Loading...
2014-06-16 - Mtg 25 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 55 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#25 June 16, 2014 RES# 203-224 7:00 P.M. B.H. 19-20 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR JOHN STROUGH COUNCILMAN ANTHONY METIVIER COUNCILMAN BRIAN CLEMENTS COUNCILMAN DOUG IRISH COUNCILAN WILLIAM VANNESS TOWN COUNSEL MARK SCHACHNER TOWN OFFICIALS CRAIG BROWN, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING CHRIS HARRINGTON, WASTEWATER SUPERINTENDENT/ENGINEER PRESS: LOOK TV POST STAR SUPERVISOR STROUGH called meeting to order... PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN BRIAN CLEMENTS CITY OF GLENS FALLS ENGINEER AND WATER AND SEWER SUPERINTENDENT, STEVE GURZLER, MADE A PRESENTATION ON THE DEC APPROVED SEWER CONTROL PLAN 1.o RESOLUTION ENTERING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 203, 2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Doug Irish WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. William VanNess RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from regular session and enters into the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 16th day of June, 2014 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT: None 1.0 QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH PUBLIC HEARING- SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE APPLICATION OF PAUL DESLAURIERS REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 56 TOM HUTCHINS- Good evening Board, I'm Tom Hutchins and I'm here with applicant, Paul Deslauriers and Paul's wife, Linda, is also here with us. The Deslauriers' are owners of lot number fifty-eight (58) at Rolling Ridge Estates. They've owned it since 2006. That was part of a subdivision that was approved back in 1981 by the Planning Board and the Local Department of Health. There is a wetland issue on the westerly bounds of this property, I'm sorry, the easterly bounds of this property, and we've been there with DEC wetlands biologist and the Army Corp of Engineers have had the wetlands flagged, we have had a permit issued or notice of compliance under the general permit for wetland disturbance. In order to disturb an area the Corp of wetlands has a finger that runs up into this parcel that's delineated on the map. We have a permit from the Corp to fill up to twenty-six hundred (2,600) square feet of that wetland. We do that as the minimum amount that we can disturb in order for the Deslauriers to be able to successfully build a residence on this lot. The wastewater system, the reason we're here is the wastewater system that we've laid out is eighty-six (86), I'm sorry, yeah eighty six (86) feet from this section of Corp Wetlands when installed. Of course the setback is a hundred (100) feet so we're here seeking relief thirteen (13), fourteen (14) feet of relief from that hundred (100) foot setback. We've considered a number of layouts and we feel this is the one that works the best, all things considered, and it minimizes the variance. We have included an enhanced treatment system, it's a nice system that we've had a fair amount of success with on difficult sites. It provides a high degree of treatment prior to discharge and we've done that on this site for this reason and in order to maximize the benefit to this wetland. So with that, unless, Paul, you have anything else to add, I'll turn it over to the Board. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Before I open this to public hearing, are there any comments or thoughts or questions? COUNCILMAN VANNESS- So overall, it's just the thirteen (13) foot variance they are looking for? SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Yes, yes. COUNCILMAN VANNESS- Okay. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- And I did receive one phone call from a resident concerned that it did not meet the setback for the DEC wetland, and we investigated that here at the Town and the DEC wetland is even further away so the more restrictive wetland, the Army Corp of Engineer wetland is what we're talking about. The DEC wetland is even further away, exceeds a hundred (100) feet, as a matter of fact. Okay, any, yes... COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- I just had one, you said eighty-six (86) feet? MR. HUTCHINS- It's eighty-seven (87), I apologize. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- Eighty-seven (87), okay. TOWN COUNSEL, MARK SCHACHNER- He said eighty-six (86) and fourteen (14), it's eighty-seven (87) and thirteen (13). COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- Okay, thank you. COUNCILMAN IRISH- One other question John, I see the neighbors are on here, have you spoken to them, the neighbors about it at all? MR. HUTCHINS- Do you want to address that, Paul? PAUL DESLAURIERS-No, I haven't. On the south side, you are the neighbors. COUNCILMAN VANNESS- Yeah, I see that. MR. DESLAURIERS- On the north side, they're new neighbors last year. It's way far away from their property. It's on the opposite side of the property. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 57 COUNCILMAN VANNESS- Okay. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Yeah, so I see you're brining in fill, and the type of fill that you're using, under the Presby System is the appropriate type for percolation and so forth. The Presby System is an advanced system, and I thank you for offering that to us because it is a more efficient system. MR. HUTCHINS- Yes, it is. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Okay, are there any members of the public who would like to speak to this application? Yes, I have one. Ma'am as soon as they sit down, I'll have you come up. Yes, and for the record, please state your name. BONNIE MACLEAN- I'm right across from SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Bonnie MacLean. Okay, I will repeat that because the microphone is there. My mic. may not be working but... MRS. MACLEAN- It's working, yes. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Bonnie, go ahead. MRS. MACLEAN- We are right across from that lot. There have been, as you mentioned it has been for sale for quite some time. We've been told by numerous contractors, it is not a qualified building lot. There's a lot of wetlands in the back and over on the side, which I believe are the Queensbury lands, you border that. I think Reids gave that to the Town. We have wetland rules for a reason. If that septic system, whatever system it is fails, neighbors will be impacted by the smell by whatever goes on there. We have wetlands for a reason, environmentally and otherwise, and to just willy-nilly give variances I don't think is smart. So, the lot if you look at it is low, below road... SUPERVISOR STROUGH- I was there today, you are the one up on the rise,just opposite this? MRS. MACLEAN- We're on Sheraton Lane South. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Oh, okay. MRS. MACLEAN- Right across. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Okay. MRS. MACLEAN-We're the ones who put up with the clear cutting on July 4t1i across from us. The land is below the ground, the road level, which means there will be significant run-off. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Well, I believe they are going to bring in significant amount of fill. MRS. MACLEAN- Well, there was one dump truck that came in at ten thirty (10:30PM) at night and put a whole bunch of stumps in there. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Yeah, well it's going to be more than one truck load here. Have you seen the plans? MRS. MACLEAN-No, I haven't. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Okay. MRS. MACLEAN-No. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- It appears that the house is going to be relatively level with the road. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 58 MRS. MACLEAN- Well, it appears too that they're asking for a variance for height also. They're going above the recommended height level, because that's Wednesday night's meeting. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- That's the Zoning Board. MRS. MACLEAN- Right. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Yes. MRS. MACLEAN- So, with all of these variances, I think we need to take a look at it. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Okay. MRS. MACLEAN- You know, as a property owner you've got to be looking at what's around you. It's not a good building site, it's been turned down by a lot of people simply because of these differences from other building lots in the area. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Okay, but it is a building lot. MRS. MACLEAN- I guess you can call anything a building lot then, right? SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Admittedly, it looks like a difficult one, but... MRS. MACLEAN- Right, it is and I will go on record as going against it. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Okay, thank you. Anybody else from the public? Yes, sir. MIKE SPEILBERGER- Good evening to the Board, I live in Rolling Ridge as well, a couple doors up, west of where this lot is going to be developed. My concern is a couple of things. When I looked at some older maps of the wetlands that were designated in that area, they seemed to be a little bit bigger than the new wetlands area that was shown on the little map that I have. I was not around at the time when those first wetlands were designed. I know that having lived in this neighborhood since ninety-six (96) I know that in the spring that wetland area really, really fills up. If they do an evaluation of the wetlands in August it's going to look a lot different than it does in April or May. My second concern is the, I was doing a little bit research on the type of septic system that they're looking to put in. If you look on-line, which is not always the best place to look I understand, there are some positive things about it and some negative things about it. It seems like it's a new system and I know in some areas, in some states around the country they stopped using them until they're being proved a little bit better. I'm not sure. I'm just concerned with that type of system and the angle in which it's at. I was hoping that, when I look where the septic system's drawn on this, and I'm not an engineer of course, that if they move that septic system, maybe more parallel to the road possibly and not pointing straight at the run-off into the wetlands, it may be a better solution. Of course, there's other different types of septic systems, some that are just a holding tank that you have to get pumped out, which I'm sure have issues as well. I'm concerned a little bit about the loss of the wetlands in that whole area with the airport expansion and the loss of wetlands possibly there, and that type of thing that our run-off and our wells and all the way the things that develop in that area may be affected by it. So those are my two main concerns, or three main concerns. Thank you. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Thank you. Anyone else from the public wish to speak to this application? Yes sir, come on down. CHRISTOPHER LYNCH- I've lived contiguous to the wetland since the mid 80's, I've owned the land since the mid 70's, my family has owned it since the early 60's. I have two (2) or three (3) problems with this. First one is the ultimate unfairness of dropping something like this into my lap and not giving me three (3) days to look at. There are things here between regulations for Federal, State, Local, I still am shoveling through this, but as far as I can see it, it looks like somebody has taken a whole bunch of odd little maps and tried to parley a Corp of Engineers permit for full into an okay for despoiling some wetlands. Now if you look at the map that I just gave you, which I pulled off the internet today, County map, County site, current as of today, you'll see that's really what the wetlands look like and what they're doing is dropping a sewer REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 59 system in the middle of our wetlands. Now I'm a tree-hugger, yeah I do enjoy trying to preserve a little bit of land. Just on the face of it, I don't think you're looking for a variance for eighty- seven (87) feet, you are looking for a variance for about five (5) or six (6) feet from where the actual, real wetlands, if you've ever walked it are actual real wetlands go. Now on the face of it, taking what is defined as an experimental system, listen all systems work real good the first few years, this is a new system. We don't know what it's going to be five (5) years from now, ten (10) years from now. I plan on living there for that long, who knows about anybody else. But, they all work when they're brand new, but they fail. If you look at the Presby site they have failure situations, they have failure cures, they fail already when they're brand new. So it might be the greatest thing in the world but I really don't know. Like I said, I just have had this for three (3) days, and I'm looking at it scratching my head and saying this is insane. I'm seeing maps on there, they have definitions of wetlands from the Corp of Engineers, they have wetlands for the EPA, by Queensbury, by Warren County and then by God only knows who the hell Roberts Environmental Consulting is? But these are all on these maps, what do they want to do, just confuse you so you make a dumb move, I would hope not. Again, it's a preliminary, preliminary, preliminary document from the Corp of Engineers; it doesn't say anything other than just here you can fill in a little bit. If this Board isn't sitting here to preserve endangered wetlands than I think we should just pack up, go home, because we don't really have a purpose. If we don't preserve the wetlands of this region, what the hell are we preserving, why do we all sit here and go through the motions? I would like, at very least, to postpone this thing so I and some of the other neighbors actually get a square shot to look at the darn thing and figure out what's going on, what the ... regulations are. In lieu of that, I would just say no, this is not a good site, this is not a good idea, no I really don't want to build a septic system in the middle of wetlands that I've been living next to for the last twenty-five (25), thirty (30) years of my life. Thank you very much gentlemen. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Okay, thank you Christopher. Anybody else from the public, yes ma'am, come on down. MAUREEN LYNCH- Good evening, my name is Maureen Lynch. I'm the owner of record of 695 Ridge Road, which is the wooded parcel on the far side of the field that comprises the wetlands and some other field area. I will try to be brief, some points have already been covered. There is conflicting information as to where the wetlands actually lie and who has jurisdiction over what aspect of it. We have not gotten consistent information on this. We were made aware of this Friday afternoon, and of course the office is closed before 4:30PM. I work in Albany, so with a three (3) hour commute I have little or no time to actually look at this, ask questions and prepare for this evening. One neighbor could not be here, made us aware of it. We didn't receive a notice because we're just beyond the five hundred (500) foot radius that's involved. The other concern that I had is that we have not had adequate time to look at the proposed house that's going on. But, I think the parcels 1.15 acres, they're planning a house that's over twenty-five hundred (2,500) square feet. That's a pretty large leach field that you have to have for the septic system. If you have to bring in that much fill even to be able to eke out enough square footage to build a foundation on that much fill causes an awful compression onto the surrounding soil, and that is not built on top of a shale shelf of rock less than a hundred (100) feet down. We see that elsewhere up by say Dead Man's Curve. But down there, that's soft ground for quite a ways down. You bring in that much fill, there's no place for what comes out of the leach field to go with the compressed soil except in a bee-line following those pipes right into the wetlands. Once that house goes up, that fill isn't going to go anywhere except pointed right towards low land, and it's going to seep right into it. The other thing is, my husband pointed out, we've got three (3) generations of our family that have been on that property or owned it going back fifty (50) years, and if any decision is made on this we're probably going to be living with it twenty (20) years from now and by then it's going to be too late to do anything about it. My kids are probably going to be living with the consequences of your decision forty (40) years from now, and at the very least I would ask this be tabled until this is properly looked at. Nobody has really had proper time to look at this, question it and evaluate it. There are certainly alternatives available. They may not be as good for the owner as putting up a big house and then selling a few years from now, but I would really like to see that the wetlands take priority. That's why they were designated for protection in the first place. Thanks for your time. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Anybody else from the public that would like to speak about this application? All right, would the applicant and the agent return to the table?Now I do want to REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 60 make one thing clear that because I heard early on there was some concern on behalf of the neighbors, I had the wetland demarcations confirmed and re-measured. So, what we're asking for here in terms of the variance, the eighty-seven (87) feet with thirteen (13) feet of relief is accurate. The other thing is I too have done my research on the Presby Systems and found them to be very successful; Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, they are even desired. The system is a good system if it's installed right. Now, some of the failures of it may be the fact that it does take an expert to install. So is it going to be installed by a certified installer? MR. HUTCHINS- We'll certainly agree to that, yes. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Would you agree to inspections? Is it possible for you to reorient this system and create less relief? MR. HUTCHINS- If we move the house further to the west, I'm sorry to the east. The other option we looked at is rotating it so it was more parallel with the road. But whenever you do that, it pushes the house back further into, closer to the wetlands. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Yes. MR. HUTCHINS- Because there's not enough space between the right of way and the house to put the system right across there. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Now the house and the driveway will be at about the same level as the current road? MR. HUTCHINS- Yes. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- By the time all is said and done. So that means that this system, like I said before, is going to be quite a distance above the current surface level and the appropriate filtration sands and soils will be put underneath it. All right, in any event, let's see what the thinking of the rest of the Board is here. COUNCILMAN IRISH- I know we had a question on perk test. Did you complete perk test on the property? MR. HUTCHINS- Yes we did. The native soils are at a sixteen (16) minute percolation rate, those are native soils, they're silty. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-The other thing too is I just want the Board to be aware that it is an option to have the Town Engineer review this, if it would give you... COUNCILMAN IRISH- I don't have any problem with it. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- Yeah, I don't either. That's probably a good idea that we have him do that just to be on the safe side. COUNCILMAN IRISH- I'm fine with it. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- What having the Town Engineer or fine with it as it is? COUNCILMAN IRISH- Having Chris review it. COUNCILMAN VANNESS- I'd like to see Chris review it too. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-No, I'm not talking about...I'm talking Dan. COUNCILMAN VANNESS- I know back when I was looking to buy property on the Bay Road area, there were your colored markings for DEC and your Army Corp of Engineer wetlands were pretty pronounced. I mean they were in different colors, you were able to look at them, you were able to see how they were spread over the area. It is a difficult, I agree with what they've said, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 61 it's a little difficult to tell where the wetlands actually are on this map as well. I think I'd like to take a chance to see the coloration of the layout of wetlands as well. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- All right, those Town Board Members who haven't done a site visit, this will give you an opportunity to do so. I'll have Vision Engineering review the project. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING ZONING, CRAIG BROWN- Chazen. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Or Chazen review the project and get back with us with some overview of this. We're not going to act on this right now. We'll review it and I'll put it back on the table as soon as we get the Engineers report in, which shouldn't be too long. MR. HUTCHINS- For information on the wetlands, those points that are indicated on the Corp wetlands are staked in the field. COUNCILMAN VANNESS- Yeah, I could see them, but like I was saying, the overlay map puts it in color so you're actually seeing the wetlands as they spread out. I saw it in the black and White MR. HUTCHINS- Oh, on the GIS? COUNCILMAN VANNESS- Right, yes. MR. HUTCHINS- Thank you. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- So, our next Board meeting will be July 7u'. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- I just had one other question, if I could ask. I know that it's not related to this variance but you're going to the Zoning Board for a height variance? MR. DESLAURIERS- Yes, on the original plan we find that we are seven (7) inches over the forty (40) feet. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- Seven (7) inches from the natural ground level? MR. DESLAURIERS- Yes. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- Okay. MR. DESLAURIERS- And I've got .... (inaudible- Mr. Deslauriers is not in front of microphone) COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- I know it doesn't have anything to do with this variance but I figured we might as well get it out in the public and let them here what it is. Thank you. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- A comment was made about dumping stumps at ten-thirty at night (10:30PM), can you answer to that? MR. DESLAURIERS- ...we removed stumps from the site and put them in a pile. That's the only stump moving that's been done on the property. To my knowledge, nobody has dumped stumps on the property at night that I know of SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Okay. MR. DESLAURIERS- Certainly not with my permission. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Any other questions? COUNCILMAN METIVIER-Nope. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 62 COUNCILMAN VANNESS- Chris, Mr. Lynch, did you want this to be part of the record, what you've handed us on the map? MR. LYNCH- (Not audible...not in front of microphone) SUPERVISOR STROUGH- All right, and we'll see you in a couple of weeks. ROSE MELLON, DEPUTY TOWN CLERK II- John, are you going to close the public hearing and just not act on it or? SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Should I close the public hearing? TOWN COUNSEL, MARK SCHACHNER- You can leave it open if you want people to be able to comment on... SUPERVISOR STROUGH- I'm leaving the public hearing open. MRS. MACLEAN- Excuse me, I'm trying to get your attention. We were there at ten-thirty (10:30PM) at night, we're right across from there. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- I know. MRS. MACLEAN- The dump truck comes in and dumps huge pieces and roots of a tree, ya know, it's not silent. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Okay. MRS. MACLEAN- And that, as I said, many people looked at that lot. This is nothing ... He didn't do due diligence to look at that lot and have it looked at to see what the composite was. He would have known it was wetlands. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Okay, all right, thank you Bonnie. MRS. MACLEAN- And we have an aquifer that runs all underneath Rolling Ridge that supplies more wells. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Okay. MRS. MACLEAN- So there's a lot of consequences. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- I left the public hearing open, thank you. MRS. MACLEAN- All right, thank you. PUBLIC HEARING TO REMAIN OPEN RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE APPLICATION OF LARRY AND MARIANNE DICKINSON RESOLUTION NO.: BOH 19,2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Brian Clements REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 63 WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board serves as the Town's Local Board of Health and is authorized by Town Code Chapter 136 to issue variances from the Town's On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, and WHEREAS, Larry and Marianne Dickinson have applied to the Local Board of Health for a variance from Chapter 136 to install a replacement leaching system 72.5' from their well in lieu of the required 100' setback on property located at 12 Sullivan Drive in the Town of Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on Monday, July 7t1i 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, to consider Larry and Marianne Dickinson's sewage disposal variance application concerning property located at 12 Sullivan Drive in the Town of Queensbury(Tax Map No.: 289.9- 1-47) and at that time all interested persons will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish the Notice of Public Hearing presented at this meeting and send a copy of the Notice to neighbors located within 500 feet of the subject property as required by law. Duly adopted this 16th day of June, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. BOH 20, 2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Brian Clements RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns and moves back into the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 16th day of June, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements NOES: None ABSENT: None 2.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 64 PUBLIC HEARING- LOCAL LAW TO DELETE QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 105 "LAND USE PROCEDURES" AND AMEND CHAPTER 179 "ZONING AND TOWN ZONING MAP" SUPERVISOR STROUGH-The Board is offering some changes to the Town Code Chapter 179; and I will go through them. First of all, "the definition" of amusement center, we're changing the wording. We're taking out "the definition" and putting "this" includes amusement issues or including the word"such as" but is not limited to, miniature golf, go-karts (or riding areas for dirt bikes, ATVs or snowmobiles), skating facilities, arcades and batting cages. Outdoor recreation we're adding the word"general" in front of public, so instead of"public" as it reads it's going to read "general public". These are things, a lot of these are things that we've been looking to do for a long time, they are just typos, better well worded. Did you want to say something Counsel? TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- I think you may have wanted to say something. You're also proposing the adjectives "passive or active" in front of the word recreation. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Yes, I missed that. Yes, because I didn't have it highlighted. Thank you. And the word in the same sentence, I'll read the sentence, "land uses which offer passive or active" those two words were added, three words, "recreation activities primarily outdoors that are operated for members or on a commercial basis for, (members of it is scratched) the "general public" is put in. Under recreation, active in its definition we've added the word"softball" and we took out golf and skiing, and we added this sentence, "also included are activities which are principally non-motorozed, but in which motorized equipment may facilitate set-up or transportation within the activity area such as golf or downhill skiing". Under passive recreation we included "cross country skiing". We took out the definition for recreational facilities, both commercial and private. 179-2- 010 subparagraph B(2) where it talks about the office zone, "no residential uses shall be allowed within 300 feet of Bay Road" stays, "and West Mountain Road is deleted". The parking requirements for adult use establishments and food service have been changed. Instead of"same as restaurant" we are using "1 per 4 seats, plus 1 per 2 employees, or if a nightclub is present, the requirement shall be the greater of the two uses". Food service 1 per 4 seats, plus 1 per 2 employees, and we took out "whichever is greater", we just took that out, it wasn't needed. Section E 179-5-060, docks, boathouses and moorings, this issue came up as how do you measure the flat and we added the word"Flat" in front of superstructure built upon or any dock, it shall be seven hundred (700) feet, but how do you measure that? Well, that needed clarification. The measurement for this area, and this is the wording we added, "the measurement for this area is to include all areas bounded by the sundeck railing. For a peaked roof, the maximum surface area is limited to 1,000 square feet and is measured from eave-to eave",just a clarification. In addition, and next we added "in all Waterfront Residential zones, boathouses may be constructed, subject to Site Plan Review, on all water bodies that may be regulated by the Town of Queensbury". Then, I'm not going to go over this but we have a tree list. Some of the trees that we had listed as approved were invasives, we took those out. Some trees like the ashes we didn't feel that we should be attracting the Emerald Ash Boor, so we're going to take those out of our recommended species to plant for landscaping and otherwise. Buffer requirements between adjacent uses, there was some, we corrected some mistakes that got into the code for whatever reason. Between commercial and retail we're putting the "C" zone, it was "B. Between single family residential and commercial retail it was "B", we're putting the "C" type of buffer. For industrial and recreation use we're putting "C" buffer, and between industrial and industrial we are putting a"C" buffer as required buffers between those various types of development. Moving on to the first sentence of paragraph E of section 179-9-070, entitled "Public hearing requirement", we're adding the words the Planning Board shall hold a public REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 65 hearing on a new application, and these are words that we added, "And provide notice consistent with section 179-16-120". That is the administration level of 179 and it talks about notice of hearing and when it's required. Paragraph z of 179-10-070, Veterinary clinics, we had the wording in there that Veterinary clinics in Rural Residential Zone Districts shall be located on parcels of at least twenty (20), that was incongruent with other parts of the code. So, making that congruent with other parts of the code was easy, we just dropped "In the Rural Residential Zoning Districts" language from that, now it's congruent with the rest of the code. Now, another change we made, a time of appeal. The appeal shall be taken within 60 days after filing in the Zoning Administrator's Office, we took out "Town Clerk's Office" and we're proposing to put in "Zoning Administrator", as it has been done historically. In Paragraph B of 179-16-120, notice of public hearing, we eliminated the language that just was not needed. The language said that "in case of a subdivision", well that was already addressed in another part, so it was redundant and not needed. In section O we kept the language "No residential uses shall be allowed within three hundred (300) feet of Bay Road. See 179-3-040, B (2)". Now there are three (3) zones that are being requested, actual zone changes. One is up on the corner of 149 and Ridge Road. Now you may have noticed that there is a blue building, a little bit west of that intersection. It has been a restaurant, then it was, then it was, then it wasn't, then it was. In any event, if you want to use it for anything else, or even use it as a restaurant, it's in a residential district. It certainly has been used commercially, historically. The adjacent landowner is willing to have their land rezoned. It's currently zoned residential, moderate density residential (MDR). We're proposing it be zoned neighborhood commercial, as is the rest of the intersection. So, that would allow banks, business services, convenient stores, food service and so forth there. So, currently if anybody wants to put anything in there, such is a restaurant, they are a non-conforming use and can't do it. Well, this Board looked at it and said well I don't see that becoming residential on 149 where it is on that intersection. So, it seems to make sense to rezone that neighborhood commercial in accord with the adjacent properties. Staying on 149, but moving a little bit westward, there was a request to expand their camping area, Ledgeview and they can't because it was zoned rural residential three (3) acres and it doesn't allow camping. The property just above them and all the property north of them is zoned land conservation ten (10) acre. So they said how come we got this. If we're a land conservation ten (10) acre we could expand our camping facility, our RV facility. So, we said well, that seems reasonable, the Board is going to consider that. And the third and final change is the zoning on the north side of Sweet Road, between Kendrick and Montray. The two (2) properties we're talking about have traditionally been used commercially. You have the This n' That Shop and the adjacent use, which sells kitchen cabinets. For decades both of these lots have been used commercially, for decades. Across the street is zoned commercial, on the south side of Montray is commercial, it used to be an automotive garage and a bus repair garage. So, the owners asked us, listen, we don't see this as becoming residential. We'd like to put a commercial enterprise in there, nothing of high impact. We said, well, commercial moderate wouldn't allow anything of intensive use, would be an appropriate use for that. The Board wants to consider that zoning change for those lots between Kendrick and Montray Road on the north side of Sweet Road. All right, that pretty much summarizes what this Board is looking at considering requests and so forth. So, we're having a public hearing. Is there any member of the public that would like to speak to any of these items the Board is considering changing? Yes, Kathy. KATHLEEN SONNABEND- I haven't look at the current version of the resolution so I'm trusting that what you've done has removed Bay Road from the proposed changes. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- That's what I said. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 66 MS. SONNABEND- Okay, great. Well, I want to thank the entire Board for your wisdom in determining that. It's right to uphold the current code and avoid any further relaxation of the prohibition of residences along Bay Road. Many people here tonight want to thank you and I urge them to and urge you to continue your resolve. I hope that they will also express their appreciation to you. We collected more than two hundred (200) petition signatures, nearly all in the first two (2) weeks before we heard that the Town Board intended to remove the proposed zoning change; otherwise there would have been many more petition signatures and many more people in attendance tonight. As we collected the signatures we discovered only a few individuals who wanted the code changed typically due to a business or a political connection. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Kathy? MS. SONNABEND- Yes. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- That's not up for discussion. What we're proposing, and that's not one of them, and there is a privilege of the floor where you can speak your heart out on that. But, right now this public hearing is about the changes I just mentioned. MS. SONNABEND- Okay, we just would like to encourage you not to change your minds again, because this is something that keeps coming back over and over. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- I appreciate that. MS. SONNABEND- Okay, good. I also am concerned about your description of changing from the Town Clerk to the Zoning Administrator because historically the Town Clerk has been the person that records all town documents. Now I understand that a lot of these files have been kept down in the Zoning Administrator's Office even though they should be kept in the Town Clerk's Office, but where they're kept is something different than where you have to record them. I think that it's very important that the Town Clerk remain the person that records all town documents, including zoning related issues because the Town Clerk that's their job. The Town Clerk is an independent party. The Zoning Administrator is not, the Zoning Administrator is a party to, he makes decisions. He's not neutral or independent. It's very important that the public have access to everything. The only way to ensure that is to make sure the Town Clerk continues being that party that keeps the records. I don't think it's a burden to ask the Zoning Administrator to do that in this day in age of electronic email. It's not a big deal to send her an email, it's time and date stamped so that she has records of what has been determined by the Zoning Administrator. Also, I'm not clear of the elimination of the mailing of required notices. Several of the people that were here for that public hearing earlier complained that they didn't receive their notice in the mail until Friday afternoon. I know that notices of public hearings are supposed to be published in the newspaper ten (10) days in advance but not everybody catches those notices, so residences that are within five hundred (500) feet of a project should get that mail notice. By eliminating it from the zoning code I'm not sure what impact that has. If the applicant's not going to mail it, is the Town going to mail it? SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Well, I don't think we eliminated it, we're going to do what we've always done, which is... DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, CRAIG BROWN- The language has been taken from the code says that it's the applicant's responsibility to do the mailing. That hasn't happened for many years, the Town has always done the mailing of those public hearing notices. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 67 MS. SONNABEND- Okay, so by eliminating that you're not eliminating the notice, you're eliminating the requirement that the applicant sends the notice, okay. Thank you. I would like to submit these petitions. I won't take the time to read it during privilege of the floor but I'd like this to be entered into the minutes verbatim. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Okay. MS. SONNABEND- Thank you. Letter submitted by Kathleen Sonnabend: Please read>>erbatim into the minutes of tonight's Toivn Board meeting. June 16, 2014 Queensbury Town Board 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 Dear Board Members: I want to thank the entire Town Board for your wisdom in voting last Wednesday to remove the proposed zoning change for the Bay Road office corridor. It is right to uphold the current code and avoid any further relaxation of the prohibition of residences along Bay Road. Many people are here tonight to thank you and to urge you to continue your resolve. I hope they will also express their appreciation. We collected more than 200 petition signatures, nearly all in the first 2 weeks before we heard that the Town Board intended to remove the proposed zoning change. Otherwise, there would have been many more petition signatures presented and many more people in attendance tonight. As we collected the signatures, we discovered only a few individuals who wanted the code change, typically due to a business or political connection. The vast majority of nearby residents, including those living in Bay Road single family homes, Hunterbrook Apartments, and town homes in Cedar Court, Surrey Fields, and Baybridge, do not want more intensive residential development because it changes the neighborhood character and environment, erodes our tax base and increases congestion on Bay Road and other arterials like Blind Rock and Country Club Roads. The opposition also extends to Wincrest, Oakwood, Twicwood, Waverly Place, The Glen, Beekman Place and other neighborhoods. We are especially concerned about sewer capacity and are heartened to hear that the Town Board is discussing a proper sewer study. No additional development should occur until that study is completed and a solution obtained that is fair to all stakeholders. There is one more item of concern and that is the proposed change from the Town Clerk to the office of the Zoning Administrator for recording of all zoning related business, including zoning decisions, appeals and FOIL requests. Longstanding state and local law designates the Town Clerk as the recorder of all town documents and for good reason. That is the job of the Town Clerk, who is independent of any decisions made. The Zoning Administrator is not a neutral party. In this day and age of electronic email, it is not a burden to ask the Zoning Administrator to file his decisions with the Town Clerk so the citizenry is ensured access to important information. Sincerely, Kathleen W. Sonnabend 55 Cedar Court REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 68 Queensbury, NY 12804 518-761-0931 SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Thank you. Anybody else? TRAVIS WHITEHEAD- Just a little bit on that last bit. I did make a copy of the latest revision of this and maybe you can just explain it to me because I don't understand it. That last ... we were discussing in a case of a subdivision the applicant shall notify all owners identified above and shall show proof of such notification or attempted notification, that's been crossed out, as has in the case of a site plan review, variances and other repeals to the Zoning Board of Appeals the Town shall be responsible for such notification, that's been crossed out, and what it says here basically is that notice of public hearing in relating generally to notices of public hearing under the zoning law is deleted in its entirety, so and it's deleted in entirety what's left. TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- Can I just make one preliminary comment before our Zoning Administrator comments. With all fairness, it doesn't say, you didn't read the first part, it says one particular paragraph was deleted, not the entire notice provision. MR. WHITEHEAD- Right, this is why I'm asking what remains. TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- Understood, understood. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- Yeah, I was just looking for that section reference. TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- 179-16... DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- 16-120. COUNCILMAN VANNESS- It's page 8, 179-16-120 Craig. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- Well, certainly the attempt is not to remove the requirement to provide notice. What we used to do is we used to require applicants to provide notice to neighbors and come back with return receipt cards and provide proof to us that they've done the notice. That was just administrative, that was a hassle to try and make sure all their cards matched up to the list, so we just decided that using the application fee that we collect from applicants we just do the notifications so we don't have to worry that it gets done. That's the intent is to take the burden off the applicant, which hasn't been on the applicant but to take the language out that requires it. That's the only intent. I just want to look at this section that talks about public hearing requirements. MR. WHITEHEAD- I just want to make sure the language and intent are aligned. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- Yep. MR. WHITEHEAD- That's my question. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- But one thing we're not changing is 179-16-120. Each notice of hearing that is required or scheduled under this chapter unless otherwise noted in this chapter shall be published once in the official newspaper of the Town at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing, in addition, at least five (5) days prior to the date of the hearing notices shall be mailed to all owners of the property within five hundred (500) feet of the exterior boundary of that property for which the application is made as may be determined by the latest assessment records of the Town. In section B it goes on to say in the case of a subdivision the applicant shall notify all owners identified above, show proof of such notification or attempt to notify in the case of site plan review variances and other appeals to the Zoning Board of Appeals the Town shall be responsible for such notification. So, we've already got it in there. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 69 COUNCILMAN VANNESS- So it's just repetitive language. MR. WHITEHEAD- Right, so, I mean, what I'm looking at is what was published here and it's showing the changes and not what's left. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-Unfortunately, we should have published A for you to see A so B could be stricken. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- I told you what remains in the code. MR. WHITEHEAD- And I believe you, I just wanted to make sure the intent and language do match. The only other thing I had to say is that I would second the opinion that the Town Clerk should be involved in time stamping and such of any records, particularly such things as, this evidently came up because of the appeal and the appeal was initially denied and then they found that the time stamp wasn't there, the language of the law or the rule had not been followed; and so it seems the way to take care of that is to put the responsibility into the hands of the people that we're short cutting the rule. To me that just doesn't make sense. I like the idea that the Town Clerk keep her hand in this very much. That's all I've got to say. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Okay, thank you. MR. WHITEHEAD- Thank you. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- And this Board too wrestled with that topic. Craig, you had a convincing argument why it should be as we're proposing. Do you want to share your thoughts? DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- Sure. I guess what we found was that there are two (2) or three (3) other sections in the Town Code, not in the Zoning Ordinance but in chapter 88, which deals with the Building Inspector, Director of Building and Codes, Fire Marshal and other officers in the Town, and where they file their decisions and determinations. In those two (2) or three (3) different sections it says determinations made by those officers and the Zoning Administrator are filed in their offices. There is one section in the Zoning Ordinance that requires the Zoning Administrator's determinations to be filed in the Clerk's Office. So, it was either change the one location that says Zoning Administrator/Clerk or change all the other locations that say everybody file in your own office now change those to say everybody file in the Clerk's Office. I think it was the Board's position to just make one change rather than four (4) or five (5) changes. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- And not only that but how many decisions do you make? DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- Every time I speak to somebody, technically it's a decision, it's a determination. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Yeah. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- Many are reduced to writing, but most of them, a lot of them are verbal. But the written ones are numerous. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- So when you do a written one DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- Yep. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-And you put a date on it. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- Yep. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- That becomes the established date? DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- Correct. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 70 COUNCILMAN IRISH- Can you give us an example of a verbal decision. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- Probably a dozen times a day somebody will come to the Building and Codes counter downstairs and ask a question about, can I put my pool here, or how big of a shed can I build or what are my setbacks for my garage? Those are conversations we have at the counter, and giving them answers to their questions, those are technically determinations on what's available in the Town Code to them. There are a lot of those. COUNCILMAN VANNESS- I think one of the other things a lot of the public may not be aware of but early on in this Board's, when we started, Craig's title was changed. We incorporated more people with him, we kind of brought everything into his office so everything basically, whether we have questions, whether you have questions, whoever has, Craig is the man that we have to go to and say where is it or what is it and where is it going. So, it basically restructured the downstairs where Craig works as to... he better have it. Basically that's what it is. That's one of the reasons that I stuck with keeping it in his office, is we know exactly where it's at, especially through the building and all that other as well. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- Also, foil requests would go to your office. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- Yeah,just a little history, or the process on a foil request. Typically foil requests come in, they're submitted to the Town Clerk's Office, they're date stamped as to when they're received. There are certain procedure requirements, they have a certain amount to respond to the foil applicant as to whether we have the records, and then they have a certain period of time to fill the request if we have the records. Once those foil requests come in the Town Clerk reviews it and tries to determine which offices this request has to be sent out to so that she can gather all the information, or they, the Clerk's Office can gather the information to fill the foil request, or see if there are records that are available to fill the foil request. So, she still processes all the foil requests, and in doing so gathers it up from all the departments that have it. So, whether the records are in my office or Counsel's or the Supervisor's Office, they all ultimately turned over to the Town Clerk to fill the foil request. All of my determinations, sorry just to follow up, all of determinations and all the correspondence is all electronic, they are all available on our Town network. It's not a matter of even me printing them off and giving to her, it's just a matter of a lot of the times saying the determinations are in my folder, it's dated this, go and get it if you want a copy of it. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Okay, thank you Craig. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- Sure. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Craig Brown is our Director of Planning and Zoning. Doug, you're welcome to come up. While Doug is coming up I just want to say that these zoning changes are, because some of them are in the Adirondack Park have to be reviewed, those that are in the Adirondack Park are effected have to be reviewed by the Adirondack Park. Well we thought that they would have the review done by this meeting but that's not the case. As a matter of fact, they're scheduled to be reviewed in the beginning of July. So after they review them and if they approve them we'll keep the same package. The APA may suggest changes so we'll have public hearings on those changes. My point is this Board will not be voting on any of these today. We will leave the public hearing open and we will vote on them after we get the Adirondack Park Agency's review of them and assess that. We will move forward from there. Doug. DOUG AUER- I'm here not to throw any bombs tonight but I'm going to throw some accolades. I want to thank you guys for how you approached this. This is a thorny issue, I'm talking about now the Bay Road zone change that was in... SUPERVISOR STROUGH- And we will have a privilege of the floor. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 71 MR. AUER- I know, I know, but I just, this is going to be real quick. Thank you, okay, so that's out of the way. I want to comment a little bit about the business about where the records are kept. Quite honestly it doesn't make any difference where the records are kept. What is important is in any organization that there be one source for indexing everything, okay. In industry it's called a document control system, and you have vice presidents in charge of that type of thing. So, very large organizations like Boeing or folks like that...so I don't care where it's kept as long as there's one contact person and there's an accepted system indexing that so that it can be referenced. Certainly it makes sense to have folks sharing that system that people down stairs, whatever system they use for indexing you may want to use the same system I would think, as to not have two (2) systems. It makes so much sense, so this is a good thing I think, and I'm happy with that. Really, keep doing what you're doing because you're applying some critical thinking to issues that in the past have created a lot of angst, and a lot of problems, serious financial problems, only this weekend I became aware of some of this stuff. So, keep doing what you're doing and you won't have any beef from me. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Okay, thank you Doug. Anybody else that would like to speak to any of the zoning code wording or zoning changes that we're offering or considering? Yes sir, come on up. Please state your name. PAT GAUTIER- You just made a comment concerning the Adirondack Park and the zoning changes and nothing would be decided tonight? SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Yes, Pat, I know that you're eager to get Ledgeview going and... MR. GAUTIER-No, it's not Ledgeview. Sweet Road SUPERVISOR STROUGH- What's that? MR. GAUTIER- Sweet Road, yes. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-I'm sorry I got you messed up. But this Board, it's a package and so we didn't want to pull certain things, we didn't think that would be appropriate. So, we've got it as one resolution, which still enables us to pull things. I mean, if we want, but we thought it would be better to let the APA review that and then we'll come back and leave all the public hearings on all these open. COUNCILMAN VANNESS- I think Pat what it is, not let them review it, we have to, they have to. MR. GAUTIER- Sweet Road is not. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-No it's not, but it's in this package of things. Counsel, do you have thoughts on this? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-No. MR. GAUTIER- Is there any possibility because it affects a contract that I have, a purchase? SUPERVISOR STROUGH- It is possible if the will of this Board is to do that, they can. COUNCILMAN VANNESS- Well John, I think if it doesn't fall within the APA part of that, I don't have a problem moving this one section of Sweet Road out of it. I mean, I was adamant that this place has been, they've been in business for years, they should continue to be. If it's just because of a flaw, I don't want to stop a man from going into business if that's what it is and I don't think there is any opposition to change...I don't have a problem in how we do it Counsel, in moving this one deal on Sweet Road out of there and making its own resolution this evening, so we can pass it and he can move on. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 72 TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- For starters you can't act without doing review of the proposed zoning amendments under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. So, I don't know if you want to try to do your SEQRA Review of the entire proposal this evening with the hope that nothing changes between now and the July meeting, or if you want to somehow try to segregate this one thing, particular thing out and do SEQRA Review of that, that's subject to potential criticism of segmentation of the SEQRA Review of the proposed zoning amendments. I don't want to sound unsympathetic to a particular resident but... COUNCILMAN VANNESS- I'm asking... SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Well, and that was a conversation that happened previous to the meeting that was suggested that we try not to do that. Technically can we as Counsel points out, yeah, you're going to an independent SEQRA Review on this particular topic. COUNCILMAN VANNESS- What do you think the timetable for the review by the APA is going to be? TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER-It should be on their schedule for July IOth and I Ith meetings, that's our understanding. COUNCILMAN VANNESS- Okay. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- So that means that we will be looking at approval or not, of these zoning changes at our July 21St meeting. TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- July 21St COUNCILMAN VANNESS- So it's less than, or a little more than a thirty (30) day extension Pat, I guess I'd say to you. I'm sure their eager to sell it too, they want to get rid of it. But I mean if we could ask maybe that you get a thirty (3 0)to thirty-five (3 5) day extension and we can get right back on this, maybe we can ask to get it moving, it's the pace of government as you all know. I apologize, and I know I spoke to you this evening, I wasn't aware until this evening of the APA Review. I apologize to you that I wasn't aware of that until just now. I understand where you're coming from. COUNCILMAN IRISH- Is your contingency based on the rezoning as something that you put in the agreement or something... MR. GAUTIER- Yes, it is something that I put in the agreement and the attorney for the seller said that it has to be done by the first of July. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- Can you ask your attorney to ask for an extension? MR. GAUTIER- Well I can do that. I'm certainly not opposed to that. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- You don't know what the answer will be. MR. GAUTIER- I don't know what that answer will be? COUNCILMAN VANNESS- I don't see any opposition, there doesn't appear that there is any opposition on this Board of your area and where it's going to be. It's just a matter, because it was grouped in with this that it's got to go that way. I mean, if you assured them that you... I don't want to speak for the rest of the Board that there doesn't appear to be opposition on the Sweet Road rezoning. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- I feel the same way, if we don't hear any opposition tonight. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- Yeah, if I could just add, logistically part of the project is going to need site plan review, so if you want to get that application put together REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 73 and we could get it in the cue so we can get it in front of the Planning Board right after the guys are done in July; well it would be August now with the Planning Board because today was our deadline to submit for July. MR. GAUTIER- Right, it was my understanding that if I had a continuation of the same business that I could continue to do it. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- If you had a continuation of the same type of business that's there right now they wouldn't need to change the zoning district, but in my understanding of what you want to do for a business, it's a different type of business. MR. GAUTIER-No, no, it's the same business but it's not zoned for... COUNCILMAN VANNESS- It's not zoned for a business, it's zoned for residential. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Yeah, but what he's saying it's grandfathered for the same kind of business. COUNCILMAN VANNESS- Right, right. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Chainsaws, lawnmowers. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- Basically retail. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Snowblowers. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- My understanding is yours is more of a nursery, lawn care of business. MR. GAUTIER-No, I'm going to have a retail establishment there. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- Okay, that's different than the last time we spoke then? MR. GAUTIER- Right, that is correct. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- Okay. MR. GAUTIER- Because of the last time we spoke I changed my position. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- Right. MR. GAUTIER- But what I'm going for is I want to have the zoning changed if sometime in the future I wanted to do something different, I'd have the ability to do that. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Well, that's what we're going to consider. MR. GAUTIER- I understand that. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Okay, so if things have changed, if you're proposing the same use that was there, go ahead. COUNCILMAN VANNESS- That you don't need... SUPERVISOR STROUGH- And in the meantime we'll work on the zoning issue. COUNCILMAN VANNESS- And then we could, if it's going to change then we'd accept, see where the APA...is not going to be,just move forward with it. If you're going to stay the same business, be grandfathered in. MR. GAUTIER- Right, but I want to have, when I own the property I want to have the flexibility of doing something else. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 74 SUPERVISOR STROUGH- And we're trying to COUNCILMAN IRISH- Don't think anything...that's not what the Board is saying, that it's not going to happen but. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- We're working in that direction. MR. GAUTIER- Okay, all right. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Anybody else like to speak? Yes sir. John you'll be next, I'm sorry. ANDREW HOLDING- I'd like to just ask, are you going to address the sections A-O one at a time so that each one can comment on them? SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Well, sir if you have some comments this is all recorded so you have to give your name and speak into the microphone so that we can record this, please. MR. HOLDING- My name is Andrew Holding, I'm from 48 Dream Lake Road, Lake George, Town of Queensbury. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Yes. MR. HOLDING- As a point of order since we have several people who want to comment on a specific item, it would be easier if the Board was hearing comment on item A, B, right down to item O. My question is, is that how the meeting is being run? SUPERVISOR STROUGH-No, but the zoning for the expansion of the mining, is that what you wish to speak to? MR. HOLDING- Pardon? SUPERVISOR STROUGH- The zoning related to the expansion of the mining activity. MR. HOLDING- Yes sir. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Okay. MR. HOLDING- But, I'd like all people that are going to speak to that to be able to speak to it at the same time, rather than just jumping around from issues. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Well, do you have a group of people that wish to speak to that? MR. HOLDING- Well, I have at least two (2). But, I thought we would... SUPERVISOR STROUGH- And... MR. HOLDING- I'm unfamiliar with your procedures here and I apologize... SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Well.. MR. HOLDING- But it would seem that those people who are gathered to make comment on any part should simply make them sequentially so that we all know when that time comes that we should be making our remarks. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Well, I don't have it organized that way, but if you would wish to speak to the proposed expansion of mining, do so. MR. HOLDING- I wish to have someone else speak first, and then I will return. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Okay, that's fine with me. MR. HOLDING- Thank you very much. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 75 SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Are you the one that wishes to speak to the mining John? Can we get the expansion of the mining project? JONATHAN MONROE- My name is Jonathan Monroe, I live off of Dream Lake Road, which is where the mining traffic is. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Yes, yes. MR. MONROE- I'd just like to read something here. Fort Miller sent a letter to Dream Lake Homeowners on May 6t1i 2014 stating we have started the process that will allow us to continue our material processing on two (2) parcels of land that we own to the north of our existing operations. The letter also stated that an integral part of the process is the construction of a new road that will connect with 149. Our intent is to build a new road after we get approval from the Town of Queensbury, the DEC and the APA. An inquiry made to Craig Brown which disclosed his office...writing but there had been workshops which resulted in a packet of proposed zoning changes available at the Clerk's Office. The Town Clerk provided the packets that revealed that all proposed changes to the zoning laws are already drafted with no reference to Fort Miller Group. This action was taken by the Town Board without Fort Miller filing any written application, description, plans, details, or even a letter of intent to Queensbury or any other agency. Fort Miller owns a hundred and forty ... seven acres on two (2) rural parcels north of the existing pit with road frontage on 149. Fort Miller wants to expand their sand and gravel pit from an existing non-conforming use on a single fifty-seven (57) acre parcel to an as of right of operation of two hundred and thirty-one (23 1) acres, which is a three hundred and five (305%) percent increase over existing operations. The allowable zoning use would change on every single rural route zone parcel in the Town of Queensbury. This change is being proposed without any applications or guarantees from Fort Miller, basically to build the road ahead of time. The current situation at Dream Lake Road is inadequate and dangerous. The posted speed limit is thirty (30) miles an hour. Two trucks driving in opposite directions cannot pass each other on this Road. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Jonathan? MR. MONROE- Yep. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Do you know that part of the proposal, and the zoning thing is not on my zoning map, but, their planning on eliminating the use of Dream Lake Road and going from 149. MR. MONROE- And I don't have an issue with that. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Okay. MR. MONROE- The issue we have is that if you change the zoning, you give the approval to do that and they don't put the road onto 149, all that traffic is going to be running on Dream Lake Road. COUNCILMAN VANNESS- It's going to be contingent. MR. MONROE- Is it contingent? DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN-Yes, this is step one (1) of six (6). MR. MONROE- Yep. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- This is to change the rules to allow them to apply. MR. MONROE- Yep. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 76 DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- And then when they apply they come to the Planning Board and do Site Plan and Review and maybe a special use permit for sand and gravel extraction. But during that review process there is another public hearing and that's when you really talk about the details of the pit and where the work is and the processing in the road and the conditions of when you put things in and in what order. When does the road go in, first or second? MR. MONROE- Right. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- That's really the process that really irons out all of those details. COUNCILMAN VANNESS- And it's interesting that you came Jonathan, because we had quite an intense discussion with them about this, because we knew how the residents felt on Dream Lake Road. During the workshop when they did show up I think all of us were in agreement that if we could get the traffic off of Dream Lake Road and to the new road to go out to 149, but a little concerned about the entry onto 149, what would happen out there. But that was very heavily discussed about stopping the traffic. I know my feeling and I guess I probably don't want to express them without being in a public hearing but I mean, that road is on the top of the list for me. MR. MONROE- Right, and we really didn't know what the format was here, right. So we're trying to make sure we're here, make sure we're speaking our peace, right. We're not opposing the expansion of the pit if the road is going to 149. We don't want a big increase in the pit. COUNCILMAN VANNESS- Right. MR. MONROE- Somebody gives approval, right and then for some reason the road isn't built, or DEC or New York State. Now the road's been trying to be built out 149 before. There was a fine for wetlands, it was built over the top of the wetlands, and New York State wouldn't let the road come out on the section of 149. So that's our concern, that it has been tried before. COUNCILMAN VANNESS- They presented us with a map which included the wetlands. As Craig said, this is the first step, we're giving them the ability to say okay we can expand, then it's going to come to the public hearings on the steps and the procedures and everything that they're going to have to do as they expand. MR. MONROE- All right, we're just a little concerned that you didn't make sure...that's fine. Again, our concern with the road out there, it's great. We love to...I don't mind if the pits expanded, get it out to 149, no problem. COUNCILMAN VANNESS- Right. MR. MONROE- All the traffic off of Dream Lake Road. Have you guys been down on Dream Lake Road? It's eighteen (18) foot wide. COUNCILMAN IRISH- And that's really the reason that they proposed building a new road, taking it away from the residents there... MR. MONROE- The road can't handle two trucks passing on... COUNCILMAN VANNESS- They said that... MR. MONROE- That's our main concern, really. COUNCILMAN VANNESS- Okay. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- Craig, can I ask two (2) questions of you? REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 77 DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- Sure. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- The first one and he and Andy raised a great question about this is affecting nine hundred (900) parcels as far as the sand, you know the extraction. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- Right. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- Can we have a minimum requirement for acreage as part of this, you know what I'm saying? DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- I do and I think there may be something like that. It's a special use permit and there are certain performance criteria in the zoning code for every special use permit. In our special use permit criteria for this type of use pretty much mirror the DEC's requirements. I think there is a lot size requirement, but there certain minimal setbacks from property lines, reclamation requirements. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- Is that something we can add? DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- You can add, yeah... TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- Discretionary decision. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- Yep. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- I do think we should at least consider a minimum lot size for this. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- You mean for? DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- To have this type of use. TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- Commercial sand and gravel. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-Because you know anybody now, if you have nine hundred (900) plus parcels anybody can... TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- It would just be an allowed use, it is still subject to review. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- I understand that. TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER-No, I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just making sure that people understand it's not to suggest that if the amendments go forward that anybody can start opening this commercial sand and gravel. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-Right, right. And my second question is, what is your gut feeling on allowing a road onto 149 like this? DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- My gut feeling? The draft plan I saw from the Fort Miller Group, I mean it seemed like the logical place to go. Ultimately, you know you're going to have to talk to the County and State to get that access point out there on the highway, and they're going to have a lot to say about that. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- Sure. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- It can certainly be conditional upon any approval that the Planning Board issues, that if you don't get this access out there you don't expand the permit. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-What's the guarantee of that? REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 78 DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- The guarantee is that you don't start cutting trees until you come back with your permit from the State that says you can put a driveway on that road. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- Okay, so we could, well not we because we're not doing it, but the Planning Board could condition on that road first before anything else occurs. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- Correct. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Is this, this isn't exactly a zoning change. This is adding... COUNCILMAN METIVIVIER- Adding a use. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Adding a use with a special use permit. TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- Correct, the proposal is to add this as one of the allowed uses with special use permit in that zone. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- And let me explain special use permits. This is allowing a use in rural residential. Special use permit, that's not just a site plan, a special use permit the Planning Board gives an extra hard look and probably adds restrictions because it's an extra strong look at the application before them. So it's not just a site plan review, what we're asking for is if they're going to go ahead with this, they're going to require a special use permit. So all the things that the neighbors might be concerned about, about this particular proposal, I just want them to keep in mind it's a special use permit that will be required here. If that helps. MR. HOLDING- It does. Do you want me to restate my name for the record? SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Yes, please. MR. HOLDING- Andrew Holding, 48 Dream Lake Road, Lake George. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Thank you. MR. HOLDING- I'm glad to hear that this Board is referring to this as a mining issue because part of the problem that we have with this as its proposed in section O is the multiple labels; especially in view of the problems that the courts are now having with Queensbury zoning code labels, it would be a shame to enact a law which would cause even more confusion. The code already contains four (4) different labels for use for something as simple as a gravel pit. The proposed law uses the label commercial sand and gravel excavation and requires a special use permit. The current code under 179, table 4 labels as it as sand and gravel processing, and that needs a site plan review, and mineral extraction, if it requires a special use permit. It's also called commercial mineral extraction under specific standards, and has two separate definitions and labels under sand and gravel extraction and sand and gravel processing in the zoning definitions. Since this section can clearly be written, simply rewritten, simply by using the terms that already exist in the code approving section O as its proposed would simply be inviting more litigation over labels. I don't think that's what we're trying to come by. I also have to state clearly that we, and I'm talking not for the Dream Lake Association but I'm talking we as neighbors, I have had conversations with, want to support Fort Millers expansion. It would be a benefit to Fort Miller, the economy of Queensbury and if the road is completed a benefit to the Dream Lake residents too, and we recognize that. In a meeting on last Wednesday with Mr. Butch Marcelli, an owner of Fort Miller, he was asked directly, would your company be willing to provide a letter with each of their permit applications stating that any permits granted which allow Fort Miller aggregates to process sand and gravel from the two (2) northern parcels may be issued conditionally, with that condition being the completion of haulage road to a state highway, and discontinuance of commercial truck traffic on Dream Lake Road. His response was, I'll have to think about that. Fort Miller has said in letters to Dream Lake owners, we intend to build such road. We're certain that Mr. Marcelli's intentions are honorable, but if the company is not REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 79 willing to guarantee that, another route as a stated condition on permits then we have to consider what the worst case scenario is, and Mr. Monroe outlined that. It's get to the end of everything and oops we're sorry the State won't allow us, or we can't, or the State demands an intersection that we can't afford, for whatever reason the road doesn't go through. If anyone wonders why the people on Dream Lake are really a little tired of this it's because we've been hearing it for a long time. I'd like to quote from a letter from the Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury, Mr. Ron Montesi of the DEC. It says, in part specifically, he's addressing complaints by residents. He says, specifically their concerned that the size of the operation has grown and have reported on covert loads traveling the residential neighborhood, even the large amount of sand and dust on the lawns and homes. We're researching the authority that the Town might have in this operation but DEC permits it and DEC certainly has enforcement responsibilities here. One possibility that could address many of the neighbors' concerns would be to relocate the access to the operation from Dream Lake Road to the northern end of the property onto 149. If this is a possibility and you can assist in pursuing this that would be very much appreciated. It's signed, Supervisor Daniel G. Stec, and it's dated October 7, 2004. Mr. Brown referred to special conditions and special conditions and special conditions are actually in the code as a requirement and as specific standards, is what it's called, specific standards... DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- Performance standards. MR. HOLDING- Specific standards for each special use request. If you want to have a special use permit for a tavern you must do ABCD. There is no special use, there are no specific standards, excuse me, I keep getting that wrong. There are no specific standards for this proposed use, published...and none have been proposed as part of this change. Therefore, you would have to go right back to calling it something else. There are specific standards published for mining, such things as a thousand (1,000) feet from a residence and what not. But, we would like the Board really to consider these things. The classifications that are listed in the proposed laws are not consistent with the existing code, which is going to lead to confusion and controversy. No specific standards exist in the current code and none were proposed. In addition to that, the description of the actions proposed to be taken on the tables is inaccurate. It describes insertion of one line into table three (3), correct me if I'm wrong please Craig. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- Table two (2). MR. HOLDING- Table two (2), and it completely omits that you're taking a line out of table four (4) and as a matter of fact, table four (4) doesn't even appear in your packets so that somebody can notice that. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- Just to answer that one, we're not taking anything out of table four (4). MR. HOLDING- You're taking sand and gravel out. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN-No. MR. HOLDING- Okay, I may be wrong but the table four (4) DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- The only thing we're doing is adding to table two (2). MR. HOLDING- The table four (4)that I had is printed and available in your office has sand and gravel in table four (4). DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- Correct. MR. HOLDING- Commercial use, heavy industry. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- Correct. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 80 MR. HOLDING- I believe it no longer appears in the packet. I could be mistaken. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Counsel wishes comments. TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- Well, not on that. I don't think that's a proposed change, but Mr. Holding I just want to hope that for the purpose of clarity of our record, you keep referring to proposed amendment O, but I'm absolutely certain that you're really referring to proposed amendment N as in Nancy. You probably have a prior version of where the lettering is different, but it's proposed amendment N that proposes to add commercial sand and gravel excavation. MR. HOLDING- I'm working on the one that's on-line and if it's not current, I apologize. TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER-No apology necessary, I just hope that you will agree that your comments, you keep referring to proposed amendment O, and I want the record to be as clear as possible when people read this who are not present this evening that your comments are all about proposed amendment N as in Nancy. MR. HOLDING- Thank you, because I want people also to be clear... SUPERVISOR STROUGH- And I will read N for the purpose of clarity, table two (2), which is included at the end of chapter 179 is amended by adding commercial sand and gravel excavation as an allowed use in a rural residential zone with a special use permit. Special use permit required. MR. HOLDING- Correct. So, but I do want to reinforce that we are supporting Fort Miller's plan. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- But, you want... MR. HOLDING- But, at the same time we don't want to rush into and enact something that's been hastily put together. We'd rather do it right than do it quickly. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Well, for one thing I'm leaving the public hearing open, for another, we're not going to act on this until July 21St. We do have to do SEQRA and we are listening to you. MR. HOLDING- Okay. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Okay. MR. HOLDING- I guess what I'm saying is after the agency approval that you're waiting for have approved, is there going to be another public hearing? SUPERVISOR STROUGH- I left the public hearing open. If you have any further comments that evening or before then you can certainly email or mail me. MR. HOLDING- Okay. COUNCILMAN VANNESS- And I think the important thing is as well is this is for Fort Miller, this is like the infants first steps. This is the very beginning, even though the presentation they did to us, I thought, was very well prepared. We asked a lot of questions. They've got a long road ahead of them. This isn't going to be decided overnight with them. MR. HOLDING- We fully recognize that and we appreciate all the effort they have put into it. We've seen their intended plan, all we're trying to guarantee is we're putting our trust in the Board collectively to take the first step to guarantee that trust. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Okay. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 81 MR. HOLDING- And the first step is ... from tonight's consideration. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much, I appreciate you listening. COUNCILMAN IRISH- Thank you. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- Thank you. MR. HOLDING- May I make one comment? COUNCILMAN METIVIER- Sure. MR. HOLDING- In reference to Mr. Metivier's excellent suggestion of a minimum acreage being one of the conditions that should be written into the special considerations, we did some research and I want to give you the proper numbers here. Okay, if any specific standards are set so that the class would, that use be allowed only on parcels over twenty-five (25) acres. That would allow Fort Miller to move forward because the parcels meet those rational standards and at the same time it would immediately assure owners of eight hundred and forty-two (842) of the nine hundred and eighteen (918) RR parcels that the house next door isn't going to turn into a gravel pit. If you want to allow it on a smaller parcel and you had a requirement for ten (10) or more acres for this special use, it would still eliminate seven hundred and fifty-one (75 1) of people who bought property in residential areas because they wanted it to remain that way. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Okay. MR. HOLDING- Thank you. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Yeah, thank you. John. JOHN SALVADOR- Thank you, for the record my name is John Salvador, I'm a resident in North Queensbury at 37 Alexy Lane. I'm going to speak this evening from some pre-prepared notes and some of the comments I have heard here, have already been addressed; you'll excuse me for repeating. Based on the Town Board resolution 183.2014 dated 5/19 setting a public hearing for this evening to amend the Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179 on the Town zoning map, I note from the record at hand that the Adirondack Park Agency has agreed to the Town's proposal that the Town act as Lead Agency for purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. The agency itself intends to act as an involved agency in the same review process of the proposed amendments to Chapter 179. These are embodied in the proposed Local Law#2 of 2014. I am referring to a letter in the record dated May 30th from the Executive Director of the APA reminding our Town's Director of Planning and Zoning that the APA Act Section 807 requires that any amendments to an agency approved land use program receive agency approval prior to the Town's adoption of same. In this regard, I was going to suggest that this public hearing be left open in that regard and you've agreed you're going to do that. It is important to remember that the APA approved the Bear Mountain zip flyer as a tourist attraction, not as an outdoor recreation use as determined by the Director of Planning and Zoning and upheld by the ZBA on June 4t1i I cannot recall the members of the ZBA were made aware of the APA's reservations to the amendments to the definition section of the Town Code being proposed tonight. I join all those who are equally delighted to hear from the Post Star news release of your June 12th resolution to remove further consideration of the controversial changes in the office zoning district along both sides of Bay Road between Cronin Road and just north of Blind Rock Road, a total distance of one and half miles. To even have proposed such changes constitutes an improper, if not, unethical approach considering the resolution of the matter for the need of either an area variance or a use variance has long since been joined in State Supreme Court where it rests at this time. After hearing the City's presentation this evening, I can't help but think that a symbiotic relationship exists between the City's DEC approved sewage control plan and this Board's second thoughts. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 82 SUPERVISOR STROUGH- John, does this have anything to do with the zoning changes we're proposing here tonight? MR. SALVADOR- Exactly. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- There's nothing on Bay Road that we're proposing to change. MR. SALVADOR- It's hard to tell what you're proposing to change. I'll get to it. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- But there's nothing on Bay Road that we're proposing to change and there is a public forum that's coming shortly... MR. SALVADOR- I'll get to... SUPERVISOR STROUGH- That you can talk about this. MR. SALVADOR- To pull the controversial residential increase, which would have produced untold additional quantities of raw sewage within the Bay Road office zoning district with no place for the sewage to go but to combined City sewer system and eventually to the Hudson River during peak flow conditions. It would have been encouraging to hear from the City Engineer this evening that one (1) of the combined sewers they were going to address was that on Bay Street. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Does the sewer issue have anything to do with the zoning proposals before us here and now. MR. SALVADOR- And I said there is a symbiotic relationship. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-With the mining? MR. SALVADOR- Meaning they are mutually dependent, they are mutually dependent. As I say, it would have been encouraging to hear that one of the combined sewers they were going to address SUPERVISOR STROUGH- John, John MR. SALVADOR- Okay. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-We're doing an independent engineering report on Bay Road, okay. MR. SALVADOR- Okay. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- We're going to do that. MR. SALVADOR- All Right. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- But there's nothing on tonight's agenda that has anything to do with the sewer, I mean on the proposed zoning code changes that has to do with... MR. SALVADOR- You mentioned the fact that you're pulling the Bay Road zoning issue. As I say... SUPERVISOR STROUGH- That's right, that's not on there... MR. SALVADOR- Your resolution... SUPERVISOR STROUGH- This is a public hearing on the code changes right here. MR. SALVADOR- Okay. Your resolution of June I Itl' resolution withdrawing proposed Bay Road Corridor zoning changes from consideration as a part of proposed zoning amendments set forth in proposed Local Law#2. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 83 SUPERVISOR STROUGH- That's an excellent discussion for privilege of the floor. It is not... MR. SALVADOR-You resolved at that meeting... SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Yes, that's correct but it is not one of the zoning changes being proposed. This public hearing is about what's right here. It's not about what's not here. MR. SALVADOR- It's hard to tell what is here and what is not here. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- John, you came in and saw me. I made it very clear to you, personally, face to face. It's not on the proposed code changes. MR. SALVADOR- But this is, let me read. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- And there's privilege of the floor where you can talk your heart out here. MR. SALVADOR-No, I want it part of this record. Resolved, that the Town Board further authorizes the Town Supervisor, the Town Clerk, the Director of Planning and Zoning and Town Counsel to take such actions as may be necessary in the preparation for the public hearing and for the Town Board to lawfully adopt the revised proposed Local Law#2 of 2014. Where is it? SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Nothing we're discussing right now, John. MR. SALVADOR- Okay, the point is this hasn't been done yet, okay. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- There's a lot we got to do John, okay, but what's before us right now... MR. SALVADOR- All right. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Okay, is what we're trying to address. MR. SALVADOR- Okay. Is it fair to presume that as paragraph C of section two (2), which deals with office zoning districts is being pulled, that the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 179, section 179-3-040 subparagraph B, 2A(1) will continue to be in effect. What you have in your resolution is what you intended to put into the code and what you intended to delete. That's in this resolution, okay. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Well, the public hearing right now is only on the items of the zoning code. MR. SALVADOR- Yeah. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- That's what we want to hear. If you want to discuss that, fine. You have privilege of the floor where you can discuss Bay Road to your hearts content. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-No, four (4) minutes, John. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Four(4) minutes worth, til your hearts content, whatever comes first. MR. SALVADOR- Okay. Let me continue. Town Code Chapter 179, section 179-2-010 definitions is being proposed to delete the term "commercial recreation facility", and private and it's better said non-commercial. We have had this discussion many times. The antithesis of commercial is non-commercial, it is not private. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Well, we're eliminating that. We're eliminating that, John. MR. SALVADOR- Why? REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 84 SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Because it's not needed. MR. SALVADOR- Why isn't it? It's a perfectly good definition. Okay, commercial recreation facilities are currently those open to the general public for private gain, as once was said for a fee. Somewhere along the line we changed that definition from private gain to a fee, from a fee to private gain, excuse me, eliminating the definition of something involving an admission fee tends to blur the lines between commercial and non-commercial. Commercial recreation usually involves obtaining not only local permits to operate but Federal and State licenses and or registration involving operator qualification, periodic compliance inspection, evidence of insurance, annual registration and fees, and sometimes even licensing as a vendor authorized to collect and remit sales tax. In fact, the 1997 Town Code was more explicit, commercial recreation use. Any use involving the provision of recreation facilities or activities for a fee. As the Town Code is now being proposed, all recreation will be considered outdoor recreation, for there is no definition in Town Code that constitutes indoor recreation. Further, all outdoor recreation is defined as a land use, which offers non-motorized leisure activities. That is all recreation, whether active or passive currently defined as non-motorized leisure activities. The first three (3)words right up front in the definition. Even golf and down-hill skiing as proposed to be designated principally non-motorized even though motorized equipment may facilitate set- up or transportation. If these proposed definitions related to recreation are adopted where by all recreation must be classified as either active or passive, and in either case is to be considered non-motorized leisure activity with no distinction as to commercial or non-commercial than non- motorized passive recreation would nonsensically include one (1) boating. Even a wind power boat has a motor, usually, biking, biking is motorized. Motorcycles are motorized. Swimming is usually somehow associated with a commercial activity. You have to have lifeguards, you have to have all these things. It costs money to swim. Model boating, usually motorized. Fishing is a commercial undertaking when done by a fishing guide. Sun bathing, you usually have to pay somebody, someplace, somehow to enjoy sunbathing. And feeding of water fowl, feeding of water fowl is considered a passive recreation use, non-motorized recreation use. Feeding of water fowl, it must be understood, feeding of wild-life, excuse me, is not encouraged. In fact, we advise our guests and visitors in a statement of when they register under the title of wild-life, ducks, mallards and other wild-life seen around the marina and around the beach area should not be fed. Feeding discourages the young learning to search for their own food and alters their need to migrate to warmer climate during winter months. We used to experience as little kids squirrelling away toast at breakfast so they would have something to feed to the ducks. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- I'm listening to John and looking through the book and trying to research what you're advocating and what we have. We do have what's called a recreation center as a use, but we don't have a definition for it. So is that something that we should work on? DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- We can, yeah if you want to come up with a definition for it, we can. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Well, I mean if we're deleting recreational facility and you have places like, you know the sports dome and so forth... COUNCILMAN IRISH- It's actually a good example. What would that be classified as Craig, if we eliminate those two (2) commercial and private use recreation? DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- What would what be classified as? COUNCILMAN IRISH- The sports dome. TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- Dome, dome. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- The sports dome. It would be a recreation center, I guess. But, we don't have a definition for it. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 85 DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- I guess it depends on what's at the dome. COUNCILMAN IRISH- It would be easier to say what's not. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- Well, for instance the current dome that we have in Queensbury has been into the classification of convention center to allow all types of activities to happen inside the dome. So, that's... SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Yeah but it's a sports facility as well as a convention center. So, it's... DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- It's a hybrid of lots of uses. That's why I'm saying it depends on what the use is you have there and how you have to classify it. COUNCILMAN IRISH- I think the majority of uses there are sports. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- Right. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Not so much convention activities. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- But that would be listed as a recreational facility/commercial. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- I would think so. TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER- Currently, you mean. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Yeah but we're talking of eliminating that and I'm saying what do we have in its place? TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER-No, I understand the question. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Yeah, I see recreation center. All right John, so I think we've got some work to do. MR. SALVADOR- Because active recreation is defined as non-motorized leisure activity, these proposed amendments have been crafted to include as an amusement, use both ATV and snowmobile in a class with miniature golf, go-karts, skating facilities, arcades and batting cages. This is non-sense. ATV's and/or snowmobiles are clearly motorized recreation uses, they are not amusements, which are commercial for which an admittance fee is usually charged and a sales tax collected. COUNCILMAN IRISH- Where were you saying that would fit, John? MR. SALVADOR- I'm saying they are not amusements. COUNCILMAN IRISH-No, but you're saying they would fit in active recreation. They would not fit there. MR. SALVADOR- I'm saying ATV's and snowmobiles are clearly motorized recreation uses. COUNCILMAN IRISH- I think we would agree. MR. SALVADOR- Well, it isn't what your amendments say. COUNCILMAN VANNESS- Where? Where specifically are you seeing that? COUNCILMAN IRISH- I don't see anything in either of these amendments that would allow snowmobiling or ATV's. COUNCILMAN VANNESS- ATVing. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Well, amusement center. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 86 MR. SALVADOR- Page two (2) of your resolution of May talks about recreation active and passive. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Yeah. MR. SALVADOR- Passive recreation is non-motorized leisure activities, includes boating, model boating, swimming, feeding water fowl. Recreation active also includes activities that are personally non-motorized, but, well I mentioned that, but in which motorized equipment may facilitate set-up. There's got to be a distinction in the code between commercial undertakings and non-commercial. COUNCILMAN VANNESS- I guess John, getting back, I still don't see where you're saying we were allowing ATV and snowmobile operations in here? SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Maybe you were referring to amusement center, what says, an indoor or outdoor facility, which may include structures and buildings where there are various devices for entertainment, including rides and booths for the conduct of games and building for shows and entertainment. This includes amusement uses such as but not limited to miniature golf, go-karts, riding areas for dirt bikes, ATV's or snowmobiles, skating facilities, arcades and batting cages. COUNCILMAN VANNESS-An amusement center. MR. SALVADOR- Yeah, an amusement center. TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER-Not recreation. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Right. MR. SALVADOR- ATV's and snowmobiles are not associated with amusement centers. You don't use them...an amusement... COUNCILMAN IRISH- That might be your opinion in the way it's used today, John, but that doesn't mean that maybe somebody wants to open an ATV park in Queensbury in an activity center, like they have the go-karts. They have indoor go-karts, maybe they want to do that with ATV's. You're assuming that's never going to happen, and I don't think that's correct. MR. SALVADOR- ATV's and snowmobiles are licensed by Motor Vehicle. All right... COUNCILMAN IRISH- I'm just saying, I mean, it could occur that somebody wants to come into the Town and open an indoor recreation center, or Queensbury doesn't allow a race track in the Town yet, but there could be a time when somebody has enough acreage that the Town says, okay, we're going to allow to have snowmobile races in the winter and ATV races in the summer. That could happen. Where would it happen? Right now it would happen in an amusement center. MR. SALVADOR- You could address it if it does. It's kind of an unlikely thing to happen. COUNCILMAN IRISH- Maybe. MR. SALVADOR- I mean, there are so many more important things that we should be worried about. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Okay. MR. SALVADOR- Thank you. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Go ahead, John. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 87 MR. SALVADOR- In the end analysis, if the Bear Mountain Zip flyer is somehow approved by the Town of Queensbury, the Planning Board will have approved a commercial use in a residential zone. There's got to be something wrong with that. There's no question the zip flyer is going to be a commercial undertaking, and it is in a LC-10 acre zone. The Planning Board does not have the authority to approve that use in that zone, but as a site plan approval they'll get approval. That is... With respect to the amendments proposed in section 179-5-060 Docks, Boathouses and Moorings: the drafters of these amendments have failed to incorporate the repeated interpretations, decisions and orders of the State Supreme Court, including the Appellate Division thereof, all of which are descendent from the State Court of Appeals 1953 decision and order which read, the reserved sovereign power of the State to control all uses of navigable waters extends to every form of regulation in the public interest, including the use of the lake that is Lake George as a means of recreation and enjoyment, and as a source of water power. More recently, and specific to Lake George again, the Appellate Division Third Department in a lengthy fifteen (15) page decision and order of June 2012 said in part, major inland lakes that have been judicially recognized as being owned by the State and it's sovereign capacity include Lake George. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- John, what part of what we're offering to change are you talking about? MR. SALVADOR- I said... COUNCILMAN IRISH- I think waterfront residential, page four (4). SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Yes, what it says... MR. SALVADOR- Section 179-5-060 SUPERVISOR STROUGH- And what it says is on all water bodies that may be regulated by the Town of Queensbury, in other words, the ones that we can regulate. MR. SALVADOR- Yeah. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Okay? MR. SALVADOR- That needs specificity. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Well, it says... MR. SALVADOR- I know what it says. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Water bodies that may be regulated by the Town of Queensbury. MR. SALVADOR- Is there always going to be a discussion and a debate as to whether or not you may regulate something? I've been on this subject ten (10)years. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Can we regulate Glen Lake? MR. SALVADOR- Exactly, it is not held... SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Yes or no? MR. SALVADOR- Pardon me? SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Yes or no? MR. SALVADOR- Yes, because it is not held by the State of New York... SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Lake Sunnyside? MR. SALVADOR- Yes. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 88 SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Okay. MR. SALVADOR- Well, than name those lakes. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Well, it might be other water bodies as well, so we'll just... MR. SALVADOR-Name them. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- The Hudson River... MR. SALVADOR- There's only a few in the Town, right. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- I don't think we need to, but okay I value you're opinion. MR. SALVADOR- Let me continue. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Okay. Thank you, yeah. MR. SALVADOR- Only when the State holds title to land underwater in its sovereign capacity does it have exclusive jurisdiction pre-empting local land use laws. Where the State holds title under navigable water in its sovereign capacity its paramount authority is not limited to regulation in the interest of navigation but extends to every form of regulation in the public interest. Now, I've got to tell you something, the people who wrote that sentence understood where they were going. This was written in 1953, in 1953 this was written, and they knew exactly where they were going, and they're there today. Okay. I would assume that every form of regulation includes not only Town zoning regulation, but those regulations by which the Town Assessor is authorized to value real property for purposes of levying local, town, special districts, school district, and Crandall Library taxes. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Now John, are you trying to get this in because you've got four(4) minutes at the privilege of the floor and this is just your opportunity to talk about all this stuff. I don't see what this has to do with what's proposed here, right now this public hearing is on these code changes. MR. SALVADOR- Yeah, you have this subject in here. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- But now we're talking who owns the bottom of the Lake. MR. SALVADOR- It's germane; it's germane to the subject. Resolution Section E refers to amendments to Town Code Chapter 179, Section 179-5-060 entitled Docks, Boathouses and Moorings with specific intent to add a new paragraph A-16, which is proposed to read as follows, in all waterfront residential zones, boathouses may be constructed subject to site plan review on all water bodies that may be regulated by the Town of Queensbury. As I said, this needs specificity. As has been pointed out by myself several times over the past ten (10)years or more, aside from the Hudson River, which is one navigable water body falling partially within the Town's boundaries, there is but one other tiny, tiny area within the Town submerged by the navigable waters of Lake George. Other than this tiny, tiny, approximately two (2) acre parcel at the head of Dunham Bay, the navigable waters of the sovereignly owned lake are foreign to the Town of Queensbury. Supporting this understanding is an 1858 State statute published in 1859 which defines the interface of Warren County Towns of Bolton and Queensbury as follows, the Town of Bolton... SUPERVISOR STROUGH- John, do we regulate docks on Lake George? MR. SALVADOR- Yes you do. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- We do? MR. SALVADOR- Yeah. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 89 SUPERVISOR STROUGH-No we don't. MR. SALVADOR- You're files are full of them down there. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- We used to, but that court decision that you've reminded us about... MR. SALVADOR- Yeah. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Okay, we don't. MR. SALVADOR- You don't? SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Don't. MR. SALVADOR- Then tell your Assessor to take them off the inventory then. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- This isn't about Lake George, what part of the underground we own or don't own or you own or don't own. Okay, there are other people that would like to speak to these code changes. MR. SALVADOR- I'll stand aside until they speak, can I come back then? SUPERVISOR STROUGH- How much more do you have, and is it on Lake George? Don't forget, you have privilege of the floor. MR. SALVADOR- Yeah, I'm almost finished. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Does it deal with... MR. SALVADOR- Lake George, definitely. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-No, no, no, there's nothing in here that we're proposing to change as far as Lake George goes. MR. SALVADOR- Well, we're getting to the issue of the jurisdiction on the navigable waters and the APA... SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Well John, you said...excuse me, you said... MR. SALVADOR- The APA has determined the boundaries of the navigable waters of Lake George. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- We're not talking about Lake George, we're talking about the water bodies we can regulate. MR. SALVADOR- Okay. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Okay, thank you. MR. SALVADOR- Then you can't regulate Lake George, is that what you're saying? SUPERVISOR STROUGH- We're not regulating docks right now. We're working on that issue, and you know that. Anybody else? Thank you, John. Anybody else like to speak to this Board about the proposed zone changes?Name, Claudia. And let me mention before Claudia begins, you presented the Board and I gave copies to the Town Clerk and Town Counsel your documents and your opinions here in. CLAUDIA BRAMER- Because you have that, I will try to keep my comments brief. For the record, Claudia Bramer, Attorney with Caffry and Flower, representing Lake George RV Park. With me here tonight is Dave King, President of Lake George RV Park. We are here to present comments on the definitions of recreation and amusement center that have been proposed in your packet. We suggest that you do not adopt the proposal that you have in your packet and that you REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 90 instead adopt the proposed language that I have provided to you in the letter as an enclosure that was provided to you today. As you probably know there is a project that was proposed for French Mountain, a zip line proposal and the Zoning Administrator determined that it met the definition of outdoor recreation use. That determination was upheld by the ZBA, last week I believe. If this Board does nothing or adopts the currently proposed language, then the zip line will be allowed to proceed under the guise of outdoor recreation, even though it doesn't meet that definition because it's a motorized activity and because it's not in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. Not only that, but allowing that project to go forward would set a precedent for the construction of tourist attractions and amusement centers on French Mountain and in any of the residential districts in the Town of Queensbury. That includes the LC-10, the land conservation districts, the moderate density residential, neighborhood residential and rural residential. We may not have another zip line in the near future, but other things could fall into that definition in the way that the ZBA has interpreted the code, and that's why we're asking you to adopt the proposal that we have presented to you. First, amusement rides like the zip line should not fall under the current definition of outdoor recreation. They are regulated by the Department of Labor as an amusement ride. There are Department of Labor regulations that I provided to you in the letter that indicate that a zip line and any other amusement ride have the same features and are both regulated the same. This is not your simple backyard zip line. In addition, the zip line would have motorized elements. Primarily, there is transportation to the top of the mountain via ATV's,jeeps or other open air vehicles. We're not really sure what those are going to be. But, in its application materials, the applicant stated the ride up the mountain is part of the project, it's part of the amusement ride atmosphere. So, it should be counted towards that projects impacts and overall assessment, that is has motorized transportation to the top. In addition, in order to operate it requires a cap stand motor that drives the retrieval mechanism. So, it's not incidental to the zip line, it is required to make the zip line function, to have this motorized element to it. In addition, there's a generator at the top of the mountain that opens up the gates so that the riders can be allowed to ride down the ride. In my mind, that is also essential to the zip line. They can't operate without something that regulates when the riders can go down or they're going to be having safety problems. Finally, the zip line is proposed to be built by a company called Zip Flyer. In their trademark, US patent trademark, information they indicate that they do provide amusement rides, amusement park rides, that's what they provide, that's their service, that's the goods and services that they provide, an amusement park ride. All of those should point you to determining that zip flyers, the zip line proposed is really something that falls under the definition of amusement center. That includes amusement park rides, it already includes that, but I have provided some language that tweaks that a little bit to make it more clear, that something that's regulated by the Department of Labor should be an amusement center in the Town of Queensbury too. In the Town of Queensbury's code in other locations references out to State regulations. If you look in the public service utilities definition, it references out to public utilities that are referenced by the public service commission. So it's not unusual for the Town of Queensbury to reference out to a State regulation in order to refine and determine your own Town definition. I just want to reiterate that it is concerning that the way that the code is going to be adopted if you take the currently proposed version, you will be allowing motorized, commercial, recreation in the residential communities. It's not just related to the French Mountain Proposal, but it is in all of the zones everywhere in the Town that are residential. Outdoor recreation use is a site plan permitted use by site plan review. That would be affecting, I'm not sure what the acreage is on all those zones within the Town and how it relates to the total acreage of the Town, but maybe that's something maybe we should look into. Secondly, the Comprehensive Plan should guide the Town's decision making here. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to preserve existing landscapes, conserve existing landforms and features, protect views from public roads, preserve mature trees, restrict building on steep slopes and avoid locating structures that create a silhouette against the sky when viewed from public ways. The Comprehensive Plan creates a meaningful difference between projects that are located in commercial zones and those that are located in residential zones. Your Town spent a lot of REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 91 time putting together the comprehensive plan and it lays out the different objectives and purposes for those different zones. It also creates a meaningful distinction between projects located on mountain tops, which it says should be avoided, and projects that are located in the low lands of the Town. New commercial uses are good for the Town, but only when they are appropriately located. We already have West Mountain, Great Escape and even Lake George RV Park itself are all located in recreation commercial districts. They're not located in residential districts. Additionally, you have things like the outlets along Route 9, those are in a commercial intensive district. So the argument that it's commercial and should be allowed because it is helping the Town seems spacious to me. Commercial uses like the zip line belong in the Town, but they must be located where they are permitted, not on mountain tops and not in residential district. Generally, only businesses related to agriculture are permitted in the residential districts. If you look at the tables, a playground is not even permitted in this zone, in the LC-10 zone. Finally, I would urge the Town Board pursuant to SEQRA to consider all of the potential development consequences of the proposed amendments to the zoning code on a town-wide basis like I inferred about the percentage of land that's going to be impacted by this change, and consider more than just the environmental impacts of how the proposed amendment would affect the zip line proposal. In conclusion, we ask that the Board adopt the language that was provided to you today and not adopt the language that is currently in your packet. I just have one more comment too on the filing of the determinations. In my opinion, it seems like it would be a good idea to have it continued to be filed in the Town Clerk's Office where there is an objective person that's stamping it, and when it goes back to the file down in the Planning Board's Office that there's something on that piece of paper that indicates this is important, this has been checked in by the Town Clerk. A citizen or an attorney looking through a file would register that as important and want to take note of the date that it was filed. Alternatively, maybe it could be stamped in by the Planning Board Secretary or Clerk downstairs and then a copy of that kept with that main file, and not kept solely in the Zoning Administrator's file. My understanding is there is a separate file, a working file that maybe is for logistic purposes, but when someone comes into the office to look at the files they don't see that Zoning Administrator's personal working file, so an extra copy need to be filed, stamped with someone and then put in that Planning Board file. COUNCILMAN IRISH- Craig, are they principally electronic files whenever you file a decision? DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- If there isn't a planning or zoning or building permit application associated with the determination. If there is, a hard copy goes into that file. There's no separate Zoning Administrator working file, anything that I keep is electronic or again, like I said, if there's an application associated with it, a hard copy goes into that particular file. COUNCILMAN IRISH- So for the purposes of date stamping a file, if you we're just to copy the Clerk's Office with an email, you wouldn't have to copy them with a decision, but a subject line, whatever the decision was based on. I think that would probably make some people feel more comfortable that at least the Clerk's Office would be the one that's stamping, whatever they do on their end to make that a permanent record, verses having the Planning or Zoning Departments say, yes, this is on record, I did it on such and such a date. I think it would set some people at ease that you're not going to forget to say, all right, I made this decision on Tuesday and maybe you get busy doing something else, and I am just using you as an example, and then it doesn't actually get stamped until Friday or conversely you say, yeah I did that three (3)weeks ago but you just filed the paperwork. I think that's the concern from most of the public that I'm hearing. I'm wondering if there is just an easy way electronically to make sure that the Clerk has that date stamped and filed in her office. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- Yeah, I guess it's doing something different than what's in the proposal right now. You're talking about filing it in the Clerk's Office. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 92 COUNCILMAN IRISH- I don't know that I really have to have it filed as long as they're notified. You made a decision on Doug Irish's variance application or whatever on such and such a date. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- Yeah. COUNCILMAN IRISH- You know, it could be just an email with a subject line Irish variance decision. Something like that. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- Right, right. COUNCILMAN IRISH- And you maintain the files, or however that works today. To my understanding it's never been filed, at least from your office, and the Clerk's Office. You've maintained those records in your... DIRECTOR OF PLANNING/ZONING, BROWN- Yeah, I have hundreds and hundreds of determination letters, sure. COUNCILMAN IRISH- I don't know, Mark, you have any opinion? TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER-No, State law allows it either way. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Okay, well back to amusement center, Claudia. You're suggesting that this zip line or whatever it's called should be an amusement center, because an indoor or outdoor facility. So what's the definition of facility? Well, our code says if we don't define it then it's deferred to Merriam Webster and a facility could be a building or a piece of equipment, okay. All right,just trying to understand your position. ATTORNEY, BRAMER- And I cautiously refer to John Salvador's comment about deleting the definition of facility, recreation facility. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- I wasn't answering my phone, I was looking up Webster's definition... ATTORNEY, BRAMER- Okay. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Okay, I was doing my work. Is there anything else? DAVID KING- I would just speak directly to the process by which we are proposing this package of zoning changes. Now, I have attended some workshops, we've looked at some of the language changes and some of them are quite simplistic, and some of them in the terms of the ones that were applying amusement center and active recreation I think have very broad, far reaching impacts that really relate to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan of 2007. In all of the meetings I've attended so far, the workshops and so forth. When these changes have been discussed, I have yet to hear discussion of how they relate to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The proposed changes that we've submitted to you by letter today, I believe fully address the vision within the Comprehensive Land Use Plan document. In that document it specifically says that rezoning should it need to take place, and in this case I believe we are saying we need to make changes, should only happen if it furthers the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, or after the community decides that it needs to revisit the Plan. What I would suggest is that if we're not very careful in making these zoning language changes to include the vision adopted in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan we should table and hold any changes, revisit the Plan as a community, because if we don't do that we're not honoring the vision of that document. If indeed this Town, since 2007, in the last seven (7) has changed its view of how is wishes to handle natural areas and view sheds in the Town we need to revisit the Comprehensive Land Use Plan first, readopt and reapprove the language there, reconfigure our vision for these natural spaces, and then go back and make the changes to the Zoning Code. It's in our Comprehensive Land Use Plan today that protecting important natural areas in view sheds, especially unique REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 93 land forms. I want to say that French Mountain, one of the most unique land forms in this Town, it's not like every other mountain and slope, it is special. Increasing development in Queensbury does not have equaled a loss of open space views or community character, that's stated in the current Comprehensive Land Use Plan. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Yes, but Dave, admittedly... MR. KING- Is it not, have we addressed that? SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Well, the language here, the way I see it has a history. Did we start discussing recreation indoor active and passive as a result of the zip line? The answer is yes. Well, such as the discussion tonight with the dome and amusement center. Things arise, I mean, I've been here eleven (11) years and never once have I said boy this town code is perfect. It's always changing. We realized in this discussion that the way the code is with recreation active and recreation passive the ski center doesn't fit, and the ski center is a major thing in the Town of Queensbury. It didn't fit the definition at the time, Dave. ATTORNEY BRAMER- It fits under, it's in the zone where it is, it's a permitted use. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-But it wasn't... SUPERVISOR STROUGH- But it wasn't defined. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- It wasn't that way, that's not the way it was. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Cross country skiing, golfing, I mean other things that we started to...brainstorm. When we started to brainstorm, we started to realize okay well that code doesn't fit this and that and the other thing. So we suggested language here to accommodate those things. I have to admit, it did start with the discussion of the zip line. It gets us looking at the language in the code. So what we're proposing now are language that would allow ski centers and golf courses, and so forth. Before... ATTORNEY, BRAMER- But you're allowing them an outdoor recreation, SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Lets go back, now wait a minute originally it said passive recreation, non-motorized, active recreation, non-motorized. Immediately we started to see a problem with that. I understand your point tonight too. ATTORNEY, BRAMER- And my point at an earlier workshop about how there are regulations for ATV's and snowmobiles. You don't need to provide a use under outdoor recreation in order to allow ATV's and snowmobiles. They are regulated in the town code under two (2) separate sections. I don't have those right in front of me. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Maybe not enough so. COUNCILMAN IRISH- Or too much. ATTORNEY, BRAMER- And you're revising the amusement center definition to include your ATV riding center. So it doesn't need to be squeezed in under outdoor recreation, that's going to be covered by your amusement center definition. In our minds, you're broadening it too far. MR. KING- And that's exactly right, I mean, to your point, these things come up. Interpretations come up all the time. At this juncture what we want to do is refine the code more specifically so that we're not going through this debate. I would question the word "principally" in the active recreation area. I mean, "principally" according to Webster's synonym says "primarily". I could say any activity where I'm primarily engaged in the motorized event verses the non-motorized event would not be an allowable use. In the case of the zip line, much more time will be spent on a motorized piece of equipment during the entire experience than it will be on a gravity fed zip line at fifty-eight (58) seconds. So I mean, if you want to interpret that exactly, the word REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 94 "principally" to me opens up another very vague area in the code. We need to be more specific so that we don't have to make those determinations. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- I will read this thoroughly and consider this, as well as the other Board Members, as we move forward. I understand you have a different point of view and we will consider that. MR. KING- I thank you. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Thank you. Yes, John. ATTORNEY, JOHN LAPPER- For the record, Mike O'Connor and Ralph Macchio. We'll be brief and simple. We came to you because we didn't ask you to change the zoning but to clarify something that seemed a little ambiguous where it talked about non-motorized, but also included downhill skiing and golfing, which obviously involved some motorized aspects. But, very simply if you compare an amusement park, a roller coaster, which is clearly motorized and what Ralph is proposing for the zip line is a green use, which is a gravity ride with some motorized components, which are far less than a ski slope with a chair lift. That's really the whole distinction here. Craig made the determination that this is an outdoor recreation use, which is permitted in this zone and the Zoning Board five (5)to two (2) upheld his determination. The only thing we're asking for you to do is just codify that, clarify that to avoid really litigation about the definitions. We are very satisfied with Craig's determination and what the Zoning Board did. What Ralph is trying to do, which has gotten really good support, we already got our APA permit based upon minimizing visual impacts and a permit from the Town of Lake George is just to create something that will be good for the area that people are going to like. It's a gravity ride, it's a thrill, and just because its regulated by OSHA, of course it should be, it's about safety, but that doesn't have anything to do with what the Queensbury definitions are. We're not asking for an amusement park, never have been. We think this is just a good thing and we're just asking you to tweak the, in the code to really to avoid a fight. ATTORNEY, MICHAEL O'CONNOR- It's interesting when I hear the different presentations and we listened to Mr. King's presentation probably as many times as he has listened to mine, which is probably six (6) or seven (7). He talks about the master plan and we're not following the master plan. The master plan when it was adopted allowed in this C-10 zone outdoor recreation, and that's exactly what has been determined by your Zoning Administrator and by your Zoning Board, that this activity is outdoor recreation. If you read the letters and what not, it's illegal, it's not permitted and it goes on and on and just repeats that. I think sometimes if you think you repeat it often enough you believe it. The point even that Mr. Salvador makes that is contrary to the residential zone is opposite of the definition, because the definition of outdoor recreation without your changing it is land uses which offer the recreation activities primarily outdoors that are operated for members or on a commercial basis for the general public. So, in that zone a commercial outdoor recreation activity is permitted. Where we got into all this word scything is the APA classification of tourist attraction and the definition of tourist attraction appearing in the Queensbury Ordinance. Tourist attraction doesn't appear in any of the use schedules, but it is a defined term. It took me a long time to try and figure out why it's in the ordinance at all. If you look at our appendix where you defer to the APA or acknowledge that the APA has jurisdiction over certain type projects, that's where the term tourist attraction appears. It's the only place it's applicable in your whole code. It says if you have a regional project in particular zones and different zones, some are regional projects A, regional projects B, and they are tourist attractions. Then in addition to the town approval, whatever the town approval was required, you need to get an APA permit, we did that. The term tourist attraction is not a use term, it's not permitted or prohibited use by that term in your Ordinance. The only place it appears is in Appendix G, I think. I may be wrong on that, but I can get you the page. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 95 SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Well, it's not defined and I can't find it anywhere up here in the use tables or the definitions or anything else. ATTORNEY, O'CONNOR-No, it's only in the appendix when it refers to the jurisdiction that the APA reserved to itself, even though they approved the ordinance in total. They reserved to themselves the right to require permit for certain activities. That's the only reason it's in there. If you look at the two definitions that we had, active recreation and passive recreation, if you looked at both of them, I don't know where you would have any place in the Town anything that had any mechanical part to it or was motorized in any sense. There's both active and passive prohibits on its face. I think you're proposed change is a good change, particularly when you put it into outdoor recreation saying you can have passive or active recreation. It makes some sense, it gives it some logic that you're dealing with. I understand that Mr. King and his attorneys disagree with us vehemently. But I think that your Zoning Administrator has said that this is an outdoor recreation, your Zoning Board has said that this is outdoor recreation, and as John said, this clarification that you're going to put here may prevent some litigation as we go forward; and it would be litigation not only at our expense but it would also be at the Town's expense. RALPH MACCHIO- Yes, if I may. I want to make a comment about why a zip a line, why was it a concept? Our family thought long and hard about this. It's not a thrill ride, it's not a roller coaster. This is not what this zip line represents. True, it is a thrill line, but more important than that, the most important thing that made us decide is that we can have people that don't necessarily have to be hikers, they can even be somewhat handicapped go up to that mountain, take a ride down and fly like an eagle over some of the most beautiful area in the Adirondacks, with views of the Lake and with minimum, very minimum visual impact on the site and everything I've done on that ranch has been for the benefit for what exists now, the country side the mountain and for people to enjoy it. People will take that ride and remember it for the rest of their life, not only for the thrill part, but for the beauty of it. That's all. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Thank you. Kathy? KATHLEEN SONNABEND- I'll make this very quick. Some of the confusion tonight was because people weren't finding the actual resolution that we're talking about. Dave O'Brien, in fact, showed me the resolution that he pulled off the website at four thirty (4:30) and it was the wrong one. So, and I don't see any copies of it here for the public hearing. So, I just ask that before the next time you re-open the public hearing, make sure that what's on the website is up to date and people can find it, and maybe even have a few copies made so that people can refer to them, because that was part of the confusion in people speaking. COUNCILMAN IRISH- I had several calls last week about that too. I actually called Bill and asked him if we were doing something other than we talked about. MS. SONNABEND- Yeah, yeah, and that was part of our problem in trying to organize people. There were people who came here tonight that wanted to speak but we were told tonight no, absolutely not, it's taken off, even though it was appearing in a resolution on the website. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- I'm sorry about that. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. MS. SONNABEND- Sure. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Anybody else like to speak to the code changes that we are proposing, considering? Geez, I thought there would be controversy. COUNCILMAN IRISH- Yeah, I thought this would go a lot longer. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- I want to thank everybody for your input. I thought a lot of what you said was thought provoking and I'm sure that this Board will hash over everything that you considered, and we'll go forward. Like I said, the public hearing will remain open. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 96 3.0 PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR(LIMIT- 4 MINUTES) GEORGE WINTERS- • Questioned the Board regarding resolution 4.8, entitled resolution authorizing renewal of services of Kim Polunci as Animal Control Officer on Independent Contractor Basis. Asked if Ms. Polunci covers for Jim Fitzgerald when he is on vacation. Supervisor Strough confirmed that and explained that they are just renewing her contract. • With regards to resolution 4.19, entitled resolution authorizing agreement between Town of Queensbury and West Glens Falls Fire Company#1, Inc. to host Hudson Valley Firemen's Association Convention, it's a little late to be doing this now with it being only two (2) days away. Supervisor Strough said that he asked them to get their financial situation in order before they went forward with this. Mr. Winters stated that he is against giving them the funding for this. JOHN SALVADOR- Spoke regarding a bypass road around the Million Dollar Mile. Supervisor Strough explained that there are some new ideas so they are taking a new look at the connector road. COLBY HARVISH- Asked that the Town Board to take a look at an intersection between Kendrick Road and Montray Road. He believes the intersection is a hazard and something needs to be done there. Supervisor Strough agreed to go take a look to see what can be done. Councilman VanNess will have the Highway Superintendent look at it as well. 4.0 RESOLUTIONS AMENDED AND RESTATED RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF TOWN REAL PROPERTY TO ROBERT DISTEFANO RESOLUTION NO.: 204,2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr.William VanNess WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Doug Irish WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury owns an approximately .105 acre parcel of land (the "Parcel") located along Veterans Road in the Town of Queensbury, adjacent to 80 Veterans Road, Tax Map Parcel No.: 309.6-1-66 owned by Robert Distefano as shown on a copy of a map presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, the Parcel is vacant and unimproved, and WHEREAS, the Town Board received a request from Mr. Distefano to purchase the Parcel as the Parcel is adjacent to his property, and WHEREAS, the Town Highway Superintendent advised the Town Board that the Town does not use such Parcel as part of Veterans Road and the Town has no need for such Parcel for highway purposes, and WHEREAS, based upon the opinion of the Town Assessor, the fair market value of the Parcel is $6,000, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 97 WHEREAS, the Town Water Department has a water main located very near the Parcel and the Town shall retain an Easement for Town utilities (water and sewer) over the Parcel, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 192,2014, the Town Board acted on Mr. Distefano's request and approved the conveyance as authorized by New York State Town Law §64(2) subject to permissive referendum in accordance with Town Law Article 7, and the purpose of this Resolution is simply to clarify that such conveyance is contingent upon the Town retaining a 10' utility easement over the Parcel for water and/or sewer purposes to be located along Harris Street and along Veterans Road, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby determines that the Parcel described in the preambles of this Resolution is not needed for Town purposes, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the sale price of $6,000 constitutes fair, adequate and reasonable consideration for the Parcel, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes the sale and conveyance of the Parcel to Robert Distefano for the sale price of $6,000 in accordance with Town Law §64(2), contingent upon: 1. The Town being provided with a survey certified to the Town and a metes and bounds description describing the Parcel satisfactory to the Town Supervisor and Town Counsel; and 2. Mr. Distefano paying all costs associated with the transfer including, without limitation, transfer taxes and recording fees and any title search or title insurance costs and/or any survey costs; and 3. The Town retaining a 10' utility easement over the Parcel for water and/or sewer purposes to be located along Harris Street and along Veterans Road; BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Counsel to execute and deliver instruments and documents necessary and take any other actions they deem necessary or reasonable to effectuate the sale, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs that proceeds received from the sale are to be deposited and accounted for in an account determined by the Town Budget Officer. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 98 Duly adopted this 16th day of June, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HIRING OF SEASONAL EMPLOYEES TO WORK FOR DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION RESOLUTION NO.: 205,2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr.William VanNess WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Brian Clements WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury's Department of Parks and Recreation has requested Town Board authorization to hire Mackenzie Baertschi, Celia Brown, Patrick Mellon, Jr., Sarah O'Brien, Connor Perkett, Mackenzie Perkett, Hannah Hewlett, Alexis Metivier, Samantha Ramsey and Holly Sokol to work part-time for the Department on a seasonal basis, and WHEREAS, Town Policy requires that familial relationships must be disclosed and the Town Board must approve the appointment of Town employees' relatives and: • Mackenzie Baertschi is the cousin of Recreation Program Supervisor/Q-Club Director, Jennifer Baertschi; • Celia Brown is the daughter of Code Compliance Officer/Zoning Administrator, Craig Brown; • Patrick Mellon, Jr., is the son of Deputy Town Clerk II Rose Mellon; • Sarah O'Brien is the daughter of Deputy Town Clerk I Karen O'Brien and Code Enforcement Officer John O'Brien; • Connor Perkett is the nephew of Town Councilman, Anthony Metivier; • Mackenzie Perkett is the niece of Town Councilman, Anthony Metivier; • Hannah Hewlett is the daughter of Recreation Commission Member, Greg Hewlett; • Alexis Metivier is the daughter of Town Councilman, Anthony Metivier; • Samantha Ramsey is the daughter of Parks and Recreation Senior Typist, Simone Ramsey; and • Holly Sokol is the daughter of Supervisor-At-Large, Matt Sokol; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the hiring of the above-named employees to work for the Town's Department of Parks and Recreation on a part- time, seasonal basis effective on or about June 17th, 2014, to be paid at the appropriate hourly wage approved for seasonal recreation positions and subject to the Town successfully completing REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 99 background checks as reasonably may be necessary to judge fitness for the duties for which hired, and drug and/or alcohol screening, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Director of Parks and Recreation, Recreation Program Supervisor/Q-Club Director and/or Town Budget Officer to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 16th day of June, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Strough, Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess NOES None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mr. Metivier RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HIRING OF ANDREW FLEURY AS FULL-TIME MOTOR EQUIPMENT OPERATOR FOR TOWN HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 206,2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Doug Irish WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury's Highway Superintendent has advised the Town Board that there is currently a vacancy in the full-time Motor Equipment Operator (MEO) position in the Highway Department, and WHEREAS, the Highway Superintendent posted availability for the position, reviewed resumes and has recommended that the Town Board authorize the hiring of current, temporary Laborer Andrew Fleury in the full-time position, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the hiring of Andrew Fleury as a full-time Motor Equipment Operator (MEO) in the Town's Highway Department effective on or about June 1711i 2014 subject to Mr. Fleury's successful passing of a pre-employment physical as required by Town Policy and completion of an eight (8) month probationary period, and contingent upon the Town successfully completing background checks as reasonably necessary to judge fitness for the duties for which hired and drug and/or alcohol screening, and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 100 RESOLVED, that Mr. Fleury shall be paid at the hourly rate of pay for the MEO position as delineated in the Town's current Agreement with the Civil Service Employees Association, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Highway Superintendent and/or Town Budget Officer to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 16th day of June, 2014 by the following vote: AYES Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HIRING OF ALLEN FRASIER AS TEMPORARY, SEASONAL LABORER IN TOWN HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 207,2014 INTRODUCED BY Mr.William VanNess WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr.Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, the Town Highway Superintendent has requested Town Board authorization to hire a temporary, seasonal Laborer to work for the Town's Highway Department as one of the current temporary, seasonal Laborers is being hired for a currently vacant NIEO position, and WHEREAS, funds for such position have been budgeted for in the Town Budget, and WHEREAS, the Highway Superintendent has advised the Town Board that such temporary, seasonal Laborer is Allen Frasier, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the hiring of Allen Frasier to work as a temporary, seasonal Laborer for the Town Highway Department commencing on or about June 17th, 2014 and concluding on or about November 21St, 2014, subject to the Town successfully completing a pre-employment physical and background checks as reasonably necessary to judge fitness for the duties for which hired, and drug and/or alcohol screenings, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that such temporary, seasonal Laborer shall be paid $10.00 per hour as set forth in Town Board Resolution No.: 462,2013 to be paid from the appropriate payroll account, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 101 BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Highway Superintendent, Town Budget Officer and/or Town Supervisor to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 16th day of June, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING DONNA PARTRIDGE AS MEMBER OF TOWN OF QUEENSBURY CEMETERY COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.: 208,2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Doug Irish WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr.Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury previously established the Town of Queensbury Cemetery Commission in accordance with applicable New York State law, and WHEREAS, the present term of Cemetery Commission member Donna Partridge will expire as of June 3011i 2014 and the Town Board wishes to reappoint Ms. Partridge to the Commission for a new three year term commencing July 1St, 2014, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby reappoints Donna Partridge as a member of the Town of Queensbury Cemetery Commission to serve a three year term to commence July 1St, 2014 through June 30th 2017. Duly adopted this 16th day of June, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING BRIAN DREITLEIN AS MEMBER OF TOWN OF QUEENSBURY CEMETERY COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.: 209,2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Doug Irish WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr.William VanNess REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 102 WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury previously established the Town of Queensbury Cemetery Commission in accordance with applicable New York State law, and WHEREAS, the present term of Cemetery Commission member Brian Dreitlein will expire as of June 3011i 2014 and the Town Board wishes to reappoint Mr. Dreitlein to the Commission for a new three year term commencing July 1St, 2014, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby reappoints Brian Dreitlein as a member of the Town of Queensbury Cemetery Commission to serve a three year term to commence July 1St, 2014 through June 30th 2017. Duly adopted this 16th day of June, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF MATTHEWS CREMATION GROUP TO PERFORM CREMATORY RETORT REPAIRS RESOLUTION NO.: 210,2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr.William VanNess WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr.Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury's Cemetery Superintendent and Town Cemetery Commission have requested that the Town Board authorize Matthews Cremation Group (Matthews) as a single source vendor to perform Crematory Retort inspections and/or repairs on the Crawford C-1000 Cremation Unit at the Pineview Cemetery, and WHEREAS, such inspection and/or repairs will cost approximately $9,827 (not including freight charges) as set forth in Matthews' letter proposal dated May 29t1i 2014 and presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, Matthews has performed annual Crawford and Power Pak Retort inspections, is accepted by the New York State Department of Environmental Services as meeting statutory requirements regarding inspections, and is the manufacturer of these retorts, possessing proprietary engineering drawings and specifications for such equipment, and for these reasons, the Town Board wishes to waive the Town Purchasing Policy's two (2) quotes, self-imposed bidding requirement in this instance, and WHEREAS, the Town will adhere to all New York State Law bidding requirements, and WHEREAS, this will ensure that the Town's retorts will continue to operate in a safe and efficient manner while continuing to meet DEC's regulatory requirements, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 103 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that for the reasons outlined above, in these circumstances the Queensbury Town Board hereby waives its requirement under the Town of Queensbury's Purchasing Policy for two (2)written quotes, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs engagement of Matthews Cremation Group (Matthews) to inspect, service and/or repair the Crawford C-1000 Cremation Unit at the Pineview Cemetery for approximately $9,827 (under $20,000), not including freight charges(approximately $500), as set forth in Matthews' letter proposal dated May 29th 2014 and presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that such authorization is contingent upon Matthews providing the Town with satisfactory proof of insurance prior to commencing work for the Town, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs that payment shall be made from the Cemetery's Equipment Repair Account No.: 002-8810-4070 and further authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to amend the Town Budget by transferring $10,327 from Fund Balance to Account No.: 002-8810-4070 and take any and all other actions necessary to provide for such payment, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Cemetery Superintendent and/or Town Budget Officer to take such other and further actions as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 16th day of June, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RENEWAL OF SERVICES OF KIM POLUNCI AS ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER ON INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR BASIS RESOLUTION NO.: 211,2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Brian Clements REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 104 WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 356, 2013, the Queensbury Town Board authorized engagement of the services of Kim Polunci of Tails Wag Inn LLC & Friends of Phoebie Animal Rescue, Inc., on a temporary, independent contractor basis to handle Town Animal Control Officer (ACO) emergency calls only when the ACO is out on vacation, illness, training or otherwise unavailable, until December 31St, 2013, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to renew the engagement of such services, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the renewal of the services of Kim Polunci of Tails Wag Inn LLC & Friends of Phoebie Animal Rescue, Inc., on a temporary, independent contractor basis to handle Town of Queensbury Animal Control Officer emergency calls only when the ACO is out on vacation, illness, training or otherwise unavailable, through December 31St, 2014, with the understanding that Ms. Polunci will not be driving the Town's Animal Control Officer van, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that Ms. Polunci shall invoice the Town at the amount of$100 per call to be paid from Account No.: 001-3510-4400, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Town Animal Control Officer and/or Budget Officer to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 16th day of June, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RENEWAL OF INSURANCE COVERAGE FROM TRIDENT/ARGONAUT AND CYBER-COVERAGE FROM ASCENT CYBER PRO RESOLUTION NO.: 212,2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Brian Clements WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 275324,2013, the Queensbury Town Board authorized the procurement of insurance coverage for the Town of Queensbury from Trident/Argonaut effective July 1St, 2013 —June 3 0t1i 2014, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 105 WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize the renewal of insurance coverage with Trident/Argonaut and the procurement of cyber-coverage from Ascent CyberPro effective July 1St 2014—June 30t1i 2015, in accordance with the May 71h, 2014 proposal presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the renewal of insurance coverage from Trident/Argonaut and the procurement of cyber-coverage from Ascent CyberPro for the Town of Queensbury effective July 1St, 2014 —June 3011i 2015 in accordance with the May 7th, 2014 proposal presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute any agreements and any other documentation, and the Town Supervisor, Town Counsel and/or Town Budget Officer to take any actions necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 16th day of June, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CHEAP PETE'S LAWN CARE TO MOW AN ADDITIONAL ABANDONED OR NEGLECTED PROPERTY IN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY RESOLUTION NO.: 213, 2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Brian Clements WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Doug Irish WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 174,2014, the Queensbury Town Board approved the Director of Building and Codes Enforcement's (Director) engagement of the monthly lawn mowing services of Cheap Pete's Lawn Care for eight (8) properties in a state of serious neglect, and WHEREAS, the Director has advised the Town Board of an additional property in a similar state of serious neglect located at 17 Park Avenue in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has concluded that the condition of such property also creates a public health hazard due to concerns regarding fire and the harboring of ticks and other vermin in the tall grass, and WHEREAS, the Director reports that he has attempted to contact the owner of record by certified letter and/or posting of the property and his efforts have been to no avail and he has been unable to reach anyone or to obtain any resolution of the situation, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 106 WHEREAS, in accordance with Town Law §64 (5-a), the Town Board may require the owners of land to cut, trim or remove from the land owned by them, brush, grass, rubbish or weeds or to spray poisonous shrubs or weeds on such land, and upon default, may cause such grass, brush, rubbish or weeds to be cut, trimmed or removed and such poisonous shrubs or weeds to be sprayed by the Town and the total expense of such cutting, trimming, removal or spraying may be assessed by the Town Board on the real property on which such grass, rubbish, weeds or poisonous shrubs or weeds were found and the expense so assessed shall constitute a lien and charge on the real property on which it is levied until paid or otherwise satisfied or discharged and shall be collected in the same manner and at the same time as other Town charges, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT, RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board directs that a final notice shall be sent by U.S. mail to the Property Owner of Record as set forth above requiring that they mow the lawn on their land within 10 days and failing to do so, the Town will cause such action to be taken and the cost thereof will be assessed by the Town Board on the real property and the assessment shall constitute a lien and charge on the real property until paid or otherwise satisfied or discharged and shall be collected in the same manner and at the same time as other Town charges, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the Director of Building and Codes Enforcement's adding such property to the list of monthly lawn mowing services of Cheap Pete's Lawn Care for the amount of$60 per month for such property for a period of four(4) months (July 1St, 2014 —October 1St, 2014) for a total amount for such property not to exceed $240, to be paid on a monthly basis upon Cheap Pete's Lawn Care submitting a proper invoice to the Town outlining the dates on which the property was mowed, to be paid for from Account No.: 001-3620-4400, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to amend the Town Budget and transfer $240 from Contingency Account No.: 001-1990-4400 to Account No.: 001-3620-4400 and take any other and all actions necessary to provide for such payment, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Director of Building and Codes Enforcement to inform the Town Assessor and/or Town Tax Receiver of the total expenses of such cutting, trimming, removal or spraying of such property so that the expenses can be properly assessed and constituted as a lien and charge on the real property on which it is levied until paid or otherwise satisfied or discharged so that such sum may be collected in the same manner and at the same time as other Town charges, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 107 BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Director of Building and Codes Enforcement and/or Town Budget Officer to take all actions necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 16th day of June, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements NOES Mr. Irish ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF CIRCUIT BREAKER FOR WATER DEPARTMENT FROM TROY INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO.: 214,2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Brian Clements WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Doug Irish WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury's Civil Engineer/Wastewater Director has requested Town Board approval to purchase a replacement TC1616TTR 600 Volt 1600 AMP Circuit Breaker with an AC Pro Trip Kit (Circuit Breaker), and WHEREAS, the Civil Engineer/Wastewater Director requested quotes for the purchase of such Circuit Breaker and the lowest received quote is in the amount of $10,892 from Troy Industrial Solutions and therefore the Civil Engineer/Wastewater Director has recommended that the Town Board approve such purchase, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the Civil Engineer/Wastewater Director's purchase of a replacement TC 1616TTR 600 Volt 1600 AMP Circuit Breaker with an AC Pro Trip Kit (Circuit Breaker) from Troy Industrial Solutions for an amount not to exceed $10,892 as delineated in Troy Industrial Solutions' quote dated June 2, 2014 and presented at this meeting, such purchase to be paid from Account No.: 040-8320-4350, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Civil Engineer/Wastewater Director, Town Budget Officer and/or Purchasing Agent to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 16th day of June, 2014, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 108 NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CLOSURE OF: 1) I.T. DEPARTMENT SERVER AND DATA STORAGE IMPROVEMENT CAPITAL PROJECT FUND#181; AND 2) LASERFICHE AND WORKSTATION UPGRADES CAPITAL PROJECT FUND #186 RESOLUTION NO.: 215, 2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Doug Irish WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. William VanNess WHEREAS, in accordance with Resolution No.: 43,2011, the Queensbury Town Board established the I.T. Department Server and Data Storage Improvement Capital Project Fund #181 which Fund established funding for expenses associated with the purchase of an additional server and new hardware boxes to replace obsolete Network Attached Storage (NAS) boxes so that a Town of Queensbury off-site computer setup would be ready in the event of a catastrophic building event, i.e., fire, and WHEREAS, in accordance with Resolution No.: 277,2011, the Town Board established the Laserfiche and Workstation Upgrades Capital Project Fund #186 which Fund established funding for expenses associated with the purchase of laserfiche and workstation upgrades, and WHEREAS, the Town's Technology Coordinator has advised that the Projects are complete and the Funds can be closed, and WHEREAS, the Town's accounting records show that there is approximately $350.49 remaining in Capital Project Fund #181 and approximately $961.86 remaining in Capital Project Fund #186, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to close these Capital Project Funds and transfer the Funds' remaining balances back to the Town's Capital Reserve Fund #64 Fund Balance, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to close the I.T. Department Server and Data Storage Improvement Capital Project Fund #181 and Laserfiche and Workstation Upgrades Capital Project Fund #186 and transfer the Funds' remaining balances back to the Town's Capital Reserve Fund #64 Fund Balance, and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 109 RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer, Accountant and Technology Coordinator to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 16th day of June, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2014 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 216, 2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Doug Irish WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr.Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, the following Budget Amendment Requests have been duly initiated and justified and are deemed compliant with Town operating procedures and accounting practices by the Town Budget Officer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town's Accounting Office to take all action necessary to amend the 2014 Town Budget as follows: From To Code Appropriation Code Appropriation $ Increase Revenue 001-0000-52680 Insurance Recovery 6,339.40 Increase Appropriation Equipment Repair 6,339.40 Duly adopted 16th day of June, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough NOES None ABSENT : None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BAY RIDGE RESCUE SQUAD,INC. TO TRANSFER PORTION OF UNUSED RESTRICTED VEHICLE FUNDS TO OPERATIONS FUND REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 110 RESOLUTION NO.: 217,2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr.William VanNess WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Brian Clements WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury and the Bay Ridge Rescue Squad, Inc. (Squad) have entered into an Agreement for emergency services, which Agreement sets forth a number of terms and conditions including a condition that the Squad will use the monies provided in accordance with the Agreement and budget submitted by the Squad attached as Exhibit A, and WHEREAS, the Agreement further provides that such allocations set forth on an operation budget line may be transferred to any other operation budget line, except that this shall not apply to budget lines or funds for vehicle funds, insurance and debt service, which budget lines and transfers into or out thereof shall be subject to Town Board approval, and WHEREAS, the Squad has advised the Town Board that it recently incurred $5,244.93 for unexpected and unbudgeted repairs to its 2007 Medtek ambulance, thus depleting the Squad's budgeted line item for ambulance maintenance, and has therefore requested Town Board authorization to transfer $5,244.93 from the Squad's unused restricted vehicle funds to its operations fund, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has determined that it is financially beneficial and in the public interest to authorize such movement of funds, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, in accordance with the Town of Queensbury's Agreement for emergency services with the Bay Ridge Rescue Squad, Inc., the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves and authorizes the Bay Ridge Rescue Squad, Inc.'s transfer of $5,244.93 from the Squad's restricted vehicle fund to its operations fund, as set forth in the preambles of this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Budget Officer to take any and all action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 16th day of June, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AWARD OF TOWN OF QUEENSBURY'S WORKERS COMPENSATION POLICIES TO PERMA RESOLUTION NO.: 218, 2014 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 111 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Doug Irish WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr.Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 167, 2013, the Queensbury Town Board authorized the naming of Haylor, Freyer & Coon, Inc. as Broker of Record (Broker) relating to the Town of Queensbury's Workers' Compensation Policies (Policies)with the New York State Insurance Fund, and WHEREAS, the Town received renewal pricing from the New York State Insurance Fund for such Policies and found them to be unacceptable, and WHEREAS, the Town obtained proposals for new Policies from PERMA and the Workers' Compensation Alliance and the Town and its Broker have reviewed such proposals, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to award such Policies to the Public Employer Risk Management Association, Inc., ("PERMA"), and WHEREAS, a copy of a proposed Agreement between the Town and PERMA has been presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and awards the Town of Queensbury's Workers' Compensation Policies to the Public Employer Risk Management Association, Inc., ("PERMA"), and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to sign the Agreement between the Town and PERMA substantially in the form presented at this meeting and any other documentation and the Town Supervisor and/or Budget Officer to take all actions necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 16th day of June, 2014, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO JOIN MUNICIPAL GROUP SELF-INSURANCE PROGRAM RESOLUTION NO.: 219, 2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Doug Irish WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr.Anthony Metivier REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 112 WHEREAS, the Authorized Representative of the Town of Queensbury desires to secure the Town of Queensbury's obligation to provide volunteer firefighters' benefit law, volunteer ambulance workers' benefit law and workers' compensation benefits, as applicable, through participation in a group self-insurance program of which the Town of Queensbury will be a member, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Authorized Representative of the Town of Queensbury, duly convened in a regular session, does hereby resolve, pursuant to, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 50 of the New York State Workers' Compensation Law and other applicable provisions of law and regulations thereunder, as follows: Section 1. The Authorized Representative (hereinafter "Representative") of the Town of Queensbury does hereby resolve to secure the Town of Queensbury's obligation to provide volunteer firefighters' benefit law, volunteer ambulance workers' benefit law and workers' compensation benefits, as applicable, through participation in a group self-insurance plan of which the Town of Queensbury will be a member; Section 2. The Representative of the Town of Queensbury does hereby resolve to become a member of Public Employer Risk Management Association, Inc., a workers' compensation group self-insurance program for local governments and other public employers and instrumentalities of the State of New York; Section 3. In order to affect the Town of Queensbury's membership in said group self- insurance program, the authorized officer of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized to execute and enter into the Public Employer Risk Management Association Workers' Compensation Program Agreement, annexed hereto as Exhibit A, on behalf of the Town of Queensbury. Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. Duly adopted this 16th day of June, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish NOES None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mr. VanNess CERTIFICATION I, R. Rose Mellon, do hereby certify that I am the Deputy Town Clerk II of the Town of Queensbury and that the foregoing constitutes a true, correct and complete copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Representative of the Town of Queensbury at a meeting thereof held on June 16, 2014. Dated: June 17, 2014 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 113 R. Rose Mellon, Deputy Town Clerk II Signature [SEAL] RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS— WARRANT OF JUNE 17TH,2014 RESOLUTION NO.: 220,2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Brian Clements WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve an audit of bills presented as a Warrant with a run date of June 12th 2014 and a payment date of June 17th, 2014, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Warrant with a run date of June 12th 2014 and a payment date of June 17th, 2014 totaling $1,303,152.11, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Budget Officer to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 16th day of June, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Clements, Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND GLENS FALLS SOAP BOX DERBY RESOLUTION NO.: 221, 2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr.William VanNess WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Doug Irish WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 484,2007, the Queensbury Town Board provided for the Town's receipt of occupancy tax revenues from Warren County in accordance with the Local Tourism Promotion and Convention Development Agreement (Agreement) entered into between the Town and Warren County, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 114 WHEREAS, the Agreement provides that specific expenditure of the funds provided under the Agreement are subject to further Resolution of the Queensbury Town Board, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to provide funding to the Glens Falls Soap Box Derby in the amount of $5,000 with occupancy tax revenues received from Warren County and accordingly enter into an agreement with the Glens Falls Soap Box Derby for the promotion of the 9th Annual Soap Box Derby in the City of Glens Falls in June, 2014, and WHEREAS, a proposed Agreement has been presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Agreement between the Town and the Glens Falls Soap Box Derby substantially in the form presented at this meeting and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Agreement, with funding for the Agreement not exceeding the sum of $5,000 and to be provided by occupancy tax revenues the Town receives from Warren County, to be paid for from Account No.: 050-6410-4412, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that such Agreement is expressly contingent upon the Town Budget Officer confirming that the Town has unallocated occupancy tax funds available from Warren County. Duly adopted this 16th day of June, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND GLENS FALLS SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA, INC. RESOLUTION NO.: 222, 2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Brian Clements WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 484,2007, the Queensbury Town Board provided for the Town's receipt of occupancy tax revenues from Warren County in accordance with the Local Tourism Promotion and Convention Development Agreement (Agreement) entered into between the Town and Warren County, and WHEREAS, the Agreement provides that specific expenditure of the funds provided under the Agreement are subject to further Resolution of the Town Board, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 115 WHEREAS, the Glens Falls Symphony Orchestra, Inc., (Symphony) helps to promote the cultural development of the community, attracts many persons to the Queensbury area and provides an economic boon to the community, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has received a request for $4,000 in occupancy tax funding from the Symphony regarding sponsorship of its Fourth of July Community Concert at Crandall Park to be held in July of 2014, and WHEREAS, a proposed Agreement has been presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Agreement between the Town and the Glens Falls Symphony Orchestra, Inc., substantially in the form presented at this meeting and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Agreement, with funding for the Agreement not exceeding the sum of$4,000 and to be provided by occupancy tax revenues the Town receives from Warren County, to be paid for from Account No.: 050-6410-4412, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that such Agreement is expressly contingent upon the Town Budget Officer confirming that the Town has unallocated occupancy tax funds available from Warren County, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that should the Glens Falls Symphony Orchestra, Inc., cancel such July 4th concert and fireworks for any reason (i.e., due to inclement weather), then the Town of Queensbury will not provide $4,000 in funding as authorized by this Resolution and coinciding Agreement. Duly adopted this 16th day of June, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND WEST GLENS FALLS FIRE COMPANY#1,INC. TO HOST HUDSON VALLEY FIREMEN'S ASSOCIATION CONVENTION RESOLUTION NO.: 223, 2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Doug Irish WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Brian Clements REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 116 WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has received a request for funding from the West Glens Falls Fire Company #1, Inc., (Fire Company) to assist in the Fire Company's hosting of the 125t1i annual convention of the Hudson Valley Firemen's Association in June, 2014, and WHEREAS, such event is expected to bring approximately 10,000 volunteer firefighters and their families to the Town of Queensbury and its surrounding area's hotels and motels, restaurants, stores and other businesses, thereby benefiting the general economy of the Town and all of Warren County, and WHEREAS, by prior Resolution the Town Board provided for the Town's receipt of occupancy tax revenues from Warren County in accordance with the Local Tourism Promotion and Convention Development Agreement (Agreement) entered into between the Town and Warren County, and WHEREAS, the Agreement provides that specific expenditure of the funds provided under the Agreement are subject to further Resolution of the Queensbury Town Board, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to provide funding to the Fire Company in the amount of$15,000 with occupancy tax revenues received from Warren County, and WHEREAS, a proposed Agreement between the Town and the Fire Company has been presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves and authorizes funding to the West Glens Falls Fire Company #1, Inc., to assist in the Fire Company's hosting of the 125th annual convention of the Hudson Valley Firemen's Association in June, 2014 and the Agreement between the Town and the Fire Company substantially in the form presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Agreement, with such funding not exceeding the sum of$15,000 and to be provided by occupancy tax revenues the Town receives from Warren County, to be paid for from Account No.: 050-6410-4412, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that such Agreement is expressly contingent upon the Town Budget Officer confirming that the Town has unallocated occupancy tax funds available from Warren County. Duly adopted this 16th day of June, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Irish, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements NOES None ABSENT: None REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-16-2014 MTG 425 117 ABSTAIN: Mr. VanNess 5.0 CORRESPONDENCE- Supervisor's report for Community Development — Building & Codes for the Month of May, 2014 on file in the Town Clerk's Office. 6.0 TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS COUNCILMAN VANNESS (WARD IV)- • Explained that he has received numerous complaints over the last two weeks regarding vacant and abandoned houses being left open or broken into. Dave Hatin, Director of Building and Codes, has been a huge help in getting these buildings secure. • The Hudson Valley Volunteer Firemen's Convention starts this week. He reviewed the dates and times of events being held. COUNCILMAN IRISH (WARD III)-Nothing to report. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS (WARD II)- Thanked all the residents for coming out tonight to speak on the zoning public hearing. COUNCILMAN METIVIER(WARD I)- • Has received numerous calls regarding the Ridge Road Car Care site. They are working on trying to get it cleaned up but it's a complicated situation. • Spoke regarding the Salvation Army on Quaker Road. People have been dumping all kinds of stuff there. He put a call into Dave Hatin, Director of Building and Codes, about securing the site. Mr. Hatin served them with papers this week about getting it cleaned up. He thinks that the Town needs to work on a resolution concerning dumping in this Town. There is no need for people to dump on Salvation Army property. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Thanked Ed Gazelle of Look TV and our sponsors for televising these meetings. RESOLUTION ADJOURNING QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO.: 224, 2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Doug Irish WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Regular Town Board Meeting. Duly adopted this 16th day of June, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish NOES: None ABSENT: None Respectfully Submitted, Caroline H. Barber Town Clerk Town of Queensbury