Loading...
1988-08-23 159 TOWN BOARD MEETING AUGUST 23, 1988 7:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN BORG OS-SUP ERVISOR MARILYN POTENZA-COUNCILMAN RONALD MONTESI-COUNCILMAN BETTY MONAHAN-COUNCILMAN BOARD MEMBER ABSENT GEORGE KUROSAKA-COUNCILMAN TOWN COUNSEL PAUL DUSEK TOWN OFFICIALS LEE YORK, DAVE HATIN, QUENTIN KESTNER PRESS: G.F. Post Star, WENU PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN MONAHAN RESOLUTION TO MOVE INTO QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 351, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marilyn Potenza. RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby move into the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosaka PUBLIC HEARING -SEWER VARIANCE NOTICE SHOWN WAYNE JUDGE-I, with Richard Bartlett, my partner, represent Storytown USA, the Great Escape which is the applicant for a variance related to the septic system for the Bavarian Pavilion. There has been so much written about the Bavarian Pavilion, I have made this presentation so many times, I sound like a broken record. But I feel for the record, I have to summarize the history of this application. What happen here, was the building was purchased in Canada, the building called the Bavarian Pavilion, was purchased in Canada in 1986. Shortly after it's purchased, Mr. Wood, the owner of the applicant, got in touch with Mac Dean, from the Building Department, and explained to him in a very general way, what he expected to do with the Bavarian Palace. After that point in time, Mr. Wood's representatives met with the Building Department and applied for various inspections and permits, over the period of the next two years until the spring of 1988. During that period of time, a building permit was issued on the building to Attractions Land, which is a Land Holding Company under Storytown, based on plans that had been submitted to the Building Department. The Building permit was issued out of the Building Department for the addition to the Bavarian Pavilion, also based on, onsite inspections and an application made to the Building Department. The septic system was laid open and approved by the Town, the Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Health Department, according to the normal;procedures. At that time, the plans for the building were also made known to the all the applicable agencies, involved in that process. A complete fire inspection of the building was made and fire permits were granted to the building. In terms of the access, a written application was made to the County of Warren, their representative of the Highway Department, Mr. Gebo came down and inspected the proposed access and approved two 24 foot wide access entrances and exits onto Round Pond Road provided in the condition of the permit that was granted with that certain areas of burm be removed from the area. At that point in time, it was almost before the Senior Prom at the Queensbury High School. In order to comply with that permit, Mr. Wood had his crews working over a weekend to remove all the necessary fill from the area to comply with the permit issued by the Warren County Highway Department to get those two 24 foot wide access areas built into the property. Then the engineer who was working for Mr. Wood called for a 160 Certificate of Occupancy. At that point and for the first time, the people in the Building Department of the Town of Queensbury discovered that some of their handbooks had written in ink in it, that site plan review was required for restaurants... and some of the people in the Building Department, did not have written in ink in their handbook that site plan review was required for restaurants. By this point in time, if site plan review had not been required, Mr. Wood had met all of the requirements and had received all of the necessary permits to open his restaurant. Now that the Town took the position that, if site plan review was required, what we really have to do was start the process all over again. However, from a legal point of view, it is very, very difficult to obtain site plan review for a project that is already an accomplished fact. Because in normal site plan review, the Planning Board, which is a board that plans, that is why they are called a Planning Board, can say... "We don't like this particular building here, why don't you move it a little bit over to the left, and this road has a little too much of a slope, so why don't you move that to the right and increase the slope." But now we are in a situation, where everything was finished, all the permits were granted, and now we were going into a process where people were making suggestions, about how it would have been nicer, had it been planned differently. We went through this, we were supposed to get this site plan review application finished within 5 days. What we actually did was appear before each one of the applicable boards, the County Planning Board, the Beautification Committee, and the Town Board. Essentially what we did was ask them to list for us all the concerns that they have about the project. We indicated to them that we would do everything that we could in our power to comply with all the concerns and we started actively meeting with the Building Department, that we found to be very cooperative, both in the Planning Department phase of it and the enforcement phase of it. They have been working with us along the way, that is why we are here tonight to approve a system, a sanitary system, that is already, half of it is already in place on the site and half of it is proposed. It is described on the first page of thisapplication that you have in front of you. It would not make much sense for me to describe it to you, because I am not an engineer. We have with us tonight Dick Morris from the firm of Morris Engineering. He is going to explain what the septic system is about. What we are asking the Board to do tonight is to grant us permission to leave the seepage pits in place and the seepage pits are located under parking areas. For a long period of time in the Town of Queensbury this was permitted by the Building Department, even though your building code prohibited any component of a septic system to be placed under a parking area, that is the way the statue read, but in actual fact, their are builders all over the Town who can testify that they have put these in and they have been approved by the Building Department. Ours, a portion of the system is now in, we are asking for approval of that, and the system has also been modified, and Mr. Morris will explain how that was approached. DICK MORRIS-I am with Morris Engineering in Queensbury. Let me just briefly, if I might, put a drawing in front of the Board. (referred to drawing)... Reviewed the basic project with the use of maps with the Town Board...noting the tile fields under the asphalt those being tied into two existing septic tanks...we are proposing to add additional septic tanks...spoke on the existing law, no leaching device will be placed underneath any part of a paved area, I believe the flavor of the ordinance is concerned with loading on the system that might make the system inoperable because of the loading on it...the devices that have been placed in the area are seepage pits, fort miller castings... COUNCILMAN POTNEZA-Is the proposed area going to be a parking area? DICK MORRIS-From the fence down will be parking it is also proposed to be gravel to minimize the blacktop...Regarding the existing structure, from Ed. and Thomas O'Connor the installer of the structure, they installed an 8" traffic cover on the existing dry wells 2. invoice from Fort Miller shows the 8" traffic covers...3. Ltr. ENCON, Warrensburg Office-placed under N.Y. State guidelines...Reviewed the separate system from the Kitchen and the restrooms... QUENTIN KESTNER-Kestner Engineer-Reading from Ltr. my purpose in writing this is to provide advice concerning the acceptability of the existing and proposed subsurface water disposal system for the Bavarian Palace. The existing sanitary sewer disposal ordinance prohibits locating any component of a leaching facility under driveways, roads parking areas or any areas subject to heavy loading. The site plan for the Bavarian Palace indicates that both the existing seepage pit and the proposed seepage pits are to be located under designated parking areas. I have examined the drawings and the design bases for the existing --''- and proposed pits and find them properly sized and in conformance with existing regulations. By that I mean the Town standards and the standards of the N.Y. St. Health Dept. which by reference are incorporated into the Town standards. Based upon the proposed use indicated flows and soil conditions we feel that the construction for the sanitary dry wells have been properly installed are appropriate for use in a vehicular parking area based on manufacturers recommendations. Accordingly because the system is sized in accordance with regulations and constructed with appropriate materials I have no objections to their located seepage pits under the parking area. That was addressed specifically to the Bavarian Palace...I 161 go further in saying until I receive additional information it would be my suggestion a variance such as the one suggested there be done on a case by case basis. Obviously if systems are inadequately sized and or not constructed with appropriate materials then it would be undesirable to locating such seepage pits under parking areas. I would note that when I originally looked at this there was only the one centrally located system, since that time they have added the additional one as was described by Mr. Morris. You are also aware that we have a seepage pit problem at Reservoir Park and I think that if members of the board have walked out there, they are aware of the sogginess and the movement of the ground underfoot. I think you can see that if these systems are not properly sized or properly constructed or in the case of Reservoir Park, perhaps limited maintenance they do fail. When they fail they saturate the ground and they could damage or vehicles could sink down into the asphalt not being ridged pavement and so if the system was not properly designed or properly sized then it would be undesirable to do this. That is why I am suggesting that you approve this but perhaps keeping that section in effect until such time as we have more chance to pursue this. It has been indicated to me that there are more than one system of this type installed in parking areas and it is my understanding but I haven't studied it, that these work satisfactorily. I think that the basis for the ordinance is still sound and that is an issue for another time. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-In this case are you saying, from an engineering perspective this isok .. RUENTIN KESTNER-Especially with this, the addition that it has been properly sized one has to assume that it will be properly maintained and certainly it has been made of materials that by manufactures specifications are capable of accepting vehicular loads and therefore I would suggest that you do grant the variance to the Bavarian Palace. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-If for some reason this system should fail it is privately owned and operated system, the private owner would have to take care of it, different from Reservoir Park where we have a sewer district. RUENTIN KESTNER-The one possible disadvantage is one issue that will be discussed at a later time, the availability and the amount of parking for the palace if the system were to fail, this could limit the parking, but I would say...as far as I am concerned they have made a very legitimate effort to properly size the system and have selected the appropriate materials and so I think it is appropriate for the Board to grant the variance. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-The subsurface soils here is a good quality soil for perculation too. RUENTIN KESTNER-The soil is very highly permeable therefore it will accept a system like this very well. Traditionally leaching pits were put in when you wanted to use an available soil strata that was below perhaps 6-7-8 feet deep, below ground level where you didn't go to an conventional leaching field you went to a pit system which allows the material to seep into deeper strata which takes advantage to better available deeper soils. They have very good soils there for this type of system. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Asked for further questions, ...no one spoke... MR. GEORGE STARK-Mohican Motel-I have three separate septic systems that are paved over, the last one I got my CO. May 27th of this year, I have never had any problems with any of them. Britton came up during May when it was being constructed and said you cannot use 6" covers you have to use 8" covers over the dry wells and we put them in and I have never had any problems with the other systems and they have been in five years now. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-In our research, we did discover many local situations where the septic system are under black top so this is not a unique situation. Asked for further comments...non were heard. Check List for Project: Yes-There are special circumstances or conditions of which the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of such land. The special circumstances are there are no other available space, slopes on both sides of the structure cannot physically accommodate a leach field...this parcel will not accommodate a leach field as reasonably as it would accommodate seepage -- pits because of the nature of the configuration of the land. The special circumstances are the sloping areas and the inaccessibilities of traditional leach fields... Yes. That the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes or objectives of this Ordinance, or to other adjoining properties or otherwise conflict with the purpose or objectives of any plan or policy of the Town. New York State allows these types of systems-Mr. Kestner, Town Engineer to give this satisfactory from and engineering point of view-Mr. Morris a License Professional Eng. in the State of New York indicating that this would be acceptable-We have had the presentation of formal drawings and ENCON Ltr. of Support Dated August 23, 1988-1 have seen a SPEEDES Permit granted for this installation by ENCON-We have 162 certification from the people that installed the system that it is there as it is stated to be. Yes. That the granting of the Variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and that the Variance is the minimum Variance which would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the local Board of Health to affect the applicant. Yes. That the granting of the Variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and that the Variance is the minimum Variance which would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the local Board of Health to affect the applicant. The engineers have indicated that the sizing is correct. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SEWER VARIANCE-GREAT ESCAPE RESOLUTION NO. 8, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza: Resolution forthcoming from Town Attorney to be found on page Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: *\"-1"'"` PUBLIC HEARING-Sewer Variance Stan Lewza-13A Courthouse Drive-Notice Shown represented by McCormack Ind. Mr. McCormack-Our Variance is a request for a side line variance from the 20, distance from the seepage pits to a 20' distance between the residence and the seepage pit. The reason being that the pie shape dimension of the south west corner of the property eliminates the ability to achieve a 20' distance between the property line and the seepage pit distance and the residential house from the property itself. (used plot plan) this is five foot below the foundation line of the building ... Supervisor Borgos-Is there any reason why this was not put closer to the line other than the buffer? Mr. McCormack-also the fact that the property comes to a point...we could not put this to the rear of the building because there is a pool location... Mr. Kestner-Is this property served by municipal water? Mr. McCormack-Yes. Mr. Kestner-Do your neighbors have Town Water? Mr. McCormack-Yes. Councilman Montesi-What are we making the variance on? Mr. Kestner-The pit is supposed to be 20 feet from the house...20 feet away or two times the depth a distance from each other, it must be sized, certain distances from property line, wells and other sensitive areas... Councilman Montesi-questioned that the concern would be that if the seepage pit over flowed it would penetrate the wall of the house... Mr. Kestner-yes...questioned that he did not see borings here, I do not know the basis on which two picks were selected, I do not have any information on how deep they are or where the ground water table was to be...I cannot tell you if the system is adequately sized for the intended use. Mr. McCormack- It is an excellent soil.-it is part of a gravel bank of Glen Lake if you will... Mr. Kestner-Why were the facilities not located as indicated on what appears to be an approved plot plan? In other words, does the reason for this variance because things, I assume things were not put where they were approved to be put? They were over here, and they ended up over here, why was that? Mr. McCormack-Because, this was the original location in which we did as the contractors not as the developers. Assuming that the property, see this generous cuts in this back bank of 10 feet to the property line assumed that we could bring them in at that point, not knowing the utility location at that point, which now goes in this direction here toward the driveway location, it was selected at that point. Mr. Kestner-Are the calculations available on how they ended up with two pits? Any information on the ground water table? Supervisor Borgos-I don't see them in the information we have here. Did you do any test pits in that area? Mr. Kestner-Mr. Supervisor, Dave Hatin from the Building Department has investigated this, I think it would be appropriate for him to speak. Dave Hatin-Basically what happened here is that you have a relocation of seepage pits. When this is brought in, my men will look at the subdivision maps, determine what was put in that subdivision as far as seepage pits or leach fields. They have tables that they use to calculate the required flows for the house, then they go back through that table to see the number of required seepage pits, the size and what have you, that is required. That is all done by the inspectors. In this case, unless it is a designed system, if it is a simple residential system, they will do that calculation, make sure it is adequate when it is brought in on a plot plan. That is how you arrive at these size seepage pits, septic tanks, and distribution boxes and locations. The basic problem here is the 20 foot set back from the foundation, again being concerned with it leaching into the foundation wall at some stage in the future. 19' feet is again a foot away, you also have to consider you need a 10 feet set back from the property lines here also on these seepage pits. You actually have 2 set backs you have to deal with here. Supervisor Borgos-So really in item one of our check list, there are special conditions or circumstances which this strict application provisions would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the land. That particular item seems to be there. Mr. Hatin-There is room I think to move this system, I have talked to John about it, I think he can explain to you, how they can resolve this 10 foot separation which seems to be the most critical, between the foundation and the seepage pit. Supervisor Borgos-Why couldn't the second pit be moved back closer to the first one? Councilman Montesi-Are the pits in the ground already? Mr. Hatin-Yes. Councilman Montesi-We are talking about moving stuff...either relocating or leaving where it is. Mr. McCormack-I think it should be noted that I was given approval. Supervisor Borgos-Mr. McCormack indicates that he was given approval by Mr. Dean. Mr. Hatin-I first found out about it by my other inspector, who failed the system for that 10 foot separation. Apparently Mr. Dean went up there and approved it, I found about it and that is why Mr. McCormack is now here for the variance. Councilman Montesi-If this board decides that we feel, for whatever reasons, that we need to have 10 foot separation between the pits and a 20 foot distance from the foundation, is it possible, within the frame work of this triangle, to do that? Mr. Hatin-I would hesitate to give an answer on that without sitting down with one of my inspectors, going through the ordinance and seeing what is and what isn't possible. I would not want to give a quick decision on this. Supervisor Borgos-The biggest concern we do have is the leaching into the foundation wall. Mr. Hatin-That is the main concern. I called the Health Department, that is their main concern with the 20 foot separation. Supervisor Borgos-Would the Health Department approve this at this distance? Mr. Hatin-No, not at the 10 foot. They stick to the 20 foot, they would not grant a variance for the 10 foot. 164 Mr. McCormack-I think it should be noted that the second pit is over 5 feet below the foundation. Supervisor Borgos-Has that been taken into consideration or is that something you and Mr. Kestner would like to look at? Mr. Hatin-I have no way of knowing whether it is 5 foot below or not, I haven't seen it so... Supervisor Borgos-If it is indeed 5 feet below, and everything is flowing in the other direction, chances are pretty good it won't go up hill and then climb in 5 feet. Councilman Montesi-The 5 feet below the foundation, the foundation is 10 or 8 feet... Mr. McCormack-It is 6 feet. Councilman Montesi-How high is the pit? Mr. McCormack-It is hard to tell, it is buried...eight feet. Councilman Montesi-So we are not really below the foundation, so when it flows... If the bottom of the pit is 11 feet and it is four feet high. My concern, when you talk about the pit 5 feet below, and is 8 feet high, so the top of the pit, naturally comes over, so if it over flows, it comes at foundation level. That is important to know. Mr. McCormack-This second pit is adjacent to the garage. Councilman Monahan-You never know if the garage will remain a garage. Councilman Montesi-Actually the thing that really hurts you more than anything else was the tree buffer zone, that is the thing that is forcing you to go here. Mr. McCormack-I would never had buried this pit here if I had not gotten the approval from Mac, giving me the go ahead to do this. This is one of the problems I have with this whole variance application. I was given an approval from the Building Department, with an understanding for a special request, with these set back problems, went over with Mac, and he gave me the approval to go ahead and bury it. Supervisor Borgos-Is there grass there already? Mr. McCormack-The owner is holding off with the landscaping. Supervisor Borgos-What is the separation required between this pit and this pit, by law? Mr. McCormick-20 Feet. Supervisor Borgos-You show here, about 35 feet. Councilman Potenza-Is the house occupied now? Mr. McCormack-They were given a temporary CO the 31st of January. Councilman Monahan-I have question for you Lee, when a Subdivision Plot is approved by the Planning Board, are the locations of the septic facilities shown on that plot form, and part of the approval process? Lee York, Senior Planner-The proposed location of the facilities is supposed to be shown, yes. -f Councilman Monahan-Apparently this has been moved, I take it, from the original approval of what the Planning Board approved? Mrs. York-I can't really say what Mr. Dean did... There have been field variances and - changes made in subdivisions where this is not considered a major... it has not in the passed been considered a major change. Supervisor Borgos-The overriding concern here is the health and safety of the public. What is the chance of the sewage affluence getting into the building at some time... and what possible disease could be involved there. Councilman Monahan-I think that we don't have enough information. I would suggest that 165 we table this, ask Dave and Quentin Kestner to work on this, to comeback to us with a recommendation after they have gone out and field check this. I would rather them to this and have a special board meeting if we have to, so we really know what we are talking about. Supervisor Borgos-The family is already living there...If we could gain enough information between now and the next regular meeting, it could be handled at a regular meeting a presume. Mr. McCormack-I don't have a problem with that, it is just that much more of an inconvenience for the landowner. Councilman Montesi-I am concerned, that it is not a matter of whether we accept or deny - this, it is whether the State Health Department will approve this and I would hate to be in the position of accepting this as a variance, have the State of New York say no to the owner, the developer, and the builder. Dave, you will have to come back to us with a staff, engineering recommendation that will be acceptable to the Health Department. Mr. Hatin-I did talk to the Health Department, Brian Feur about this, there basic answer to me, was that we would become less stringent than the code. Generally, as a standard practice that involves multi-agencies, the more stringent applies, not the less stringent. Councilman Montesi-They are living there with a temporary CO, if the Health Department does not approve this, what does that mean? Mr. Hatin-I will call the Health Department to reaffirm this, but I believe they told me they will not approve this. Councilman Potenza-What is the alternative? Mr. Hatin-Move the seepage pit. If I have a proposal for the Health Department, with the move of the seepage pit with the distances and the setbacks, I will go to them with it. Supervisor Borgos-Would you and Mr. Kestner meet within the next couple of days with Mr. McCormack on the site? Mr. Kestner-I would be happy to. Supervisor Borgos-Mr. Hatin, could coordinate that visit, and not say yes or no, but look at the alternatives and then make a recommendation if you would in writing to this Town Board of Health as soon as possible, at which time we could set another quick meeting. Understanding from Town Counsel, we will leave the Public Hearing open until such time as we have further information, and hopefully make a decision. RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN RESOLUTION NO. 9, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who move for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Montesi. RESOLVED, that the Town Board of Health hereby adjourn. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosaka TOWN BOARD MEETING OPEN FORUM 8:28 P.M. Frank Labatore, Jenkinsville Road-Questioned what the schedule for completion of the Ridge Road Park? Supervisor Borgos-Noted that there has been a number of unforseen problems. Noted that the area was seeded but the grass did not grow the way it was supposed to, with the weather this summer being the way it was. In addition to that there are a number of concerns related to the construction of the park, with the design, erosion and debris. Noted that the Town Attorney is presently researching all the contract documents with the contractor 166 as well as the design, to be sure that things are as they should be, before we accept and use it as being a completed facility, and lose whatever legal rights that we might have. That is what is unfortunately holding us up, once those obstacles have been overcome, I feel you will see things change. Mr. Labatore-Concerned with the present condition and looks of the Park. Councilman Monahan-Noted that there was a part of the park that was not part of the seeded area that is overgrown with Ragweed, and would like to see it mowed down. Town Counsel-Stated that it would be okay, but recommended that there be extensive photographs taken of the area before the cutting occurs. Councilman Montesi-Recommended to Mr. Labatore to attend the next Recreation Commission meeting. Noted that the Recreation Commission had made some substantial changes to the original design of the Park, and that LA Associates are now doing a final conceptual drawing. Mr. Labatore-Concerned with speed on Jenkinsville Road caused by the Park. Supervisor Borgos-If you present a form of petition with the lowered speed limit to the Board, we will go through the normal process to the State and request it. Councilman Monahan-Concerned with size and speed of the trucks on Jenkinsville Road. Supervisor Borgos-Would like to discuss that with Paul Naylor. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION NO. 1 OF 1988 RESOLUTION 352, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Betty Monahan. RESOLVED, that the Regular Town Board Meetings of the Town of Rueensbury will be amended as follows: 1. The Second Tuesday of the Month for September and October will be held at 4:00 P.M. at the Rueensbury Town Office Building, Bay at Haviland Roads, Rueensbury, New York. and be it further RESOLVED, that Regular Meeting of the Town Board held on the Fourth Tuesday of the month will remain at 7:30 P.M. at the Rueensbury Town Office Building, Bay at Haviland Roads, Rueensbury, New York. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: Mr. Montesi Absent: Mr. Kurosaka RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MINUTES RESOLUTION NO. 353, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Betty Monahan. RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Rueensbury hereby approves the Minutes of July 25th, and July 26th of 1988. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosaka RESOLUTION TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 167 TO ORDINANCE NUMBER 30 AND ITS SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION NO. 3549 Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Betty Monahan. WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 30 of the Town of Queensbury and its amendments dated April 229 1980 and April 24, 1987 provide in Section 4. Subdivision (b) for certain information to be provided to the Building Inspector and in Section 5. for fees to be charged in connection with applications for the issuance of building permits, and WHEREAS, it appears to be appropriate to consider the amendment of said ordinance to establish or increase certain fees and amend Section 4 Subdivision (b) to provide for additional documentation to be submitted to the Building Inspector when applying for a building permit, and WHEREAS, amendments to said ordinance have been recommended to the Town Board for consideration as follows: Section 4. Application for Building Permits, Subdivision (b) "Application for a building permit shall be made to the Building Inspector on forms provided by him and shall contain the following information: 1. TWO PLOT PLANS Drawn to scale, showing: A. Lot boundaries with dimensions and adjacent road(s) or streets(s). B. All existing and proposed structures, with setbacks from property lines. C. Location of existing or proposed water lines and septic systems. 2. TWO SETS OF BUILDING PLANS with elevations and sectional drawings, one sectional drawings, one sectional drawing for each roof line. 3. An application for electrical inspection to one of the electrical inspection companies permitted by the Town of Queensbury to do the inspections. 4. NEW YORK STATE ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE COMPLIANCE with complete information. 5. SEPTIC DISPOSAL PERMIT APPLICATION with complete information. 6. FEE, as per schedule below (Checks to "Town of Queensbury"). 7. BUILDING & ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION, all portions to be completed. Applications shall be made by the owner or lessee, or agent of either, or by the architect, engineer or builder employed in connection with the proposed work. Where such application is made by a person other than the owner, it shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the owner or applicant that the proposed work is authorized by the owner and that the applicant is authorized to make such application. SECTION 5. Fees Subdivision (a) Upon filing of an application for a building permit, the following fees shall be payable: 20 % OF FEE RETAINER FOR ANY WITHDRAWN PERMIT NO FEE REFUNDABLE AFTER ONE YEAR ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE NEW YORK STATE UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION AND BUILDING CODE, THE NEW YORK STATE ENERGY CODE AND THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONING AND SANITARY SEWAGE ORDINANCES One/Two Family Dwellings (per 100 Sq/Ft) $12.00 lst Floor $10.00 per additional floor Townhouses/Condominiums/Apartments/Multi Dwellings $14.00 1st Floor Per Dwelling Unit, Per 100 Sq/Ft $12.00 per additional floor Commercial/Mercantile/Industrial/Public Assembly $15.00 per 100 Sq/Ft Day Care Centers ($3,000 Maximum Fee) per Floor 168 Garages $25.00 One Car $35.00 Two Car $50.00 Three Car $70.00 Four Car Swimming Pools $35.00 In-Ground $25.00 Above Ground Sewage Pits Residential $25.00 Commercial (other than Single Family) $35.00 Docks $30.00 $50.00 Boathouse/Deck Addition/Alterations Commercial $10.00 per 100 Sq/Ft per Floor Residential $8.00 per 100 Sq/Ft -" Sign Permits $4.00 per Sq/Ft $35.00 Minimum Temporary Sign Permits $35.00 Fee $50.00 Deposit Decks/Porches $8.00 per 100 Sq/Ft $15.00 Minimum Charge Mobile Home Single Same as One or Two Modular or Doublewide Family Dwelling House Moving Permit Before Move $30.00 After Move (If relocated in Town) $50.00 Site Clearing Permit $15.00 Tools & Storage Sheds, Permanent or Portable, $15.00 101-240 Sq/Ft Wood or Metal (No Charge for Shed under 101 Sq/Ft Certificate of Occupancy Residential $25.00 Commercial $50.00 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy $100.00 Deposit (Expiration to be determined by Circumstances $10.00 Fee Certificate of Compliance and Use $10.00 Expired Permit Renewal (If not Permit Extension) $25.00 Demolition $20.00 Variance Application for Sewage Ordinance $35.00 Subdivision (b) Whenever in the fee schedule provided for herein, the fees are calculated on the basis of square feet, in determining the total fee due, the floor area of the building involved will be rounded to the nearest 100 square feet. Subdivision (c) No building fee shall be refundable except that in the event that a building permit is applied for and construction does not occur within the first year, 80% of the r fee paid may be returned by the Director of Building & Code Enforcement, after the submission of an affidavit by the person securing the permit that no construction has occurred in accordance with the permit which a refund is requested, and WHEREAS, a public hearing concerning said proposed new fees or increases in existing fees is required by law, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section 130 of the Town Law of the State of New York, a public hearing shall be held concerning the amendments of the ordinance as set forth above to amend Section 4. Subdivision (b), to provide for additional documentation to be submitted to the Building Inspector and to amend Section 5., to establish new fees 9 or increase existing fees as set forth above, and that said public hearing be held at 4:00 P.M. in the meeting room of the Town of Queensbury Office Building, Bay and Haviland Roads, in the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, on September 23rd, 1988, at which time all persons interested in the subject thereof shall be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury be authorized and directed to publish and provide Notice of said Public Hearing in accordance with the law. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosaka RESOLUTION TO CHANGE MEETING DATE RESOLUTION NO. 355, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marilyn Potenza. RESOLVED, that the Regular Town Board Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 27th, will be moved to Wednesday, September 28th at 7:30 P.M. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosaka RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CERTIFICATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION RESOLUTION NO. 356, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marilyn Potenza. WHEREAS, Adirondack Construction Corporation pursuant to contract has been constructing the Queensbury Center for the Town of Queensbury, adjacent to the Town of Queensbury Office Building, and WHEREAS, Adirondack Construction Corporation has requested that the Town and the engineer presently reviewing the project, Rist-Frost Associates, P.C. issue a certificate of substantial completion in connection with said construction of the Queensbury Center for the Town of Queensbury, adjacent to the Town of Queensbury Office Building, and WHEREAS, Rist-Frost Associates, P.C. has advised that the construction of the Queensbury Center has reached a point where such certificate of substantial completion may be executed by the Town, subject to completion of items of work outlined in a letter dated August 18, 1988 by Rist-Frost Associates, P.C. to Adirondack Construction Corporation, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the issuance of a certificate of substantial completion to Adirondack Construction Corporation, subject to completion of items of work outlined in a letter dated August 18, 1988 by Rist-Frost t Associates, P.C. to Adirondack Construction Corporation, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized to execute a certificate of substantial completion in the form presented at this meeting and such certificate shall be issued subject to the condition set forth herein. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None i10 Absent: Mr. Kurosaka RESOLUTION INCREASING BI-WEEKLY SALARY RESOLUTION NO. 357, Introduced by Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marilyn Potenza. RESOLVED, that the bi-weekly salary of Whitney Russell, Assistant Building Inspector, previously established by Town Board Resolution No. 21, dated January 5, 1988, is increased such that the bi-weekly salary will result in an annual rate of $19,000 with this increase being effective immediately and being retroactive to August 1, 1988. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosaka RESOLUTION TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING THE ADOPTION OF PROPOSED TOWN OF QUEENSBURY LAND AND SUBDMSION REGULATIONS RESOLUTION NO. 358, Introduced by Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marilyn Potenza. WHEREAS, proposed new Land and Subdivision Regulations for the Town of Queensbury have been prepared and presented to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury for consideration, and WHEREAS, said proposed new Town of Queensbury Land and Subdivision Regulations would result in a number of revisions to the presently existing Land and Subdivision Regulations and Amendments thereto and repeal said existing regulations and Amendments thereto. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, after review and revision of the proposed new Town of Queensbury Land and Subdivision Regulations, is now desirous of having said proposed Town of Queensbury Land and Subdivision Regulations as revised, adopted and the existing Land and Subdivision Regulations and all amendments thereto repealed, and _ WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of the proposed Town of Queensbury Land and Subdivision Regulations it is necessary, pursuant to the Town Law of the State of New York, for the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury to hold a public hearing on the proposed Town of Queensbury Land and Subdivision Regulations, whereat parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, and WHEREAS, it is necessary to give complete and proper notice of the public hearing to be held in connection with the proposed new Town of Queensbury Land and Subdivision Regulations, and WHEREAS, proposed new Town of Queensbury Land and Subdivision Regulations are worthy of consideration for legislative action, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that a public hearing be held by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, concerning the adoption of the proposed new Land and Subdivision Regulations for the entire Town of Queensbury, and the repeal of the existing Land and Subdivision Regulations and all amendments thereto, and that said public hearing be held at 7:30 P.M. in the meeting room of the Town of Queensbury Town Office Building, Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, New York, on September 6, 1988, at which time all persons interested in the subject thereof, concerning the same, will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk be and is hereby directed to take all necessary action to cause the publication of a proper notice of said public hearing and to provide all other notices required by law. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos 171- Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosaka RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION RESOLUTION NO. 359, Introduced by the entire Town Board. WHEREAS, the Mohigan Grange number thirteen hundred will celebrate its 75th Anniversary on September 11, 1988, and WHEREAS, the Mohigan Grange is composed of families and individuals in the rural community, and WHEREAS, the Mohigan Grange has worked for 75 years to improve the quality of rural life through its community service programs, and WHEREAS, the family fraternity is dedicated to the concerns of the people and acts as a voice for better government at all levels, and WHEREAS, the Mohigan Grange offers programs to all age groups within the community, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Stephen Borgos, Supervisor of the Town of Rueensbury, hereby proclaim the week beginning September 11, 1988 and ending September 18, 1988, as MOHIGAN GRANGE WEEK in support of the fraternity's efforts to improve the quality of rural life in the Town of Rueensbury. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosaka RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 360, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marilyn Potenza. RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby move into Executive Session to discuss personal matter and salary, also litigation regarding Keith L. Harris. Duly adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: Mr. Kurosaka On motion, the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK TOWN OF QUEENSBURY