Loading...
2005-02-28 MTG10 17 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG. #10 February 28, 2005 RES. 111-133 7:06 p.m. BOH 7-8 TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER TOWN COUNSEL. BOB HAFNER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARILYN RYBA SENIOR PLANNER STU BAKER BUDGET OFFICER JENNIFER SWITZER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH RESOLUTION CALLING FOR QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 111.2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves into the Queensbury Board of Health. th Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2005 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: None 1.0 BOARD OF HEALTH 1.1 Public Hearing on Sewage Disposal Variance Application of Robert and Victoria Glandon Notice Shown 18 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 Supervisor Stec-Mr. MacElroy is here this evening you are the agent I believe? Mr. Dennis MacElroy P.E.-Correct. Supervisor Stec-Sir, the floor is yours, I will let you present your project. Mr. Dennis MacElroy P.E.-I am Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design representing Bob and Victoria Glandon owners of the property on Knox Road, Assembly Point. First of all they apologize for not being here, they had planned to be here up to this morning, with the weather, they live in Connecticut three hours away. I suggested that it probably would be ok, if they were not here, rather than risk the travels they would have. This property is a seasonal property they are new owners, last summer was their first year with it and it is their intent to upgrade the septic system that serves the residence. The existing system is, they have some sketchy information about what it is but in fact probably part of it extends over onto their neighbors property. They asked me to look at the situation and come up with a solution for a new on site system that is compliant with current standards which we have done with the exception of being able to meet the ten foot property line setback, which is a DOH standard as well as a Town of Queensbury standard. As you can see on the plan there is a discharge from the north side of the house, which would go to a pump pit that lies within the ten-foot area just by the physical location of the house and narrowness, the narrow lot that exists fifty foot wide. It cannot help but being within that set back. From there a force main will run up parallel roughly along the property line to a new septic tank which would then discharge to a Elgen absorption field. Again, the variance involves the set backs, a variance to the required ten foot set back for those various components as shown on the plan as well as fifteen foot separation from the dwelling to the absorption field. The field itself is beyond the one hundred foot required setback to the lake and meets all other vertical separation distances so it is what I would characterize as fairly benign request for the variance to that ten foot property line setback. Supervisor Stec-Any questions for Dennis this evening? Councilman Turner-The cabin that is marked here with the wood deck on it, what is that? How big is that unit, does it have a bathroom in it? Engineer MacElroy- No, it doesn’t. It has been used, my understanding as a bedroom in the past so that is included within the four-bedroom count. Historically, I think it has housed a washer at times and at times housed a bed for sleeping purposes. It is not an independent structure, in terms of self-supporting it doesn’t. Councilman Turner-You are going to pipe what ever you put in that building to this new system? Engineer MacElroy-Well there would not be at this point in time there isn’t Councilman Turner-If you are going to go with a washing machine or whatever? 19 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 Engineer MacElroy-If there was a washing machine, certainly, yea. So, yes, if there was a washing machine proposed for that location, yes. Councilman Boor-And there is now? Engineer MacElroy-There is not currently, no. Councilman Boor-There is no washer there now. Engineer MacElroy-Correct. As I said in the past it is used, it has been used as either like a sleeping room or it has housed a washing machine in the past that is my understanding. Councilman Boor-So, it does have a washing machine hookup? In other words I assume that when you wash something the water goes somewhere. Engineer MacElroy-What it did in the past or where that disposal was I am not really sure. There isn’t currently. We are only suggesting that as a cabin which is a bedroom at that point. That is included in the bedroom count. Councilman Turner-That bedroom is part of the bedroom count? Engineer MacElroy-Correct. Councilman Turner-Where is the other one? Engineer MacElroy-The others are in the main, in the house. Councilman Turner-There are three in the house? Engineer MacElroy-Correct. Councilman Turner-So, there would be no addition on the house? Engineer MacElroy—No, there is no change to the house. Councilman Turner-No change to the house. Engineer MacElroy-No. Councilman Turner-Nothing. Councilman Brewer-Is there an intention to change the house after you get the septic variance? Engineer MacElroy-My understanding is no. Obviously the owner would be able to give you that, but the way it has been explained to me is that this is their priority is to get the septic system in place. Again, they are relatively new owners. Councilman Brewer-Is the system failing now? 20 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 Engineer MacElroy-There is no indication of it. Councilman Brewer-So, why all of a sudden just up date it? Councilman Boor-So, why are they doing it? Engineer MacElroy-Well, if you can understand this it is their intent to upgrade that system Councilman Brewer-So, they can upgrade the house. Engineer MacElroy-so it would be compliant with, well I am not saying that will not ever happen in the future they have not expressed that to me, I have asked that question, that is not their intent. Councilman Brewer-Well it makes me wonder why when you buy a piece of property with a septic system that works why do you just wake up one morning and say I want to put in a new septic system in. Engineer MacElroy-Well, I think there are some people that buy properties that want to do right by the lake, they are new owners they recognize that the system that they have may in fact be onto their neighbors property to the north. Councilman Boor-Do you know where the system is now? Engineer MacElroy-Where the Councilman Boor-Existing old one? Engineer MacElroy-There are two components of it, one to the north side, of that drawing where the, where we show the proposed discharge, you can see the piping that leaves the house at that location. I was told also on the south side there is a like a dry well or structure that handles the kitchen sink. Councilman Turner-Does it handle that cabin on the south side? Engineer MacElroy-On the south side there is Councilman Turner-Is there anything coming out of there, pipe that would go to a dry well on that side of the Engineer MacElroy-There is an existing pipe that handles the kitchen sink in the main house that is on the south side that is my understanding. Councilman Turner-But the cabin there is nothing. Engineer MacElroy-Correct. There is no plumbing within the cabin at this time. Councilman Boor-So the washing machine that was in there just went out a wall, I got to ask. 21 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 Engineer MacElroy-Good question, good question, I do not know that for sure, I do not know whether that was extended down to a drywell or whether in fact when it existed or what the situation was at that time. Supervisor Stec-Any other questions right now? Councilman Strough-How old is the structure? Engineer MacElroy-The front portion of the, as you see on the plan, that has got to be fifty, sixty years old. The section in the back is an addition that was put on about ten years ago by the previous owner. Councilman Strough-Is the front section being forty or fifty years old is it insulated? Engineer MacElroy-No. Councilman Strough-My concern is this, is that constantly we see these things Mr. MacElroy, and you know people from Connecticut come into the area tons of money, buy these old places up, the next thing they want to do is take it down build a big beautiful place which is all fine but the lots do not suit it. A point two two acre lot a two tenths of an acre lot cannot suit these big places that we constantly run across. So, I think the concern of this board in the past has been that we want to try and restrict if you got a very restrictive lot we want to try and restrict what can go on it. We do not want to make a bigger house available having, Roger has made this point time and time again a bigger than needed effluent field. I also did not see any contour lines on here but I did notice that it has got to be pumped up so I am assuming the house is down grade from the effluent system and the effluent system is down grade from the road? Engineer MacElroy-Correct. Councilman Strough-Is there a storm water issue where we might need to have an intercepted drain or a curtain drain here? Engineer MacElroy-Not from my observation, the test pits that we did there and I happen to live down the road from this property so I am pretty familiar with the lay of the land. Councilman Strough-Well, ok, I sometimes like to see the contour lines and get a feel for the steepness of grade that we are dealing with so I can think about possibly, in some of these you are more likely to protect your effluent field you know, if you do have a storm water problem there, that could jeopardize the integrity of the field. But, you can put an interceptor drain in or a curtain drain in prior to that but I am not sure if this is the situation or not. Engineer MacElroy-I do not think the ground water situation would warrant that or require that. It is an area of slope but it is good soil as well. 22 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 Councilman Strough-I am just thinking the roadway sometimes serve as a conduit to some peoples property that we have run across, I do not know the lay of the land exactly. Engineer MacElroy-It is definitely above the property but it is not, it did not strike me as an issue on this property. Councilman Strough-Now you did the tests pits in December. Engineer MacElroy-Correct. Councilman Strough-Did we get a perk test? Engineer MacElroy-Not yet. Councilman Strough-So, you assume that it is going to be, oh what did I write down, five to ten minute? Engineer MacElroy-Eight to ten. I would just add that approximately fifty feet to the north, I did the design for that system as well and it is three and a half minute perk in that area, there are similar soils there. Prior to obtaining the permit obviously we will do and confirm those assumptions that were made. Councilman Strough-The reason why I asked is that in this general area we have run across soils that were loamy and we had perk test thirteen and higher. I just did not know. Engineer McElroy-From my experience, from my experience fifty feet away and also from the test pit I am confident that the assumptions that we have made are conservative. Councilman Boor-Would you consider it responsible for a Board of Health to grant a variance like this without perk tests? Engineer MacElroy-In this particular situation, yes. Councilman Boor-So, you do not think perk tests are necessary when you are seeking five variances and you are putting a four bedroom septic system on a fifty-five or fifty foot wide lot and you do not think it is appropriate to have a perk test? Engineer MacElroy-I did not say it was not appropriate for a perk test there will be a perk test for the design. Councilman Boor-You have answered the question, thank you. Councilman Brewer-I have one more Dan. Supervisor Stec-I am just going to open the public hearing too. 23 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 Councilman Brewer-On your notes Dennis number three the applicant will require temporary construction easement from the neighbor, has that been done, no, yes? Engineer MacElroy-No, not at this, I know that they have had discussions on it. Councilman Brewer-Have had conversations though? Engineer MacElroy-Yes. Councilman Brewer-Does the neighbor feel comfortable or? Engineer MacElroy-Yes, again I did work for the neighbor at one point about a year ago, so I am Councilman Brewer-Just a lot of unknowns here so far. Supervisor Stec-At this point I will open the public hearing if there is any members of the public that would like to comment on regarding this sewage disposal variance please raise you hand and we will have you come forward. Mr. Salvador Mr. John Salvador-Good evening my name is John Salvador a property owner in North Queensbury. I have had a chance to review this application and I agree with you that until all the questions that you have had asked get answers this application should be deemed incomplete. The applicant is seeking a variance to our sanitary waste disposal ordinance. This ordinance is a design manual, that is what it is, it tells you how to do it. I do not think that you can give variances from it. The design parameters in Section 136 are based on standard system. A standard system, there is provision in there for a mound system as a modification to an standard system. The Elgen system is a modification of a mound system. So, you are faced with granting a permit for a modification of a modification. This section 136 does not address that, does not address the fact that this system is going to be subjected to a seasonal high intensity use for a short period of time and the design manual does not recognize that this Elgen system has some serious operating limitations. Somehow they have to be met or the system is going to fail. I think what I would like to do is try to properly frame the project. From what we have heard tonight it is the construction of a replacement of a septic system for a recently purchased two bedroom, seasonal use, slab on grade dwelling built almost a century ago and subject to some renovation work here recently which doesn’t seem to have been the subject of a building permit, on a substandard one acre lot. Because the new owners have no knowledge of the present system components nor the age of the system. There has been no report of a system or a component failure. Based on that I do not think the applicants have been able to show hardship which is one of the criteria for granting a variance. There is no excuse for the lack of knowledge as it pertains to the on site septic system and accordingly the application is incomplete. I say this because in 1972 all of the on site systems in North Queensbury were surveyed and we came up with data as to the percentage of systems that were non compliant and failing. I hope this was one of them that was surveyed. This town required the registration of 24 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 all seasonal use dwellings as a part of its 1968 zoning ordinance. This is to give the Town a base line for conversions. Hopefully this dwelling was registered. The registration of all on site wastewater systems in the Lake George Park was a requirement of the Lake George Park Commission Regulations and this program was undertaken by the Town in 1998-1999 and I would hope that this septic system received inspection and a registration. There does not seem to be any record of failures. I cannot imagine property-changing hands without a property inspection report. If as stated here these peoples septic system is on a neighboring property I do not see how they could get good title. There has to be some agreement something before a bank is going to finance this to over come this deficiency. There are many, many modern ways of finding and locating underground pipes, tanks that sort of thing. It is the days of a pick and shovel are over with. There are ways to find this. The declaration has been made that it is a seasonal use dwelling, the assessor shows it as that. The assessor shows it as a two bedroom dwelling with one bathroom. The application is for a four-bedroom system. I refer you to a DEC developed design manual for wastewater treatment works in the Lake George Basin, it has a 1989 date on it and the DEC has deferred individual households systems to the New York State Department of Health. Of course the Department Of Health has deferred to this board. There is a memorandum of agreement between the DOH and the DEC with regard to this design manual. DOH shall be responsible for obtaining compliance at facilities under its jurisdiction. Regulatory action or non-action by DOH does not preclude the DEC from pursuing independent regulatory action for non- compliance of DEC Law or regulations by these facilities. One of the criteria of this design manual is facilities must be designed to meet existing needs only. What are the needs for this property? A SEQRA for a short SEQRA form has been prepared the project is a description of a replacement septic system. If we are going to replace a septic system there are rules and regulations concerning what we do with the old abandoned system. We just do not leave it in the ground. We do not even know that we might not disturb it with this new facility; we do not know where it is. But, in any case I think you know that contaminated soils have to be removed, taken to an authorized disposal site. Any vessels, tanks that are left in the ground have to be sealed, filled that sort of thing. The system components may have to be removed and disposed of properly. My point is you just don’t abandon it. It has to be handled properly and that should be a part of this permit. The SEQRA forms says the proposed action is not new. The applicant is calling it a replacement. I think the SEQRA form says it is new. The proposed action is new, they have stated it is a replacement so it is not new. The proposed action is a description of a variance as a local Board of Health you are not allowed to grant variances, there is only one variance granting board in this town. By the way this section 136 is a zoning ordinance, it is a zoning ordinance. The present, the SEQRA form states that the present land use in the vicinity is residential. Now, there is a difference between residential and seasonal. I think we are getting to, we talk about bedrooms and things like this and it is understood that a residential dwelling that is used on a steady long term basis that a bedroom is a bedroom. People are not going to bunk four people in a bedroom on a long-term basis it just doesn’t work and we all know that. But on a seasonal basis, weekends, what have you some of these dwelling become nothing more than dormitories. This is not a healthy situation for an Elgen system that is just not the thing to 25 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 do. The other thing is our section 136 is pretty much based on the fact that you are going to have a minimum lot size. That is the whole philosophy of the design is that you can fit this on a standard lot. Otherwise we get into the subject of you know small lot here, small lot next door, small lot next door to that. What are the cumulative impacts of all these non-compliant systems on non-compliant lots. That has not been addressed in our design ordinance, design manual. I question that a use variance is not required for the application of an on site wastewater system on a substandard lot. That is something I think has to be thought out. The Elgen system itself as we know it has not become a part of appendix 75A it has not yet. I dare say that the DOH is not going to incorporate it in there unless there is some kind of system supervision. They are not going to allow this or a form of district management. Now with regard to this particular system as it is laid out I think the drawings there are two things that should be shown. This site is not a level site and I think contour lines should be shown on the plan it would give you a better picture of what is going on. I looked briefly into the history of this parcel and without studying a lot there is an easement across the land in this area for taking water from Lake George to the inland lots. That easement should be marked, should be mapped because if that is fresh water you do not want a force main without proper separation distances between what is being used for drinking water and what is being used for wastewater. So, those two things should be mapped on the map plus if this old system is on the neighbor’s property that has got to be shown, definitely got to be shown. Basically and briefly I do not think the system as it is designed and laid out is going to work for the following reasons. The drawings do not show any venting system. Now, I have experience on a, in another town where they went to these pump sumps and with big vents and all not realizing that it is going to stink. So, you will see if you look at these vents they have got duck tape all over them. So, they do not work as vents. So, the venting system some thought has to be given to the venting system and where it is going to vent. The other thing is the concept of this design is to take the raw wastewater into a pump sump and move it thorough level control through a force main to a septic tank. The septic tank is proposed to be equipped with an effluent filter. We know filters tend to plug up. If this filter plugs up at the wrong time of the year that is not going to stop this pump from moving water to that septic tank. The pump is not going to know the filters plugged and it is just going to keep feeding it is just going to keep feeding that septic tank. You know in a conventional system where everything is gravity if you begin to have trouble with your system you sense it in the dwelling. Flush toilets do not flush quite as fast as they might. You sense there is something wrong you have time to do something about it before you begin to pollute the surface water. In this case there is nothing to stop this pump from moving water to that septic tank if that filter is plugged and flooding the place. So, some means of control there, level control on the septic tank has to be provided for. Frankly, I do not think the system is applicable to the use. Unless we can sit down, some how if this town is going to be, is going to feel it has to permit this type of system then we have got to develop our own design manual. We have to let people know what we expect and we do not have all these questions coming up every time an applicant comes before us. They will be able to take the design manual and do it and then you all have to do is grant the permit. Supervisor Stec-Thank you Mr. Salvador. 26 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 Mr. Salvador-And by the way this is what the water is beginning to look like in North Queensbury. (showed photo ) This is what water quality is beginning to reflect. Supervisor Stec-Thank you Mr. Salvador. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Town Board regarding this sewer disposal variance request application, any member of the public at all? Town Clerk Darleen Dougher-I do have a one letter. Supervisor Stec-Go ahead Darleen Town Clerk Dougher- Dear Ms. Dougher, This letter is to give approval to the proposed septic system on Assembly Point, next door to my property at 61 Knox Road. This matter is to come up at the February 28 meeting and I am using e-mail to insure this letter’s timely arrival. The applicant for approval is Robert Glandon. I have no problem with the proposed installation. Sincerely, Roberta Harris Kahan Supervisor Stec-Is that it Darleen. Town Clerk Dougher-Yes. Supervisor Stec-Thank you. Anyone else from the public care to comment on this septic variance? I will close the public hearing and Mr. MacElroy if you want to come back, any further questions from the Town Board or suggestions? Councilman Brewer-A couple of comments. First I think the old system should be shown on the map. The applicant should give us his intentions of whether he is going to remove the house or not remove the house, redo the house to what his plans are. We should have some sort of a, isn’t there a sign off form or something Marilyn that the neighbors typically sign? Well if there isn’t maybe there ought to be. Engineer MacElroy-There is and I discussed that with Dave and in this particular type of variance he did not think it was appropriate. Councilman Brewer-I would ask that you do that. Engineer MacElroy-Thank you. Councilman Brewer-Storm water control is there any plan or should there be a plan? I would ask that you also show contour lines and last but not least send this to CT Male and have them review it. That is all for me. Councilman Strough-Mr. Salvador said that it is listed as a two bedroom, one bathroom in the assessor’s office. 27 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 Engineer MacElroy-Well, I cannot speak for the assessor’s information, my understanding is that there is a bedroom in the front section of the house, there is a bedroom and a loft in the new section of the house and we have added on in the cabin which was used as a sleeping cottage at times. I have heard at times other discussions by the board and you know it is betwixt and between situation and I understand your concerns and the history of other lots and that type of thing. I guess what I need to know is what you are most comfortable with in some situations you are skeptical of somebody putting study on the floor plan or family room or whatever the situation that makes it seem like oh, that is really going to be a bedroom so I tried to use the bedrooms that were counted and I could see where there might be two in that assessment record, that there is a loft in that back bedroom area and the cabin historically had been used as a sleeping cottage. If we eliminate and use three than so be it. It is, there is a comment sort of either way at times and I was not really sure which way to do it, I did it more conservatively. Councilman Strough-Well, historically too, and Lake wide it used to be fifty, sixty years ago that these were camps they went up on the weekend, people from the Capital District even local people had camps on Lake George and they were still relatively expensive not like they are today but relatively expensive, but they were camps, they used them on the weekend they had cesspools sometimes for septic systems it was rather carefree because you just used it on a weekend just during July and August. Ok. It is a different world today, what used to be the extra cabin out in the back for you know the teenager that did not want to be with the rest of the family or whatever the case, the relatives that came up to see you from New York or whatever the case might be. Maybe it is time to take a look and say hey, if these people are serious about this residence and they enjoy the lake why don’t we get rid of the cabin and go to a three bedroom system that would be more code compliant it would be a new system it would be an upgrade and a bonus might be an aerobic pre treatment. Engineer MacElroy-I want to comment on something because I heard this at another meeting. An aerobic system is a great technology that is applicable in certain situations and just cautious about advising or recommending it or suggesting it talking about it in seasonal situations. Just because of the nature of the technology and the nature of the treatment. It is not always applicable to that type of use. But there are technologies that are appropriate with advance treatment, I understand your point. Councilman Strough-There does seem to be problems with seasonal use, but the other side of the card is these do not, more and more these are turning into full time residences and they still use the same septic system and we are still environmentally concerned about the lake. So, yea, there is a balancing act that has to go on as far as this pre-treatment goes. We have tended to look as a board as kind of a plus they have told us in the past that there are problems with seasonal use and aerobic system there are management problems and they can be over come it takes a little bit more concern and care. So, when the house does become year round as they, houses do seem to be we are at least ready for that we prepare for the worst-case scenario. But, also Mr. Salvador said that the system might be registered might have been inspected by the Lake George Park Commission? 28 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 Engineer MacElroy-I followed for the most part what John was saying, going back to 1972 it was actually 1973 with the Lake wide inventory, I was involved with that at the time as a matter of fact so I am quite familiar with that history. That provided information as was known by the property owners at the time, so sometimes it is good information and sometimes it was sketchy. But, subsequent to that there was a registration by the Park Commission that some people did, some people ignored. So, again that was based on a property owners knowledge of the system. Councilman Strough-But it might be helpful just to do a look-see it might have a draft determination of where this infiltration bed is. Engineer MacElroy-The existing? Councilman Strough-The existing. Engineer MacElroy-Well, I do inspections I know enough about the situation here, we have six feet from the property line on one side and eleven feet on the other and Councilman Strough-It is going to be some place. Engineer MacElroy-Right, and my suspicion is that there is something that is over on the property to the north. Councilman Strough-Then we are going to need, Mr. Salvador is right, I did not think if it, he did, but we do have to take care of that old bed. Engineer MacElroy-Typically when systems are abandoned the tank might be filled in, not always on a residential basis. Councilman Strough-But if they are going to put in your infiltration system and it is going to overlap or be on top of the old infiltration system. Engineer MacElroy-No it will not be on top of it, it will not be anywhere Councilman Strough-You do not know where it is? Engineer MacElroy-Well, no, I can say that there is no system up on that area because that Councilman Boor-And where is that on the map exactly, where is it not, so I can mark it on here? Engineer MacElroy-In the area where the new system is proposed. Councilman Boor-There is none in there then, you are saying. Engineer MacElroy-Correct. It is up gradient of it there is no pump in the system, that is how I can know that. Councilman Boor-It is not a gravity going deep then. 29 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 Engineer MacElroy-No. Councilman Strough-The other thing where do people park here? That is always a problem in this area during the summer. Engineer MacElroy-Well, on the top, on the roadside of the plan you see the garage and that small parking area, off of the edge of the road. Councilman Strough-To the west then of the cabin. Engineer MacElroy-Correct. Councilman Strough-Not in the area of the infiltration bed. Engineer MacElroy-Correct. Councilman Strough-Ok. To summarize, like Tim did, you know, I am thinking you get a feel that we are not real comfortable with this as proposed and you know, if there is no reason to have that cabin because the old days are gone and they are looking at something of a permanent nature here and they could go to a three bedroom system that would be more code conforming that would be a plus. I agree with Tim on having CT Male review this. I would also like to get some feed back from CT Male about what are the plusses and minuses of these Elgen Systems. One other thing, Mr. Salvador also said that if the filter clogs the pump keeps running will that be the case? Engineer MacElroy-If the filter clogs will the pump keep running? That is a potential the way this is shown. With some sort of a float system as he mentioned that is a remedy to that sure. The effluent filter is a very common device that is recommended and installed, in hopefully any system that is proposed to the town. Councilman Strough-Have you put these pumps in before or designed these before? Engineer MacElroy-Yes. Councilman Strough-Has there been a stink problem with the Engineer MacElroy-Well, it could be vented back through the house stack, that would be the way to do that in this situation. Councilman Strough-So, the design would have to call for that and that would remedy that problem. Engineer MacElroy-Sure. Councilman Strough-Well we can get some of these problems knocked out of the way maybe. 30 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 Engineer MacElroy-Sure, yea, if there is some more detail on specific design issues that is not an issue, unfortunately the owner was not able, or I suggested that he didn’t need to travel through what he was faced with Councilman Strough-Well it is supposed to get bad tonight I can understand that. I do not think it would have made a difference if he was here or wasn’t. Engineer MacElroy-But he could have answered some of the questions that appear to be Councilman Strough-But I think the bottom line would be close to the same. Engineer MacElroy-Sure. Councilman Strough- Could you include contour lines in the future drawings? Engineer MacElroy-Yes. Supervisor Stec-I will just jump in next most of the concerns that I had have already been brought up by other board members. I think the one that you are going to hear in a couple of minutes is that this is likely in our opinion runs a risk of being a pre-courser to turn down the structure and putting up a even larger structure, that is the trend that we are seeing on Lake George, right or wrong people are happy or not happy it is an issue. There is a lot of variances that are being sought here we do not have indication that the current system has failed. I think you are going to have a tough sell even if you come back with contour lines and the additional information at least with me. But, I will keep an open mind. Engineer MacElroy-So, if someone wanted to upgrade a system to be compliant with current standards, which should be a good thing. Supervisor Stec-Are we increasing the capacity of the system over the last system? Will the new system Councilman Boor-There in lies in the rub Dennis you do not even know what the system is. Engineer MacElroy-Well, I could easily say that the capacity of the system as designed is greater than what is in the ground, because that was Councilman Boor-Well I do not know how you can say that because you said you do not know what is in the ground. I mean you said it. Engineer MacElroy-I know form the fact that of what the technology was. Councilman Boor-I think Dan hit it on the head you are coming here with a I am going to soften this because I have a tendency to maybe be a little harsh but Supervisor Stec-That is why I tried to lead in first. 31 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 Councilman Boor-You have no perk tests the assessor shows it as a two bedroom they bought it as a two bedroom, you are counting a cabin that had washing machine in it as a bedroom you do not know where that drains. It if a fifty-foot wide lot it is not a system that is failing at the time, which begs the question, why do they want to put a four-bedroom system in? It is a rhetorical question. It would be irresponsible for us to act on this and I will give you a tip off of what would be the minimum of what I would go for that is two bedroom system. If you can get it without a lot of variances. Councilman Brewer-But, does that actually shorten the length of the laterals? Unknown…it does. Significantly? Councilman Boor-It would be half the size Councilman Brewer-I am just asking. Councilman Boor-It would be half the size of this. Supervisor Stec-Less relief would be needed. Councilman Boor-And it would be compliant with what the house is assessed for and then you can, as far as I am concerned I cannot speak for the Zoning Board of Appeals but if you want to tear the whole thing down and build a brand new two bedroom you can do it. But, what you are looking for here would allow you to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals and say I have got a system that will allow four bedroom so here again we take ammunition away from that board and the only thing they can hang their hat on is perhaps a side set back for a roof overhang or possibly storm water management, which we have not even talked about on this application. We are only talking about the wastewater now. I mean, at some point we have got to send a message Dennis, that sometimes a lot is too small. Part of the character of North Queensbury and the Lake is changing because a lot of money is coming there buying these things under the presumed assumption that they are going to be able to tear it down and put whatever size property they have and money is not a huge issue for some of these people. But, the quality of the environment is what this Board is looking at as the Board of Health. It just does not make sense to be putting four bedroom homes on a fifty-foot wide lot. Engineer MacElroy-What the Assessor’s records show then becomes the absolute in your mind then? Again if there was a loft in that Councilman Boor-No that I think, it is not an absolute, Dennis, it is a fifty foot wide lot you probably could not even put a two bedroom on there by today’s standards. You would have to fit it on I do not know if you would get the side setbacks. Could you get a twenty-foot set back on each side, you would have a ten foot wide house. Engineer MacElroy-I do not follow you. 32 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 Councilman Boor-If you have a twenty-foot set back on each side of your property and it is a fifty-foot wide lot you have got a ten-foot wide house. Engineer MacElroy-What kind of set back, building set back or? Councilman Boor-Building set back. I am saying this thing is like, we would have never granted. Councilman Strough-But, you know Roger on the other hand we are trying to make it better I mean if the applicant were willing to remove the cabin Councilman Boor-Well that is your take, that is not my take. Councilman Strough-Well you know what you keep the cabin there you are going to have the people in it, you remove the cabin that reduces the potential use of this property. Councilman Boor-That is your opinion John, I disagree with you respectfully. Councilman Strough-It is more than an opinion its you know if you take away a cabin it is going to reduce the potential use of the property. Supervisor Stec-Ted? I know we all kind of went first,but. Councilman Turner-Well, the other thing too is you have got unlimited water supply you are drawing right out of Lake George you have really no control over it somebody can let the faucet run for god knows how long, never, there is no control that shuts it off. Councilman Boor-Also Dennis when we look at this the picture over head aerial of this you have to remove a great number of trees to put this system in according to the ariel. I mean you cannot put this system in without hitting roots it is all trees on that section. Engineer MacElroy-I know how I laid it out and there is one white pine in the area near the absorption field which may or may not need to go. Councilman Boor-I guess I am just going to the cumulative that is not the kiss of death it is just another cumulative aspect of trying to put too much on a very small lot. Engineer MacElroy-I have been on the lot and I feel that there isn’t a lot of vegetation loss based on the placement of that. Councilman Boor-Actually you bring up a good point because one of the other things I am going to recommend is the practice that the Planning Board and the Zoning Board undertaken, I think on all Board of Health issues from now on each and every one of the members of this board should visit the site because these sometimes do not depict or portray the reality of what is being asked. I think a lot of times if these Board Members were to look at these properties it would be a no brainier as to how we should respond. So, that is 33 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 not anything you need to be concerned about but it is just another great example of being there is totally different. Councilman Turner-We did that years ago, in years back. Councilman Boor-I think we should. Supervisor Stec-I am not hearing three votes to approve tonight. Engineer MacElroy-No, if we could, I would request that we table that. Supervisor Stec-I am not sure what the will of the Board is I think the two options are we table it or we vote it down. What is the will of the Board? Councilman Brewer-Give him the opportunity to at least come back to us and talk to his clients and see what their intention is and what they want to do. Councilman Turner-Yea, absolutely. Engineer MacElroy-I would appreciate if we could table that. Supervisor Stec-I am hearing at least three votes to do that. Councilman Strough-Table it and lets see what. Supervisor Stec-All right I saw you taking notes so I know that you have got a good flavor of what the issue is going to be. Councilman Brewer-But, Dan having said that do we send this to CT Male before he comes back or do we wait? Councilman Turner-No. Councilman Boor-CT Male is not the best engineer for these types of, they are big pipe engineers. We need to start tailoring the engineering. Councilman Brewer-Then give us a name, I mean that is fine. Councilman Boor-No, I know that is another issue I have with these things. Supervisor Stec-I would ask you to work with staff you know toward getting, I know that staff got an idea what our concerns were, work with them and at some point when staff is satisfied and have got a good handle on what was brought up here tonight we will get you back on the agenda. So, we will pull this for this evening. Engineer MacElroy-Yes. Town Counsel Hafner-It sounds like it is going to be such a different plan it will be a new application and a public hearing. Councilman Boor-I would just make an new application. 34 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 Councilman Turner-We will have to readvertise. Town Counsel Hafner-The comments that you guys are making it is a significant change. Councilman Boor-I would just come back with a different plan. Councilman Strough-We still table it, don’t we Bob? Supervisor Stec-You are saying we would be setting a new public hearing. Town Counsel Hafner-You can table the action but I would not think that you would want to schedule a public hearing again, we have heard a lot of comments on this one. Councilman Brewer-We do not have any idea what he is going to come back though Bob, if his client says no this is what I insist upon you presenting then Town Counsel Hafner-Then you can act on this. Councilman Brewer-I am pretty sure that is not going to happen, but. Councilman Boor-But if it comes back substantially different then it is a new. Town Counsel Hafner-I think you would want to re-publish. Engineer MacElroy-What would determine that it was significantly different? Councilman Boor-Two bedroom system for me. Supervisor Stec-I would think if you come back with a two-bedroom system you are looking at a new application, you are looking at a new public hearing. Councilman Strough-But the house is three bedrooms. Councilman Boor-No it is not John. Councilman Turner-No the cabin is counted in and the two bedrooms that are in the house. Councilman Strough-No, the cabin is counted as the fourth bedroom. Councilman Boor-John, go to the property. Engineer MacElroy-Does the Assessor’s record make the determination of what it should be counted as? Councilman Strough-Well you are saying the loft. 35 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 Town Counsel Hafner-It is a taxing circumstance, I do not think you would be tied to exactly what the Assessors record say. Engineer MacElroy-If there is a bedroom, a bedroom and a loft. Councilman Boor-And a loft and you are counting the loft as a bedroom. Councilman Strough-And the loft is used as a bedroom. Engineer MacElroy-Because at other meetings I have been to, I have heard the speculation or the suspicion that those are only bedrooms. So, I have done it in that way to count it. Councilman Strough-Because the loft is used as a bedroom. Councilman Boor-It has to have a closet, John, just so you know, just so you know the code. Councilman Strough-You are designing a system for the likable use of the residence. Engineer MacElroy-Again, if a two-bedroom system was designed and it involved the same pumping component that same septic tank component and the same field component Supervisor Stec-The field would be smaller and the relief sought would be less. Councilman Boor-First of all it would not be a fifteen hundred gallon tank for a two bedroom. Councilman Brewer-What is the minimum though, is there a minimum size tank? Engineering MacElroy-No, I am just questioning whether it really. Councilman Boor-I know how these things work, so don’t you know, you know the answers to the questions and I do to, so don’t ask them. Supervisor Stec-We are going to shoot for a two bedroom design, I would be more comfortable knowing that we were not give, yes more compliant, yes better but also allow for a much larger structure on an already undersized lot that is the concern Roger and I share. Councilman Turner-And I share it too. Supervisor Stec-So, I think that is the direction that I would prefer. I think when you do that I think that because of the laterals the system would be likely smaller you will need less relief, you might still need five variances but you might not need as much relief. 36 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 Councilman Boor-Probably the only one you would need would be for the tank not for the field. Engineer MacElroy-Thank you. RESOLUTION TABLING ACTION RESOLUTION NO. 7, 2005 BOH INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby tables action on the application of Robert and Victoria Glandon Sewage Disposal Variance Application. th Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2005 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 8.2005 BOH 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 its Queensbury Board of Health. th Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2005 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: None 2.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 37 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 2.1 Public Hearing on Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Company Inc. Fire Protection Service Agreement for Year 2005 NOTICE SHOWN Supervisor Stec-We have got four public hearings the first one tonight is Queensbury Central and we are talking about the highlights would be a one year contract with Queensbury Central for a total dollar amount of five hundred and forty two thousand seven hundred and eight five dollars which is two thousand four hundred and forty two dollars less than last years budget or zero point four percent reduction. Anybody in the public that would like to comment on Queensbury Central proposed 2005 contract? Councilman Strough-I have a comment, why is Centrals different from the others? Supervisor Stec-How do you mean? The dollar amounts are all different. Councilman Strough-No, the dollar amounts are different the contract is different. If you look on page 5 of the contract and if you look at Centrals on Section 4 Paragraph A you will see a sentence in the middle of that paragraph it says such report shall also include a detailed schedule of all transactions in the vehicle fund and the Officers Transportation line item and that sentence is not in the other three. Supervisor Stec-I am going to guess that, that should have been removed because these contracts should all be the same. Councilman Strough-If you look at the other three it is different. Town Counsel Hafner-We had deleted it, we thought it had gotten deleted in each of them that was the instruction. Councilman Strough-Ok, Supervisor Stec-That should not be in there and we will deleted that. Councilman Strough-We will delete that out of Centrals and one other thing before we get going is on page 5, excuse me 3, page 3 top paragraph which is Section 2 Paragraph B top paragraph it refers to NFPA Standards, right? Supervisor Stec-Yea, applicable NFPA Standards. Councilman Strough-So, I looked it up it could be National Food Processors Association, National Fluid Power Association, National Federal of Paralegals Association, National Flight Paramedics Association, National Foster Parent Association; it could be North Frasier Port Authority Supervisor Stec-All right we will define the acronym. Fair enough, good point. Councilman Strough-All right. 38 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 Supervisor Stec-Thank you for catching both those. Councilman Brewer-Do you really want to know what it stands for John? Supervisor Stec-Anyone like to comment on Queensbury Centrals Contract for 2005 in the public, I will open the public hearing. Any discussion amongst Town Board Members? None Last Call for public comment. I will close the public hearing. Any further discussion? RESOLUTION APPROVING FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND THE QUEENSBURY CENTRAL VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC. FOR 2005 RESOLUTION NO.: 112, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, fire protection services are provided to the Town of Queensbury by the Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Co., Inc. and West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., in accordance with agreements between each Fire Company and the Town, and WHEREAS, the Town and the Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., have negotiated terms for a new one (1) year Agreement for fire protection services, and WHEREAS, in accordance with Town Law §184 and General Municipal Law §209(b), the Town Board conducted a public hearing and heard all interested persons concerning the proposed Agreement, and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Agreement has been presented at this meeting and is in form approved by Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 39 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board, on behalf of the Fire Protection District, hereby approves the fire protection service agreement between the Town and the Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., substantially in the form presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute such Agreement and further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Town Counsel and/or Budget Officer to take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: None 2.2 Public Hearing on North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company Inc. Fire Protection Service Agreement for Year 2005 NOTICE SHOWN Supervisor Stec-Again this is another one year contract for North Queensbury Fire for a total dollar amount of three hundred and eighteen thousand six hundred and forty two dollars which is three thousand six hundred and forty nine dollars less than they received in 2004 or a one point one percent reduction. I will open the public hearing, any discussion amongst Town Board Members? Councilman Boor-I am just concern because I only read one of these and I am assuming that Supervisor Stec-No, I think I know what happened. Councilman Strough-The rest of it is ok. Supervisor Stec-You sat down on a break with a bunch of teachers and went through five., four contracts. 40 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 Councilman Strough-No, I did it by myself I had them all laid out. Supervisor Stec-The Public Hearing is opened is there any members of the public that would like to comment on North Queensbury’s contract for 2005. Mr. Nussbaum? Mr. Scott Nussbaum-Scott Nussbaum, President of the West Glens Falls Fire Company Since North Queensbury, Bay Ridge and West Glens Falls have discussed amongst ourselves the contract language more closely I am more familiar with the language than what was proposed for Queensbury Central, so I just wanted to comment on Supervisor Stec-They are identical. Mr. Nussbaum-Ok, I was not aware, so this is what I am more familiar with so I will discuss it. I had a discussion with Tim earlier today and I was not able to make it up here a little bit before. I know that Dan Davies brought to you a discussion of what we would like to see changed in the agreement and we hadn’t seen the final version so we were not quite sure as to what was finally agreed to and what wasn’t. The discussion that I had with Tim earlier he asked for some sort of a proposal and I understand the towns concerns and I totally applaud what you guys are trying to do by avoiding conflicts of interest and things of that nature. I know that we had discussed some options and what actually appeared was not quite what we had discussed in our meeting. And he said if I proposed something that maybe we could at least discuss that and coming from the perspective of having seen the bidding and letting process on a much larger scale I wanted to propose something that I tried to keep our guys, our fire company to adhere to where if someone was involved in the specking process they should be absolutely no where near the bidding or letting portion of it. It has nothing to do with relations whatsoever and I know that the language talks about relations but as far as I am concerned personally especially other than anything else if you are following the law and following the rules it really should not matter if the bidding process if followed and it is all clean a conflict of interest is avoided if the process was done correctly you are getting the best deal that is what you should be going with. If it turns out that the person is some how related somewhere, someway which is a very good possibility with the tight community that we all live in. The way the things are written it is really it is going to be hard to follow. One of the things that concerns me is perception of a conflict and trying to avoid a perception is almost impossible. I know that even Jennifer you said in our meeting avoiding a perception is very difficult if not impossible to do. I do not know how we could possibly do that. We will make our every effort a best attempt that we have always done but I do not know how else to do that. So, the best thing that I could come up with is to say that Councilman Brewer-Tell us where you are Scott? Mr. Nussbaum-If you go to restrictions of purchase or sale, disposition fire company assets Town Counsel Hafner-The bottom of page 8, 41 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 Mr. Nussbaum-The bottom of page 8 item c In the purchase or sale of apparatus equipment, vehicles or real property or the making of improvements of the fire company I would just say we will make every effort to avoid any conflict of interest period. You cannot say whether real or perceived. I mean, if it is a real conflict of interest then we obviously have a problem, if it is perceived I do not see how it is possible and as I mentioned to you on the phone Tim earlier, if someone sees a police car driving to fast on the side of the road or a fire truck driving too fast on the road the only person that knows if that vehicle is driving too fast is the operator looking down at the speedometer. A civilian standing on the side of the road will sit there and go he is driving too fast well how would you know if you are not in the car with the person looking at the speedometer. Councilman Strough-So, what wording are you suggesting? Mr. Nussbaum-I would just suggest that we could say that the fire company shall make every effort to avoid any conflict of interest. Councilman Strough-So, you would add the words make every effort. Mr. Nussbaum-Right, well, make every effort Councilman Strough-In other words everything else is the same you would just say make every effort. Mr. Nussbaum-The effort to avoid any conflict of interest, period. Supervisor Stec-He would like to put a period there and delete whether real of perceived. Mr. Nussbaum-And then you could say the fire company in paragraph one company members involved in the specification process shall not be involved in the bidding or letting process. You want to regulate it even more strict we will do it that way. Councilman Brewer-But doesn’t that apply, go back to the purchasing? Mr. Nussbaum-No. There is nothing in the purchasing policy that I have seen that prohibits that. I am making it even more strict by saying that. Councilman Brewer-Give me the words again, Scott and where do you want to insert them? Mr. Nussbaum-Instead of where it says all this any members his or her family parties related to ..follows it get rid of any of that. Town Counsel Hafner-Can I point out one thing to the Town Board because this section has had a lot of Supervisor Stec-Re-work. Town Counsel Hafner-Re-work at Town Board, after their input, I want to point out one sentence that is in this paragraph that I in there specifically to 42 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 deal with possible conflicts of interest. There is a sentence in there that allows such types of transactions to occur as long as they are disclosed and approved by the Board of Directors. The purpose was to make it flexible enough that the fire companies could do it because we are a small community where you do run into people that are related but that it needs to be disclosed and approved by the entire Town Board, let me read that sentence. Mr. Nussbaum-The remuneration and the Directors approval but our purchasing police already specifies about Board of Directors approval and how much money has got to be spent and you also say that further on about where it says the fire company agrees to utilize purchase guidelines set forth and contained there in. If you want to add it Town Counsel Hafner-I was talking to the Town Board Scott … Councilman Brewer-Your purchasing policy may not be probably isn’t the same as the rest of the companies. Supervisor Stec-And yours might be more strict and that is fine, I think what we are trying to do here is establish a minimum that we also found was flexible enough to be workable and so if your, because at the very end of paragraph e there, does say that you either if we want you to have a purchasing policy and you can either use ours exhibit b which most of you indicated loud and clear you do not like or your own which all we want you to do is present it to Jennifer and I assure you that if it is reasonable you know it will be approved Councilman Brewer-Unless you all want to have the same purchasing policy. Mr. Nussbaum-Our purchasing policy follows very closely to the Town’s purchasing policy. Supervisor Stec-I am sure it does, most of your companies, the companies do. Councilman Brewer-But having you all individual companies you have to have language to this effect or you all have to have the same purchasing policy and that is probably be almost impossible to do. Supervisor Stec-We were looking for a minimum, you certainly all and several of you are here tonight you are all encourage and allowed to have something more stringent internally than what we are asking for. Councilman Brewer-I think most of them do. Supervisor Stec-And I think most of you probably do, we just there were some things that came to our attention we are trying to reactive responsive to the concerns of the public rather well founded or well informed or not so put something in there that says hey, you know, the concern that you talked about it is covered in our contract. It is addressed in our contract, and I thought that we had done that I honestly do. But, if you want to read the sentence that you mentioned? 43 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 Town Counsel Hafner-In about at the top of page nine it says that the fire company shall not purchase such things from or sell such things to a related party unless the fire companies Board of Directors excluding any related party approves such purchase or sale. Supervisor Stec-I think that addresses the same thing that your are expressing. Town Counsel Hafner-That is to address the types of concerns that the fire companies had raised. Councilman Brewer-So the issue that you talked to me about a particular persons brother does something for the company really has no bearing on this as long as the Board of Directors is aware of it Supervisor Stec-And approves it. Councilman Brewer-And approves it. Mr. Nussbaum-It also talks about any business or a member, directly or indirectly where it receives financial remuneration or own part of the business. Supervisor Stec-So long as the Board of Directors are aware of it and approves it that is where we were looking to address, it provides the Company and the Town some coverage. Mr. Nussbaum-And that does absolutely nothing for what you wanted to accomplish. Councilman Brewer-What do you mean? Budget Officer Switzer-It puts the decision back on your lap to make the right decision, but we are telling you, you need to think about this before you purchase. Councilman Brewer-before you allow your members to do this. Supervisor Stec-How you do it or how strict you want to get is up to you but we just want you to make sure that, that is in your decision process. Councilman Brewer-Be aware of it. Mr. Nussbaum-Well you asked me to for a proposal and what I said was we you know we could not avoid a perception whether real or perceived. Supervisor Stec-Well, if we want to jump back to that for a second because I think we have kind of talking about two things in parallel and I do not have a problem talking about this issue here because I know that there was something that Dan Davies did mention to us and I know that you and Tim talked this afternoon about it. You had suggested to modify the language to say the fire company shall insert forwards, make every effort to avoid any conflict or interest period, delete four words rather real or perceived. Is that what you propose that change for that sentence? 44 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 Councilman Boor-I do not have a problem with that do you? Supervisor Stec-Does the Town Board have a big issue with that? Now the only thing that my only other concern is and let me must jump in here and to explain the process for all the companies that are here the public and Central is here, we did just approve Centrals contract we are going forward. I have been trying hard just because I think it is the right thing to do to keep these language in these contracts consistent. There are four companies involved in this particular round of negotiations it has been difficult to keep everybody, including the Town Board, on the same page happy with the same language. I am going to guess that this language is minor enough change where probably the other three companies in the room would be comfortable with that. I want to let Central know that even though we have voted on yours that tomorrow if you guys wanted to change those four words as well we can do that we do not have to reopen your public hearing and do it. It is minor enough change that where Counsel says that it is not substantive and we can tweak it. My personal preference and maybe the four Town Board Members do not agree I think there is a value in keeping them consistent so if I know that you are West but you are here talking about North’s but I would like to back up one more and I am sure I will get an ear full one way or the other tomorrow and if Central says no Dan that is a deal breaker for us we would like it just the way it was I will sign that contract. Anyways, I do not think it was but I do not want to make any assumptions for anybody in this room because I have been in this job long enough to know that with this bunch it could be dangerous. Tim are you comfortable with that change, I think that we are splitting hairs but if it makes West feel a little bit better. Jennifer and Bob the change Town Counsel Hafner-If the Town Board wants it that is your decision. Budget Officer Switzer-It is your decision. Supervisor Stec-I heard Roger say he did not mind, Ted Councilman Turner-I do not mind. Supervisor Stec-John Councilman Strough-Its fine. Mr. Nussbaum-Well we just felt it was nearly impossible to Supervisor Stec-We will change that, Bay Ridge and North is that going to be informally all right with you all as well? So, just Chris Hickey is the only hold out we got, he lives on Helen Drive… Councilman Strough-The only other thing I was thinking when we approved Queensbury Centrals, did we amend the contract with your suggestion earlier as per e-mail? Supervisor Stec-Yes, the other one that you are talking about, there were two issues, all right why don’t we do the whole thing. The other issue and I sent you an e-mail although you may not have seen it I sent it late this afternoon, the other change that Dan brought to us besides this one was successor 45 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 agreement and we may as well hit on it here and I did send it to you all, but again and the Town Board has seen it, at the very end of the successor agreement the last sentence I will read it and then you want to insert a period and delete the last part of the sentence. As I understood it as Dan presented it. During this interim period the Town Supervisor may is so directed by the Town Board approve monthly vouchers limited to one twelfth of the fire companies previous years budget, I am gathering that this consensus is you would all like to insert a period there and delete the rest, upon submission by the fire company cash flow analysis including and not limited to bank statements for the immediate preceding year end. The Town I canvassed all Board Members as quickly as I could this afternoon. The Town Board is comfortable with that change as well. So, those are the two that I understood were out there for the three of you. You do not have that yet but I can Councilman Brewer-You do not have that do you? Supervisor Stec-You do not have that yet but I can. Mr. Nussbaum-That is why I did not know what the. Councilman Boor-Do you want a copy of it? Supervisor Stec-I can autograph a pen and ink change right now if you want it. Councilman Strough-Do we have to be formal about this Bob? Supervisor Stec-Well you will see a copy of it before, for signature and you can check it. Councilman Boor-It will not be signed unless it is. Mr. Nussbaum-I won’t see it before you…. Town Counsel Hafner-Your resolutions all say substantially in the form just to allow these Supervisor Stec-Little minor changes Town Counsel Hafner-minor changes as long as the whole Town Board is in agreement do I see all nodding that you all agree to those changes, then you have authorized Dan as Town Supervisor and the resolution to sign it with those changes that you just nodded, let the record show. Supervisor Stec-Those are the two that I was aware of and I know that we had offered one today the one that we just went over and you brought up the other one right now which I guess we changed our mind and that is fine we have agreed to make that minor change so Councilman Brewer-As long as it doesn’t change the substance of what we want to do. Supervisor Stec-I do not think it does but if it, I mean we are trying to work with everybody here. 46 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 Mr. Nussbaum-This paragraph was supposed to go back to the one from the year 2000. Supervisor Stec-That is not how it was presented to Dan and that is certainly not how the Town Board is going to approve it. Mr. Nussbaum-…photocopy form the year 2000….I did not know anything about the one that was presented today, then. Supervisor Stec-The language that I talked to about today, as I understood it and maybe Dan Davies should come to the microphone in a minute or now, was that, as I understood it ten days ago plus or minus that change that I just read was the proposed change and is the change that we can live with. Mr. Nussbaum-That is not what we had discussed. Supervisor Stec-And I think we are a little bit firmer on this one. Mr. Dan Davies-This had gotten ..Dan Davies from North Queensbury Assistant Chief We had presented something, had gone into you last week and this is something you had talked to Chip and basically we had, him and I had discussed it and we are happy with the verbage the way it reads. Supervisor Stec-With the deletion you mean, with that last. Mr. Davies-It is kind of a compromise between this and that Scott is the way we felt. As far as the cash flow analysis and things like that it is still up to the discretion of the Town Board you know, and it is up to us to prove it to you guys, but it makes it a little bit easier for us. Supervisor Stec-Anything else on North Queensbury’s contract, either one of you or anybody? Dan do you have any other comments? Mr. Davies-No, I think we are happy with the way that this had come out to us. Supervisor Stec-Are you comfortable the one change about the avoiding the conflict of interest change that we just talked about I mean you all nodded your heads but I wanted to get you on record a little bit. We will make that change, you will see that those changes in the contract that hopefully will be printed and I will sign tomorrow it has to be notarized. Town Counsel Hafner-I do not know when Pam is coming back? Supervisor Stec-I thought she said Tuesday. Councilman Brewer-Scott you have to compromise a little bit. You go over with your Board of Directors and get back to us, that is all. Mr. Nussbaum-If that paragraph was changed what was presented on Friday 47 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 Supervisor Stec-What was presented on Friday was identical to what was presented three weeks ago with the exception of the last deletion on Friday or today I mean. Mr. Nussbaum-This one section here Councilman Boor-What page are you on Scott? Mr. Nussbaum-That last the successor agreement by the agreement of the parties, that is what we all agreed to. Supervisor Stec-Who is we all? Mr. Nussbaum-The three fire companies. Supervisor Stec-That is nice. Mr. Davies-I think their interpretation is that both parties have to agree if one wants out you cannot keep the other end of the contract. Supervisor Stec-Legally we cannot. We have been saying that for years but no one is listening. Mr. Nussbaum-We could agree to binding arbitration. Town Counsel Hafner-We have certain legal requirements that we have to follow for a fire contract this is drafted to allow some flexability if it takes a little while to negotiate a new contract, but this is it cannot. Mr. Nussbaum-We can also say if we don’t come to an agreement after X number of days or X number of months we agree to binding arbitration. Town Counsel Hafner-No. Mr. Nussbaum-That is with a labor contract or anything else, you do not just let labor just walk out the door on you, which is pretty much what we are. Supervisor Stec-In fifty years I do not think we have failed to renew a contract. Councilman Boor-This is a contract. Town Counsel Hafner-That is what this is it is for the term you guys picked the year I believe and that is the term that the contract is. Supervisor Stec-Any other public comment from either one of you on this contract. Mr. Nussbaum-I guess not. Supervisor Stec-Thank you. Anyone else from the public would like to comment on North Queensbury’s Contract for 2005. Again it is a one year contract 318,642. a one point one percent reduction. Mr. Kassebaum you 48 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 guys are all going to have to be extra nice to North trumping in on their public hearing like this. Mr. Kassebaum-Basically, I think the one thing to that I want to throw out there for the public record and I think it kinds of shows itself, it showed itself in the past other companies have brought it up in the past and I guess I will be the guy to bring it up this year. Is that, as far as the question was asked and I guess for the official purpose of it all our company voted on February 8 and st that is why we did not come up originally, as the draft of January 31 of ’05 said we were satisfied with that and voted as a company and that is why, outside of the little things that luckily John picked up before we got up here we were satisfied with the draft of 1/31/2005. I think the one thing to keep in mind whether it is any of the contracts is that sooner or later I think the Town Board has to realize and this has been brought up to Town Boards in the past, yes it is five fire companies, yes we are public entities, we are also independent contractors within the fire service. There is not a problem with having five different contracts, we are not talking drastic issues, we are talking it is ok to have five contracts that don’t exactly say the same thing. Each fire company has it’s own purpose within this Town. It is to protect life and property, but they also have different areas, different residencies, different businesses and everything else. Sooner or later I think needs to just figure that we can go with five contracts. The wordings can be different; it does not need to be identical. Just because it has been that way since 1947 does not mean that’s that way it needs to remain. So, I just want to put that on public records. Supervisor Stec-The only thing I would say to, that John, is that we, staff has to administer these contracts and believe me if there was a magic wand. Mr. Kassebaum-Semantics would make it a nightmare. Supervisor Stec-There would be one fire company and one ems squad, two contracts that would look that you could hold those two up to the light and they would almost be identical, we are not there, but we do need to administer. That is why from our perspective it is easier if we can keep them identical and I think we are there. Mr. Kassebaum-But, I think the key word is easier, it does not mean it can be done but it is easier. Supervisor Stec-Yes, we agree. Councilman Strough-And two other things, one, it is nice to have, this is more boiler plate for almost the general fair of running your business and we do make like the ems squads a little bit different based on their you know needs such as day time service. But, this is pretty boiler plate stuff and the other thing that happens if you make it too different in some places, one company starts to point fingers at the other company and we have got enough of that going on now. But, you know, it helps resolve some of that if it is all the same. Mr. Kassebaum-But if you are negotiating a contact I mean everybody should be worried about negotiating their contract, you can always get into the he said 49 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 she said what ever you want to call it. The company is negotiating their contract, and that is the way it should be. Councilman Strough-It works better if we did not make that first contract better than yours or Norths better than yours and that kind of stuff. Supervisor Stec-So, with that said what I am going to ask you now that you are actually at the microphone and knowing that you have got some members here that may disagree with you Mr. Kassebaum-I am perfectly happy with No. Queensburys contract by the way. Supervisor Stec-Are you fine with the minor changes that we have agreed to make to the other three with yours? Mr. Kassebaum-We look at it as I mean it is kind of you know it is semantics really, because we were happy with the draft of 1/31. Looking at it from a business aspect some of the questions that we did have were answered, we got answered by a lawyer or something else we were happy with it. Our Board of Directors already looks at all of our purchases and usually we already have the person and you know as far as real and perceived you know everybody is trying to do that whether it is in or not either way is not going, we are not going to lose sleep over that. Supervisor Stec-For starters we appreciate you being content with the 1/31 draft because it simplified things some what for me and other up here on the table. Mr. Kassebaum-The biggest thing I think, is just I think at the same time and I know what you are saying John, but if everybody is negotiating their contract it can be five different contracts. If somebody is not happy that is the whole purpose of negotiations. Supervisor Stec-Certain language there is no reason for it to be different. That is what we are saying is. Mr. Kassebaum-No, there is always going to be things you are going to have that needs to be similar or needs to be identical, but. Supervisor Stec-I think the things that we have been talking so far tonight are things that should be similar, but you are right Mr. Kassebaum-Other than that negotiate the contract that the individual company needs and you know leave it at that. Supervisor Stec-Anyone else from the public like to comment on North Queensbury Contract? Ok. I will close the public hearing. Any more discussion by Town Board Members? So, we have got some amendments and for staff these members will carry forward unless we change them again. Councilman Brewer-Now, do we have to make those amendments every public hearing or can we just boiler plate them? 50 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 Town Counsel Hafner-You have already, I thought I got you to say you wanted to changes in all. Supervisor Stec-In all four of them actually. Town Counsel Hafner-All four, yes. Supervisor Stec-As amended do I have a motion. Any further discussion by Town Board Members - vote taken. RESOLUTION APPROVING FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND THE NORTH QUEENSBURY VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC. FOR 2005 RESOLUTION NO.: 113, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, fire protection services are provided to the Town of Queensbury by the Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Co., Inc. and West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., in accordance with agreements between each Fire Company and the Town, and WHEREAS, the Town and the North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., have negotiated terms for a new one (1) year Agreement for fire protection services, and WHEREAS, in accordance with Town Law §184 and General Municipal Law §209(b), the Town Board conducted a public hearing and heard all interested persons concerning the proposed Agreement, and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Agreement has been presented at this meeting and is in form approved by Town Counsel, 51 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board, on behalf of the Fire Protection District, hereby approves the fire protection service agreement between the Town and the North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., substantially in the form presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute such Agreement and further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Town Counsel and/or Budget Officer to take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner NOES : None ABSENT: None 2.3 Public Hearing on Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Company Inc. Fire Protection Service Agreement For Year 2005 Notice Shown Supervisor Stec-Again, like the other two and actually like all four tonight it is a one year contract, Bay Ridge total dollar amount $366,300. which is $6,791. less than last years contract or an reduction of 1.8%. Again we are talking as amended by the North Queensburys, what we just finished with the North Queensbury Public Hearing, the two changes that were made in those two areas. I will open the public hearing is there anyone that would like to comment from the public on Bay Ridges contract for 2005. No one spoke I am not seeing any discussion or comments from Town Board Members. I will close the public hearing. 8:29 P.M. RESOLUTION APPROVING FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND THE BAY RIDGE VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC. FOR 2005 52 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 RESOLUTION NO.: 114, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, fire protection services are provided to the Town of Queensbury by the Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Co., Inc. and West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., in accordance with agreements between each Fire Company and the Town, and WHEREAS, the Town and the Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., have negotiated terms for a new one (1) year Agreement for fire protection services, and WHEREAS, in accordance with Town Law §184 and General Municipal Law §209(b), the Town Board conducted a public hearing and heard all interested persons concerning the proposed Agreement, and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Agreement has been presented at this meeting and is in form approved by Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board, on behalf of the Fire Protection District, hereby approves the fire protection service agreement between the Town and the Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., substantially in the form presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute such Agreement and further authorizes and directs the 53 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 Town Supervisor, Town Counsel and/or Budget Officer to take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT: None 2.4 Public Hearing on West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company Inc. Fire Protection Service Agreement for Year 2005 Notice shown Supervisor Stec-Ok. Again, like the others this is a one year contract for West Glens Falls for a total dollar amount of $441.179. or $21,427. increase which is 5.1% as amended as previously agreed by the Town Board similar to the last three contracts. I will open the public hearing is there any member of the public that would like to discuss or comment on West Glens Falls proposed Contract? Seeing None I will close the public hearing. RESOLUTION APPROVING FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND THE WEST GLENS FALLS VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC. FOR 2005 RESOLUTION NO.: 115, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, fire protection services are provided to the Town of Queensbury by the Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Co., Inc. and West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., in accordance with agreements between each Fire Company and the Town, and 54 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 WHEREAS, the Town and the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., have negotiated terms for a new one (1) year Agreement for fire protection services, and WHEREAS, in accordance with Town Law §184 and General Municipal Law §209(b), the Town Board conducted a public hearing and heard all interested persons concerning the proposed Agreement, and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Agreement has been presented at this meeting and is in form approved by Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board, on behalf of the Fire Protection District, hereby approves the fire protection service agreement between the Town and the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., substantially in the form presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute such Agreement and further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Town Counsel and/or Budget Officer to take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: None Supervisor Stec-We have the new Chief and President of South Queensbury Fire Company here I mentioned it at other board meetings but I should mention it again that South Queensbury is under new management we have been meeting with them regularly and Jason Waters, Jason Cross the Treasurer 55 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 and Chief Lettus have been very enthusiastic and motivated and very cooperative with Jennifer. We are month to month with them we have a game plan and are working together with them and it is a good relationship so far so I want to recognize Souths efforts and in particular President Waters and Chief Lettus that they are getting things together down there in trying to reorganize themselves. We do have five fire companies, I wanted to acknowledge that South is still kicking and still answering the calls and doing a good job. With that I want to thank the other four companies for their patience and their efforts and appreciating the position that we are all in and trying to find a place where we are making all four of your guys happy which believe me I know is not easy and I am not saying it should be either. I want to thank you all for the last couple of months and I thought that it was productive and I think we have gotten to a reasonable place that we can live with. I want to thank everyone that was involved with that and in particular Dan Davies because I have probably ruined his Nextel minutes for the next couple of months. Councilman Strough-I just got done with a presentation on Fire and EMS and it was also stated that if we did not have volunteer’s services in the State of New York it would cost New York Taxpayers 3.9 billion dollars more than they are paying now. So, we do have to thank them for that savings. Supervisor Stec-He is referring to the Association of Town conference. John is absolutely right we do not want a payroll so we are appreciative of the effort that all of the companies fire and and ems put out for us. I know it kind of feels awkward cracking down on money when you are talking about people that are not getting paid to do stuff. It does sound awkward sometimes but that is the job that the public has asked us to do. 3.0 CORRESPONDENCE 3.1 Ltr. Daniel G. Stec Town Supervisor Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, N.Y. 12804 Dear Supervisor Stec, I am writing this letter to commend, in the strongest possible terms, the volunteer fire protection companies of Bay Ridge and North Queensbury for their swift and professional response to a fire at my second home on Bay Road. On January 25, while working in another room, I smelled smoke. By the time I got downstairs flames had engulfed the sunroom of my log cabin. I called 911 and within four minutes Chief Mellon was on the scene calling for the proper equipment and within six minutes they were fighting the fire. As a former mayor of a downstate village, I have had a lot of experience dealing with volunteer fire companies. The companies of Bay Ridge and North Queensbury were among the finest I have ever witnessed. Any less of a response would have resulted in my cabin burning to the ground. While I am 56 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 sure that you, your board members and the community members are proud of your fire companies, I feel it is important to point out just how vital they are. I would also like to mention the Fire Marshall, Steven Smith, who was thorough and professional in his assessment of the fire as well as his follow up and assistance after the fire. These companies and individuals are an asset to your community and should be recognized for their sacrifice and contributions. Regards, /s/ Gary Pagano 3.2 Community Development-Building & Codes Monthly report January 2005 4.0 INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS FROM THE FLOOR NONE 5.0 OPEN FORUM FOR GENERAL AND RESOLUTIONS (LIMIT 5 MINS) Mr. Pliney Tucker-41 Division Road – Res. 7.3 Temporary Employee in Community Development Department is this another position created? Supervisor Stec-This is a temporary employee and an office specialist will be out of work for up to eight weeks due to a medical issue. Mr. Tucker-Res. 7.4 Supervisor Stec-Joanne Watkins passed her Civil Service Exam she will be subject to a six-month probation period this will make her permanent. Mr. Tucker- Res. 7.16 Supervisor Stec-One of the items in the Fire and EMS Contracts was to centralize the audit of all the companies, this was placed out to bid and the firm of Loftus and Ross LLP has been selected. Mr. Tucker-You will be getting the information when it is due? Supervisor Stec-That has been negotiated in the contract and also part of the bid document. Mr. Tucker-Res. 7.8 WCEDC received funding from the County? Supervisor Stec-Yes. What they would do for the Town of Queensbury they would be entering into a contract with the Town and saving the Town money from what we had been doing before, they have more access to a full time staff, they have a staff of four where QEDC did not, they feel they will be able 57 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 to focus more time on Queensbury’s needs and that may involve another person eventually. Mr. Tucker-If they are receiving funds from Warren County, Queensbury is already 38% of their budget, I cannot understand why we have to give them additional 128,000 dollars to do work that they are being paid for by the County to do. Supervisor Stec-We are asking them to do things specific for us, responsible to only the Town Board and not to the County, so there are advantages there. Councilman Strough-We are getting a lot more bang for the buck. Mr. Tucker-…make sure that they do their job. Supervisor Stec-Included in this contract is quarterly reports to the Town Board. QEDC is not going away, they are taking a reduced role, they are going to be a holder of real estate and if for some reason the Town Board at the end of the year is not happy with how this consolidation effort went with Warren Co. EDC we have the option to refund QEDC. Councilman Strough-With the QEDC there were members that could not make meetings and they did not have a quorum, now we have an organization big enough and strong enough to give us for the same dollar or actually less to give us a lot more representation in the economic sector or our community. Mr. Tucker-Spoke on Glens Falls Civic Center, this should take a lot of thought. Mr. John Salvador-Spoke to the Board regarding the use of bubblers on lake George…spoke on ATV’s accessing Lake George…What I am looking for in the Town Board is that you either regulate or they are outlawed. Mr. Doug Auer-16 Oakwood Drive The negotiations with the fire companies looks like a good product…Workshop on Town Recreation Center – lacking in goal oriented process need what, when, why and how –produces a product I do not believe that there is an action plan, time line.. Re: Build out study no excuse why this is not done. Re: Zoning leads to lawsuit questioned if a document was prepared adding up all the pluses and minuses to do this? Mr. Dave Strainer-1124 Ridge Road Resolution 7.12 Where is that property located? Supervisor Stec-That is the property on Bay Road behind Denny’s. Mr. Strainer-What is the zoning they are trying to go to? Councilman Boor-MR-5 Mr. Strainer-What is it now? Councilman Boor-HC-1A 58 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 Mr. Strainer-Resolution 7:15 To appoint Jennifer Switzer to the Adirondack Regional Business Incubator Board, does that have an appointment length? Town Counsel Hafner-Three years Mr. Strainer-Is there a cost to the Town for that? Supervisor Stec-No. Mr. Leo Rigby-Willow Road Noted he felt the Recreation Committee should be commended for the work that they have done. Concern that he had not seen any financial on it. The approach of the Committee putting this out to the public in the next three months is the thing to do. It is important that the public understands what the true costs of the recreation center is going to be to the public. Need to consider other options, water shed properties in G.F. they are going to require maintenance at some point in time there is continuing pressure on Glens Falls to keep their tax base low and they are being forced as time goes on to increase taxes, my concern there will be pressure on the City and some of that property will be sold off. It is my understanding that some of that property may be available now, may be available to the Town of Queensbury. If that is possible that maybe an option. Re: Request for variance on West Mt. Road at ZBA Meeting- discussion held regarding the intersection of West Mountain Road and Bonner Dr. and Mountain View and how dangerous it is, wanted to bring that to the attention of the Town Board. Councilman Strough-Two letters to Bill Remington have not produced anything yet. Supervisor Stec-Noted that is on the Counties tickler to get an engineer study in 2005, I will follow up on that. Councilman Strough-Noted that there are more issues than the safety issue which is a significant issue on that corner there is also an issue of storm water. Noted he will follow up on the two letters sent to Mr. Remington regarding the safety issue. As far as the Community Center goes you were at the meeting so you also know that the Director Harry Hansen said that he would be putting together an O&M Budget and that further details on the financing of the proposed Community Center would be forthcoming. Mr. Rigby-I would be more than happy to help out on that too, if he needs any assistance. Mr. Peter Brothers-Queensbury Ward 1 Re: Recreation Center I am amazed that the Recreation Commission did not have a specific figure as to how much the facility was going to cost and they did not know the amount as far as the maintenance and upkeep of the facilities. Questioned why we are going forward with the project when the constituents are opposed to it? Supervisor Stec-It is premature to say all. The Recreation Commissions mission is in the next three months is to convince the Town Board that there is support there or it will not go out to vote. 59 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 Mr. Brothers-I would save the process of the referendum and don’t go forward with it, we are all getting reassessed, and taxes go up and somebody has got to pay for it and I think you owe the taxpayers throughout the community of Queensbury the option whether they are resident or non resident, if they are property owner they should all be able to vote on this facility. Not allowing the people who are second homeowners who might not be privy to being able to vote is very underhanded, I am not accusing anyone of being that way but I certainly would like you to take that under consideration. Supervisor Stec-There is a legal process to follow and we will follow it just like everything we do. Councilman Strough-You were at the meeting and you heard the part that they said that many of their programs, hooper basketball, pee wrestling, soccer programs, etc. traditionally they use the schools facilities, with the school growing like it is they are slowly being closed out, of using those facilities for those youth programs. Where do you propose, do you want to continue the youth program? Mr. Brothers-The reports I hear from certain people that are familiar with all the facilities in Queensbury is that they are underutilized. Councilman Strough-Have you been up to the school? It does come down to there is an obvious need for some kind of facility. Mr. Brothers-I certainly appreciate your opinion and not always agree with it you certainly have a right to your opinion also. Also with regard to the Rescue Squad I think we should continue advocate for consolidation of services without compromising public safety. Supervisor Stec-Asked for further comments..hearing none Open Forum Closed. 6.0 TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS Councilman Brewer-None Councilman Boor-Meeting with Greg Green and Drew Monthie tomorrow and they have put together a temporary plan for the corner of Bay and Quaker and I will review this and then I would like to schedule a workshop to give an informal presentation to see if we would want to proceed with it. Supervisor Stec-At that workshop I will be sure to invite Chuck Rice. Councilman Boor-Re: Lawsuit with Glens Falls I spoke with Bob today and I am going to recommend that we have a brief Attorney Client Privilege after this. I am not going to comment on the law suit because I haven’t seen it, I do not know what is in it but very early on when there were rumors that this would occur, I took the position that I thought that we should do everything that we can to not have to pay our Attorneys or have Glens Falls Attorneys be on the dime so to speak over a rezoning. It would be my hope that we can avoid a costly lawsuit. Essentially the very people that we are trying to protect and create maybe open space for ultimately will be paying a higher price if this 60 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 thing just turns into this litigious back and forth, everybody looses. I am hoping when we have our discussions we can come up with a solution. Supervisor Stec-We certainly need to let Bob and Mark review it and counsel us as to what their recommendations are bearing in mind what you are talking about. Councilman Boor-The cost is my big concern. Councilman Turner-Nothing at this time. Councilman Strough-Noted he suggest that the watershed property deserves some kind of a unique zoning and I suggested a Watershed Zone I and II depending on intensity of use, we should sit down with Glens Falls and talk these issues over. There has been a call from the Glens Falls residents and Queensbury Residents for recreational use of the watershed property. If we could sit down and resolve this without paying Attorneys I would agree with rd Roger. Remind the public of Tire Disposal Day on April 23. both the Luzerne Rd. and Ridge Road sites. Spoke on the Queensbury Post, newsletter for Seniors noting upcoming activities…Meeting date 3/1 7:00 pm Warren County Municipal Center – discussion on contract and franchise hauling in the th City and the Town March 14 Workshop Discussion on Rush Pond Trail specifically the bridge being proposed by the Queensbury Land Conservancy Glens Falls Queensbury Memorial Day Parade Committee-need to have meetings. Spoke about alternatives to Cable TV, mentioning Satellite - Spoke on how lucky we are to have the volunteers in the fire and ems services - Spoke about budget of town in Texas population of 12,000 their annual budget is fifty seven million, our population is 26,000 a budget of 23 million and change we must be doing something right. - spoke about internet services broad ban there is a monopoly – Are we getting our franchise fees? Supervisor Stec-We received ninety-six thousand five hundred and change from Adelphia today, we received approximately three hundred and thirty thousand dollars total a year. Councilman Boor-That is why your rates are high… Councilman Strough-Even the communities that do not have franchise fees the monthly rates are the same they do not go down. Councilman Boor-Maybe we should use the three hundred and thirty thousand to develop an alternative. Supervisor Stec-I want to thank TV8 and Glens Falls National Bank for sponsoring the televising of these meetings. Noted town web site www.queensbury.net Town’s newsletter is being sent out…announced the Community Development Dept. will be closed on 3/9 and 3/11 from 8:00 am to 12:30 pm staff will be taking a special training class at ACC. Spoke about the Association of Towns Conference in Manhattan…issues addressed property tax relief, retirement system, the budget process, emphasized fire and ems volunteers very important …for the past thirty years in the row they passed a resolution allowing municipalities to change speed limits it-this has not gone through…Re: West Mountain Bike Lane, on West Mt. And Corinth 61 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 Road the Warren Co. DPW has been working on the engineering and survey of that the County Attorney will be working on easements…Re: Recreation Center – They need to get moving if they are to hope to make the time line that they have identified to make a late July referendum – the Town Board would th have to take action on May 16…we have agreed to a location, core components, and maximum dollar amounts…I was told today that the Commission has gone back to the drawing board the number is now below eighteen million…Re: Build out Study you do have some movement on this… Executive Director Marilyn Ryba-We will have copies on Friday, it is interesting that the draft information that was submitted was labeled yet I know we have seen this study turn up on many places and many different forms, it will be nice to finally have some final numbers. Part of the reason you have a draft there was a lot of discussion and in conjunction with the school we did put together some very specific numbers that took some time to go through all of our files to get those specific numbers so that everyone would be assured that it was a complete and accurate count. I think we will have a really good product, in the end it is just a reasonable tool to work and provide some further planning. Supervisor Stec-In the next few weeks the Town will be mailing out the reval which is just being completed, this is a state process and mandate that we perform this, it will be addressed in the Towns newsletter. Where you will see the largest jump in property values is water front property. 7.0 RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION APPROVING YEAR 2004 SERVICE AWARD PROGRAM RECORDS FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL SQUADS AND VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANIES FOR THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY RESOLUTION NO.: 116, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously authorized engagement of PENFLEX, Inc., to provide the 2004 Standard Year End Administration Services for the Town’s Volunteer Fire Companies and Volunteer Ambulance Workers Service Award Programs, and 62 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 WHEREAS, as part of the Service Award Program(s), it is necessary that the Town Board approve the Fire Companies’ and Emergency Squads’ Year 2004 Service Award Program Records, and WHEREAS, the Town Supervisor’s Office has received and reviewed the records from each of the Town’s three (3) Emergency Squads and fire (5) Volunteer Fire Companies and found them to be complete, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to approve these records, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the 2004 Volunteer Fire Company and Volunteer Ambulance Worker Service Award Program Records for each of the Town’s three (3) Emergency Squads and five (5) Volunteer Fire Companies, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Executive Assistant and/or Budget Officer to take all action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: None Discussion held-Supervisor Stec-Thanked the companies for turning in their service award records in a timely manner. RESOLUTION ADDING MOUNTAIN HOLLOW WAY TO LIST OF TOWN PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS AND ROAD NAMES RESOLUTION NO.: 117, 2005 63 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 434.95, the Queensbury Town Board adopted a list of names for private driveways and roads in the Town in connection with the 911 addressing system, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to add “Mountain Hollow Way,” a private drive entrance located at the townhouse portion of the Hayes Group Western Reserve Subdivision, to the Town’s list of private driveways and road names, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby adds “Mountain Hollow Way” to the Town of Queensbury’s list of private driveways and roads, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Highway Department to arrange for installation of the necessary poles and street signs identifying “Mountain Hollow Way,” and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that any expenses associated with this Resolution shall be paid for from the appropriate account. th Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES: None 64 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HIRING OF TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE IN TOWN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 118, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Town’s Executive Director of Community Development has advised that the Office Specialist in the Community Development Department will be out of work for up to eight (8) weeks and therefore the Executive Director has requested the employment of a temporary employee to work in the Community Development Department from thnd approximately March 7, 2005 through May 2, 2005 or until such time as the Office Specialist is able to return to work, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has considered the Executive Director’s request and agrees that such temporary employment is appropriate and necessary, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the Executive Director of Community Development to hire a temporary employee through Heber Associates to work in the Community Development thnd Department from approximately March 7, 2005 through May 2, 2005 or until such time as the Office Specialist returns to work, and BE IT FURTHER, 65 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 RESOLVED, that payment for such temporary employment services shall be paid by the Town of Queensbury directly to Heber Associates from Account No.: 001-8020-4155, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Executive Director of Community Development and/or Budget Officer to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPOINTING JOANNE WATKINS AS ACCOUNTANT ON PERMANENT BASIS RESOLUTION NO. 119, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 323.2004 the Queensbury Town Board appointed Joanne Watkins as Accountant on a provisional basis subject to Ms. Watkin’s successful completion of both the Civil Service exam for the Accountant position and a six (6) month probation period, and WHEREAS, the Warren County Department of Personnel and Civil Service has advised that Ms. Watkins successfully passed the Warren County Civil Service exam, and 66 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 WHEREAS, the Town Budget Officer has advised that Ms. Watkins has also successfully completed her six (6) month probation period and therefore the Budget Officer has recommended that the Town Board appoint Ms. Watkins on a permanent basis, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby appoints Joanne Watkins to the position of Accountant on a permanent basis effective March st 1, 2005, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Budget Officer to complete any forms necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2005 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF EVERGREEN BANK FOR PROVISION OF INTERNET BANKING SERVICES RESOLUTION NO.: 120, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor 67 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to authorize engagement of a bank for the provision of various banking services, and WHEREAS, the Town’s Budget Officer and Accountant have recommended that the Town Board enter into an eCashManager Internet Banking Services Agreement for Governmental Units with Evergreen Bank, and WHEREAS, the proposed Agreement is presented at this meeting and is in form acceptable to Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes engagement of Evergreen Bank for the provision of banking services as set forth in the eCashManager Internet Banking Services Agreement for Governmental Units substantially in the form presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Budget Officer and/or Account to execute the Agreement and any other necessary documentation, and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 25 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF FORD F-250 4X4 TRUCK FOR USE BY TOWN WATER DEPARTMENT 68 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 RESOLUTION NO.: 121, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously adopted purchasing procedures which require that the Town Board must approve any purchase in an amount of $5,000 or greater up to New York State bidding limits, and WHEREAS, the Town’s Deputy Water Superintendent has advised the Town Board that the Water Department wishes to replace an existing vehicle by purchasing one (1) 2005 ¾ ton Ford F-250 4x4 Truck for use by the Town Water Department, and WHEREAS, the Town’s Fleet Committee approved this vehicle purchase request and such proposed purchase has been budgeted for in the 2005 budget, and WHEREAS, New York State Bidding is not required as the purchase is under New York State Contract No.: PC60928, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the Deputy Water Superintendent’s purchase of one (1) 2005 ¾ ton Ford F-250 4x4 Truck from Van Bortel Ford, Inc., of Victor, New York in accordance with New York State Contract #PC60928 for an amount not to exceed $18,815 to be paid for from funds budgeted in the current year from Account No.: 40- 8340-2020, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Water Superintendent, Deputy Water Superintendent, Budget Officer and/or 69 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 Town Supervisor to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS AND ESTIMATED REVENUES AND AMENDING 2005 TOWN BUDGET TO ACCOMMODATE REIMBURSED ENGINEERING SERVICES RESOLUTION NO.: 122, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, there is a need to amend the 2005 Budget to address the amount of reimbursed engineering services to be expended in accordance with the adoption of Local Law No.: 11 of 2004, a Local Law to Amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 136 “Sewers and Sewage Disposal,” Article IV, “Administrative Provisions,” for the 2005 fiscal year, and WHEREAS, the Accounting Department has requested a budget amendment, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs amendment of the Town’s 2005 Budget as follows: 1) Increase Estimated Revenues in Account #001-0001-2116 (Technical Assistance) by the amount of $10,000; and 70 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 2) Increase Appropriations in Account #001-4110-4711 (Board of Health – Reimbursable Engineering Services) by the amount of $10,000; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further approves, authorizes and directs the Accounting Office to make any necessary adjustments, transfers or prepare any documentation necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: None Discussion held before vote: Councilman Boor-Was the ten thousand a guess based on last year? Budget Officer Switzer-It was based upon a guess with what Marilyn has seen since last year. Councilman Boor-We typically use CT Male, I do not know how the rest of the board feels but when we are reviewing these septic variances I am not convinced they are best engineering firm. Not that they are a bad firm but that really isn’t their bally wick and I am wondering if the Planning Dept. would be willing to look at engineers that specialized in that type of thing, Environmental Engineers not big pipe engineers. Executive Director Ryba-Right now CT Male does do review of systems for all of our applications and we do have a contract with them for the Planning Board, now for the Town Board of Health if you wanted to do something different you might want to .. Councilman Boor-It is a pass through, we are not paying for it. Executive Director Ryba-In terms of an additional, we might need an additional contract. Supervisor Stec-CT Male’s contract we extended to June…it will then go out to bid again. Councilman Brewer-A point I would like to make is, this is going to be with the amount of applications we have it is going to be one every couple of months maybe? Supervisor Stec-We can work toward that, I understand and I agree. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND WARREN COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 71 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 RESOLUTION NO. 123, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Town and the Warren County Economic Development Corporation (WCEDC) recognize the need to revitalize the local economy by increasing the number of jobs for Town residents by attracting high technology and other industries to the area, and WHEREAS, in accordance with the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law §1411(a) and WCEDC’s Certificate of Incorporation, the purposes of the WCEDC are the exclusively charitable or public purposes of relieving and reducing unemployment, promoting and providing for additional and maximum employment, bettering and maintaining job opportunities, instructing or training individuals to improve or develop their capabilities for such jobs, carrying on scientific research for the purpose of aiding a community or geographical area by attracting new industry to the community or area or by encouraging the development of, or retention of, an industry in the community or area, and lessening the burdens of government and acting in the public interest, and WHEREAS, the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law specifically finds that corporations organized under §1411 perform an essential governmental function, and WHEREAS, the Town Board strongly supports WCEDC’s important mission to improve employment opportunities and economic development in the Town, and WHEREAS, the Town wishes to enter into an agreement with WCEDC and a proposed agreement has been presented at this meeting in form approved by Town Counsel, 72 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves and authorizes the Agreement with the Warren County Economic Development Corporation presented at this meeting with funding in the amount of $128,000 to be paid for from the appropriate account, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Agreement and the Town Supervisor and/or Budget Officer to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2005 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2005 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 124, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the attached Budget Amendment Requests have been duly initiated and justified and are deemed compliant with Town operating procedures and accounting practices by the Town Budget Officer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 73 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 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: ACCOUNTING FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 005-9025-8025-4981 005-3410-4415-4981 13,000. (Svc. Award Contribution) (Svc. Contracts) 005-9025-8026-4981 005-3410-4415-4981 5,000. (Svc. Award Admin.) (Svc. Contracts) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 001-3620-4800 001-3620-2001 125. (Equip. Repairs) (Misc. Equipment) 001-1990-4400 001-8010-4110 289. (Contingency) (Veh. Repair & Maint.) th Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS – TH ABSTRACT OF FEBRUARY 24,2005 RESOLUTION NO.: 125, 2005 74 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve the audit th of bills presented as the Abstract with a run date of February 24, 2005 and a st payment date of March 1, 2005, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the thst Abstract with a run date of February 24, 2005 and payment date of March 1, 2005 numbering 25-059200 through 25-096103 and totaling $1,278,218.61, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Budget Officer and/or Town Supervisor to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: None Discussion held before vote: Councilman Strough-We the City for part of the sewer contract two hundred and twenty three thousand nine hundred and forty one dollars, an example of inter municipal cooperation. Questioned we paid three thousand three hundred and seventeen to Chazen for the Great Escape Pedestrian Bridge is that a pass through? Executive Director Ryba-Yes. RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO LEAD AGENCY DESIGNATION AND AUTHORIZING TOWN CLERK TO SUBMIT PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE FOR PROPERTY OWNED BY GEORGE 75 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 AMEDORE/ AMEDORE HOMES TO QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 126, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, George Amedore/Amedore Homes has submitted an application to the Queensbury Town Clerk’s Office for rezoning of certain property and the application has been reviewed by the Town Planning Staff and deemed complete for purposes of review, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board forwards all applications for rezoning and zoning amendments to the Town Planning Department and Planning Board for recommendations in accordance with §179-15-020 of the Town Zoning Ordinance, and following such recommendations, the Queensbury Town Board reviews the rezoning applications and takes such other actions as it deems necessary and proper, and WHEREAS, the Town Board understands that the reason for this rezoning request is to facilitate a 44 unit townhouse project at the subject property, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to submit the following application to the Queensbury Planning Board for its advisory report and recommendation: APPLICATION OF : George Amedore/Amedore Homes TAX MAP NO: : 302.8-1-13, 14 and 15 LOCATION OF PROPERTY : East side of Bay Road between Homer and 76 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 Quaker Avenues, Queensbury, New York APPLICATION FOR : Rezoning of - property from HCInt to PO, contingent upon applicant agreeing to change to PO and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby consents to the Planning Board acting as Lead Agency for SEQRA review of this project and directs the Department of Community Development to notify any other involved agencies of this rezoning application including, but not limited to, the Warren County Planning Board, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that upon receiving the Queensbury Planning Board’s recommendation, the Town Board will set a public hearing on this rezoning application. th Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : Mr. Turner ABSENT: None Discussion held before vote: Supervisor Stec-The project is located behind the Denny’s on the south side of Quaker Road on Bay Road on the east side of Bay Road. It is currently zoned Highway Commercial Intensive. The Town Board had zoned it to that a few years ago when Mr. Round had worked for the Town Board and I was on the Board. We had rezoned it to Highway Commercial Intensive because the anticipation was that Grand Union was going to go there. That project did not happen and the request is for the Town to consider and we have met in workshop form and we agreed to head in this direction but we do have a couple of quick questions before we send it to the Planning Board. The questions are as I understand them, the project was requesting to rezone it from Highway Commercial Intensive to MR-5 and I 77 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 think that at least a couple of Town Board Members are interested in floating what we think is an equalivant alternative with more flexibility which is good hopefully good for you and good for the Planning Board to have that flexibility. We would like you to consider instead of MR-5 Professional Office which you are painfully aware of MR-5 is a very close cousin of Professional Office in many respects. But it would allow for offices along Bay Road and I think that was the concerns as I … so, I think that is what we wanted to ask if you would be willing to consider that change or perhaps other changes. Councilman Strough-I have some other suggestions but you want to respond? Attorney John Lapper-The PO zone would accomplish the purpose as well and certainly the applicant is willing to look at whether or not an office building would be viable on Bay Road, we do not know if we could accomplish that. But, the PO zone would be suitable. Councilman Strough-I think the last time we talked, you considered Professional Office I thought, at least it came from me, and I think Roger and I do not know who else supported the concept I think Dan did too, but also, I am thinking this MR-5 is a pretty intensive use of a piece of property where the water table is pretty high, I think if we were to re-do the zoning we probably would not zone that MR-5 because of the geographic conditions. I know it has sewer, you do not have to add that. But, I am also looking at the residential use on one side, commercial use on the other, Bay Road closest in proximity to the intersection. I am also looking at the proposal of forty-four units and I am thinking you do not have the parking space that you need for forty-four units I do not care what the … Attorney Lapper-We have added spaces because you had suggested that. Councilman Strough-And then we lose green space and so forth and so forth. Did you consider looking at Suburban Residential. Attorney Lapper-The issue I guess that lot is a transitional lot between commercial and single family. Councilman Strough-So, is Suburban Residential. Attorney Lapper-But, Suburban Residential is a single family vs a Councilman Strough-It allows what you are proposing Attorney Lapper-But not with the same density. Councilman Strough-No. Attorney Lapper-I guess Councilman Strough-You can have fifteen thousand or twenty thousand per unit. Attorney Lapper-And I guess what 78 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 Councilman Strough-You are going for maximum density and I do not blame the developer for doing that. Attorney Lapper-It is a question of whether is it appropriate density based upon the utilities that are available and the fact that its what type of residents you would have behind the bagel place and the Dennys. Councilman Strough-I am suggesting with the high water table and the wetlands that maybe it is not appropriate for that kind of density. Attorney Lapper-Chris is probably better to address the density issue because he has done the studies. Councilman Strough-Well, the other one to is Urban Residential Ten Thousand, which is a little bit kinder to you than the Surburban Residential would be but it is still ten thousand. Attorney Lapper-I guess I would say those are probably planning issues that the Planning Board would look at. Councilman Strough-You know I do not send something down to the Planning Board unless I am fairly comfortable with it. I know the Planning Board is going to do a more thorough job than I am but you know, there are some things that we don’t send to the Planning Board because we are simply not comfortable with it. Attorney Lapper-One way to look at this is that you could have a large commercial development which would have very intensive traffic generation and this residential proposal in terms of traffic which is probably the biggest impact this is really pretty benign compared to a commercial development on that site close to that intersection. So, I guess what we are proposing is pretty modest in terms of traffic. If your point is that less development is always better than more development. I guess I would say that this is a lot less than what could be there under the current zoning. Councilman Strough-I know Chris has something to say. Chris Round-I think the Supervisor laid the history of the property, it has gone from a lower density zoning to a higher density zoning. The application is a proposal for a zoning that we think is consistent with the geographic area and is a reduced density. Your suggestions is something that you should pass around to the Planning Board and see if that is a consideration that they want to take. We have an application in front of you and I think it is your job to decide whether you need to pass that on or not. Supervisor Stec-As I understand the concerns the issue might be that in the past when we refer things to the Planning Board we don’t necessarily give them the flexibility in our referral to make, you are saying yea, hey that is our application and that’s fine and you know that they are going to have the same questions that John and Roger are proposing tonight that is going to say hey you know shouldn’t you put some offices there shouldn’t you address some density and what we are trying to do is we are trying to put something out that 79 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 we are going to refer to them that gives them enough flexibility to say yea, that is in our realm to make a recommendation on rather than tying their hands with a MR-5. It may not be good news. Mr. Round-I think John responded, we are willing to look at the PO zone that would meet our objectives as well as meet the concerns of the Town. I think the Planning Board is not tied to whatever application that comes in from of them. Councilman Boor-I guess what I would ask and I will ask counsel, I know John is looking for a little bit less density, I would certainly like that, but, I understand your view relative to what Highway Commercial, what kind of impact that might have but, I guess my question to counsel would be could we and just as a hypothetical could we make a recommendation that this be rezoned to Professional Office and here is the part I am not convinced because this is a rezoning, could we strongly, in strong language say that we recommend that those units abutting Bay Road we strongly urge them to be used for Professional Office not residential. Probably can’t do that because it is just… Town Counsel Hafner-You are approving the zone and you have already designed the zone. Supervisor Stec-Except they read our minutes and I know that they have conversations probably more than some of us are comfortable with, I am sure the Planning Board understands Town Counsel Hafner-You cannot require it. Councilman Boor-What I would like is language so that when they see the recommendation we make they are not, no offense, they are not going to be beat up by an Attorney saying well, the Town Board said it was Professional Office and we are allowed to do this and this is what we want. I would like to have them have a fall back position to look at, yes the zoning does say that you could go all MR-5 zoning here but it was very clear from the Town Board that is was a strong you know, words that said that we would prefer to have Professional Office abutting Bay Road. In other words I want a tool to help them understand. Town Counsel Hafner-You can express that as your desire but if you approve the zone your application is to change it to a zone, which is defined in our code. Councilman Boor-And I understand that. Town Counsel Hafner-If you want to express that as one of your … Sr. Planner Stu Baker-The Planning Board would certainly be aware of the Town Boards discussion this evening I will forward your comments to them as part of my staff reports and send the minutes on this discussion as well so they will certainly be aware of it. You should also be aware that the Planning Board is looking at rezoning applications in a much more in-depth way than just a thumbs up or thumbs down on what is proposed. A good example is 80 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 their recent review of the Drebs Cerniglia ..proposal down on Bay Road near Cronin. The applicant came in for a proposal to change to all HC-I and the Planning Board is actually recommending a lower intensity commercial use. So, they are looking at these applications from a broader perspective and again I will forward the Boards concerns to them. Executive Director Ryba-I would like to that the questions that are asked in the application which the Planning Board or actually staff prepares notes to the Planning Board and also notes to the Town Board those questions involved, are there other zones that could meet the need. That is one of the questions that is right in the application that is answered. Supervisor Stec-And is PO listed as one of those zones? Executive Director Ryba-Well, when the application is reviewed then staff will evaluate looking at that question to see what uses are being proposed and would appeal meet the need what zones would meet the need are there other zones that would meet the required or the request. Supervisor Stec-The documentation that was prepared for tonights resolution this change that we are proposing Marilyn is that a significant issue for staff as far as if we, as Stu issaying no. Councilman Brewer-They would look at it Dan they did not say they would do it. Supervisor Stec-It is just as simple as a couple of changes in the resolution. Attorney Lapper-It is certainly acceptable and the client has said that they will look at whether an office building is appropriate. Executive Director Ryba-I am sorry the only thing I would say is upon the agreement by the applicant, because basically that is changing their application I would guess. Councilman Strough-And they would also consider the suburban residential and urban residential zoning which would give them what they wanted, not the density, but it would give you a project. And your project is better than the superstore the Grand Union Superstore. Attorney Lapper-Thank you. Councilman Strough-But, it maybe not the best thing that could go there. Supervisor Stec-That was you too, wasn’t it. Attorney Lapper-Yes. Supervisor Stec-You made money twice on this property already. Councilman Brewer-If a person doesn’t succeed. 81 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 Councilman Strough-I am comfortable with multi family residential, I am not comfortable with the density. That is speaking as a Town Board Member and Stu that will get conveyed, ok. Supervisor Stec-The PO would have the same density as MR-5 I just want to make sure Councilman Boor-The potential for the same density. Councilman Strough-But it would be tempered with Professional Offices I could live with that and I said that to you. Attorney Lapper-We might be able to shave a unit. Supervisor Stec-I think all we need to do is change on the second page Bob, application for, rezoning the property from HC intensive to MR-5 it would be to PO I think that is the only change. Town Counsel Hafner-Marilyn is saying we have to say contingent upon the applicant agreeing to the change. Supervisor Stec-ok. Councilman Strough-I have to admit that somebody did a nice job presenting it. Councilman Brewer-Are we to save this John, do you want us to save these or do you want them back, it doesn’t matter to me. Mr. Round-No, that is the package that you have that you have back to you if the project comes back to you for a public hearing. Supervisor Stec-Requested a vote. Councilman Strough-Just so I understand this is recommending a Professional Office zone? Supervisor Stec-Correct. Councilman Turner-I said what I said was I am not voting for the Professional Office Zone. Supervisor Stec-So you voted no. Councilman Strough-So, you prefer the MR-5? Councilman Turner-Yes. Town Counsel Hafner-I think what he is saying is to leave it where it is. Councilman Turner-Leave it right where it is. 82 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 Supervisor Stec-The resolution is for PO and you are going to vote no. Councilman Brewer-Ted, the applicant does not have a problem with the Supervisor Stec-They are fine Councilman Turner-I got my vote. RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW NO. __ OF 2005 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 179 “ZONING” SECTION 179-4-110 ENTITLED “UNDERGROUND UTILITIES OVERLAY DISTRICT” RESOLUTION NO. 127, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: __ of 2005 to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179, “Zoning,” Section 179-4-110 entitled “Underground Utilities Overlay District,” by adding new provisions concerning 1) replacement of individual telephone or electric poles damaged or destroyed due to automobile accident and/or natural disaster, and 2) projects which have already been substantially commenced, and WHEREAS, this legislation is authorized in accordance with New York State Municipal Home Rule Law §10 and Town Law Article 16, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to set a public hearing concerning adoption of this Local Law, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall meet and hold a public hearing at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, st Queensbury at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, March 21, 2005 to hear all interested 83 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 persons and take any necessary action provided by law concerning proposed Local Law No.: __ of 2005, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish and post a Notice of Public Hearing concerning proposed Local Law No. __ of 2005 in the manner provided by law. th Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec. Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPOINTING JENNIFER SWITZER TO ADIRONDACK REGIONAL BUSINESS INCUBATOR BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 128, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Adirondack Regional Business Incubator Board (ARBI) is an organization created to facilitate economic growth and business in area municipalities, including the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to appoint Budget Officer Jennifer Switzer as the Town’s representative on the ARBI for a three year term, such term to continue thereafter until a successor is duly appointed or elected, 84 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby appoints Jennifer Switzer to the Adirondack Regional Business Incubator Board for a three year term, such term to continue thereafter until a successor is duly appointed or elected, and authorizes and directs Ms. Switzer to take any necessary action to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF LOFTUS ROSS LLP, CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS TO AUDIT TOWN OF QUEENSBURY FIRE COMPANIES AND EMERGENCY SQUADS RESOLUTION NO.: 129, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to authorize engagement of the services of Loftus Ross LLP to audit the statements of financial position and related statements of activities, functional expenses and cash flows, of the Town of Queensbury’s Fire Companies and Emergency Squads records, and also prepare the Federal Return of the Organizations Exempt From Income Tax (Form 990) and appropriate State Tax Returns, for the year ended 2004, and 85 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 WHEREAS, Loftus Ross LLP has offered to provide these services for a sum not to exceed $16,100 as more specifically set forth in its letter-proposal th dated February 9, 2005 and presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes engagement of the services of Loftus Ross, LLP, CPA’s to audit the Town’s Fire Companies and Emergency Squads records and provide tax services for the year ended 2004 for an amount not to exceed $16,100 as more specifically th set forth in Loftus Ross LLP’s February 9, 2005 letter-proposal presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that payment for these services shall be paid for from Account No.: 005-3410-4401, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the th Town Supervisor to execute the February 9, 2005 letter-proposal and further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Budget Officer to sign any documentation and take any and all action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT: None Discussion held before vote: Councilman Strough-Did their proposal including doing the federal returns? Budget Officer Switzer-Yes. 86 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2004 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 130, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the attached Budget Amendment Requests have been duly initiated and justified and are deemed compliant with Town operating procedures and accounting practices by the Town Budget Officer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 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: WASTEWATER FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 032-8120-4800 032-9060-8060 567.97 (Equip. Repair) (Health Ins. Prem.) 032-8110-4300 032-8110-1910 737.37 (Electricity) (Sr. Typist) 034-8120-2001 034-8130-4425 1,000. (Misc. Equip.) (Sewage Treatment) WASTEWATER FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 034-8120-2300 034-8130-4425 1,000. (Metering Devices) (Sewage Treatment) 87 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 032-8120-4110 032-8110-1810 5.96 (Vehicle Rep. & Maint.) (Wastewater Deputy Dir.) 032-8120-4440 032-8110-1810 158.96 (Sewer Line Maint.) (Wastewater Deputy Dir.) 032-8120-4400 032-8110-1810 975.07 (Misc. Contractual) (Wastewater Deputy Dir.) 032-8120-4220 032-8110-1810 719.50 (Training & Ed.) (Wastewater Deputy Dir.) 032-8120-4800 032-8110-1810 965.64 (Equip. Repair) (Wastewater Deputy Dir.) 032-8120-4820 032-8110-1810 143.08 (Uniforms) (Wastewater Deputy Dir.) 032-8120-4446 032-8110-1810 300. (Safety Train. Material) (Wastewater Deputy Dir.) 032-8110-4210 032-8110-1830 125.17 (Admin. Computer Billing) (Wastewater Director) 032-8120-4820 032-9030-8030 150.92 (Uniforms) (Soc. Sec. & Medicare) 035-8110-4003 035-9710-7010 994.76 (Fiscal Agent Fee) (Serial Bond Interest) th Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2005, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : ABSENT: 8.0 ACTION OF RESOLUTIONS PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED FROM THE FLOOR NONE 9.0 ATTORNEY MATTERS NONE 10.0 EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION CALLING FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION 88 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 RESOLUTION NO. 131, 2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves into an Executive Session to discuss litigation and hiring of an individual. th Duly adopted this 28 day of Febraury, 2005 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 132.2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Executive Session and moves back into Session. th Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2005 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: None No Action taken in Executive Session. RESOLUTION ADJOURNING TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO. 133.2005 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner 89 TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-28-2005 MRG. #10 RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Regular Town Board Meeting. th Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2005 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT: None Respectfully submitted, Miss Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk-Queensbury