Loading...
2004-04-19 MTG18 Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 562 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING Mtg #18 TH APRIL 19, 2004 Res. #208-226 7:05 P.M. BOH Res. #9-10 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER TOWN COUNSEL BOB HAFNER TOWN OFFICIALS Jennifer Switzer, Budget Officer Chris Round, Executive Director of Community Development Marilyn Ryba, Senior Planner Dave Hatin, Director of Building & Codes Ralph VanDusen, Water/Wastewater Superintendent Harry Hansen, Director of Parks & Recreation PRESS: Glens Falls Post Star SUPERVISOR STEC called meeting to order…. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER MOMENT OF SILENCE RECOGNIZING PASSING OF PFC NATHAN BROWN RESOLUTION CALLING FOR QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 208, 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner 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 19 day of April, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: None QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING – SEWER VARIANCE – Steve and Debby Seaboyer Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 563 SUPERVISOR STEC-This is a continuation from a public hearing that was held two weeks ago this evening for a sewer variance located up in Rockhurst in North Queensbury. MR. TOM CENTER, Jr., Representing Applicant-Yes, sir, I don’t know if the Board has had a chance to go out and look, I know a couple of the Board Members have. If there’s any new comments that they have in regards to the project, I’d be happy to answer them or find out what the Board’s feeling is having had more time to look at the project. SUPERVISOR STEC-I know, I did go up there this afternoon and I know that Councilman Boor went up there late last week. COUNCILMAN TURNER-I’ve been there previously so I know what it looks like. SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea, so I know that yea, some Board Members did want to go and take another look or a look at what we’re talking about and I believe what we were facing was, we’re considering approximately nineteen, eighteen feet of relief. MR. CENTER, Jr.-Seventeen feet. SUPERVISOR STEC-Seventeen and a half feet of relief from a hundred foot setback from Lake George and I think the Board was considering, well that was what was requested and the Board was also, had issues with the fact that there are currently an existing holding tank system in place and operation. MR. CENTER, Jr.-Yes, not conforming to the town’s standards but yes, there is a preexisting thousand gallon holding tank. SUPERVISOR STEC-Right, a preexisting, right. Okay, and I know that some Board Members had some concerns and questions and if Town Board Members want to jump in and ask Mr. Center any of your questions. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I remember discussion that you dug a test pit in February? MR. CENTER, Jr.-I did a perk test in February. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Perk test in February? MR. CENTER, Jr.-Yes. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And then I found on page 136, A11, Appendix F in reference to code 136, determination of the seasonal high groundwater level shall be made during the months of March, April, May, June or within six weeks of the time that the frost leaves the ground. Now, did we do that? MR. CENTER, Jr.-The deep test pit was performed in August. The modeling layer, which is the standing layer, was denoted as the high groundwater mark. I asked at the last Board Meeting if the Board thought it would be helpful to go out and check the high groundwater currently and there was no reply, nobody said that that was an issue at that time. But I did offer at the last meeting to do that and I didn’t believe it was an issue, no one spoke up to say yes, we’d like that performed. So, no, it was not performed at that time but it was noted that the modeling layer which shows maximum high groundwater as standing, so. Which again, sometimes the actual groundwater will be lower then that, the noted, modeling layer. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And I think I noted last time that the distance from the filtration bed to the groundwater table is indicated by modeling was a minimal. MR. CENTER, Jr.-Yes, sir, that is the minimum according to the Town. The Town minimum is actually twelve inches greater then the state requirement of twenty-four inches. So, we’re already exceeding the State and the Town requires an extra foot of separation. So, we are exceeding the state by one foot but also meeting the Town Code. Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 564 COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And we also had a problem with the Town Code, State Code, Board of Health Code. MR. CENTER, Jr.-This book right here is the book that’s used on all the sewage permit designs. If you look at the permit, it actually states the year that the house was built or whether or not the fixtures were changed to meet that year, denotes the galloneage per bedroom. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yea, and that red book, I don’t think any members of the Town Board have one of them but we do have a Town Code. MR. CENTER, Jr.-Yes sir. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And the Town Code, you know, and we went through this last time we were here. MR. CENTER, Jr.-I would have to refer to Mr. Hatin on that, as far as the gallons per day that’s used, from being on the Planning Board that is what is used on the, for all new subdivisions, is a hundred and ten gallons per bedroom. On every single subdivision application, you’ll see the number of bedrooms and the number of gallons per day per bedroom, that hundred and ten is used often, has been used since 1993, I believe. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, but it doesn’t meet Town Code. MR. CENTER, Jr.-Well, then there’s a bigger problem then this one little project. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yea, because as we pointed out last time, no sense of going over it, it doesn’t meet Town Code. MR. CENTER, Jr.-I would ask if you could refer to Mr. Hatin, maybe there was in some point in time when they did recognize this as the ruling jurisdiction over the Town Code, I don’t know. I know this has come up at some Planning Board Meetings, or somewhere else, one of the other developers in the office mentioned that it happened in another project. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Maybe it’s that the State Code supercedes the Town Code. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s the other way around. COUNCILMAN BREWER-It is the other way around? SUPERVISOR STEC-We can make it more restrictive. Dave, do you want to share your? MR. DAVE HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Yea, just let me clarify this, hopefully this will answer everybody’s question. In the beginning of Chapter 136 there’s a section that requires that the new septic systems meet either our code as written in the book or the latest addition of the New York State Department of Health Regulations. We did that back in the late 1980’s, I believe, or the early 1990’s so we didn’t have to revise our code every time because the Department of Health updated their code. It allowed us, and it was done through the attorney’s office at that time with Code Publishers and it was done so that we didn’t have to update our code every time there was a change to the State Code. So, and because we do have the more restrictive standards for Lake George, those were left in there for that reason. I mean, we could easily abolish what’s in our code, we felt we didn’t want to because of Lake George restrictions. So, as Tom pointed out, the red book, design handbook is the latest standard, 1996 version and that we do design to everyday. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Okay, but even the system as designed and using that red book, is a minimum. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-All systems are John. MR. CENTER, Jr.-It’s a requirement. We are providing what is required. MR. STROUGH-Yea, but what I’m saying is, if you have the absence of going, well, our code calls for a three hundred flow per, well, a hundred and fifty gallon flow Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 565 MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-If you go a hundred fifty, if you go to a hundred and fifty gallon a flow a day. If Mr. Seaboyer did not want to change his fixtures in the residence, then we would figure it on a hundred and fifty gallons a day, I agree with you. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, I mean you could figure it on a hundred and fifty gallons per day per bedroom. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Typically, that’s not how it’s done. It’s done either by the year the home was built, anything 1991 or newer is going to be under the hundred and ten gallon standard, anything between 1980 and I believe it’s 1991, is under a hundred and thirty gallon and there’s a split in there. I don’t have it right in front of me, it’s on our application and that’s just the progress showing the new systems. The Eljen System being a new type system, water saving fixtures now a day which most people are transferring over to, to save water, it’s a standard that everybody designs to. So, you can call it a minimum if you’d like but nobody ever over designs a system, it’s very seldom that they over design. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, it seems to me that you could make it a little bit bigger using the hundred and fifty gallon flow and MR.HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-It, you, I’m not saying you couldn’t. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-The reason why I mention this Dave, alright, I don’t know if you agree with me or not, but I’m familiar with Rockhurst and I’m familiar with the Lake George and I’m familiar with what happens up there in the Summer. What happens up there in the Summer, you got, whoever owns the place, that’s fortunate enough to own a place on the lake, is going to have more friends then they ever knew they had and more relatives then they remember and the friends of the relatives. I mean, it’s easy to see that on the weekends, these systems could easily become over burdened if they’re designed to be a minimum. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-I can’t deny that, John, I’ve driven Rockhurst on the weekends too, I mean the road is packed but the bottom line is, you can’t hold a person to a standard of what might happen, you can only hold him to the standards in the book, that’s the problem. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yea, but we’re in a Critical Environmental Area on Lake George and everybody’s got concerns about preserving Lake George’s pristine beauty and you know, integrity and I’m given a job as the Board of Health to make sure these new systems meets infiltration beds and your job too, are not going to in any way now or five years from now or ten years from now, pollute the lake. So, in my mind, I have to consider what goes on up there in the Summer and I have to look at a system that was designed for two bedrooms and I know that, you know those bedrooms are going to be chucked full, maybe not Mr. Seaboyer, but Mr. Seaboyer may sell it and the next people will do it and I know a lot of people up in Rockhurst do and how whole families will fit in one bedroom. I mean, with showers and everything else, even with water saving showerheads and water saving faucets, you still got washing machines going and everything else. MR.HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said, I can only give you the facts, the information that’s presented and the design that Mr. Center submitted to you, meets the requirements of the ordinance with the exception of the hundred feet from the lake. Whether you feel that’s a large enough system or not, I guess is a philosophical question for you and the Board Members to decide and if you don’t feel it’s largest enough, then there are other alternatives here. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And the other thing too that bothers me, cause I just got back from up there, is the slope from the road to the house, it’s fairly steep and that’s exactly the front yard where they’re planning on putting the system in. MR. CENTER, Jr.-Yes, and there’s a retaining wall designed and fill to be brought in to change that slope of the yard. So, actually at some points you will have greater then three feet of separation as you get further out from the actual, the Eljen unit itself. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Another thing to consider too is, he’s got a dock there that could, one, two, three boats could fit on that dock. Now, does he rent the dock slips? Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 566 MR. CENTER, Jr.-I don’t know. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, that’s what I mean. When I look at an infiltration bed MR. CENTER, Jr.-It’s based on the number of bedrooms. The infiltration, the size of the infiltration bed is based on the number of bedrooms which is in the code, which is written in here and as Mr. Hatin stated, there’s a section of code that refers to either this as the code or this acceptable standard right here. So, stretching it out, I don’t understand, you can take it out there but that’s not the code, that’s not what’s written into the code, is my question. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, the code is meant for, I think the average household and we’re not dealing with the average household here, we’re dealing with a house that’s one, in a Critical Environmental Area. Two, during the Summer is going to see a lot more use then your average household is going to see. Three is, I see a spot for renting two docks and those people that rent the docks have a right to use the bathroom here. So, MR. CENTER, Jr.-Mr. Seaboyer is not here to defend himself about whether or not he does or does not rent the docks. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, I asked the question but I’m looking at the potential. In other words, one of my jobs is to look at the maximum impact of what’s being proposed here and I just have a concern. MR. CENTER, Jr.-Maybe those folks won’t need to use the facilities in this house. You know, it seems to be a little bit of a stretch on how far we can take it, it’s the number of bedrooms. The variance, does not have to do with the gallons per day, it has to do with the setback from the lake. SUPERVISOR STEC-Right, if I may jump in here. The public hearing was opened two weeks ago, it’s still open now and before we continue, I’d like to move forward and ask if there’s any members of the public that would like to speak for or against, have a comment or question about what’s before us tonight before we continue with our grilling of Mr. Center. Anyone at all? Alright, Mr. Center, thank you. COUNCILMAN BREWER-You just wanted to see if you could get him up, didn’t you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, I wanted to make sure that we all remembered that the public hearing was in fact open. I understand the points and concerns that John’s raising, are there any other Board Members with any other conversations? COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yea, well, I’d like to finish up. SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, I want to get a flavor for what’s out there, John, if I might. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Okay. SUPERVISOR STEC-Tim, do you? COUNCILMAN BREWER-I have no other concerns or questions. SUPERVISOR STEC-Ted, do you have any? COUNCILMAN TURNER-No, I made my statement the last time. I think he’s got a holding tank there, he keeps it there until he can do otherwise but to change that to an in ground system, no, not up there. SUPERVISOR STEC-I just want to narrow down how many topics we’re talking about. MR. CENTER, Jr.-Are you saying because of the holding tank or because of the setback from the lake, the existing holding tank that doesn’t meet Town Code? Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 567 COUNCILMAN TURNER-Not only the setback but the tank. MR. CENTER, Jr.-And the setback because possible infiltration to the lake? COUNCILMAN TURNER-Could be, you never know. MR. CENTER, Jr.-Okay, and on other occasions have you, has the Town Board allowed systems eighty-three feet to the lake? COUNCILMAN TURNER-We TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Let me, Ted. This is not a chance for you to grill the Town Board. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right. COUNCILMAN TURNER-I know but TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-The Town Board is here to consider the variance. MR. CENTER, Jr.-Well COUNCILMAN TURNER-But let me ask, let me ask. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Well, it’s getting adversary. COUNCILMAN TURNER-We had one right on Rockhurst that the gentleman had to put in a holding tank and it’s there. MR. CENTER, Jr.-Okay. SUPERVISOR STEC-Right, right the holding tank is there and we could decide to leave it there. I mean, I understand your point earlier about COUNCILMAN TURNER-I understand, I understand his point. SUPERVISOR STEC-Roger, is there any? I just want to know how many things we’re talking about. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yea, this is my ward, I think we all take this very seriously and I met with Mr. Seaboyer and he’s the greatest guy in the world, I like him but that’s not why we make the decisions we make and actually some of the reasons you say we should do this are the exact reasons why we shouldn’t do it. Number one, Mr. Seaboyer isn’t here and what I mean by that is, I don’t care what his name is, what he does for a living, how nice a guy he is, that’s not how we make our decisions. We make it on the data and the situation at hand and when I spoke with him, I must say, as much as we wants the system that you’re proposing, he also understands what this Board has to go through and realizes that he may have to stay with a holding tank. And I spoke with Dan earlier today about this and one of the things I would like this Board to do, in particular Rockhurst, is to look at the seven million dollars that’s being held for improving sewage along the lake and apply it in Rockhurst as a test area of a municipal, or I should say a community holding tank, a wastewater management district. It would relieve all of the pollution that might or could occur due to wastewater. It would set up a great example of, is this a good idea, and further more, should we sewer that area, all you got to do is hook up to the tank. The whole system is there, all you have to do is hook into it. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Didn’t we already COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s an, just one more thing, the house is an eighteen hundred square foot house with two and a half bathrooms and I’m not counting the downstairs finished area. So yea, because only two rooms have closets in them, it’s a two bedroom but it’s as big as any three bedroom I’ve seen and it’s probably bigger then some four bedroom homes and you’re asking us to make a decision because of a technical description of the property but the reality of the property I think is quite another thing. And as responsible as Mr. Seaboyer is or any current owner, we have Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 568 no guarantee that they will be the owner a year from now and that it won’t be a totally irresponsible owner. So, we have to hold this to the highest standard possible. MR. CENTER, Jr.-Yes, we understand that and COUNCILMAN BOOR-And I think a holding tank doesn’t allow any waste to go into the lake and I think that’s the smart way to go and like I said earlier, I’d like to see us be able to put that entire Rockhurst Road on a system and get everybody off of anything that puts anything in the lake. MR. CENTER, Jr.-I understand that and the thing, when we took on this job, when Mr. Seaboyer came to us and we look at every job because we understand that, how the variances go up here and that they were getting more strict, again, like I explained to you earlier, we looked at the residence next door. We looked at that, that was a larger house that had three bedrooms, the soil was a tighter soil, it had a forty-five minute percolation rate. So, it had a larger system, it was a fill style system, it was built up, it was ninety feet from the lake and they were issued a variance for that. And this house is one less bedroom, it has better soil being three minutes, we still have the separation distance to the requirement of the thirty-six inches and that’s why, when we took it, we, you know there are no promises like, you know, you folks say, you have to review the data and everything, that was one of the things that factored in, is the variance that was accepted for the house next to it. Now, whether or not he had a replacement system or if it was holding tanks, you know, I don’t know whether that’s the difference because if you, if the Board is concerned about the lake, and I need to know this for other clients to be able to tell them when we go out there, yes, we have to get holding tanks or yes, we can try this. I don’t want to take their money, I want to be able to give them a good product, a well-designed product, which I believe this is. If the Board is saying today and setting the precedent that eighty-three feet from the lake is too close, then is everyone going to be held to this same standard, that whether it’s a replacement system or a holding tank system, will other people that come for a variance that are eighty-three feet or closer, be made to install holding tanks? COUNCILMAN BOOR-I think, I’m not going to answer that but I will ask a question of Dave Hatin because we have another public hearing tonight for a Patrick Curtin and one of the variances that he’s seeking is he wants to be, put in an Eljen System and he wants three feet instead of twenty from his foundation and I’m wondering why you don’t have to get a variance to go close to your foundation. You’re certainly not twenty feet away from that house foundation with this system? MR. CENTER, Jr.-Yes, I believe we are. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Then you’re too close to the road, you can’t be both. MR. CENTER, Jr.-I’m ten, I have twenty feet from the house and ten feet from the driveway, or from the road and I believe they’re both on the drawing. COUNCILMAN BOOR-On a flat plain or like this? MR. CENTER, Jr.-On the site plan that was provided by the surveyor. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I find that impossible. MR. CENTER, Jr.-And it’s measured on a flat plain. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I was on that property. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Roger, I think one thing, you may not be aware of on that property, I think it shows on the map, is the property does go out into the road. So, the road is not the property line. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay. MR. CENTER, Jr.-I believe the road is over about approximately three feet. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, maybe it’s the center of the road. Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 569 MR. CENTER, Jr.-No, the property line is COUNCILMAN BOOR-Is it a road by use? MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-I believe so. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-I think it is. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay. SUPERVISOR STEC-See, so that’s why I wanted to poll the Board real quick, John. Is there any, I mean, the issue before us is we have a functioning holding tank, do we want to grant a variance for seventeen point six-five feet from the lake and get away from the holding tank? And often times, it’s been my experience in these situations when there wasn’t a holding tank, we steered applicants towards a holding tank. So I, I mean I don’t know, I think the Board’s got all the information it needs, I don’t know if we need to hit it anymore but. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, one of the issues that we had asked last time was confirmation of the well. SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s true, we’re you able to find, satisfy that you MR.CENTER, Jr.-Mr. Seaboyer was going to go out to do that and he’s, we missed communications and he’s on vacation this week, so. I wasn’t aware it was going to be on the Town Board Meeting tonight, there was no contact from anyone on the Town Board to say you folks had been out there. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yea, and I think in fairness to you, I think we did leave it that until we all went out there, we weren’t going to reschedule. MR. CENTER, Jr.-It wasn’t, as of Friday it didn’t look like everybody was going to be able to make it out there, that we were not going to be on the meeting for today and I checked the agenda this afternoon and saw that it was on. SUPERVISOR STEC-So, what are you suggesting Roger, are you saying COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, I already know how I’m going to vote. SUPERVISOR STEC-No, or do you want to table? Is that what you’re saying? COUNCILMAN BOOR-I think it would be disingenuous for me to table it knowing how I’m going to vote. SUPERVISOR STEC-Sure, likewise but I COUNCILMAN BOOR-Now, if the Board as a whole wants to table it that’s fine. MR. CENTER, Jr.-If this isn’t going to be allowed, would it be acceptable to the Board if Mr. Seaboyer wishes to install, to bring his holding tank system up to the Town Code, which is three thousand gallons? We would need a variance to bring it up to the existing code? SUPERVISOR STEC-You would or would not? MR. CENTER, Jr.-I believe, I asked Mr. Hatin. SUPERVISOR STEC-You would because it is MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Any holding tank system requires approval of the Town Board. Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 570 SUPERVISOR STEC-And not having had the benefit of staff input on this, you know, just off the cuff, I don’t have a problem heading that route but I’d like the benefit of, you know, these guys might want to kick me because there might be a reason why we shouldn’t. But I don’t have a personal problem with that. COUNCILMAN BOOR-And I agree with that. MR. CENTER, Jr.-And he understands he can’t expand the house even when he brings it up to three thousand gallons, he’s only bringing it up to meet Town Code. SUPERVISOR STEC-No, I’d be willing to entertain that. COUNCILMAN BOOR-With the understanding that if pie in the sky comes true, and we can do something, that’s your gamble to put money into it now. SUPERVISOR STEC-Roger did point out, he did bring an idea to me today, actually and I started hearing noises from this side of the table, that it’s a variant of what we had talked about with the County folks and Bill Remington and Bill Lamy and over the past several years and that option was, well, what if we went to all seven hundred property homeowners on North Queensbury going to management districts and what Roger’s variant is, is basically it would be a pilot trial, it would be talking to Mike and Ralph and asking them to talk with Bill and Bill up at the County to investigate. I mean, if there’s an area of Town that would lend itself to a management district, it’s Rockhurst. MR. CENTER, Jr.-I believe, it’s been done. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I think that’s been done. MR. CENTER, Jr.-That study’s been done before a couple of times. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yea. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yea but I think it’s been done, just for Rockhurst? MR. CENTER, Jr.-I don’t know if just for Rockhurst but most of that end of the area including Rockhurst has been looked at two or three times in the past. SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, believe me, I’m sure that putting in this management district would be a lot easier to accomplish then the other options that we’ve been talking about. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right. SUPERVISOR STEC-So, I mean, looked at or not looked at, I mean maybe we look at it and we find out our research says, yup, five years ago or ten years ago this was looked at and eliminated for these reasons and that’s the end of it. But, not having had the benefit of that research done yet, I think. COUNCILMAN BREWER-But didn’t we already send a letter saying that SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea, that’s why I said, this, yes we did. COUNCILMAN BREWER-So, now we’re going to renege on the letter we sent them? SUPERVISOR STEC-No, we’re not. COUNCILMAN BOOR-No. SUPERVISOR STEC-Not at all. COUNCILMAN BREWER-That’s what it sounds like to me. SUPERVISOR STEC-You never change your mind? Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 571 COUNCILMAN BOOR-We essentially said we would COUNCILMAN BREWER-Not very often. SUPERVISOR STEC-Try it some time, it works every once in a while, you get more information, you make a better decision. I don’t have a problem with you expanding the holding tank issue and I think that it’s also fair to say that I’d like to investigate. I mean, I don’t think it’s feasible to do all of North Queensbury with a system but when you can literally spit a watermelon seed from one house and land it in the lap of your neighbor eating dinner across the street, that’s probably a good opportunity to look at a holding tank district. So, I would look at, I would consider that in the future. COUNCILMAN BOOR-There should be quotes on that. SUPERVISOR STEC-You can quote me on that use of the watermelon reference. Alright, so, I think that’s the way I’d like to go myself. So, I haven’t heard anyone pound the table that they want to approve the variance and I do apologize to Mr. Seaboyer that if, in fact, I thought, I was under the impression we were coming back here two weeks ago but I guess that’s logical because I wrote the agenda. So, I thought you were coming here. MR. CENTER, Jr-No, you said two to four and there’d be contact. SUPERVISOR STEC-But I don’t think that there’s anything that Mr. Seaboyer could have added to the, you know, hopefully. MR. CENTER, Jr.-Understood. SUPERVISOR STEC-But I do apologize that he’s not here tonight but it sounds like you’ve got a contingency kind of discussion and I think the Board is willing to consider a holding tank improvement. MR. CENTER, Jr.-Will I have to reapply for a variance for that or can we get an approval on this tonight? SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It would be a different variance. SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea, it’s a different variance. I venture a guess, although my crystal ball sometimes is a little foggy, that it would be a one meeting event and not as painful. MR. CENTER, Jr.-Would we have to reopen up the public hearing and do that again? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Yea. SUPERVISOR STEC-It would be, yea it would be a public hearing so we could, the fastest we rdth could do it is on the 3, we could set a public hearing for the 17 and we could have, and feasibly th the 17 of May you could leave here with an approval for that holding tank. MR. CENTER, Jr.-Okay. SUPERVISOR STEC-But we do need for public notice, you know for public notification requirements we can’t act on it tonight but I mean I think, the Board sounds like it would be favorable on considering that. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-So, are you withdrawing the resolution or you going to COUNCILMAN BOOR-This one has to go. SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, I was going to ask you do we want to vote this out or do you want to withdraw it or do you want us to Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 572 TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-You don’t have to act at all. SUPERVISOR STEC-Right, we don’t have to do anything, I could close the public hearing and just not act on it. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Correct. SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, I mean I think that’s what I would do. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-I would think often you’d ask, do you want to withdraw it to bring in the other application? SUPERVISOR STEC-He may not want to withdraw it, he may want us to do it. MR. CENTER, Jr.-Yea, I’d like to leave it on the table. SUPERVISOR STEC-Sure. MR. CENTER, Jr.-I’m just asking the questions, because I need to know for other people. People are coming frequently as you know, I’ve been up here a few times for this and if this is the Board’s wishes to set this precedent, the eighty-three feet, like I said, whether it’s a COUNCILMAN BREWER-I don’t think it’s fair that you said that because every COUNCILMAN BOOR-I wouldn’t use that, you’re not doing yourself a favor when you use that language. SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea, no. COUNCILMAN BREWER-No, no, every variance SUPERVISOR STEC-It’s own merit. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Stands on it’s own merit. SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s right. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Well said. SUPERVISOR STEC-So, yea, we’ve learned that one. See our attorney is giving us all A’s. Alright, with that said, before I close the public hearing, is there any further public comment? Speak now or hold your peace? Alright, hearing none, I will close the public hearing and we won’t act on this, this evening. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING – SEWER VARIANCE – Patrick Curtin NOTICE SHOWN 7:35 P.M. COUNSEL MIKE O’CONNOR, Representing Applicant-Mr. Supervisor, Members of the Board, for the purpose of your record, I’m Mike O’Connor from the law firm of Little and O’Connor, I represent the applicants this evening. The applicants are here, Pat Curtin and Kathy Curtin in the first row and with me also at the table is Jim Hutchins who is the project engineer and Tom Frost the project architect. I have submitted to you tonight a map different then what was on the table because basically what we have done is downsize the house, downsize the septic system requirements and basically done away with the need for one of the variances that were requested. The original application was for a four-bedroom house and it did require a variance from the setback from the lake of eight feet, that has been withdrawn. The only variance that we are asking for is a variance from the foundation of the house, we’re less then twenty feet, we’re three feet at the closest point. So, we’d be asking for seventeen feet of relief. This is an existing three-bedroom Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 573 house; the plans are to replace it with a new structure. The new structure will be a three-bedroom house; the hopes were that it would be possible to do a four-bedroom house. They’ve gone through a lot of configurations, a lot of different alternatives looking at what is possible even to the point of putting two septic systems on the site which the Health Department and I think Dave Hatin both agreed could be done but it would mean that the driveway which is on the south side of the property would have an elevation that didn’t make a lot of sense. What is shown here is dictated because of the distance to the lake and the distance to a neighbor’s well. All the wells within a hundred feet have been located; the well to the rear of the property was installed after the existing septic system was installed. It’s probably, we’re not a hundred percent sure exactly where the existing system is and if we go for new construction my understanding is we have to have an engineer’s certification that the existing system is in compliance. By the time you dig up the existing system and tell you that it is in compliance, you’ve ruined it. So, what is proposed is to put a brand new system in, a system that is compliant except for the setback to the house. Now, the setback to the house is not that drastic in the sense that the house does not have living space below the first floor. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Below grade, you mean? COUNSEL O’CONNOR-Below grade, okay and that is what we’re moving closer to but we will, because we’re going to put some fill in there be a few inches above the first floor or what would be the floor joist of the first floor when you get inside the house. The exterior wall will be a concrete masonry wall, at least above grade. So, we’re probably because I had also asked whether or not if this were not living space, does the separation still apply and was lead to believe that it might not. It’s a minimum variance; it’s an improvement to the existing system that’s there. The present system, simply because of the spatial differences between the neighbor’s well and the lake presently either encroaches upon either one or the other and unless we dug it up, we couldn’t tell you whether it was to the neighbor’s well or to the lake. Any questions? COUNCILMAN BOOR-The new system, what is the total footage, the square footage on the new system? You’ve got three something on the first one. MR. JIM HUTCHINS, Project Engineer-It would be forty-eight linear feet. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yea, but I was talking to Dave Hatin and apparently they also count the stuff between the trenches as square footage. You’ve got four-foot trenches. COUNSEL O’CONNOR-The same separation between the pieces of it has been maintained. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right, I’m just curious as to the actual size of the COUNSEL O’CONNOR-I think two feet is the separation, isn’t it? COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, not the, it’s not the separation, actual square footage of this Eljen system you’re putting in, was three hundred and now you’ve downsized. MR. HUTCHINS, Project Engineer-They allow you seven square feet per linear foot of Eljen… COUNCILMAN BOOR-I know, I just want to know what the total is, I’m not trying to be problematic, I just was curious. COUNSEL O’CONNOR-My understanding Roger and I might be wrong was, you measure an Eljen system by the length of the actual apparatus. You don’t measure it by square footage. COUNCILMAN BOOR-But I mean one of the applications, I, all right. COUNSEL O’CONNOR-And that’s why they say that there’s three, I think they’re MR. HUTCHINS, Project Engineer-Sixteen. COUNSEL O’CONNOR-Three sixteen-foot pieces of Eljen. MR. HUTCHINS, Project Engineer-The square footage that you would use to compute the length of the system would be three hundred and thirty-six square feet. Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 574 COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right, that’s what I was getting at and now it is what? MR. HUTCHINS, Project Engineer-No, that’s what we’re proposing now. Forty-eight feet of Eljen at seven square foot per linear foot is three hundred and thirty-six square feet. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay. COUNSEL O’CONNOR-The fourth piece of the Eljen is what encroached upon the lake setback and that’s been removed, that’s the difference between the two maps that you have. I don’t think, is there any other difference? MR. TOM FROST, Project Architect-No, but you might mention that it’s not a full basement, it’s a crawl space… COUNSEL O’CONNOR-Okay, Tom has also said I should say, it’s not only not living space; it’s a crawl space. SUPERVISOR STEC-Do you have anything else at this time? At this time I’d like Mr. Hatin to come up and throw his staff comments on and at that point, I’ll open the public hearing. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-I don’t know if the Board has any other specific questions, I think Mr. O’Connor has given you most of the information that you’re looking for. SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, I was going to say, you’ve been working with this application, you’ve seen it migrate from what it was to where it is today. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Right, the reason for the downsizing was, the original conversation Mr. O’Connor and I had, were the Department of Health will not allow you to vary from their regulations if you were going to increase a non-conformity to the system. Because we were going from at three-bedroom house to a four-bedroom house and also requesting a setback from the lake that basically is something when we met with Mike Shaw that you’re not allowed to do. So, that conversation took place after this was submitted because it’s the way things panned out through conversations between the Department of Health and my office and that’s, I think was one of the reasons for the downsizing, if I remember right. So, that’s how we got to where we are right now. The three-foot is to a crawl space. However, if the finished elevation of the crawl space is lower then the system itself then you have to meet that twenty-foot separation. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-What is the purpose of that standard in the first place? MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-The twenty-foot separation? Typically, it’s an arbitrary number. If you were to ask the Department of Health, they don’t know where it came from, it’s an arbitrary number that somebody determined is adequate separation between a foundation and a system for leaching purposes. Yea, if any fluid or liquid should go beyond the system, they feel twenty feet is enough to disburse it so it will not become an infiltrator problem to the basement. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-So, could this be a problem? I mean, even though it’s a crawl space, it’s still part of the house. MR.HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Typically, when we see these designs they do offer some type of additional waterproofing to the foundation in this area. I mean, the ones you’ve had before you in, such as Rockhurst and other areas, and I haven’t seen the house plans so I don’t know what they’re proposing here. Typically, they will add another barrier just to reinforce. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Certainly, we could make that a requirement in the variance? MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Sure. SUPERVISOR STEC-If it’s not already a part of the design. Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 575 COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Now, another thing too, Dave is the seasonal high groundwater is twenty-eight inches but our code MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Three feet. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I don’t have the red book, is three feet. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Right. Three feet by our book because our, in that particular case, our ordinance is more restrictive. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-So, is three foot the standard, thirty-six inches? MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Three foot is the standard within a thousand feet of Lake George. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And this is within a thousand feet. MR.HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Yea and they are going to meet the three-foot separation, by the additional fill they’re bringing in, they will meet COUNCILMAN STROUGH-The additional fill will bring it up to the three foot. MR.HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-It will bring it, and the bound of system will be greater then three feet, I believe in talking to Mr. Hutchins. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-The Town Code also says that all test shall made within the area of the proposed sewage disposal system. At least two soil percolation tests shall be made in the area proposed for each sewage disposal system, more tests may be required. This is 136, appendix F. MR.HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Right. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-But here, I don’t see any test pits being done in the area of the beds, the percolation beds. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Mr. Hutchins would have to answer that question, I don’t know why it was done in the area that it was done. COUNCILMAN BOOR-The other thing is, I think it’s a good question John but there is no alternative. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-No, the Code says you have to COUNCILMAN BOOR-But there’s no alternative. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, I don’t know if you understand Roger, the Code says that when you do your test pits, they have to be in the area of the infiltration beds. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-They could do the test pits in the area of the infiltration beds. COUNCILMAN BOOR-For what purpose? There is no other place to put it. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-No, I think you misunderstand. COUNCILMAN BOOR-What are you testing for? COUNCILMAN STROUGH-You’re testing the soil conditions in, Dave MR.HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Basically, I think the purpose of that language is to make sure that you test the system in a representative soil out where the system is going to go. I Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 576 think this is close enough to be representative. I mean, it’s not like we’re testing you know, a half mile down the road, it is on the same lot within forty feet of the system. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-That’s what it does say, it says to be made within the area of the proposed disposal system. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-I understand and I don’t disagree with you John, I think, but if you were to look at the industry as a whole, it’s generally if it’s on the site in the area of the system, maybe not within the confines of the system, that’s usually acceptable. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And another thing I couldn’t find on this too, maybe you know it, is what is the perk test? MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-What is it? COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yea, I wanted to figure it out what they needed for MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-I believe that’s on another sheet, I don’t have that sheet right here in front of me. MR. HUTCHINS, Project Engineer-The perk test is essentially four minutes. I did not put it on the drawing and I, that was my omission. I will see that it goes on the drawing. The system is designed as well with the percolation rate of the fill also and that’s specified in the design on the second sheet. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yea, it shows on the, we don’t have a second sheet on the new one but we do on the original. MR. HUTCHINS, Project Engineer-It would be very, very similar. The design would be the same; you would see three laterals instead of four. The reason I did not dig the test hole initially in the area where we’re proposing a field is, the existing field was there and I really didn’t want to hit it. That’s why I excavated or we selected the area where we did and it was also to avoid other utilities. It, for my judgment it’s close enough and representative enough to represent the soils underneath the system. It may or may not be for you. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yea, well, what I’m thinking of, I mean you go to the Meadowbrook area Dave and you move fifty feet, you’re going to hit ground rock, you move fifty feet and you’ll have ten feet of … I mean, fifty feet can make a big difference depending on the area that you’re in, maybe not here, but. MR. HUTCHINS, Project Engineer-My experience in this area would be they’re relatively consistent. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I would agree with that but just for practical purposes in the future, I would like to see the perk tests done in the area of the infiltration bed. SUPERVISOR STEC-Dave, do you have anything else relevant that you would like to point out to us? MR.HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-No, I think, obviously they’ve eliminated the setback to the lake which was, you know would be a crucial setback. As Tim mentioned, you may want to consider something, I don’t know if the applicant has proposed something, as an additional barrier. SUPERVISOR STEC-They were nodding their heads while Tim was asking that question, except for their attorney. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I didn’t hear the question. SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, would they put an additional barrier? COUNCILMAN BREWER-We could put in a requirement for additional sealing, a barrier. SUPERVISOR STEC-Between the house and the Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 577 COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right. SUPERVISOR STEC-A barrier, wet barrier. Okay, Dave, do you have anything else? MR.HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-No, that’s it. SUPERVISOR STEC-I’ll open the public hearing at this point. Is there any public comment about this again, we’re talking about a septic variance up in Assembly Point and the item that they’re looking for relief from is three feet versus twenty feet setback from their own foundation? Any public comment? Hearing and seeing none, I’ll ask the applicants to come back up and continue to entertain questions from the Town Board and I’d like Mr. Brewer’s question answered. COUNCILMAN BREWER-One question, what kind of barrier could you provide and how, where could we put it in the resolution? MR. FROST, Project Architect-I think that we would normally put an asphalt with waterproofing on the outside of the concrete. It will be a frost wall in this case, basically because it’s backed by crawl space. But I would think that we’d, in this case put on a rubberized waterproofing on the wall instead of asphaltic which is a much more impervious barrier then SUPERVISOR STEC-On the exterior side? MR. FROST, Project Architect-On the exterior of the foundation. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Where, relative to the footing for the frost wall is the bottom of this system? MR. FROST, Project Architect-It’s, it would be quite a bit above it I believe because we have a downhill side on the house, the side of the house that faces the road and the lake is actually lower and it’s still, it’s lower then the top of his system and then we still have to go down three and a half, four feet with our foundation wall there and that foundation wall will be dug to that depth from existing grade. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay. MR. FROST, Project Architect-And then we’ll be putting, how much is it? Three feet of fill. MR. HUTCHINS, Project Engineer-Three feet to four feet of fill. MR. FROST, Project Architect-On top of that. So, it would be seven feet down, so it will be well below. COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s fine. COUNSEL O’CONNOR-We have no objection if your approval is conditioned upon satisfying your Building Inspector with a reasonable additional protective barrier as to that side wall which is encroached upon. The other question that Dave has asked when I was sitting back there was, was the conversation with Mr. Shaw the reason it went from three bedrooms to four bedrooms, really not. That I think is a discussion we’ll probably, might get into at a later day because I went beyond Mr. Shaw and talked with Mr. Meacham who is the engineer down in Troy with the Department of Health that now apparently is taking care of these things. And there may be different understanding, but when we spoke to Mr. Curtin and told him different conversations that we had, he basically said that he would be satisfied with the present system. I mean, he even went away from, we can, Jim Hutchins can design another piece over on the other side of the house that would actually get them back to the four bedrooms but he says he’s not trying to you know, put five pounds into a one pound bag. So, basically, he was very satisfied with this, thought it was a reasonable compromise with what his desires are, his family’s desires are and what the Town Board goals are. SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, did you get enough to add? Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 578 TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Yes, except that what I heard Mr. O’Connor say and what I heard you guys say, didn’t exactly; I didn’t hear exactly the same thing. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, that’s the attorney talking. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Is this rubberized coating on the outside of the foundation only to be on that side? COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, that’s the only place it could penetrate. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Or, I thought I heard on the whole COUNCILMAN BREWER-No, the only place where it could penetrate is where I referred to. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Okay, then. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, I think typically they put something on it anyway. COUNSEL O’CONNOR-It will be twenty feet from the other walls. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-It will be twenty feet? I didn’t know how far up and along, if it was at a corner or. COUNSEL O’CONNOR-And in fact, probably mathematically Bob, some portions of this wall actually have a twenty-foot separation. SUPERVISOR STEC-So, you would do that whole wall though if we asked you to do that whole wall, even the parts that are outside of twenty feet? And in exchange, we probably wouldn’t make you go around the corner to the other three sides of the house. MR. FROST, Project Architect-It’s just going to be the four units but that’s the wall in question right there. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-This memo that I have is different then the memo that’s current, right? COUNCILMAN BREWER-Wouldn’t we call that the north wall? MR. FROST, Project Architect-That would be the north wall. SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea, including those jogs there, yea, I think that’s what we’re talking about. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Actually, if it’s a crawl space, you might not want to do any, certainly you wouldn’t want to do the east wall. COUNCILMAN BREWER-No, just the north wall. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Because that would just, yea. COUNSEL O’CONNOR-The applicant will do the whole north wall. SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s fine. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Okay. SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, I just wanted to close that before we went back to, I know that John had some other questions but I wanted, while we were on that subject of that barrier, close that up so. I think that we’re comfortable adding that to the resolution. All right, at this point, we’ll continue with the Town Board end of discussion. John, I’ll give you the floor again. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, this seems to be a lot better situation then the previous one. I mean, I still have my concerns about the infiltration beds being a minimum size but at least in your Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 579 situation, you have room to expand should it be a problem. And the only variance you’re really asking for is the separation between the beds and the foundation of the building. And do we have also, do we have assurances that the foundation will never be changed to be made a full basement because we’ll be back to COUNSEL O’CONNOR-We’d have to be back to the Zoning Board for a variance because I think there’s a floor area ratio and the house that’s proposed is pretty close to the floor area ratio that’s permitted. It would not have, we would not be able to have that as living space and still come into compliance with other codes of the Town. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-All right, so you’re on record of, you have no intention at this point in time of making that a full basement and living area? COUNSEL O’CONNOR-I have none. Now, do you want to ask the applicant? SUPERVISOR STEC-You’re the applicant, I believe? MR. PATRICK CURTIN-Yes, sir. SUPERVISOR STEC-Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS, Project Engineer-I would suggest that when you go through the computations, we require thirty-nine feet of Eljen, we’re proposing forty-eight feet which is twenty-three percent above and beyond the absolute minimum. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well see, I couldn’t figure out what you needed because I didn’t have your perk rate but I’m glad hearing that from you. Yea, I’m a lot more comfortable with this then the previous one. SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, this is very different then the previous application. MR. HUTCHINS, Project Engineer-And that also is the equivalent of three point seven bedrooms or a hundred and forty gallons per person per bedroom per day, to give you an idea of the amount of oversize. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Are you also planning on putting water saver fixtures in this house? MR. HUTCHINS, Project Engineer-Oh yes, yes, I believe that’s all you can install according to code today. SUPERVISOR STEC-Any other questions of the applicant? Mr. Brewer, anything? COUNCILMAN BREWER-No. SUPERVISOR STEC-Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner? COUNCILMAN BOOR-No. COUNCILMAN TURNER-No. SUPERVISOR STEC-All right, anything further from the public? The public hearing is still open, any further public comment? I think we’ve heard the discussion here this evening. All right, seeing none, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7:55 P.M. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER proposed the following language to the proposed resolution: I’m contingent going to add it to the Resolved at the end, everything in the Resolved, and then comma, upon the applicant installing on the exterior northern wall of the house foundation a rubberized waterproofing to the satisfaction of the Town Director of Building & Codes. Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 580 COUNCILMAN BOOR-One quick caveat here, is that the best, the rubberized? MR. FROST, Project Architect-It seems to be from what my experience has been. SUPERVISOR STEC-I take it the applicant is comfortable with that language? COUNSEL O’CONNOR-Yes. RESOLUTION APPROVING SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE APPLICATION OF PATRICK CURTIN BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 9, 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, Patrick Curtin filed an application for variances from provisions of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, such application requesting that the Local Board of Health allow installation of an absorption field ninety two feet (92’) from Lake George instead of the required one-hundred feet (100’) setback and three feet (3’) from the house foundation instead of the required twenty feet (20’) setback on property located at 227 Assembly Point Road, Queensbury, and WHEREAS, since filing his original variance application, Mr. Curtin has withdrawn his application for relief from the lake setback requirement and therefore seeks only a variance for the dwelling setback as listed above, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk’s Office published the Notice of Public Hearing in the Town’s official newspaper and the Local Board of Health conducted a public hearing concerning the th variance request on April 19, 2004, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk advises that property owners within 500 feet of the subject property have been duly notified, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a) due to the nature of the variance, it is felt that the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes and objectives of this Ordinance or to other adjoining properties or otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of any plan or policy of the Town of Queensbury; and Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 581 b) the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and that the variance granted is the minimum variance which would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health to affect the applicant; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health hereby approves Patrick Curtin’s application for a variance from the Sewage Disposal Ordinance to locate an absorption field three feet (3’) from the house foundation instead of the required twenty feet (20’) setback on property located at 227 Assembly Point Road, Queensbury and bearing Tax Map No.: 226.19-2-22, contingent upon the applicant installing on the exterior northern wall of the house foundation a rubberized waterproofing to the satisfaction of the Town of Queensbury Director of Building and Codes. th Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2004 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: None DISCUSSION AFTER VOTE: COUNSEL O’CONNOR-Thank you. If Dave Hatin were to sign off on something else, would you be upset, as far as that barrier, if there’s a better barrier? I think Roger’s question, you asked us SUPERVISOR STEC-I think if staff, in my opinion, and Board jump in if you disagree, if staff thinks you’re proposing something that’s superior to what we, what’s in the resolution, I don’t think that the Board would have any issues with that. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s certainly not punitive, we’re not trying to make you buy something really expensive, it’s just, you know. SUPERVISOR STEC-But if there’s something equal or preferable better, you know. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And there is, there is the masonry products that are water proofed and is better then the rubberized. COUNSEL O’CONNOR-Okay, we just wanted, I know your intention, I just, rather then have to come back. SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Do all five of you agree to that, just so that we have that on the record? COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yes. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yes. SUPERVISOR STEC-All right, it looks like all five of us agree with that interpretation so that would be good. Thank you very much for your patience, good luck. Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 582 RESOLUTION ADJOURNING BOARD OF HEALTH BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 10, 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR IT’S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns from session and enters Regular Session of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. th Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: None REGULAR SESSION PUBLIC HEARING – Rezoning of Property Located At The Corner Of West Mountain Road and Gurney Lane From SFR-1A (Single Family Residential One Acre) To Professional Office (PO) NOTICE SHOWN 7:55 P.M. SUPERVISOR STEC-For the benefit of the public, what is being discussed and considered tonight, can not be acted on as I was reminded by numerous emails, unnecessarily so, I might add but because the Warren County Planning Board needs to make it’s recommendation first and we missed their deadline by a few days, as happens to some of our applicants, sometimes it happens to us. So, they will be acting on that later this month and the earliest we can reconsider this will be into May, I rdth think May 3 or is it May 17? rd MS. MARILYN RYBA, Senior Planner-May 3. MR. CHRIS ROUND, Executive Director-It’s going to be the later date. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Yea, it’s the later one. th SUPERVISOR STEC-May 17 meeting, so we will open the public hearing tonight, hear a brief discussion of what the town is proposing for a rezoning and leave the public hearing open and th probably not revisit it until the 17, so I think that was our intention. With that, I will let Marilyn Ryba bring the Board and the Public up to speed as to what the rezoning is that we are considering, some of the history and background, benefits and perhaps disadvantages and then I’ll open it to public comment and we’ll leave the public hearing open after that. So Marilyn, if you would. MS. RYBA, Senior Planner-There’s a little bit of history that goes along with this proposed rezoning. Back in 1998 the corner of Gurney Lane and West Mountain Road, there are five parcels, you’ll see up on the board there, two parcels outlined in red which are the subject parcels for tonight but then across the street on the west side of West Mountain Road were three parcels that were also proposed to be in a rezoning in 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. What happened then is, I think it was 2001 there was a rezoning effort going on, looking at rezoning for the entire Town and this was one of the recommendations that was in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. So it was looked at and there was some criticism of the rezoning to a transition zone, one of the parcels is a cemetery, another parcel is owned by the County, which is a County Garage. Another parcel is open on it, so that was one criticism; the other was that residents were concerned about traffic issues, primary concern, I think there might have been a couple of other ones. So, that rezoning, even though was in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan did not go forward. Then what happened is the property owners for the two parcels on the east side of Mountain Road, which are in the red Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 583 wanted to rezone, take the existing zoning, which is Single Family Residential One Acre which only allows single family residential activities and wanted to put together a cluster development of single family homes and that public hearing was held December 2003. During that public hearing, after some discussion, the Town Board asked if the applicant thought that Professional Office Zone might be appropriate which can be considered a transition zone from the residential areas along West Mountain Road and the more highway commercial activities and the municipal building on the opposite side of Route 9 and the Northway. So that proposal, basically I think just, the proposal for the Single Family Residential change from Single Family Residential to Suburban Residential to accommodate cluster zoning just died, there wasn’t any involvement there. And then it’s taken some time to mull it over, I understand and try to determine who would bring this Professional Office Zoning Proposal forward, if it would be the Town or if it would be the property owner and at this point, it was decided by the Town Board to have a public hearing and take another look at this as a transition zone and into Professional Office. The current zoning, as I explained is Single Family Residential One Acre. The property in question is about seventeen and a half acres, or actually, there’s two parcels and what could possibly be allowed, I think we looked at some time ago, was about fifteen residences. If you had all single-family residences, you could have anywhere between nine and fifteen curb cuts, we think it’s closer to nine because of the requirement for the road frontage. That is what is allowed currently. The Professional Office is considered a transition zone in this case because it would allow activity such as services for residential property owners, for example, things like dry cleaning or barbershop, those kinds of services. Some other activities that are allowed in the Professional Office Zone included day care center, offices, parking garage facility, as mentioned the personal service businesses, professional office, seasonal produce business, cemeteries, health related facility, place of worship, a public or semi public building or a school. Also allowed in Professional Office areas are residential activity such as duplexes and multifamily dwellings. The advantages for the Professional Office as I noted, having the availability of personal services, having a transition zone and I’ll explain what’s meant by that. A transition zone is seen as an area that, where you don’t go from a severe intense commercial activity straight to a single-family residential activity. It allows activities that may not be detrimental to single family but at the same time, as I said aren’t as intense. One of the bigger advantages, to try to address some of the traffic concerns, with it, the majority of traffic in offices would be during the day and not particularly in the evenings as would residences or whether it be single family or multifamily or duplex, for that matter. One of the concerns that was listed during the December meeting was a concern about duplexes or multifamily residential zoning which is allowed in a professional office area. Although, I know the Board did ask staff to look at the possibility of making residences a special use permit and that’s something we did touch upon and we’re still working on. One of the proposals, along with the proposal in December which was another advantage, which I understand is still on the table is taking some of the property along the east side and allowing the Town to have that access for a bicycle and pedestrian trail which fits in with our Open Space Vision which was completed in July, which is actually part of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. When ever a zoning change is proposed, there are ten or excuse me, nine criteria that the Town Board looks at, staff has put together some notes based on those criteria. One of the most important ones is the last question in the application, which is, how are the wider interests of the community being served by this proposal and that’s where you have your direct link to your Comprehensive Land Use Plan. That’s all I have in terms of introduction, I know it was quite a bit of explanation and I hope I made myself clear but if you have any questions or, I’m available. SUPERVISOR STEC-No, actually, I thought you summarized the background on this pretty well. At this point, I would first reiterate that Marilyn correctly points out that this has been bantered around for several years, considering rezoning this property. At one time a Town or internally generated item, then it was externally property owner generated item and now it’s back to being generated by the Town. Keeping in mind, or at least for some of us and specifically myself, a desire to, where possible discourage the continued explosive residential growth and encourage more non- residential growth, particularly Professional Office or Industrial related job and revenue generating but none infrastructure taxing activity. So, that’s the history of why it’s been brought forward again today and as she pointed out, the curb cuts would likely be fewer; the traffic impact is likely going to be less on a general scheme, specifically less during the non-business hours and it would also allow for accommodating a bicycle path that we believe may be an improvement in that portion of Town, hopefully in the near future. So that, I just wanted to add that to her background and at this point, I’ll open the public hearing. If there’s any members of the public that want to come up and either comment on this rezoning or question anything about the rezoning or the process, I encourage people to just step forward, state your name and address for the record and provide us with your feedback please. Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 584 MR. DENNIS FRANKLIN-I’m Dennis Franklin, I’m the adjacent property owner. I’m a little confused about the spin of a transition zone. I mean, that’s something someone invented. I have a residence there, we all have residences, we don’t need a transition. I purchased my property in a residential zone; I don’t need a dry cleaner or a professional office. I don’t need to be told or tried to be smoked into the fact that there will be less traffic for nine curb cuts. Nine curb cuts is maybe eighteen cars. What do you think, during the day we all evaporate? SUPERVISOR STEC-No, sir. MR. FRANKLIN-Well, then how you can say that there’s less traffic? How many buildings are going to be there? What kind of turnover? Even to call it Professional Zoning and it’s dry cleaning, what’s professional about that? SUPERVISOR STEC-I’m not sure dry cleaning is allowed in Professional Office Zone or not, Chris. MR. FRANKLIN-That’s what was just said. SUPERVISOR STEC-I’m sorry, I missed that one. MR. FRANKLIN-I mean, I don’t have anything against dry cleaners. SUPERVISOR STEC-Sure. MR. FRANKLIN-I’ve seen it in Saratoga, I’ve seen it all over, you know, first we let this guy become a doctor and the next thing we have a garage, and then a gas station, it’s a residential zone. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well part of the problem and I’ve said this too, is we’re reworking on Professional Office, definition to live with and I think that once you get to see the finished product which you don’t have the availability to, I mean, this is putting the cart before the horse, I think you’ll feel more at ease once you see what we’ve written. And it’s unfortunate that we’re discussing this at this point and I had mentioned at the previous meeting that we really should rewrite the Professional Office Zone first, then have a public hearing so that the public can see exactly what we’re talking about because he’s, and rightfully so. He doesn’t exactly know what we are talking about here and SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, it’s my understanding, I’m not sure that the Town Board is talking about a complete rewrite of the regulations of the PO Zone. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-But we are talking about making some changes. SUPERVISOR STEC-Some, what I understood to be very minor changes which is why we got this here tonight and not the other way around. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, I think some wording and I think we discussed this, some wording and this is the reason why we were rewording it, to allay the concerns that some of the people may have about what Professional Office is. I mean, you may call it minor; I may call it a major, in any event it doesn’t make any difference, it’s a rewriting and he should have the opportunity to be able to see it so that he and we know what we’re talking about and so, I say, this is putting the cart before the horse. MR. FRANKLIN-In December, when they proposed clustering, which, you know to me is a good idea; I think it’s a good use of space. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I think one of the issues was MR. FRANKLIN-The reason it wasn’t changed is because it was going to potentially allow trailer parks. That’s exactly what was said because even though the applicant didn’t COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, you can’t put a trailer park in there, just so you know. Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 585 MR. FRANKLIN-If it was rezoned. COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, you can’t. MR. FRANKLIN-The way it was asked for in December. COUNCILMAN BOOR-You can’t. No, I’m just telling you. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Are you familiar with the family medical center, the dentist office over on Aviation Road… MR. FRANKLIN-I am, but all I’m saying is, residential. That’s what you buy when you bought into that area. That’s what it was zoned, don’t change it. COUNCILMAN BOOR-But I think COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yea, but what I’m saying to you is, sometimes you can have Professional Office that really are minimum impact, nobody hardly even realizes those Professional Offices on Aviation Road. Now, if you cluster those, towards Gurney Lane away from you, leave that area between the cluster of Professional Offices and you, as a wooded zone, would you be happy with something like that? MR. FRANKLIN-Well, it’s to my advantage to have it be Professional. I mean, there’s less people, in the evening it’s less intrusion back into the woods, etcetera. I also am partners with Phyllis Holtz and the rest of that property. But you don’t have a good definition of Professional. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-That’s what we’re working on. MR. FRANKLIN-A Professional, fine, put in ten shrinks; they’re going to see one person an hour, there’s no traffic flow. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Exactly. Or a dentist, I mean, there’s minimum traffic flow. MR. FRANKLIN-Yea, but now put an HR Block, and you know, for two months the road is going to be plugged, so. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And here’s another thing, what if we’re talking about clustering the Professional Offices, there can only be one curb cut, they’ve got to work off the center road, they’ve all got to look residential in appearance, even the trash bin has to be the same architectural design as the all the other buildings. COUNCILMAN BREWER-But John, that’s not our COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s what he’s talking about. COUNCILMAN BREWER-That’ Planning Board, that’s not us. COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, it isn’t. MR. FRANKLIN-But, you’ll never control the traffic flow because no lender is going to loan money and mortgage something like that that has too many restrictions on it. And even if the current person pays for it in cash, when that all ends, it has to have a resale value, it has to be buyable in the community or it will just be abandoned. So, I don’t know how you’re going to write it so that it COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, we’re trying to write it so, do you want, would you want apartments there? MR. FRANKLIN-Apartments don’t bother me. I mean, obviously the land is there, it can be used. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Okay. Well, in my opinion, sometimes apartments can be much more of an impact then some quiet professional offices would be. Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 586 MR. FRANKLIN-It’s residential, it’s a residential flavor, is an apartment. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yea, but you know, you got kids, you got bikes, you got noise, you get everything else that goes with being residential. Sometimes, Professional Offices are quieter. MR. FRANKLIN-When I live on a collector street such as West Mountain, I know I’m not going to have neighbors with a lot of kids running around because they’ll all be dead. If you live back in a development, that’s where there’s a lot of kids. I mean, it’s but anyway, I don’t think you have a good definition of what Professional Office is because I heard everything in there under the Sun and I’m not against it if its done but I don’t know how you’re going to put the restrictions on it. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, that’s what I mean, we’re working on it and all fairness, we should have that first. MR. FRANKLIN-Okay, well thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you, sir. Any other public comment? MS. KATHY FRANKLIN-Hi, I’m Kathy Franklin, I’m at the same adjoining property. SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes, Ma’am. MS. FRANKLIN-I’ve got a question which is why this is more feasible then expanding Single Family Residential to include cluster housing? COUNCILMAN BOOR-I think the gentleman pointed it out quite nicely, the danger of putting houses next to a Northway and we are concerned about public health and safety and I’m not sure that that’s how we want our Town to be. And it’s a fairly logical assumption that at some point in time, Exit 20 Bridge is going to be expanded and I don’t think putting houses right there is a good idea for anybody. If you look at West Mountain MS. FRANKLIN-What I remember from that last proposal, it wasn’t actually on that part of the parcel. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I beg your pardon, I didn’t hear you. MS. FRANKLIN-The last proposal, the cluster housing that was proposed prior to this in December was farther up the road away from that corner. COUNCILMAN BOOR-But that corner is going to get bigger and I don’t think you realize how big it might get when they expand the bridge and they have to put clover leafs in and do what they need to do. MS. FRANKLIN-So, this is really more, it’s less about business development and more about protection of COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s more about, it’s quality of life and do we want to put residences on Interstate Highways and when we look at Westmount and we look at the Warren County Building, these aren’t residential uses on that corner right now anyway. MS. FRANKLIN-No, no but they’re COUNCILMAN BOOR-There aren’t any residences. MS. FRANKLIN-But they’re extremely noninvasive uses, extremely noninvasive. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, and I don’t think we’ve seen what kind of use might go into this and I think we’re trying to keep an open mind and look out for the public’s health and safety. We’re not trying to shove anything down anybody’s throat. MS. FRANKLIN-Okay. Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 587 COUNCILMAN BOOR-This was a recommendation that was made not by this Board but by a number of individuals who looked at the entire Town and this is what they said was the most appropriate use, it’s not this Board generating that and we took a seriously look at it and we’re continuing to look at it. I know that the owner of the property is here, or one of the owners and my discussions with him have lead me to believe that you’d probably be darn lucky and happy to have what he might be doing there. You may think that’s, you know, a little flip to say but I truly believe MS. FRANKLIN-No, I actually I thought that his last proposal was rather well thought out and very rational and was very encouraging actually. But I actually work at the Stewart’s in front of the other Professional Park that John Strough was mentioning and I don’t want to live across from that or next to that particularly. It’s not residential, it’s not a transition, it’s a transition from COUNCILMAN BOOR-Just so that I understand, you don’t want to live next to Stewart’s or the Doctor’s offices? MS. FRANKLIN-No, no, the Doctor’s offices and the dry cleaner actually that is there right behind Stewart’s now. That makes some sense in that area because it is a commercial area, there’s no two ways about it. That’s, Aviation is about as commercial as this area gets. But, it’s not comparable, they’re not comparable areas. Gurney Lane carries most of the traffic or a good deal of the traffic for that municipal center, I mean, the municipal center is away and quiet both and it doesn’t, it’s not a day care, it’s not a church, it doesn’t have ball fields. I mean, not that I think a ball field is the worst thing in the world that could happen to us either but you know, dry cleaners, yea that, now we’re beginning to make me worry and I mean, I guess I’m going back to what you were talking about before, that you don’t have good definition. But my real question is, what was really, I just, I can’t believe, I mean we live fairly close to the Northway too, where we are. Maybe it’s a matter of kind and degree, I don’t know but the way he had clustered the houses before made some sense and as I recall the, your hesitation had more to do with the fact that there is no such thing as cluster housing in your Zoning Ordinance, then it was a bad use of the land. From what I understood the consensus of that meeting was that was a reasonably good use of that land, many, many people in the meeting thought so. So, I guess I’m just asking if you’re going to revisit professional housing maybe also as a Town you can revisit Single Family Residential in terms of putting cluster housing in. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, and I agree with you on the dry cleaning, inappropriate but the Federal Highway Administration as well would like to see communities not zone residential within a thousand feet of major highways because of the pollution, the dust, the vibration, the noise, etcetera, it’s just not suitable for residential housing. MS. FRANKLIN-The Professional Office Zone an alternative? COUNCILMAN STROUGH-The school district has asked the Town Board if, you know, if there’s anything that we can do to try and stifle the growth that the school system is not able to keep up with as you can see, the proposed increase in the school. MR. FRANKLIN-It’s the Town of Lake George School system. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It doesn’t make any difference. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-The school districts in general are all having the same problem. But, you know, and we’re trying to balance everything but again, you should have the opportunity of seeing what we’re proposing as Professional Office so that we can make a judgment that’s MS. FRANKLIN-But perhaps one of the things that could be considered is different types. Maybe you have to have two kinds of professional housing, or professional office buildings rather then one kind. You know, medical doctors, lawyers, … or you’ve got dry cleaners, HR & Block, I mean they’re very different activities and maybe that should be reflected. COUNCILMAN BREWER-And also add to the factor that, if we rezone this to Professional Office it is what it is right now until we change the Professional Office. So, just because we’re going to change it doesn’t mean this piece is going to change until we change that. Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 588 COUNCILMAN BOOR-And just another thing that’s probably important to say and it’s a little known fact and some people may get upset about it but the simple fact of the matter is, that you can have a parcel that’s fifteen acres and it’s zoned one acre, okay and somebody comes before the Planning Board and says, I want to put fifteen houses on it because it’s zoned for that. The Planning Board has the authority to say no, you can put one house on it, they have the legal authority to do that. Now, whether they have the will and backbone to do it, that’s, and I’m not saying they don’t, I think they do a great job, but the notion that because we zone it Office Professional, should we decide to do something like that, does not mean that the Planning Board can allow whatever it wants to or what’s allowed in there. They can say, ‘hey, you know what, we don’t want dry cleaners going in there’, we’re not going to allow it. They can legally do that. So, I think you have to have a little bit of faith in the community and MS. FRANKLIN-And come to community meetings and complain. COUNCILMAN BOOR-And the Boards, I mean it’s a tough job. MS. FRANKLIN-Yea, okay, I understand that. COUNCILMAN BOOR-You know, we’re not used to being effluent. We’re like the guy that went out and won the lottery ticket and we’re going, you know, we don’t, we’ve got people trying to build everywhere. You look around the Town of Queensbury, we are a desirable community, people want to move here and we’re not used to being, being able to say, ‘hey, you know what, you’ve got to do better, you want to live here, you’ve got to do better, you have to put the lights in, you have to put the playgrounds in, you have to put the tennis courts in’. You know, maybe we’ll go to a lottery system and where we say, we’re going to build, we’re going to allow a hundred and forty homes in one year and here’s what we’re going to do, we’re going to have a lottery and developers are going to come in to us on a point system and whoever has the most points, whoever is going to offer us the most, they’ll get it, they’ll get the contract and we’ll get the best we can possibly get for this community and we’ll keep things like dry cleaners and the types of businesses that would not be appropriate where you’re talking about, out. We have the ability, we have the authority, do we have the will? Yet to be seen. So, you’ve got to have a little bit of faith, I think and I’m not saying that we’re going to rezone this, I think it’s a good idea but nobody wants to rezone it and have something go in there that’s going to offend the neighborhood, that would just be bad business and I hope that you have enough faith to think that we wouldn’t do something like that. MS. FRANKLIN-I guess I should. I really guess I should but I haven’t lived here long enough really to have a good feel and I’ve seen, you know way, for instance the way Wal-Mart is allowed to expand and not put in trees in their parking lot, the way Route 9 looks like right now, not just because of the sewage, but because it’s never really been required to put in any trees. There’s, you know there are just some holes and maybe it’s just because it’s a growing community and it’s had different standards over time and in it’s true, it’s a very desirable community and I’m sure that’s because you’re doing a good job but our job is to come and complain. COUNCILMAN BOOR-And I’m glad you’re here. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you for coming and complaining. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-You are going to see trees at Wal-Mart. MS. FRANKLIN-Good. Big trees and you have to have, you have to have in there somewhere a code in which they have to water them so that they live because any more of these things along Route 9, it’s terrifying, my God, it looks like Halloween Park at Great Escape year round. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, you know where Queens Diner is? MS. FRANKLIN-Yes. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-That’s all going to be landscaped with trees. MS. FRANKLIN-That’s good, that’s really a good thing. Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 589 COUNCILMAN STROUGH-It was originally proposed to be landscaping but this is where the Planning Board can do. SUPERVISOR STEC-Assuming the Planning and Zoning Boards pass their application, which has been in play for about a year. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yea, final application but that’s currently the way it’s being proposed. MS. FRANKLIN-Well, thank you, I’m glad to hear it. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And I have faith in the Planning Board that they’ll maintain it. SUPERVISOR STEC-Yup and before my phone starts ringing off the hook and Miller Mannix starts spending the litigation money, Roger was talking about very hypothetical situation. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Although it is the system that was present in the community in California where I lived, they did use a lottery system and they did get tennis courts in residential areas, they got swimming pools so, anything’s possible. SUPERVISOR STEC-It’s been done, yea, it’s been done. California has been progressive on community planning issues like that. So, it’s not quite on the drawing board yet but I think his points are good ones. Any other public comment tonight about the potential property rezoning near Gurney Lane and West Mountain Roads? All right, I will leave the public hearing open, are there any other Town Board comments for this evening? I expect that we’ll probably revisit this, well the th earliest we can revisit it for action would be the 17 of May, after getting recommendation from the County Planning Board. Marilyn? MS. RYBA, Senior Planner-I do have a couple of things I’d like to address because I’d like to dispel some inaccuracies that I’ve heard a few times now and I think it’s important that the public understand a couple of things. Number one, dry cleaning, maybe it was a poor example but personal service businesses are allowed. Whatever those personal services, I don’t know, at this point, I understand it’s a Zoning Administrator determination. The other is, mobile homes are only allowed in Mobile Home Overlays. Mobile homes are not allowed in this area because it’s not a Mobile Home Overlay area, there are only five in the Town where that’s allowed. So, mobile homes would not be allowed here. The other is, traffic. If you listened carefully, I didn’t say less traffic; I said less traffic in the evening for residential areas. SUPERVISOR STEC-Right, and that’s what I was trying to say. MS. RYBA, Senior Planner-We’re looking at access management issues as well as traffic. One of the things that staff did was put on our website all of the notes, addressing all of the nine criteria here. There’s quite a bit of information in looking at all the different types of traffic possibilities, which we took from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Manual. The other thing I’d like to say is that, a transition zone is not a spin that has been given, it’s something that came directly out of the 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan and that plan was put together by people who live in this community, it was put together by a Staff Member, a Town Board Member or a Planning Board Member. My understanding, I wasn’t here at the time but that it took several years to put it together and I can quote directly, in looking at the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and this is also listed in the website issue. Zoning in an area west of the Northway and east of West Mountain Road extending about twelve hundred feet south of Gurney Lane is currently Single Family Residential One Acre, considering the non-residential existing uses in the area and the soil conditions of this former sandpit, well drain, depth to bedrock greater than sixty inches, depth to water table greater than seventy-two inches, it seems this could be utilized for offices or housing types other then single family such as duplexes. This area could act as a transition slash buffer between the Northway, the Highway Commercial activity on the east side and the more rural residential areas to the west and south. So, that’s where that language comes from and this was a direct recommendation to rezone the area described to allow for a wider scope of uses similar to which include, excuse me, duplex professional office with residence, church, daycare centers, etcetera with site plan review in addition to the allowed use of single family dwelling. This recommendation does not include commercial use, which would not be compatible, and there’s a map there as well. The other thing is that, cluster zoning is allowed in the Town, it’s just not allowed in the Single Family Residential One Acre Zoning, so I wanted to make that clear as well. And certainly, minutes are listed; I hope that Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 590 minutes would reflect these comments about some of the misunderstandings and certainly people are welcomed to call Community Development Staff and we’d be happy to answer any questions. Thanks. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Thanks, Marilyn. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you, Marilyn. Anything else from Town Board Members? Alright, we’ll leave the public hearing open on this one for possible further discussion in May and possible action. PUBLIC HEARING LEFT OPEN PUBLIC HEARING – Proposed Acquisition Of Property Rights By Eminent Domain And Authorizing Appraisals Of Certain Properties Within Area Scheduled For Water Transmission System Improvements NOTICE SHOWN 8:32 P.M. SUPERVISOR STEC-Mr. VanDusen, if you would update the Board and the public, please. MR. RALPH VANDUSEN, Water/Wastewater Superintendent-Sure. As the Board is the aware, last fall we started in the design process of the enhancements to the Water Transmission System, the additional pipe line that enables us to move water from the west side of Town to the east side of Town. The project is mostly on County and State roads and with increased regulations by the County and by the State it’s become more difficult if not impossible to install waterlines within the jurisdiction right-of-way and that forces us to go outside of the right-of-way and obtain easements from private property owners to install the waterlines. This project included a total of forty-three parcels that we needed easements for. We’ve been negotiating to get those easements for approximately six months. At this point we have obtained forty-one easements of the forty-three, and we only have two parcels that we, to date, have not been successful in obtaining an easement for and are forced to go the eminent domain route to be able to complete the project. COUNCILMAN BOOR-One of the questions I have and maybe it’s more appropriate for Counsel, we touched on the acquisition of easements I think in our last regular meeting and there some question as to, are we just buying the underground rights, are we actually purchasing the above ground portions? When we have an easement like this, does it authorize us at any time obviously to go in and fix it from the top and is our responsibility is great and necessary as it would be if it was somebody else’s? In other words, what do we own? What are we allowed to do? MR. VANDUSEN, Water/Wastewater Superintendent-Actually, we don’t own anything. The people that own the property will continue to own the property. We have the right to use it, to have a waterline there, to maintain that waterline in the event it becomes necessary. COUNCILMAN BOOR-And to what degree are we responsible if they put shrubs over it and they put fences over it and walls and we go in and say, ‘hey, you know what, you didn’t want to’, I mean we can just take them out and is it our responsibility to put them back? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Do you mind if I leap in here? MR. VANDUSEN, Water/Wastewater Superintendent-Go ahead. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-The, we are, what we are getting are easements which is different then owning the land itself. You own an interest in the land; you own the right to put our waterlines or our sewer lines in that area of that property. They cannot interfere with our use of the property in that way, they couldn’t put a stonewall over it. They could put shrubberies over it, they could put their driveway over it which is, you know usually that has to be but they cannot prevent us from being able to access it. The right, to have an easement like this includes the right to maintain the things that are in the easement. Ralph will have the right to go on that property afterwards and dig up and fix the waterlines if that needs to be done or replace them, as may, as will happen someday down the road, probably Ralph won’t be here then. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I’m sure he won’t. Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 591 COUNCILMAN BOOR-And I don’t want this to sound punitive for those that make us go through this process of buying these things but is it more at our leisure to put it back together? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Rather leave that kind of vague. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Off the record, okay, thank you. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Off the record, if people work with the Town and get easements, they get additional rights that we’re willing to give them so we don’t have to go through this expensive, cantankerous process. If we’re forced to go through this process, we’ll do what the law requires. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay. SUPERVISOR STEC-Excellent answer. Good question. So, Mr. VanDusen, we have two property owners, private, oh both private but one an individual and one a Niagara Mohawk. There’s an individual on Ridge Road and then there’s pieces on both sides of Round Pond Road that we’re talking about this evening. Do you have anything else pertinent to add? MR. VANDUSEN, Water/Wastewater Superintendent-I think that’s it, answer any questions but that’s SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, I’ll open the public hearing and ask if any members of the public would like to comment on the Town’s, well, this public hearing and potential action to move forward with an eminent domain proceeding in connection with the water transmission improvements. Anyone at all? Anyone? All right, Ralph. Hearing none, I guess I’ll open it to the Town Board to ask you any further questions, Ralph. MR. VANDUSEN, Water/Wastewater Superintendent-Okay, I should just make one comment to make it clear. In both of these cases, the waterline will be as close to the road as is possible to minimize the impact to the individuals. That’s the route that we took in every easement that we could. When we laid out the waterline, we went to great length to minimize disturbing trees, shrubs, fences, stonewalls. The route that we picked through here is with that in mind so, that it’s not, it’s in the front setback, in the case on Ridge Road its in their front setback from Ridge Road, they couldn’t build a structure there if they wanted to without a variance in the zoning. In the case of the Niagara Mohawk property, there is no building but we will maintain separation distances from the power wires that are required by Niagara Mohawk. SUPERVISOR STEC-Any questions from Town Board Members or comments from Town Board Members? I would just like to say and I know that we took a similar action not too long ago regarding a sewer project and my comments then are or, hopefully fairly consistent with what I’ll say now that the proceeding of eminent domain is always the last resort that the Town and in my opinion, any municipality should consider and we’ve gone to great lengths to procure dozens and dozens of other easements without having to resort to eminent domain on this and several other projects, not only this year but in my tenure on the Town Board. So, proceeding with eminent domain is an action that we don’t take lightly or casually but the greater public good is what the eminent domain law is written for and so it’s with reluctance and regret that we proceed in this manner but proceed we must in my opinion. Any further comments from Town Board Members? All right, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:38 P.M. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING COMMENCEMENT OF EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN AREA SCHEDULED FOR WATER TRANSMISSION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 592 RESOLUTION NO.: 209, 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, by Town Board Resolution No.: 353,2003 the Town Board authorized and approved improvements to the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, such improvements being the installation of water mains along Round Pond Road, Blind Rock Road, Country Club Road, Haviland Road, Ridge Road, Hicks Road and a connection between Big Boom Road and Big Bay Road underneath Interstate 87 (Northway) in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the engineer working with the Town has determined the technical requirements of the Project and has indicated that a line will need to run across certain properties as follows: OWNER NAME TAX MAP NO. PROPERTY ADDRESS EASEMENT NO. Robert Mulcahy 297.9-1-8 557 Ridge Road P-14 No tax map listed Located on both sides of P-42 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. and County GIS Round Pond Rd. On south side shows no tax it’s bounded by 2 parcels number either. (296.6-1-13 & 296.5-1-1 belonging to Salvadore Russo listed as 144 Round Pond Rd) & on north side it’s bounded on both sides by Guido Passarelli's parcel (296.5-1-7 lot number(s) unknown). and WHEREAS, the Town has attempted to negotiate with the property owners for easements necessary for the Project but it appears that it will not be possible to get consent easements, and WHEREAS, the Town Board finds it necessary to exercise its rights to acquire the easements by eminent domain in order to serve a public purpose, and WHEREAS, the Town is required to compensate the property owners for the property rights obtained, and th WHEREAS, on April 19, 2004, the Town Board held a public hearing to inform the general public about the Project, review the public use to be served by the Project and the potential impacts on the environment and the residents of the locality where the Project is to be located and the Town Board heard all persons interested in the proposed Project, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 593 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board, in accordance with the New York State Eminent Domain Procedure Law, hereby determines that acquisition of the real property rights referred to in the preambles of this Resolution will serve a public purpose since there are no feasible alternative locations for the necessary easements, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the commencement of the necessary Eminent Domain proceedings, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs Town Counsel to file any necessary documentation and take any and all action necessary to commence legal action and effectuate all terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2004, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT : None CORRESPONDENCE DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER noted that the Building & Codes Monthly Report for March 2003 has been received and filed in the Town Clerk’s Office. INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS FROM THE FLOOR – None SUPERVISOR STEC recognized presence of former Elected Officials; Former Supervisor Brower, Former Councilmen Dick Merrill, Pliney Tucker and Doug Irish. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRESENTATION – ANNUAL REPORT MR. CHRIS ROUND, Executive Director submitted to the Town Board a bound document of Community Development’s Annual Report consisting of an overview of the Community Development’s operations. Noted the five different operating divisions of the Department; the Planning Department, the Zoning Department, Building & Codes, Animal Control and Fire Marshal’s Office. Highlighted the volume of building permits issued, number of subdivisions approved, some key projects progressing within town and summarized goals and issues that the department is facing… Noted that this document will be posted on the Town’s website, will be delivered to all Planning Board and Zoning Board Members, key departments and staff within the Town… TOWN BOARD thanked Mr. Round and his department for their hard work and dedication… Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 594 OPEN FORUM 8:55 P.M. MR. DENNIS BROWER-Referred to resolution withdrawing from the Capital Improvement Plan and questioned whether it was related to the Route 9 Sewer Project? SUPERVISOR STEC-No, a recreation project at Ridge Jenkinsville Park. MR. BROWER-Noted disappointment with the Town Board’s apparent decision regarding North Queensbury, having spent six years on the committee at the county for North Queensbury Sewer and the last couple of years working with O’Brien and Gere Engineers. Not as concerned about the decision as I am about the process that was followed… Thought the Town Board was going to conduct a public hearing in June or July when the North Queensbury residents were present and have O’Brien and Gere present the report that we’ve spent literally tens of thousands of dollars in development on… You didn’t give the public the opportunity to chime in, you may have come up with the same conclusion but I think the process was thwarted… I really feel that the process wasn’t completed and I’d like to urge the Board to consider opening up the process and enabling people to understand what the findings of O’Brien and Gere were, what the options were that were discussed and the preferable option that had come about and I hope you’ll consider it. Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-I’d like to take an opportunity to touch base on that again, I know that Supervisor Champagne shares your disappointment and I will tell you that, and the Board can correct me if they didn’t understand any of it this way, we had a workshop meeting with Bill th Remington, Bill Lamy, Fred Champagne and Paul Dusek, County Attorney on March 18, they did lay it out for us… I wrote and signed a letter after review by the Town Board on behalf of the Town Board stating that we had many reservations as to whether or not there was indeed enough data to support any action and the letter went onto describe that if were convinced that action was required, that we preferred the Glens Falls Treatment Plant option. I was in the Board meetings with you the last few years when we talked about this and not a whole lot of new information has came forward, I can tell you that Warren County staff quietly was telling us, or telling me anyways that they agreed with the direction the Town Board was heading in. They also told us that we were several thousand dollars away from being ready for a public hearing and the two options, the option that they had recommended and the option that we said, if we had to proceed, we would want to proceed with the Glens Falls option… Besides yourself and Supervisor Champagne, the rest of the County Supervisors on that committee presently, seemed very supportive of the decision that Queensbury made… Your public comment is certainly very valuable but I would dare say that being in touch with our constituents, I know Roger has been talking with a lot of his people, that we haven’t heard a large outcry for it. It’s been in the paper a few times since then, frankly that was part of the strategy was to see if indeed we did get phone calls or letters saying we want sewer in North Queensbury. I haven’t received one yet, I’m not aware of any Board Member that has received one yet. I’ve talked with people that I know were at ground zero for that discussion, one of which is sitting in the audience tonight. But in this very room, not a couple of weeks ago I addressed the Queensbury Senior Citizens at one of their brown bag lunches and I had some Q and A and the question came up about North Queensbury Sewer because they had seen it in the paper. After I answered the question, I asked a question of my own and I asked how many people here live in North Queensbury that would be in the neighborhood that we’re talking about for sewering, and about ten people raised their hands. I say, ‘how many of you people want sewers in North Queensbury’, they all put their hand down and I then I asked, ‘how many of you would not like to see sewers in North Queensbury’, they all put their hands back up. Scientific survey? Certainly not but I’m confident based on the conversations with County staff, other County Supervisors and our own judgment of the five of us that, although we are several thousand dollars away from being ready for a public hearing, it would be disingenuous for us, based on the knowledge we have, to spend that money. So we made, I think a good decision. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Along with the fact that the funding for the project itself would be years and years and years and years away. SUPERVISOR STEC-That was another factor, that we were told that the seventeen million dollars more that we would need COUNCILMAN BREWER-Along with the seven that we have. Grant’s were awarded … Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 595 SUPERVISOR STEC-… only a handful in the last x years were more then a million dollars, the most was a million five, so there weren’t any ten or fifteen million dollar grants along these lines. So, like I said I think quietly and behind the scenes, a lot of people that have been involved in the project agreed with the decision of the Town Board… COUNCILMAN BOOR-Earlier we were discussing something on Rockhurst and I was proposing that maybe we’d look at that seven million, put a wastewater management system in there where, if money ever does become available, we can readily hook that up to a sewer system. It would be a nice pilot program to see how it works and we’re using some of the money that’s available to us to benefit Queensbury… COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I made the comment at the meeting that I would like to see all interested environmental agencies get together, sit down get a consensus, a priority list as to what we should do on the lake, a plan of action and do it and Bill Lamy said that that’s something that he’s been wanting to see for a long time. So, I think we ought to keep working in that direction. MR. CHRIS HADSELL, Eagan Road (submitted handout to the Town Board and Town Clerk from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation)-Noted that he lives adjacent to the Town’s pit on Big Bay Road, has spoke to several Town Officials including the previous Highway Superintendent regarding this matter, the matter being the pit and the damaged that it’s caused to his property. Noted that the pit, a huge pile of sand is within five feet of his property line. Read from handout page 2 stating, minimum setback requirements, undisturbed buffer means land within twenty-five feet measured in a horizontal plain from the nearest adjacent property line, my property, which may not be disturbed in preparation of mining, no mining activity can take place including stripping, grubbing, stockpiling, location of haul roads, etc. The Town is stockpiling on the back of my property, dirt from their highway that’s got salt and sand mixed together that is killing the trees in my backyard. I’ve spent a year talking to people, now I need to get some action on this because there are trees in my backyard that are dead that I don’t know if they’re going to fall on my property, take out my dogs, I don’t know what’s going to happen but I’m worried about that…. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Do you have a clear understanding of the property line? MR. HADSELL-Yes, I bought property from Bill Threw. COUNCILMAN BOOR-And it was surveyed? MR. HADSELL-Surveyed, stakes. COUNCILMAN BOOR-And you’re saying, is this on your property? MR. HADSELL-It’s within five feet of the line. SUPERVISOR STEC-This is the first I’ve seen of this and the twenty-five foot setback is news to me. I did talk with the Highway Superintendent Mr. Missita; he assured me that everything was squared away. I believe you that the pile is probably within twenty-five feet and we can certainly pursue this… COUNCILMAN BREWER-ENCON was involved? MR. HADSELL-ENCON was at the site a week ago today and that’s how I got this information today from ENCON. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Okay, what is their position on it? SUPERVISOR STEC-They haven’t contacted me, I don’t know if they contacted Rick but I haven’t heard anything from DEC. MR. HADSELL-This is the route that they suggested I follow because I guess the Town is technically in reclamation of that property because they’re ending quote, quote their mining operations there. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Right. Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 596 MR. HADSELL-The other concerns I have is I’ve heard that there’s some proposals on the docket for a Town Garage on that piece of property. SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea, I don’t know how formal they are yet, they’re certainly not to the Town Board yet, the Highway Superintendent has been lobbying for a garage at that location. MR. HADSELL-With the Town has neighbors, at this point, I would be strongly against that and I know every single one of my neighbors would be also. COUNCILMAN BREWER-As I understand it Chris, and I talked to Mike Travis last week and he said that he’s working with DEC as far as the land in question, they’re going to be planting trees. MR. HADSELL-In five feet? COUNCILMAN BREWER-I don’t know, but I’m just saying that they have a plan, they’re working with ENCON that they’re supposed to replant this property because they ended their mining on this property. I don’t know when that’s supposed to occur but Mike said he’s in the process with ENCON right now. COUNCLMAN BOOR-Tim, have you been out there? Is this something that could be easily remedied, temporarily at least? COUNCILMAN BREWER-If we could get Rick to just go out there with a loader and just move the sand. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I think we should do that. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-And you’ve talked to Rick? Does he have a different opinion on this? I mean, I would think that you would want to have us look into it. I’d suggest why don’t you let us look into it and report back in a month. SUPERVISOR STEC-I’d like it resolved much sooner than a month. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I mean, if it’s just being a good neighbor, let’s be a good neighbor. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-We don’t know what’s involved in the research, we don’t know what’s involved in the facts. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I think it’s as simple as saying to Rick, would you move the sand. SUPERVISOR STEC-That question has been asked and answered, not to anyone’s satisfaction yet. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-The Highway Superintendent has his own authority… He’s not here to defend himself… MR. HADSELL-The biggest concern that I have is those trees that are dead because they’re going to come down, it’s just a matter of which wind takes them down and which way they go… I would hope that DEC would have some jurisdiction here because, that’s why I contacted them because I didn’t get any relief from the Town via Mr. Missita, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec because I’ve called on this for over a year… SUPERVISOR STEC-I will contact Rick again tomorrow morning and we’ll take it from there… I know you want the problem remediated and we do too. MR. HADSELL-Also, prior to Mr. Missita coming into office, Mr. Naylor was in the office and at one point in time I had spoke to Mr. Naylor about water runoff from the Town’s property onto my property and they put up a three foot berm down the whole length of that property across everybody’s house that was on Eagan Road that when Rick took office, they took down so that they could make room for this pile of sand. I asked him to put it back, and no they put the pile of sand there instead. Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 597 OPEN FORUM CLOSED TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS 9:20 P.M. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Noted that last Wednesday he attended the Lake George Watershed Commission Meeting and there was a lot of great topics, lots of interesting people and a lot of good ideas. This was very informative and I think this Board is aware there is some money in a fund for Stormwater Management up there and I’d like to maybe take a look at a couple of ways to spend it, we don’t have to spend it all but one of the things that was emphasized at this meeting was clearing sand, salt and the stuff we put on roads near streams or areas that will wash into endangered areas. I was thinking that maybe if we could do a little improvement there, we can send a good message where the County will also do some and we can start the ball rolling. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Announced this Friday, CARE and a Queensbury group CAN which is short for caring, awareness, nurturing, it’s a Communities That Care Meeting being offered to the rd public, all parents from Queensbury School and any school is invited…. This Friday, April 23 at Queensbury High School Auditorium, refreshments at 7 p.m. and presentation at 7:30 p.m., and basically talking to parents about parental awareness to substance abuse, delinquency, teen pregnancy, school dropouts, violence and what can we do as parents and adults and young families to help everybody head in the right direction… Noted, that he received phone calls regarding some burning that’s being done on June Drive would like to announce so the public is aware that that’s illegal unless one obtains a burning permit. SUPERVISOR STEC-I don’t believe they issue those sorts of permits in a town of our size anymore either, and Mr. Hatin and retired Forest Ranger in the audience both shaking their head no. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-It’s a minimum charge to bring your brush, leaves, lawn rakings, whatever over to the Ridge Landfill, I believe it’s two dollars for a whole pickup load and not only that but the compost that’s over there is free to the residents of the Town of Queensbury. So, please don’t burn… Would like to remind the public that the 2004 ARCC Expo will be held again this st year at the Glens Falls Civic Center on Saturday May 1, from nine to five and the Town of Queensbury has reserved a booth for this event and would like to encourage residents of Queensbury and Glens Falls to participate. th SUPERVISOR STEC-Announced two important events, one being this Saturday; the 24 at both Queensbury Transfer Stations from 7:30 to 3:00 is Free Tire Disposal Day, four tires per household, free to the residents of Queensbury and Glens Falls… Household Hazardous Waste Day, Saturday, th June 5 here in the parking lot between Town Hall and the Highway Garage… Reminded everyone of the Town’s Website, www.queensbury.net which provides a lot of good information… Thanked TV8 and Glens Falls National Bank for sponsoring and televising our meetings… Noted, I, along with many other local elected officials were invited to a press conference and a meeting with the Governor up in Plattsburg and the purpose of that was for the Governor to discuss the issue of the state budget, pension contributions and the two competing points of view. The Warren County Board of Supervisors this past Saturday unanimously passed a resolution that I’ve asked Town Staff rd to prepare one for the Town to consider at our next Town Board Meeting on the 3 of May which will closely mirror what other town’s are doing. Basically, the argument is over pension contributions and how they should be funded. The State Comptroller’s Office would like to increase the local contribution from four and a half percent of the payroll to sixteen percent of the payroll and for a town of our size that would impact our budget in the hundredths of thousands of dollars. I know that Mayor Regan said it would impact Glens Falls in a similar way and the County’s resolution actually talks about it would increase the County’s share in the neighborhood of two million dollars. The Governor has proposed something that would be limited to six and a half percent and the argument there is that the stock market fluctuates and you don’t need to penalize property tax owners for a poor stock market over the last several years. So, we will be considering that but I thought that that was noteworthy. One other, municipalities that have a larger payroll then the town and will be impacted more severely by this is, our school budgets. The school budget th vote is Tuesday, May 18; I encourage people to vote that day… I did, as I got to the meeting tonight receive a letter from the Mayor concerning a follow up from a verbal conversation that I had st with him when I last spoke with him on April 1, it basically says what we thought we already knew, as far as the scope of the project and what they’re looking for. Unless somebody encourages me to deviate from Counsel’s advice or our own decision from weeks before that, I will start Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 598 working on drafting a written response to the Mayor and before I sign and send it, I will make sure that I get unanimous concurrence from the Town Board as to the content. I think the Mayor, in his letter he kind of indicates that he understood where we were coming from which, was that we didn’t have a seventy thousand dollar budget item prepared, that it is rather short notice and our own attorney told us that there are legal ramifications for us funding a project that isn’t in the Town of Queensbury…. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-There is a good neighbor policy and I know that if we were in the same situation in doing a town road and it was going to affect Glens Falls businesses, we would do everything that we possibly could to keep those businesses going and thriving while we’re working on the road, as just part of a good neighbor policy… COUNCILMAN BREWER-John, we’re doing it right now on Route 9. There’s plenty of people from the City of Glens Falls that use Route 9 and we’re keeping that open and we’re spending five and a half million dollars of taxpayers money to do it. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I was a little offended by the whole thing. SUPERVISOR STEC-It’s difficult, the Board and many members of the public are very familiar with the level of difficulty that sometimes dealings have been, as far as what’s fair and what’s not fair and what we might think is fair and reasonable, the rest of the area doesn’t always agree but I think in this one the law is pretty clear, past practices is pretty clear. We’ve got multimillion dollar projects going on throughout the town right now that impact the entire county, Route 9 is an excellent example and we didn’t shut down any business and the business in Queensbury doesn’t just hurt Queensbury for sales tax, it hurts every town in the county for sales tax… So, I’ll get the letter to you as quickly as possible so that I can get the letter to him before the show… COUNCILMAN BOOR-And it also might set a good example of reciprocity of at least where we’re coming from. I know that you several months ago asked on behalf of the Rec Commission about the thirteen acres which is essentially is a useless piece of property, I believe to Glens Falls, I think it’s something that we could enhance and make available to residents of Glens Falls as well as Queensbury and to my knowledge, we haven’t even gotten a reply on our request. And that was to purchase it, we weren’t asking for money, we were actually going to give fair market value. SUPERVISOR STEC-Two other things, the outlet lighting, we’re likely to own it ourselves because we want to have control over what lights go in there so we’re looking at owning and installing these, so we’ll be moving forward with that… Lastly, the memo from Town Counsel along with proposed local law regarding outdoor furnaces. I believe the comments or discussion that we may have, the language we’re fine with except for we want to look at minimum lot size and setback, number of acres and number of feet. Is it fair to say that beyond those two, the rest of the local law is everyone pretty comfortable with heading forward on that and if so, do we want to have a brief discussion so we can move forward? Town Board agreed to discuss further at the next workshop… RESOLUTIONS 9:45 P.M. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WITHDRAWAL FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN RESERVE FUND #64 FOR SUPPLEMENTAL RIDGE/JENKINSVILLE PARK PROJECT RESOLUTION NO.: 210, 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 599 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. 416, 2003 the Queensbury Town Board authorized establishment of Capital Project Fund #138 to fund expenses associated with parking lot improvements, design and expansion of softball fields and replacement of fencing at the Ridge/Jenkinsville Park and the Town Board authorized funding for such Capital Project Fund #138 in the amount of $95,670, and WHEREAS, based on the Town Recreation Commission’s input, the Town Board wishes to supplement Capital Project Fund #138 as more specifically set forth in a Memo from the Parks and th Recreation Director to the Town’s Budget Officer dated April 6, 2004 and presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, the additional project costs for the supplemental park project is estimated to be in the amount of $413,266 and was approved as part of the Town’s Capital Improvement Plan (Project #37), and WHEREAS, the total for the Ridge/Jenkinsville Park Project Account Fund #138 after the CIP fund allocation and Resolution No. 416,2003 will be $508,936, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize the withdrawal and expenditure of moneys from Fund #64 in the amount of $413,266 for the supplemental park project, 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 #64 subject to permissive referendum, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby finds that the withdrawal and expenditure for the supplemental Ridge/Jenkinsville Park Project is an expenditure for a specific capital project and items of equipment for which the reserve account was established, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes the supplemental Ridge/Jenkinsville Park Project and authorizes additional expenditures in the amount of $413,266 for the work described in the preambles of this Resolution and in the Parks and Recreation Director’s Memo of th April 6, 2004 presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 600 RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes a transfer from Capital Improvement Plan Reserve Fund #64 in the amount of $413,266 to fund such supplemental Project, such funds to be placed into the Ridge/Jenkinsville Park Capital Project Fund #138, and the Town Board further directs that in the event there are funds remaining in such capital project fund after completion of the Project or in the event that the Project is not undertaken, the moneys in the capital project fund shall be returned to the capital reserve fund, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to take all action necessary to establish additional appropriations and revenues as necessary and as follows: Revenue Account No. 138-0138-5031 – IF Revenue - $413,266; Expense Account No.’s: 138-7110-4403 - $24,500 – Engineer/Surveyor and 138-7110-2899 - $388,766 – Capital Construction, 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 19 day of April, 2004 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner NOES : None ABSENT : None BEFORE VOTE: MR. HARRY HANSEN, Director of Parks & Recreation, MR. DOUG IRISH, Chairman of Rec Commission, gave brief presentation of proposed project…. vote taken. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FIREWORKS DISPLAY AT TH GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK ON JUNE 11, 2004 RESOLUTION NO.: 211, 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 601 WHEREAS, Alonzo Fireworks Display, Inc., on behalf of Americade, Inc., has requested permission to conduct a fireworks display as follows: SPONSOR: Americade, Inc. PLACE: Great Escape Theme Park th DATE: Friday, June 11, 2004 TIME: 9:30 P.M. (approximately) 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 Americade, Inc., 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; Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 602 3. Inspections and approval must be made by the Queensbury Fire Marshal and the Chief of the Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., 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 19 day of April, 2004, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION TO GRANT AWARD FOR CASE FILE #4876 IN CONNECTION WITH WARD 4 REHABILITATION PROGRAM Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 603 RESOLUTION NO.: 212, 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has established a Housing Rehabilitation Program which provides grants up to 100% of the cost of rehabilitation, up to a maximum of $20,000 per unit whichever is less, and WHEREAS, a single family property, Case File # 4876, has been determined to be eligible for rehabilitation grant assistance and the owner of the property has requested such assistance, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 164.2004, the Queensbury Town Board approved a rehabilitation grant in the amount of fifteen thousand three hundred forty-five dollars ($15,345) for Case File #4876, and WHEREAS, property rehabilitation specifications have been revised to include additional work, and WHEREAS, the revised cost to complete the work specified is sixteen thousand five hundred forty-five dollars ($16,545) and is still the lowest acceptable cost, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves a revised grant for Case File #4876, Queensbury, New York, in the amount not to exceed sixteen thousand five hundred forty-five dollars ($16,545) and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Senior Planner to execute a Grant Award Agreement and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2004, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT : None Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 604 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO ENTER INTO WIRE TRANSFER AND CASH MANAGEMENT SERVICE USER AGREEMENTS WITH GLENS FALLS NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY RESOLUTION NO.: 213, 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, in accordance with New York State General Municipal Law §5-a and §10 and Town Law §64, it is the duty of the governing boards of local government to adopt a system of internal controls for the documentation and reporting of all transfers or disbursements of funds accomplished by electronic or wire transfer, and WHEREAS, in accordance with such laws, the Queensbury Town Board adopted Resolution 5, 2004 authorizing certain banking transactions and now the Town Board wishes to authorize the execution of certain agreements permitting certain Internet-based banking actions and services, and WHEREAS, the Town has received two (2) agreements providing for such Internet-based banking services from Glens Falls National Bank and Trust Company entitled: 1. Wire Transfer Agreement; and 2. Cash Management Service User Agreement; and such Agreements have been reviewed and are in form acceptable to the Town Budget Officer and Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves and authorizes the Town of Queensbury to enter into the Wire Transfer and Cash Management Service User Agreements with Glens Falls National Bank and Trust Company, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute such Agreements on behalf of the Town of Queensbury, deliver such Agreements and thereby bind the Town of Queensbury to such Agreements (and all other documents that are part of such Agreements), as amended from time to time, for the purpose of enabling representatives of the Town of Queensbury to obtain account information, perform fund transfers between the Town’s Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 605 account(s), originate wire transfers and ACH transactions and transact other business activities or services that may be delivered via the Bank’s Cash Management Service from the Town’s account(s) through the use of one or more passwords, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Budget Officer to act on behalf of the Town of Queensbury in all matters relating to the Town of Queensbury’s passwords, including but not limited to the right to: 1. establish additional password ID’s on the Town of Queensbury’s behalf; 2. terminate or cancel any or all existing passwords; 3. change the Town of Queensbury’s account(s) associated with the password ID; 4. change the activity level of an account associated with any password; and 5. name additional persons who will have maintenance authority over the Town of Queensbury’s passwords, or terminate the authority of any person with maintenance authority over the Town of Queensbury’s password; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the actions authorized by this Resolution shall remain in full force and effect and the authority herein given to all of such persons shall remain irrevocable as far as the Bank is concerned until three (3) business days after the Bank is notified in writing of the revocation of such authority and that receipt of such notice shall not affect any action taken by the Bank prior to such time, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this authorization supplements any Resolution, signature card or other document currently on file with the Bank that limits authority over any specific account or over the Town of Queensbury’s accounts with the Bank and such authorization shall remain in force and effect notwithstanding any subsequent change in such specific or general account resolution, signature card or related documentation, and any notice of a termination or change with respect to the identity of the Primary Administrator or the authority of any person to use passwords must specifically state that it relates to passwords and must specifically describe the termination or change requested, and BE IT FURTHER, Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 606 RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Budget Officer to take any and all action necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2004, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPOINTING SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE FOR TOWN OF QUEENSBURY DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN AND APPROVING SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE AGREEMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 214, 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has adopted and currently administers the Town of Queensbury Deferred Compensation Plan, (Plan) a qualified retirement plan under Section 457 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and WHEREAS, the Town previously entered into a Trust Agreement with Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company (M&T Bank), successor to Allfirst Trust Company, N.A., f/k/a FMB Trust Company, N.A., wherein M&T Bank acted as directed Trustee for the Plan, and WHEREAS, M&T Bank wishes to resign as the Town Plan’s directed Trustee, and WHEREAS, upon the recommendation of the Town’s Plan Administrator, The Hartford, the Town Board wishes to appoint Investors Bank and Trust (IBT) as the Successor Trustee for the Plan, and WHEREAS, IBT agrees to serve as Successor Trustee for the Plan as provided under the terms of the Successor Trustee Agreement presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 607 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes Investors Bank and Trust (IBT) to serve as Successor Trustee under the Town of Queensbury Deferred Compensation Plan in accordance with the Successor Trustee Agreement presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute such Successor Trustee Agreement, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Budget Officer to deliver the executed Successor Trustee Agreement to the Hartford and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2004, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPROVING LIST OF INDIVIDUALS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE PURCHASES FOR TOWN OF QUEENSBURY RESOLUTION NO.: 215, 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Town’s Budget Officer has presented the list of individuals eligible to make purchases for the Town and has requested Town Board approval of such list, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the list of individuals eligible to make purchases for the Town as set forth below and authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to take all action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution: Fund/Department Budget Request 001 1010 Town Board Stec, Dan Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 608 001 1110 Town Justice Muller, Michael 001 1220 Supervisor Stec, Dan 001 1315 Comptroller Switzer, Jennifer 001 1320 Audit Switzer, Jennifer 001 1330 Tax Receiver Dougher, Darleen 001 1340 Budget Officer Switzer, Jennifer 001 1345 Purchasing Borgos, Sharon 1355 Assessor Otte, Helen 001 001 1410 Town Clerk Dougher, Darleen 1420 Town Counsel Martin, Pamela 001 001 1430 Personnel Borgos, Sharon 001 1440 Engineering Services Round, Chris 001 1450 Elections Dougher, Darleen 001 1460 Records Management Dougher, Darleen Fund/Department Budget Request 001 1470 Board of Ethics Stec, Dan 001 1620 Buildings & Grounds Rice, Chuck 001 1640 Central Fleet Management Borgos, Sharon 001 1650 Central Communications Keenan, Bob 001 1660 Central Storeroom Borgos, Sharon 001 1670 Central Mailing Dougher, Darleen 001 1680 Information Technology Keenan, Bob 001 1910 Unallocated Insurance Switzer, Jennifer 001 1920 Municipal Assn Dues Stec, Dan 001 1930 Judgements & Claims Switzer, Jennifer 001 1940 Purchase Rights of Way Stec, Dan 001 1950 Property Taxes Switzer, Jennifer 001 1989 Management Project Stec, Dan 001 1990 Contingency Switzer, Jennifer 001 3120 Crossing Guards Borgos, Sharon 001 3310 Traffic Control Missita, Rick 001 3410 Fire Safety Programs Round, Chris 001 3510 Animal Control Round, Chris 001 3620 Bldg Code Enforcement Round, Chris 001 3650 Demolition of Unsafe Buildings Round, Chris 001 3989 Misc Public Safety Stec, Dan 001 4010 Board of Health Stec, Dan 001 4020 Vital Statistics Dougher, Darleen 001 5010 Highway Administration Missita, Rick 001 5132 Highway Garage Rice, Chuck 001 5182 Street Lighting Switzer, Jennifer 001 5410 Sidewalks Missita, Rick 001 5630 Public Transportation Stec, Dan 001 6410 Publicity Stec, Dan 001 6510 Veterans Services Stec, Dan 001 6772 Programs for the Aging Stec, Dan 001 6989 Economic Development Stec, Dan 001 7020 Recreation Hansen, Harry 001 7110 Parks Hansen, Harry 001 7410 Library Switzer, Jennifer 001 7450 Museum Switzer, Jennifer 001 7510 Historian VanDyke, Marilyn 001 7520 Historical Property Switzer, Jennifer 001 7550 Celebrations Stec, Dan 001 7620 Senior Citizens Stec, Dan 001 8010 Zoning Round, Chris 001 8020 Planning Round, Chris 001 8030 Community Research Round, Chris 001 8510 Community Beautification Stec, Dan 001 8540 Drainage Missita, Rick 001 8989 Community Services Switzer, Jennifer Fund/Department Budget Request 001 9010 NYS Retirement Switzer, Jennifer Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 609 001 9030 Social Security Switzer, Jennifer 001 9040 Workers' Compensation Switzer, Jennifer 001 9055 Disability Insurance Switzer, Jennifer 001 9060 Hospital & Medical Insurance Switzer, Jennifer 001 9080 Vacation Accrual Switzer, Jennifer 001 9089 Other Employee Benefits Switzer, Jennifer 001 9710 Serial Bonds Switzer, Jennifer 001 9730 Bond Anticipation Notes Switzer, Jennifer 001 9901 Transfers to Other Funds Switzer, Jennifer 001 9902 Transfer to Risk Retention Switzer, Jennifer 001 9950 Transfer to Projects & Reserves Stec, Dan 002 All Cemetery Fund Genier, Michael 003 All Risk Retention Fund Switzer, Jennifer 004 All Highway Fund Missita, Rick 005 All Emergency Services Fund Switzer, Jennifer 02x All Lighting Districts Switzer, Jennifer 03X All Wastewater Districts Shaw, Mike 04x All Water Districts VanDusen, Ralph 910 Solid Waste Fund Coughlin, Jim All th Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2004, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2004 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 216, 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the attached Budget Amendment Requests have been duly initiated and justified and are deemed compliant with Town operating procedures and accounting practices by the Town Budget Officer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer’s Office to take all action necessary to transfer funds and amend the 2004 Town Budget as follows: ASSESSMENT FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 01-1355-2010 01-1355-4010 500. Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 610 (Office Equipment) (Office Supplies) 01-1355-1170 01-1355-1002 11,000. (Data Collector/Appraiser) (Misc. Payroll) RECORDS DEPARTMENT FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 001-1460-1061 001-1460-2001 4,700. (Records Clerk) (Misc. Equip.) th Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2004, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION RESCHEDULING TOWN BOARD REGULAR MEETINGS FOR JULY 2004 RESOLUTION NO.: 217, 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town Supervisor has requested a change to the Town Board meeting schedule for July, 2004 due to Town Offices being closed on the legal holiday for Independence th Day, Monday, July 5, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and sets its July, 2004 thth regular Town Board meetings for July 12 and July 26, 2004. th Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2004, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: None Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 611 RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING INCREASE IN THE WEST GLENS FALLS VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC.’S BUDGET FOR THE RE-ROOFING OF ITS FIRE STATION AND AMENDMENT TO FIRE SERVICES AGREEMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 218, 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury and the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. (Fire Company) have entered into an Agreement for fire protection services, which Agreement sets forth a number of terms and conditions including a condition that the Fire Company will not purchase or enter into any binding contract to purchase any piece of apparatus, equipment, vehicles, real property, or make any improvements that would require the Fire Company to acquire a loan or mortgage or use money placed in a “vehicles fund” without prior approval of the Queensbury Town Board, and WHEREAS, by Resolution 312,2003, the Town Board authorized the Fire Company to engage the services of Monahan & Loughlin to re-roof the West Glens Falls Fire Station for an amount not to exceed $85,777 with the understanding that the Fire Company would incur a 60 month installment debt for the project, and WHEREAS, it was the Town Board’s intention at that time to not only approve the re- roofing project but also approve an increase in the Fire Company’s budget in the amount of $85,777 by increasing the Fire Company’s operating budgets for each ofthe years 2004-2008 based upon principal and interest payments provided by the Fire Company’s auditor and correspondingly amend the Fire Company’s agreement with the Town, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to set a public hearing concerning the Fire Company’s increase in its budget and the amendment of its Fire Services Agreement, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall conduct a public hearing concerning the $85,777 increase in the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company, Inc.’s budget for roof repairs and the corresponding amendment to the Fire Company’s Agreement with the Town of Queensbury rd for fire protection services, on Monday, May 3, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER, Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 612 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 19 day of April, 2004, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: None DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE: COUNCILMAN BREWER-The numbers aren’t plugged in here? MS. JENNIFER SWITZER, Budget Officer-I’m waiting to get the annual, what the annual, principal and interest payments will be from their independent auditor, the fire company’s auditor. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Is it appropriate for us to do this then? MS. SWITZER, Budget Office-It’s an annual amount, you know the total amount is eighty-five thousand dollars; I don’t know what the annual breakdown is. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-It’s just a mathematical calculation that their accountant is going to give us. MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-The total amount over the five-year period is the eighty-five thousand dollars. You already approved them basically having the re-roofing done and incurring the debt, I just don’t have the number. SUPERVISOR STEC-Right, this is to set the public hearing and the background on this was that last year, and early last year, I mean it took us a long time to pull the trigger on this last year, they were complaining about needing re-roofing work done and we did ultimately get to pass a resolution where we approved them to get the roof replaced for eighty-five thousand dollars but our resolution never gave them the money to do it. MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-That’s correct. SUPERVISOR STEC-So they went out and they borrowed the money to do the roof and it was everyone’s understanding on the Town Board, correct me if I’m wrong, the intention was that we were going to provide that money or the reimbursement, we were going to put that eighty-five thousand dollars into their account. But the resolution was silent on that issue, it did not address where the money was coming from so it doesn’t say that we weren’t going to do that but it doesn’t authorize us to move money in to cover that. COUNCILMAN BREWER-So, the numbers will be plugged in when we have the public hearing. MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-Right, I’ll have them by then. Vote taken. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING COMMENCEMENT OF SUPREME COURT ACTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH TRANSIENT MERCHANT VIOLATIONS Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 613 RESOLUTION NO.: 219, 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, by Local Law No. 6 of 1995, the Town of Queensbury duly enacted a Transient Merchants, Transient Merchants Markets and Peddlers, Solicitors Law (Transient Merchants Law), and WHEREAS, in recent years the Town has seen an increase in violations of the Transient Merchants Law, and WHEREAS, it appears that at times a business decision is being made that it is cheaper and easier to violate the law and face penalties rather than to apply for a proper Transient Merchants License, and WHEREAS, the Transient Merchants Law is an important law which protects the public from unscrupulous merchants including sellers of stolen goods, and WHEREAS, it appears that in the past year, violations of the Transient Merchants Law have resulted in losses to individual victims of thousands of dollars, and WHEREAS, the Town wishes to take a proactive stand to protect the public by vigorously enforcing the Transient Merchants Law, particularly by seeking injunctions in Supreme Court to immediately close down illegal transient merchant operations and transient merchant markets, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, for a period of one year from the date of this Resolution, the Queensbury Town Board hereby empowers the Town Supervisor to direct Town Counsel to initiate Supreme Court action anytime there is a violation of the Transient Merchants Law which is not addressed upon issuance of a Notice of Violation, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Counsel to take such action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 614 th Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2004, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT : None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING COMMENCEMENT OF SUPREME COURT ACTION IN CONNECTION WITH TOWN OF QUEENSBURY V. ARTHUR BROWN RESOLUTION NO.: 220, 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury previously commenced multiple actions against § Arthur Brown for violations of Queensbury Town Code 102-3, the Town’s Ordinance regulating junkyards for maintaining a junkyard without a permit at property located at 69 Birch Road in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, in addition, there have been violations of Chapter 96 for illegal dumping on the property, and WHEREAS, Chapter 88 of the Town Code provides for administration and enforcement of the New York State Building Code and related laws, codes, ordinances, and regulations, and WHEREAS, the Town’s Fire Marshal is charged with enforcement of the New York State Building Code, and WHEREAS, under §907.3.2.1.2 of the New York State Fire Code, multi-family dwellings must be inspected to ensure that there are adequate smoke detectors to safeguard human life and property, and WHEREAS, the Brown property is used as a multi-family dwelling, and WHEREAS, Arthur Brown has refused admittance to the Fire Marshal for the purpose of determining the number and placement of smoke detectors, and WHEREAS, the Town’s Director of Building and Code Enforcement has recommended to the Town Board that it commence a Supreme Court action against Mr. Brown to require the clean- Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 615 up of the property and compliance with the New York State Building Code and with the Town Code, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Court lacks injunctive power to require the clean-up of the property, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to pursue preliminary and injunctive relief, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the commencement of a Warren County Supreme Court action to pursue preliminary and injunctive relief in the matter of the Town of Queensbury vs. Arthur Brown as referenced in the preambles of this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs Town Counsel to file any necessary documentation and take any and all action necessary to commence such proceeding and effectuate all terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2004, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner NOES : None ABSENT : None BEFORE VOTE: MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes gave brief background of situation… vote taken. RESOLUTION APPOINTING JENNIFER SWITZER AS FULL TIME TOWN BUDGET OFFICER ON PERMANENT BASIS RESOLUTION NO.: 221, 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 616 WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 548,2003, the Queensbury Town Board established the position of full-time Budget Officer, an exempt position consistent with the Warren County Civil Service Rules, and appointed Jennifer Switzer to such position on a temporary basis, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 58,2004, the Queensbury Town Board established the grade of the full-time Budget Officer position in the Town’s Non-Union Grade Schedule and set a salary for the position, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has been satisfied with the position and role of Budget Officer and the performance of Ms. Switzer in such position and therefore wishes to appoint Ms. Switzer as full-time Town Budget Officer on a permanent basis, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby appoints Jennifer Switzer to the position of Full Time Budget Officer on a permanent basis with the duties and responsibilities as previously set forth in Town Board Resolution No.: 548,2003, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that Ms. Switzer’s salary shall be as previously set forth in Town Board Resolution No.: 58,2004, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby affirms and ratifies Resolution No.’s: 548,2003 and 58,2004 in all other respects, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2004 by the following vote: Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 617 AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT : None BEFORE VOTE: SUPERVISOR STEC-I’d just like to say that I’ve been very, very pleased although not surprised at all by the technical expertise and competence of Jennifer. I thought that I would feel that way and being three and a half months into my job and has her job description basically is to assist me in my financial responsibilities at the Town, that I’ve been very, very, very pleased with Jennifer’s help and her knowledge and ability in banking matters and financial matters that I lack some expertise and I recognize that there’s a great benefit to the Town to have a financial professional on board. My first hundred days plus has proven, at least to my satisfaction that Jennifer is the person for this job and I want to thank her publicly for her efforts in breaking me in and herself at the same time. It’s been a very hectic pace for the first three months of the year, I think it’s starting to slow down but we’re coming into the summer tourist season so I’m sure we’ll get busy with some other stuff soon but Jennifer has been a great help to myself and therefore to the Town taxpayers in helping the Town run efficiently and I want to thank her for her help and recommend that we approve this. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I echo what you say. Certainly you have a closer working relationship with Jennifer. The few times that I’ve needed information, it’s been right there and probably the most important thing is that all the Department Heads and the people that you do work with on a regular basis speak very highly of you, so that’s about as good as it gets so thank you. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I thank her on a daily basis. Vote taken. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF VAN DUSEN & STEVES LAND SURVEYORS TO PREPARE LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND MAP CONCERNING THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF BOUNDS OF 5 MPH SPEED ZONE IN DUNHAM’S BAY ON LAKE GEORGE RESOLUTION NO.: 222, 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, Queensbury Town Code Chapter 55 entitled “Boats” sets forth speed limits for certain areas on Lake George, including Dunham’s Bay, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to extend the bounds of the 5 mph speed zone in Dunham’s Bay and wishes to engage the services of a land surveyor to prepare the necessary legal description and map of the proposed extension, and Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 618 WHEREAS, VanDusen & Steves, Land Surveyors has offered to provide these services for a total not to exceed $800, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes engagement of VanDusen & Steves Land Surveyors to prepare the necessary legal description and map of the proposed extension of the bounds of the 5 mph speed zone in Dunham’s Bay for an amount not to exceed $800, to be paid for from such account determined to be appropriate by the Town’s Budget Officer, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Budget Officer to sign any documentation and take any and all action necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2004, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS – TH ABSTRACT OF APRIL 15, 2004 RESOLUTION NO.: 223, 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve the audit of bills presented as th the Abstract with a run date of April 15, 2004, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Abstract with a run th date of April 15, 2004 numbering 24-148400 through 24-182300 and totaling $1,755,385.98, and BE IT FURTHER, Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 619 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. th Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2004, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mr. Boor BEFORE VOTE: COUNCILMAN BOOR-I will abstain because I did not look at them…. Vote taken. ACTION OF RESOLUTIONS PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED FROM THE FLOOR – None ATTORNEY MATTERS - None RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO.: 224, 2004, INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and enters Executive Session to discuss a matter of Attorney/Client Privilege. th Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO RECONVENE RESOLUTION NO.: 224, 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer Regular Town Board Meeting, 04-19-2004, Mtg #18 620 RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Executive Session and enters Regular Session of the Town Board. th Duly adopted this 19 of April, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN MEETING RESOLUTION NO.: 226, 2004 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from it’s Regular Town Board Meeting. th Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES: None ABSENT: None No further action taken. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK TOWN OF QUEENSBURY