The URL can be used to link to this page

2010-08-16 MTG#31 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#31 08-16-2010 1 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#31 TH AUGUST 16, 2010 RES. 283-297 7:05 P.M. B.H. 22-23 RD# 808 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC COUNCILMAN ANTHONY METIVIER COUNCILMAN RONALD MONTESI COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER TOWN OFFICALS MIKE SHAW, WASTEWATER, DIRECTOR PRESS POST STAR, TV 8 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN ANTHONY METIVIER 1.0RESOLUTION ENTERNIG QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. BOH 283, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and moves into the Queensbury Board of Health. th Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE APPLICATION OF EDWARD AND PHILOMENA VANPUTTE RESOLUTION NO.: BOH 22, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier 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, Edward and Philomena VanPutte have applied to the Local Board of Health for a § variance from Chapter 136, 136-11, which requires applicants to obtain a variance for holding tanks and the REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#31 08-16-2010 2 applicants have requested a holding tank as the leaching system will not meet the necessary setback requirements, and WHEREAS, the applicants have also applied to the Local Board of Health for three (3) additional variances from Chapter 136 to allow: 1. placement of the holding tank to be five feet (5’) from the foundation in lieu of the required ten feet (10’) setback; 2. placement of the holding tank to be five feet (5’) from the property line in lieu of the required ten feet (10’) setback; and 3. placement of the holding tank to be forty-one feet (41’) from Glen Lake and the well in lieu of the required fifty feet (50’) setback; on property located at 23 Jay Road West in the Town of Queensbury, New York, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health will hold a public hearing on th Monday, September 13, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, to consider Edward and Philomena VanPutte’s sewage disposal variance application concerning property located at 23 Jay Road West in the Town of Queensbury and bearing Tax Map No.: 289.10-1-18 and at that time all interested persons will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish the Notice of Public Hearing presented at this meeting and send a copy of the Notice to neighbors located within 500 feet of the property as required by law. th Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier NOES : Mr. Montesi ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 23, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns and moves back into the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. th Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2010 by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#31 08-16-2010 3 Noes: None Absent:None 2.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2.1 PUBLIC HEARING – ROUTE 9 SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT TAX ROLL FOR 2011 PUBLICATION DATE: AUGUST 6, 2010 OPENED WASTEWATER MIKE SHAW PRESENT WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, MR. SHAW-This is just an annual event as Dan Stec said. This year with these three rolls it’s a little different there is one district added and there is one district not in there. The Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District has been on this list for the last seventeen years their bonds are now paid as of 2010 so they are not on the rolls any longer. Main Street, which is the West Queensbury Sanitary Sewer District that’s the project that is going now on Main Street and the Town, is going to have an interest payment on a BAN next year that’s why that appears on the roll. The South Queensbury is the first one on the public hearing correct, Dan? SUPERVISOR STEC-The first one is Route 9. WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, MR. SHAW-Okay, I’ll go back to my notes. Route 9, each year we update all these rolls with information from the Assessment Department and the Water Department. This year roll is up three hundred and twenty two points to five thousand five hundred fifty nine units. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Is it buildings within the…. WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, MR. SHAW-Apparently what is going on there is the reason the units are up is generally water usage generally Great Escape numbers are forcing that. SUPERVISOR STEC-I will open the public hearing on the Route 9 Sanitary Sewer District Benefit Tax Roll for next year is there anybody that would like to comment on this public hearing any discussion from the board? NO COMMENT SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, I will close this public hearing. Mike, do you have anything else to add? WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, MR. SHAW-No, Dan. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION ADOPTING ROUTE 9 SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT BENEFIT TAX ROLL FOR 2011 RESOLUTION NO. 284, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi § WHEREAS, in accordance with New York State Town Law §202 and 202-a, the Queensbury Town Board has prepared the Route 9 Sanitary Sewer District Benefit Tax Roll for 2011 assessing the expense of district improvements of general sanitary sewers located in the Route 9 Sanitary Sewer District and filed the completed Tax Roll in the Queensbury Town Clerk’s Office, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk posted and published the required Notice of Public Hearing and mailed copies of the Notice to all property owners within the Benefit Assessment District, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#31 08-16-2010 4 th WHEREAS, the Town Board duly conducted a public hearing on Monday, August 16, 2010 and heard all interested persons, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves, confirms and adopts the Route 9 Sanitary Sewer District Benefit Tax Roll for 2011 for payment of public improvement expenses within the § District in accordance with New York State Town Law §202 and 202-a, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to issue a warrant to be signed by the Town Supervisor and Town Clerk commanding the Town Tax Receiver to collect the sum(s) from persons named in the assessment roll and to pay the sum(s) to the Town. th Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2010 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi NOES : None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING – SOUTH QUEENSBURY – QUEENSBURY AVENUE SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT BENEFIT TAX ROLL FOR 2011 PUBLICATION DATE: AUGUST 6, 2010 OPENED SUPERVISOR STEC-Is there any comment or input from the public on this one, any discussion from the board? I will close the public hearing and entertain a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION ADOPTING SOUTH QUEENSBURY – QUEENSBURY AVENUE SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT BENEFIT TAX ROLL FOR 2011 RESOLUTION NO. 285, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier § WHEREAS, in accordance with New York State Town Law §202 and 202-a, the Queensbury Town Board has prepared the South Queensbury – Queensbury Avenue Sanitary Sewer District Benefit Tax Roll for 2011 assessing the expense of district improvements of general sanitary sewers located in the South Queensbury – Queensbury Avenue Sanitary Sewer District and filed the completed Tax Roll in the Queensbury Town Clerk’s Office, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk posted and published the required Notice of Public Hearing and mailed copies of the Notice to all property owners within the Benefit Assessment District, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#31 08-16-2010 5 th WHEREAS, the Town Board duly conducted a public hearing on Monday, August 16, 2010 and heard all interested persons, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves, confirms and adopts the South Queensbury – Queensbury Avenue Sanitary Sewer District Benefit Tax Roll for 2011 for payment of public § improvement expenses within the District in accordance with New York State Town Law §202 and 202-a, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to issue a warrant to be signed by the Town Supervisor and Town Clerk commanding the Town Tax Receiver to collect the sum(s) from persons named in the assessment roll and to pay the sum(s) to the Town. th Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2010 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING – WEST QUEENSBURY SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT BENEFIT TAX ROLL FOR 2011 PUBLICATION DATE: AUGUST 6, 2010 OPENED SUPERVISOR STEC-I will opened this public hearing on West Queensbury Sanitary Sewer District Benefit Tax Roll for 2011 any public comment, seeing none I will close this public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Mike what you are doing is setting up the units for setting the tax rate. WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, MR. SHAW-That’s correct. What happens is each parcel is assessed a number of units you take the total of that district the total units you divide it into this case it would be interest payment then you have a value per unit. Each parcel can be different depending on this commercial residential how much water use it has whether it is vacant or so on and so forth. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Just for the public’s point of view you mention the word BAN. A BAN is a Bond Anticipation Note that we take out a loan until we get all of the numbers in until the construction is done then we go and issue a bond. WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, MR. SHAW-That’s correct. Our interest payment next year we estimate about thirty thousand dollars and hopefully next year the project will be completed and we will roll it over into a thirty year bond. RESOLUTION ADOPTING WEST QUEENSBURY SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT BENEFIT TAX ROLL FOR 2011 RESOLUTION NO. 286, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#31 08-16-2010 6 SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough § WHEREAS, in accordance with New York State Town Law §202 and 202-a, the Queensbury Town Board has prepared the West Queensbury Sanitary Sewer District Benefit Tax Roll for 2011 assessing the expense of district improvements of general sanitary sewers located in the West Queensbury Sanitary Sewer District and filed the completed Tax Roll in the Queensbury Town Clerk’s Office, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk posted and published the required Notice of Public Hearing and mailed copies of the Notice to all property owners within the Benefit Assessment District, and th WHEREAS, the Town Board duly conducted a public hearing on Monday, August 16, 2010 and heard all interested persons, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves, confirms and adopts the West Queensbury Sanitary Sewer District Benefit Tax Roll for 2011 for payment of public improvement expenses § within the District in accordance with New York State Town Law §202 and 202-a, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to issue a warrant to be signed by the Town Supervisor and Town Clerk commanding the Town Tax Receiver to collect the sum(s) from persons named in the assessment roll and to pay the sum(s) to the Town. th Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2010 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING – ADOPTING SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AMENDING ZONING LAW TO CHANGE CLASSIFICATION OF PARCELS ON COUNTRY CLUB ROAD AND GLENWOOD AVENUE AND ENACTING LOCAL LAW TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 179, ZONING PUBLICATION DATE: AUGUST 6, 2010 OPENED SUPERVISOR STEC-This public hearing was set I believe it was three weeks ago at a Regular Town Board Meeting for this evening. We discovered today that inadvertently there were some people that were required to have received formal notice that did not. In consultation with Town Counsel they have suggested that we take any public comment on this public hearing tonight, close it, and take no action. Certainly any comments that we get tonight we will include as part of our record when we likely towards the end of the evening pass a resolution setting another public hearing on basically the same proposed rezoning that also will be four weeks th from tonight, which will be September 13. We apologize for any inconvenience out there, but we would rather get it right then get it wrong. With that said, I will open the public hearing we will take any comment on it this propose rezoning. There is a total of seven parcels involved in the general vicinity of Glenwood and Country Club Road that had been zoned late winter early spring from residential zone to the office zone, well some of them. Then upon reviewing it and some other questions and discussions that have come up in the last six months the Town Board decided maybe we wanted to change some of those properties back to the original six months ago residential zoning. Then there are a couple of parcels that actually had not been rezoned from residential to office that we would consider to changing to office so basically a flip flop four REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#31 08-16-2010 7 would come out of office and go back to residential three that have been residential we would be considering for office. With that said we will conduct the public hearing take any comments, but won’t act on it this evening, in fact we will likely set a new public hearing. Of course, if we don’t set a new public hearing tonight until we do so the zoning won’t change. I am directing comments to one of the Counsels out there that I know is here knows exactly what I am talking about. I didn’t have a chance to catch up with her in fact the board suggested the direction a few minutes ago. With that said I will open the public hearing and turn it over to you Stephanie. STEPHANIE DILALLO BITTER, BARTLET, PONTIFF, STEWARTS AND RHODES-Here this evening with Tom Drake, Drake Asset Management, LLC is one of the owners or is the owner of two parcels that are being considered tonight to be zoned from Office to MDR. Those two parcels are 296.15-1-18 and 24; those parcels collectively make up about sixteen acres. We are very much opposed to this proposal due to the fact that Mr. Drake has made development and plans for the parcels that are subject to this proposed rezoning to develop as a townhouse development. He has even reached out to immediately adjacent property owners to provide access from Glenwood, which then in turn would provide sewer and water, which would facilitate a development such as this. We feel that placing a townhouse development in this area would be the perfect place to do so with good planning, zoning due to the fact that not only is sewer and water there access to busing, bike path is there, close proximately to shopping centers. Nearby development similar in use such as Westwood and the Landing we feel that placing this parcel back from Office to MDR would be not only a determent to Mr. Drake, but a determent to the community due to these facilities that exists in the nearby vicinity. Not only would it place a burden on it, but it wouldn’t be economically feasible if it is zoned back to MDR to have a townhouse community there not only because of the density, but because this parcel has constraints for wetland and bedrock not only to mention that in the MDR you need a special use permit for a townhouse community. We would really like the board to seriously consider not rezoning these parcels back to MDR. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Has the owner gone through any plans yet? ATTORNEY BITTER-There is not an application pending he has been like I said he reached out to the immediately adjacent property owner. He has developed a development plan as to the number of units, how he would access those units, how he would access the facilities nearby so things have been in the works he has been relying on his own, being office. COUNCILMAN BREWER-How many units? COUNCILMAN MONTESI-How would you get the sewer or water on Glenwood? ATTORNEY BITTER-The Glenwood property has sewer nearby. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Glenwood. SUPERVISOR STEC-Stephanie I apologize the map that I have doesn’t have the tax map numbers on it. If I could the ones the cluster of four that are off of Country Club Road there is a long one to the north and then there are three separate ones directly beneath that are these two Mr. Drake owns those? ATTORNEY BITTER-The most northern parcel? SUPERVISOR STEC-The northern parcel and the parcel furthest to the east. ATTORNEY BITTER-Right. SUPERVISOR STEC-Neither of those parcels have access…. ATTORNEY BITTER-That’s why I said to you, he reached out to the property owner of Glenwood, which is immediately to the south. SUPERVISOR STEC-I see that. ATTORNEY BITTER-Adjacent to the Westwood Community I believe that is. SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, I see what you are talking about now. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-The Westwood community. ATTORNEY BITTER-That parcel is kind of in-between. SUPERVISOR STEC-Not that I want to encourage the Town Board to start acting as the Planning Board, but we are talking about and I know I was informed by staff that you probably would be curious as to the REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#31 08-16-2010 8 rational that the board had and I think I may have touched on it in my opening remarks. I think the main concern that we have John correct me if you disagree is the office zone as uses are currently allowed in it and I don’t think we are necessarily encouraging reopening those as a group. As currently constituted the office zone would allow a fairly higher density obviously of potential residential development let alone obviously office development our concern was that it might not be what we like to see on Country Club Road as opposed to Bay Road or Glenwood in my opinion. One of the things that you said at the offset in talking about you reached out to another neighbor not asking you to design your project here tonight on the spot I am just curious as to what the vision might have been. Is the vision to try to whatever development to have access off of Glenwood or off of Country Club? Our concern is the change of the volume of traffic on Country Club. ATTORNEY BITTER-Right, actually what exists there today? SUPERVISOR STEC-Given wetland concerns it might be hard for you all to do. ATTORNEY BITTER-That is what I was going to say is there are certain constraints on that northern parcel that exists for wetlands that would provide limitations to the access on Country Club so obviously I don’t have the development plan in front of me, but that is really one of the purposes for including that Glenwood as well. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-You are aware that Westwood is not a public road never deeded the road over. ATTORNEY BITTER-Right, a separate community. SUPERVISOR STEC-Stephanie, I apologize to the public because they won’t be able to see. This property immediately to the south is zoned office right now. ATTORNEY BITTER-That’s correct. SUPERVISOR STEC-Is that one that Mr. Drake owns or not owns? ATTORNEY BITTER-That is the owner that we reached out, too. SUPERVISOR STEC-I just want to make sure I understand. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-The character of Country Club Road is single family residential we didn’t want to change that, that’s a concern of mine. Not only that, but you know as you admitted the land has some constraints and some carrying capacity issues especially for numerous units. It might be suitable for one or two or three residential units, single family, but multiple units I am very skeptical about its carrying capacity to do so. ATTORNEY BITTER-The one thing and I am glad you mentioned that is you keep referencing Country Club, which I understand these properties are adjacent. Due to the size of these parcels they are also surrounded by parcels that are fronting on Bay Road, which I can tell you the property immediately to the north was recently rezoned to office as well as the property to the east, I would say. SUPERVISOR STEC-If you look at the map their frontage doesn’t continue all the way west to Country Club. ATTORNEY BITTER-You’re right the area in which development would be. SUPERVISOR STEC-That is the concern that we have that is the driving force I think behind all of this that Bay Road is a different creature than Country Club Road as far as the volume of traffic that is there. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Before you invest anymore time in this one singular access to multiple units would certainly stir up some emergency vehicle access. ATTORNEY BITTER-That isn’t what we were saying I wasn’t saying that County Club would be eliminated it wouldn’t be the main access point. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-No, but I mean that is one of many many concerns. ATTORNEY BITTER-The other thing that we were talking about, too is the fact that it would provide a significant buffer area to developments over there as well because of the vegetation that exists. Again, we feel it would be good planning and good zoning for this area. SUPERVISOR STEC-For the boards sake and frankly for your sake as well in case we do in fact follow through and set a public hearing that incorporates these four parcels going back to MDR and the three REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#31 08-16-2010 9 parcels that are currently MDR going over to office, which you are not involved in and I don’t think you or likely anyone would have any objection to. I asked Bob Hafner today the question I wanted to make sure I thought I knew the answer it turned out I was right. If we set a public hearing as we have involving seven parcels and we take public comment and the Town Board decides after a public hearing that we don’t want to change the zoning of some of those we can’t expand…. ATTORNEY BITTER-Right, you could limit it. SUPERVISOR STEC-We could reduce. I guess, what I am saying is and I don’t want to mislead you I am not suggesting that I am in favor of that, but it is an option available to us. If we said tonight we are going to press forward and have this public hearing again four weeks from now involving the exact same parcels that the board wouldn’t necessarily not be able to say, well we’re going to accept this parcel or these two parcels. Again, right now knowing what I do about where we are in the history and what I like to see their I’d still like to change the zoning back, but it is not to say that one, I be in the minority or two that I wouldn’t change my mind after mulling it over or looking at it taking public comment. I just wanted everyone to know that it is an option that if we set a public hearing. Let’s put it this way if you have any inkling that you want to do all seven you should set the public hearing for all seven because you can always cut it back from seven you can’t add up from five. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Was the original concept to build a single family house on this property? SUPERVISOR STEC-Not by Mr. Drake there is an access road that is in there now. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Right and that access road was to access a single family residence. ATTORNEY BITTER-That was prior to his ownership. SUPERVISOR STEC-The road is virtually installed now or substantially installed the plan would be to utilize that you are not going to dig that up. ATTORNEY BITTER-Right. SUPERVISOR STEC-The intent would make ecological sense to me as opposed to taking up a road that one happens to be there just so that we can get in our minds what might be the impact. MR. DRAKE-All the sensitivities that you described I kind of thought about it far as the visibility from Country Club and so forth any thought would be not to be abutting Country Club with high density. SUPERVISOR STEC-It might not necessarily be a mitigating factor to you it certainly is to me I imagined it would be to the rest of the board. We just rezoned this six months ago it is not your fault not your problem I get that. I feel a little better about it as opposed to hey; it’s been zoned this way for twenty years who you’ve owned it for twenty years. MR. DRAKE-What it was previously zoned for I think…. ATTORNEY BITTER-UR-1A. SUPERVISOR STEC-You mean prior a previous rezoning. MR. DRAKE-Before this most recent zoning. SUPERVISOR STEC-You mean UR-10? ATTORNEY BITTER-UR-1A. SUPERVISOR STEC-Generally speaking a lot of, if not all of the Town’s one acre zoning a year and a half ago went to two acre zoning. MDR, unless you have water or sewer there I believe it is two acres. I think if you do have water and sewer it is one acre. ATTORNEY BITTER-That’s correct. SUPERVISOR STEC-Obviously subtracting out slopes or wetlands, wetlands would be the issue here not slopes. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-From your point of view Mr. Drake you bought a piece of property relatively recently… SUPERVISOR STEC-Zoned office. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#31 08-16-2010 10 COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Zoned office. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Made plans for it now we are going to change it. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Understandable why you are here in front of us. SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s exactly the situation. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-That is the concern that we have, too. I mean it seems like we are flip flopping there are some other factors to consider. MR. DRAKE-Just out of curiosity is this Glens Falls Schools or Queensbury Schools? COUNCILMAN BREWER-I think it is divided. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-I think it is divided, I believe so. MR. DRAKE-I get two tax bills. I thought it odd I get the tax bill, but I didn’t get notice about this. SUPERVISOR STEC-Better late than never, right we caught the error. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Mr. Drake would you mind at some point before we have this public hearing to give up some sort of a sketch as to what you have in mind so we could have an idea? MR. DRAKE-I wouldn’t mind doing that, however, some of it is subject to we’ve reached out to adjoining properties we really don’t know. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Understood. SUPERVISOR STEC-Our job is to assume the most intense use for a property, which may not be your intent, but then again you could sell it next week. MR. DRAKE-It clearly isn’t it is not the most intense use. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I would guess that with the water that’s there or the wetness that’s there of the sixteen acres you will find that some of its pretty difficult to build on. SUPERVISOR STEC-We have our own mapped wetlands, but that isn’t the be all end all the owner is responsible to have ultimately the final wetlands delineated. Raw land that’s sat that way for a long time the maps that we have may not be the most accurate maps you would want to consult a biologist or somebody that does the wetlands mapping for you. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Start with DEC first. SUPERVISOR STEC-Do you have anything else? I’ll see if there are any other public comment thanks, thanks for being understanding so far. Is there anyone else that would like to comment on this public hearing? BILL PRIEST-I am the adjoining property owner I would like to keep it just the way it is right now if at all possible. Like you said there is a considerable amount of wetland back there so you are not going to get too many residential places back there if and when the time comes. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-When you say you are the adjoining, which way? MR. PREECE-I’m sorry I have the front two lots. SUPERVISOR STEC-These two the four we’re talking about Mr. Drake has two and you have the other two. MR. PREECE-Yes, sir. SUPERVISOR STEC-If you let me interrupt just for a second Bill just out of curiosity is there anyone out there in the public that wants to talk about the properties that we are going to rezone to office up there, which is really the Animal Hospital, I don’t see anyone from the Animal Hospital here. Like I said, I didn’t think so we have everybody here that’s probably going to have a beef with us undoing the zoning change that we did six months ago. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#31 08-16-2010 11 MR. PREECE-Could I ask you why you want to flip flop. SUPERVISOR STEC-Like I said, one I prefer not to use that phrase revise and extend. As we said before I think in realizing there was a little bit of discussion after changing the zoning six months ago as to whether or not we wanted to change allowed uses in the office zone and we decided ultimately not to make that change. In looking at it again recently basically I think the concern that the board had was on Country Club Road those four parcels as currently zoned would allow for apartment buildings or office development on a road that typically as John said is single family residential. It may be out of character for the neighborhood, but I think more importantly it might really change the situation on Country Club Road from Quaker Road to Sweet Road, which has a lot of traffic. Everyone and their brother especially in the local area knows if you want to head north on nine you don’t go to nine two fifty four you cut up Country Club Road and you zip up Sweet Road and catch the light and north on nine. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-One of the things we could have done once we made the change to office is we could have changed what could go into office and excluded multi-family dwellings. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Now you are talking. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-That’s what we could have done that would have been one fix and the other fix is to rezone it back…. SUPERVISOR STEC-Or the third fix is the fix that you are in favor of which is just grit our teeth and say to ourselves this one got pass the goalie. Is it the end of the world no it is not the end of the world everyone is happy except if this turns into a traffic disaster in five years, which is what we are trying to avoid, but that is a third option that’s your preferred option. MR. PREECE-Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR STEC-Like, I said we won’t be acting on this tonight if we set another public hearing tonight for four weeks from now it will basically be the same kind of discussion we will make sure this conversation this public hearing becomes included as part of that record if I understood our Attorney’s right. This has value even though we are not going to act on it we are going to set another public hearing it is not a game we would play where we say this is a new public hearing you should have said something. Our goal here is we want to include this public hearing as part of the discussion if we reset the public hearing. I apologize for not making sure you guys had your formal notice and I am glad that we caught it and I apologize for your time this evening if nothing else, thank you sir. Is there anyone else that would like to comment on this public hearing Mr. Delsignore? ATTORNEY MARK DELSIGNORE, REPRESENTING WESTWOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION-It is interesting I guess that the property owners on Country Club Road didn’t notice of this zoning change because from my discussions with the Homeowners Association very few if any of them received this six months ago so they were very surprised to hear that this was going from office back to MDR. In any event our principal purpose here tonight sounds like we were in agreement with the board initial thoughts with changing the zoning back. We understand the change on Glenwood obviously that corridor is turning more into offices…. SUPERVISOR STEC-I was going to say don’t you have a property nearby? ATTORNEY DELSIGNORE-I do yes, but I am not here on behalf of myself. SUPERVISOR STEC-No, I am just interjecting a little levity. ATTORNEY DELSIGNORE-I did get notice this time I am assuming due to the Glenwood properties I did not get notice of the one previously either. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-You mean when we made the zoning change. ATTORNEY DELSIGNORE-When you made the zoning change originally six months ago. SUPERVISOR STEC-Actually the two Wiswall properties, I believe they are both Wiswall. The one immediately west of the Homeowners Association that you are representing was one of them ones that were changed from MDR to Office Zoning. ATTORNEY DELSIGNORE-Okay so I would have gotten notice I should have. SUPERVISOR STEC-You should have. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#31 08-16-2010 12 ATTORNEY DELSIGNORE-I don’t recall ever receiving any, but that’s not why I am here. I am here on behalf of the Homeowners Association as I said the changes for the properties on Glenwood all in all they don’t have a problem with. SUPERVISOR STEC-In all likelihood is a practical matter it’s the Animal Hospital we are talking about and that is not likely to change use or scope significantly any time soon. ATTORNEY DELSIGNORE-As for the parcels out back for the reasons you are considering the change back to a MDR zone they would be in favor of that lower density of use, less traffic, less noise. They would are also very concerned as I am sure the board is aware there is a very high water table in this area. SUPERVISOR STEC-These last fifteen minutes have been a microcosm of my last eleven years worth of zoning experience in the Town of Queensbury it’s all fair it’s all good. ATTORNEY DELSIGNORE-So they are concerned ultimately with development in the area they are concerned with the water levels, flooding into the Homeowners Association more or less we were coming tonight to say that we are all in favor of the change back because obviously it would result in a less density. It would be consistent with the uses on Country Club Road and hearing it tonight I am sure the Homeowners Association would be concerned if there was some sort of a cut through from Glenwood back to Country Club Road because that would be more traffic cutting through near the Homeowners Association property. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-We are putting them really in harm’s way aren’t we right next to them is all going to be all offices. ATTORNEY DELSIGNORE-Next to them right now is zoned office that is not one of the properties that is back up for discussion to my knowledge. SUPERVISOR STEC-It may very well be very similar to the Landing. I think the original idea that spurred all this discussion in the first place was duplication in use and perhaps in scope of the Landing on the Wiswall property. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-How many units are in Westwood? HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION-Forty eight. ATTORNEY DELSIGNORE-I knew I had a better answer over my shoulder. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-The majority of which oppose the office zoning for the parcels we’re talking about they would prefer it to be residential…. SUPERVISOR STEC-They would prefer it to go back to MDR. ATTORNEY DELSIGNORE-You mean on Glenwood? SUPERVISOR STEC-The four parcels to the north. ATTORNEY DELSIGNORE-To the north. SUPERVISOR STEC-You are here because their preference would be to change that zoning back to what it was six months ago. ATTORNEY DELSIGNORE-Yes, I was asked by representatives of the Homeowners Association to represent to you that they would prefer the change back to MDR that the use would in their minds less intrusive on the Homeowners Association property. SUPERVISOR STEC-Pardon the local expression looking for some Solomon like wisdom perhaps another option that we would have I would strongly encourage Mr. Drake to pursue the discussions he has had with the neighbor immediately to the south. We may of those four parcels we don’t necessarily don’t have to include all the lot in the zoning in fact, I suppose it’s possible that we could draw the zone line between office and MDR so that perhaps two and a half of those lots would be I am just floating a potential compromise no one has really….it’s not really fair to the two property owners that are here tonight so I would put them on the spot. Just suggest that one thing to consider maybe to adjust that line so that most of that northern lot and the two eastern square lots below it could be classified as office. I guess we would have to talk to our zoning people to see how an access, I think our concern we want to discourage a lot high access out onto Country Club that may be a decent way to split the difference as far as allowed densities and actually require any office zone uses to have their access on Glenwood essentially try to limit or prohibit access onto Country Club. Maybe everyone wouldn’t get their maximum as currently defined allowed densities, but it would be certainly potentially more than would be allowed under all or ….going all the way REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#31 08-16-2010 13 back to MDR. It might be something that the neighbors would feel a little bit more comfortable about knowing we are not talking, I’ll just throw a hypothetical number out there we are not talking about sixty units that could go in there we are talking about maybe twenty units because of the way that the zone. I just want to throw that out as a potential suggestion maybe for the Homeowners to kick around if you play and all or none game the risk that people run is that somebody will get everything they want and somebody else will get nothing that they want. There might be an opportunity here to say what’s reasonable and we move that line in such a manner that office uses could exit on to Glenwood and yet you have more of the residential kind of uses to Country Club because that is our main concern. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I wouldn’t agree to that if off of Country Club Road the character is single family residential. There are carrying capacity issues with the property there are access issues with the property the only thing that it should be is moderate density residential period. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-In Westwood are they basement or slab on grade? ATTORNEY DELSIGNORE-They are slab. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-They are all on slab. ATTORNEY DELSIGNORE-To my knowledge they are all on slabs I have never heard of anyone having a basement there. Again like Mr. Stec, said we also aren’t aware of what the plans are for the back lot so as far as I know maybe they want to put a two family residence back there. I am doubting that, but it’s possible so we don’t know what is really going on. We just came to voice again our support for what the board was doing in changing these back to MDR and that we felt that it would limit the impact on the neighboring parcels be it either traffic, more traffic trying to turn out onto Glenwood. I think I can speak for the Homeowners Association in saying its already not easy making a left hand turn out onto Glenwood from that side of the road. If you are having more vehicles from some back lot up in the woods off of Country Club Road accessing through onto Glenwood I would imagine it will have traffic concerns not for this board, but for the Planning Board when it comes to site plan. SUPERVISOR STEC-In looking at the map and again I am not trying to do an off the back of the envelope site plan review I think any monumental decisions like that should get more than a cur sure review and make reference to a few other things that are going on around here lately or potentially access east out to Bay Road there are other properties immediately to the east Stephanie and Mr. Preece I haven’t walked it I don’t know if it’s feasible or not. Bay Road is right there potentially an access road not onto Glenwood, but in fact out on to Bay may address the concerns. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Somebody would have to intersect with Glenwood. SUPERVISOR STEC-No I am just saying here if they went out onto Bay Road this way. I am not trying to do that tonight if we follow through four weeks from now with a public hearing on this it gives Mr. Preece and Mr. Drake and the homeowners four weeks to think over if you come back for that public hearing what you might or might not be able to live with then the board will make a decision. I do have a concern leaving it status quo right now because I see the potential there for more than acceptable impact on Country Club Road. I want to be fair to Mr. Preece and Mr. Drake and the homeowners as well to try to find something that will work for almost everybody if not everybody. If that can’t be and it ends up, hey we are going to do all or none and there is a resolution on the floor it may get passed where these all get changed back or none of them that get changed and like I said there will be some people in the room that will be elated and others that will be furious we try to avoid furious around here thanks Mark good seeing you. Is there anyone else that would like to address this public hearing tonight? Is it clear as mud that we won’t be acting on this we will include this discussion if we set another public hearing on these seven properties. If we act on it after that public hearing we may or may not change all of them we may change only some of them. I guess perhaps any of the property owners that we are talking about tonight give it some thought and say, you know I have looked at it and I thought about my own plans for the property you suggest something to us, I mean you understand our concern so it’s a real concern. I don’t want you to say, they already made up their mind they are going to change it back nor do I want to assume that two property owners are going to come in here and get us to say, gee we’re sorry, but we have forty eight other property owners. I historically try to avoid that situation it can be painful bucking the forty eight, but you have to respect the two that are here because you are property owners as well government needs to be mindful of the individuals rights as well. We have had a lot of arguments in the ten or eleven years around here on these issues, but on this one six months ago it was zoned MDR we changed it to office I think a few of us now are probably I’ll publically kick myself that we weren’t a little more cautious because now we have created a situation where we’ve added a potential increase density of use, which translate into an increase dollar value and now you have a new owner involved so that complicates things we well and it is certainly not the new owners fault, but it is potentially his problem now. Think it over you have time it’s not like we’re coming back to this in ten minutes, John. SUPERVISOR STEC-Well I try to be thorough. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#31 08-16-2010 14 COUNCILMAN STROUGH-You are very thorough we could just take apartments out of professional office or out of offices, but anyways we are not going to go there. SUPERVISOR STEC-I will close this public hearing we won’t act on it this evening. We have added a resolution number 4.10 to agenda, which is basically to reset the only difference as far as I know is that now the resolution also specifically says to inform the property owners not by name, but Mr. Drake and Mr. Preece to make sure that you are noticed but you could probably consider this an informal notice. If we pass th number ten tonight it will be on for September 13, four weeks from tonight. Maybe if you got more of an idea of what you might want to do it might help us in our deliberation then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED NO ACTION TAKEN SUPERVISOR STEC REQUESTED THAT THESE COMMENTS BE PART OF THE COMMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 3.0 PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR GEORGE WINTERS- 4 JOHN CLENDON ROAD-Spoke to the board stating this is the time to cut down on what the Town of Queensbury does for its citizens like picking up the leaves in the fall, let the people bring them to the dump and also the Christmas tree pickup looking at ways on how to save money. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-As far as the leaf pickup from what I understand is that you have your paving schedule that is pretty much retired by the time they start that and theoretically your plowing hasn’t started so you are trying to make effective use of the manpower while providing the community a service. It is kind of a down time so you might as well make use of the people and equipment thinks this is one of the rationalizations for picking of leaves. If we stop that I don’t know if the savings would be that significant, but you are right in your approach we should be looking at every single nook and cranny where we could save. COUNCILMAN BREWER-If you took the manpower the hours and time, the gas, and energy for the three weeks that we do that you would be surprised how much you would save. MR. WINTERS-Spoke to the board regarding the health insurance and the stipend that employees get for not taking it asked if the Town is still doing this. SUPERVISOR STEC-We do. It is eleven hundred dollars or so is the incentive to not use the Town’s insurance as opposed to taking the Town’s insurance policy, which is valued at eighteen or nineteen thousand dollars. It is a good deal for the taxpayer for a Town employee not to take it that is true at the County or anywhere else and a lot of private companies do that. MR. WINTERS-The private companies are doing away with that thinks this is something that should be stopped. MR. PLINEY TUCKER-41 DIVISION ROAD, QUEENSBURY-Asked the status of the Treasurer’s job at the County. SUPERVISOR STEC-This Friday at the Regular Board Meeting the County Board is conducting a public hearing on whether or not to get away from an elected Treasurer. At the close of that public hearing I imagine there will be a vote. I imagine that there will be a roll call vote. I also imagine that it will be close whether or not it passes. If it does pass then there is a mandatory referendum and it would be on the ballot in November. The public would have their say on whether or not they wanted to keep an elected Treasurer or get rid of an elected Treasurer position at the end of next year and go with an appointed Comptroller by the board. MR. TUCKER-Questioned Resolution Authorizing Advance Payments to the Town of Queensbury Emergency Rescue Squads asked why they are doing it this way wasn’t in the original budget at the first of the year. SUPERVISOR STEC-Anytime, it is standard language in all the Fire and EMS contracts when their contract expires there is a provision in the contract that says we can continue on a month to month basis paying them the last contract until we have a new contract with them. I recognize that it is now August the Fire Companies are all done the three Rescue Squads for few various different reasons aren’t done yet so they have all been getting these checks. We need by Town Board resolution to authorize that this will authorize the next two months worth. There was a Workshop last week that I think covered a lot of ground with one of them really there are one or two central issues that are relevant to all three of them. This keeps the money flowing we want them to continue to provide the service it carries forward all the terms of the expired contract. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#31 08-16-2010 15 MR. TUCKER-Asked Councilman Montesi what part of the properties are they wanting to rezone with the City of Glens Falls. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Based on what I saw in the newspaper it would appear it is something like eight hundred acres all along Potter Road all along Peggy Ann Road both sides. Then as you come around the corner from Sokol’s Market there is a section in there that they want to rezone commercial. MR. TUCKER-Nothing in their watershed property on the mountain? COUNCILMAN BREWER-That is watershed property Ron just mentioned. SUPERVISOR STEC-Their plan that they have shown with their vision for these eight hundred and sixty seven some odd acres is the property that is confined by Peggy Ann, Potter, and West Mountain Road that is the property that is under the litigation that the City initiated the Town didn’t initiate it the City did. You could go to court for virtually anything as some people have it doesn’t mean that the court is going to find it with merit or allow you to pursue it. Tim’s point is they do own other property other than those eight hundred acres on the mountain that isn’t what the law suit is about that isn’t what the proposed suggested rezoning was about. It is my understanding that a couple of people down there anyways thought that is what some of their annexation threat should be about. The property that we have been talking about is the eight hundred acres between Peggy Ann and Potter Road and West Mountain Road. That’s not to say that they couldn’t say well we also want to talk about that stuff, too. I don’t think that there is any support on the Town Board to really talk about any of that. MR. TUCKER -Questioned if the watershed property on the mountain is mostly in the Adirondack Park. SUPERVISOR STEC-Mostly not all, but a good chunk of it. MR. TUCKER-Questioned if they supersede Town and County zoning? SUPERVISOR STEC-The APA has a lot of people’s feathers ruffled we will let it play out. MR. TUCKER-Asked if he could get a list of the properties owned by the Town? SUPERVISOR STEC-That is something that the Clerk’s Office could get you. MR. TUCKER-Would like to know how much we own. SUPERVISOR STEC-The City is the largest landowner in the Town of Queensbury. JOHN SALVADOR, NORTH QUEENSBURY-Spoke to the board regarding the adoption of Resolution 276, 2010 meeting of August 2, 2010, authorizing the North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company Inc. to Purchase a Fire Rescue Boat and to incur a hundred thousand dollars in debt and to add monies derived from their fund raising activities to pay the difference amounting to seventy thousand dollars. Within hours of the adoption of this resolution I received noticed through the US mail of an annual appeal sponsored by the North Queensbury Fire Fighters Service Inc. for financial aid to raise funds for a fire rescue boat noting the notice was issued on the letterhead of the North Queensbury Fire Fighters Service Corporation in the name of the North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company on behalf of “ The Neighborhood Fire and Rescue Volunteers” they are being lead to believe that their donations can qualify as a income tax deductible expense. We are further told that any financial aid possible be directed to the NQFSC with a return addressed stamped envelope. A website maintained by the Internal Revenue Service publishes those organizations whose donor generated income can be considered an income tax deductible expense for the donee. The North Queensbury Fire Fighters Service Corporation is not listed amongst those organizations considered as qualifying for deduction even though the North Queensbury Fire Fighters Service Corporation is a Section 501C3 Not for Profit Corporation. The only way that these contributions can be used to pay for a part of the fire service boat is that they be made to the North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company that is the only way it qualified for a tax deduction. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Please right to the point if you would. MR .SALVADOR-The point here there is fraud being perpetrated here. SUPERVISOR STEC-Who is committed fraud for the record. MR. SALVADOR-For the record the North Queensbury Fire Fighter Corporation they are telling us our contribution to them would be tax deductible and that’s not the case. SUPERVISOR STEC-Have you had any dialogue or questions answered with the people who need to be answering these questions the Fire Company? REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#31 08-16-2010 16 MR. SALVADOR-They don’t answer the mail. SUPERVISOR STEC-They answer my mail and they told me they have answered yours they told me they spent a lot of money answering your mail over the years. Recommended that you put that in writing give it us and we will take whatever appropriate action that is necessary. C. POWELL SOUTH, PARKVIEW AVENUE-Spoke to the board regarding Pine View Cemetery noting his concern with the geese. I have been visiting the cemetery for many years has never seen as much duck residue and geese residue as there is on the lawn in the cemetery beginning to think that we are somewhat loosing that very valuable piece of property that makes Queensbury a good community to reside in. SUPERVISOR STEC-Jim Fitzgerald the Animal Control Officer stopped in my office last week to let me know that this has become an issue at Pine View Cemetery. The Cemetery Superintendent and Staff are actively trying to discourage people from feeding the geese. MR. SOUTH-Point being is if we cannot do something every year this problem is going to expand itself because where the young geese are born is where they return. SUPERVISOR STEC-I will follow up with Mike tomorrow they have told me they have been discouraging people from feeding them. With the camera, which a lot of people do watch and word of mouth if we have to pass a formal policy I am sure there is a policy in place will research and find out. If we need to follow through and adopt some formal policy we certainly will the vast majority of people if you post a sign please Don’t Feed the Ducks most of them will follow it. 4.0 RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WAIVER OF 30 DAY NOTIFICATION REQUIRED BY NEW YORK STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADIRONDACK SPORTS COMPLEX RESOLUTION NO.: 287, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, The Adirondack Sports Complex owns and operates The Dome Sports Complex located at 326 Sherman Avenue, Queensbury, New York, and WHEREAS, The Adirondack Sports Complex has applied for a renewal of its liquor license and has requested that the Town of Queensbury waive the 30-day notification required by the New York State Liquor Authority (NYS) in an effort to expedite the renewal of its liquor license, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize the Town Clerk to notify NYS that the Town Board has waived the 30 day notification period before The Adirondack Sports Complex’s liquor license is renewed, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to notify the New York State Liquor Authority that the Town waives the 30 day notification period before the liquor license that is issued to The Adirondack Sports Complex is renewed and that the Town Board has no objection to such license being renewed, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#31 08-16-2010 17 BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, and/or Town Clerk to take any actions necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2010 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING LAKE GEORGE TRIATHLON RESOLUTION NO. 288, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Adirondack Triathlon Club, a not-for-profit organization, has requested authorization from the Queensbury Town Board to conduct the Lake George Triathlon to benefit local organizations including the Glens Falls YMCA Youth Scholarship Program as follows: SPONSOR : Adirondack Triathlon Club EVENT : Lake George Triathlon th DATE : Saturday, September 18, 2010 TIME : Approximately 9:15 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. (Bike Leg Portion) PLACE :Warren County Bike Trail and then Birdsall, Round Pond, Blind Rock, Haviland, Rockwell, Sunnyside, Jenkinsville and Ridge Roads (Map and letter delineating course is attached); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby acknowledges receipt of proof of insurance from the Adirondack Triathlon Club to conduct the Lake George Triathlon partially within the Town of th Queensbury on Saturday, September 18, 2010, 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. th Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#31 08-16-2010 18 NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO.: 261,2010 REGARDING PROMOTION OF PETER SMITH RESOLUTION NO.: 289, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 261,2010 the Queensbury Town Board authorized the promotion of Peter Smith from Motor Equipment Operator to Working Foreman, and WHEREAS, Warren County Civil Service has advised that the title should be Working “Supervisor” rather than Working “Foreman,” and therefore the Town Board wishes to amend Resolution No.: 261,2010 accordingly and establish the position of Working Supervisor, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby amends Resolution No.: 261,2010 such that Peter Smith’s title shall read “Working Supervisor” rather than “Working Foreman,” and further establishes the position of Working Supervisor and appoints Peter Smith to such position, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby affirms and ratifies Resolution No.: 261,2010 in all other respects. th Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION TO ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BARTON & LOGUIDICE, P.C., TO INCLUDE TIME AND EXPENSE FEE COMPENSATION RELATED TO THE MAIN STREET INFRASTRUCTURE AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN RESOLUTION NO.: 290, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#31 08-16-2010 19 WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 394,2009, the Queensbury Town Board authorized an Agreement with Barton & Loguidice, P.C. (B&L) for the provision of additional engineering services relating to the Town’s Main Street Infrastructure and Redevelopment Plan (Project), and WHEREAS, such Agreement is a lump sum contract for fee compensation, and th WHEREAS, by letter dated July 28, 2010 presented at this meeting, B&L has requested Town time and Board authorization to revise such Agreement from a lump sum fee compensation structure to a expense fee compensation structure , to better provide the Town with requested labor and expense backup to support B&L’s lump sum invoices, with the understanding that such contract amendment does not alter B&L’s scope of services or fee for services, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs Barton & Loguidice, P.C. to revise its Agreement with the Town of Queensbury regarding engineering services relating to the Town’s Main Street Infrastructure and Redevelopment Plan, from a lump sum fee compensation structure to time and expense fee compensation structure a , provided that such contract amendment does not alter B&L’s scope of services or total fee for services, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to sign the letter-form Agreement/Authorization substantially in the form presented at this meeting and/or any other needed documentation, and the Town Supervisor to take such other and further action necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF ROSS, RIGBY & PATTEN LLP TO AUDIT TOWN OF QUEENSBURY FIRE COMPANIES AND EMERGENCY SQUADS FOR YEARS ENDING 2010 - 2012 RESOLUTION NO.: 291, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 613,2008, the Queensbury Town Board authorized engagement of the services of Loftus Ross LLP to audit the statements of financial position and related statements of activities, functional expenses and cash flows, of the Town of Queensbury’s Fire Companies and Emergency REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#31 08-16-2010 20 Squads records, and also prepare the Federal Return of the Organizations Exempt From Income Tax (Form 990) and appropriate State Tax Returns, for the years ended 2008 and 2009, and WHEREAS, the Town Purchasing Agent requested and received, and with the Town Budget Officer reviewed, proposals from two (2) accounting firms for such auditing services for the years ending 2010 - 2012, and WHEREAS, Ross, Rigby & Patten LLP (formerly Loftus Ross LLP) submitted the lowest proposal for provision of these services for the years ending 2010 - 2012, and WHEREAS, the Town Purchasing Agent and Town Budget Officer have recommended that the Town Board authorize engagement of Ross, Rigby & Patten LLP as they submitted the lowest proposal and the Town has been pleased with the quality of their work, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes engagement of the services of Ross, Rigby & Patten LLP, CPA’s to audit the Town’s Fire Companies and Emergency Squads records and provide tax services for the years ended 2010 - 2012 for amounts not to exceed: ? $18,500 for the year ending 2010; ? $19,300 for the year ending 2011; and ? $20,100 for the year ending 2012; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that payment for these services shall be paid for from Account No.’s: 005-3410-4401- 4980 and 005-3410-4401-4981, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute any needed Agreement or documentation and the Town Supervisor, Budget Officer and/or Purchasing Agent to take any and all action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF MELDON CIRCLE IN THE HILAND CROSSINGS SUBDIVISION AND ACCEPTANCE OF LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE AND USE EASEMENT REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#31 08-16-2010 21 RESOLUTION NO. 292, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHEREAS, The Michaels Group, LLC (Developer) has offered a deed to dedicate Meldon Circle in the Hiland Crossings Subdivision to the Town of Queensbury as described in a Survey prepared by VanDusen & Steves, Land Surveyors, LLC, dated October 14, 2009, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury wishes to retain ownership of the Old Meadowbrook Road due to subsurface fiber optic and utility lines and therefore, the Developer, as owner of all lands adjacent to Old Meadowbrook Road, has also requested and submitted for Town Board approval, a proposed Landscaping Maintenance and Use Easement (Easement) from the Town for landscape maintenance and the construction and maintenance of a pedestrian and bicycle path, WHEREAS, the Town Highway Superintendent has inspected the road and recommended its acceptance contingent upon the Developer completing the top coat of the black-top within two years of the date of acceptance and addressing any necessary drainage easements, and WHEREAS, The Michaels Group, LLC has provided the Town with a $35,200 Letter of Credit to th ensure placement of the top coat on the roads by July 16, 2012, and WHEREAS, the Town Water Superintendent has confirmed that installation of water mains and appurtenances has been made in accordance with Town Water Department standards, and WHEREAS, the Wastewater Director has confirmed that the Wastewater Department’s requirements have been met, and WHEREAS, the Town Community Development Department has confirmed that its requirements have also been met, and WHEREAS, the form of the deed and title to the road offered for dedication and the Easement have been reviewed and approved by Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby accepts and approves the deed for dedication of Meldon Circle in the Hiland Crossings Subdivision, along with the Landscaping Maintenance and Use Easement, and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#31 08-16-2010 22 RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute, sign and affix the Town seal to any and all documents necessary to complete the transaction in form acceptable to Town Counsel, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs The Michaels Group, LLC to record the deed in the Warren County Clerk's Office, after which time the deed shall be properly filed and maintained in the Queensbury Town Clerk’s Office, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to add the road to the official inventory of Town Highways as follows: Name: Meldon Circle Road Number: 808 Description: Beginning at Meadowbrook Road and continuing in a westerly direction a distance of 1,527’± and .29± hundredths of a mile and ending at a cul-de-sac. Feet: 1,527’± and .29± of a mile . th Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2010 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 293, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHEREAS, the following Budget Amendment Requests have been duly initiated and justified and are deemed compliant with Town operating procedures and accounting practices by the Town Budget Officer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town’s Accounting Office to take all action necessary to amend the 2010 Town Budget as follows: From To Code Appropriation Code Appropriation $ 001-1990-4400 Contingency 001-1450-4400 Elections Misc. Contract 5,000 001-1990-4400 Contingency 001-4020-4135 Vital Statistics Fees 2,000 001-1990-4400 Contingency 001-1410-4030 Postage 5,000 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#31 08-16-2010 23 001-1990-4400 Contingency 001-1410-4400 Misc. Contractual 2,500 001-1680-2032 Software Purchase 001-1680-4090 Software Subscriptions 11,200 033-8120-4400 Misc. Contractual 033-8110-4130 Town Counsel Retainer 250 034-8120-4300 Electricity 034-8110-4130 Town Counsel Retainer 250 035-8120-4300 Electricity 035-8110-4130 Town Counsel Retainer 100 th Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS – TH WARRANT OF AUGUST 17, 2010 RESOLUTION NO.: 294, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve an audit of bills presented as a Warrant thth with a run date of August 12, 2010 and payment date of August 17, 2010, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Warrant with the run date of thth August 12, 2010 and payment date of August 17, 2010 totaling $744,629.74, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Budget Officer to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVANCE PAYMENTS TO TOWN OF QUEENSBURY EMERGENCY/RESCUE SQUADS RESOLUTION NO.: 295, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#31 08-16-2010 24 SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, general emergency ambulance services are provided to the Town of Queensbury by the Bay Ridge Rescue Squad, Inc., North Queensbury Rescue Squad, Inc., and West Glens Falls Emergency Squad, Inc., (Squads) in accordance with agreements between each Rescue Squad and the Town, and WHEREAS, the Town’s agreements with the Squads expired on December 31, 2009, and WHEREAS, in such Agreements the Town and Squads have agreed to continue to provide general emergency ambulance services under the terms and provisions of the existing agreements during the interim period pending execution of new agreements, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 52,2010, the Town Board authorized payment vouchers th constituting 1/12 of the 2009 Contract Amount for January and February to the Squads under the current Agreements, which payments constituted advance payments on the new general emergency ambulance services 2010 Agreements, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 110,2010, the Town Board authorized payment vouchers th constituting 1/12 of the 2009 Contract Amount for March, April and May to the Squads under the current Agreements, which payments constituted advance payments on the new general emergency ambulance services 2010 Agreements, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 199,2010, the Town Board authorized payment vouchers th constituting 1/12 of the 2009 Contract Amount for June, July and August to the Squads under the current Agreements, which payments constituted advance payments on the new general emergency ambulance services 2010 Agreements, and WHEREAS, the Squads may face cash flow shortages before the new agreements can be executed and therefore the Town Board wishes to again authorize advance payments under the current Agreements, which after new agreements are entered into, will constitute advance payments on the 2010 agreements to the Squads, such advances to be deducted from contract payments to be paid after the 2010 contracts are ratified, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to approve th payment vouchers for 1/12 of the respective 2009 Contract Amount(s) during September, 2010 to the three (3) Town of Queensbury Emergency/Rescue Squads (Squads) under the current Agreements, which payments will constitute advance payments on the new general emergency ambulance services 2010 Agreement(s) if such agreements are entered into, with the further understanding that the Town th shall also approve payment vouchers for 1/12 of the Squads’ paid daytime service costs, and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#31 08-16-2010 25 RESOLVED, that should new emergency ambulance services 2010 Agreements not be entered into th by September 30, 2010, then the Town Board authorizes the Town Supervisor to approve additional th payment vouchers constituting 1/12 of the 2009 Contract Amount to the Squads during October, 2010, th again with the understanding that the Town shall also approve payment vouchers for 1/12 of the Squads’ paid daytime service costs, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and Town Budget Officer to make the necessary arrangements to make such payments which are authorized under the current Agreements and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW NO. __ OF 2010 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 179 “ZONING” TO REZONE PROPERTIES ON COUNTRY CLUB ROAD AND GLENWOOD AVENUE RESOLUTION NO.: 296, 2010 INTRODUCED BY : Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: __ of 2010 to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179 by amending the official Town Zoning Ordinance and Map to reflect the rezoning of: 1. four (4) parcels of property on Country Club Road from Office (O) to Moderate Density Residential (MDR), and 2. three (3) parcels of property on Glenwood Avenue from Moderate Density Residential (MDR) to Office (O), as discussed at this meeting and as previously discussed, and WHEREAS, before the Town Board may amend, supplement, change, or modify its Ordinance and Map, it must hold a public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Town Law §265, the Municipal Home Rule Law and the Town of Queensbury Zoning Laws, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#31 08-16-2010 26 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall hold a public hearing on Monday, September th 13, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury to hear all interested parties concerning adoption of Local Law No.: ___ of 2010 to amend the official Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and Map whereby: ? the properties bearing Tax Map Parcel No.: 296.15-1-18, 296.15-1-24, 296.15-1-25, and 296.19- 1-12 located along Country Club Road in the Town of Queensbury would be rezoned from Office (O) to Moderate Density Residential (MDR), and ? the properties bearing Tax Map Parcel No.: 296.19-1-15, 296.19-1-16, and 296.19-1-17 located along Glenwood Avenue in the Town of Queensbury would be rezoned from Moderate Density Residential (MDR) to Office (O), and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk’s Office to provide notice of the public hearing in accordance with Queensbury Town Code §179-15-070 and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Community Development Department to provide the Town Clerk’s Office with: 1) a list of the names and addresses of the owners of the parcels having the Tax Map Numbers specified above in this Resolution, and 2) a list of the names and addresses of the owners of all parcels adjacent to the parcels having the Tax Map Numbers specified in this Resolution, for the Town Clerk’s use in sending the Notice of Public Hearing to property owners as required, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Clerk’s Office to send the Notice of Public Hearing to the Clerk of the Warren County Board of Supervisors, Warren County Planning Board and other communities or agencies that it is necessary to give written notice to in accordance with New York State Town Law §265, the Town’s Zoning Regulations and the Laws of the State of New York. th Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: None 5.0 CORRESPONDENCE DEPUTY CLERK, O’BRIEN-Community Development – Building and Codes, Supervisor Report for July 2010 on file in the Town Clerks Office. 6.0 TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#31 08-16-2010 27 COUNCILMAN BREWER ? Project on Hughes Court, Ashley Place, Dixon Road, and Owen Avenue is complete commended Tom Kubricky for the work they did. They did a good job hardly any complaints at all very neat and tidy hopefully they enjoy better water. ? Main Street Project is progressing just wanted to compliment them on their destruction and reconstruction of the road it is starting to take shape and should be a very nice project when completed next year. COUNCILMAN STROUGH ? Spoke regarding what types of services the Town provides and what types of services the East Lake George Village is going to have to provide their people should they be formed. Is concerned that the people that do vote on August 26, 2010 that when they make a decision it is not an emotional one that emotional decision if it turns out to be the wrong one and they approve this Village, I think it is going to turn out to be quite and unexpectedly costly. I do not want to see the residents of Queensbury go in that direction I want to provide them the best services at the cheapest price I don’t think this is the right way to go that is my opinion. ? Spoke regarding the phones calls he has been receiving people complaining about their neighbors dog barking, barking all day and night, barking seven days a week. If you look in the Nuisance Laws we all have a right to enjoy our property if your neighbor is interfering with that enjoyment I am not talking about once and a while parties and things like that the law says that it has to be substantial and it has to be continuous. Also nuisances can harm the ability of members of the community to enjoy other aspects their health, safety, welfare there general comfort. Wished we had some kind of a Nuisance Law to address these substantial unreasonable and continuous interferences. Councilman Brewer received a law regarding just what you are talking about a law that a Village or Town has in another area passed it on to Craig Brown to take a look at it maybe you want to touch base with Craig. Appreciates Councilman Brewer support thinks they should look into creating a local law regarding this issue. COUNCILMAN MONTESI ? Spoke regarding the Building Department Monthly Report noted building permits the value of construction for the month of July ten million dollars verses a million two last year, which gives us year to date twenty eight million verses seventeen million last year noting the building inspectors have done thirty four hundred and seventy inspections this year very substantial and a substantial amount of revenue sixty thousand dollars this year versus thirty five thousand that is a positive sign for our community. COUNCILMAN METIVIER ? Spoke regarding Lake Sunnyside have met with the engineers to talk about the Aquatics Management District we are moving forward with this. ? Met with the Glen Lake Protective Association there were about a hundred and ten people in the room and of the hundred and ten about a hundred and nine were in favor of moving forward with that district. This one could not be formed this year it is too late, but we will shoot for 2011 for the formation of this. ? Looked at the new Fire Boat in North Queensbury it is very nice. The price that they paid for it they got a good deal pleased and proud they were able to get the boat. ? Reminded people in North Queensbury if you want to vote in the Village election you have sign up by this Thursday the ninetieth and you cannot vote by absentee ballot you have to be present for the vote, which will take place on Thursday, August 26, 2010. If people want to call please do I will help as much as I can to answer any questions. SUPERVISOR STEC ? Spoke regarding the East Lake George Village Election. The Clerks are following the States Village Law there is a procedure to follow in State Law. This Thursday from 12:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. in Queensbury at the Town Clerks Office in the Town Hall residents can come in and check to verify that they are on the list. If they are not on the list then they need to provide some sort of documentation to the Town Clerk proving that they are in fact eligible to vote within the Village REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#31 08-16-2010 28 boundaries. If you are not on the list at nine o’clock Thursday night the ninetieth you will not be allowed to vote. Spoke regarding the budget for the Village and the maintenance of roads for the Village. For the Town of Queensbury compared to Wilton and Clifton Park and Colonie, Halfmoon and the Town of Moreau of the seven if you take the budget and you divide it by the number of miles they take care of you can get a good idea of what it costs that Municipality per road mile. The only municipality of the seven that was lower than Queensbury was Wilton. It cost twenty thousand dollars a mile a hundred and ninety miles of road. Three point eight million dollars we spend twenty thousand dollars a mile. Wilton is a little under twenty thousand and everyone else was twenty three, twenty four, twenty five, thirty thousand dollars a mile. The Village the budget has them spending about eighty five thousand dollars to take care of ten miles. That is eight thousand five hundred dollars a mile we’re the best bargain in the area at twenty thousand dollars a mile. ? Town website www.queensbury.net ? Thanked TV 8 and sponsors RESOLUTION ADJOURNING REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO. 297, 2010 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Regular Town Board Meeting. th Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec Noes: None Absent:None Respectfully Submitted, Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk Town of Queensbury