2004-08-16 MTG39
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 159
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING Mtg #39
TH
AUGUST 16, 2004 Res. #409-424
7:03 P.M. BOH Res. 18-20
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC
COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR
COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER
COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH
COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER
TOWN COUNSEL
BOB HAFNER
TOWN OFFICIALS
Dave Hatin, Director of Building & Codes
Marilyn Ryba, Senior Planner
Ralph VanDusen, Water/Wastewater Superintendent
Mike Shaw, Deputy Wastewater Superintendent
Bruce Ostrander, Deputy Water Superintendent
Mike Barody, Supervisor-At-Large
PRESS: Glens Falls Post Star, Channel 9, Channel 8
SUPERVISOR STEC called meeting to order….
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR
1.0 BOARD OF HEALTH
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH
RESOLUTION NO.: 409, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED IT’S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from
Regular Session to enter as the Queensbury Board of Health.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
1.1 PUBLIC HEARING – SEWER VARIANCE – WOLFRAM & SANDY SCHILLE
NOTICE SHOWN
7:05 P.M.
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 160
SUPERVISOR STEC-Mr. Schille, if you would come to the microphone, you’re up first. This is on
Cleverdale Road and you’re seeking septic relief and so if you would, just briefly describe to the
Board and to the public the purpose of what we’re trying to accomplish tonight and then we’ll
commence with our public hearing. It looks like a holding tank and you’d rather, you would like to
place it six feet from the property line rather then the ten. So, you’re looking for setback relief of
four feet.
MR. WOLFRAM SCHILLE-Yes.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, any questions of the applicant.
COUNCLIMAN BOOR-I do. I’m actually, I’m in favor of holding tanks when they apply. The
question I have here is, it doesn’t appear that you have a failing system. Do you?
MR. SCHILLE-I don’t but when I talked to the Town they said, you know, I should do something.
Okay, I mean, it’s been, it worked until last year when I had five bedrooms with up to ten people in
it. I had no problem with it but I’m certainly willing to put the tank in since I reduced it from five
bedrooms to two bedrooms.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Is that your, are you in the process of doing that or are you planning to do
that, as far as reduction of bedrooms?
MR. SCHILLE-I’m in the process of doing it, yes.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-And you are here why?
MR. SCHILLE-On account of
COUNCILMAN BOOR-If your system isn’t failing.
MR. SCHILLE-I was told from the Town that the system is an old system put in thirty years ago
and I therefore have to change it, I have to do something and I had everybody coming there with a
new type of system which is done in Europe or in other places down on the seashore in Florida and
they said there was not enough room to put it in there. So, I said, okay, then I’m going to put tanks
in it, I mean that’s
COUNCILMAN BOOR-But I mean, is the system failing?
MR. SCHILLE-It never failed to me, no.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay.
MR. SCHILLE-But I’m willing to do it so to go by the, you know I don’t want to do it afterwards
and then somebody says we forgot to do this. So, I
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I guess the only question I have, is like I say, I personally favor holding
tanks because they’re the least apt or almost virtually never contaminate soil but I’m also aware of
the fact that there are certain requirements that need to be met for us to allow holding tanks to go in
and typically it’s, somebody has to have a failing system and an inability to place a conventional
system on their property and when I read through this, I don’t see that to be the case. So, when you
say the Town has told you that you have to do this, who are you referring to or what?
MR. SCHILLE-Yes, through the Town Inspector, right there, looking right here.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Dave is looking like he wants to jump in here.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Dave Hatin, okay.
MR. DAVE HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Mr. Schille asked me to investigate his septic
system he has there. It appears from what we could find out looking at the system it’s a cesspool,
the water was very close to the surface, the top of it was exposed. It was our feeling that this
structure has not been fully utilized in the past. Mr. Schille is proposing to do some major
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 161
renovations to this structure which will put it in full use. It was our opinion that if he doesn’t have a
failing system yet, it’s on it’s way and therefore he should take care of this now.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay, now the full use, it sounds like he’s downsizing so I’m confused.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Number of bedrooms, yes.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right. So, help me out, what am I missing here?
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Well, I think the part that you’re missing is, it’s not a
failed system per se, but is a system that where the top is exposed. We look in there, you can see
groundwater or sewage, I’m not sure which because we couldn’t pull the top off, roughly about six
inches below grade. So, we know that it’s a substandard system, we know that it’s in the process of
starting to fail and if he puts it to a stronger use over time as he renovates the structure, in our
opinion it was going to fail. So, we thought now was the time to address it.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I guess then the second question would be, stronger use and he’s reducing
the bedrooms from five to two so how are we coming up with, I mean, aren’t
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Well, right now we have a cesspool so.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Aren’t systems typically sized on the number of bedrooms?
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-The holding tank system is, yes. The system that is
there now is an old cesspool.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-What about septic systems, aren’t the gallon sizes for those based on
number of bedrooms?
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Yes.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-And he’s downsizing it.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Right.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-So, I’m not quite sure.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Well, typically you would see an applicant here
because they’re either upgrading in square footage wise which then the Zoning Ordinance would
require the upgrade.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right, that’s what
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Alright, that didn’t happen here in fact if anything, I
think he’s reducing some of the square footage here. But he is renovating the structure, he asked us
our opinion, our opinion was you should replace it now because it’s probably going to fail shortly.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Is it because he’s doing such major renovations, Dave, he doesn’t want
to tear it up at a later date, he might as well do it while everything’s ripped up now?
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-That was my opinion to him. If you’re going through
all this, now is the time to do it plus the fact that it looks like the system is starting to show signs of
failure.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-So, does he have a holding tank now, Dave?
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-No, it appears to be a cesspool.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-So, these are going to be, so you’re going to add two holding tanks
and it’s going to have an alarm system on it, right?
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Right.
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 162
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Okay, and that looks like the only place where you could put it and
still be accessible because you’re going to have to pump it out every so often so it has to be
accessible.
MR. SCHILLE-Yea.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Right. The other part of this too that hasn’t been
mentioned, this is a seasonal dwelling and it also, there is no room to put a conforming system on
the property.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yea, that’s what it, it appears that way.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s what it looks like from the map.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Any other questions for Mr. Schille? Alright, I’ll open the public hearing. If
there are any members of the public that would like to be heard regarding this application, now is
the time to comment. Mr. Salvador.
MR. JOHN SALVADOR-Good evening. I attended the Zoning Board of Appeals Area Variance
request that Mr. Schille had in and it was at this meeting that the requirement that his septic system
be brought up to code, became a condition of the Zoning Board of Appeals approval. I don’t
believe Mr. Schille has met the criteria for a having to have a holding tank nor even having to have,
had his system inspected by the Town. He was, he has not had a documented failure and he is not
increasing his living space, those are the two criteria for upgrading the system. The Zoning Board
of Appeals listened to his area variance request and the Board itself debated, debated the issue
before opening the public hearing and in that debate, Mr. Frank who represented the staff at that
meeting was asked the question and he responded, Mr. Frank, ‘he didn’t need a building permit to
do the interior work which he proposed to do’. It wasn’t until Dave Hatin said, now, I think you’ve
exceeded the limits of the interior work and Dave said, ‘you’re going to need a building permit’.
That triggered a review of the Zoning Department which indicated you need relief from the Zoning
Code and that was the purpose of the Zoning Board hearing. All area variance requests, nothing to
do with septic. The public hearing was opened and the first person to speak was Mr. Navitski, the
Water Keeper from the Lake George Association Fund. Mr. Navitski said that he was concerned
about a condition regarding the septic system. Mr. Stone responded, ‘will the proposed plan of Mr.
Schille triggered upgraded septic’? That was a question he directed to Mr. Frank? Mr. Frank
responded, ‘no, only when you expand you’re living area are you required to provide proof that the
septic system can meet new demand’ and again, what Mr. Navitski stated was correct. That is that
it’s conditioned on the number of bedrooms. The system is rated by the number of bedrooms, that
was the correct statement. Mr. Stone asked, ‘is it a condition that we can impose’? That is, the
ZBA imposing a condition on the area variance approval that the septic system be brought up to and
now we’re talking about Code. Now, we’re talking about Code. Mr. Frank responds, ‘I did ask that
question of the Zoning Administrator, I didn’t get a very specific answer’. Mr. Stone stated, ‘I
understand that’. Mr. Frank, ‘and I didn’t comment on Mr. Navitski’s comment for the Tarrant
applicant the way I’m explaining it now, that application, they would have to show that the septic
system was going to meet increase in the linear area, even though they did not increase the
bedrooms, part of the space the living space’. The meeting continues and Ms. Bardin from the LGA
also brings up the question of the adequacy of the septic system. Absolutely nothing to do with the
Area Variance on the table. The Zoning Board concludes and Mr. Stone, ‘I need a motion to
approve Area Variance No. 34204 and would include a statement about upgrading the septic’. Now
this is activism the Zoning Board is not entitled to have. They grant relief from an ordinance that
you folks have approved and that ordinance does not include septic. Mr. Frank, ‘Mr. Chairman, the
condition that the septic system is proven to be’. Mr. Stone, ‘Well, let’s see how the motion goes,
I’m saying that I recognize a lot may not support it totally’. And on and on. My point is that Mr.
Schille is here tonight and he doesn’t have to be. He’s only here because the Zoning Board of
Appeals imposed a condition on the granting of an area variance that he bring the septic system up
to code, something they knew well in advance he didn’t have a chance of doing. And we all know,
and we all know that a holding tank in residential use is not acceptable. It is not in accordance with
the public health code, we know that and you shouldn’t be asked to vote to approve that.
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 163
SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you, Mr. Salvador. Anyone else want to speak on this application.
Yes, Ma’am would you like to address the Board please? I would just ask that you state your name
and address for the record please?
MS. CAROL FREIHOFER-Carol Freihofer, Cleverdale, New York. I was at the last meeting for
the Zoning Board when they decided that Mr. Schille should bring his septic system up to code. I
don’t quite understand what has been said about they don’t have the right to do that. But several of
us were here concerned about the septic system, it’s a very old broken down disreputable Victorian
home that hasn’t been touched in a long time and we were concerned about the holding tank. And
he did get a variance to put in a two car garage, it’s a very small, small lot, it’s not wide at all and I
just, I’m still concerned and I don’t know whether you have the power or not but I did want to tell
you that I’m concerned.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you very much, Carol. Anyone else from the public that would like to
speak on this application? Mr. Schille, if you would like to come back to the microphone at this
time. Any questions or further comments from Town Board Members for the applicant or our
attorney?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yea, one more. I tend to agree with Mr. Salvador on this, my
understanding of how we deal with these things is fairly accurate with how he portrayed it.
However, I find you to be a person in the middle of something that you really shouldn’t be in the
middle of and I don’t feel it appropriate to penalize you for what I think possibly we should address
later as far as the perimeters with which the Zoning Board can make recommendations. I don’t
think you should have been put in this position and I think this is something that we can deal with at
a later date but I would certainly be willing to approve what you’re asking. But, I don’t think it’s
really the way it should have gone and I’ll leave it at that.
MR. SCHILLE-I know but, I live next door so it’s on my line to begin with, I have two pieces of
property but I do anything you want me to do since I’m drinking the same water for the last twenty-
five years, okay, and I don’t think it’s going to be used more one way or the other since I don’t think
anybody ever will live there on a year round basis even though it’s a year round house and will be
but I don’t think it ever will happen, that’s the reason I’m reducing it. But I will go one way or the
other except I didn’t want to do what I did one time before on the other house where I’m in now that
I had the permit, I built a second roof over that and then somebody says you got too many square
footage so I spent thirty thousand dollar to rip it back down. And I didn’t want to go through twice
the same thing, I’m retired and I’m on a fixed income so I can’t do that again and I would like to do
whatever you propose. I mean, I just
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, let me ask two questions. First question to our attorney, can the
Zoning Board, can the Zoning Board put these kinds of conditions on their approval? I don’t want
to put them on the spot, if you’re not comfortable answering
TOWN COUNSEL BOB HAFNER-I think you are putting them on the spot. I don’t have all of the
facts before what you have. What you have is a man whose put an application before you for you to
consider.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, that’s my next question.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Dave Hatin has said that you know, it looks like the sewage was
close to the waterline and was in relatively quick danger of becoming a failed system which you, as
the Public Board of Health have the right to consider and to action.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, then I won’t pursue that question any further. Are you here under
duress? Or do you, are you cooperative? Is this, you just said that you would like to do this, I just
want to make sure that you don’t feel like you’ve been forced to do this. You’re comfortable, you
agree with what
MR. SCHILLE-No, I’ve been stopped, I’ve been stopped for one year, okay and I’m only coming
back here now since I’m driving all night to Florida since I’m unfortunately in another problem
where the hurricane just hit so that’s what I’m going for.
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 164
SUPERVISOR STEC-You would like, you would just as soon, you’d be happy to get our
permission to put a holding tank in.
MR. SCHILLE-Whatever you want to do, I agree just to keep everybody happy.
SUPERVISOR STEC-God Bless you.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-I take that as a yes.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Any other questions from the Town Board?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I do have one question. Is there a home on lot 4 here? The lot next
door to you, apparently you own also?
MR. SCHILLE-One, yea, on the left side where the tank is going to go or supposed to go heading
southbound.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, I’m showing, here, here? (refers to map)
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-On the south side of your property?
MR. SCHILLE-On the south, excuse me, on the northbound side, sorry, northbound side.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-You own this lot and this lot?
MR. SCHILLE-Yes.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea, he owns lot 4.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Is there a home on this lot? There’s nothing shown on the map, is why
I’m asking.
SUPERVISOR STEC-He said he owned the lot next to where the tank is going to go, Tim.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-This is the lot you’re working on.
MR. SCHILLE-That’s the lot I’m working on and I own
COUNCILMAN BREWER-You own this lot.
MR. SCHILLE-No, I own this lot. No, wait a minute, hold on a minute, this lot, yes and the tank
goes here.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-This lot, is there a home on this lot?
MR. SCHILLE-Yea, forty-two square, forty-five hundred square foot home, yes.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Okay, well it’s not shown on the map, that’s the only reason I asked
because if there wasn’t a home on that lot, you could put your septic system over onto that lot.
MR. SCHILLE-Oh no, no, no and it’s under a complete different name, I mean that’s, I own it but
it’s not sewn together, we’re, it belongs to my wife.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Okay.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-But I think, you know, according to Dave, this is a public safety issue
and also you have a system, currently have a system that if it’s not already, threatens the
environmental integrity of that area. So, you know
MR. SCHILLE-So does everybody else in the neighborhood including the lady who spoke up and
she’s much closer with her system and I’m not going to say nothing, well that’s alright, it’s okay,
it’s okay. I didn’t say that, I’m sorry, I didn’t say that.
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 165
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, I understand what John said but you know, in my mind Dan,
this is going to be environmentally a lot better then what we’re currently looking at and I think that
was Dave Hatin’s assessment.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I don’t have a problem at all.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-I think it’s an accident waiting to happen.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I just didn’t want, some people were saying it sounded like he was railroaded
into being here tonight and I just certainly
MR. SCHILLE-No, maybe not railroaded but, I mean, I’ve been trying to finish the house for the
last year and now I’m at a standstill on the count of that.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Dan, can I just for the record, Mr. Schille and I had
these conversations and he had actually filed this application before the Zoning Board Meeting.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright. Well, that’s, it started off saying that he, it sounded like he was here
because he asked for your guidance and you offered it.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Right.
MR. SCHILLE-Yes, I did.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Right, this actually started before the Zoning Board
ever got involved.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Then we got into the Zoning Board discussion about the Zoning Board says,
well, in order to get our, a variance, you have to get this done but you’re saying that he came to you
first.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-It was already in process, yes, it was already in process
before that.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, I feel a lot better about it then. The public hearing is still open, if
you would like, okay, you have to come back to the microphone again Carol.
MS. FREIHOFER-Carol Freihofer again, on Cleverdale. I forgot to ask which side is the variance
for a new holding tank, septic tank, whatever it is, is it on the north or the south side?
SUPERVISOR STEC-It’s to the north line.
MS. FREIHOFER-Is there a reason?
SUPERVISOR STEC-It’s too close to the property line.
MS. FREIHOFER-What about the south side, that’s not as close?
SUPERVISOR STEC-The south line is on the other side of the house.
MS. FREIHOFER-Right. I mean, there’s more room on one side then there is on the other.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea, it looks like either way he would be in here looking for a variance.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s a very small parcel.
MS. FREIHOFER-He’d still have to have a variance, yea.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea, it’s very narrow. So, if he was on the other side he would still be
looking for a variance.
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 166
MS. FREIHOFER-But the other side is wider, do you agree?
SUPERVISOR STEC-From the map, the drawing I’m looking at, it looks like it might be a little
wider.
MR. SCHILLE-It’s sixty by sixty, they’re both the same.
MS. FREIHOFER –I just wanted to know, because I walk by there everyday and it looks to me that
the south side is wider then the west side.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you very much. Any other comments from the public? All right I
will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
SUPERVISOR STEC-Any more comments from the Town Board? Ok. I will entertain a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL
VARIANCES FOR WOLFRAM AND SANDY SCHILLE
BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 18, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, Wolfram and Sandy Schille have filed an application for variances from
provisions of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, Chapter 136 to allow
1) a holding tank; and 2) placement of the holding tank 6’ from the property line in lieu of the
required 10’ setback on property located at 382 Cleverdale Road in the Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, the Town Clerk’s Office published the Notice of Public Hearing in the Town’s
official newspaper and the Local Board of Health conducted a public hearing concerning the
th
variance requests on August 16, 2004, and
WHEREAS, the Town Clerk’s Office has advised that it duly notified all property owners
within 500 feet of the subject property,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
1. due to the nature of the variances, it is felt that the variances would not be materially
detrimental to the purposes and objectives of this Ordinance or other adjoining
properties nor otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of any Town plan or
policy; and
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 167
2. the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variances is necessary for the
reasonable use of the land and is the minimum variances which would alleviate the
specific unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health to affect the
applicants; and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health hereby approves the application of Wolfram
and Sandy Schille for variances from the Sewage Disposal Ordinance to allow a holding tank and to
allow placement of the holding tank 6’ from the property line in lieu of the required 10’ setback on
property located at 382 Cleverdale Road in the Town of Queensbury, bearing Tax Map No.: 226.12-
1-58.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
1.2 PUBLIC HEARING - SEWER VARIANCE -RONALD AND KATHLEEN
GOODSPEED
NOTICE SHOWN
SUPERVISOR STEC-Are Mr. And Mrs. Goodspeed here, Yes, Sir? I see it is a leach field to be
located eighty three feet from your well and seventy five feet from a stream rather than a one
hundred foot set back per our code. Is that correct, Sir?
UNKNOWN-That is correct.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Ok. With that if you would like to explain the project just a little bit to the
public and what we are talking about here and we can get into your
MR. RONALD GOODSPEED-Basically, I am going to put in like a … system an Eljen System. I
do not have the space to put it and the house I have is probably thirty five years old to put an
addition on it over the top of a septic tank a two hundred and fifty gallon tank so safety wise, health
wise I don’t I have to pump it out every three to four months and I do not have the holding tank
being a four bedroom ranch and it is too small. Basically I need a new tank.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Dave do you have anything from the Staff perspective that you think is
important? We did get a letter from C.T. Male answering some of your questions, or actually it is
addressed
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-That was in response to the Board’s request, I asked
Jim Edwards to review it and that is his response.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I assume the Board has this it was included in the packet that we got here
tonight.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-What about the note number 5, requirement of a hundred feet
separation between the septic system and the stream is not met.
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 168
MR. GOODSPEED-My property is one hundred and twenty five feet deep by two hundred feet
wide so if you go to the edge of the road to the back of my property I do not have it, my well is in
front of my house, the septic is about thirty feet away from it now.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I guess my point is you are not applying for that variance.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes, he is.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-He has got two variances.
SUPERVISOR STEC-There are two variances, seventy five feet from the stream instead of a
hundred and eighty three from the well. I did note here that CT Male’s Jim Edwards comments he
said that he concurs that the system would be located at the best available site on the property. You
do have a failed system next to the existing well. So, he is recommending to continue to test the
water just to make sure. All right any more questions from the Town Board to Mr. Goodspeed.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Mr. Goodspeed, did you read what CT Male?
MR. GOODSPEED-I never got a copy of that.
SUPERVISOR STEC-You did not get a copy of this.
DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-I have extra one if you would like.
SUPERVISOR STEC-You should have a copy of this.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-First of all you know, just to let the public know where we are going,
the first one says that you are putting in an Eljen System which according to our Engineer CT Male
is pretty much in accord with what you should do given the situation. The second note that he
makes is that the, you are going to need to import some fill and that fill has to be to Eljens
specifications and so he just wanted to make sure that you do that and the slopes have to be in
accord with the Eljen system and he does make a notation of a little bit of a concern being less than
the hundred foot separation from your well, that migration may occur and that you should get that
tested periodically.
MR. GOODSPEED-No problem.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Okay.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Any questions from the Town Board?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Is it appropriate to have any kind of confirmation on testing or are we just
comfortable that, legally are we are all right if we just say we just recommend that it be tested
periodically is that adequate?
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-We have given him our Engineers statement that it should be.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, when we and if we approve this tonight, Roger, I think we
ought to approve it that and condition it that it be, our resolution be in accord, approval be in accord
with the concerns addressed by CT Male as I just kind of highlighted.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-And your well is a lined well, correct?
MR. GOODSPEED-My well now? No, it is a tank, it is a metal tank.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-The well?
MR. GOODSPEED-Oh, the well, excuse me, its yes it probably a casing, yea, two hundred and
forty feet.
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 169
SUPERVISOR STEC-Any other questions for the applicant? All right at this time I will open the
public hearing if there is anyone in the audience that would like to comment on this application
please step forward and state you name and address for the record. Any at all? Any other questions
from the Town Board? Any concerns? One more time, anyone from the public for the public
hearing? All right with that I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Can I just propose some changes because I had not seen this letter
until tonight. Can I propose some changes in accordance with what I heard the Town Board say,
especially Mr. Strough, I think said it last. I think the last resolved we should just keep going and
th
add a contingent upon the applicant complying with item 2 in CT Male’s letter of August 6 and
also contingent upon the applicant agreeing to periodically test his well. I think those two additions
I heard the Town Board say and I propose you make that change.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I would agree to that.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I would agree to that to, but also I do not know why you limit
yourself to that, CT Male also says that the fill and the slope of the fill has to be in accord with the
design of the Eljen System.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-That was paragraph 2 that was the first part of my contingent.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Okay, I am sorry.
th
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-I said it has to be in accord with paragraph 2 of the August 6 letter
that is where those are, I am sorry that was my intent.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Do you want to limit yourself to number 2 though, I think John’s point is do
you just want to reference the whole letter and say that he will be following the recommendations in
the letter and not just say number 2 because obviously there are some things in number 4 that we
talked about testing the well.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-If you prefer.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I think it would be cleaner.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-I think 2 and 4 are the only ones that are actions that they are
requesting.
SUPERVISOR STEC-In his control, fine.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Item number 5 is their statement that they cannot guarantee that
there won’t be migration that would effect the stream. They do not think that is likely but.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I will entertain a motion to any or all of that effect.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I will move it and 2 and 4 be added to the resolution as it stands.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE
APPLICATION OF RONALD AND KATHLEEN GOODSPEED
BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 19, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 170
WHEREAS, Ronald and Kathleen Goodspeed filed an application for variances from
provisions of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, such application
requesting that the Local Board of Health allow a leach field to be located 83’ from their well and
75’ from a stream instead of the required 100’ setbacks on property located at 2383 Ridge Road,
Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, the Town Clerk’s Office published the Notice of Public Hearing in the Town’s
official newspaper and the Local Board of Health conducted a public hearing concerning the
th
variance request on August 16, 2004, and
WHEREAS, the Town Clerk advises that property owners within 500 feet of the subject
property have been duly notified,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
a) due to the nature of the variances, it is felt that the variances would not be materially
detrimental to the purposes and objectives of this Ordinance or to other adjoining
properties or otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of any plan or policy of
the Town of Queensbury; and
b) the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variances is necessary for the
reasonable use of the land and that the variances granted are the minimum variances
which would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of
Health to affect the applicants; and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health hereby approves Ronald
and Kathleen Goodspeed’s application for variances from the Sewage Disposal Ordinance to locate
a leach field 83’ from their well and 75’ from a stream instead of the required 100’ setbacks on
property located at 2383 Ridge Road, Queensbury and bearing Tax Map No.’s: 240-1-12 and 240-
1-13 provided that:
1. the new septic disposal field require that fill be imported to construct the system and
fill material be specified and placed to meet Eljen typical requirements;
2. the slope across the system does not exceed the specified maximum; and
3. periodic testing be conducted to assure that drinking water standards are met and
will continue to be met.
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 171
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2004 by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION ADJOURNING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH
BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 20, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED IT’S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
RESOLVED,
that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its
Queensbury Board of Health.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2004 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
SUPERVISOR STEC-Noted two housekeeping items: I want to thank our sponsor for televising
our meetings on TV 8 and other cable channels I want to thank G.F. National Bank for their
sponsorship of these Town Board meetings it is an important communication tool for the Town to
use with our residents and I also want remind the public of our Town’s Web Site which has actually
gotten some praise lately in our local printed press for being a pretty good place to find a lot of
information about the Town Codes, Meetings for the Planning Board, Zoning Board and Town
Board our meeting minutes and agendas. That is www.queensbury.net. The last item, I would like
to recognize in attendance at tonight’s evening, Supervisor Mike Barody, Warren County
Supervisor from Glens Falls Bill Brown, Queensbury School Board President John Dwyer and also
former Councilman Pliney Tucker, former Councilman Daniel Olsen and School Board Member
Jack LaBombard, that you all for your service and for attending tonight’s meeting.
2.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS
2.1 PUBLIC HEARING – PROPOSED LOCAL LAW TO AMEND QUEENSBURY
TOWN CODE TO ADD NEW ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 68 ENTITLED “PROHIBITION
OF DIESEL VEHICLES IDLING IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES”
NOTICE SHOWN
SUPERVISOR STEC-This is a public hearing and before we open the public hearing just a quick
highlights of this. The history of how we got to tonight’s public hearing which was set a couple of
weeks ago was that periodically throughout the last few years some and several and maybe even all
of the Town Board Members have gotten complaints from various members of the public about a
handful or more of diesel engine kind of heavy commercial vehicles that are parked over night in
residential zones, that have been a source of complaints for noise and noxious odors and what not.
So a few years ago the Town did try to adopt a town wide noise ordinance there was a lot of issues
surrounding that although generally I think most people would say that controlling noise is a good
thing. The mechanics of how to enforce that without a police force and the technical aspects of
managing decimal meters and keeping them calibrated and whatnot posed a lot of challenges and
although we got to I think of a point of a public hearing actually at one point we did not enact the
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 172
noise ordinance because it was fraught with a lot of difficulties. The Town has in the last several
months taken some other avenues toward addressing some of the items that generate the noise
complaints the first of which was handled several months ago was the garbage collection pickup
which although occasionally you still get calls about pickups a little bit before six am I think by
enlarge that problem has gotten better, with just the education aspect of trying to work with the
haulers. So, that has been successful and this is another kind of activity in that same vein, the diesel
trucks and today a lot can be done to plug in a diesel truck at night so you do not have to run it and
keep the engine block warm. So, anyways that is how we got to tonight’s ordinance. It does talk
about the vehicles that would be affected would be diesel fuel vehicles requiring a CDL or higher
license to drive so it would not effect the residential style diesel pickup truck. It does not include
emergency vehicles or municipal vehicles. So, the intended vehicle here is the commercial private
heavy duty CDL kind of vehicle. This would prohibit idling diesel engine without the operator
being present and awake. There is provisions for some fines, not more than a hundred dollars for
the first offense not more than two hundred for the second offense and not more than three hundred
and fifty or imprisonment not more than seven days or both for subsequent offenses after the second
offense. So, anyways that is the jest of the local law this evening and with that I will open the
public hearing if there is any members of the public that would like to speak. Mr. Tucker.
MR. PLINEY TUCKER-Pliney Tucker, 41 Division Road This is strictly for residential zones,
how about commercial zones?
SUPERVISOR STEC-No, this is for strictly residential zones.
MR. TUCKER-Why not commercial zones too?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Because that is where commercial trucks should be. That is where we
would like to keep them in commercial zone.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-They are usually there for a reason.
MR. TUCKER-You have a case right there next to Robert Gardens and Greenway North a
commercial zone, WalMart.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yea, but we made them put in plug ins.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Pliney, that is going to be taken care of.
SUPERVISOR STEC-That gets handled at things like site plan review.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-That is going to get taken care of when they go in there.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-We got that taken care of in the Planning Board.
MR. TUCKER-Because I know Curtis Lumber their approval was based on no trucks could set at
the gate idling so you do not think you need it in the commercial.
SUPERVISOR STEC-The way I look at it, one the Planning Board has had success in taking care
of this recently, very recently, with WalMart and others, two, the complaints although you are right
they are examples of complaints that we get in residential neighborhoods from vehicles that are
located in a commercial zone like we used to with WalMart. But we can always come back and
add, if we found that this local law needed to be tweaked or modified to incorporate more in the
future and we can always change it.
MR. TUCKER-Another thing you ought to keep in mind a lot of residents in commercial zones in
our end of town.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-We actually have a letter here from Dave Hatin that touches on that issue
and that is something that we will have to address.
MR. TUCKER-So you are going to take a look at that later on.
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 173
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Like Cronin Road has you know Freihofers is on Cronin Road and there
are a couple locations that would be a little bit unusual, but I am sure that it is something that we can
address and take care of.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you. Yes, Mr. Salvador
MR. JOHN SALVADOR-I would be very concerned about the enforcement, what happens at three
o’clock in the morning when you have a truck parked, who do you call? Who gets the call.
SUPERVISOR STEC-The same person you would call if you a garbage truck came at three o’clock
in the morning, Dave Hatin at eight o’clock in the morning. Unfortunately
MR. SALVADOR-It is too late the drivers are awake and he is around.
SUPERVISOR STEC-That is how we have been handling these things and Dave if you want to
comment, because enforcement is an issue here and we have run into this issue with garbage
collection and how has your office been handling that?
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-What the public has got to understand about any of
these local laws is they are going to have to become involved. It is not going to be just us going out
there and trying read the riot act to somebody. They are going to have to get plate numbers, get
vehicles, sign statements if it goes to court they are going to have to be involved if they want
enforcement of these local laws they are going to have to be involved.
MR. SALVADOR-We had this problem for years I mean I have complained for years about this
delivery trucks arriving early in the morning, leave the engines running all night and we are not only
residential zone, we are a tourist area. We are charging them four percent extra now to smell the
diesel fuel. I really am concerned about enforcement. Don’t pass this law if you are not ready to
enforce it because it is going to get nasty, very nasty. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Mr. Auer.
MR. DOUG AUER-Good evening, Doug Auer, 16 Oakwood Drive Maybe I am mistaken but I
think and correct me if you folks researched this but did you check the motor vehicle and traffic
laws in New York to see if there is such a law?
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Yes, we did.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Actually DEC was
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-DEC has got subpart 217 –3.
MR. AUER-I know in neighboring states and I think it flowed from a Federal Law dating back to
the 70’s with the gas crunch, I do believe and I cannot speak to New York State with absolute
certainty but I know with absolute certainty that two of your neighboring states have such a law and
I say it goes back many years. Twenty five years ago that I had experience with this and you talked
to DEC you say but not motor vehicle and traffic? Because that is your enforcement system to call
the police.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-We did do research there is a somewhat similar rule that is a State
Law but it doesn’t apply to the situations that we have here that the Town Board wanted to deal
with. That is why we came up with this. I do not have it, I do not have the site but we provided that
to the Town Board when we were asked to look into this.
MR. AUER-Any of you remember how the wording went on that?
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-On the State level, now when I did my search online, Doug, I came
across a lot of towns adopting similar ordinances based on air quality issues, some were on the noise
issues but the more concern seemed to be on the air quality issues. But, I also came across New
York State DEC Rules and Regulations Sub part 217-3 Idling Prohibition for heavy duty vehicles,
very similar to the law that Bob drew up, with the exceptions. I am sure we are going to have to
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 174
tweak a law for the exceptions such as some good ones Dave Hatin brought up. A lot of townships
have adopted ordinances very similar to what we are looking at right now.
MR. AUER-That would indicate that maybe there isn’t a State Law here in New York State to that
effect.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I did not come across any State Law other than DEC.
MR. AUER-If it existed it would be in the motor vehicle and traffic section.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-We did look in Motor Vehicle and Traffic and we also talked to the
Association of Towns to see if they knew of any State Laws that applied, because our first thing is if
there is a State Law that applies we do not need to do it our self but we couldn’t find one that did.
MR. AUER-Because the enforcement would be obviously simple in that case, ok, thanks.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Anyone else who would like to speak on this local law? Mr. Olson and Mrs.
Olson.
MR. DANIEL OLSON-I assume we each get five minutes?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Actually it is a public hearing and you get as much as we can all take.
MR. OLSON-Daniel Olson and my wife Nancy Olson We are residents of 29 Carlton Drive in the
Town of Queensbury where we have resided for forty years. We are here tonight to talk again, or I
am here and my wife is, got some information that she is going to be talking about, first of all we
provided the Board and I hope you found it in your mail box a report on idling of diesel trucks and
the health hazards of diesel fumes done by the State of Montana, Occupational, Safety and Health
Board. We obtained that information and we pass it on to you for your interest. Some speakers
before me spoke about enforcement and that is a big area that I am concerned about is the
enforcement. Now, I can tell you that DEC polices the enforcing agency right now in Ray Brook
and if you call them with a complaint you better have a thermometer that is certified by the National
Weather Service to tell you what the temperature is. You should have a watch or clock that is
certified by a Federal Agency that certifies time piece and clocks to be able to prove the time and
the temperature and have that available when we as a citizen has to go to court to prove these facts.
So, you are not getting anyplace with DEC the Sheriff’s Dept. has no law that they are going
enforce, the Town won’t enforce anything because they do not have any law. I want to, I did not
want to get into that first, I want to go back to the fact that we feel that and know that, it is not only
a nuisance to residents that live in the residential zone, the residential areas in the Town of
Queensbury but the biggest complaint the biggest problem that we have is the public health
conditions that are caused and dangers that are caused by the idling of diesel trucks with the diesel
fumes. The properties that are in the diesel fumes are very hazardous to ones health. I can testify to
this because I happen to live approximately, my living room is seventy five feet away from a
location another residential home that parks a large diesel tractor in the area and we had times last
winter, twenty four to thirty six hours that, that vehicle idled. Your house fills up with diesel fumes
I do not care how tight it is or where you are going, and then your eyes start to run they start to
smart you start having trouble breathing you start feeling nauseated as this report states. I do not
know how you are going to enforce this to be honest with you. I do not want to be a policeman, I do
not want to be snitch against someone at WalMart of my neighbors or somebody down in another
residential area. I am going to suggest and offer a couple of suggestions, one that no parking or
harboring or whatever the word is, do not park diesel rigs that require special licenses by the State
and the Federal Government drivers require special licenses to operate, be parked or stored in a
residential area. There is a truck stop at exit 17 which is South Glens Falls, there is a truck stop a
large truck stop at exit 16 which is Wilton and I go by there quite a bit those areas and I see many
tractor trailers there and tractors stored there because they are there for periods of time. I think that
is where these vehicles should be stored and should be left. People go from their house to their job
site they go to the truck which is their job site then they take off about their business. I think that is
the proper way to do it, if not if you do not go that route then the five minutes where the truck can
be idling at any time I read this over many times and I have looked at some other information, I can
foresee a five minute idling, five minutes off, five minutes back idling.
MRS. NANCY OLSON-That has happened.
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 175
MR. OLSON-And it has happened. Fifteen minutes a half an hour, forty five minutes then off and
then bingo right back on again. I know why trucks are left idling I know the purpose behind it but
there are systems today and technology today that they can plug in, just like plugging in an electrical
cord is all it is into the vehicle and this is taken care of. The heating of the oil, the fuel oil and the
diesel fuel so it does not congeal in the gas lines the heating of the engine so they can turn it over
and get it started there is technology today that was not around a few years ago. People live in
residential zones they buy houses they build homes in residential zones because they want to be
protected. They want to be protected and the quality of life they are looking for, for not only
themselves but their children, and the property values of their property. I still think, I want to repeat
myself, that they should not be allowed to be parked or operating in these residential zones.
Deliveries within a residential zone, companies that have businesses going on where trucks come in
and out that is a whole different matter. We are talking about things that are idling all day and all
night. I think we have a real health hazard here. I know we do, I know we have a health hazard.
Thank you for considering this and my wife wants to continue on with the health and environmental
issues. Thank you.
MRS. OLSON-I want to start with going back to the resource, we certainly did get this on line from
the Montana Department of Labor and Industry but other resources which I will read so you can see
also New York State is involved. The US Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Washington DC is the location of that, National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, Washington DC, American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists,
Cincinnati, Ohio, American National Standards Institute, New York, New York and American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, New York. What I think is important for the record
are the health hazards that have been outlined in these papers that we have. Yes, the noise is
certainly very annoying, it wakes us up in the middle of the night but I am more concerned about
the health hazards due to diesel exhaust fumes. I would like to take just a few minutes and read
some of this brief information to you. According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, Human and Animal Studies show that diesel exhaust should be treated as a human
carcinogen, cancer causing substance. These findings are not surprising since several substances in
diesel exhaust are known to cause cancer. These substances are, have twenty to a hundred times
more particles than gasoline exhaust does. They carry cancer causing substances known as
polynucleolar aromatic hydrocarbons. Gases in diesel exhaust such as noxious oxide, nitrogen
dioxide, formaldehyde, benzene, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and carbon
monoxide can also create health problems. This is what we are exposed to in a residential
community. This truck has idled last winter daily, twenty four to thirty six hours. It is ridiculous
that we have to put up with this. It also goes on to say that those most likely to be exposed to diesel
exhaust includes and it says miners, rail road bridge and tunnel and loading dock workers, auto
mechanics, truck and fork lift drivers and people who work near areas where these vehicles are
used, stored or maintained. What about living in these areas? Again, I am concerned about
enforcement. Our health is at risk. Thank, you.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you very much.
MR. OLSON-What ever you do make sure you have teeth in it and you can enforce it and we do not
have to be chasing around …Thank you.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Anyone else, would like to comment on this public hearing on the diesel
trucks? Anyone at all? Anybody, Town Board Members any other questions?
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Let me start off by kind of interestingly leaving off where Mr. & Mrs.
Olson started. I have been doing considerable research on this kind of topic for another issue, not
necessarily this one too but they do tie in. The Federal Highway Administration says that
residential districts within a hundred and fifty meters and I am going to say at four hundred and fifty
feet that would be close to a highway. The people that expose to those kinds of pollutants that are
being emanated by vehicles passing by, the people living in that area are experiencing all kinds of
maladies such as brain cancer etc. and your article just reinforces what that article says although
yours addresses diesel fuels more specifically. What I also thought was interesting when I read this
was that mice developed skin cancer when extracts of diesel exhaust were applied to their skin.
That sounds like something we should pay attention to. But, along with our law and along with
what Dave Hatin said even the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has
what they call exceptions and I do not know if want to consider these but sometimes vehicles are
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 176
idling maybe not a fault of their own in traffic conditions or a hazardous situation. They also have
an exemption for vehicles such as ambulances, fire trucks, things of that nature.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Can I address both of those issues, John?
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-…okay..
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-We tried to respond and I can tell you where in the law that we
respond to each of those issues. One in section four which is the prohibition it says that you cannot
have a diesel vehicle idle its engine while it is unattended. So, if we are in traffic it is not
unattended. Second, you had talked about
SUPERVISOR STEC-Emergency Vehicles
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Emergency Vehicles and that is in definitions. We define diesel
vehicle to not include emergency vehicles, it also does not include school busses. Those types of
things that you know we thought were exceptions.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I believe that I pointed that out when we started the public hearing that it
exempted emergency and municipal vehicles.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Dave Hatin’s concerns too, how should we go about doing that Bob?
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-That one I think that we need to figure out exactly how to deal with
it, I would suggest that we
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Special Permit?
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-No, because you have to let vehicles, I mean we are talking about
gas trucks and things.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I guess the point that I am saying is would we require or request that
people such as these businesses apply for a special permit we review their situation the number of
deliveries that they expect to get and then if in fact they are a legitimate business in this area, we say
ok, you get an exemption provided that you do not exceed some measure of idling.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-What I would propose is we consider that we will also consider that
Dave’s idea is to define when we define vehicles we excluded school busses, we could exclude
delivery vehicles in the process of making their deliveries and that might be a simple way and I
think that, and I just saw this tonight and I thought that Dave and I can come up with a proposal for
you when you come back or we can do it right now.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, that sounds.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Where I have seen a problem is over on Zenus Drive, the neighbors
have been living with it for a long time but they are tired of living with it and they said you know if
you could do something about it, it would be great because the guy turns his truck on, we don’t
mind him having his truck there it is just that he turns it on at three o’clock in the morning he leaves
for work at six or seven and it has been sitting idling and it is a noisy truck for three or four hours
before he goes and uses it. They just said we like the guy he is a nice person and we do not mind
the truck and we realize that he has got a business and he is trying to provide some money to pay for
his family and all of that but gee, does he have to do that?
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-So, I think that the proposal that I might consider if it is ok with you
Roger is to add a definition, you already have or utility company vehicles operating during
emergency just add or delivery vehicles while making deliveries and that would be another
exception it would not be included and it can deal with a concern that Dave raised. Is that OK?
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Fine
SUPERVISOR STEC-That sounds fine to me.
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 177
COUNCILMAN TURNER-That is fine.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Anybody else on the Town Board?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Is there anything else we could possibly be missing?
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-This is the type of law that something may come up and we might
have to consider another exemption.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I want to move forward with this but if we pass this tonight we can
obviously modify?
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Oh, yes. The same process that you put, you got to set the public
hearing, hold the public hearing, you can always modify.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Why wouldn’t we get all the modifications in and approve it at that
next meeting?
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I agree with you Tim.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Rather than come up with another idea in the next week and then have
to set another public hearing and then go through the process all over again.
SUPERVISOR STEC-The next meeting is four weeks from tonight.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-And that is fine. I would rather do it once.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-It is up to the Town Board, it is not a legal issue.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-That would be my preference.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I would rather give Bob more time to wrestle with the language.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Can’t we just leave the public hearing open then act on it?
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Or you can close the public hearing and act on it.
SUPERVISOR STEC-We will leave the public hearing open, we do not need to readvertise it.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-There might be people from the public that have thought of things that we
might not have and certainly if they call in we can forward it to you and ..
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-You forward it to us and we will make changes appropriately.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Ted are you comfortable with that too?
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yes.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Roger, you are comfortable with that?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yes.
SUPERVISOR STEC-All right all five of us are comfortable holding off for four weeks. So, I will
th
leave the public hearing open four weeks from tonight is our next regular meeting so September 13
the public hearing will still be open, this will be on the agenda we may or may not have come up
with any additional tweaking to the language of anything else that we think of, if anyone in the
public thinks of anything that they think we may have missed, feel free to contact us between now
and then or that evening and guessing that there will probably not be a whole lot of Town Board
th
opposition to passing this on the 13 it just may not be identical to what we have tonight. Anything
else, the Town Board is comfortable with that. Hearing no opposition I will keep the public hearing
open and table it to our next meeting and we can move onto our next public hearing.
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 178
PUBLIC HEARING LEFT OPEN
2.2 PUBLIC HEARING – TRANSIENT MERCHANT/TRANSIENT MERCHANT
MARKET LICENSE APPLICATION OF ROBERT MAHON D/B/A/ RPM
ENTERTAINMENT
NOTICE SHOWN
SUPERVISOR STEC-This is a one day Transient Merchant event impact car show which was
th
proposed for August 28 2004 at the Great Escape and RPM will be providing this event and
pertinent restrictions are they must pay their fees, must submit a bond in the amount of $10,000,
proof of authorization to business in New York, the license will be valid only from 7 am to 7 to pm
on August 28, and the license shall not be assignable, and they must comply with all the regulations
and town codes Section 160-8. This has gone to the Planning Board and they did adopt a negative
SEQRA Declaration and they adopted a resolution recommending approval subject to the Town
Board approval. With that I will open the public hearing and good evening.
MS. CYNTHIA SCHROCK-Attorney for Robert Mahon and RPM Entertainment You have just
pretty much stated everything that has happened so we are just looking for the Town Board to
approve the negative SEQRA Declaration.
SUPERVISOR STEC-What was the event, what will be going on that day, just for pubic interest?
MR. ROBERT MAHON-RPM Entertainment Good evening People will be coming in from out of
the area to bring their cars in, there will be judging of the cars there will be various events inside the
show. People will get trophies at the end of the show and they will go home or into the area and
spend money at the various places in the area. It is just a car show.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Are you the same people that ran the show last year at about the same
time?
MR. MAHON-Yes.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-That seemed to run pretty smooth didn’t it?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes. It did.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Is it sales also? Car sales?
MR. MAHON-The vendors will be selling rims, tires, things of that nature, exhaust, stereos things
like that, that pertain to automobiles. That is the only sales.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay. Anything else, any other questions from the Town Board? All right I
will open the public hearing, if there is any members of the public tonight that would like to speak
th
and address this Transient Merchant License again, August, 28 2004 at the Great Escape any body
at all? Hearing none, any other questions or comments from the Town Board? All right hearing
none I will close the public hearing and if there is no other discussion items I will entertain a
motion.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOLUTION ADOPTING SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
APPROVING TRANSIENT MERCHANT/TRANSIENT MERCHANT
MARKET LICENSE FOR ROBERT MAHON D/B/A RPM
ENTERTAINMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 410.2004
RESOLUTION INTROUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 179
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER lead the Town Board through Part II of the Short Environmental
Assessment Form:
A, Does action exceed any type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.4?
NO
B, Will action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?
NO
C, Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the
following:
C1, Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels,
existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion,
NO
drainage or flooding problems?
C2, aesthetic, agriculture, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural
NO
resources; or community or neighborhood character?
C3, Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or
NO
threatened or endangered species?
C4, A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use
NO
of intensity of use of land or other natural resources?
C5, Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by
NO
the proposed action?
NO
C6, Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1-C5?
C7, Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of
NO
energy)?
D. Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the
NO
establishment of a CEA?
E. Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?
NO
RESOLUTION ADOPTING SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
APPROVING TRANSIENT MERCHANT/TRANSIENT MERCHANT
MARKET LICENSE FOR ROBERT MAHON D/B/A
RPM ENTERTAINMENT
RESOLUTION NO.: 410, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, Robert Mahon d/b/a RPM Entertainment (RPM) previously submitted an
application to the Queensbury Town Board for a Transient Merchant/Transient Merchant Market
th
License to hold the “Impact Car Show” on August 28, 2004 at The Great Escape and Splashwater
Kingdom, State Route 9 in the Town of Queensbury in accordance with the provisions of Town
Code Chapter 160, and
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 180
WHEREAS, the Town Board previously forwarded the application to the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board for recommendation and site plan review, and
th
WHEREAS, on July 20, 2004, the Queensbury Planning Board considered RPM’s
application and the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), adopted
a SEQRA Negative Declaration and adopted a Resolution recommending approval of the
application subject to Town Board approval of the SEQRA, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board is duly qualified to act as lead agency for compliance with the
State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) which requires environmental review of certain
actions undertaken by local governments,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board, after considering the proposed action,
reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form and thoroughly analyzing the action for potential
environmental concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the
environment and hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to complete the Environmental
Assessment Form by checking the box indicating that the proposed action will not result in any
significant adverse impacts, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board approves of a Negative Declaration and authorizes and
directs the Town Clerk's Office and/or Department of Community Development to file any
necessary documents in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the Department
of Environmental Conservation, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that in accordance with the requirements set forth in Queensbury Town Code
§160-8, the Town Board hereby grants a Transient Merchant/Transient Merchant Market License to
Robert Mahon d/b/a RPM Entertainment (RPM) to conduct a transient merchant market located at
The Great Escape and Splashwater Kingdom on State Route 9, Queensbury, subject to the
following:
1. RPM must pay all fees as required by Town Code Chapter 160;
2. RPM must submit a bond in the amount of $10,000 as required by Chapter 160;
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 181
3. RPM must submit proof of authorization to do business in New York and authorization
of agent to receive service of summons or other legal process in New York;
th
4. The License shall be valid only on August 28, 2004 from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and
the license shall expire immediately thereafter;
5. The Transient Merchant License shall not be assignable; and
6. RPM must comply with all regulations specified in Town Code §160-8.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
3.0 HEARING
3.1 UNSAFE STRUCTURE LOCATED ON PROPERTY OWNED BY HOWARD
TOOMEY
SUPERVISOR STEC-I do not know if Mr. Toomey is here or anyone representing him, Dave do
you see, Dave I will just try to update us here. This is at the intersection of Rockwell and
Sunnyside Roads and you did show us pictures not too long ago the unsafe structure was clasped
unto itself and so this is a hearing that will deal with the timely removal and specifically we would
th
be requiring that the structure needs to be removed from the premises by October 11. Has there
been any new developments beyond that the Board needs to know about. This is a hearing not a
public hearing and this is the first one of those that we have done in a while.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-This is for the Town Board to hear the evidence not for the public to
speak.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-One question is Howard Toomey deceased?
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Not to my knowledge.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Dave, if it is an unsafe structure why are we waiting so long to get this
done?
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-The immediate hazard has been removed by collapsing
the structure onto itself, now it is a clean up issue. The original resolution that you had last Board
Meeting was to allow me to go in and immediately remove it because no action had been taken
where it was falling out into the road. The owners son did collapse it to take away that hazard so
not it becomes a typical thirty to sixty days.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-But in this resolution what you are saying to us, advise the Town
Board in his opinion the structure on the property is dangerous and unsafe for the general public, so
if you say that to me in my mind, lets get it moved.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-That is standard language, that we put in all of them.
SUPERVISOR STEC-So, in your opinion Dave, because I understand Tim’s concern and we seem
to hit this every time we ever talk about immediate risk then we end up talking about thirty, sixty,
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 182
ninety days and I understand what you are saying that is has been collapsed. Your recommendation
to the Town Board is that sixty days is a reasonable amount of time?
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Well, what is going to happen here is that if they don’t
clean it up within that sixty day time frame then the time frame has come and gone now you can
authorize me to clean it up and they have been property notice and proper time frames to do that.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Next question, Tim’s next question is why can’t it be thirty days or twenty
days?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Exactly because this started when? May?
MR.HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-I think you can make it less if you want.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-But at the last meeting if you remember
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I was not here at the last meeting.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-That is true you were not here. At the last meeting Dave had, we
had a resolution requiring immediate action and Mr. Toomey had done some work and collapsed
the building before that meeting, based on that Dave recommended a different approach for the
Town Board that there are two concerns. There is the lack of safety in having a building that might
fall down anytime and kids might get there, there is the second part about having this dilapidated
collapsed building where kids could play and get hurt and I think his finding was that this was less
dangerous. This is something for you, the five of you, to decide how high a risk to put on the safety
and if you want to act quicker you could.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-But as I understand it the day that we had the meeting the previous
meeting was the day that it came down.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Right.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-So, that to me proves that since May, June, July, August, we are going
to wait until October? I do not want to wait until October get it cleaned up, give him thirty days.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-It is your prerogative.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-It is the five of your vote.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-It is six months.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Tim, I am not arguing with you, my tendency on these things has been I
prefer less rather than more time as well and I would willing to entertain that the Town is inclined,
th
September 13 is our next regular meeting it is four weeks from tonight, why don’t we give him
twenty eight days. It is collapsed, it is a small building.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I only see this going on and on and on because of past history.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Hopefully the owner will clean it up and if not I will be
back before you..
COUNCILMAN BREWER-If he doesn’t then we will.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Are you suggesting that we amend that Tim to the next regular meeting,
th
which is the 13?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yes, I am.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Consensus of the Board to do likewise?
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 183
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I do not have a problem with that, but in a strange way there is actually a
more dangerous situation then there was before because the building had been collapsed and there
are complete windows that have not been broken and you can walk right onto now.
SUPERVISOR STEC-You can step to.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Exposed nails, etc.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, you’ve got glass that’s lying horizontally. I mean, if I was a kid I
would be tempted to throw rocks through it, whatever, so I am concerned.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I would not do that if I was a kid, Roger.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I am sure you wouldn’t but.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Shows what kind of a kid you were.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Dave, what about modifying this so that if it doesn’t have, I mean, the way
this is worded now, you have to have Town Board action to proceed with the removal.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Right.
th
SUPERVISOR STEC-Can we include that in this so that if by the 13, you don’t have to come back
to the Town Board, you can just go ahead and proceed to remove?
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-We’ve never done it that way before but I’d defer that
to Counsel.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-We have a set procedure that we usually go through, we give them a
period of time.
th
COUNCILMAN BREWER-The 13 by five o’clock, if it’s not gone, that night we can
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-You’ll have a
SUPERVISOR STEC-If this is the way we normally do business Bob, as you know, I’m all for
consistency.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-The only thing the Board can consider, if no action is
taken place like you say, in the next two weeks, that you can bring it back quicker, we can bring it
th
back to a workshop and authorize it or if you want to wait until the 13, it’s up to you.
th
COUNCILMAN BREWER-We’ll give him until the 13, that’s fair.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, would you like to make that a motion?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I would.
th
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, so you move this as written except instead of October 11
th
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Change the date from October to September 13.
th
SUPERVISOR STEC-September 13.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Don’t you want to add also what Tim had said, five p.m., because
th
September 13, we’ll still be here, he can still clean it up.
th
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Five o’clock, September 13.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-If it’s not taken care of that day, I’ll have a resolution
to you that night.
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 184
COUNCILMAN BREWER-That’s fine.
RESOLUTION ORDERING REMOVAL OF UNSAFE STRUCTURE
LOCATED ON PROPERTY OWNED BY HOWARD TOOMEY
AND LOCATED AT INTERSECTION OF
ROCKWELL AND SUNNYSIDE ROADS
RESOLUTION NO.: 411, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury’s Director of Building and Codes Enforcement
(Director) inspected a structure on property owned by Howard Toomey located at the intersection of
Rockwell and Sunnyside Roads in the Town of Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 290.5-1-59) and found
that the outside walls are bowing, the roof has collapsed forcing the structure in the direction of
Rockwell Road and is generally in disrepair, unusable and unsafe, and
WHEREAS, the Director advised Mr. Kevin Toomey to take appropriate measures to
dismantle and remove the structure from the property as more specifically set forth in the Director’s
st
May 21, 2004 letter presented at this meeting, and
WHEREAS, Mr. Kevin Toomey has collapsed the building as required but has not yet
dismantled and removed it as is necessary for public safety, and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hatin advised the Town Board that in his opinion, the structure on the
property is dangerous and unsafe to the general public and therefore, in accordance with the
emergency provisions of Queensbury Town Code 60-11, Mr. Hatin requested Town Board
§
authorization to allow him to arrange for immediate demolition of the structure, and
nd
WHEREAS, on August 2, 2004, the Town Board declared the structure on the property to
be dangerous and unsafe to the public, and
th
WHEREAS, the Town Board held a hearing concerning this property on August 16, 2004
and notice of this hearing was served in accordance with the provisions of New York State Town
Law §130(16) and Queensbury Town Code Chapter 60,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby orders Howard Toomey to
immediately begin removal of the structure located at the intersection of Rockwell and Sunnyside
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 185
th
Roads in the Town of Queensbury and complete the removal process by 5:00 p.m., September 13,
2004, and
BE IT FURTHER,
th
RESOLVED, that if the structure is not removed by September 13, 2004, the Town Board
hereby authorizes and directs the Director of Building and Codes Enforcement to make the
necessary arrangements to remove the structure, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that in accordance with New York State Town Law §130(16) and
Queensbury Town Code Chapter 60, removal expenses may be assessed against the real property
and the Town Board may authorize and direct Town Counsel to institute an action to collect the cost
of the removal, including legal expenses, if necessary.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
4.0 CORRESPONDENCE
DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER noted that Monthly Reports for July 2004 from Town Clerk,
Solid Waste Management and Building & Codes have been received and filed…. Noted that a letter
from Worlco Management Services, Inc. addressed to the Queensbury Town Board, dated August
th
16, 2004 regarding modification of the existing PO Zoning regulations for Bay Road had been
thth
submitted and received at 7 p.m. August 16 and will be made a part of the August 16, 2004
Town Board Minutes file in the Town Clerk’s Office.
MR. J. DAVID LITTLE submitted letter from Michael J. O’Connor addressed to the Queensbury
th
Town Board, dated August 16, 2004 regarding Bay Road Zoning… (received and made part of the
th
August 16, 2004 Town Board Minutes file in the Town Clerk’s Office)
5.0 SUPERVISOR AT LARGE MICHAEL BARODY – MONTHLY UPDATE
MR. MICHAEL BARODY spoke to the Town Board regarding the following topics:
- Update on Warren County Youth Corp.
- Follow up to the Local Development Corporation Meeting, specifically in reference
to the TV8 move from the Town of Queensbury to the City of Glens Falls
- Update on the Warren County Airport Lighting Project and development of a new
Maintenance Hanger
- Warren County Tourism, Fall Brochure
- Bed Tax, $425,000 received to date with one percent given to all towns
- DPW, proposed budget includes bike path for Corinth and West Mt Roads
- DPW, Exit 20 issues in relation to Great Escape traffic
- Announced Alexander Belden, Queensbury Student and local artist of the calendar
previous given to the Town Board who won the New York State Competition placed
tenth at Nationals
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 186
6.0 INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS FROM THE FLOOR
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-(distributed copies to the Town Board of the proposed resolution)
There’s a case that has been before the Town Court concerning someone named June Maxam. Both
of the Town Justices have recused themselves from hearing any of her matters. We need to get this
case transferred to another court that has a Judge that has not recused himself and that can hear it.
The State Chief Administrative Law Judge sent our Judges a letter saying that in order to transfer it
to another court which can hear this, the Town Board has to pass a resolution giving it’s consent and
agreeing to pay the costs of that other court hearing this action. The cost will be assessed by the
Chief Administrative Law Judge. So, that’s the purpose of this, your next meeting is now a month,
this has been going on long enough, we wanted to keep it moving.
SUPERVISOR STEC-This will be our resolution 9.9 this evening. We need to introduce it now.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I’ll introduce it.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Introduced by Councilman Brewer and I’ll second it.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF JUNE MAXAM CASE(S)
FROM QUEENSBURY TOWN COURT TO ANOTHER JUSTICE
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED IT’S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
7.0 OPEN FORUM
8:35 P.M.
MR. SALVADOR-Questioned whether the Audit Report commissioned by this Town Board earlier
in the year completed?
SUPERVISOR STEC-The financial one, yes.
MR. SALVADOR-I’d like to foil that report… Referred to the Town’s plan to organize a
committee to review the Town’s planning and zoning issues and noted, I have serious reservations
about anyone serving on this committee that is a member of the Town’s Zoning Board of Appeals, I
think it’s a gross conflict of interest…. On the other hand, I think it is the purview of the Town
Planning Board to undertake this and only the Town Planning Board…. Referred to the upland
development around Lake George, the letter Supervisor Stec sent to the Park Commission regarding
this issue and noted that most of the communities around the lake have entered into Stormwater
Management Agreements with the Lake George Park Commission, this Town and the Town of
Lake George are two of those. Essentially, if you apply these agreements and make a fair
interpretation, when it comes to upland development, these are essentially show stoppers for these
mega homes that are being built up on the mountain tops. But no one is interpreting them correctly.
There’s a very definitive criteria for establishing the difference between a minor and a major project
and most of these projects that everybody is concerned about, are major projects but they’re not
being treated that way… (read from the 1990 Lake George Park Commission Regulations, Section
646-46K) If the Commission determines that any municipality which has adopted an approved
program has failed to properly implement said program by failing to administer and enforce the
program adequately, to carry out the policies, purposes, and objections of the program of this
subpart and Environmental Conservation Law Section 43-0112, the Commission shall revoke it’s
approval of the program and shall assume the authority of the municipality to regulate Stormwater
Management.
MR. DON SIPP, Courthouse Drive-Referred to the meeting held regarding the build-out data, noted
that at the time the public was told that that information would be made available to the public and
as of last Friday, it was still not available. The Planning Department said that there were mistakes
in it and it was going to the printer.
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 187
SUPERVISOR STEC-There were mistakes in it, they were getting addressed and corrected. The
Town Board made comments to the Planning Office and the Planning Office forwarded those
comments slash corrections, to Chazen. I don’t know when exactly we’ll be getting it back
corrected, completed from the printer.
MS. MARILYN RYBA, Senior Planner-Noted, that the department is short-staffed right now, as
soon as it gets up on the priority list, it will get going but we’re working on it as quickly as we
possibly can.
MR. SIPP-Questioned whether the super committee has met yet?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Noted that they have not met yet because they have not been appointed.
Noted further that there’s been discussion regarding the number of members to appoint to the
committee, they will be appointed by Town Board resolution and are planning on meeting in early
September…
MR. SIPP-Referred to Resolution 9.4, ‘Resolution Setting Public Hearing on Proposed Local Law
to Amend Town Code to Amend Language Concerning Purpose and Establishment of Professional
Office (PO) Zones and Amendment of Town Code Tables 1, 2 and 4 Concerning Residential Uses’
and noted, the way I read this quickly is that you are now pushing back any residential development
five hundred feet from Bay, Sherman, West Mountain.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes and you were at the workshop and this is essentially what we discussed.
There was a little confusion as to the exact format that this would appear in tonight… I did change
it to basically be a multiple choice, a section as to whether or not to grandfather or not to
grandfather and there’s an option… Besides that, I think everything else the Board is comfortable
with, the five hundred feet and the vision and the language changes and the table changes…
MR. SIPP-Has anybody thought of the Town purchasing this land?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Thought of it briefly, for the Town Rec Center but it’s not an ideal location
in our opinion for a community center.
MR. SIPP-You have set a precedent with Greenway North, you have done it before. The precedent
is there, by purchasing this piece of land, you will remove the perception of political influence. You
will create some open space which could be used by a High School, ACC, BOCES as a laboratory
because it shows succession from farmland to woodlands to swamp land, a very good piece of
property that has had very little done to it except farming. It would preserve the appearance of Bay
Road, it provide a place for your Recreation Center and lastly it might remove some tensions from
the Town Board.
MS. BARBARA BENNETT, Dixon Road-Noted that she feels it’s a good idea that the Town Board
and the Queensbury School Board meet on a regular basis and recommended inviting the Glens
Falls School Board be invited also since there’s a portion of Queensbury that’s in the Glens Falls
School District.
MR. DOUG AUER-Referred to the build-out analysis report and questioned why the copies that
were sent to the School Board were stamped confidential but the Town Board were not?
SUPERVISOR STEC-I do not know.
MR. AUER-Noted, I find it curious that a lot of the questions that were asked by some of the folks
that were here at that meeting, went specifically to components of that report…
MS. DIANE BREAN, 18 Carlton Drive-Questioned the proposed local law on the Diesel Trucks?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Noted that the public hearing took place already but the public hearing is still
th
open, we didn’t take any action on it. Our next Town Board Meeting is September 13 and we will
continue the public hearing. So you missed tonight’s discussion but we didn’t do anything yet. If
th
you want to come back September 13, we’ll talk about it again but the floor is yours, I just wanted
to catch you up with what you missed.
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 188
MS. BREAN-My husband, he’s the truck driver and I mean, unfortunately he has to bring his truck
home from work because his company is out of state. He only runs his truck when it’s only twenty-
five below zero during the winter months and personally where I live and the Olson’s live, they way
across the street from me about three hundred yards and their bedroom is upstairs and you can’t hear
the truck running because the trucks nowadays are, they low idle. My next door neighbor, they burn
firewood in their little stoves they have, all of that smoke is always going constantly, as soon as
winter starts, they use that for the heat. So, you’ve got that up in the air, we’ve got WalMart behind
us and all of their trucks, you’ve got all kinds of noise and basically there’s no way they can hear
my husband’s truck. I’ve already talked to my next door neighbor and she says she can’t even hear
my husband’s truck at all and she can’t even smell it cause of the smoke from her house. The
trucks, when you shut them off, they jell up and it’s costs the company money to bring in tow trucks
to un-jell them.
SUPERVISOR STEC-The plugging in the engine block in the winter time is adequate, is what
we’re told, so I’d ask if you have an opinion on that, I’d be curious.
MS. BEAN-Well, when you do that, you plug it in my electricity and my bill goes up. My husband
works seventy to eighty hours sometimes and he can’t work for the NIMO bill, I mean, it does cost
a lot of money. It’s only them that the truck is bothering, all my neighbors, I have five, six
neighbors, it’s not bothering them….
SUPERVISOR STEC-I know I mentioned to you on the phone, yours is one of three or four that I
can think of, a couple of them were mentioned tonight so the one on Carlton Drive is certainly not
the only one of concern so I don’t want you to feel singled out.
MR. DAN VALENTE, 50 Country Club Road-Referred to the PO Zone proposal and would like
clarity as to what you’re trying to accomplish with the five hundred feet buffer, is it off any main
artery, any road?
SUPERVISOR STEC-It’s specific to West Mountain Road, Bay Road and Sherman which is where
the PO Zones currently are.
MR. VALENTE-I do have a PO Zoned parcel that is not on the road itself, so I just want to make
sure that’s clear. I am concerned about the five hundred feet, I think that’s extremely aggressive…
Clearly, people that buy these parcels make a significant purchase and also carry these parcels for
many, many years with the intent that these parcels are used for the zoning that we can build
whatever is zoned appropriately for in there and not necessarily pull the rug out from under
somebody that’s in the process of establishing what they’re looking to do with the parcel, I don’t
think is really correct. If the process has begun, I don’t think it’s necessarily right to do that to a
landowner whose carried a parcel for many, many years or even somebody that just bought it the
other day, they bought it with the intention of developing it a specific way. Again, I just wanted to
reiterate, I think five hundred feet is extremely aggressive on that.
7.0 TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Questioned the status of the outdoor furnace permits?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Noted that the Fire Marshal’s Office had sent out something and they’ve
started receiving applications.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-One other thing, I was excited to see that the County is taking over the
Big Boom Road alignment, hopefully they’ll get the funding necessary and it will happen sooner
then later. I’ve seen conceptual plans from people that own the property in the back and hopefully
they’ll be some sort of a business park there and I think this will be the impedes for development
back on that piece of property where Target was once trying to locate. So, I’m glad to see that the
County has done that.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Noted that we’re going to have to re-bid the job on the sidewalks, we
didn’t have any bidders…
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 189
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes, the bid opening was today and no we did not get any bids on the
sidewalks.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-I think it was because of the penalty.
SUPERVISOR STEC-That may be one of them, the penalty regarding completion because some of
these projects have lingered and the other thing Mike Travis expressed that he thought was a factor,
this late in the season, everyone is already booked and so Mike’s plan, he would like to bid this
again first thing in the Spring.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Regarding Stormwater Management, it’s one thing to adopt the
Stormwater programs along the lake, but as John Salvador pointed out, there’s problem with
interpretation, problems with application and problems with enforcement. So, I hope we work on
all of those. Bolton Landing has one of the nicest stormwater programs I’ve ever seen, not that we
have a bad one but theirs is pretty good and their problem has been enforcement… Received letter
about ATV’s, I see we’re having a problem with them, I’ve mentioned it before, people over on
Cardinal Court have called me up saying, ‘I don’t mind the kids being out there with their dirt bikes
and all that, it is watershed property and they probably shouldn’t be there but why do they take off
the mufflers’? It just aggravates the situation… Cable TV, 2006 we’re supposed to terminate
analogue programming which we’re familiar with now and we’re going to digital TV. Reviewed
the different versions of digital TV, the options involved, the costs. So, am working on the cable
TV situation, don’t know if we’ll be dealing with Adelphia though… Referred to the City of Glens
Falls saving fifty-eight thousand dollars on phone services.
SUPERVISOR STEC-The same company did come and talk to Bob Keenan, although Bob thinks
we’re already where we need to be.
thrd
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Announced, the May 28 – June 3, 2004 Times, Business Review
and it rates eighty-five school districts, ranking number 1 as most cost effective was Queensbury
School District… Glens Falls Business Journal, Saratoga County has attracted Daystar which is a
pioneer in the development of solar cells used in Solar Electric Systems and that’s very good, good
for Saratoga County. It made me think though about that Ciba Geigy site, if we could make that
shovel ready and get that ready for something like Daystar, we’d be way ahead of schedule…
SUPERVISOR STEC-As Supervisor Barody pointed out, we did get a bed tax check last Friday at
our County Board Meeting for ten thousand dollars, every Town in the County did. Jennifer and
her staff are setting up an account and making themselves familiar with the rules that the towns have
to abide by and there’s already no shortage of potential lists available including the 2006 Firemen’s
Convention Parade, the Balloon Festival, the non-profits that we currently give money to that are in
the tourism kind of vein that would be appropriate and the Town Board will need to have a
workshop on that as we move forward in the budget process… I was invited to participate into the
discussion on uplands protection for Lake George. I’ve been up to the lake several times this
summer to get to know Assembly Point and Cleverdale areas a little better and the uplands is a
concern of mine. The gist of my letter and the gist of my remarks that I made to the Lake George
Park Commission and the fund for Lake George annual meeting is that we do need consistency, we
need consistency both in the regulation and in the enforcement of the regulation throughout three
counties and by my count, eight or nine different townships. It will be local government that will
need to do this with the help of the Lake George Park Commission and some of these lake groups
like the LGA… But I have been invited to participate in that discussion, it’s something I believe in
and I’ll be pushing from our end and I’ve already started talking to some other Warren County
Supervisors that are on the lake, I can tell you that Dan Belden in Hague is gun hoe about this…
The engineering work and the survey work is getting done right now, the West Mountain and
Corinth Road shoulder widening for bike access, pedestrian safety is in the budget for next year, he
got that done and he correctly pointed out, it’s now up to the Supervisors to make sure that it stays
in and Mike and I assured him that we would be doing whatever begging, pleading, or arm twisting
that we need to… TV8, although the Town Board, I think we weren’t happy to see a business leave,
we did recognize that it was for a better opportunity both for them and the city. I think TV8 will do
more good in the city then it will here in Queensbury so this Town Board did cooperate in releasing
them from our Empire Zone so they could get into their Empire Zone, Warren County LDC to
authorize the review and potential approval of a loan for TV8 to make that happen down there and I
can tell you that the Glens Falls Supervisors were very happy, excited about the position that all the
Queensbury Supervisors, the entire County Board did in supporting that move… As to the Planning
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 190
Committee, we discussed earlier and agreed to having eight members, we will actually pass a
resolution appointing those eight members and I will make those eight names public here in the next
day or so… I will need an Executive Session later this evening to go over personnel matters; one
we have an interview, and to consider the potential hiring of someone and another personnel matter
regarding the potential hiring of another person…
RESOLUTIONS
9:25 P.M.
RESOLUTION INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS AND ESTIMATED
REVENUES AND AMENDING 2004 TOWN BUDGET TO
ACCOMMODATE REIMBURSED ENGINEERING SERVICES
RESOLUTION NO.: 412, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHEREAS, there is a need to amend the 2004 Budget to address the additional amount of
reimbursed engineering services to be expended for the remainder of the 2004 fiscal year, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Department has requested a budget amendment,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs amendment of
the Town’s 2004 Budget as follows:
1) Increase Estimated Revenues in Account #001-0001-2116 (Technical Assistance) by
the amount of $35,000; and
2) Increase Appropriations in Account #001-8020-4711 (Planning – Reimbursable
Engineering Services) by the amount of $35,000; and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further approves, authorizes and directs the Town
Budget Officer to make any necessary adjustments, transfers or prepare any documentation
necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 191
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2004 BUDGET
RESOLUTION NO.: 413, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, the attached Budget Amendment Requests have been duly initiated and
justified and are deemed compliant with Town operating procedures and accounting practices by the
Town Budget Officer,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town
Budget Officer’s Office to take all action necessary to transfer funds and amend the 2004 Town
Budget as follows:
AUDIT
FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT:
01-1990-4400 01-1320-4401 9,400.
(Contingency) (CPA Audit)
CEMETERY
FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT:
02-8810-2899 02-8810-4070 850.
(Misc. Cap. Construction) (Bldg. Repair-Services & Supplies)
COURT
FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT:
01-1110-2010 01-1110-4791 260.
(Office Equipment) (Equip. Maint. Contr.)
01-1110-2010 01-1110-4010 540.
(Office Equipment) (Office Supples)
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 192
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SALE OF OBSOLETE AND/OR WORN-
OUT TOWN ITEMS AT AUCTION
RESOLUTION NO.: 414, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, in accordance with New York State Town Law §64(2), the Queensbury Town
Board may authorize the sale of items which are no longer needed by the Town or are worn-out or
obsolete, and
WHEREAS, the Town’s Purchasing Agent has assembled a list of obsolete Town
equipment and has requested Town Board authorization to sell the items at an auction to be held on
th
September 10, 2004,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the sale of Town-owned
items that are no longer needed by the Town or are worn-out or obsolete, as substantially set forth
th
on the list presented at this meeting, at an auction to be held on September 10, 2004, with the
viewing hour to be from 5:00 p.m.– 6:00 p.m. and the auction to commence at 6:00 p.m., and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that all Town proceeds from the auction shall be deposited in accordance with
the Queensbury Town Code and Laws of the State of New York, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to
sign any necessary contract for auction and authorize set minimum bid amounts if required, and
BE IT FURTHER,
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 193
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes the Town Supervisor and/or Town
Purchasing Agent to take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
BEFORE VOTE:
Town Board held discussion regarding previous auctions held where they hired an outside
individual to conduct the auction and agreed that since this is a small list of items and of very little
value that they will conduct the auction in house… Councilman Brewer recommended posting the
list of auction items on the Town’s website… (vote taken)
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL
LAW NO. __ OF 2004 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE
CHAPTER 179 “ZONING” TO AMEND LANGUAGE CONCERNING THE
PURPOSE AND ESTABLISHMENT OF PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO)
ZONES AND THE AMENDMENT OF TOWN CODE TABLES 1, 2 AND 4
CONCERNING RESIDENTIAL USES
RESOLUTION NO.: 415, 2004 MOTION WITHDRAWN
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
DISCUSSION HELD:
under the criteria in
COUNCILMAN BREWER introduced resolution with Section 7 ending after,
effect when the application was deemed complete.
SUPERVISOR STEC seconded motion for purposes of discussion.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Why don’t you want both aspects of it in it? Why take the extra
effort to eliminate an aspect of it when you haven’t had a public hearing on it?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Because that’s the way I want to introduce the resolution.
SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s right and I do think we have a duty to introduce a law that we intend
to pass. The public has a right to know what we’re planning on talking about in four weeks.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, in other words, tell the public don’t even show up for the
meeting because we already know what’s going to happen.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-No, we’ll still have the discussion and it’s not to say that it can’t be
changed.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Then why don’t we just leave it on there.
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 194
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Because I’d rather not, that’s my preference.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Then I’m going to be forced to vote no.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-You’re not forced to vote anyway, we’re setting a public hearing, you
can vote yes or no.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I know, so why don’t we just put it forward like it is with both parts
there?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I’d rather not, I introduced it the way I wanted to introduce it.
SUPERVISOR STEC-We can’t, we have to pick one or the other to set the public hearing, correct
Bob?
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-We would usually recommend that you do. You have often had
drafts where you waited to get the public input before you filled in the blanks.
SUPERVISOR STEC-So, we could leave it as an either or for the purpose of setting the public
hearing?
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-You can do whatever is the Town Board’s desire.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, that’s not entirely true because the State of New York does actually set
guidelines for us.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Yes, no, in this case, you could do it that way. We would prefer, I
mean we would normally recommend that you fill in the blanks so that the proposed law that your
suggesting is actually what you passed. But you’re making it very clear that there are issues that
you are going to seek public input on and that you’re going to make the final decision after that
public hearing.
Town Board held further discussion and Supervisor Stec withdrew his second to Councilman
Brewer’s motion and entertained a new motion…
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I’ll make a motion with the options of both listed.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I’ll second it.
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL
LAW NO. __ OF 2004 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE
CHAPTER 179 “ZONING” TO AMEND LANGUAGE CONCERNING THE
PURPOSE AND ESTABLISHMENT OF PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO)
ZONES AND THE AMENDMENT OF TOWN CODE TABLES 1, 2 AND 4
CONCERNING RESIDENTIAL USES
RESOLUTION NO.: 415, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: __ of 2004 to
amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179 entitled “Zoning,” to
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 195
§
1) amend language in Town Code 179-3-040 entitled “Purpose and establishment of
zoning districts,” concerning the purpose and establishment of the Professional Office (PO) Zone;
2) amend the Town Code Use Tables 1 and 2 to require setbacks for residential uses within
the PO Zone to be sited a minimum of 500 feet from Bay Road, Sherman Avenue,
Western Avenue or West Mountain Road;
3) amend the Town Code Use Tables 1 and 2 to require non-residential uses within the PO
Zone to be sited within 1,000 feet of Bay Road, Sherman Avenue, Western Avenue or
West Mountain Road; and
4) amend the Town Code Use Table 4 to clarify the density for multi-family dwelling units
and clarify the floor area ratio requirements for office uses; and
WHEREAS, this legislation is authorized in accordance with New York State Municipal
Home Rule Law §10 and Town Law Article 16, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to set a public hearing concerning adoption of this
Local Law,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall meet and hold a public hearing at the
th
Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury at 7:00 p.m. on September 13, 2004 to
hear all interested persons and take any necessary action provided by law concerning proposed
Local Law No.: ___ of 2004, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town
Clerk to publish and post a Notice of Public Hearing concerning proposed Local Law No. __ of
2004 in the manner provided by law and send the Notice of Public Hearing to the Clerk of the
Warren County Board of Supervisors, Warren County Planning Board, Town of Queensbury
Planning Board and other communities or agencies that it is necessary to give written notice to in
accordance with New York State Town Law §265, the Town’s Zoning Regulations and the Laws of
the State of New York, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby refers such proposed Local Law to the Warren
County Planning Board and the Queensbury Planning Board for their advisory recommendations in
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 196
accordance with General Municipal Law §239-m and directs the Community Development
Department to take all actions necessary to effect such referrals, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby indicates its wish to be Lead Agency for SEQRA
review of this project and directs the Department of Community Development to notify any other
involved agencies, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board intends to conduct SEQRA review of the proposed
th
Local Law after the public hearing at its September 13, 2004 meeting.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
DISCUSSION AFTER VOTE:
COUNCILMAN BOOR-My thoughts here on Professional Office, it’s at this point in time that an
individual came out and somewhat attacked me personally and I truly believe that this was because
of my concern about development, Professional Office Zoning and this individual had an
application that was going to be coming before this Board and was very concerned that we are in
fact taking a hard look at zoning, that we were in fact concerned about where we were going. So, he
sent a message to the rest of this Board when he, at a Warren County Republican Meeting said that I
should be removed, that they should find somebody to run against me… Let’s get to the real issue
at hand, the language upon which Mr. Stec, our Supervisor has said, allows for an exemption to be
made on this property. He has said repeatedly and Mr. Brewer has agreed with him, that because a
complete application was turned into the Planning Department that we should consider an
exemption for this individual… When the statement was made that we should grandfather the
application because it was complete and before the Board, I said, you know, I’ve got to look into
this. So, I went to Counsel and I said is this correct that because an application is complete and has
been turned in, does that actually grandfather and the answer was no, it does not. The applicant is
not vested by simply handing in an application and having it complete. If the application is
complete, it goes through the process of SEQRA, it goes through the process of Site Plan Review, it
receives the necessary DEC permits, the APA if that applies, once all of that is done and the
application actually gets approved, still it does not have vested rights. I was shocked, I said, I can’t
believe somebody can go through entire process, receive approval and still not be vested. There
only vested after approval when they put a shovel in the ground and make improvements. So, the
notion that we have to give special favor to this individual because he has an application that’s
complete does not hold up to the law and the courts would not recognize it and I would hope that all
of you here don’t feel intimidated and do what the law says we can do, do the right thing.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Roger, would you agree, I just want to test everyone’s recollection here, did
we or did we not all agree with you at last Monday night’s workshop that legally, we agree with the
answer that you got from Counsel that no vesting takes place until the shovel goes in the ground?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-You were all very aware of it because I brought it up multiple times, yes,
absolutely.
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 197
SUPERVISOR STEC-So, no one has argued that last week or this week?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-No.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I’ll take executive privilege, special privilege here, I gave some thought over
the weekend and I wanted to and because I feel I was maligned by some of my peers publicly in the
paper that I wanted to, I laid out what I understood happened and a pertinent time line to the
discussion here. We’ll get into the nuts and bolts of it next week but I’d like to read a brief
statement. I’d like to take the opportunity to set the record straight with regard to some misleading
and inaccurate statements that have been made to the public by two councilmen in recent weeks. I,
and many others, take great exception and I am personally insulted by what can at best be most
generously characterized as irrational and unsubstantiated leaps in logic and conspiracy theories,
and at worst can be characterized as petty partisan politics and mean-spirited, slanderous personal
attacks. I will not tolerate this behavior any longer. Councilmen Boor and Strough have made
public statements and have drawn conclusions on a wide variety of issues unfairly, without
disclosing all the facts, and without revealing complete and accurate timelines. Following a three
year long workshop and debate on the size and growth trend of the town’s now $11 million surplus
and the historic sized voter mandate for my $1 million tax rebate proposal last November, and
having brought zero financial analysis of their own to the table during this period, they chose to
defend their unpreparedness by suggesting that I wavered on my call for the rebate, by attacking
“the process,” in which the matter was brought to a vote in July after numerous public references
and memos on the subject in the first seven months of the year and by accusing me of an “unholy”
relationship with the media as cause for the bad press they received from their very own interviews
with the press. More recently, they have criticized the process by which a public hearing on
proposed changes to the Professional Office zone is being set. Only Councilmen Boor and Strough
could manage to find controversy in the setting of a public hearing. They are quoted saying it was
“very clear” that there would be two resolutions to set the same public hearing tonight. With that
th
accusation, I and several others listened to the tapes of the August 9 workshop and while we agree
that tonight’s process was discussed, including the possibility of voting on two separate and almost
identical resolutions, the board certainly never concluded that there would be two resolutions on this
matter tonight, not that two are even necessary. Even the most casual observer of local government
can confirm that the language of the proposed law change can be debated and changed at this
meeting and again at the public hearing leading to the vote. It is immaterial, and in fact redundant
and unnecessary to prepare two separate resolutions every time the board is split. With this practice,
how will we ever adopt a town budget with thousands of lines to review and find consensus on?
These board members need to realize that three is a majority of this board and they need to
understand what a consensus is and honor the decisions of the majority. At issue in setting this
public hearing on Professional Office is one sentence in the proposed law, and both options are
available for the board to discuss again tonight before setting the public hearing. The substance of
the sentence in question regards how to handle applications that have already been submitted – the
question of whether or not to “grandfather” previously submitted applications under the rules they
were submitted under. Fairness and past practice of this and most every other municipality in the
state suggests that changing the rules in the middle of the game is improper. In a letter I wrote and
of which the town board unanimously approved addressed to Zoning Board Chairman Lew Stone
dated May 13, 2004, regarding the paintball zoning issue we stated “the Town Board is unanimous
in its opinion that it is neither fair, reasonable nor appropriate for the Town Board to consider
amending our legislation while a current application is pending.” The editors of the Post Star later
stated in their “Boos and Bravos” section “Town Supervisor Dan Stec rightly told the Zoning Board
of Appeals that it would be “neither fair, reasonable nor appropriate for the Town Board to consider
amending the town code while a current application is pending.” There is an even more telling
st
example. On April 1, 2002, four members of this current board voted on resolution number 176 of
2002 titled “RESOLUTION ADOPTING SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO. 1 OF 2002 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE BY
REPEALING CURRENT CHAPTER 179 “ZONING” AND REPLACING IT WITH A NEW
CHAPTER 179 “ZONING”.” This is the resolution that reviewed and modified all town zoning
regulations and, pertinent to tonight’s discussion, it did two things. It created the Professional
Office zone and the current zoning rules that apply to it that we are now considering changing. It
also states “RESOLVED, that all applications requiring the review and approval of the Town of
Queensbury’s Zoning Administrator received and deemed complete prior to the effective date of
this new Local Law shall be reviewed under the zoning regulations applicable at the time of such
applications and all applications requiring the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator
received after the effective date of this new Local Law No. 1 of 2002 shall be reviewed according to
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 198
the requirements of this new Local Law.” Interestingly enough, the resolution was introduced by
Councilman Brewer and seconded by me. The vote was four ‘ayes’, zero ‘nays’ and one abstention.
Three of the four that voted in the affirmative are on the board today. Supervisor Brower voted
“yes” in addition to Ted, Tim and me. The sole abstention on this vote was Councilman Boor, at
the time offering no reason for his abstention. Asking other long tenured town officials, everyone I
spoke to confirmed that to their recollection, the town has always “grandfathered” these
applications. With that said, two town board members remain vehement that the one submitted
application affected by this proposed change not be grandfathered, contradictory to the town’s
history. They have stated that in grandfathering this application, we would be granting preferential
treatment to the application. They have gone further to say, without offering proof, that the majority
of the board feels the way it does because of political pressure, or fear of Mike O’Connor, since Mr.
O’Connor, the single affected application’s part-owner / agent is also the Warren County
Republican Chairman. This is an insulting accusation to every elected Republican official in
Warren County. It is an un-provable accusation based purely on conjecture. In the last three weeks,
Councilman Boor and Mr. O’Connor have traded numerous political attacks in the local media. In
fact, the only town board member for which actual evidence of a loss of objectivity on this matter
exists is Councilman Boor, with his demand to deviate from the town’s historic practice and his war
of words with the single affected applicant who happens to be the elected Warren County
Republican Chairman. Unfortunately, the result is that the public is now concerned that political
motivation is at play instead of sound and fair judgment on the issue. This is a great concern for me
and I want to take this opportunity to assure the public that in situations like this that arise, I do my
research first and place great importance on decisions made by my predecessors when faced with
similar situations of conflict of interest and fair play. The Town Board can not choose the
applicants before us and we must do our best to seek fairness and consistency and conduct ourselves
with professionalism. In this case, I believe strongly that the fairest way to handle this application
and the only way to avoid the appearance of impropriety is to seek consistency by referencing the
town’s well established past practice. This is what Councilmen Turner, Brewer and I are proposing.
It is critical that despite differing opinions on the Town Board, we work as a team to conduct
ourselves professionally and engage in open healthy debate to demonstrate to the public that the
democratic process is alive and well in the Town of Queensbury. It is only by abiding by this
practice that we will best serve the residents of the Town of Queensbury.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-A little bit of a time frame here, there’s a notion that somehow this whole
thing has to do with most recent developments and the bottom line is, I have a memo here from
Marilyn Ryba, third paragraph, ‘for example, changes and proposed changes to Professional Office
Zone over the past year have taken one hundred hours worth of planning staff time, this is core
planning staff time only and does not include support staff time, legal office time, Planning Board or
Town Board time.’ So, the notion that my objection to Mr. O’Connor’s project is recent or that I
somehow am singling him out, is ludicrous. I have been on this ban wagon for a very long time. I
take exception, Mr. O’Connor was the one that through the first punch here and I think he did it to
make a point and I think that’s a fair statement for me to make…
COUNCILMAN STROUGH… If you’re talking Single Family Residential, what are you talking?
You’re talking Single Family Residential. If you’re talking Highway Commercial, you’re talking
Highway Commercial. When you’re talking PO, you’re talking Professional Office. PO is for
Professional Office. Now, we all agreed there was a glitch, a snag in the way the Zoning Code was
written to allow, and we were all in agreement, to allow residential near an arterial when it’s zoned
Professional Office. It wasn’t zoned multifamily, it wasn’t zoned for multifamily, it was zoned for
apartments, it was zoned Professional Office and yes Jim Martin had a vision, yes, the Planning
Board has been following that vision, yes, Dan Valente followed that vision by providing
Professional Offices which was a program, I liked his program. Mr. O’Connor even submitted an
application showing Professional Offices. It was well understood by everybody that it was
Professional Offices. Now we have an opportunity to make more money. It’s also going to burden
the community. It’s also not in line with what the intentions of Professional Office were. You
know, Mike O’Connor or anybody else, I don’t have any personal animosity towards him, it could
be Joe Blow, it doesn’t make any difference. It was meant to be Professional Office and we were all
th
in agreement… That was the first week of August and then came the 9, Monday and all of sudden
we’re talking an exception. An exception was never mentioned before. I just don’t believe in the
exception and I don’t want anybody to take it personally, it’s just not in align and in accord with the
vision of Bay Road. I was on the zoning committee, I overlooked the language, there’s, if you look
at the Zoning Code, it’s this thick. There’s a reference that housing should be or that Professional
Offices should be within one thousand feet of Bay Road. The intent was to have Professional
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 199
Offices along Bay Road. I could argue that I think that the intent was one thousand feet and I said
to you, I think it was Thursday in the first week of August that I would be willing to compromise at
five hundred and I’d like to see five hundred from the seventy-five foot setback…. I for one, was
one of the first to hear of an exception, I just don’t think that we should allow the exception, I think
the Planning Board for one has been saying, would you make the language clearer in the Zoning
Code. That’s what we were working on and I don’t think anybody should take advantage of us right
now when were in the process of trying to finalize that language and I don’t think that a hundred
seventy-four apartments on that corner is the best thing for the community and I’m noticing a
division in this Town, a fight going on between, well I’ll call it community interest versus special
interest and I think the community interest is the side that should win here. And I’ve got a lot of
reasons and I’ve got a hole folder of why I think Professional Office Zoning should be, for the most
th
part be Professional Office Zoning but I’ll save that for September 13 rather then use up
everybody’s time.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR
CONTRACT 3B - ROUTE 9 SEWER DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO.: 416, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 444,2002, the Queensbury Town Board authorized
engagement of C.T. Male Associates, P.C. (C.T. Male) for design, contract administration and
construction observation services in connection with the creation of the Route 9 Sewer District, and
WHEREAS, by Town Board Resolution No.: 113,2003 the Town Board adopted its Final
Order approving creation of the Route 9 Sewer District, and
WHEREAS, by Town Board Resolution No.: 275, 2003, the Town Board authorized an
advertisement for bids for Contract 1 and by Resolution No.: 345, 2003, the Town Board
authorized an advertisement for bids for Contracts 2 and 3 of the Route 9 Sewer District, and
WHEREAS, C.T. Male has prepared bid documents and specifications to advertise for bids
for Contract 3B of the Route 9 Sewer Project, and
WHEREAS, Contract 3B will generally provide sewer service along both sides of US Route
9 from the Warren County Municipal Center north to Farm-to-Market Road (State Route 149) and
will also provide for installation of conduit for pedestrian walk-lighting along the corridor, and
WHEREAS, General Municipal Law §103 requires that the Town advertise for bids and
award the bid to the lowest responsible bidder meeting New York State statutory requirements and
the requirements set forth in the Town’s bid documents and specifications,
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 200
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town’s
Purchasing Agent to post and publish an advertisement for bids to be prepared by C.T. Male
Associates, P.C., for Contract 3B of the Route 9 Sewer District and receive all bids, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town’s Purchasing
Agent to open all received bids, read them aloud and record the bids as is customarily done and
present the bids to the next regular or special meeting of the Town Board.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF CONSENT ORDER
FROM NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION REGARDING ROUTE 9 SEWER DISTRICT
STORMWATER PLAN
RESOLUTION NO.: 417, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 113,2003 the Queensbury Town Board adopted its Final
Order approving creation of the Route 9 Sewer District, and
WHEREAS, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is
responsible for enforcement of New York State Environmental Conservation Law Article 17 and
Title 6 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York which
require, among other things, that municipalities obtain permits for stormwater discharge associated
with small construction activity, and
WHEREAS, DEC issued a SPDES General Permit No.: GP-02-01 dated January 8, 2003
for stormwater discharges from construction activities and coverage under such General Permit
could be obtained by submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) form to DEC, and
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 201
WHEREAS, the Town has been in the process of constructing the Route 9 Sewer District
since December 2003, which construction resulted in the disturbance of greater than one acre of
total land area, and
WHEREAS, the Town’s Engineer advised DEC in July of 2003 that the Town would
submit an NOI in connection with SPDES General Permit No.: GP-02-01 and construction of the
nd
Route 9 Sewer District; however, on April 2, 2004, DEC advised the Town that the required NOI
had not been submitted, and
WHEREAS, the Town immediately contacted its engineer and the engineer filed an NOI on
nd
April 2, 2004, and
WHEREAS, DEC inspected the project and there were no further violations or
environmental damage resulting from failure to timely file the Town’s NOI, and
WHEREAS, the ECL provides that violation of applicable provisions of the ECL can result
in a penalty of up to $37,500 per day for each violation, and
WHEREAS, the Town has consented to the issuing and entering of a Consent Order to
resolve this matter and payment to the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental
Conservation in the amount of $1,000, and
WHEREAS, Town Counsel has successfully negotiated provisions of the Consent Order to
include “non-admission” terms,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves and authorizes the Consent
Order concerning the Route 9 Sewer District and presented at this meeting with the understanding
that neither execution of the Consent Order nor payment of any civil penalty constitutes any
admission on behalf of the Town and shall not be admissible as evidence of any violation by the
Town in any future proceeding, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs payment to the Commissioner of
the Department of Environmental Conservation in the amount of $1,000 via certified check or
money order and such amount shall be paid for from the Route 9 Capital Construction Account No
136-8150-2899, and
BE IT FURTHER,
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 202
RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to sign the
Consent Order and any other necessary documentation needed to conclude this matter, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor,
Budget Officer and/or Town Counsel to take such other and further action as may be necessary to
effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS –
TH
ABSTRACT OF AUGUST 12, 2004
RESOLUTION NO.: 418, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve the audit of bills presented as
th
the Abstract with a run date of August 12, 2004,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Abstract with a run
th
date of August 12, 2004 numbering 24-284000, and 24-345700 through 24-375400 and totaling
$1,035,822.07, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Budget Officer and/or
Town Supervisor to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of
this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2004, by the following vote:
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 203
AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
(Councilman Brewer left meeting room)
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON NORTH QUEENSBURY
VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC.’S PROPOSAL TO PURCHASE
SCOTT AIR PACKS AND NECESSARY, ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT
RESOLUTION NO.: 419, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury and the North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company,
Inc. (Fire Company) have entered into an Agreement for fire protection services, which Agreement
sets forth a number of terms and conditions including a condition that the Fire Company will not
purchase or enter into any binding contract to purchase any piece of apparatus, equipment, vehicles,
real property, or make any improvements that would require the Fire Company to acquire a loan or
mortgage or use money placed in a “vehicles fund” without prior approval of the Queensbury Town
Board, and
WHEREAS, the Fire Company has advised the Town Board that it wishes to purchase 19
Scott Air Packs with the necessary, associated equipment (Air Packs) for a sum not to exceed
$113,000, such purchase already included in the scheduled Fire Company’s five (5) year capital
plan that forecasts future capital needs and expenditures, including anticipated vehicles, equipment,
tools, other apparatus, facilities or improvements to facilities to be used for firematic purposes, and
WHEREAS, the Fire Company plans on paying for the Air Packs by using approximately
$31,000 in funds from its Restricted Air Pack Fund and entering into three (3) year tax-exempt
lease-purchase agreement with a financial institution for the balance of $82,000, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board feels that these new Air Packs will provide additional safety
protection for the Fire Company’s firefighters and the Town, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to set a public hearing concerning the Fire Company’s
proposed Air Pack purchase and tax-exempt financing, which requires such a public hearing under
the Internal Revenue Code,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 204
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall conduct a public hearing concerning
the proposed purchase of 19 Scott Air Packs and the associated, necessary equipment by the North
Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., and the partial financing of this purchase by the Fire
th
Company using tax-exempt financing, on September 13, 2004 at 7:00 p.m., and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town
Clerk to publish a Notice of Public Hearing in the Post-Star Newspaper once at least fourteen (14)
days prior to the Public Hearing.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer
DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE:
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER noted that because they’re applying for tax exemption, that we need
to change the resolution to reflect fourteen day notice prior to Public Hearing rather then the ten day
notice as written in resolution… Councilman Boor and Councilman Strough agreed to amending the
resolution… (vote taken)
10.0 ACTION OF RESOLUTIONS PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED FROM THE FLOOR
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF JUNE MAXAM CASE(S)
FROM QUEENSBURY TOWN COURT TO ANOTHER JUSTICE
RESOLUTION NO.: 420, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, June Maxam recently filed a motion to vacate her conviction out of
Queensbury Town Court, and
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Justices have disqualified themselves in any cases
involving June Maxam, and
WHEREAS, the Town’s Justices have advised the Town Board that the New York State
§
Uniform Justice Court Act 106(2) provides that the only way to transfer June Maxam case(s) to
another Justice is by the Town Board’s adoption of a Resolution requesting the Chief
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 205
Administrative Law Judge to assign the case(s) to another Justice and the Town Board’s agreement
to pay the Town or Village supplying the Judge such expenses and compensation as may be
approved by the Chief Administrative Law Judge, and
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve the transfer of the case(s) and
forward the request and consent to the Chief Administrative Law Judge,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board, in accordance with New York State
§
Uniform Justice Court Act 106(2), hereby consents to the transfer of case(s) involving June
Maxam from Queensbury Town Court to another Justice and hereby requests the Chief
Administrative Law Judge to assign the case(s) to another Town or Village Justice, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes payment of any expenses and
compensation as may be approved by the Chief Administrative Law Judge to the Town or Village
supplying the Judge, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town
Court to forward a certified copy of this Town Board Resolution to the Chief Administrative Law
Judge and take any and all action necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
NOES : None
ABSENT : Mr. Brewer
11.0 ATTORNEY MATTERS - NONE
12.0 EXECUTIVE SESSION
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION
RESOLUTION NO.: 421, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED IT’S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 206
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from
Regular Session and enter Executive Session to discuss two personnel matters, one of which is an
interview.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer
(Councilman Brewer reentered meeting)
RESOLUTION TO RECONVENE
RESOLUTION NO.: 422, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED FOR IT’S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns Executive
Session and enters Regular Session of the Town Board.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CIVIL ENGINEER POSITION IN TOWN
WATER DEPARTMENT AND APPOINTING CHRISTOPHER
HARRINGTON TO SUCH POSITION
RESOLUTION NO.:423, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 207
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to establish the full-time position of Civil
Engineer in the Town’s Water Department and make an appointment to the position, and
WHEREAS, the Town’s Water Superintendent posted availability for the position, reviewed
resumes, interviewed interested candidates and wishes to appoint a Civil Engineer,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby establishes the position of Civil
Engineer in the Town’s Water Department, such position to be overtime exempt and a Grade 8M
position within the Town of Queensbury’s Non-Union Position Grade Schedule, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby appoints Christopher Harrington as Civil
Engineer effective on a date satisfactory to the Town Supervisor and subject to a six month
probation period, a pre-employment physical as required by Town Policy and any applicable Civil
Service requirements, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that Mr. Harrington shall be paid an annual salary of $48,000, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor,
Water Superintendent and/or Budget Officer to complete any documentation and take such other
and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN TOWN BOARD MEETING
Regular Town Board Meeting, August 16, 2004, Mtg #39 208
RESOLUTION NO.: 424, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED IT’S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns their
Regular Town Board Meeting.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
No further action taken.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
DARLEEN M. DOUGHER
TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY