Loading...
2005-02-07 MTG7 Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 1 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING Mtg #7 TH FEBRUARY 7, 2005 Res. #85-108 7:01 P.M. BOH Res. #5-6 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER TOWN COUNSEL BOB HAFNER TOWN OFFICIALS Marilyn Ryba, Executive Director of Community Development Jennifer Switzer, Budget Officer Ralph VanDusen, Water/Wastewater Superintendent Bruce Ostrander, Deputy Water Superintendent Dave Hatin, Director of Building & Codes Steve Lovering, Assistant Director of Parks & Recreation Mike Barody, Warren County Board Of Supervisor-At-Large Jack LaBombard, Recreation Commission Member PRESS: Glens Falls Post Star SUPERVISOR STEC called meeting to order… PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER RESOLUTION CALLING FOR QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 85, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR IT’S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and enters as the Queensbury Board of Health. th Duly adopted this 7, day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: None BOARD OF HEALTH PUBLIC HEARING – Sewage Disposal Variance Application of Ronald and Jo Ann Taylor Notice Shown 7:03 P.M. Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 2 ATTORNEY JON LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Stefanie Bitter and Project Engineer Ed LaPoint. We’ve been before the Board on this application previously, had some discussions and I guess the bottom line is that we’re here to request permission to replace an aging seepage pit with an engineered leachfield which is in the best interest of the lake. We’ve redesigned the system at the request of Dave Hatin and made some changes that moved the system as far back from the lake as possible which we think is in the best interest of the community and that’s the general picture and Ed is here to answer any technical questions, he designed the system. Ask away. SUPERVISOR STEC-With that I would offer the Board an opportunity to start asking questions. COUNCILMAN TURNER-What’s the underlying system there on the ground? What’s under there for soil? ATTORNEY LAPPER-The soil? COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yea. ATTORNEY LAPPER-Since we were here last time, we were asked to go back with one of the three soil scientists or engineers that the Town has on the list of approved soil scientists so we went back with Charlie Maine who pretty much taught everyone else in the area had to do soil tests and the submission that we made has all the detailed information on the perk rate and the mottling. COUNCILMAN TURNER-No ledge there? ATTORNEY LAPPER-No. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Not where you’re going to put the tank? MR. ED LAPOINT, Project Engineer-It’s sandy loam, typically around the lake and the underlying area. COUNCILMAN TURNER-How deep is the loam? MR. LAPOINT-I saw a test pit down to about three and a half feet. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Three and a half feet. SUPERVISOR STEC-Any other questions Ted, right now? MR. LAPOINT-Charlie Maine says were down forty-six to fifty-one inches of sand clay loam, standing, the hole that I saw was down at the waterline of thirty-eight inches. COUNCILMAN TURNER-The clay and sand is mixed together then, right? MR. LAPOINT-Right, sand clay loam is the way that Charlie characterizes it. ATTORNEY LAPPER-And that was after forty-six inches. MR. LAPOINT-Right. ATTORNEY LAPPER-Forty-six inches was loamy sand. SUPERVISOR STEC-John? COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Just wondering, the loam isn’t the best substance to use for infiltration beds, is it? MR. LAPOINT-Well he’s got a percolation rate here of ten minutes, thirty-five seconds per inch which is suitable to put a raised system on top. Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 3 COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Suitable but not supersonic. You don’t want it to be supersonic, I understand you don’t want it to be too fast but. MR. LAPOINT-No, you don’t want it to be supersonic, you want it to actually filter and remove the nutrients from the effluent. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And we did see mottling, if, I’m going from memory here, twenty-six inches. ATTORNEY LAPPER-Twenty-three. MR. LAPOINT-Twenty-three. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Twenty-three and so since the infiltration bed has to be three feet above that, you’re adding? MR. LAPOINT-Yea, it will be a raised system, that’s correct. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And what type of soil are you adding? MR. LAPOINT-We’ll get it to, let me see my drawings. That will be a sandy gravel. Ron, do you know on here where we specified the gravel? Do you mind coming up and showing me? Eight to ten minutes per inch percolation rate of fill material is what we’re going to be use, specified on the drawings. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Okay, will that be sandy? MR. LAPOINT-Yea, sandy gravel mix. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Sandy gravel mix, okay. MR. LAPOINT-About the same percolation rate as the underlying material. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Okay, I was just trying to refresh my memory on some items. Now, how many linear feet of the Eljen bed are we proposing? COUNCILMAN BOOR-For the record again, who are you? MR. LAPOINT-My name is Ed LaPoint. COUNCILMAN BOOR-And what is your function here? MR. LAPOINT-I sealed the design for the Taylors. COUNCILMAN BOOR-You designed this system? MR. LAPOINT-That’s correct. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay, thank you. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, if they’re twelve feet in length and five beds. MR. LAPOINT-It’s sixty feet. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-That’s sixty feet. MR. LAPOINT-Correct. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Now, and it’s a two bedroom? MR. LAPOINT-Two bedroom with a whirlpool bath in the bathroom so we designed it for a three bedroom system. Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 4 COUNCILMAN BREWER-Does the whirlpool necessitate the amount of, the size of the system? MR. LAPOINT-The guidance, the Department of Health Guidance suggests that with a whirlpool tub in the bathroom you add a bedroom to the design size, it’s a conservative assumption. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Okay. By the way, Ed how are you, I haven’t seen you in a long time. Nice to see you. MR. LAPOINT-Fine, thanks, Tim how are you? It’s been fifteen years. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Has it been that long? COUNCILMAN STROUGH-So using your, the New York State Eljen In-Drain Sizing Chart, that you do have on the plans, okay, we’ve got a two bedroom. MR. LAPOINT-Correct. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And we’ve got a perk rate that’s a little bit higher then ten so let’s go eleven to fifteen. MR. LAPOINT-Right, you would need forty-six feet. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-You need forty-six. MR. LAPOINT-And we’re providing sixty. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Okay and if it were a three bedroom, wouldn’t you need. MR. LAPOINT-You would need fifty-four and we’re still providing sixty. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, if you jump over to the three bedroom, it starts at, what is that fifty-nine, fifty-eight? It’s tough to read. MR. LAPOINT-Fifty-nine. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Fifty-nine and then seventy and then eighty. MR. LAPOINT-Correct. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-That’s in the three bedroom. MR. LAPOINT-Correct. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Alright, so you’re supplying sixty so that would be a minimum three hundred and thirty gallon per day flow. MR. LAPOINT-Right, that’d be a hundred and ten gallons per day per bedroom. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Okay. Alright, that’s it for me for now. COUNCILMAN BOOR-If there was no current residence on this property, could you put a one bedroom system on here without a variance? ATTORNEY LAPPER-You’d have to be a hundred feet back from the lake. MR. LAPOINT-You’d have to be a hundred, right, you don’t meet the setbacks. COUNCILMAN BOOR-So you couldn’t, is that your answer? MR. LAPOINT-You could not. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay, now you currently have a two bedroom on there? Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 5 MR. LAPOINT-Correct. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay, and you’re asking for a three bedroom? MR. LAPOINT-No. ATTORNEY LAPPER-No. MR. LAPOINT-Two bedrooms. COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, you’re asking for a system that would legally accommodate a three bedroom house, is that correct? ATTORNEY LAPPER-Correct and there’s four bedrooms now. COUNCILMAN BOOR-So, let me understand. Now, how familiar are you with the Eljen systems? MR. LAPOINT-That’s just another way of distributing the water and the absorption trench. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Are you familiar with the fact that they recommend low flow rates in those and that they don’t recommend that you add large surges of water to them? MR. LAPOINT-They’re no different then a perforated pipe. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Have you read the literature on them? MR. LAPOINT-Yes, I have. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Then you’re not familiar with that portion of it. MR. LAPOINT-I don’t recall that specifically, no. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay. I’m just going to come out ahead of time and tell you that I think it’s admirable that you want to improve a system that’s antiquated and perhaps not functioning well, although we have no proof that it isn’t functioning but I would not allow you to put a system on there that would allow for a third bedroom. The property that we’re talking about is a little bit bigger then a tennis court and it would be just totally irresponsible and we would essentially cut the legs out from under the Zoning Board and take away all their tools to deny this application relative to septic variance. ATTORNEY LAPPER-Let me respond. COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, no, I’m not finished yet. ATTORNEY LAPPER-We’re not disagreeing. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I’m not finished. ATTORNEY LAPPER-Please. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay, thank you. So, please understand that I want you to have the best system you can but it would be totally inappropriate for me to allow you to go bigger then what you have. We have to look, what, there isn’t one application that comes before this Board that doesn’t have at least two property owners adjacent to it and a community property known as Lake George on the other line and you know, we derive a lot of tourist business, it’s an asset to this community. There are many people at the County level and perhaps even on this Board that would have liked to seen a central sewer system go in. It’s not going to happen. So, it’s incumbent upon this Board to take over the responsibility of ensuring the safety of that lake and adjacent homeowners. We take it very seriously. So, when you come MR. LAPOINT-If the use doesn’t change Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 6 COUNCILMAN BOOR-When you come before this Board and ask for more then what is appropriate, you give us no choice but to say no. I thought we made it clear the last time you were here that we would allow you to upgrade but we weren’t going to allow a third bedroom and the fact that you’re doing it by calling it a whirlpool, we, as soon as we get, if we were to grant this thing, you could walk out that door and say, geez, you know what, my husband, he broke his leg and he can no longer lift it to get into a tub, so we’ve decided not to use the whirlpool anymore and instead we’re just going to add a convalescent bedroom for him and we have the system to accommodate it. And we’ve got no power to say otherwise. MR. LAPOINT-It doesn’t change the use, the amount of sewage doesn’t change. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It, well, the point ATTORNEY LAPPER-It’s not worth arguing. COUNCILMAN BOOR-The point is that we don’t ATTORNEY LAPPER-We’ll do a two bedroom system, Roger. The issue, in terms of the science of it, if there was a system designed for six bedrooms, it would just mean more redundancy and better quality effluent. But if, this sounds like this is really an issue of trust that you want to make sure that no one sneaks in a third bedroom and if the Board decides that you want a two bedroom system, then we’ll agree to put in a two bedroom system. That’s, Ed was just trying to design the best system he could and if the Board wants a two bedroom system, we’ll put a two bedroom system in, it’s just not worth arguing about. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, I appreciate that because as you understand from coming here before when you put the three bedroom system in, it does move it closer to the lake, the very thing that we’re trying to protect. If you put a two bedroom system in there, you can gain additional reserve, yea, you can. MR. LAPOINT-It’s the same amount of sewage. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I’m not talking about the sewage, I’m talking about the proximity of the leachfield to the lake which is one of the variances you’re seeking. The larger that leachfield, the closer to the lake you get and you admitted that you wouldn’t be able to do anything on that property if it was a new property, you’re already too close to do anything. ATTORNEY LAPPER-If that’s the Board’s preference, we’ll put in a two bedroom system. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Jon, let me ask the question, has anybody thought about a holding tank? Is that an option? MR. LAPOINT-They’re not recommended, the Department of Health, they require a lot of maintenance, you have to have somebody come pump them out routinely. This distribution system, it’s tried and true, it’s gravity, it will filter, it will protect the lake’s quality. I can’t imagine the difference in the distance between the leachfield would make that much difference, if any. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I’m not so set on that, just my own opinion. Certainly we want to keep things away from the lake and you can understand that, Ed, has that option been thought of, though I guess is my question. ATTORNEY LAPPER-This is an improvement over what’s there now and a holding tank is not preferable because you don’t COUNCILMAN BREWER-Of the expense. ATTORNEY LAPPER-And the inconvenience that you have to, you know, all winter long if you’re there or all summer long you have to have it pumped frequently. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Is it a seasonal home or is it a four season home? Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 7 ATTORNEY LAPPER-Seasonal. COUNCILMAN BREWER-So, there goes the problem there. MR. LAPOINT-But I have a holding tank at my house on the lake and it’s the least desirable option in the State’s Guidance. COUNCILMAN BREWER-But you know, and I understand that but I would wonder why because nothing, literally, nothing escapes. MR. LAPOINT-Right. COUNCILMAN BREWER-So why would that be the least desirable? MR. LAPOINT-They rational the maintenance COUNCILMAN BREWER-It can’t penetrate the lake, it can’t get into the lake because it just goes nowhere. So, why would that be the least desirable? ATTORNEY LAPPER-Our leach bed, Tim here is ninety feet from the lake so I mean in terms of the distance from the lake that we’re trying to protect, this is certainly a lot better then what we have now. It’s a modern system. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Isn’t it eighty-two feet? ATTORNEY LAPPER-Well the eighty-two feet is because we’re counting from the edge of the retaining wall because that’s how it has to be counted but the leachfield is really ninety. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Okay. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-You see, again I’ve wrestled with this and Roger agrees to some degree but he disagrees with me also because this came up the last time we met, given the soil type, the seasonal spikes that we’re going to see with these summer camps with the relatives all up there on one weekend, you know, and their friends and you can’t find a parking spot and you know how these infiltration beds are pushed to the limit probably during those short moments and you know, everyone’s taking a shower, everyone’s over, they’ve been out in the lake all day and everyone’s got to take a shower in the evening before you go out to dinner, you know, it’s vacation time. So, there’s going to be heavy spikes in the camp usage that we see around Lake George and any lake and then the limitation here, the evapotransporation limitations. Given all of that, I prefer to see something that’s designed a little bit bigger then what was designed for the average usages because this is not average, this is unique and so the debate has gone on here. I mean, so, I don’t have personally a problem with the oversized portion of it, and Ms. Bitter, is this the application that we were going to discuss, an aerobic pretreatment. ATTORNEY BITTER-Yes and I mentioned that to Ed as to if the Board wanted some distinction… COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Okay, and here’s where I sit. I have no problem with the system as designed, I would feel a lot better if it had an aerobic pretreatment and I would feel a lot better if somehow I got assurances that it is only going to be, although through the Zoning Board and everything, it’s only going to be a two bedroom house. ATTORNEY LAPPER-Actually we’ll condition it that it’s a two bedroom house, that’s what they’re asking for. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Didn’t you just say on the record it’s a four bedroom house? ATTORNEY BITTER-Currently. COUNCILMAN BREWER-It is now Roger. ATTORNEY LAPPER-Yes. Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 8 COUNCILMAN BOOR-I just want to know. ATTORNEY LAPPER-Yea. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I just, I’m hearing, a hear a lot of different things and I want to make sure I hear it correctly. ATTORNEY LAPPER-Yea, I want to be clear. It’s four bedroom now, it’s going to be converted to a two bedroom. MR. LAPOINT-An aerobic system is going to require a blower and an electric hookup and a vent, alright and actually, what they’ll do is encourage the transport of solids through the leachate system into the field because there’s a certain amount of agitation. The tradeoff for a faster decomposition in a aerobic environment, you’re trading it for the physical separation of the sludge through the bottom of the tank and the scum to the top. What you’re depending on is clarified effluent going to the distribution system for that leachate system to last longer. With an agitated system, that will sit idle for six months out of the year and then be active for six months, you’re going to send that spiky flow through and send solids through to your leach system which is what you don’t want to do. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yea, but I can’t think in terms of the current owner. I’ve got to think that the current owner could sell this house tomorrow and the new owner wants to make it year round and that’s really what’s happening on Lake George so I can’t MR. LAPOINT-I guess what I would say is I think it gives you a less quality effluent to be perfectly honest then a gravity system. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well all the literature that I’ve read says that the pretreatment, the aerobic pretreatment actually come out with a cleaner effluent then MR. LAPOINT-The people who sell it will say that, yes. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, I read independent literature that didn’t come from the manufacturers on the topic and they all, they all agree. MR. LAPOINT-I respectively disagree. Again, the size of the tank, etcetera, the tried and true gravity system, I mean all systems have to be maintained and they have to be replaced in their due time, the reason why leachate field is going to have to be replaced is because of it’s solids loading and nothing else. The clearer the effluent that goes to that leachfield, the longer your system will last. You’ll pump out an aerobic tank the same amount as an anaerobic tank, maybe once every three years and clean it all out. What you don’t want to do is dig up the whole leachfield because of the solids loading to it and blowers fail, there’s got to be a vent on it and this close proximity with all the houses. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-The last one we approved had an alarm system and everything else. MR. LAPOINT-Odors, I mean. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And it was a similar situation as you do, I mean. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Vented back through the house. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I mean, you have to give something MR. LAPOINT-The air has got to come out, it’s COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s vented back through house, on the last application. MR. LAPOINT-Not as reliable as a gravity system. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-No, but the, all of the literature says that the effluent is cleaner, it doesn’t put the demand on your infiltration system as you’re, as the proposed. That’s what the literature says and that’s what other engineers have said. Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 9 MR. LAPOINT-That, I will, I just respectively disagree. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And you have the right to disagree with that. I don’t know if we’ll see that as a Board that way or not, we’ll kind to see how things pan out tonight. SUPERVISOR STEC-I’d like to declare the public hearing open at this time and ask if there’s any members of the public that would like to come and comment on this application? Just raise your hand and I’ll call on you. Yes, sir, in the back. ATTORNEY JOHN CAFFRY-Good evening, I’m John Caffry from the Law Firm of Caffry and Flower representing Dr. George Russo who is next to me here, he’s the adjoining property owner. Although the property is in the name of his wife Sarah, which was put on the plans. I have some things I’d like to give the Board so I think I’ll do that before I start if you don’t mind. (on file in the Town Clerk’s Office) SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s fine. ATTORNEY CAFFRY-A couple of them I only have one copy so I guess I’ll give them to the Supervisor. SUPERVISOR STEC-We’ll share them and do you need them back? John, will you need these back at the end? ATTORNEY CAFFRY-No, these are for the file. SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay. ATTORNEY CAFFRY-First thing that Dr. Russo has asked me to note is that the plans refer to Waters Edge Road as being located next to this system and it’s actually Dr. Russo’s driveway. It’s a private right-of-way there, or it’s his driveway, it may have, provide access elsewhere but it’s actually his driveway, I’m assuming it just got named that for 911 purposes or something. So, he’s the adjoining property owner really on two sides. So, what they’re asking for here is to put a mound only five feet away from his property on the side where the driveway is. He’s opposed to the granting of the variance. There’s absolutely no proof of hardship attached to this application. As you know, there’s a pretty strict standard for proving hardship and there’s just no evidence in the application of why this variance needs to be granted for financial reasons. It doesn’t meet your standards for the sewage disposal code. It’s going to affect the drainage around Dr. Russo’s house and driveway and he believes that you ought to require this applicant to use a holding tank instead because that would be more protective of the environment. We also think that the hearing notice was defective, it only mentioned three variances being needed but there’s actually other issues where it doesn’t conform to the code and either they have to be corrected or else variances need, additional variances need to be applied for and the hearing re-advertised. Those are mentioned, some of them in the memo from our engineer, Dennis MacElroy, that’s one of the things we just handed up to you. Again, looking at your code and proof of variance, they need to show unnecessary hardship that would deprive the owner of reasonable use. If provided absolutely no proof, that going to a holding tank instead this system is necessary for them to have the reasonable use of the property. They haven’t shown any special circumstances, there’s a lot of small lots around the lake, they should be brought into conformance. They have to prove that it won’t be materially detrimental to among other things, adjoining properties. Again, they’re looking for setback variances from Dr. Russo’s property, it’s only five feet on one side and eight feet on the other where the minimum required is ten feet. If this was a garage and it’s bigger then a lot of garages, it would require fifteen feet. Dr. Russo is concerned about the visual impact of this large mound being right next to his yard and he’s also concerned about how it’s going to affect the drainage. It’s approximately twenty-seven by thirty, it’s over twenty-eight hundred cubic feet, the size of this mound. He can tell you how this proposed system is only a few feet from his vegetable garden that he’s maintained for, he says about forty-five years and he’s concerned about the sewage effluent draining into the soil beneath his garden which he believes is a health concern. The application on page 4 recognizes that there’s an increase risk of pollutants. They said the Eljen system will be better then the existing system which maybe true but that doesn’t mean it’s better then a holding tank would be and a holding tank wouldn’t create the crowding impact and the visual impact on Dr. Russo’s property that this would be. Also, there’s no proof that this is the minimum Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 10 variance although that may have been addressed somewhat already with the statement by Mr. Lapper that they will eliminate the house to two bedrooms, we were going to bring that up. You do away with the whirlpool and you limit it to two bedrooms, it will be a smaller system, it will be, able to be redesigned so it won’t have as much impacts, that would may be more of a minimum variance. I filed a copy of the house plans which were filed as part of the area variance application for the Zoning Board of Appeals and on the second floor there’s a large vacant area there that isn’t identified on the plans and if that’s going to be cathedral ceiling or something and not going to have a floor, then maybe it isn’t a problem. But if it’s an open area that could potentially be converted to a third bedroom or something, that could be a potential problem. It’s just not clear from the plans what’s going to be there, so that could be a potential issue. So, we think, as already been suggested, there ought to be a permit condition limiting this house to two bedrooms only. There’s a number of areas where this application doesn’t meet the code, we don’t think. With regard to the setback from the lake, question eleven on the application talks about setback from water supplies. Dr. Russo has a water intake in the lake. I believe the applicants have a water intake in the lake and the next door neighbors, Moynihan probably have a water intake in the lake. None of the locations of those water intakes have been shown on the plans. This system is going to be eighty, eighty-five feet from the lake and of course, once you hit the lake there’s no treatment going on and so you have a potential impact to these water supplies and that’s an issue that really hasn’t been addressed. If you had an area where there was town water, it would be quite so much, big deal, you would always be concerned about the lake but where you’ve got water intakes for people’s homes right there, that’s a really significant issue. And they’ve measured it at eighty-three feet from the lake, but if you measure it from the closes point of the retaining wall to the closest point on the lake, it’s actually probably a little bit under eighty feet or maybe just barely eighty feet. If you would look at or if you can look at it later, the memo we filed from Dennis MacElroy whose an engineer that we retained on this matter, he’s pointed out a number of issues with the system where it doesn’t meet the code, I won’t go into all of them but I will address some of the more major ones. There is, his paragraph 2, the code requires that fill systems have slopes of no more then one to three in order I think to probably try and decrease the setbacks, variances or to squeeze this in where it doesn’t really fit. Instead of having those slopes, they have retaining walls around the mound system itself. So, instead of having one to three you basically have a vertical slope and that doesn’t meet the standards of your code, that’s an issue that isn’t addressed in the application at all and it’s quite possible that that reduces the amount of treatment you get cause the extra fill around the mound is going to have some potential treatment benefits, most of it’s going to go down but there’s also lateral spreading as well. So, there’s an issue that wasn’t addressed in the application. He also points out that, as somebody mentioned you’re supposed to have three feet between the system and groundwater and the way it’s shown on the plans, doesn’t seem to take into effect that there’s, what they call six inches of concrete sand base under the physical distribution pipes or whatever they are and they didn’t appear to have measured that concrete sand which is really part of the system. So, you may really need another six inches of fill rather then count that but it’s just not addressed clearly on the application and that needs to be addressed. There was a question about the fill and material, the fill and material that was discussed but it’s not on the plans. The code requires that basically stormwater controls on these mounds and there’s a couple of issues. One, I think the code is looking at keeping stormwater flows from rushing into the mound and having some kind of diversion around it. We’re also concerned because it’s so close to my client’s property and so close to his driveway that the, this could actually block stormwater flows coming from elsewhere in the neighborhood and if you look at the pictures and you see the amount of water that accumulates in this area when it rains, that’s a real concern. And likewise the water flowing off of the mound onto our property could be an issue. I’ve got another client elsewhere on the lake who has had a real problem with that with his neighbor’s mound system. So, these are issues that haven’t been addressed in the application. We have a concern about the most recent test hole, it was done by Charlie Maine, Charlie Maine obviously is the Dean, if you will of soil scientists out here but it’s just done by a small diameter, auger holes as we understand it. This is a rather complicated groundwater situation in this neighborhood, as Dr. Russo is going to address and it’s kind of hard to see what’s in there if you’re just taking an auger sample. It would have been a lot better if a large test hole had been dug and you could get a bigger look and a better look of what’s in the ground there and the location of the test hole isn’t provided on the plan. If you look at the plans, you don’t even know if it’s where the hole, where the system is or not. I assume it was but that needs to be verified. Mr. MacElroy raises a concern about the length of the Eljen In-Drain systems and they don’t really match the manufacturer’s recommendations for the layout of them. So, his recommendations are that it would be prudent to request additional test pits and do them during the high groundwater periods. I believe the test hole was done in December which is really a low groundwater period, it would be a lot better to do them when groundwater is high and see what the Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 11 actual seasonal high groundwater is. There’s other requirements to, or he also recommends as somebody mentioned some additional mitigation. If you’re not going to go to a holding tank, then there ought to be additional mitigation such as aerobic treatment, bio-filtration or some other type of system in order to make up for the effect of the variance. So, there’s a number of issues where our engineer believes that this application doesn’t meet code besides the obvious setback issues. Either they’re going to have to revise it or they’re going to have to go for additional variances but I think the fact that it needs so many variances to cram this mound system onto this little tiny lot shows that it’s problematic and while you may not want holding tanks everywhere, this is probably the type of location where a holding tank is the best solution just cause it’s such a small lot and it’s surrounded by other houses so close by. We’re not sure if you’ve had your engineers review it, you may want to refer this to CT Male. With regard to the drainage, again, Dr. Russo is going to describe that and you’ve got the photos there but he is concerned about runoff onto his property. We noted in the minutes of the November meeting, that Mr. Stec asked for elevations and other information regarding drainage and that doesn’t seem to have been provided. We think the applicants ought to address that situation and the alternative of a holding tank, would also technically need a variance but we think it would be less detrimental to the neighborhood and to the lake. So, we ask that you deny the variance and require them to go to a holding tank instead. Does anybody have any questions about the issues that I addressed? COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yea, well, one question I have on these, these plans for the house, I can’t read the date when they were stamped. ATTORNEY CAFFRY-I think they’re from October or something and we got them from the Zoning Board, I can’t tell you that they’re the most COUNCILMAN BOOR-Of 2004, 10-05-04, is that correct? ATTORNEY CAFFRY-That sounds like the date I saw on there, yea. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay. ATTORNEY CAFFRY-But we got them from the Zoning Office. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I only bring that up because it’s says three bedroom house here, so I’m a little confused. ATTORNEY CAFFRY-I don’t know, we just got them from the Zoning Board. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Alright. ATTORNEY CAFFRY-And again, it’s possible that that issue may have been addressed already but I think that those plans need to be clarified before they go to Zoning Board. I also assume that this application won’t go to the Zoning Board until the septic system gets resolved and I think that would be good policy but that may be up to that Board. Any other questions? Dr. Russo. DR. RUSSO-I’ll be as brief as you wish, I just jotted down a few notes here. John’s covered many of the points. I think maybe a paragraph of history of that area. As you see on the large picture, the whole grass area which is the, I understand the property is changing ownership now but that, I’ll refer to it as the Zibro land, that whole grass area and you can see a periphery of homes extending from the left all of the way around to the right, some five, six homes. To the best of my knowledge, as I have heard primarily from the West, Seelye family, I believe they’re both deceased now, Mr. West was eighteen years old when he helped build our house which is just behind the white house you see on the left of the big large picture. He mentioned a lot of what when on back in the twenties, apparently this whole area from where the large picture is taken going forward north to the lake, was a swamp and they came in with rocks, boulders and every time I dug a hole, I found yellow or orange clay and they filled in a periphery and put the houses on them and to the best of my knowledge, all of the homes, certainly ours did, had basically, it was a steel tank but a septic pit or some small container and those functioned for some fifty to seventy years. The families had nothing more then that. So, one of my, the points I’d like to make to the body here is that there’s something additional going on that is changing the situation and that’s one of the reasons why I’m so concerned that the whole area be taken a hard look at. But any rate, Mr. West told me that in order to drain the water which came, obviously was coming down off the hill from Rockhurst and Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 12 the rain and so on and so forth, what they did was they dug an underground, a sizeable underground trench drain that was some two hundred feet long that went from the center of this large grass area due east between the Donnelly and End properties and drained into the lake. And it stands to reason, Mr. West last spoke to me, I don’t know, ten years ago that that drained is simply nonfunctional and for that and other reasons, this whole area is again becoming a wetland and a swamp only this time the groundwater level is very measurably above where it was before. One of the evidences as I have of, oh, Mr. West’s summation that not only did they dig that large trench, underground trench to drain the water but they planted many Maple Trees and many Willow Trees and those Willow Trees grew to great size and recently within the seven, eight years, it’s hard to say exactly when it happened, all of those trees seemed to die at once. Some of them still remain. My personal feeling is that the roots either drowned or in the winter, the roots were attacked by ice and killed. Another brief subject I’d like to make, because our home going back, we bought our home 1960 and I noticed as a young man that the house on the pilings would heave during the winter and as a result of that, I became interested in of course the groundwater level, the ice, if I could do anything to improve this so that the house wouldn’t have such a problem in the winter. And about twenty-five years ago I took a four inch plastic pipe and drilled a vertical hole down right in, rather the middle of our property, put it all the way down, a piece of slate across the bottom, made a float and a stick and observed where the groundwater actually was, as the year progressed. To be very brief about it, not infrequently I’ll see it after a heavy rains within one foot of the grass, when we start to relax and feel that we’re not under such a burden, it will be done two and a half feet, three feet, alright. Right now, interestingly I went and the stick is all of the way down to the bottom, the pipe is four feet long. So, the groundwater level right now is more then four feet down, lake is also a little bit low. I’ve noticed as you go into fall, certainly into November the groundwater level does start to go down for various reasons as the ground begins to harden up. It’s one of the reasons why th this groundwater test that was done on December 6, I believe is of such concern to me. Quite frankly, I’d like a very thorough examination of the actual groundwater problems. I would be glad to go over the details of these pictures to you. I think it somewhat speaks for itself, looking down that driveway on one of the double, or both of the double pictures. You see the Moynihan, Phil Moynihan, I spoke to him tonight, he’s in a wheelchair, couldn’t get down here but his, he said you speak for me, but I’d rather have him speak for himself. You can see the impact it’s having on their garage, his son came out to me last summer and he said the concrete in our garage has cracked and has heaved almost six inches, I said I’ve been telling you about this for years. So, these bits of water now in front of the two boats that are covered, that water is there virtually permanently. Each year it gets worse. The water that you see in front of the Taylor property, Russo property and Moynihan property, after each rain you’ll see, these pictures were taken twenty-four hours after a meaningful rainstorm, I will say. Those waters can be found out there not for minutes, not for hours, not even for days, sometime the waters out there in that driveway for a week and if you get an inch rain, it’s there permanently. Okay, and you can see the water extending forward over the Taylor property line out to his property, that’s the area where this mound is supposed to go. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Dr. Russo, you’re to the west of the Taylors? DR. RUSSO-Yes, we are to the west, you can barely see one window in our house there. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And Moynihans are to the right? DR. RUSSO-Moynihans are to the right and under those huge trees, I refer to them as cedars, just beyond that is the Taylor residence and that’s the area they’re talking about to put in whatever they decide, I would certainly hope it’s a holding tank. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-So, you can’t see their residence because of the trees and DR. RUSSO-Because of the trees. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Those two boats are parked there as well? Are we looking at the same picture? DR. RUSSO-No, no, no. COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, that’s a different angle. SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea, right here. Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 13 DR. RUSSO-Yea. SUPERVISOR STEC-I agree with you. DR. RUSSO-I’m looking at this picture showing the Moynihan garage and SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea, you’re right John. DR. RUSSO-Where it says property line, it says property line. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yea, right. SUPERVISOR STEC-Right above the word Taylor. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Right. DR. RUSSO-Just beyond those trees is the Taylor residence and just to the right you’ll see a corner, a white window with some brown shingles, that’s our house and right where that picture ends is our property line, our western property line and that’s where I’ve had the garden for so many years. That mound will be three feet or more above that ground level and I right, eight feet away I believe it is, I’m digging one foot or two feet down into the ground, that’s a five foot pressure-head. I mean, I’m wondering what’s going to be watering the garden. So, there are many more things that I could go into here and not the least of which are the trees, I’ll just mention that very briefly. Over the years I asked the Breck family back in the 1960’s, and then the Prince family in 1970’s, 1980’s, why don’t you cut down those trees, they darken the house and so on and so forth. From both, I got the same answer, they take the water out of the septic pit. Now, how can reasonable people consider even measuring groundwater levels when those five huge trees are still there right where this pit is supposed to go or this body is supposed to go. So, I’ll stop there but I’d be glad to answer questions on any other matter. SUPERVISOR STEC-Any questions? Anyone else from the public would like to speak this evening? Yes, ma’am. DR. RUSSO-Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you Doctor. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-John, did we get the text of what you had to say? I got a lot of materials from you tonight, did we get the text of what you had to say? ATTORNEY CAFFRY-No. SUPERVISOR STEC-I’ve got the originals of what you gave us. COUNCILMAN BREWER-You’ve got to read the minutes of this. ATTORNEY CAFFRY-You have the engineer’s report, part of what I said summarizes it. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-But the minutes are abbreviated and they’re not word for word so I don’t use the minutes for anything to be honest with you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Public hearings are though. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-I’m sorry. SUPERVISOR STEC-You do public hearings word for word though. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-Yes. SUPERVISOR STEC-John, public hearings are transcribed word for word. Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 14 COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Oh, they are. SUPERVISOR STEC-The public hearing, yea. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Okay, thanks Caroline, I didn’t know that. MS. SUSAN BARDIN-Good evening, Susan Bardin from the Lake George Association and I regret that I don’t know the specifics of this application. However, that being said, onsite wastewater treatment is always more effective then a holding tank. So, I would advocate granting of these variances for the shoreline setback with the Eljen In-Drain System and the pretreatment, aerobic system for pretreatment of the wastewater before it goes to leachfield. And finally, I think that designing the system for two bedrooms is a better option. I think when you have the whirlpool tub and you drain that, you have so much water going into the wastewater treatment system. If you don’t have a gray water system and that makes the system have to be maintained more frequently. It puts more, it’s more taxing on the system. Thanks. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you, Susan. Yes, Mr. Navitsky. MR. CHRIS NAVITSKY-Good evening, Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. I’d just like to follow up, I sent a letter in a couple of weeks ago and I do agree that, you know with these lots that, they’re postage stamp, they’re tight, you know people want to redevelop it and take a look at that. But I do think that as they request some variances and relief from the Board, I think that the Board and the lake has a right to get some more back also and such things as the treatment system, the secondary treatment would be good there. I thought I saw in one of the correspondences that this, the Eljen was actually called a secondary treatment unit and that’s not true, the Eljen is basically similar to a leachfield and they got relief from New York State Department of Health due to size requirement and actually can reduce what their length is out in the field. But that does not give you additional treatment. I would strongly encourage to take a look at the aerobic treatment units, I think that this site warrants it and as they get relief from the setbacks, then we need to take a look and get a stronger system in there so. And again, I think another concern is to really justify that is that that twenty-foot taper is important for treatment, that you do need that as your effluent trickles and filters out. By that taking that retaining wall in, they’re limiting that basil area that you need for infiltration and treatment. So, I think that that’s another strong reason to take a look at secondary treatment because with these retaining walls in there, that takes away that taper area that we need, the basil area for treatment and disposal. So, I strongly would encourage the aerobic treatment unit or secondary treatment. SUPERVISOR STEC-Chris, let me ask you a question. Specific to this case and or in general, the Eljen System versus a holding tank? Because Susan frankly, to be blunt, surprised me and frankly we’ve gone in the direction of holding tanks in a lot of the difficult situation. We’ve heard people advocate for that this evening and I mean I know you and Susan have a lot of expertise in this area and she surprised me. So, not to put you or her on the spot but what are your thoughts? MR. NAVITSKY-I do not like holding tanks for new applications. I feel that that is creating development where it can not, where the soils and the site can not allow it. We’ve got a site that is not new development here, it’s redevelopment. I do not advocate holding tanks but they are an option for a redeveloped site. I do not think that they should be allowed for new development but redevelopment, I’ve strongly would take a look at the aerobic system but you know, holding tank in a replacement, I think there are arguments either way. But for new development, I don’t support that. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Chris, I have a question for you. Obviously this is not going to have the taper as you refer to so I think Dr. Russo pointed out pressure and certainly when you put water in a column, you create pressure and that is certainly a concern I would have is if you essentially create this walled up area, put water in it, at the bottom you’ve got a lot of pressure and these pictures would indicate that the ground stays fairly well saturated all the time. So, I’m not sure even which way this water will move when it comes out of this thing. Is it going to go into the neighbor’s yard? Is it going to go towards the lake? You know, is it going to go into the garden? Certainly I think Mr. Brewer’s comments were probably pretty close to what mine would be leaning towards, if I was going to take the most protective view you can and that is the, in some instances a holding tank probably is the best solution. Just putting more water into water doesn’t, doesn’t seem to benefit the neighbors or the lake. Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 15 MR. NAVITSKY-I agree with that. I don’t know where the water will go under pressure. I don’t know the soils, I don’t know, you know as you remove trees, as you possibly excavate a new foundation, you relieve what soils are, are. You could be creating new paths subsurface, I would not know. But, as I said, it’s a difficult decision but there are, there are reasons and justifications for the holding tank. But I don’t, but I think that that’s a problem on new development. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Can I ask you one more question? MR. NAVITSKY-Yes, sir. COUNCILMAN BREWER-My mind is completely, I don’t understand. I hear everybody saying we want to protect the lake. How can anybody be against something that would allow absolutely zero nothing into the lake versus a system that for whatever reason if the system fails, there’s potential for that effluent to get into the lake. How do you justify that? MR. NAVITSKY-I said on new development with the holding tanks. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Whether it’s new or, or MR. NAVITSKY-Well, I think on new that means that this site, if you’re looking at a holding tank then your soils aren’t there, your conditions should not be built on. With your comments on the holding tank on a redeveloped site, you take a look at the effluent standards that come out of an aerobic treatment unit, you are looking at treatment of, that removes ninety-nine percent of your biological COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yea, but a holding tank removes one hundred percent, you can’t get any better then that. SUPERVISOR STEC-Well both systems require some level of maintenance and upkeep and there are some key assumptions. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Understood, putting the maintenance aside. COUNCILMAN TURNER-That’s true but when the holding tank is full the alarms go off and that’s it. COUNCILMAN BREWER-And if there’s alarm and the system doesn’t work when it’s full, I, I, it boggles my mind. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, not only that but Chris, on this site, you’ve got loamy soil, you’ve got point one three seven acres, you’ve got stormwater concerns from neighbors, you have groundwater table that’s not too far from the surface, I mean you do have a lot of question marks as to how safe and secure, even if they do put a pretreatment in, this Eljen System’s going to be in the long run. And now, so, you know, having a holding tank would not be completely unjustified. MR. NAVITSKY-I didn’t, I feel that there are SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s what you said. COUNCILMAN BREWER-No, he didn’t say that. COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, he said under new construction. SUPERVISOR STEC-Right. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Now, on the other matter, now you’ve heard me speak to the over sizing of the systems because of the unique problems on Lake George, you have this weekend usage with many, many more people then what is expected in the normal household. I mean, you’ve got guests, friends, relatives, you got parties going, I mean, you’ve got a lot of activity going up there and you can tell by the number of cars that are there during the summer, there’s a lot of people there. Now, are the septic systems designed for that kind of high usage in that short amount of Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 16 time? I mean, all these people are taking showers and everything else like I mentioned previously. I mean, it’s vacation, it’s summer and you know, the hot tub and whatever else, you’re going to see all of that extra use and everything else. I mean, a normally sized system I fear may not be ample enough to service those kinds of spikes, those effluent spikes. MR. NAVITSKY-With the tank, with the trickle out of that and I believe there was a pump system here, you know, you will have some form of a buffer that it won’t be continuous. But Mr. Strough, your point is well taken and I’m, as I said, I, this might be a case for a holding tank. But I think when you do put in the aerobic system, I do think you do provide that extra treatment, but this is as somebody characterized similar to a tennis court, so. I mean, you are extremely limited, so. COUNCILMAN BOOR-The other thing Chris, just to, this will be the last comment but let’s assume it’s one hundred percent clean water, it’s still appears to me that the site is incredibly wet without additional water. So, I don’t know why we even be wanting to add clean water to a site that’s already very, very wet. You know, there again, the assumption being that we’re getting ninety-nine point whatever percent cleansing of the effluent using the aerobic. It’s problematic. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Keep in mind though, this water is not on this applicant’s property, is it? SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, no, that’s the problem. It will be pushing it even more. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I know, but we’re talking about water that we see standing here and assuming that’s on this person’s property and it’s not necessarily the SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s on the neighbor’s property. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Understood. SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay. COUNCILMAN BREWER-We’re not talking about this piece of property that the application is before us. SUPERVISOR STEC-Oh, I see what you’re saying. COUNCILMAN BREWER-So, I just steer caution to thinking that just because there’s water on the next door neighbor’s property, doesn’t automatically make us assume that there’s standing water on this person’s property, I guess is my point. SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s true but I think that the counter argument would be that we could be creating a situation that COUNCILMAN BOOR-And he’s seeking a variance from this property line. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Understood but what makes you think, what makes you think that the person that owns this property where the water is doesn’t have a problem COUNCILMAN BOOR-I think he does. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Creating a problem for the other person. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I think he does. SUPERVISOR STEC-Right. COUNCILMAN BOOR-But he’s not here asking to put a larger system on his property. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I understand that but SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright. Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 17 COUNCILMAN BREWER-You talk about this water, find out the stem of the problem before you assume that it’s this person trying to put a septic system in, I guess is what I’m trying to say. SUPERVISOR STEC-Right, but it could be made worse. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Could be, yea. SUPERVISOR STEC-Or it could not. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Or it could not be. SUPERVISOR STEC-Chris, anything else? MR. NAVITSKY-No. No thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Anything else for Chris? Anyone else from the public like to comment on this public hearing? Mr. Tucker. MR. PLINEY TUCKER, Division Road-Is this septic system that John Salvador was talking to you people about last week? SUPERVISOR STEC-I think it is. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I believe it is, Pliney, he sent us a letter. SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea, he sent us a letter. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yea. MR. TUCKER-You guys have got the letter? SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes. MR. TUCKER-That’s all I was supposed to find out. It’s going to be part of the record, right? SUPERVISOR STEC-It’s going to be part of the record. MR. TUCKER-Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Yup, you’re welcome Mr. Tucker. Anyone else, first time? Mr. Auer. MR. DOUG AUER, 16 Oakwood Drive-Good evening. Doug Auer, 16 Oakwood Drive. I wasn’t going to comment, I really had no interest in this but it brings to mind the more important issue. This discussion I don’t believe would even be taking place if the code was followed. I think waivers and variances are the things that have gotten us into this situation and I think this is where we end up spending a lot of time. So, just my thought. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you. Anyone else like to comment this evening? Okay, Mr. Caffry, rebuttal. ATTORNEY CAFFRY-I’d just like to clarify a couple of, for one thing really, Mr. Brewer asked about the standing water whose property was it on. If you look at the sheet of photos that’s got two, they’re basically photos taped together, you know stuck together but if you look at the one that’s got one over the other, the top one shows a large amount of standing water right above where it says Taylor property line. So that water, there is standing water on the applicant’s property, if not exactly where this system would go immediately adjacent to that area. SUPERVISOR STEC-Yup, see it. Thank you for pointing that out cause I missed it the first time too. Mr. Lapper. Dave Hatin, do you have anything that you’d like to add? MR. DAVE HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Let Jon talk and then I’ll comment. Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 18 SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, thank you. ATTORNEY LAPPER-Okay, a couple of things. There’s nothing real unique about small parcels on the lake that have been rezoned to larger minimum lot size that are trying to renovate their homes and upgrade their septic systems. The applicant has the option of keeping the seepage pit that’s right there and a four bedroom home and renovating the house and making cosmetic changes and just leaving it there. And that would be a preferable option rather then a holding tank which is just a real inconvenience in terms of lifestyle and not being able to wash dishes and take showers because you have to have a truck come and pump out all the water and drive down the road and it’s expensive and it’s inconvenient. So, so you have to weigh this against leaving a seepage pit which I think that Dr. Russo indicated has been there since something like the twenties on all these, on all these sites and that’s not preferable. That’s, I mean just in terms of looking at the lake in a larger sense, it’s a question of creating systems that are scientifically an upgrade from what’s there. You know, certainly we’ve had discussions about pre-treating and if that’s where this Board goes, you know that’s something that we can look at. But, I was pleased to see Susan from the LGA talk about dealing with these onsite, I mean, everyone on the lake isn’t going to want to go to holding tanks and I know that this Board has granted reasonable variances in the past for upgraded systems. So, I think you really have to look at the possibility of just leaving the seepage pit there, if there’s no real option that the Town grants and I don’t think that that’s preferable. In terms of the drainage issue, the drainage issue was on what was the Zibro’s site, I understand it’s been purchased and what Dr. Russo said and I’m aware of this from other clients that there was a drainage way that went from there to the lake that had nothing to do with this site. The Taylor property is higher then that Zibro field so it can’t drain through this property to the lake and that’s why they had an underground drainage system. If that needs to be maintained, that’s not, it’s not a Town system, it needs to be done privately by the neighbors that own the property, the Donnelly’s and the End’s, I guess it goes along their border and that’s what gets the water into the lake and whether or not that should happen without treatment is another story. But it’s not something that’s exacerbated by the Taylor property because the Taylor property is higher then that. So, that really has nothing to do with what’s going on here. This is an attempt to do something that’s scientifically appropriate with this Board’s approval, you know, whatever system is ultimately determined to be the best system and you know, we just ask you not to impose a holding tank because that would probably leave the applicant to just leave it alone and I don’t think that that’s in the best interest of the Town or the lake. One thing that Attorney Caffry said in terms of the three bedroom, it is an open loft so there’s no attempt to do a three bedroom and he may have had, he may have had an older set of plans. But what’s been submitted to the Town is two bedroom and in terms of whether the correct variances were requested, we submitted that to Dave Hatin and Dave looked at it and told us that these were the variances that the Town requires and that’s why we’re here. And I think that covers most of the issues. SUPERVISOR STEC-Any other questions right now before I ask Dave Hatin to come up? COUNCILMAN BOOR-One more. Jon, you go before the Zoning Board quite often and I have to believe that you’re here because if you go to the Zoning Board with this system that you say is in the ground, they’re going to say well we want you to up, improve the system before we’ll grant whatever variance you’re going to be seeking from them. So, I think the notion that you could just leave it and go do what you want to do probably is incorrect or you’d be at the Zoning Board right now and not be worried about improving this system. ATTORNEY LAPPER-You’re correct, we can’t go in for a new house without upgrading the septic system to code. So, they would have to pull that application, keep the house that they have now and just renovate it. They couldn’t do a rebuild but they’re also going Roger from a four bedroom to a two bedroom which is a big deal and they’re moving it, they’re proposing to move it from the side setback to make it less nonconforming. You know, part of it, it cuts both ways, when you go to the Zoning Board, you want to say, look, part of what we’re providing to the Town is that we’re going to bring the system as close to code as you can, we’re going to upgrade the system and the Zoning Board wants to hear that. But we’re here because in order to do a renovation at the Zoning Board, we do have to bring the system as close to compliance as possible. SUPERVISOR STEC-Let me ask this, if we were going to entertain these variances, one of the concerns that we had tonight and on similar applications when we talked about these mounded systems, is the drainage and how the runoff off of this system will impact neighboring properties. What are your thoughts on that? What is your mitigation plan? Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 19 ATTORNEY LAPPER-Well, I guess one thing that, you know rather then have the attorneys act as engineers, if you want to refer that to CT Male, that’s totally appropriate it and we can have them look at it. But, I mean the way I understand the drainage way there, it’s not coming from the low area across the Taylor property and in terms of this system, this system is designed appropriately as a mound system so that it’s not going to impact the neighbors. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Do you understand the hydraulics of a column? ATTORNEY LAPPER-Yea, the issue COUNCILMAN BOOR-That you’re proposing putting on this property? ATTORNEY LAPPER-The issue about the slope, what the regulations say and I know that Dave Hatin will confirm this, is that if you have a slope rather then a retaining wall, if you have a slope, the slope has to be a certain toe because you don’t want to have it so that it could leach through the slope, you don’t want to have it too steep. But here we’ve solved that by putting in a retaining wall which will be impervious and would prevent that from happening. COUNCILMAN BOOR-But don’t you see that the retaining wall creates another problem and that’s hydraulic pressure? ATTORNEY LAPPER-The groundwater does go through that mound. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, no but as you, as a column of water gets higher it creates force. It’s like when you clear your ears, when you go swimming it’s because the deeper the water gets there’s more pressure, so the water that’s ATTORNEY LAPPER-But the column is no higher. I mean, just in terms of the science the mound is no higher with the retaining wall, it’s a question of how far off it goes to the side. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s depth is what creates pressure, not lateral. ATTORNEY LAPPER-We’ve designed this meeting a lot with Dave in terms of what is appropriate for this type of system and I think that he’ll verify that. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I guess I, you’re seeking relief on this, it’s not just the lake, from these property owners and the property owners are bringing us pictures with, of a very flooded site and you’re going to create this column of treated water and you’re saying that it’s not going to impact the neighbors and I don’t know how ATTORNEY LAPPER-Right now, we’ve got a seepage pit right now that’s right there on the same site so whatever is there, in terms of what’s coming from the house and what’s coming from the rain, is going into the ground anyway and it’s not exacerbating the low area in the back on the Zibro property. That’s a separate problem that has nothing to do with this. Yea the neighbor can come and show you pictures of his neighbor’s property when there’s rain but that doesn’t mean that this, the Taylor property has anything to do with that. I mean, if the Town wants to take that on which isn’t a Town drainage issue, that’s probably good for all of the neighbors but that’s a private drainage issue for private owners. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I guess it all comes back to this is, at what point as an attorney representing an applicant you say, this really isn’t a good idea but I’ll take it anyway? I mean I know that’s a crazy question but I mean at some point you have to understand, we have to be able to say no when something isn’t a good idea. ATTORNEY LAPPER-Let’s ask the question the other way. There are all these homes on Cleverdale and Assembly Point that want to be upgraded. So in terms of a macro analysis, what’s the best way to do it. Well, the best way to do it is to provide better leaching system, better science then what’s there now then what was built in the last century and you know, in this case maybe eighty-five years ago. A seepage pit is certainly not something that you could do now under current DOH Regulations or under the Town of Queensbury Regulations. So the question is, what do you do to provide the best system to deal with the effluent and what we’ve proposed is a modern system Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 20 that is a big upgrade from what’s there now and I think, as matter of policy the Town Board, Board of Health has allowed these systems on the lake, it’s a good response to dealing with this system, to clean the effluent before it goes into the ground. COUNCILMAN BOOR-But we don’t do it on tennis court size properties where you’re trying to put a three bedroom house. ATTORNEY LAPPER-That’s not, we’re trying to put a two bedroom house. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well ATTORNEY LAPPER-There’s nothing COUNCILMAN BOOR-You’re putting a three, you’re putting a three bedroom system which takes up a lot more space. In other words, you only have so much space. ATTORNEY LAPPER-But this system COUNCILMAN BOOR-The whole property is going to be ATTORNEY LAPPER-This lot is no smaller then a lot of other lots in the area. COUNCILMAN BOOR-But we’re talking about this one. ATTORNEY LAPPER-Right but this lot is no smaller, it’s a question of how you deal with the effluent. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I think it is small, it’s the smallest one since I, in the three years I’ve sat on this Board this is, with the exception of one, it’s the smallest but, and we granted a holding tank in that instance and that was the White application ATTORNEY LAPPER-But the question is what COUNCILMAN BOOR-And that ATTORNEY LAPPER-What size is the leach system that you need to deal with it. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, no the question is when do you say no? ATTORNEY LAPPER-Well are you telling somebody that they, that they shouldn’t live in their house? No, you’re telling them that they should keep their seepage pit. COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, we’re saying that you should accept the house as it is. ATTORNEY LAPPER-But I mean, but that’s a seepage pit, that’s not a good result. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, I think this Board would offer you alternatives but not three bedroom alternatives, speaking for myself. ATTORNEY LAPPER-And we’re okay with the two bedroom alternative. SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, I’m going to ask Dave Hatin to come on up, please. ATTORNEY LAPPER-Sure. SUPERVISOR STEC-Dave. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-I’ll try not to confuse the Board anymore. I just want to point out a couple of things so the Board understands the issues that are before them. The reason this application is before you is because the Taylors are proposing a new residence. Under the code, 75-A which is the bible that we go by, you’re aware of the issues we have with Mr. Salvador and some interpretations from the Department of Health, new construction you can not install holding Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 21 tanks. So that would preclude them from doing new construction. Okay, I just want to make sure the Board is clear on that. So, a system is the only way they can go for new construction. If you want to, say if there is no alternative and that holding tanks are the option here and the only option, then they would have to keep the current residence and possibly renovate that, that’s their choice. But I just wanted to be sure that the Board understands that issue before you move forward with this. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Alright, my question, let’s stop right there is, my understanding is relative to, I can’t remember the application but I thought, if something is, if twenty-eight percent of something is remodeled it’s considered new construction. The Zoning Administrator Craig Brown issued a stop-work order when more then twenty-eight percent of a house was torn down and he considered it new construction. So, are you saying that this applicant is not going to disturb more then twenty-eight percent? MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-No Roger, what I’m saying from what I understand from the application and perhaps Jon or Mr. Taylor can clarify it, my understanding is the reason for them being here is because they’re proposing a new residence on this property. Okay, total new residence. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay, so it is a new residence. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Okay, the residence that’s there, I think, I believe and I could be wrong, is to be removed. Alright and they’re proposing a brand new residence, two bedroom with the Jacuzzi right now, depending on what option you choose there. COUNCILMAN BOOR-So, I guess that goes to my point that, in this day and age, we wouldn’t grant a permit to build a house on a, in a piece of property the size of a tennis court. I mean, I think that was one of the first things I said tonight. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-That’s for the Board to decide, I just want to point out that new construction will not allow holding tanks. I just want to make sure that you’re clear on that. Alright, so the Zoning Ordinance is what the trigger here. I think the percentage you mentioned, it’s fifty percent also Roger, I’m not positive on that. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, it was twenty-eight for the one. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Okay, I could be wrong, I’m not sure. There was a mention of a fourth variance and I’m not sure where that came from, I don’t have the information that was provided to you tonight, I’d like to review that. But, I guess it gets to the point I’m trying to make here is, we have a lot of, we have two engineers on different sides of the issue. We have attorneys on different sides of the issues. We have homeowners on different sides of the issue. I think this is an application that should be referred to CT Male so that you have an independent review of this application, one that doesn’t have any interest in this application, it’s just for the truth and the issues and I think this would be, it would be wise for the Board to forward this to CT Male. Perhaps a multi-flow unit is something you want to throw in there so that we don’t do this twice and again, the Board decide whether they want to do that with the applicant. But I just think it would be better if we had an independent review so that the Board has good information to work with. I think that there is some information that, I wouldn’t want to call misinformation but I think it’s slighted to one side or the other and that concerns me because I don’t want the Board to make decisions based on wrong information. COUNCILMAN BOOR-What is the typical window for test pits, is it April to what? MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-I believe it’s April to mid June, I think is what the ordinance says, or the end of May. COUNCILMAN BOOR-So we wouldn’t even, if CT Male were to do this, we wouldn’t even be entertaining anything until after April or MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Well, no I disagree with you there, you have, as John Caffry pointed out, you have Charlie Maine who is the Godfather of soil scientist and Charlie is very well respected in his field. Charlie has gone up there and reconfirmed Ed LaPoint’s initial test Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 22 pit data. From my understanding it was taken in an area where the field is proposed. So, I think that information is good. COUNCILMAN BOOR-But that wasn’t done between April and June. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-It doesn’t have to be. COUNCILMAN BOOR-But, I mean, I think it’s a serious issue. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-No, Roger, you have to understand the reason we have that is because several years ago the Town Board, back in the 80’s approved six engineers to do testing outside of those time frames and Charlie Maine was one of those people that was permitted. Okay, so by ordinance which this Town Board can do at any time they wish, you can approve specific engineers to do testing out of times that’s why I suggested to the applicants that they bring Charlie Maine or somebody like him in to do that so that you had that independent review out of those time frames. COUNCILMAN BREWER-But isn’t there now Dave only, there’s only two people allowed to do that in this Town right now and Charlie Maine is one and the other works somewhere Saratoga way, somewhere down that way. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-There was sick originally approved, Tom Nace I know is one of them and I’d have to go back to the Resolution to see who the other four are. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I don’t think there’s still six, I don’t believe. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-No, I know Tom Nace and Charlie Maine is still on. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Right. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-And they’re the two that we see the most of. I believe Tom Jarrett, I think is on that list as well. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, maybe. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-From Jarrett-Martin. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, I agree with you, I don’t think it’s a bad idea to send it to Male but we have to have the applicant’s consent to look at the, what did you call it a multi-flow system? MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Well, that has been kicked around, I know it’s been asked by Chris Navitsky from the Waterkeeper and I think that you have to let the applicant know whether that’s the direction you’re going to lean or not because that would influence the drawing that goes to the engineer and it may change that drawing slightly too and it made change the variances needed, I don’t know. COUNCILMAN BOOR-But I don’t think we have a leaning. I mean, and that’s, that’s what I’m getting at. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Well, I guess I’m asking for the Board to make a decision on it then. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I have one individual showing us a flood plain and another one hasn’t characterized it as dry. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Roger, I’m not an engineer but I will tell you there’s a difference between groundwater and runoff, alright and the two are, the two do not correlate as it pertains to this application. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I know but I think that we have variances being asked for the property lines that is runoff related and are you saying that it’s not important that we look at runoff? Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 23 MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-No, what I’m saying is I think the engineer who is a qualified person to answer that should look at that, that’s what I’m saying and I think it should be our engineer. COUNCILMAN BOOR-But we have to grant the variance. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Yea but I think you should go, you should have good information based on our engineer’s review of this application. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I think we’re going to get more information, I’m just concerned that we get it when it’s appropriate. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-And I think now is the, my feeling and again, it’s your decision, now is the time to refer this to our Town Engineer for review and then bring it back to the Board. COUNCILMAN BREWER-What happened with them always being asked to send these to CT Male? COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Only when we requested it. COUNCILMAN BOOR-So, why now? I have to ask why now. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Why now? COUNCILMAN BOOR-Why now? MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Because you’re still in the design stages, you have opinions on both sides of the issue. COUNCILMAN BOOR-We’re not designing anything, that’s what we would, that’s why we would hire an engineer, isn’t it? Isn’t that what we’re talking MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-But he’s going to review this application as proposed, the only thing I ask is, do you want the multi-flow unit to be included in that? COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yea, that’s the problem, what is this application. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Right. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I mean, I’m getting the feeling right now that we’re either looking at a holding tank, if I go by what I’m feeling the consensus is up here, or we’re going to go with a two bedroom design, designed for a two bedroom with an aerobic pretreatment flow. Now, my guess is, this might be where we end up because we’re going to need less of a bed, it’s going to get it away from the property and there might not be a need for a retaining wall, if you go to a smaller system. So, that’s what, clearly I’m hearing either one or the other, is happening. Either they’re going to go to the two bedroom with the pretreatment or we’re going to go to a holding tank. That’s the message I think we’ve got to send the applicant and then when they get the reengineered, then that should go to CT Male. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-I totally agree. I totally agree. SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, anything else Dave? MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-No, that’s it. SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, Mr. Lapper. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I think we have to make up our mind now. SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, I know we’ll want him at the microphone. I think John hit the nail on the head about that’s the direction I see the Board going as well. Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 24 ATTORNEY LAPPER-And us too, we’re just trying to do the right thing here. I concur with what Dave Hatin said, I had suggested CT Male cause I know you’ve done that on other applications and if it turns out, two bedroom pretreatment is the right answer and have CT Male confirm the drainage, that’s okay with the applicant. We’re trying to do the right thing. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And Jon, you’re going to have to address the other issues that were brought up by Mr. Caffry and some of the neighbors. ATTORNEY LAPPER-Yea, I think that COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Stormwater flow. ATTORNEY LAPPER-Yea, that would help to show where that’s really going, so, that’s okay, we’ll have to make a resubmission and we’ll direct it to you to forward it to CT Male. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I don’t have a problem with that. COUNCILMAN TURNER-No, I don’t have a problem with that. SUPERVISOR STEC-Roger? COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s fine. SUPERVISOR STEC-Marilyn, did you get all that? So, we’ll refer this to CT Male. ATTORNEY LAPPER-We’ll resubmit first. SUPERVISOR STEC-You’ll pay for it. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Now, are you going to have Ed design this and then submit it to Male or COUNCLMAN BOOR-Yes. ATTORNEY LAPPER-Yea, we’ll do some redesign based upon what we hear and then have that submitted to CT Male. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And you were going to add, if my notes are right, from, I didn’t put a date on it, you were going to add to the plan, in case shall any vehicle or traffic pass over any portion of this disposal field, or something to that affect. ATTORNEY LAPPER-Yup. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I think last two times ago, we were worried about parking in the area because people who park anywhere where they think they can park and even if it’s a mound and they’ve got a 4-wheel drive, hey, they’re going to park there. You know what I mean? COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yea, I’ve got one John, I know. th ATTORNEY LAPPER-Only on July 4. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Jon, can we ask that you submit both, a plan for a holding tank and a plan for a two bedroom with aerobic? ATTORNEY LAPPER-I think what COUNCILMAN BREWER-I think that it’s clear that the applicant wont submit a plan for a holding tank, Roger. ATTORNEY LAPPER-What Dave said is that for new construction, DOH wouldn’t even let us do a holding tank and that’s true. Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 25 COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, he said that they don’t like that. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-No they, it’s not allowed. ATTORNEY LAPPER-It’s not allowed. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well how did Mr. Morris get his? Did you answer that question? MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-That was done before we had interpretation from the Department of Health regarding holding tank. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Thank you. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-There are several others too. ATTORNEY LAPPER-Okay. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And if the mound is still going to be a problem, you may want to design a kind of stormwater system, if it looks like it’s going to flow under the neighbor’s property. ATTORNEY LAPPER-Yea, if it needs it, that can be done with a French drain. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, I’m pretty sure, excuse me that in the ordinance somewhere it says that any runoff is not supposed to leave the owner’s property anyway. So they, you can’t design it so that it will leave the property. ATTORNEY LAPPER-We’re just trying to do it right. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I remember that from the Planning Board, John. COUNCILMAN BOOR-And we certainly don’t want to accelerate it to the lake either. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Right. ATTORNEY LAPPER-Right. Okay, thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, so that’s the consensus of the Town Board is that we will have this resubmit, or submitted to CT Male for engineering review and I will leave the public hearing open, Bob or do I COUNSEL HAFNER-It’s a new plan. It’s a new plan. COUNCILMAN BOOR-And one other comment, Marilyn, when that SUPERVISOR STEC-It’s a new plan, so I’ll close the public hearing. ATTORNEY LAPPER-Well, we’re not going to resubmit an application, we’re just going to modify the plan based upon what we’ve heard tonight. COUNSEL HAFNER-Well you’ve got to at least give the public a chance to comment and I would think you’d want to notice them again. COUNCLMAN BOOR-Yea. SUPERVISOR STEC-So, my question is, close this public hearing, we’ll have a new public hearing, we’ll be setting a new public hearing at a later time. COUNSEL HAFNER-Yea, I think you have to do that. ATTORNEY LAPPER-That’s fine. Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 26 COUNSEL HAFNER-You can’t notify until you have the plan. ATTORNEY LAPPER-You can’t have a public hearing until we get CT Male’s comments. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right. COUNSEL HAFNER-It’s got to a substantial thing. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Marilyn, when that application comes in, can we get copies of it? ATTORNEY LAPPER-Yup. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Before it goes to CT Male. ATTORNEY LAPPER-Well submit it to you. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay, thank you. ATTORNEY LAPPER-Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-So, we’re clear on what direction. ATTORNEY LAPPER-Yup. SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, I’ll close the public hearing and I anticipate that at a future date we will set a new public hearing on a new application. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER announced that the following letters were submitted to be made a part of this record and are on file in the Town Clerk’s Office. COUNCLMAN BOOR-Also just for the record, I know also the White property, that’s new construction and that has a holding tank too so I has happened. MR.HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-But that was no alternative… COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, there’s no alternative here without a variance, Dave. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-That’s your decision, Roger. January 24, 2005 Honorable Dan Stec, Supervisor Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 Re: Taylor – Watersedge Drive, Rockhurst Sewage Treatment System Variance Dear Mr. Stec: I have reviewed the application for the above referenced wastewater system variance and, although I am unable to attend due to a conflict, would like to submit the following comments: 1. The wastewater treatment system proposed is a raised system according to NYSDOH regulations. §75-A.9.b.3.v of the NYSDOH Wastewater Treatment Standards states “The edge of fill material shall be tapered at a slope of no greater than one vertical to three horizontal with a minimum 20 foot taper”. This is to provide a proper area for disposal (not treatment) and the criteria has not been met for this application. §75-A.9.b.3.vi of the NYSDOH Wastewater Treatment Standards states “Horizontal separation distances shall be measured from the outside Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 27 edge of the taper”. All horizontal dimension provided are measured from the edge of the trenches provided and therefore, the relief requested would be greater. 2. As stated in testimony, there is a groundwater problem on the lot and to raise the level of treatment in an attempt to avoid water quality problems, perhaps secondary treatment should be evaluated to raise the level of treatment from the effluent. Thank you for the consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky, PE Lake George Waterkeeper February 4, 2005 Queensbury Local Board Of Health 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 Re: Septic Variance Ronald & JoAnn Taylor 14 Watersedge Drive Gentlemen: This letter is written to comment on the appropriateness of your granting a permit to Ronald & JoAnn Taylor for an “alternate” onsite wastewater treatment system to support the residential development proposed at 14 Watersedge Drive. The onsite wastewater treatment system being proposed for this seasonal conversion is intended to operate in a Critical Environmental Area (6NYCRR-3.8) employing an “alternate secondary treatment system” concept known as a the “Eljen In-Drain”. The Eljen “In-Drain” concept has been approved and recommended for a very narrow range of uses and site conditions as an alternate for a standard system – not as a modification to a mound system, which in and of itself is an alternate system. The manufacturer’s recommended practices as published in the Eljen “Design and Installation Manual” state unequivocally that the system efficiency can be achieved only with an exact adherence thereto and at the same time limiting several uses and discharges normally found in a high-end residential development. Further, that the recommended layout for the use of the In-Drain units as well as the operational limitations are predicated on a range of inter- related insitu conditions which must be met in order for the In-Drains, once installed, to remain within their 10 year warranty. Although the manufacturer rates the In-Drain unit suitable for use in natural-undisturbed soil with anywhere from 1 to 60 second “perc rate”, the use of these units is self-defeating if the natural soils have a relatively high perc rate; i.e., more area is required where it is already understood that the available area is the sole limiting factor precluding the use of a conventional system. The application herein is based on a soil scientist’s certification that the soil percolation rate on this “tiny site” to be 10 minutes 35 seconds per inch on December 6, 2004. In addition, his observations included the presence of 6” of top soil within a 46” layer of otherwise loamy sand; that soil mottling (high seasonal groundwater) started at a depth of 23” below the surface; that between a depth of from 46 and 51 inches there exists a sandy clay loam; that the water table stood at 38” below the surface and the maximum depth to bedrock was measured at 51” from the surface. An analysis of the insitu soil characteristics and site dimensional constraints should have precluded the detail design of an elevated Eljen In-Drain System for this site. The Eljen Corporation requires a minimum of 24 inches of natural soil above the high seasonal ground water level. Standard practice is to remove vegetation and top soil before the application of fill materials. This leaves only 17” of natural soil (23”–6”=17”), or a 30 % shortfall. From the outset there is insufficient usable natural soils above the high seasonal ground water level to allow any consideration of the Eljen In-Drain solution. Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 28 Soils with a 10 minute 35 second percolation rate and accordingly classified as “loamy sand” are on the edge of being classified as “sandy clay loam”. The latter classification would require the use of a more conservative application rate (0.8 rather than 0.9 GPD/sq. ft.) and consequently a greater number of In-Drain units leading to more infiltration area (~10%) of In-Drain units. Filtration area is already understood to be in short supply! A sieve analysis should have been performed to determine the percentage of fines passing a #200 sieve before the final determination as to the appropriate wastewater application rate for these marginal soils was selected. It should be noted that the range between the high and low seasonal ground water is only 15” (38”-23”=15) whereas the zone of permanent saturation is 13” (51”-38”=13”) above bedrock. The area and depth of the excavations necessary for the installation of the septic tank and pump chamber units will undoubtedly cause some disturbance to the rather shallow natural soils intended to receive the septic tank effluent after treatment in the biomat layer. Where the depth of the excavation exceeds 51”, it appears that the removal of a least 3 ft. of bed rock, a natural resource, will be necessary. Any disturbance requiring new material or resulting from consolidation of the natural soils will alter the absorption characteristics (allowable application rate) for which the system has been designed. Excavated materials should be removed from the site and replaced with washed sand conforming to the NYState DOT Concrete Sand Specification 703-07 as is recommended. Sand conforming to the Spec 703-07 becomes readily saturated below elevation 38” below ground level resulting in positive buoyancy forces on any empty tanks. These uplift forces can only be overcome with non-corroding tie-down straps. The design details for this wastewater treatment system call for the use of a retaining wall varying in height from 1 to 3 feet. This retaining wall is shown as surrounding the septic tank, pump tank and In-Drain unit bed and it appears to serve to reduce the magnitude of side yard setback variance being requested. Design details for the retaining wall should be submitted with this application since its stability will be adversely influenced by any frost build-up likely to occur in the shallow depth of saturated soils inside and under the now “foundationless” designed wall. An unintended consequence of this “ring-wall” is to reduce the surface area available for evapotransporation, a phenomenon which evidences itself in the “grass growing green over the septic system”. Without the aid of evapotransporation, this system is doomed to fail. This raises the question as to the advisability of permitting other than seasonal use for this development. It might be more environmentally sound to measure the In-Drain system field setback from Lake George using what was once the location of natural shoreline. Materials used for fill along the shoreline, especially “larger boulders”, have a miniscule tertiary wastewater treatment capability. The location of the “tie-line” shown is probably closer to the original shoreline and might be a better place from which to measure the lakeside setback. Basic to the Eljen Corporation’s recommended practices is the use of the 110 GPD/bedroom criteria “depending on type of appliances”. The 110 GPD/bedroom is based on 2 persons/bedroom. This factor may be realistic for steady long term use of a residence but not a residential use where several persons (extended family members) are likely to “bunk-in” during the peak season. The 110 GPD/bedroom is also dependent on “the type of water fixtures used”. The use of a garbage grinder is expressly prohibited and appliances which tend to general excessive oil, grease and chemicals must be excluded. By necessary implication wouldn’t effluent loading from dishwaters, washing machines, air conditioners and water softener backwash be considered excessive grease and chemical generators? Ordinary and exotic personal hygienic bathing and washing units are also grease and chemical generators. Are these to be prohibited? Regardless as to how the controversial poorly defined term “bedroom” is someday resolved and even if the daily flow rate for this application is a function of only 2 bedrooms, there does not appear to be any practical method to adhere to the manufacturer’s recommended design practices and use limitations for this conversion at this site. As stated earlier, and unless some means of supervised sewage effluent pretreatment, such as aeration and/or an effluent filter including system monitoring is incorporated in the design, construction and operation of this on-site system, the proposal remains incompatible with Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 29 the intended up-grade being proposed. Accordingly, the Board’s denial of this application is encouraged. Thank you. Yours truly, John Salvador, Jr. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:20 P.M. RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE APPLICATION OF ROBERT AND VICTORIA GLANDON BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 5, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board serves as the Town’s Local Board of Health and is authorized by Town Code Chapter 136 to issue variances from the Town’s On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, and WHEREAS, Robert and Victoria Glandon have applied to the Local Board of Health for variances from provisions of Chapter 136 to install: 1. Pump tank one foot (1’) from the property line and dwelling in lieu of the required ten feet (10’) setback; 2. Force main two feet (2’) from the property line and dwelling in lieu of the required ten feet (10’) setback; 3. Septic Tank two feet (2’) from the property line in lieu of the required ten feet (10’) setback; and 4. Absorption field four feet (4’) from the property line in lieu of the required ten feet (10’) setback; 5. Absorption field fifteen feet (15’) from the dwelling in lieu of the required twenty feet (20’) setback; on property located at 63 Knox Road, Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health will hold a public th hearing on February 28, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, to consider Robert and Victoria Glandon’s sewage disposal variance application Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 30 concerning property located at 63 Knox Road, Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 239.7-1-13) and at that time all interested persons will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish the Notice of Public Hearing presented at this meeting and send a copy of the Notice to neighbors located within 500 feet of Mr. and Mrs. Glandon’s property as required by law. th Duly adopted this 7 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: None DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE: COUNCILMAN BOOR-Dennis, is this currently a four bedroom? MR. DENNIS MACELROY, Agent for Applicant-Correct, it’s three bedrooms in the house and that cabin is used as a sleeping cabin so that’s why I used a four bedroom design. If you see on the plan, the main house is COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, I don’t look at them very hard until th SUPERVISOR STEC-So February 28 at 7 o’clock in this room, any other discussion. MR. MACELROY-You have in front of you perhaps sheet one of the design and a revised page one of the application which just adds another variance issue which is a setback to the dwelling from the absorption field which wasn’t picked up. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Is that this sheet? SUPERVISOR STEC-It says revised right at the top right hand corner. MR. MACELROY-It simply adds a dimension of fifteen feet from the absorption field to the dwelling on the plan. SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, we do have that. That is part of the resolution, Bob and Caroline? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-You’re increasing, you’re changing the setback, instead of twenty feet you want fifteen feet from the dwelling? MR. MACELROY-Correct. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-That is not in the resolution, I just got this at the meeting tonight. I think we have to add a number 5 in the WHEREAS and that would read, dwelling setback from twenty feet that’s required to fifteen feet. SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, is that fine with Councilman Turner as amended? COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yes. SUPERVISOR STEC-Councilman Brewer as amended? Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 31 COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yes. (vote taken) RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN BOARD OF HEALTH BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 6, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR IT’S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns and enters Regular Session of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. th Duly adopted this 7 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: None REGULAR SESSION PUBLIC HEARINGS Bay Ridge Rescue Squad, Inc., North Queensbury Rescue Squad, Inc., and West Glens Falls Emergency Squad, Inc.’s Emergency Ambulance Service Agreements for Year 2005 Notice Shown 8:26 P.M. SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, we have three public hearings tonight, they’re all very similar except for perhaps the budgetary numbers. They were set a couple of weeks ago and as Caroline mentioned, it was a public hearing for Bay Ridge Rescue Squad, a public hearing for North Queensbury Rescue Squad and a public hearing for West Glens Falls Emergency Squad’s 2005 contract agreements. Just for completeness, Bay Ridge and North have agreed to or indicated that they would like a two year contract and so theirs are for two years contracts. West Glens Falls has indicated that they would prefer one year contract and that’s fine with the Town Board so theirs is different in the sense that it’s for just 2005 only. So, with that I will declare all three of these public hearings open and I will solicit any comments from the public that would like to speak about any of, or all three of these public hearings, just raise your hand and I’ll call on people as necessary. Mr. Tucker. MR. TUCKER, 41 Division Road-As far as I’m concerned, you left out the important information. How much for each one? SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, we’ve got that and you’re absolutely right. They’re virtually flat. Bay Ridge’s contract is going to be for a hundred and forty thousand dollars. North Queensbury is going to be for eighty-two thousand, six eight-three. These two will both be increased by four percent and then West, the one year contract is two seventeen six fifty. COUNSEL HAFNER-Plus the eighty-five thousand for the MS. JENNIFER SWITZER-For the daytime service. Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 32 SUPERVISOR STEC-Plus, correct, plus eighty-five thousand for continuing the paid daytime service, thank you. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Do you want the contracts too? SUPERVISOR STEC-And I can tell you Pliney that those roughly flat like, Jennifer correct me if I’m wrong, I think the other day and we added them all together and it came to about one and a half percent increase over 2004. We’re pleased that the increase was minimal. MR. TUCKER-How much is the third party billing involved in these contracts, anything? SUPERVISOR STEC-Well the third, only in a sense, the third party billing is a revenue that’s coming into the Town into, and it’s negotiated into the Town’s Emergency Squad Revenue Account. We did budget to receive in 2005 two hundred and fifty thousand. We are billing, all three squads have turned in all of the paper required and they’ve turned in all the PCR’s which are needed for billing for the billing company for December and Jennifer will be communicating with them here shortly to get on a regular program as far as getting them on a monthly basis or whatnot. So, we’ll be getting January’s in the near future but they’re all set with Iliant, the company that we selected in concert with the three rescue squads almost a year ago or, no about six months ago now I guess. So, as far as the third party billing in there, it’s been addressed in the contracts and so far so good. MR. TUCKER-Eventually our Town tax for emergency services should be eliminated? COUNCILMAN BOOR-No. SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, it’s going to go down a lot. MR. TUCKER-No? SUPERVISOR STEC-I think that we’ll be running an awful lot of calls before we ever have to worry about eliminating and frankly to be brutally accurate, it’s not in the Town’s interest to completely eliminate that tax because having a rescue squad tax in place or an emergency services tax in place, allows us to do soft billing. That was, if there was one downside that people were concerned about that that we understood as a Town Board, if there was one concern that I think was out there was the idea, hey if somebody on a fixed income or somebody out in town, any taxpayer gets hurt, they have to go to the Emergency Room, are they going to get hounded by a collections agent and that was something that we did not want to do and we looked into that to make sure hey, what are the rules and what can we do and what can’t we do and the solution that is our understanding and our attorney will probably correct me if I’m misspeak, is that as long as there’s a tax in place which when you add these up, you’re still talking about roughly a half a million dollars right now. That’s an awful lot of revenue for us to start getting but as long as we have a tax in place we can soft bill, i.e. send one bill and stop bugging them after that and don’t hound the individual for payment just the insurance company which is what our intent always was and we were happy to find out that the law does allow that. MR. TUCKER-So, eventually SUPERVISOR STEC-So it will be, I think this year we cut it. Jennifer, what did the EMS tax go from? It was cut by more then half, I think it was cut by sixty percent because again we budgeted for roughly five hundred thousand and we budgeted half of that in revenue so we’re only collecting two hundred and fifty in taxes. So, this has been real, I mean so far as this is playing out, and we haven’t started receiving checks yet but to this point it looks like everything that we wanted to get out of this bill-for-service is what we’re getting, we’re getting. So, we’re very pleased with what MR. TUCKER-So, there will be a minimum tax. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yea. SUPERVISOR STEC-A very minimum. COUNCILMAN BREWER-It will be very minimum. Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 33 MR. TUCKER-Because of the, to make the plan work. COUNCILMAN BEWER-Right. SUPERVISOR STEC-Correct. COUNSEL HAFNER-And Dan, can I just speak up one thing on the billing thing. We have contract with Iliant to do the billing. They have to do billing in the form that’s required under the Federal Regulations that deal with Medicare and Medicaid and they’re going to follow the regulations that they have to do with billing and that’s part of the contract that we have with them. So, just to clarify. MR. TUCKER-Personal experience, my grandson was in an accident, was transported by Lake George Emergency Squad, the insurance company sent my daughter the check. Is that the way our system is going to work? SUPERVISOR STEC-No. COUNCLMAN BREWER-Hopefully not. MR. TUCKER-Or is it going to go direct? SUPERVISOR STEC-Jennifer, if you would want to MS. JENNIFER SWITZER, Budget Officer-That should go directly to the Town. In the case that it does go to whoever was trans, whoever was charged, they will be required to send a check in place of whatever they receive. So, ultimately, if there’s insurance money whether it goes to the patient or it comes to the Town, it’s going to come to the Town ultimately. SUPERVISOR STEC-So, it will come to the Town, that’s how our contract is structured with Iliant. COUNCILMAN BREWER-If it goes to one of the squads, somehow, there’s an arrangement made that it will come to the Town. MR. TUCKER-But you know, she called me on the phone after she got a check for three hundred sixteen bucks and COUNCILMAN BREWER-Said you want to go out to dinner? MR. TUCKER-Just kind of puts a kink into the thing and I said, well call your insurance company. SUPERVISOR STEC-Right, that’s not supposed to happen. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-That’s not how it’s supposed to be set up, that’s part of what Iliant’s supposed to do, the checks are supposed to come to the Town. MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-To the Town. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-That’s how the bills will go out. MR. TUCKER-And the Town will handle all of it. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Right. MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-And there are ways of knowing whether the payment goes directly to the Town or to the patient. In the case that it does go to the patient, Iliant will contact them to get the money from the patient. MR. TUCKER-Yea, well this money was to go to Lake George Emergency Squad but they sent it to her and she didn’t know what to do with it. Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 34 MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-Right, right. In that case, they’ll be getting a letter, if that happens in the Town of Queensbury they’ll be getting a letter instructing them what to do with that money. MR. TUCKER-Okay, thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you, Mr. Tucker. Anyone else like to comment on any or all three of these Rescue Squad Service Agreements this evening? Mr. Barody, Supervisor Barody. MR. MIKE BARODY, Supervisor-At-Large-I wasn’t going to say anything but we’re getting to, talking about billing back there and since I owned and operated the billing company, I just wanted to clarify a couple of questions that were coming up. As per our contracts, are they charging us a flat billing fee or are they charging us per bill? MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-They’re charging us a percentage. MR. BARODY, Supervisor-At-Large-A percentage. SUPERVISOR STEC-Of collections. MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-Of collections, except for the Medicare Medicaid and that is a flat billing fee according to the Federal Law. MR. BARODY, Supervisor-At-Large-Are they charging us on the Medicare Medicaid? SUPERVISOR STEC-A flat rate. MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-A flat rate. MR. BARODY, Supervisor-At-Large-Flat rate, okay. What kind of reports are you getting back from them to monitor, are you going to get like a, they like to call it EO&B, an Explanation of Benefits, you can actually see everyone that was billed and what was collected upon? MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-We’ll get copies of EOB’s. We’ll be getting copies of Aged Receivable Reports. We’ll be getting copies of reports that tell us, if for some reason they can’t bill using the information on the PCR, why they can’t, the percentage of those that can’t be forwarded onto the insurance company and why and what in the information in the fields are missing so that that information can’t get to the emergency squads so they can do a better job. I probably, there’s probably forty reports that we have available to us to get the information from Iliant. MR. BARODY, Supervisor-At-Large-I generally, I guess with, we’re having a little conversation back there and I was saying I generally bag going with Alliance to start out with until we see what our experience is. COUNCILMAN BREWER-We have a renewable contract, it’s not any MR. BARODY, Supervisor-At-Large-Is it on one year terms? MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-It’s on a one year, yes, it’s on a one year term with the Town Board has the ability. SUPERVISOR STEC-Mike, Iliant, not Alliance. I think you said Alliance. COUNCILMAN TURNER-He did. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Iliant. MR. BARODY, Supervisor-At-Large-Oh, that’s what I thought I heard. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-No, I mispronounced it, they told me. MR. BARODY, Supervisor-At-Large-That’s what our attorney said so. Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 35 SUPERVISOR STEC-Our attorney is inaccurate this evening on that point, Iliant. COUNCILMAN BREWER-As a matter of fact, we met this particular person a year ago in New York. SUPERVISOR STEC-This month. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yea, I know. SUPERVISOR STEC-Tim and I were at Association Of Towns in the Convention Hall in the Hotel they had the COUNCILMAN BREWER-When we started talking about this a year ago SUPERVISOR STEC-Jennifer was there, the three of us actually had a good conversation with the gentleman and the sales rep but of course we put it out to bid, we involved all the rescue squads and we did happen to end up hiring COUNCILMAN BREWER-There was a committee between, there was two Town Board Members, Jennifer and members from each one of the squads SUPERVISOR STEC-Roger and Tim. COUNCILMAN BREWER-That selected this particular company. MR. BARODY, Supervisor-At-Large-It’s just important to follow up and look the reports over real well and if you need any help with that, I know exactly what to look for. COUNCILMAN BREWER-If we need any help, we know somebody we can call. MR. BARODY, Supervisor-At-Large-So feel free to trip me up in the hall way, okay. MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you, Mr. Barody. Anyone else like to comment on the Rescue Squad Contracts Public Hearings, three of them? Any or all of them? MR. PETER BROTHERS-I just wanted to mention that, you know we’re all very dependent on rescue squads, fire houses for public safety and I think it’s fair to say that we certainly could not do without any of their services. I think with the different fire houses, fire companies in the area especially with the recent budget woes of South Queensbury, you know this is costly for all of us, we all pay in one way or another directly or what have you. I would strongly recommend that you consider advocating for consolidation of services, not only within the Town of Queensbury but maybe within Warren County as a whole. Now, I’m not saying that you just have one truck for the entire county, Warren, I’m not saying that but at the same time more efficient use of services, equipment and less costly as long as you’re not endangering public safety. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you, Mr. Brothers. Anyone else like to speak this evening on the public hearings for the rescue squad contracts? Okay, seeing none, I will close the first one, the public hearing on Bay Ridge Rescue Squad, Inc.’s Emergency Ambulance Service Agreement for 2005 and entertain a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:40 P.M. RESOLUTION APPROVING EMERGENCY AMBULANCE SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND BAY RIDGE RESCUE SQUAD, INC. FOR 2005 RESOLUTION NO.: 86, 2005 Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 36 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, in accordance with Town Law 184, the Queensbury Town Board may § contract with ambulance services certified or registered in accordance with Public Health Law Article 30 for general emergency ambulance service within the Town, and WHEREAS, the Town and its three (3) emergency squads, Bay Ridge Rescue Squad, Inc., North Queensbury Rescue Squads, Inc., and West Glens Falls Emergency Squad, Inc., negotiated terms for new one or two year Agreements (depending on the particular Emergency Squad) for general emergency ambulance services, and WHEREAS, in accordance with Town Law §184 and General Municipal Law §209(b), the Town Board duly conducted a public hearing and heard all interested persons concerning the proposed Agreements for emergency ambulance service, and WHEREAS, copies of the proposed Agreements have been presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the emergency ambulance service Agreements between the Town and the Bay Ridge Rescue Squad, Inc., 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 the Agreement and directs the Town Supervisor, Budget Officer and Town Counsel to take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 7 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: None SUPERVISOR STEC-I will close the public hearing on North Queensbury Rescue Squad Inc.’s Emergency Ambulance Service Agreement for 2005. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 37 8:41 P.M. RESOLUTION APPROVING EMERGENCY AMBULANCE SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND NORTH QUEENSBURY RESCUE SQUAD, INC. FOR 2005 RESOLUTION NO.: 87, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, in accordance with Town Law 184, the Queensbury Town Board may § contract with ambulance services certified or registered in accordance with Public Health Law Article 30 for general emergency ambulance service within the Town, and WHEREAS, the Town and its three (3) emergency squads, Bay Ridge Rescue Squad, Inc., North Queensbury Rescue Squads, Inc., and West Glens Falls Emergency Squad, Inc., negotiated terms for new one or two year Agreements (depending on the particular Emergency Squad) for general emergency ambulance services, and WHEREAS, in accordance with Town Law §184 and General Municipal Law §209(b), the Town Board duly conducted a public hearing and heard all interested persons concerning the proposed Agreements for emergency ambulance service, and WHEREAS, copies of the proposed Agreements have been presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the emergency ambulance service Agreements between the Town and the North Queensbury Rescue Squad, Inc., 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 the Agreement and directs the Town Supervisor, Budget Officer and Town Counsel to take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 7 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 38 NOES : None ABSENT: None SUPERVISOR STEC-Now I will close 2.3, the Public Hearing on West Glens Falls Emergency Squad, Inc.’s Emergency Ambulance Service Agreement for Year 2005 and again, this is a one year contract and the public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:41 P.M. RESOLUTION APPROVING EMERGENCY AMBULANCE SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND WEST GLENS FALLS EMERGENCY SQUAD, INC. FOR 2005 RESOLUTION NO.: 88, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, in accordance with Town Law 184, the Queensbury Town Board may § contract with ambulance services certified or registered in accordance with Public Health Law Article 30 for general emergency ambulance service within the Town, and WHEREAS, the Town and its three (3) emergency squads, Bay Ridge Rescue Squad, Inc., North Queensbury Rescue Squads, Inc., and West Glens Falls Emergency Squad, Inc., negotiated terms for new one or two year Agreements (depending on the particular Emergency Squad) for general emergency ambulance services, and WHEREAS, in accordance with Town Law §184 and General Municipal Law §209(b), the Town Board duly conducted a public hearing and heard all interested persons concerning the proposed Agreements for emergency ambulance service, and WHEREAS, copies of the proposed Agreements have been presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the emergency ambulance service Agreements between the Town and the West Glens Falls Emergency Squad, Inc., substantially in the form presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 39 RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Agreement and directs the Town Supervisor, Budget Officer and Town Counsel to take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 7 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT: None SUPERVISOR STEC-I’m happy that the rescue squad contracts are adopted. I see Catherine Webb is present this evening. Good evening Catherine. I want to give you and your squad my personal assurances and I want to extent my thanks to all three rescue squads, the leadership that Jennifer and I dealt with very closely in the last six, eight weeks. But I know that West has some specific projects in mind and I want you to know and I know that they’ve been going on for a very long time and that the holdups have not been the rescue squad’s end, they’ve been more on the Town and County and the whole Main Street Project. I do think that we’ve got a game plan in place now and I can assure you that one of the big things we were trying to get done, is Fire and EMS Contracts done so that my attorney, our attorney can jump on a couple of other hot issues, one of the top two of which is the whole business as to the connector road and what’s going there and I know that some meetings have taken place between your architect and at some point in the near future after that, the Town Board will sit down again with West. We haven’t forgotten you and I know that this is one of the things that there was probable some gnashing of teeth down there at the squad and we’re aware of that, but I wanted you in front of these witnesses, that witness and the camera that we’re going to work on this and we’re going to get this done this year. We’re appreciative that you weren’t here throwing stones at us. We’re glad that we got these contracts done. There’s some language in your contract that refers to this however we know that we need to actually put the rubber to the road now and get it done and we will be doing that. I also wanted to thank, again Jennifer and Bob, they put a lot of time into the Fire and EMS Contracts this year and I harassed them on a daily basis, sometimes more frequently and so we’re happy that we’re through this one and we’ll be setting the public hearing shortly tonight for our next Regular Town Board Meeting for the fire companies. But I can tell you that for the most part the fire company discussions went very well as well, they were lengthy but they were productive I think. CORRESPONDENCE Deputy Town Clerk Barber noted that the January 2005 Monthly Report for Solid Waste Management has been received and put on file. INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS FROM THE FLOOR – NONE SUPERVISOR STEC thanked TV-8 and Glens Falls National Bank for televising the Regular Town Board Meetings… Remind the public of the Town’s website, www.queensbury.net., a lot of information, all the meeting minutes going back a year for all four Boards including the Planning Ordinance Review Committee, Planning Board, Zoning Board and the Town Board, the agendas and meeting minutes are available on line as is a lot of other information about your Town including newsletters and what not. And on the newsletter note, the newsletter went to the printer and in the next ten days to two weeks the Town will be getting their Winter 2005 Newsletter. OPEN FORUM 8:45 P.M. Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 40 MR. BARODY, Supervisor-At-Large spoke to the Town Board regarding the following issues at the county level… Organizational Meeting held in January and received Committee Assignments: Promoted to Vice Chairman of the Health Services Committee and Vice Chairman of the Technology Committee. Committee Member for Social Services, Airport, Personnel, Fire & Protection, Youth Programs, West Mountain Nursing Home and the Assistant Living Facility. Couple of special assignments given by Chairman of the Board: Executive Host Committee for Tourism and Conference Development and Warren County’s Rep on the Board of Directors for the new Business Incubator that’s being developed in downtown Glens Falls…. Capital Projects proposed for the year and will report as the year goes on… Considering adding a Pod to the Jail, starting the hanger construction at the airport, the Corinth Road West Mountain Bike Path, Exit 18, new Health and Human Services Building to replace the old and consideration of a Convention Center… Will keep the Board up to date on those….Questioned whether Resolution 7.18 is referring to the property the Board is considering to purchase? SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes. There’s been some preliminary comment in the paper regarding this property. The history of the property is contiguous to this property right here and long before we took office except maybe Ted, the Town has been desirous of acquiring that property for other town campus expansion. MR. BARODY, Supervisor-At-Large-Questioned whether the vote is to purchase the property? SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes. MR. BARODY, Supervisor-At-Large-Questioned the number of acres involved? COUNCILMAN TURNER-Forty-nine acres. SUPERVISOR STEC-A little over forty-nine acres. MR. BARODY, Supervisor-At-Large-For two hundred and thirty thousand? COUNCILMAN BREWER-Assessed for two-fifty. MR. BARODY, Supervisor-At-Large-I haven’t looked into it and I assume you have, if the price is appropriate, I would be in favor of the Board approving the purchase of that property for development. I’m probably not in favor of putting the Rec Center there as has been discussed but I think there’s other opportunities for the Town to use that property. SUPERVISOR STEC-To answer one your concerns that you raised, before the Town buys or sells any property, we get a fair market appraisal, at least one and it’s always been our practice and in this case we did do that so we do have an appraisal that supports the purchase price. MS. JOAN BOVEE, 1 Lakeview Drive-Referred to Resolution 7.18 regarding the property purchase and would like the Town to consider creating a dog park in Queensbury and this would be a good place to put a dog park. SUPERVISOR STEC-I do know that they’re popular in other towns and this has been mentioned to the Rec Department before and perhaps we need to pursue it a little more formally, because I agree with you, I think it’s a good idea to have a place to walk dogs and run them… I will follow that up with the Recreation Department and the Recreation Commission. The Town does have a few hundred acres throughout the Town of parkland and there are other locations in Town that might be appropriate. MS. BETTY MONAHAN, Sunnyside-Bravo to the Town Board for their decision in purchasing the adjacent property… It makes sense and would like to encourage the Town Board to consider purchasing the land across the road, much to offer and you need to start doing a vision. We’ve often talked we need a Town Center, and with these two pieces of property and that one, you could do a beautiful thing towards a Town Center… The paper talked about a referendum in the Spring and wondered why. SUPERVISOR STEC-We’re going to have a meeting ourselves here to talk about the timeline but I don’t think that’s realistic. Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 41 MS. MONAHAN-I don’t see the necessity of spending an extra twelve thousand dollars for a referendum and this isn’t a particularly good time to go to bid… The thing I did see in the paper that disturbs me is the City of Glens Falls and the Town of Queensbury again and that the City has filed an intent to suit over that rezoning. SUPERVISOR STEC-They have not filed anything that I’m aware of. MS. MONAHAN-That’s the way the paper had it and I would encourage you to sit down and talk to the City, I think they’ve got a lot of merit that that was not done correctly and I think that you’re going to have a hard time justifying it. SUPERVISOR STEC-We would respectively disagree with you. MS. MONAHAN-I think that when you look into that there were some procedures that were not followed. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Betty, we did look into it. MS. MONAHAN-I also have a problem with the attorney advising you to go to court that is also going to make more money out of the fact that when you do go to court cause they get paid extra for it. SUPERVISOR STEC-We’re hoping not to go to court at all Betty, what’s done is done. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-A short rebuttal, the Town’s Attorney made no recommendation to go to court over that matter and it’s not needed, we stand ready to defend if it happens. MR. TUCKER, 41 Division Road-Referred to Resolution 7.16, Appointing Charles Dyer, Building and Code Enforcement Officer and noted that he thought the Town Board just made that appointment. SUPERVISOR STEC-We did and that gentleman did not take the job so this is the next candidate in line. MR. TUCKER-Referred to the land deal and questioned whether it’s all together, signed and everything? SUPERVISOR STEC-Oh no, we can’t, it will be a few weeks before it gets signed. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-No Pliney, you can’t sign a contract until it’s authorized. MR. TUCKER-Questioned whether the Town will get a warrantee deed on this? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-That will be in the contract and we will make sure there’s good title. MR. TUCKER-The forty-nine acres all usable? SUPERVISOR STEC-Almost fifty and there’s wetlands on it. COUNCILMAN BREWER-It’s all usable but depends on what you use it for. MR. TUCKER-I mean for building, how much for building? MR. STEVE LOVERING, Assistant Director of Parks & Recreation-There’s a little more then eighteen acres out of the front piece that’s usable. We’ve gotten mapping from DEC so we know where the wetlands are, there’s nothing in the upper portion that’s been marked or flagged as DEC wetland but some of that is wet and probably would not be usable. But that front piece, close to thirty acres and the back piece or the north side is about twenty acres and of that first part, there’s a little more then eighteen acres that we’ve estimated as buildable or usable. MR. TUCKER-If your project goes through, how much are you going to need? Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 42 SUPERVISOR STEC-If the Community Center goes on this property which it may or may not. MR. TUCKER-How many acres would you need if you were fortunate or unfortunate to have it go over there? SUPERVISOR STEC-The number that has always been bantered about is in the neighborhood of ten acres, plus or minus, depending on the site. MR. BROTHERS-Referred to the land purchase for the proposed Rec Center. SUPERVISOR STEC-It’s the land purchase for campus expansion which may or may not include a community center. I want to make sure that we’re perfectly clear what we’re talking about. MR. BROTHERS-I would be in favor of the land purchase for open space initiatives, preserving space in the town around here but I would have a hard time justifying the expense for any expansion of government, if I understand it correctly. I don’t think it’s really necessary, I think we need to control the spending, I don’t think we need to spend anymore on frivolous items. I would also like to reiterate being opposed to the Rec Center that is being talked about and if the land was going to be used for the Rec Center, I certainly would be opposed to purchasing the land for that purpose. I do not think that the Rec Center is needed because I feel that we have plenty of recreation facilities, the YMCA, the Adirondack Nautilus, Flex Appeal, whatever, just don’t feel that it is necessary. I think you should also allow all property owners within the Town of Queensbury to vote on this and I know that there has been talk of this being put up for referendum and that’s fine but one thing you have to consider is that there’s a lot of second home owners in the Town who are not adequately informed of this…. MS. KAREN ANGLESON, 1 Greenwood Lane-Referred to the Planning Board Alternate and questioned whether there was a second position open and whether it had been filled? SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes and no, yes there is one, no it has not yet been filled. MS. ANGLESON-Thank you. So, the applications are still open for that? SUPERVISOR STEC-The Board hasn’t discussed it in a while so I would hesitate to answer whether or not we are or not taking applications. MS. ANGELSON-I’d like to commend Mrs. Monahan for encouraging you to purchase the land across the street, I think that would be a wonderful idea, a very good use of the tax refund that you gave us this year. MR. AUER-Referred to Resolution 7.18, the purchase of property and think it’s an excellent piece of property. I don’t think anybody could argue that certainly putting it into the inventory even if you don’t have a specific plan for it right now is a good idea. One thing that you really need to do as elected officials is think about where you might site little league fields because some day some where that’s going to have to happen… OPEN FORUM CLOSED 9:08 P.M. TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS COUNCILMAN TURNER – None COUNCILMAN BOOR – None COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Referred to photo of a sign that Glens Falls put up and it’s for the Glens Falls High School Indians New York State PHSAA Ice Hockey State Championship and then they go onto list their other athletic championships, a nice sign introducing the city to the accomplishments of the school. I’ve got one from Fort Ann and it lists on a nice brown and yellow sign the accomplishments of the school, Fort Ann’s Athletic accomplishments and introducing the town. Here’s one of Shenendehowa with their town and of the accomplishments of their school. I Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 43 was wondering maybe we ought to do that. The signs are only about a hundred and fifty bucks and Queensbury certainly has it’s share of accomplishments from wrestling to cross county, track, football. So, I think we ought to brag about the school’s accomplishments as the people enter town and I would like to work with Scott Stewart, get a list of the accomplishments, if the Town Board is willing to help out and we’ll find a place for it that introduces people to our Town and our school’s accomplishments... SUPERVISOR STEC-Absolutely agree. COUNCLIMAN STROUGH-Referred to letter from Marilyn to us questioning whether there’s any interest, there are State funds available for water quality projects and I can think of several places along Halfway Brook especially over near Hovey Pond and in back of O’Toole’s Plaza where the stormwater still directly is being drained into that. MS. MARILYN RYBA, Senior Planner-I will say that the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District has some ideas… I’m sure there will be additional discussion there. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Okay, well I thought it was a good idea and thought to second that… Referred to an idea from a group of towns from Suffolk County that are using what is called a Real Estate Transfer Tax to expand their open space program and it might be something we want to look into. SUPERVISOR STEC-We forwarded that to Marilyn, we should definitely look into it and find out if it’s something that’s feasible for the Town, if it’s something that we can do because I think it sounds like a good idea and worth pursuing… Announced that we’ll be passing a resolution tonight rd regarding the Free Tire Disposal Day to be held on Saturday, April 23 at both the Luzerne Road and Ridge Road Transfer Stations for Queensbury and Glens Falls residents, we can allow up to four tires per household. COUNCILMAN STROUGH gave update regarding joint meeting held among different adjoining communities regarding the cable situation, the rates and the possibilities that the town may be able to pursue… COUNCILMAN BREWER-Referred to Resolution 7.7, it’s dear to my heart because it helped Ward 4 two years ago when we received a grant and I want to thank Shelter Planning and Marilyn and her staff, it’s going to help a lot of our constituents in Ward 4 and 2 this year. There are some twenty people or twenty families that will have a positive affect on and I’m glad to say that we keep after these kind of grants to help the people in our town that certainly do need the help and I want to thank you for that Marilyn. SUPERVISOR STEC-Spoke regarding the cable meeting, the issues at the county level and some steps that they’re proposing, felt it was a very good turnout and productive meeting… I had the privilege of being invited down to the Albany area, a National Guard location where Governor Pataki presented Purple Hearts to three wounded Guardsmen and two of them are from our area. Sgt. Ken Comstock is from Queensbury and Sgt. Robert Hemsing whose from Glens Falls and they thth were with the 108 and the third gentleman was a Sgt. From Albany and he was with the 105 Military Police. It was wonderful to see those gentlemen be awarded the Purple Heart, it’s the Nation’s oldest military honor and the stories and the circumstances of which they earned that award certainly got everyone’s attention. It was a very well attended event today and it was my pleasure and privilege to be there and congratulate them on behalf of the Town of Queensbury and Warren County for their service and we’re very happy that they were safely returned home, some of their injuries were very serious. RESOLUTIONS 9:20 P.M. RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE AGREEMENTS RESOLUTION NO.: 89, 2005 Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 44 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, fire protection services are provided to the Town of Queensbury by the Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., and West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., (Fire Companies) in accordance with agreements between each Fire Company and the Town, and WHEREAS, the Town and Fire Companies have negotiated terms for new one (1) year Agreements for fire protection services, and WHEREAS, in accordance with Town Law §184 and General Municipal Law §209(b), the Town Board wishes to set a public hearing concerning the proposed agreements for fire protection services, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall conduct four (4) separate public hearings concerning each of the proposed new fire protection services agreements between the Town and each of the four (4) Fire Companies: Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., and West Glens th Falls Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., on February 28, 2005 at 7:00 p.m., and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish a Notice of Public Hearing in the Post-Star Newspaper once at least ten (10) days prior to the Public Hearing. th Duly adopted this 7 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: None BEFORE VOTE: Supervisor Stec-These were worked in parallel with the EMS Contracts that we approved tonight, a lot of similar language in both of them and thank Bob Hafner and Jennifer Switzer for all of their work and the Town Board for all their work on getting to these final numbers. These will be four contracts that we’ve put together. One for Bay Ridge, one for North Queensbury, one for Queensbury Central and one for West Glens Falls Fire and the public hearing will be for three th weeks from tonight on February 28 and the fifth company we have not forgotten, South Queensbury. And we’ve told all the other fire companies the situation, South Queensbury’s new Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 45 leadership is aware and supportive of what we’re doing as is the Town Board. South Queensbury, we’ve agreed with them to go on a month by month basis for the time being while the new leadership gets their feet under them. They have a new slate of officers down there that is getting organized and getting their finances in better order, they’ve been working very closely with Jennifer Switzer and I for one appreciative of that and I’m sure Jennifer is as well. So, their contract will not be part of this round of contract renewals that we will be doing here at the end of the month… (vote taken) RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADIRONDACK RUNNERS TO CONDUCT TH 19 ANNUAL SHAMROCK SHUFFLE ROAD RACE RESOLUTION NO. : 90, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Adirondack Runners Club has requested authorization from the th Queensbury Town Board to conduct its 19 Annual Shamrock Shuffle Road Race as follows: SPONSOR : The Adirondack Runners Club th EVENT : 19 Annual Shamrock Shuffle Road Race th, DATE : Sunday, March 20 2005 PLACE : Beginning and ending at Glens Falls High School and going through the Town of Queensbury (Letter and map showing course is attached); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby acknowledges receipt of proof of th insurance from the Adirondack Runners Club to conduct the 19 Annual Shamrock Shuffle Road Race partially within the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby approves this event subject to approval by the Town Highway Superintendent, which may be revoked due to concern for road conditions at any time up to the date and time of the event. Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 46 th Duly adopted this 7 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING CORPORATION (AHC) FOR HOUSING REHABILITATION GRANT FUNDS RESOLUTION NO.: 91, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the New York State Affordable Housing Corporation (AHC) administers a program which provides grant assistance to communities to undertake housing rehabilitation activities, and WHEREAS, AHC has established a submission date of February 15, 2005 for accepting applications under the Program, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has reviewed its housing needs and has developed a program to meet those needs, and , WHEREASthe proper local procedure for submission of an application includes a resolution by the governing body of the applicant which authorizes the submission of the application and related actions, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board herby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to submit the application to the Affordable Housing Corporation (AHC) and to act in connection with the submission of the application, including execution of all required certifications and forms and to provide such additional information as may be required, and BE IT FURTHER, Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 47 RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Executive Director of Community Development and/or Senior Planner to sign any documentation and take any other action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 7day of February, 2005 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION DESIGNATING TARGET NEIGHBORHOODS FOR PURPOSE OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING CORPORATION GRANT APPLICATION RESOLUTION NO.: 92, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has developed an Affordable Housing Strategy, and WHEREAS, the Affordable Housing Strategy document included a detailed analysis of neighborhoods in the Town, and , WHEREAS that document identified Census Tract 708 and 706 Block Group 2 (known locally as West Glens Falls and South Queensbury) as areas which contained high concentrations of lower income, owner-occupied housing in need of significant rehabilitation assistance which cannot be met by the private sector without governmental assistance, and WHEREAS, that document identified that Strategy 1 included in the Affordable Housing Strategy was the “Protection and Expansion of the Stock of Affordable Housing in the Existing Neighborhoods”, and WHEREAS, The Town has received a HOME grant from the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal targeting the rehabilitation of existing owner-occupied homes in these Census areas, and Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 48 WHEREAS, in designating these areas as part of the HOME Application process the Town has established that housing conditions in the area are characterized as deteriorating, substandard and in need of basic rehabilitation, and WHEREAS, the Town in the adopted Affordable Housing Strategy specifically identified the New York State Affordable Housing Corporation as an important source of funds to implement the Town’s program of owner- occupied housing rehabilitation in these targeted areas, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,that the Town of Queensbury reaffirms the analysis and conclusions included in the Affordable Housing Strategy and designates that Census Tracts 708 and 706 Block Group 2 as an area, as described in 21B NYCRR Section 2161.2 of the Regulations of the Affordable Home Ownership Development Program in which governmental assistance is necessary and appropriate to make necessary investment in homes in the area. th Duly adopted this 7 day of February, 2005 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION SCHEDULING PUBLIC HEARINGS CONCERNING APPLICATION FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS THROUGH NEW YORK STATE SMALL CITIES PROGRAM RESOLUTION NO.: 93, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury wishes to apply for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds through the New York State Administered Small Cities Program for the purposes of community development improvements such as housing, public facilities and/or economic development, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to schedule the required public hearings concerning the application and use of CDBG funds, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 49 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall meet and hold two public hearings at th the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury at 7:00 p.m. on March 7, 2005 and st March 21, 2005, to hear all interested persons and take any necessary action provided by law concerning its application for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds through the New York State Administered Small Cities Program, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish and post Notices of Public Hearings a minimum of ten (10) days prior to each scheduled public hearing, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Executive Director of Community Development and/or Senior Planner to sign any documentation and take any other action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 7 day of February, 2005 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT : None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF SHELTER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, INC. TO WRITE 2005 GRANT APPLICATION TO NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE FOR SMALL CITIES COMMUNITY BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM RESOLUTION NO.: 94, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, Resolution No. 529, 2003 authorized engaging Shelter Planning & Development, Inc. to provide assistance with three applications for affordable housing assistance funds from the NYS Small Cities Program, the Division of Housing and Community Renewal, and Affordable Housing Corporation, and Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 50 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 178, 2004 authorized the Town to submit an application to the Governor’s Office for Small Cities for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for use in housing rehabilitation in 2004, which was not funded, and WHEREAS, the demand for housing rehabilitation services in the proposed target area of West Glens Falls continues to exceed funds available, and WHEREAS, in a meeting with the Governor’s Office for Small Cities (GOSC) staff and th Shelter Planning in Albany on January 14, 2005, the Town was encouraged to revise the application and resubmit, and WHEREAS, a resubmission of an application for Community Development Block grant funding is a new application, and beyond the original scope of the 2003 services agreement with Shelter Planning and Development. Inc., and WHEREAS, Shelter Planning & Development Inc. has submitted a proposal dated January 28, 2005 to work with the Community Development Department to prepare a new application to the Governor’s Office for Small Cities for housing rehabilitation fund by the April 4, 2005 deadline, and to implement said grant program if funded for a fee of three thousand five hundred dollars ($3,500), NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby accepts and authorizes engagement of Shelter Planning & Development, Inc. in accordance with Shelter Planning’s proposal of January 28, 2005 presented at this meeting and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute an agreement with Shelter Planning & Development, in form acceptable to Town Counsel, for CDBG grant preparation and implementation services consistent with the language and details of such proposal, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED that a payment of three thousand five hundred dollars ($3,500) shall be paid from Account No.: 001-8020-4720 for these services, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to sign any documentation and agreements in form approved by Town Counsel and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Executive Director of Community Development, Senior Planner and/or Budget Officer to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 51 th Duly adopted this 7 day of February, 2005 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF SHELTER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, INC. TO PROVIDE ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION ASSISTANCE IN CONNECTION WITH $400,000 IN GRANT FUNDS RECEIVED FROM NEW YORK DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL RESOLUTION NO.: 95, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 105,2004 the Queensbury Town Board authorized submission of an application to the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 126,2004 the Town Board authorized payment for services of Shelter Planning & Development, Inc., for provision of grant application assistance during 2004 and provided that if housing grant applications were approved, Shelter Planning would carry out the program implementation and administration services, and WHEREAS, the grant application was submitted and the Town was awarded a grant in the amount of $400,000 from the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, such funds to be used for housing rehabilitation, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 582,2004 the Town Board established a Housing Rehabilitation Revolving Loan Fund in conjunction with the implementation of the HOME Housing Rehabilitation Program, and WHEREAS, the Town now wishes to authorize the Agreement with Shelter Planning & Development, Inc. for provision of the program implementation and administration services, and a proposed Contract for Professional Services between the Town and Shelter Planning is presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 52 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs engagement of Shelter Planning & Development, Inc., for provision of program implementation and administration assistance services in connection with grant monies received by the Town of Queensbury referenced in the preambles of this Resolution and as set forth in the Contract for Professional Services dated August, 2004 presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the costs for Shelter Planning’s services shall not exceed the fixed fee of $16,000 for such program implementation and administration, plus $2,000 for project-related implementation services for each housing unit rehabilitated under the Program, as specifically delineated in the Contract presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that payment for these expenses shall be paid from the Town’s 2004 HOME Program Grant funding from the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal as set forth on the Contract Exhibit D presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Contract between the Town and Shelter Planning substantially in the form presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes the Town Supervisor, Executive Director of Community Development, Senior Planner and/or Budget Officer to take any other action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 7 day of February, 2005 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT : None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FREE TIRE DISPOSAL DAY RESOLUTION NO.: 96, 2005 Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 53 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury’s Solid Waste Facilities Operator has recommended rd that the Town Board authorize the free disposal of tires for one day on Saturday, April 23, 2005, at the Town’s two Transfer Stations for Town of Queensbury and City of Glens Falls residents only, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize the free tire disposal day, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes a Free Tire Disposal Day to provide for the free disposal of up to four (4) tires per family for Town of Queensbury and City of rd Glens Falls residents only, on Saturday, April 23, 2005 from 7:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the Town of Queensbury’s two Transfer Stations, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes the Town’s Solid Waste Facilities Operator to take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 7 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FIREWORKS DISPLAY AT WEST MOUNTAIN SKI CENTER ON FEBRUARY 18, 2005 RESOLUTION NO.: 97, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, Alonzo Fireworks Display, Inc., on behalf of West Enterprises, has requested permission to conduct a fireworks display as follows: Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 54 SPONSOR: West Enterprises PLACE: West Mountain Ski Center DATE: Friday, February 18, 2005 TIME: 10:00 P.M. (approx.) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk, in accordance with New York State Penal Law 405, to issue a fireworks permit to Alonzo § Fireworks Display, Inc., on behalf of West Enterprises, subject to the following conditions: 1. An application for permit be filed which sets forth: A. The name of the body sponsoring the display and the names of the persons actually to be in charge of the firing of the display. B. The date and time of day at which the display is to be held. C. The exact location planned for the display. D. The age, experience and physical characteristics of the persons who are to do the actual discharging of the fireworks. E. The number and kind of fireworks to be discharged. F. The manner and place of storage of such fireworks prior to the display. G. A diagram of the grounds on which the display is to be held showing the point at which the fireworks are to be discharged, the location of all buildings, highways, and other lines of communication, the lines behind which the audience will be restrained and the location of all nearby trees, telegraph or telephone lines or other overhead obstructions. 2. Proof of insurance be received which demonstrates insurance coverage through an insurance company licensed in the State of New York, and that the Town of Queensbury is named as an additional insured and that the insurance coverage contain a hold harmless clause which shall protect the Town of Queensbury; 3. Inspections and approval must be made by the Queensbury Fire Marshal and the Chief of the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 55 4. Clean-up of the area must be completed by 10:00 a.m., the following day, and all debris must be cleaned up including all unexploded shells, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the permit or letter of authorization by the Town Clerk shall, in accordance with New York State Penal Law §405, provide: the actual point at which the fireworks are to be fired shall be at least two hundred feet from the nearest permanent building, public highway or railroad or other means of travel and at least fifty feet from the nearest above ground telephone or telegraph line, tree or other overhead obstruction, that the audience at such display shall be restrained behind lines at least one hundred and fifty feet from the point at which the fireworks are discharged and only persons in active charge of the display shall be allowed inside these lines, that all fireworks that fire a projectile shall be so set up that the projectile will go into the air as nearby (nearly) as possible in a vertical direction, unless such fireworks are to be fired from the shore of a lake or other large body of water, when they may be directed in such manner that the falling residue from the deflagration will fall into such lake or body of water, that any fireworks that remain unfired after the display is concluded shall be immediately disposed of in a way safe for the particular type of fireworks remaining, that no fireworks display shall be held during any wind storm in which the wind reaches a velocity of more than thirty miles per hour, that all the persons in actual charge of firing the fireworks shall be over the age of eighteen years, competent and physically fit for the task, that there shall be at least two such operators constantly on duty during the discharge and that at least two soda-acid or other approved type fire extinguisher of at least two and one-half gallons capacity each shall be kept at as widely separated points as possible within the actual area of the display. th Duly adopted this 7 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION RE-APPOINTING CANDICE MORABITO TO BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW RESOLUTION NO.: 98, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 56 SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has previously established the Town of Queensbury Board of Assessment Review pursuant to applicable New York State law, and WHEREAS, the term of Board of Assessment Review Member Candice Morabito recently expired and Ms. Morabito would like to be re-appointed to the Board for a new five year term, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby re-appoints Candice Morabito to serve as a member of the Queensbury Board of Assessment Review, with her term to expire th September 30, 2009. th Duly adopted this 7 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2005 BUDGET – EMPLOYEE SALARY TRANSFERS RESOLUTION NO.: 99, 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the attached Budget Amendment Requests have been duly initiated and justified and are deemed compliant with Town operating procedures and accounting practices by the Town Budget Officer, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board has set the Year 2005 employee salaries and so appropriations need to be adjusted accordingly, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 57 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to take all action necessary to transfer funds and amend the 2005 Town Budget as follows: 2005 Budget Adjustment Non-Union Full Time Employees From AccountTo Account 001-1110-1062 001-1990-1002 2,684.00 001-1110-1070 2,160.00 001-1110-1212 3,135.00 001-1220-1050 1,155.00 001-1315-1039 1,295.00 001-1315-1090 1,999.00 001-1315-1140 5,951.00 001-1315-1180 1,292.00 001-1330-1090 906.00 001-1330-1130 1,198.00 001-1355-1078 1,198.00 001-1355-1160 1,981.00 001-1355-1170 4,461.00 - 001-1355-1730 001-1410-1200 2,600.00 001-1420-1890 1,760.00 001-1460-1061 875.00 001-1620-1221 1,592.00 001-1680-1041 2,010.00 001-3410-1480 2,830.00 001-3410-1630 3,126.00 001-3620-1372 5,202.00 001-3620-1605 1,453.67 001-3620-1820 2,464.00 001-5010-1300 1,689.00 001-5010-1311 1,216.00 001-5010-1320 1,079.00 001-7020-1330 2,786.00 001-7020-1360 2,587.00 001-7020-1361 2,730.00 001-7620-1860 1,809.00 001-8010-1605 1,453.67 001-8010-1606 4,129.00 001-8020-1605 1,453.67 001-8020-1620 2,992.00 Grand Total 77,252.00 From AccountTo Account 002-1990-1002 1,449.00 002-8810-1380 From AccountTo Account 032-1990-1002 2,000.00 4,416.00 032-8110-1810 032-9040-8040 2,416.00 4,416.00 From AccountTo Account 040-1990-1002 9,300.00 1,680.00 040-8330-1540 040-9040-8040 2,735.00 3,989.00 040-8310-1770 12,035.00 2,247.00 040-8310-1500 Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 58 2,436.00 040-8310-1490 1,683.00 040-8340-1550 12,035.00 From AccountTo Account 910-1990-1002 1,500.00 2,001.00 910-8160-1600 910-9040-8040 501.00 2,001.00 th Duly adopted this 7 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: None DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE: Councilman Boor-Is there a reason why there aren’t names associated with these? I assume every account has a name. Ms. Switzer, Budget Officer-Yes, every account has a name, it’s to get away from the connotation of people picking apart the raises that go with individuals. Councilman Boor-The problem I had is, I don’t know if these correspond with the ones that we approved, they’re just numbers. I’m sure they’re correct but there would be no way to review if this was accurate from the Town Board perspective. Ms. Switzer, Budget Officer-It’s not anything that you have to passed tonight, I can have Joanne go back and add the descriptions to these. Town Board held discussion, agreed to move forward, approve resolution and Jennifer agreed to provide a spreadsheet with more detail to the Board… (vote taken) RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2005 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 100, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the attached Budget Amendment Requests have been duly initiated and justified and are deemed compliant with Town operating procedures and accounting practices by the Town Budget Officer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 59 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer’s Office to take all action necessary to transfer funds and amend the 2004 Town Budget as follows: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 04-5110-4400 04-1950-4430 26. (Misc. Contractual) (Property Tax) th Duly adopted this 7 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES, P.C. FOR ENGINEERING AND SURVEY SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH REPLACEMENT OF WATER MAINS IN MEADOW LANE, MEADOW DRIVE AND MEADOWVIEW ROAD RESOLUTION NO.: 101, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town’s Deputy Water Superintendent has requested a proposal for engineering services concerning the replacement of water mains on Meadow Lane, Meadow Drive and Meadowview Road in the Town of Queensbury (Meadow Lane Water Replacement Project), and WHEREAS, the Deputy Water Superintendent has recommended that the Town Board authorize engagement of C.T. Male Associates, P.C., for engineering and survey services related to such Project for a fee not to exceed $87,715, as delineated in C.T. Male’s Proposal dated January th 14, 2005 and presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs engagement of C.T. Male Associates, P.C. for engineering and survey services concerning the replacement of water mains on Meadow Lane, Meadow Drive and Meadowview Road in the Town of Queensbury (Meadow Lane Water Replacement Project), for an amount not to exceed $87,715, as delineated in th C.T. Male’s Proposal dated January 14, 2005 and presented at this meeting and as follows: Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 60 A. Report and Design Phase - $35,800 (Lump Sum) B. Survey - $ 7,600 (Lump Sum) C. Contract Administration $10,500 (Lump Sum) D. Contract Observation: 1. Labor: 5,900 LF/100’/day = 59 days: 12 weeks estimated @ 8.5 hrs/day= 510 hrs @ $60/hr - $30,600 2. Mileage: 60 days x 50 mi/day @ $0.405/mi - $ 1,215. ----------- $31,815 (Estimated Fee) E. Easements: Not anticipated F. Soil Borings: - $ 2,000 (Estimated) TOTAL PROPOSAL LUMP SUM PORTION - $53,900 TOTAL PROPOSAL ESTIMATED PORTION - $33,815 TOTAL PROJECT - $87,715 and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs that payment for C.T. Male’s services shall be paid for from Transfer to Capital Project #40-9950-9030, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Water Superintendent, Deputy Water Superintendent, Town Clerk, Budget Officer and/or Town Supervisor to execute any documentation and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 7 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: None DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE: Councilman Strough-These engineering services, was it bid on? Mr. Bruce Ostrander, Deputy Water Superintendent-No, it was not put out to bid. CT Male will be doing a project for us on Bay Road. They’ve done projects like this in the past for the Town, they are the Town’s engineer so we just decided to go with CT Male. Councilman Turner-Bay Road, Wincrest Drive, what else? Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 61 Mr. Ostrander, Deputy Water Superintendent-They’re going to do Bay Road, Wincrest in the spring, they can have some people who will be working on both projects. Councilman Strough-Well, I was just wondering if we couldn’t have gotten it done less expensive if we had bid it out. Okay, well it’s a done deal now but I think our relationship with CT Male has gotten pretty cozy and pretty expensive but next year we’ll bid out, thank you Bruce. (vote taken) RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT ALONG BAY ROAD AND INSTALLATION OF WATER MAIN CONNECTOR AT COUNTRY CLUB ROAD AND WINCREST DRIVE PROJECT RESOLUTION NO.: 102, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 169.2004, the Queensbury Town Board authorized engagement of C.T. Male Associates, P.C. (CT Male) for design phase, contract administration phase, construction observation and easement preparation services in connection with the Bay Road Water Main Replacement Project, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 489,2004, the Town Board authorized engagement of CT Male for additional design services and preparation of engineer’s report for an additional connection between the water main on Country Club Road and the water main on Wincrest Drive, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 49,2005, the Town Board such additional improvements to the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, and WHEREAS, C.T. Male has prepared bid documents and specifications to advertise for bids for the improvements authorized by Resolution No. 49,2005, such work to include, among other things, installation of 4,190 LF of 12-inch water main along the east side of Bay Road from just north of Cronin Road to the Adirondack Community College property (3,653 LF of 12” DIP by open cut and 537 LF of 12” HDPE by directional drill), fire hydrants, valves, bedding, backfill, pavement and lawn restoration, with the existing water main to be kept in service until the services are moved to the new main, and installation of approximately 210 LF of 8-inch pipe to connect the 8-inch water main on Country Club Road with the 6-inch main on Wincrest Drive, and WHEREAS, General Municipal Law §103 requires that the Town advertise for bids and award the bid to the lowest responsible bidder meeting New York State statutory requirements and the requirements set forth in the Town’s bid documents and specifications, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 62 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Purchasing Agent and/or C.T. Male Associates, P.C., to post and publish an advertisement for bids to be prepared by C.T. Male Associates, P.C., for the Bay Road Water Main Replacement Project and receive all bids, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town’s Purchasing Agent to open all received bids, read them aloud and record the bids as is customarily done and present the bids to the next regular or special meeting of the Town Board. th Duly adopted this 7 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS – ND ABSTRACT OF FEBRUARY 2,2005 RESOLUTION NO.: 103, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve the audit of bills presented as rdth the Abstract with a run date of February 3, 2005 and a payment date of February 8, 2005, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Abstract with a run rdth date of February 3, 2005 and payment date of February 8, 2005 numbering 25-034300 through 25-059100 and totaling $1,310,458.59, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Budget Officer and/or Town Supervisor to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 63 th Duly adopted this 7 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPOINTING CHARLES DYER AS BUILDING AND CODES ENFORCEMENT OFFICER RESOLUTION NO.: 104, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously established the position of Building and Code Enforcement Officer and has agreed to hire another Building and Code Enforcement Officer in the Community Development Department, and WHEREAS, the Executive Director of Community Development and/or Director of Building and Codes Enforcement posted availability for the position, reviewed resumes, interviewed interested candidates and have made a hiring recommendation to the Town Board, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby appoints Charles Dyer to the full- time position of Building and Code Enforcement Officer, an overtime eligible, Grade 5 position th within the Town of Queensbury’s Non-Union Position Grade Schedule, effective February 9, 2005 on a provisional basis until such time as Mr. Dyer passes the Civil Service exam for the position and also subject to successful completion of a six (6) month probation period, a pre-employment physical as required by Town Policy and any other applicable Civil Service requirements, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that Mr. Dyer shall be paid an annual salary of $32,000, with a raise to an annual salary of $35,000 upon successful completion of the six (6) month probationary period, passing of all building and code classes and passing the required Civil Service exam, and BE IT FURTHER, Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 64 RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Executive Director of Community Development and/or Budget Officer to complete any forms and take any necessary action to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 7 day of February, 2005 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AWARDING BID FOR 2005 COMBINATION DUMP BODY WITH SNOWPLOW AND HYDRAULICS FOR TOWN HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 105, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Town’s Purchasing Agent duly advertised for bids for the purchase of a 2005 Combination Dump Body with Snowplow and Hydraulics, and WHEREAS, Arrowhead Equipment, Inc., submitted the lowest responsible bid for the Combination Dump Body with Snowplow and Hydraulics in the amount of $66,550and the Highway Superintendent and Purchasing Agent have recommended that the Town Board award the bid to Arrowhead Equipment, Inc., NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby awards the bid for a 2005 Combination Dump Body with Snowplow and Hydraulics to Arrowhead Equipment, Inc.,for an amount not to exceed $66,550 to be paid for from Highway Heavy Equipment Account No.: 04- 5130-2040, and BE IT FURTHER, Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 65 RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Highway Superintendent, Purchasing Agent and/or Budget Officer to take any and all actions necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 7 day of February, 2005 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF PROPERTY OWNED BY TUPPER CLARK LIMBERT, ROBERT C. LIMBERT AND STEVEN T. LIMBERT FOR TOWN PURPOSES RESOLUTION NO.: 106, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously established a Capital Improvement Plan Reserve Fund #64 (Fund #64) for future Town project developments, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 124, 2004 the Queensbury Town Board authorized establishment of Capital Project Fund #144 to fund expenses associated with the acquisition of property and associated professional services including engineering survey and preliminary, site analysis, work, and WHEREAS, a parcel of land totaling 49.09± acres (Property) located along the north side of Haviland Road in the Town of Queensbury, Tax Map Parcel No.: 289.16-1-2 is currently for sale, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has determined that the Property is necessary for possible future Town of Queensbury campus expansion, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to purchase the Property for $230,000 plus any costs associated with title insurance and recording the deed, and § WHEREAS, in accordance with New York State General Municipal Law 6(c), the Town Board is authorized to withdraw and expend funds from Fund #144 subject to permissive referendum, Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 66 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby approves and authorizes the purchase of the property known as Tax Map Parcel No.: 289.16-1-2 consisting of 49.09± acres located along the north side of Haviland Road in the Town of Queensbury from Tupper Clark Limbert, Robert C. Limbert and Steven T. Limbert for $230,000, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute any and all documents necessary to complete these transactions, including, without limitation, a real estate contract in form acceptable to Town Counsel, any Real Property Transfer Reports and Capital Gains Affidavits and 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 7 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVANCE PAYMENT(S) TO BAY RIDGE AND WEST GLENS FALLS VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANIES RESOLUTION NO.: 107, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, fire protection services are provided to the Town of Queensbury by the Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., South Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co, Inc., and the West Glens Falls Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 67 Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., (Fire Companies) in accordance with agreements between each Fire Company and the Town, and WHEREAS, the Town’s agreements with the Fire Companies expired on December 31, 2004, and WHEREAS, the Town and Fire Companies have agreed to continue to provide fire protection services under the terms and provisions of the existing agreements during the interim period pending execution of new agreements which is anticipated after the public hearing on new th fire protection services agreements to be held on or about February 28, 2005, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 51, 2005, the Town Board authorized advance payments on the 2005 agreements to the Fire Companies, as the Fire Companies may face cash flow shortages before the new agreements can be executed, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize another advance payment on the 2005 agreements to the Bay Ridge and West Glens Falls Fire Companies, such advances to be deducted from contract payments to be paid after the 2005 contracts are ratified, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes another advance payment on the 2005 agreements to the Bay Ridge and West Glens Falls Fire Companies and authorizes and th directs the Town Supervisor to approve payment vouchers for 1/12 of each Fire Company’s respective 2004 Contract Amount (not including Vehicle Fund) in advance payment on the new fire protection services 2005 agreements, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and Budget Officer to make the necessary arrangements to advance such payment(s) and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 7 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner NOES : None ABSENT: None Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-07-2005, Mtg #7 68 ACTION OF RESOLUTIONS PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED FROM FLOOR - NONE ATTORNEY MATTERS TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-I have three matters. One is, we’re working on that resolution about the cable TV, you’ll have that in time for your next meeting for you to discuss. Our second thing, rd we gave you a memo on the 3 relating to proposed revisions to Underground Utilities Law, I’d appreciate getting input from you guys whether or not you agree with the suggestions in there or not. So, I need your feedback. The third one is, you had talked about West Glens Falls and the Connector Road and that Counsel would be acting in the future. We’ve already started, we met with the engineer, the Town is engaged to work on that project, spent quite a bit of time with him sort of outlining what’s going on. We’re preparing sort of a checklist of who does what, and we’re working with Marilyn on that. I talked with the attorney for West Glens Falls EMS today to set up a time to meet with him so that we can start agreeing, because there’s a lot of steps that have to go together on that. So, we are working on that. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Questioned whether Town Counsel had a response regarding the letter written to NIMO about the property? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-We have nothing new since the last time that we talked. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Send them another letter and asked them why. SUPERVISOR STEC-Their vice-president Bill Flaherty did communicate that they found it and they know what we’re talking about now. So, it was good that they found it and it was not lost. Now, we need to just get them to act on it. NO EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION ADJOURN REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO.: 108, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR IT’S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns it’s Regular Town Board Meeting. th Duly adopted this 7 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: None No further action taken. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK TOWN OF QUEENSBURY