Cemetery and Crematory Outside Cemetery Openings Lots: Per grave any multiple $600 Weekday $650** Urn Garden Lots, any multiple $300 Saturday $850** Grave Opening: Sundays and Holidays: Weekday $600** Closed on Sundays. $1000** Holidays only if feasible and at the Saturday $750** Discretion of the Superintendent of Cemeteries Small Child (Vault) Weekday $270** Small Child (Vault) Saturday $325** Infant Weekday $180** Infant Saturday $240** Cremation Interment: Weekday $225** Saturday $345** Cremation: Adult $350 Children 13 mo. – 12 yrs $200 Stillborn thru 12 mo. $150 Overtime Cremations $200 Extra Mausoleum Interment: Weekday $245** Saturday $300** Disinterment: Mon. – Fri. $600** Saturday $750** Miscellaneous: Vault Rental $150 Mailers $ 40 Cardboards $ 40 Refrigeration Rental Per Day $ 50 (Extended Storage) Funerals after 3 pm $200 Extra Call-ins $200 54 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 Extra stst **WINTER BURIAL PERIOD is December 1 through March 31 if conditions allow. There is an additional charge of $125 during this period and BE IT FURTHER, st RESOLVED, that the new fees shall take effect as of January 1, 2009, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Town Cemetery Superintendent and/or Town Budget Officer to take any and all action necessary to effectuate the new fee schedule. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2008 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR FUNDS FROM NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES RESOLUTION NO.: 528, 2008 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury’s Accountant has advised the Town Board that the Town is eligible to apply for reimbursement funds from the New York State Office of Children & Family Services (NYS OCFS) relating to the support of the Warren County Youth Court, and WHEREAS, the Town’s Accountant has requested Town Board authorization to prepare a fund application in the amount of $5,000 or 33% of the total amount of support proposed for the Warren County Youth Court in 2009, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 55 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town’s Accountant to prepare the application for Youth Development/Delinquency Prevention Youth Services Funds from the New York State Office of Children and Family Services and further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Town Budget Officer and/or Accountant to execute the funding application and take any other action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF 2009 FORD RANGER XL SUPER CAB 4 X 4 FOR USE BY TOWN OF QUEENSBURY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 529, 2008 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury’s Director of Building & Codes has advised the Town Board that he wishes to purchase one (1) 2009 Ford Ranger XL Super Cab 4x4 for use by the Town’s Community Development Department (Building & Codes), and WHEREAS, New York State Bidding is not required as the purchase is under New York State Contract No.: PC62882, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the Director of Building & Codes Enforcement’s purchase of one (1) 2009 Ford Ranger XL Super Cab 4x4 from Fairport Ford, LLC in accordance with New York State Contract #PC62882 for an amount not to exceed $16,946.85 to be paid from funds budgeted in the current year from Account No.: 001-3620-2020, and BE IT FURTHER, 56 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to take any and all actions necessary to amend the 2008 budget as follows: From To Code Appropriation Code Appropriation $ Buildings&Codes Salary 001-3620-1010 B&C Vehicles 001-3620-2020 5,000 Zoning Salary 001-8010-1010 B&C Vehicles 001-3620-2020 6,000 Planning Salary 001-8020-1010 B&C Vehicles 001-3620-2020 5,947 and effectuate such 2008 Budget Amendment, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Director of Building & Codes Enforcement 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 17 day of November, 2008 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND FRIENDS OF MOUNTAINSIDE LIBRARY RESOLUTION NO. 530, 2008 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury wishes to enter into an agreement with the Friends of Mountainside Library, and WHEREAS, a proposed Agreement has been presented at this meeting and is in form approved by Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 57 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the Agreement between the Town and Friends of Mountainside Library for the year 2008 with funding for the Agreement not exceeding the sum of $1,500 and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Agreement, with funding to be paid for from the appropriate Town account. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION RESTATING PURPOSE OF HIGHWAY GARAGE ROOF RESERVE FUND RESOLUTION NO.: 531, 2008 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 732 of 1989, the Queensbury Town Board authorized a change of certain Capital Project Funds to Reserve Funds including Highway Garage Reserve Fund R27, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 563,1990, the Town Board established a Capital Project Fund for improvements to the Highway and Garage Buildings, known as Highway Garage Roof Fund #H-55, and WHEREAS, the Highway Garage roof repairs project was completed, and WHEREAS, there is approximately $123,000 remaining in the Highway Garage Roof Fund, and WHEREAS, such remaining funds are therefore not needed for Highway Garage roof repairs but are needed for other Highway Garage improvements, and WHEREAS, although the title of the Reserve would indicate that the monies in such Funds are to be used for Highway Department functions, in actuality, the Town’s Building and Grounds Department maintains the Highway Garage building and therefore, the 58 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 Highway Reserve Funds should instead be General Reserve Funds which would then provide for the Town to make needed repairs at the Highway Garage, and WHEREAS, the Town Board therefore wishes to restate the purpose of the Highway Garage Reserve Funds such that the Town may expend monies from such Funds for other Highway Garage projects, and not just for the specific purpose of roof repairs, and therefore, should be transferred to the General Fund Reserves, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs that the approximately $123,000 contained in the Highway Garage Roof Fund may be used toward improvements at the Highway Garage and not just for specific roof repairs, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the transfer of such approximately $123,000 from the Capital Reserve Funds back to the General Fund, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Budget Officer to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this Resolution is subject to a permissive referendum in accordance with the provisions of Town Law Article 7 and the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to publish and post such notices and take such other actions as may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF AQUATIC COMMERCIAL SOLUTIONS FOR GURNEY LANE POOL REPAIRS 59 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 RESOLUTION NO.: 532, 2008 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury’s Director of Parks and Recreation (Director) has advised the Town Board that there is a major leak at the Gurney Lane Pool and therefore the Director requested proposals from contractors to provide needed Pool repairs, and WHEREAS, Aquatic Commercial Solutions (ACS) has offered to provide such repairs for the approximate amount of $14,124, although the cost could be higher should ACS discover unexpected problems once they begin to jackhammer the pool’s concrete, and WHEREAS, there are sufficient funds in the Recreation Department’s 2008 operating budget to cover repair costs, and WHEREAS, the Director and Recreation Commission have recommended Town Board authorization to engage the services of ACS, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs engagement of Aquatic Commercial Solutions (ACS) to make needed repairs at the Gurney Lane Pool for the approximate amount of $14,124 with the understanding that the cost may be higher depending upon the cause of the leak once ACS has completed a physical inspection, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that expenses for this project shall be paid for from the Facility Repairs Account No.: 001-7110-4823 and/or Misc. Contractual Account No.: 001-7110- 4400, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to take any and all actions necessary to amend the 2008 budget as follows: From To Code Appropriation Code Appropriation $ Salaries 001-7020-1010 Misc. Contr. 001-7110-4400 5,000 Salaries 001-7020-1010 FacilityRepairs 001-7110-4823 15,000 60 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 and effectuate such 2008 Budget Amendment, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute any necessary forms or agreements related to this project and further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Director of Parks and Recreation and/or Budget Officer to take all action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION APPOINTING CHARLES DYER AS BUILDING AND CODES ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ON PERMANENT BASIS RESOLUTION NO. 533, 2008 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 104,2005, the Queensbury Town Board appointed Charles Dyer as Building and Codes Enforcement Officer on a provisional basis conditioned upon passage of the Warren County Civil Service Exam for such position and subject to a six month probation period, and WHEREAS, Mr. Dyer successfully completed his six month probationary period as Building and Codes Enforcement Officer, and WHEREAS, Mr. Dyer applied for an exemption from taking the Warren County Civil Service Exam and for an application for a Civil Service Law §55-a appointment based upon a disability within the meaning of the law, and WHEREAS, the Warren County Department of Civil Service has advised the Town that Mr. Dyer has been approved by the New York State Office for Vocational and Education Services for Individuals With Disabilities as eligible for a Civil Service Law §55- a appointment and therefore Mr. Dyer is exempt from taking the Warren County Civil 61 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 Service Test for the Building and Codes Enforcement Officer position but has demonstrated he can perform the essential functions of the position and therefore is eligible to be appointed to the position of Building and Codes Enforcement Officer, and WHEREAS, the Town Supervisor and Director of Building and Codes Enforcement have also attested to Mr. Dyer’s ability to perform those tasks essential in performance of the duties for the Building and Codes Enforcement Officer position, and WHEREAS, the Town Board may therefore appoint Mr. Dyer on a permanent basis, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby appoints Charles Dyer to the position of Building and Codes Enforcement Officer on a permanent basis commencing th November 18, 2008, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Director of Building and Codes Enforcement and/or Town Budget Officer to complete any forms necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2008 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPOINTMENT OF BARBARA SEYMOUR AS TEMPORARY ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER RESOLUTION NO.: 534, 2008 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, the Town’s full-time Animal Control Officer (ACO) is currently out of work and such vacancy is expected to last less than 30 days, and 62 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 WHEREAS, it will be necessary to hire a Temporary ACO until such time that the Town’s full-time Animal Control Officer returns to work and so the Director of Building and Codes Enforcement (Director) reviewed resumes and interviewed interested candidates, and WHEREAS, the Director has made a hiring recommendation and has requested Town Board approval of an appointment, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the hiring of Barbara Seymour as the Town’s Animal Control Officer on a temporary basis th effective on or about November 18, 2008, such vacancy expected to last less than 30 days, until such time that the full-time Animal Control Officer returns to work, subject to the Town successfully completing background checks as reasonably may be necessary to judge fitness for the duties for which hired, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that Ms. Seymour shall be paid at the rate of $15.15 hourly to be paid from the appropriate payroll account, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Director of Building and Codes Enforcement and/or Town Budget Officer to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier NOES : None ABSENT : None RESOLUTION AWARDING BID FOR SENIOR CITIZENS TRANSPORTATION TO WARREN-HAMILTON COUNTIES ACEO, INC. - COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY RESOLUTION NO.: 535, 2008 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough 63 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury duly advertised for bids for transportation for senior citizens in the Town of Queensbury for the year 2009, and WHEREAS, the Warren-Hamilton Counties ACEO, Inc. - Community Action Agency has offered to provide the transportation services for the year 2009 for the amount of $21,500, and WHEREAS, the Town’s Purchasing Agent has recommended that the Town Board award the bid to the Warren-Hamilton Counties ACEO, Inc. - Community Action Agency, the only and therefore lowest responsible bidder, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby awards the contract for transportation of senior citizens for the Town of Queensbury for the year 2009 to the Warren-Hamilton Counties ACEO, Inc. - Community Action Agency for the amount of $21,500 to be paid for from the appropriate account, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Town Budget Officer, Accountant and/or Purchasing Agent to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND EBS BENEFIT SOLUTIONS, INC. RESOLUTION NO.: 536, 2008 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier 64 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to enter into an Agreement with EBS Benefit Solutions, Inc., for provision of administrative services regarding the Town’s st healthcare reimbursement account plan which will go into effect January 1, 2009, and WHEREAS, a proposed Administrative Contract and Service Agreement is presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and approves the Administrative Contract and Service Agreement with EBS Benefit Solutions, Inc., for provision of administrative services regarding the Town’s health reimbursement account st plan which will go into effect January 1, 2009, substantially in the form presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute such Agreement substantially in the form presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute future Agreements with EBS provided that there are no substantive changes to the Agreement, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs that payment for services shall be in accordance with the Agreement and shall be paid for from the proper account(s) as will be designated by the Town Budget Officer, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to open a bank account with one of the Town’s approved Town Depositories for the purposes of this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER 65 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Budget Officer to take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ROAD SALT ALTERNATIVES AND BEST MANAGEMENT PILOT PROJECT RESOLUTION NO.: 537, 2008 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury, herein called the “Municipality”, after thorough consideration of the various aspects of the problem and study available data, has hereby determined that certain work, as described in its application and attachments, herein called the “Project”, is desirable, is in the public interest, and is required in order to implement the Project; and WHEREAS, the attachments to the application specified the objective and intent to examine alternatives to the current practices of using road salts to achieve winter road maintenance and to also identify best management practices that should also be considered to minimize the application rates of salt and sand to roads throughout the Lake George Watershed, and WHEREAS, the New York State Legislature has enacted Aid to Localities providing financial assistance to municipalities for water quality improvement projects by means of a contract and the Municipality deems it to be in the public interest and benefit under this law to enter into a contract therewith, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to: 66 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 1.act on behalf of the Queensbury Town Board in all matters related to State assistance under the Laws of 2008; 2.make application, execute the State Assistance Contract, submit Project documentation, and otherwise act for the Town Board in all matters related to the Project and to State assistance; 3.send one (1) certified copy of this Resolution to: Dianne Dio Jones Division of Management & Budget Services New York State Department of Environmental Conservation th 625 Broadway, 10 Floor Albany, New York 12233-1080 and 4.sign any documentation and take any other action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall take effect immediately. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2008 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 538, 2008 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the following 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, $ 67 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town’s Accounting Office to take all action necessary to amend the 2008 Town Budget as follows: To From CodeAppropriationCodeAppropriation 001-0000-0909Fund Balance001-9060-8060Health Ins. Premium $ 92,600 001-0000-0909Fund Balance001-9901-9002Transfer to Cemetery $ 7,500 002-0000-55031Interfund Transfer 002-9060-8060Health Ins. Premium $ 7,500 004-0000-0909Fund Balance004-9060-8060Health Ins. Premium $ 13,000 009-8160-4447Trash Burnables009-9060-8060Health Ins. Premium $ 5,800 032-0000-0909Fund Balance032-9060-8060Health Ins. Premium $ 6,700 040-0000-0909Fund Balance040-9060-8060Health Ins. Premium $ 36,500 001-1620-4230-22Bldg. Grounds Water001-5132-4230Hwy Garage Water $ 23 001-1620-4230-25Bldg. Grounds Water001-5132-4230Hwy Garage Water $ 70 th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION APPROVINGREMOVALOFSTATESTREETAND APPOINTMENTOFRELIANCETRUSTCOMPANYASPASSIVE, NONDISCRETIONARYTRUSTEEOFTRUSTFORTOWNOF QUEENSBURY’SDEFERREDCOMPENSATIONPLAN RESOLUTION NO.: 539, 2008 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHEREAS, State Street Bank and Trust Company (“State Street”) currently serves as passive, nondiscretionary Trustee for the Town of Queensbury Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”), and WHEREAS, State Street has provided notice to Hartford Life Insurance Company that it will no longer provide these services to our customers beyond January 9, 2009, and WHEREAS, as a result, it is desirable to remove State Street as passive, nondiscretionary Trustee of the trust for the Plan and to appoint Reliance Trust Company (“RTC”) as successor passive, nondiscretionary Trustee of the trust for the Plan, and 68 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby removes State Street as passive, nondiscretionary Trustee of the Trust for the Plan and hereby appoints Reliance Trust Company as successor passive, nondiscretionary Trustee for the Trust for the Plan, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes, empowers and directs the Town Supervisor on behalf of the Town Board to execute any and all documents required to effectuate each removal and appointment, including but not limited to the Trustee Removal and Appointment presented at this meeting, and to take such actions as are necessary, appropriate or advisable to effectuate the foregoing Resolution. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2008 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AWARD OF BID FOR MICHAELS DRIVE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTAND ESTABLISHING NEW CAPITAL PROJECT FUND #174 RESOLUTION NO.: 540, 2008 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, in accordance with Resolution No.: 497, 2008, the Town of Queensbury’s Purchasing Agent duly advertised for bids for a drainage improvement project in the vicinity of Michaels Drive, as more clearly specified in bid documents and specifications prepared by Vision Engineering, LLC, and th WHEREAS, on November 13, 2008, the Purchasing Agent duly received and opened all bids, and WHEREAS, Vision Engineering and the Purchasing Agent have recommended that the Town Board award the bid to the lowest responsible bidder, DelSignore Blacktop and Paving, Inc., for an amount not to exceed $308,762.00, and 69 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to appropriately establish a new Capital Project Fund, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby accepts and awards the bid for the drainage improvement project in the vicinity of Michaels Drive from the lowest responsible bidder, DelSignore Blacktop and Paving, Inc., for an amount not to exceed $308,762.00, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute any needed Agreement between the Town and DelSignore Blacktop and Paving, Inc., in form acceptable to the Town Supervisor, Vision Engineering, Town Budget Officer and/or Town Counsel, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the establishment of the Michaels Drive Drainage Capital Project Fund No.: 174 which Fund will establish funding for expenses associated with such Project, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs that funding for this Project shall be by a transfer of $308,762.00 from the General Fund, Fund Balance to Capital Project Fund #174, and the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to take any and all actions necessary to transfer $308,762.00 from unappropriated, undesignated General Fund Balance to Capital Project Fund No.: 174-8540-2899 and effectuate such 2008 Budget Amendment, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby establishes initial appropriations and estimated revenues for Capital Project Fund #174 in the amount of $308,762.00, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to take all action necessary to establish the following accounts for such appropriations and revenues as necessary: 70 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 ? Revenue Account No. 174-0000-55031 – Interfund Transfers - $308,762.00 ? Expense Account No. 174-8540-2899 - Misc. Contractual - $308,762.00 and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to amend the 2008 Town Budget, make any adjustments, budget amendments, transfers or prepare any documentation necessary to establish such appropriations and estimated revenues and effectuate all terms of this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Purchasing Agent, Town Budget Officer and/or Town Counsel to take any and all action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS – TH WARRANT OF NOVEMBER 17, 2008 RESOLUTION NO.: 541, 2008 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve the audit of bills th presented as the Warrant with a run date of November 13, 2008 and a payment date of th November 18, 2008, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 71 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Warrant with a thth run date of November 13, 2008 and payment date of November 18, 2008 totaling $127,928., and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Budget Officer to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING 2009 RENEWAL CONTRACTS FOR EMPLOYEE GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS WITH EMPIRE BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD RESOLUTION NO. 542, 2008 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury previously entered into agreements for employee group health insurance plans with Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, and WHEREAS, the Town Board, in conjunction with Capital Financial Group, has negotiated renewal contracts for the year 2009 with Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, and WHEREAS, in an effort to contain the cost of health insurance for the Town and its employees, and in accordance with Capital Financial Group’s recommendation, the st Town wishes to amend its co-pay schedules effective January 1, 2009 such that doctor’s office visits shall increase from $10/$12 (EPO/PPO) to $20, and hospital admission costs shall increase from $0 to $500, and WHEREAS, the Town is making the commitment to reimburse its employees for the cost difference between such old and new copays, 72 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves and authorizes renewal contracts for the year 2009 with Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield with the 2009 monthly premiums to be as follows: MEDICARE MEDICARE MEDICARE INDIVIDUAL FAMILY INDIVIDUAL 2-PERSON FAMILY PPO 529.46 1547.71 486.93 973.86 1505.21 EPO 487.43 1424.90 448.31 896.59 1385.76 and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, the Town further approves and authorizes an amendment to its co- st pay schedules effective January 1, 2009 such that doctor’s office visits shall increase from $10/$12 (EPO/PPO) to $20, and hospital admission costs shall increase from $0 to $500, with the Town to reimburse its employees for the cost difference between such old and new copays, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the health insurance cost-sharing formula(s) shall increase from 14% to 15% for PPO coverage and 6% to 7% for EPO coverage, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute future renewal contracts with Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield without the need for additional Town Board Resolution provided that such contracts do not provide for any changes to the percentage of employee contributions toward monthly premiums and/or copays, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that should there be changes to future renewal contracts with Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield concerning employee’s percentage of contributions toward monthly premiums and/or a change in copay schedule, then a Town Board Resolution will be required, and BE IT FURTHER, 73 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 RESOLVED, that since the Town of Queensbury’s Non-Union employees are charged the same percentage of health care contributions as the Town’s Union employees, then future Resolutions authorizing execution of renewal contracts will not be required unless there is a change of policy whereby Non-Union employee contributions would be charged differently than Union employees which would then create the need for additional Town Board Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute any contracts and documentation and the Town Supervisor and/or Town Budget Officer to take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO.: 374, 2008 AUTHORIZING PARTIAL SETTLEMENT OF ASSESSMENT LITIGATION RESOLUTION NO.: 543, 2008 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, on August 4, 2008 the Queensbury Town Board approved Resolution No.: 374,2008 authorizing partial settlement of the Alexy assessment litigation, and WHEREAS, such Resolution No.: 374,2008 inadvertently stated that the settlement terms would be effective from 2008 through 2013, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Resolution No.: 374,2008 and Schedule A attached to it are both hereby amended to show the effective settlement period to be 2008 through 2012 and the 74 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 Queensbury Town Board authorizes and directs Town Counsel to take any additional steps necessary to effectuate this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : Mr. Strough ABSENT: None 6.0CORRESPONDENCE NONE 7.0TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS COUNCILMAN BREWER WARD IV- ? Thanked the Town Board for Michael’s Drive ? Re: Air Quality at the PCB clean up – report placed on file in the Town Clerk’s Office Air quality well within the limits or guidelines of DEC COUNCILMAN STROUGH WARD III ? Glad we authorize the agreement between the Town of Queensbury and Friends of Mountainside Library originally Mountainside Free Library set up in 1894 on th lands donated by Edward Eggleston he was a famous author of the late 19 Century he wrote twelve to fourteen popular novels, most famous being Who’s Your School Master published in 1871 ? Winter Program guide for Parks and Recreation now out COUNCILMAN MONTESI WARD 11 th ? December 5 Queensbury Senior Citizens luncheon at the Fort William Henry th ? December 5 Temple Bethel on Marion Avenue introduction of new Rabbi Durbin I will be representing the Town Board at that function ? In the hospital for two weeks for minor surgery and ended up with a staff infection, glad to be out. COUNCILMAN METIVIER WARD 1 ? Wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving SUPERVISOR STEC ? Thanked TV8 and sponsors for televising our Town Board Meetings ? Pointed out the Town’s website www.queensbury.net ? The towns water rate are less than half the State average ? Town Budget-passed there are still town taxes such as lighting, and water and sewer and fire and ems and not involved with the town the Crandall Library tax the general and highway fund does not have a town tax..the Town of Queensbury is one of twenty towns out of nine hundred and thirty nine towns in the State of New York that does not have a town tax ? Public Hearing on Warren County Budget on this Friday at 10 am at present the Town of Queensbury will be looking at a 3.9% increase ? Veterans Exemption for Gold Star Parents, will be setting a public hearing in the future for this local law 75 TOWN BOARD MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 MTG. #50 RESOLUTION ADJOURNING TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO. 544.2008 INTRODUCED BY Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Town Board meeting. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2008 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: None Respectfully submitted, Miss Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk-Queensbury