Loading...
2006-06-19 MTG22 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 270 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#22 TH JUNE 19, 2006 RES#305-324 7:05 P.M. B.H. 14-16 L.L. #6 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR COUNCILMAN RICHARD SANFORD COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER TOWN COUNSEL ROBERT HAFNER TOWN OFFICIALS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, MARILYN RYBA WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, MIKE SHAW WATER SUPERINTENDENT, BRUCE OSTRANDER PRESS TV 8 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR RESOLUTION ENTERING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 305, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and enters into the Queensbury Board of Health. th Duly adopted this 19, day of June, 2006, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec Noes: None Absent:None REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 271 PUBLIC HEARING – APPLICATION FOR SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE FOR ANTHONY DAWSON NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: June 9, 2006 AGENT, ERNEST GAILOR FROM HARLEM – MCGEE ASSOCIATES AND OWNER ANTHONY DAWSON PRESENT SUPERVISOR STEC-You are seeking a holding on a seasonal dwelling on property located off 9L. MR. GAILOR-That’s correct. SUPERVISOR STEC-The floor is yours if you want to make a presentation. MR. GAILOR-Mr. Dawson had the property surveyed I discovered that there was enough property there to meet all the setbacks to build a seasonal dwelling. After looking at the property, we determined that it would be almost impossible for us to install a regular wastewater system. We contacted your Building Department the Town Building Department to see what opportunities were still available for the site. We found that if it was possible that we would install a thirty five hundred gallon holding tank for a seasonal dwelling that supplies about six months of holding ability before it would have to be pumped. Mr. Dawson would then be able to build a seasonal dwelling. SUPERVISOR STEC-Just a couple quick questions. The water supply is Lake George. The water supply would be the lake. COUNCILMAN BOOR-The well or the lake? SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s my question. That’s my question is it the well or is it the lake? MR. GAILOR-He is going to be drilling a well. SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, you are going to be drilling a well. There will be an interlock. I think it’s required by code an alarm then an interlock that if the tank gets so full it shuts off power for the water. MR. GAILOR-Correct. SUPERVISOR STEC-I believe that’s our code, but it is always nice to ask and hear anyways. MR. GAILOR-We’ve included just so we don’t miss anything on the notes we just robbed your code and stuck it on our plan so it would comply with all those requirements, we certainly will have an interlocking alarm. SUPERVISOR STEC-Board members any questions for the applicant or his agent? COUNCILMAN BOOR-Just one starting off. It’s new construction. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 272 MR. GAILOR-Correct. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s going to meet Town Code. MR. GAILOR-Correct. COUNCILMAN BOOR-So what distinguishes it a seasonal dwelling? MR. GAILOR-We will identify on our building plan its seasonal dwelling only. The building will not be insulated. We will not be attempting to meet any of the New York State Energy Code requirements because it will not have any heating or cooling and we will maintain it as a seasonal dwelling. Additionally, we will also identify on the site plan itself as large letters as you want seasonal dwelling only so when you do file it, it is very clear for anyone seeing it that it is a seasonal dwelling. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Good enough. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Why are you going with six inch outside walls if it’s not going to be insulated? MR. GAILOR-Well we certainly don’t have too. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-It shows that on the plans. MR. GAILOR-It does. Normally today its two by six construction we just naturally choose two by six construction we could certainly change it to two by four that would not be an issue. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-It didn’t make clear if it was going to have a basement or what kind of a foundation. MR. GAILOR-It will just be a crawl space there won’t be any basement. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-It’s not going to be a slab its going to be a crawl space. MR. GAILOR-I like a crawl space anyways if you want to get to any plumbing that you want to repair. It is a lot easier to service it then it is if it is under slab. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I went looking for it this afternoon I couldn’t find the spot. I followed the directions I looked at the map. You say take Route 9L then take a left onto Assembly Point Road, stay right then it says right on existing old drive. The only thing I saw to my right was not a log cabin, but it kind of looked that way with a rough clap board with the natural contour of the tree on the bottom part of the clapboard kind of making it look rusty, I did see that house. MR. DAWSON-We are kind of behind that. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Kind of behind that. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 273 MR. DAWSON-If you went down the existing old road that dwelling would be on your right you would continue on the existing road and we would be the next property over. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Is Darcy Harding the property that this building he is referring to is on? MR. DAWSON-Correct. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-A lot of that looked wet in that area, no. MR. DAWSON-No, there is no wet where my land is. On the other, side my surveyor some… COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Was there a test pit dug? MR. DAWSON-Not yet. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-The groundwater determination would have to be made so we could see what kind of forces are going to be on this holding tank. Groundwater does provide if it’s high enough to provide a force on the holding tank then certain things have to be done to accommodate that situation. MR. GAILOR-The tank itself will be cast concrete we’ve included a diagram from Fort Miller of the thirty five hundred gallon tank. The buoyancy of that tank I don’t believe it displaces enough water to become buoyant if it was a concern we could certainly anchor it down. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-That would depend on height of the water table as well. MR. GAILOR-With the weight of this tank and the thickness of the walls the water table would have to be right at the top just about in order to absorb that kind of force on this tank. If it was a concern, we certainly could anchor it down or apply some anchorage even if it was below water it wouldn’t float. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yeah, we don’t know because there wasn’t a test pit dug. The other thing is it within a flood plain. MR. GAILOR-It is not. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Okay, because that wasn’t indicated one way or the other. What is going to be the separation distance between this and the well? MR. GAILOR-We are going to maintain a minimum fifty-foot separation. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-It’s new construction I’m not real happy with this for just one Town Board member. It does show a big fireplace as a heat source. It has a crawl space and six inch walls. How would we know that REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 274 its never going to become a full time, I mean, I don’t know I’m just not comfortable with it let’s see how things go. COUNCILMAN BREWER-How could we determine if any of them are going to be a seasonal use? COUNCILMAN STROUGH-That’s a good point, good question. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I have a question probably not directed so much to you, but to Town Counsel. I was reading Queensbury Code 136 I believe it’s eighteen. Basically, what I’ve picked up on this is we are not to encourage certainly holding tanks and it talks in terms of you really shouldn’t do it unless unnecessary hardship would deprive the owner of the reasonable use of the land involved. To me there is a distinction between an existing home that has a failed system that needs a septic system in order to continue to operate functionally as a dwelling as opposed to new construction. So, when you were talking about a piece of property that’s approximately one third of an acre what is the parameters or criteria for reasonable use of such a parcel of land. Is the implication that strong that a dwelling falls within that parameter or not? I had a piece of property once Bob up in Chestertown. I thought about what to do with it, it had lake rights and everything else and I concluded it was just too small to do anything with it so I managed to sell it off to an adjacent property owner. I didn’t feel that it was a suitable site because of its small size for a dwelling. Here it says, that we really shouldn’t do anything unless we are going to be preventing reasonable use of the land involved what is reasonable use. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s our determination isn’t it? TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-It ends up being within your determination as long as it isn’t arbitrary. The fact that it isn’t currently developed with a current structure if they had a current structure it would give them a stronger position for a reasonable use of something replaced. Where there isn’t one where they do not meet our requirements and they require a variance Town Board could say that the reasonable use is to continue the current use, which is not to be developed. We don’t know what a Court if challenged would determine there, but you have the discretion to determine whether or not they have met the requirements and whether the reasonable use of the land does not necessarily result in a residence. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I hear you that doesn’t help me a lot. What, I’m basically saying given that the zone is WR-1A is there a presumption that a reasonable use is to construct a dwelling or not. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-I believe that WR-1A is waterfront residential and that is the zone where we have residential use. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s a third of an acre I think is what he is saying. COUNICLMAN SANFORD-So it’s a nonconforming lot. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 275 TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-It is well under the size that would support your determination if you thought it was too small a lot to have a residence built on. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-It is one third the required size is nonconforming in a CEA and you go on and on, right. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-The very fact that its waterfront residential may even be in the Lake George CEA suggests that you should be particularly careful about what we do approve. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I agree. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-Then you also if that is the way you were leaning the last section eight three talks about that this is the minimum variance to elevate the specific unnecessary hardship. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Right now there isn’t any. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-Yes. You could determine that there is no hardship to let it continue with its current use. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-See, I make a distinction here and I know you are not going to like the distinction I’m making. The distinction I make is its one thing when a person has a dwelling the system has failed, it’s a seasonal dwelling they want to go on a holding tank, and I feel comfortable with that meeting the case. If we don’t grant this, they are going to have an unnecessary hardship to continue the use. What, I see here is you are requesting a new use and I’m not sure if you pass that test of hardship. I don’t know if you have a response to it, but it’s a concern I have especially with all the activity we’ve had up there at the lake with the small lots and the problems with septic systems. MR. GAILOR-This parcel is the only parcel Mr. Dawson owns in that area there is no other additional properties that he could include with this application. It is preexisting nonconforming lot it’s been there for a number of years in the condition and state that it is in today. The adjoining neighbor is currently on a holding tank. Requests have been made to neighbors in the area to buy additional property to bring this into conformance with the minimum lot requirements, but no one is stepping forward to sell Mr. Dawson any additional properties this is all he owns. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Are the additional properties vacant? MR. GAILOR-The Harding property next door is not the lot is larger than the minimum lot required, but she has not indicated that she wants…. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Everything to the east I would guess is vacant. MR. GAILOR-That is vacant. We’ve had no response from those owners. MR. DAWSON-That is also owned by Darcy Harding. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 276 COUNCILMAN BOOR-You have approached her. MR. DAWSON-I went and I did research to contact each one of the parcels adjoining the other parcels they have been sold to Darcy Harding. I have attempted to contact Darcy twice via mail and got no response. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Is she a local resident. This sounds like it’s a summer residence for her also. MR. DAWSON-That’s a seasonal dwelling on a holding tank as well. The address I have for her, which I optioned from tax records, is in Clifton Park, New York. SUPERVISOR STEC-Karen do we have any correspondence on this. DEPUTY CLERK, O’BRIEN-Actually, I have a letter from Darcy Harding. SUPERVISOR STEC-Do you want to read it, please. DEPUTY CLERK, O’BRIEN-This was faxed to us today in our office, Town Clerk’s Office at one o’clock. Dear Town Board, Please accept this letter as my notice that I am opposed to the variance that is being requested by Anthony Dawson. I am very concerned that the close proximity to my drinking well may contaminate my water supply. Having recently purchased the property formally owned by Frieta Hall, I own the properties on both sides of tax map 239.12-2-91, Mr. Dawson’s property. Thank you, Darcy Harding SUPERVISOR STEC-Before we go farther with that let me declare the public hearing opened. Karen if you don’t mind I’ll just ask that, that be referred to in the public hearing as part of the public hearing. You read it before I opened the public hearing, but it is on file I apologize for that. Other questions from board members before we hear from the public some more. Again, the public hearing is opened is there anybody from the public that would like to comment on this particular public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SUPERVISOR STEC-Again, I’ll just ask people to raise their hands I’ll call on people one at a time. Okay, I’m not seeing any. Any other questions from Town Board for the applicant. Do you have anything else that you would like to add before I close the public hearing? REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 277 MR. GAILOR-Nothing other than to restate what’s already been said. It’s the only property Mr. Dawson owns. We appreciate any consideration that the board may have for him. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I’m not sure how appropriate the question is, but how long have you owned this property? MR. DAWSON-Less than a year. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Any comment from the public before I close the public hearing. Hearing none, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED SUPERVISOR STEC-Any Town Board discussions further with the applicant. I’ll entertain any motions. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I’ve got mixed feeling on this. It’s a conundrum for me mostly because of the size. Although, I think the holding tank would certainly be the only thing I would consider on this property. The letter that was read into the record certainly wasn’t cognizance of the fact or perhaps she is unaware that it was a holding tank and you were actually putting in some other type of system because there should be no contamination if your holding tank is operating correctly. I do have some concerns about the lot size. Truthfully, you are putting a three bedroom not even a small dwelling on here. That goes to reasonableness again; I don’t know it’s dicey. Although, I appreciate, I guess you said you would put in writing that this would stay seasonal. SUPERVISOR STEC-We could condition approval on it being seasonal. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yeah, I know. MR. DAWSON-Sure we could. I’m not opposed to reducing the number of bedrooms it was just the way the approved print was there was a loft. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Roger we see these all the time and we see just how congested it is up there and I always kind of wished that it wasn’t so congested and here we are contemplating a potential problem when maybe the best thing for all parties would be not to move forward with this. SUPERVISOR STEC-Marilyn let me ask you a question. I know that I didn’t ask you to bring any data so I’ll just ask from your best recollection with the lot sizes on Lake George this is three tenths I know we got bigger and smaller. Do you have a feel for either is this on the small size of typical or is this typical and do you have a flavor for what the relative ratios of conforming verses nonconforming are most places nonconforming? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MARILYN RYBA-Most of the lots are nonconforming. They are definitely all under an acre. I don’t think there REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 278 are very many if any at all that are an acre or more. In terms of how small is this I couldn’t tell you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Where I’m coming from certainly we need to decide what a reasonable use is. If the majority are nonconforming and the majority are in the neighborhood of third to half an acre then I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be considering to put another one on there. But, if they are all closer to an acre than they are a half acre…. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-There is more than just large size involved here. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-There is a history Dan. SUPERVISOR STEC-I’m not making an argument I’m just making a statement. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-There is more involved than just lot size here. There is a rather tow of steep rock slope that seems to consume most of the project or a substantial part of the lot. So you are not talking about just a third of an acre you are talking about something substantially less than that because the terrain dictates that the rest of the lot is just plain undevelopable. SUPERVISOR STEC-Does anyone want to make a motion one way or the other on this. COUNCILMAN BOOR-If it’s appropriate I would just assume table it for further thought unless you want to come to a….I don’t want to keep you hanging if you want a decision right a way. I’m not comfortable one way or the other on this. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I will not be in favor of it. COUNCILMAN BREWER-No use is not reasonable is it? SUPERVISOR STEC-I guess, Bob just said that it depends on each Town Board member and their conscience. COUNCILMAN BREWER-In my opinion no use is not reasonable. I don’t know what you paid for it, but you certainly paid something for it and you ought to be able to do something with it. Whether we make him reduce the size to two bedrooms and reduce the size of the holding tank maybe that’s more appropriate. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Something might be camping and I don’t mean to be factitious when I say that. That might actually be an appropriate use for the parcel. Again, this isn’t a long held property you know. I have to believe you understood what the zoning was when you purchased it. MR. DAWSON-I understood the zoning to be something that I could put a structure on there. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 279 COUNCILMAN BOOR-We will see that’s what’s incorrect. You are going to have to go to the Zoning Board I would assume. The zoning is one acre and this is a third of an acre. MR. GAILOR-No, it’s a preexisting lot. We’re not asking for any setback variance it all falls within the building setbacks there is no variance that would be requested from the Zoning Board it’s a preexisting lot. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-You are proposing those rather sizeable three bedrooms, two bathrooms. COUNCILMAN BREWER-It’s nine hundred square feet. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yeah with three bedrooms. COUNCILMAN BREWER-It’s still nine hundred square feet I don’t care if you have five bedrooms. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-If we could all go back in time and we could layout how we like to see the shoreline of Lake George developed….. COUNCILMAN BREWER-The fact of the matter Richard we can’t. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-My point is we don’t have to contribute to or aggravate what we all know is a problem situation, which is what we are being asked to do tonight. So we can’t go back in take back what is happened, but we don’t have to make it worse. SUPERVISOR STEC-Roger you mentioned tabling would you like to make that your motion. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I’ll make a motion we table. SUPERVISOR STEC-There is a motion by Councilman Boor to table is there a second. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I did not have an opportunity and I apologize to get on the parcel. I typically go on all of them, but I did not make it on this one. MR. DAWSON-If I could just say I purchased this property obviously to have it surveyed and to hire Mr. Gailor I’ve got money invested into it. I’m certainly flexible on the structure I’m looking for a seasonal dwelling for me and my family. I would just ask you to put the shoe on the other foot if you had a piece of property and there is anyway that it could be developed just give me that consideration. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Just devils advocate it’s just important for you to hear this. I don’t think you attend these I don’t know if you watch these meetings or if you see how often applications similar to this come before us. There should be no presumption when you buy a lot that’s substandard. Unfortunately, there is a lot of Attorney’s there are a lot of Engineers, there are a lot of advocates there are a lot of Realtors that will encourage you and say this is what you need to do here’s how you do this. Unfortunately, that REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 280 information is misleading. Really, you are here at our pleasure as stupid as that sounds. We don’t even have to entertain these things and that I think isn’t understood or appreciated with those professions that I just mentioned. They will sell properties to somebody saying here’s what you need to do you go talk to this person, you hire this guy, here’s who you need here, this is who you want to talk to at the Town, do it all the time it can get done. That’s not good, it’s not accurate, it’s not correct, and it puts person such as yourself in the position you are in now. If you had come to the Town prior to purchasing this and asked these questions, you might have gotten a very different answer than perhaps your realtor or somebody else had given you I’ll just leave it at that. SUPERVISOR STEC-Tim were you trying to second the tabling motion. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yes. SUPERVISOR STEC-There is a motion and second tabling motions are not debatable Karen do you want to call the vote to table. RESOLUTION TO TABLE SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE APPLICATION OF ANTHONY DAWSON RESOLUTION NO. 14, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby tables Sewage Disposal Variance Application of Anthony Dawson. th Duly adopted this 19 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor Noes: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough Absent:None DISCUSSION HELD SUPERVISOR STEC-So we will table this. I don’t think there is a lot of new information that we are going want I think two weeks should be adequate. In my mind unless somebody throws a shoe in my direction from the Town Board in the next thirty seconds we are looking to table this to our rd next regular Town Board Meeting, which will be July 3, two weeks from tonight. COUNCILMAN BREWER-In that time we are going to try to all go up there Roger you said you didn’t get there I didn’t either. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 281 COUNCILMAN BOOR-I strongly recommend as I have in the past and on any Board of Health issues we visit, the site and I plan on doing that. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Better instructions as to where it’s located. COUNCILMAN BREWER-You got the applicant here let’s get him. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Maybe even have it posted if there is no structure there no identifying lot number then have a poster or something this is the lot. rd SUPERVISOR STEC-Two weeks from tonight July 3. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Dan can I suggest one thing to the applicant before he goes. You might want to consider an alternate floor plan I’m not telling you to or saying that somebody is going to request that. It might be helpful if you had an alternative floor plan it’s just a suggestion. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I don’t want to see you spend money on it. COUNCILMAN BREWER-No. You don’t have to spend a lot of money to draw something on a piece of paper it doesn’t have to be engineered. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you both. MR. DAWSON-Thank you. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – APPLICATION FOR SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE FOR JANE MADEY JANE MADEY, AGENT TOM CENTER, NACE ENGINEERING, ATTORNEY MICHAEL O’CONNOR SUPERVISOR STEC-As Karen just read this is a continuation of a public hearing that we had a little over a month ago. I think we left the public hearing opened so this is a continuation. I see the applicant and her agents are here tonight and we thank you. Roger you want to refresh my memory where we left this. There was some concerns about the existing area… COUNCILMAN BOOR-I think there was some undetermined location relative to one of the existing leach fields as to was it on someone else’s property issues like that. We knew that the one system had failed that was accepting the washing machine waste that was going in to just I guess a pit of its own. I guess finding out if it was failed where it is that was a couple of the questions I had. SUPERVISOR STEC-With that I will turn it over to the engineer or your Attorney. ATTORNEY MICHAEL O’CONNOR-from the Law Firm of Little and O’Connor, I represent the applicants and Mrs. Madey’s is here with us today and Tom Center from Nace Engineering. As, I understand it there has actually been a field location of the existing primary septic field and its REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 282 shown on the map that has been submitted since your last meeting. It is shown to the north of the building and it’s shown on and across the line into the property now that are formally owned by Hayes that was done by an actual excavation into that area, I think that was the question. I was not here at the first two meetings. I did review the minutes and I note that Tom indicated when the system was pumped out by Jay Sweet that he found that the area of this absorption area, which is to the north of the building was wet. He suggested to the Madey’s that they should consider replacing the system in the near future because it was very questionable as to its function ability. I don’t know if you want more information on that maybe Mrs. Madey can confirm that for purpose of the record. That what she is doing to improve the system that based upon the advice that was given to her by the septic people that were maintaining the existing system. MRS. MADEY-Yes, that’s true. SUPERVISOR STEC-I’m sorry the microphone… MRS. MADEY-I said yes that’s very true. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you Mrs. Madey. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Has the system finally been determined to have failed or is it at the point where it’s not yet failed? This was I think a topic of discussion the last time we met you were going to dig it up with a shovel to find out. MR. CENTER-We have identified the location. It’s during times of continuous use when these folks are there during the summer the primary season when they are there that the system has backed up and failed. Over time when they leave, it does drain down and the system has time to recover. It’s during times when they are there full time in the summer during their highest level of use that the system backs up. That’s when the area was discovered when they pumped out the three hundred gallon metal tank. It’s more of a case of when it’s under heavy use it does not function properly. When they leave, they come on weekends after the summer season and it recovers on its own. The system to the lakeside has failed does not work so they don’t discharge into that with the machine in the basement, which they don’t use. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-This is a property that was built as a year round home in 1950. We don’t know of any change to the septic system as to what was installed then. You have a system that’s fifty-six years old and approximately seventy-five to maybe fifty feet from the lake. What they are proposing to do is install a system, which will be in compliance with the lake setbacks that they assure will work. It seems to be a sound reason for allowing the replacement of it even though it requires an area variance or setback variance from the property line, which adjoins the road. COUNCILMAN BOOR-You refer to this as year round residence and yet and I think of the previous three meetings it’s been referred to as a seasonal residence. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 283 ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-It’s occupied seasonal, but it was built as a year round residence. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s been portrayed as seasonal use. When it was built and what the current codes are I couldn’t even guess. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-I’m not okay… COUNCILMAN BOOR-If I can complete my statement I’d appreciate it. I think you would find a vast difference between year round when this was built and today. As, I said before and as Mr. Center has said several times, this is a seasonal use. This board has reviewed this application as a seasonal use house. I can understand why you would inject that word that it was built as a year round, but this board has reviewed it as a seasonal use. It has been told to us that it’s going to be continued as a seasonal use so all of my preparation for tonight has been based on what your applicant has told us to be the case. I understand why you would use that term I’m not going to let it sway how I view the use as described to me three different times. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-It was just described just now by the engineer that the system corrects itself when they come back in the fall on weekends so they are using it as a seasonal use. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-Yes, its not occupied on a year round basis. I don’t I’m necessarily disagreeing with what Mr. Boor has just said. This system that will be put in will be put in with the function that it can operate year round it’s not a seasonal system that’s being put in. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Again, the issue that I had that we’ve never been able to come to terms with is if this is nearly an application to correct a problem septic system that’s one thing and yet it’s been very hard to nail down Mr. Center on whether or not the owners plan to do any expansion work to their home. We’ve been dueling with the concept of bedrooms what they mean we’ve had a lot of discussions on that. When asked the direct question or nearly direct question are you planning on changing the footprint of the home or adding any additional space that either’s a bedroom or could be used as a bedroom he’s drawing the line and doesn’t give me the kind of commitment that it won’t happen in the future. Again, just to explain what I think we all share to a greater or lesser degree on this board. Is a situation where an application comes in with the intention being to improve a septic system. Then after they get that kind of an approval, and they have increased capacity they then go in front of the other boards around here and use that as partial justification for expanding and building a much bigger home in an environmentally sensitive area in close proximity to the lake and on a very small lot. I certainly for one have not been reassured that it’s not what’s being contemplated here. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-Let me try and answer that on the record. And have the actual applicant make the statement on the record like you did at your last public hearing when you were considering that and you asked the applicant whether or not they planned on expanding or not expanding. I think, as background you also ought to take into consideration the fact that right now there is nineteen hundred and thirty two square feet of building or REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 284 what we call livable space on this lot, which includes the two-car garage. Basically, you got a two-car garage a kitchen you have a small dining room you have two small bedrooms a living room and this seasonal porch that we have talked about. Your assessment records actually have a little bit less square foot than what we have, but it’s nineteen hundred and thirty two square feet. That figures out to be a floor area ratio of point one four four in a zone that allows a floor area ratio of point two two. Now, I saw the conversations and the questions that went back and forth Mrs. Madey correct me or not correct me. They have no plans to expand the dwelling, as it’s presently sits there with one exception. If you take a look at the house that’s there and you look at the northern end of the house, that’s where the two bedrooms are and there is a bathroom in-between. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Just so you know Mike we don’t have that type of detail on this map where the bedrooms are. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-I’m just trying to identify what’s there. If you look at the northern end of the house, you will see on the lakeside there is a small part of it that extends beyond the rest of the house. Their only intention if they can is to make that wall come straight down to the end of that first room. That would be an expansion of three point five feet by fourteen point five feet. It would be a total of fifty-point seven five square feet of additional living space. What it would do is extend that is the area of their seasonal room it would extend that so that it would be one continuous wall. They intend to replace the windows that are in there. They thought that while doing that, it would be to their benefit to add that three feet to it. That brings their floor area ratio if you add the fifty-point seven five feet it brings their square footage of living space up to nineteen hundred and ninety eight square feet, which is fourteen point eight six. It increases their floor area ratio by point zero zero three. Mrs. Madey would you confirm for the record. MRS. MADEY-Yes, I certainly would. I would also like to say that we have no plans for bedrooms or anything like that. I think that’s your big concern and I can certainly understand why when you say yes to a person like me right a way they go back and they start adding onto the house. We have no intention of doing that other than to increase and to repair the existing windows that are in our little sun area. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Mrs. Madey have you had the occasion, is this the first time that you have been at one of these meetings? MRS. MADEY-Yes, it is. COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s what I thought. Have you seen any of the hearings that we’ve had on this on TV by any chance? MRS. MADEY-No, I haven’t. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Because one of the questions that was asked if you would put a deed restriction to say essentially what you just said. We have never gotten an affirmative answer on that. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 285 MRS. MADEY-I would do that provided that you would give me the leeway to add on that little bit to my sun porch. COUNCILMAN BOOR-This board can’t give you that leeway. MRS. MADEY-Oh, okay. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s not something that’s in our purview. MRS. MADEY-But I wouldn’t want to put that portion into these… ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-I think what she is saying as long as it would not prohibit it by your approval as a condition of your approval. She would have to have the Zoning Administrator take a look at it and make sure that there is no other restraint on it she is not asking you to approve it, but she doesn’t want to give up the right to do that if she has that right and I think she does. SUPERVISOR STEC-Roger I was listening very carefully to what you are suggesting and I’m fine with where you are heading and I’m very encouraged by what I just heard. I’m trying to think all right well how could we put that into a deed. Certainly, Roger’s right we can’t give an approval for that but, if we condition an approval for what we are talking about. Your Attorney just mentioned that the three and a half foot by fourteen foot adds fifty some odd extra feet and brings the total to nineteen ninety-eight. That perhaps a way to handle this is to say that the deed restriction will say that the structure will be limited to nineteen ninety-eight that gives you deed room to do this. COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s the existing footprint with that addition. SUPERVISOR STEC-Right, or if you wanted to describe it even more detailed you could. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I’m favorably inclined with what I’m hearing, but I think we will probably going to have to get some language to review before we do the approval. As we’ve discussed time and time again there is also environmental issues where you agree to something like that and as Mr. Salvador, I hope he won’t get upset with me talks about libraries becoming bedrooms or potentially becoming bedrooms, and it goes on and on and on. We are going to want to have to have a pretty good understanding that we are not going to have a greater utilization in terms of waste in this setting that we have now because of our environmental concerns for the lake and your close proximity to it. I think we can reach it if your intentions are clear, as you’ve just described. It’s not just a matter of that section that Mr. O’Connor pointed out. I also think we need to talk in terms of the condition of approval reflecting the types of living space within the home and the bedrooms along those lines. I’m not sure how we phrase it I think maybe with the approval of this board if we could table bring it back next time then in the meantime see some suggested language that would make me more comfortable. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I could agree with that. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 286 COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I reviewed the application. MRS. MADEY-Excuse me may I speak. SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes, ma’am. MRS. MADEY-This is not a sob party or anything like that, but I don’t know if you have any grandchildren. I have thirteen grandchildren and every summer each family comes up for a week to our little house, two bedrooms. As, I say we only have one family and we have a bedroom for them and I have bunk beds in there so a family stays in there and then we stay in our other bedroom. If you table this, again it’s going to be…. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Mrs. Madey that’s an interesting point because here we are calling this a two bedroom and you are saying that doesn’t sound like a two bedroom use to me. MRS. MADEY-What do you mean they are children. COUNCILMAN BOOR-They shower they bath their clothes get washed. MRS. MADEY-No, I don’t have a washer there….I….laundromat. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-Can I asked last month you had an application or I guess this month on June 5. You had a public hearing you gave an approval for a septic variance for somebody who was in the waterfront residential area. At that time, you had the same concerns that you appear to have tonight. You asked the applicant is your system in failure. The applicant said I don’t know but I think I want to improve it and you said fine that’s a worthy cause it’s something that we will allow. You then asked him if he was going to expand his building beyond what was there presently. He said no he was not intending to expand it at all and you said fine. You didn’t ask him to do a deed restriction. You didn’t ask him to do anything of the nature that you seem to be leaning to in this particular instance. I would go so far as to offer and I talked to the applicant before we will say to you that we will not expand the footprint of what is there. She will give up that three and a half by fourteen feet unless she comes back to this board and gets you to approve whatever language you think is necessary so that she can get underway. The system right now because it was partially dug up is probably more questionable then it was before so she can get underway to get the system in so that this summer is not a wasted summer. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Let me ask you this Mike. I think you know I could suggest an approval tonight, but it would be for a large holding tank. What that would do is that would alleviate these times when you have thirteen people there. Thirteen families or however many show up, all right there may be thirteen different individuals at different times. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-I think you are going to find the same thing Roger with every lake property. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 287 COUNCILMAN BOOR-Actually we find they are all different every one of them is unique. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-As far as usage and this is why in part they recharge during the winter months when they aren’t typically used. You have people that want to go to the lake on weekends whether it is somewhat distance or even if you live locally, your people come to you on the weekends. I don’t think that’s the way that you design a particular system that’s not the way any other lake system is designed that I’m aware of. COUNCILMAN BOOR-With all do respect we are trying to accommodate the very unique situation you have here. We have a two-bedroom parcel on a very small lot. We have asked you to locate the existing system now you say that it is in failure. I recognize that you have a hardship you have the right to use this property. What, I also recognize is it’s our responsibility to protect the lake. There is a solution that will allow you to have two thousand people up there. All you have to do is pump that tank out when it’s full. There is no pollution in the lake you can have unfettered access I don’t care if you sleep people in the living room because you know what you can’t exceed the capacity of that tank. That’s what this is about is protecting the environment it is making sure that the system isn’t abused. It is making sure that we don’t have a two-bedroom Eljen system that is receiving fifteen people on a weekend. They are not designed for those types of heavy uses in a short spurt. The systems don’t last you said that you are not going to have a washing machine there. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-I have not heard that. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yes, you just said that you go to the laundromat. MRS. MADEY-Using the washer for all those people and I said I don’t use the washer because I can’t use the washer right now with the system that I have. COUNCILMAN BOOR-So you want a system that you can use the washer. MRS. MADEY-No, can I just say this please all right. When you have a group of people, you don’t sit around washing the whole weekend. They only stay for the weekend and then they leave. I don’t wash every day while my company is there when my family is there. We sit out, we swim, we go out on the lake it’s those kinds of things. We don’t work during the weekend when we have company and I don’t think you do either, sir. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I don’t have a lake front house that’s on a third of an acre with a failing system. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-One comment that you made that I would respond too maybe this is not unique in the sense. This lot is probably larger than most of the lots on Glen Lake. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-It’s still pretty small. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-It’s small…. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 288 COUNCILMAN SANFORD-To go back to your prior statement and again, I think George spoke at the last meeting and pointed out what appeared to him as a double standard I think he did a good job and he didn’t get an argument from me. I will point out; however, that the approval we gave two weeks ago was on a much more sizeable lot. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-It was eight thousand square feet compared to…. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s was way bigger than that Mike it was two hundred feet deep. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-It was much narrower sixty feet. It was twelve thousand square feet… COUNCILMAN BOOR-They system was almost two hundred feet from the lake. The system I’m talking about the lake its protection and where the system is located. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-That was a twelve thousand square foot lot as opposed to this one being thirteen something. The difference not the difference the similarity they are both two bedrooms. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Except that one is two hundred feet away the system, what. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-But, this is within or outside the one hundred foot setback. COUNCILMAN BOOR-The other one was year round this is seasonal. We have the ability to give you relief. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-John you had something to say. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-About fifty times. I reviewed this spent hours on this and the only thing I ask you Tom this is the third set of plans put your revision dates over here, okay that’s a small matter I managed to keep track of it. What, I found and I did do a site visit up there this afternoon. I was concerned about parking I was relieved to see where this Eljen system is being proposed. The confirmation of the terrain is not conducive to people driving up on the lawn. I was concerned about snow piling, but again its on higher ground and it will be even more so Tom said after they get done with the Eljen system so that’s it’s not likely to bear the brunt of winter snowmelt. The contour of the situation I think on this lot it’s the best location for that infiltration bed. It’s a bit oversized and that’s good, too to help with that summer traffic that I referred to before. It is a two-bedroom camp and I think Mr. O’Connor has stated the applicant is willing to agree to not increase the size of the footprint of the current structure unless it gets this boards approval. I think everything that I’m seeing is pretty reasonable. SUPERVISOR STEC-The public hearing is still opened is there anyone from the public that would like to address this application. Just raise your REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 289 hand, yes sir. Please come to the microphone give your name and address for the record. BOB SULLIVAN-I am the next-door neighbor. I think that replacing a fifty six year old with a new state of the art system further from the lake than the old one is a good idea, but that’s just my opinion. SUPERVISOR STEC-You are the immediate next-door neighbor, correct. MR. SULLIVAN-Immediate next-door neighbor. SUPERVISOR STEC-To the south, I guess. MR. SULLIVAN-What’s that. SUPERVISOR STEC-To the south towards the Docksider. MR. SULLIVAN-There is only one side it is empty past them. SUPERVISOR STEC-Right. Thank you, sir. Anybody else this evening. Yes, Mr. Drellos. GEORGE DRELLOS-27 Fox Hollow Lane. Roger, I take offense to one of your comments as to how many people you asked to be in a house. If my system is designed for a three bedroom what does that mean how many people can live in my house? COUNCILMAN BOOR-I think that means that you can produce three hundred and thirty gallons a day. MR. DRELLOS-So what are you saying that maybe I should register with the Town. I’ve got five kids does that mean I should kick two of them out. COUNCILMAN BOOR-No. MR. DRELLOS-If I use over three hundred and thirty gallons. COUNCILMAN BOOR-No. MR. DRELLOS-Well. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Do you want an answer or do you want just… MR. DRELLOS-I want your answer, your right. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Go ahead and finish. SUPERVISOR STEC-Please address the board. MR. DRELLOS-I’m only addressing Roger. SUPERVISOR STEC-Address the board and he will probably answer, please. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 290 MR. DRELLOS-I’m done. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay. When an applicant gets up and says that they have different segments of their family that come up every weekend and there are large numbers of them I’m concerned that a two-bedroom system may not be adequate because we’re looking at how much it can handle. MR. DRELLOS-I’ve never seen anyone ask that question before. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well you have now. MR. DRELLOS-Double standards again huh, Roger. COUNCILMAN BOOR-What’s the double standard, I wish you would reference something…. MR. DRELLOS-That is not right Roger. You don’t ask people how many you got living in your house that’s not right. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Apparently George maybe you didn’t hear the individual say that it was a guest situation. These weren’t permanent residents that live there she is talking about having… MR. DRELLOS-This is America. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yes. MR. DRELLOS-You don’t ask people how many people live in your house how many people you got coming over for guests. COUNCILMAN BOOR-As a Board Of Health and we are designing a system to handle effluent and waste I think its very germain. MR. DRELLOS-I think you are wrong you are wrong Roger. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I respect your opinion. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you Mr. Drellos. Mr. Rahill. BERNARD RAHILL-I live at 37 Wincrest Drive in Queensbury. As, I see a one third acre property that has a lot of stones on it on Lake George on a one acre parcel, ideally what should be a one acre parcel. I see a situation where we are talking about ethics you know, it’s the law its ethics. How does somebody sell a one third of an acre piece of land to somebody and say, well you can build so much on it. We are talking about real estate brokers, real estate lawyers, and developers selling a bill of goods to a person and then that person has to appear before you taking up your time. Appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals and before the Planning Board because of ethical questions in the first place. When, I first came to Queensbury a man named Drellos came to my house being that I had some issues with my property and he dug three different pits on different sides of the property with pipes going to the pits because that was the Zoning Code for Queensbury and we had REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 291 seven people in the house. I didn’t call him names, I didn’t disrespect him and I didn’t say hey this is America. I’m an Ethicist. I’m a teacher. I’m a character educator. I think the people should have a Code of Ethics when they present themselves before a board. I respect each and every one of you I think you are fantastic people each and everyone of you, you do a great job. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you Bernie. MR. RAHILL-You deserve respect. Therefore, I think that you should look at Saratoga Associates and say how we are going to draw a Code of Ethics for all the people who appear here so they know exactly where they are with us and there is no argument about what ethics is in America. Ethics is very clear, you have a lawyer here who knows the ethics, and his firm has written about the ethics they are great people, too. So this is not a question of my opinion against your opinion its ethics what is right and wrong. Thank you very much gentlemen. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you very much Mr. Rahill. Anybody else like to comment on this application, please. Mr. Salvador. JOHN SALVADOR-This application and the one that preceded it I like to offer a suggestion and I don’t mean to be facetious in this. There is a lot of literature out there on the subject of composting toilets. I don’t know maybe we should take a hard look at this, this maybe our answer. These people are talking about seasonal use, weekend intensity. The Cadillac of this composting toilet sells for something in the order of two thousand dollars that’s not out of question. To install it there are instructions and everything here in these brochures. They are advertised for cottages, cabins, and summer homes, residential, pool houses, boats, RV’s, barns and workshops. That combined with a holding tank for the shower and other water may be the answer. I think we have to give some serious consideration to how we are going to handle this. Up on Lake George back in the eighties when we wrote these codes I know there was a very strong presumption that we were going to have a wastewater management system in place in a short time and it hasn’t come to pass, but that was the basis, you know. I like to offer that as a suggestion and maybe if you have some kind of a workshop or discussion with these people or something maybe that’s something to be considered. Thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you, John. Anybody else on this application. Any other board member questions or the applicants might want to come back now. Tim do you have anything. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I don’t have any questions I just have a couple of statements. I respectfully disagree with Roger and Dick in the essence that I went up and looked at this there really is no other place to put this. I don’t want to become part of a board where we tell a person that lives in a home that they can’t have their grandchildren over because their system is failing when they want to put a new system in. They are not going to expand their home they are going to put a state of the art system in. They are not going to intentionally do anything that’s wrong. We should encourage them to put a better system in, in my opinion, that’s just my REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 292 opinion, I think that they are trying to do that. It’s going to be lived in seasonally. I think that’s better than having it year round use they could live in it year round I presume if we let them, I guess. I think our job here is to try to protect things and I think that’s what reasonable people try to do. They are not going to try to poison the lake after all they live at the lake they play, their kids play in the lake, and they drink the water. They are not going to try to poison where they live they are trying to do the right thing and I think we ought to take that into consideration. SUPERVISOR STEC-Is there any other public comment. I was going to close the public hearing. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-I have a comment after the public hearing. SUPERVISOR STEC-Is there any correspondence before I do that. DEPUTY CLERK, O’BRIEN-I don’t have any. SUPERVISOR STEC-I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-Mrs. Madey wanted me to respond a little bit just so that the record she thinks is clear. She has a total number of I think thirteen that you spoke of…. MRS. MADEY-Yes. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-In her family and that’s four different families. They take turns visiting one portion of that family on a four-week period during the year. They are not there typically at any extended time all together. I understand the comment that you made Roger I thought about it for a moment. I’m also familiar with the Town Code, with DEC Code, and the Health Department Codes. I don’t know of any of those codes that give you different ranges and different criteria because you are highly used during one particular season as opposed to another. I think Tom in designing this designed this as though it were a year round basis. We have good soils there. We think it’s an improvement over the existing maybe that’s something you are going to look in codes and say okay if you are likely to have a seasonal upswing use maybe you have to have extra capacity. I don’t think the Health Department, DEC, or even our present Town Code does that. I understand your question as a precaution and a lot of people on the lake do. I live on Glen Lake I drink Glen Lake water that we are talking about being next to. COUNCILMAN BOOR-The other side of the lake. SUPERVISOR STEC-Actually you are seasonal too aren’t you. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I just had to throw it in there. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-No, I’m year round. My sister is year round next door. You know I have a great concern for that lake and for the water REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 293 quality of that lake. I don’t necessarily use that as a badge here. I think these people are doing what makes sense. You put a holding tank on a piece of property you greatly reduce the reasonable use of that property. You greatly reduce the sale of that property or the value of that property. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Can, I just interrupt for a second complete just a little bit of a dialogue here. It is really not in our best interest nor is it our responsibility to worry about the value that’s not what we are here for. We are here, as a Board of Health not a finance board. Now, your point is well taken about reasonable use though. I don’t have the correct term that was th used at the application you mentioned on June 5 that was the peat system. That was a system where eighteen gallons would go to this side, eighteen gallons would go to this side, and there is a name for it Tom when you send a whole lot at one time and it is not good for the system, do you know what term I’m referring to. MR. CENTER-Dosing would be as if it were coming from the pump in a single shot depending on the size. COUNCILMAN BOOR-My concern relative to the number of guests is I didn’t want to think that this two-bedroom system would receive major dosing. You need to understand how these things work that’s not good for a system. As far as the tank, there is no pollution that goes to the lake and actually, it really encourages appropriate use of water. You know that it’s going to cost you money to have that tank pumped out. You will be that much more aware of leaving things running having people take excessive showers. Look it, you are in a critical environmental area I’m sorry because it is a critical environmental area that’s what it is. I think you feel that we are persecuting you. I have to say from Tim’s comments I could go with two of these things tonight. I’m trying to give you a better system that both protects the lake and keeps the integrity of this board in tact. Nobody is denying you use of your property or going to send you away having to use a failed system that would be irresponsible that’s not what we are going to do. I hope that what we do sets a good example of how we proceed with these things. Mrs. Madey you have to understand that we get the hard luck stories every time and why wouldn’t we what a great way to present, I mean it’s effective, but there is a greater responsibility here. SUPERVISOR STEC-If, I could because I’ve been following this closely. I fancy part of my job sitting in the middle here is trying to be able to make the call when I think I hear a consensus or a direction that the board is heading. So, I’m going to quote back what I think I’ve heard that the board will likely be willing to entertain then we can regroup around that point perhaps. I understand what the board might be willing to approve tonight is what has been presented with the following stipulations made clear. I think one of them isn’t new and one of them might be new. The first one that’s not new is adding in fact this continues to be a seasonal use structure, seasonal residence because we’ve been talking about that for a couple of months now. The second one that I’ve heard offered there was a debate back about how much to expand deed restrictions. I think that there might be consensus amongst the board to take you up on your offer to say we will freeze where the footprint of the structure as it currently stands. If we want to increase that in the future that we would stipulate that, you would be REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 294 required to come back here. That’s what I heard come from that table and that’s what I heard, I think at least two other board members and I’m not putting a negative vote in anyone’s mouth, but at least two other board members that would be inclined in that direction. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I….where you stand I’m not sure if we can legally do that isn’t that the Zoning Board purview? SUPERVISOR STEC-Put it as a zone restrictions as a required deed restriction saying that…. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-I thought what they were proposing was a deed restriction where before they could go back to the Zoning Board for the change that would have to come here. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I thought this board asked for the deed restriction. COUNCILMAN BOOR-This board did, but I heard Dan say and correct me if I’m wrong is that Dan was saying is they would have to come back here to expand. I don’t think that’s in this board’s purview to rule on expansion…. SUPERVISOR STEC-I would put it to Bob to figure out. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Floor square footage expansion that’s the Zoning Board. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-It would not be coming back to this board for purpose of expansion or approval expansion. We would come back to this board to get your approval to allow us to go to whatever other board actually has jurisdiction and control over expansion. SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s what I was trying to say. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-You basically have said no expansion…. SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s what I was trying to say so we would be an extra step we would be a first extra step. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-I understood a consensus there is though, I had a consensus that is if we agreed to stay within the footprint that we have right now we would get approval. COUNCILMAN BREWER-As a seasonal structure. SUPERVISOR STEC-As a seasonal structure that’s what I think that I heard offered and that I’ve heard at least a couple board members say they could support. COUNCILMAN BREWER-That would be eliminating that little four foot strip. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Can that be done. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 295 ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-Yes. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-That could be done with a deed restriction. COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s fine with me. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Then if they did come back and they were looking to enlarge the footprint and we didn’t want to allow that for whatever reason. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Does it precludes them from going to the Zoning Board of Appeals. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-That’s the way he would draft the deed restriction. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-Your own Zoning Ordinance precludes us from going to the Zoning Board of Appeals because there is a provision in there that says anytime you go in for any expansion of a nonconforming building or on a nonconforming lot, you must have certification that your septic system will accommodate the expansion. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-That’s not particularly relevant here. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-This is built it’s a two bedroom system. COUNCILMAN BOOR-You could come in as a good lawyer and say we are not contemplating any extra bedrooms. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-Let’s clear up here. Your condition of approval will be that the footprint will not be expanded. We will not make application to the Zoning Board of Appeals to go around this board until we come to this board and obtain this board’s approval for the expansion that we propose to make application for. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-If this board doesn’t grant that does that end it at that point. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-If the board has justification for it not granting it, yes. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Who determines the justification though. COUNCILMAN BOOR-As a Board of Health we have justification though. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-Tonight’s it’s the same thing. We are not asking for anything we are not giving up anything. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I don’t know if I understand that statement. You are giving up something you are giving up the right….. COUNCILMAN BOOR-To go directly to the Zoning Board. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 296 COUNCILMAN SANFORD-You are giving up the right to get this system in and then go directly to the ZBA for some form of a variance. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-That, I agree with, okay. We are not giving up our right to challenge this board if this board did something that we thought was inappropriate. SUPERVISOR STEC-Arbitrary or capricious. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-All right, I understand. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-I thought, I understood you were that its part of giving the approval that you were…. SUPERVISOR STEC-I was going to say all of these are discretionary by us. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Let me hear what Bob’s got to say just so I… ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-I’m saying that we come back to this board. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-You have to come back to this board for them to make a determination in their discretion. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-It is at their discretion. They are going to have to modify their septic variance that they are giving us tonight and that’s at their discretion. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-True. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Not modify it condition it. ATTORNEY HAFNER-That would be what it would be. We would come back to you as the Board of Health and ask you to modify this approval. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Just for clarity here. I don’t have a problem with what I hear you are saying, but I’m not sure if what I hear you saying I can visualize in words. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I have a problem with it, but maybe it can be clarified. Here’s what I don’t want to have happen maybe this is a better way of putting it. We approve an enlarge system that has increase capacity. You say that’s fine we are not going to build a bigger home we are not going to increase the footprint unless we come back here. You are not coming back here for approval for an enlarge septic system you would have to come back here and say, at this particular point in time we do want to in fact increase the footprint. At that point, in time we can do one of two things say, yeah fine go ahead or no, we don’t think so. If we say, no we don’t want to give you that approval at that particular point in time sorry you don’t go to the ZBA. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I think that’s important because… REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 297 ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-That’s sustainable within your jurisdiction, but let me ask you this and let me give you a couple examples. If we come back here and ask you to expand the garage, it is clearly the garage structure. Or we come back and ask to extend the kitchen and you say, no, no, no you can’t do that we have arbitrarily said this is nineteen hundred and whatever the footprint is and that’s all you are going to use it for I’m saying that that door should be left opened to be reasonably connected. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It can’t be it is not opened that’s the thing. The applicants not Mrs. Madey, but Mr. Center has said at previous meetings that there is an intention of an enclosed porch so we already know that’s an intention. We know that it could be…. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-It’s the only thought process that they have at this point Roger that was one of their wish list. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I don’t want to go through this exercise Dan where we think we are obtaining something and then we find out that we are not. SUPERVISOR STEC-I understand. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-And, I thought you could propose doing a deed restriction in favor of the Town where what you would come back to do would be to release the portion of the deed restriction as to the size of the building. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-That would be purely discretionary by the board not subject to arbitrary and capricious it is their discretion. COUNCILMAN BOOR-You got to watch that language. SUPERVISOR STEC-Right. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It is our discretion as the Board of Health. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-If you do it as a deed restriction then it be giving up a deeded right. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-We have not agreed to a deed restriction. We’ve agreed to whatever wording they want in restriction. SUPERVISOR STEC-That is the question that I’ve been trying to get out for the last five minutes. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-You word it in your condition. SUPERVISOR STEC-That is the question I have been trying to ask Bob for the last five minutes because I’ve heard two different things. Are we talking about a deed restriction or are we talking about a condition of approval REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 298 within the resolution because I understand those are two different things one has more meat than the other. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-They are. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-The deed restriction travels with the land. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-And is stronger. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s stronger. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-It’s stronger, sure. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-I thought and again it’s obvious that what I thought I was hearing was slightly different. I thought I was hearing the proposal by the applicant that they would agree to a deed restriction. That would keep the size of the footprint where it is currently until they come back and get the Town Boards approval, which I had interpreted to be a release of the deed restriction, which, you would be agreeing to a revised one. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I agree with that. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I have no problem with that. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-That has more protection for the Town Board. SUPERVISOR STEC-What, I’m hearing and again …. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s reasonable use of the property you get to correct the system. SUPERVISOR STEC-It’s our resolution we can approve that and you might say well we are not going to its take it and run. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-To me that’s the appropriate compromise. In all do respect to the applicant you weren’t here, but your agent was here and we were having these types of conversations every time and they always broke down in the same manner where we couldn’t get the kind of commitment that we were looking for. What Mr. Hafner just said is something that I believe is agreeable to this board and you get your approval the question is, is it acceptable to you. COUNCILMAN BREWER- I can go either way. SUPERVISOR STEC-I know. I’m hearing deed restriction route is what I’m now hearing a consensus of the board. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-That’s I think an undue burden to put upon the applicant. SUPERVISOR STEC-It might be the best you walk out of here tonight. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 299 COUNCILMAN BOOR-Or you can go with a holding tank with no deed restriction those are good options. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-Those are reasonable thing for the Town Board to decide. SUPERVISOR STEC-A holding tank with no deed restrictions or the system that you are proposing with the deed restriction. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I think what Bob proposed our Attorney proposed is similar to what you were saying the only exemption would be the addendum to the deed. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR-We’re not prepared to agree to a holding tank, which has been suggested. We would like to walk out of here with an approval. We would like to have it be that it be condition like the one you th did you didn’t even condition the one you did on June 5. You simply took the applicants word for the fact that he had a failure and wasn’t going to expand it now, you seem to be going much further than that, but I would like to get it approved tonight. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Bob could you read what you have there for a condition. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-What I had was that I thought I heard being said was that one of the conditions besides the seasonal use would be that the current footprint would not be increased there is a restriction limiting the footprint to what it currently is right now. COUNCILMAN BOOR-And it would show up in the deed. SUPERVISOR STEC-It would, a deed. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-It would, a restriction in favor of the Town of Queensbury, which would require the Town Board’s approval before amending it or increasing the footprint that’s what I thought I heard. SUPERVISOR STEC-Town Board or Board of Health? TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-It’s the Town Board. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Town Board. SUPERVISOR STEC-It will read Town Board. COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s not a Board of Health the footprint. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-Because there is going to be a deed to the Town real estate in your general authority. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-That gets my support if you go in that direction. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 300 COUNCILMAN BOOR-Same here. SUPERVISOR STEC-It sounds like it will get everyone’s support some will probably be more enthusiastic about it than other, but it will get three. The public hearing is closed I’ll entertain any motion that might come forward. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I’ll make a motion to approve Jane Madey’s Application for Sanitary Sewage Disposal Variance. SUPERVISOR STEC-As described…. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-With the conditions… COUNCILMAN STROUGH-With the following conditions that it will be for seasonal use only and the condition that Bob just read that Karen, I believe you have a copy of that condition? DEPUTY CLERK O’BRIEN-It’s been read into the record I’ll take it off the tape. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-It’s been read into the record I think that’s fully understood and those two conditions go along with my motion to approve. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I’ll second it. SUPERVISOR STEC-Seconded by Councilman Brewer. Is there any ambiguity or misunderstanding now for the purpose of the record if this ever becomes an issue? Are there any questions that we want to ask now before we vote on this? I think it’s pretty clear but that’s what lawyers get paid for sometimes. Any other discussions by the Town Board, hearing none let’s go ahead and vote: RESOLUTION APPROVING JANE MADEY’S APPLICATION FOR SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCES RESOLUTION NO.: BOH 15, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, Jane Madey filed an application for variances from provisions of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, Chapter 136 to install a replacement absorption system: 1. one foot (1’) from the west property line instead of the required ten feet (10’) setback; and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 301 2. fifty feet (50’) from the well instead of the required one-hundred feet (100’) setback; on property located at 354 Glen Lake 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 public hearings thth concerning the variance requests on April 17 and June 19, 2006, 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, the Local Board of Health determines 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 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 applicant; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health hereby approves the application of Jane Madey for variances from the Sewage Disposal Ordinance to install a replacement absorption system: 1. one foot (1’) from the west property line instead of the required ten feet (10)’ setback; and 2. fifty feet (50’) from the well instead of the required one hundred feet (100’) setback; contingent upon the following conditions: 1. that the residence continue to be a seasonal residence only; 2. that the current footprint of the structure not be expanded; REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 302 3. that the applicant agrees to appear before the Town Board to obtain approval of any future structural expansion before the applicant applies to the Zoning Board of Appeals for any needed ZBA approvals of any proposed expansion; and 4. that the applicant agrees to provide a deed restriction in form acceptable to Town Counsel in favor of the Town of Queensbury which deed restriction could not be amended without the Town Board’s approval as the benefited party. Such deed restriction is to keep the size of the footprint where it currently is until the property owner returns to obtain Town Board approval, in its discretion, with any release or modification of such deed restriction; on property located at 354 Glen Lake Road in the Town of Queensbury, and bearing Tax Map No.: 289.9-1-68. th Duly adopted this 19 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. BOH 16, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from the Queensbury Board of Health and moves back into the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. th Duly adopted this 19 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough Noes: None Absent:None PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARING – LOCAL LAW – RESCINDING PROHIBITION OF PARKING ON PORTION OF ALGONQUIN DRIVE REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 303 NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: June 9, 2006 SUPERVISOR STEC-Currently right now as a result of something that I believe was a little over ten years ago. There is an east side portion of Algonquin Drive between Sherman Avenue and John Street that currently is posted as No Parking. The Town Board was contacted by some of the current neighbors that feel that this is no longer necessary or doesn’t make any sense. They suggested that we consider pulling up these signs and removing that restriction. I’m not too aware of many other neighborhood situations where we’ve got a lot of No Parking signs in them. With that introduction, the public hearing is opened. If there are, any members of the public that would like to comment on the No Parking Restriction on Algonquin Drive that the Town Board is considering lifting tonight just raise your hand anybody at all. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO PUBLIC COMMENT SUPERVISOR STEC-Hearing none, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION TO ENACT LOCAL LAW RESCINDING PROHIBITION OF PARKING ON PORTION OF ALGONQUIN DRIVE RESOLUTION NO.: 306, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS , the Queensbury Town Board previously enacted Local Law No. 6 of 1994 regulating parking on a portion of Algonquin Drive in the Town of Queensbury, such Local Law prohibiting parking on the east side of a portion of Algonquin Drive lying and existing between Sherman Avenue and John Street, and WHEREAS, the Town Board received a request from Algonquin Drive residents to have the no parking signs along Algonquin Drive from Sherman Avenue to John Street removed and therefore the Town Board wishes to consider adoption of a Local Law to rescind the no parking area on such portion of Algonquin Drive, and WHEREAS, such legislation is authorized in accordance with Town Law, Vehicle § and Traffic Law 1660(18) and the Municipal Home Rule Law, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 304 WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Local Law has been presented at this meeting and was previously reviewed by the Town Board, and WHEREAS, the Town Board conducted a public hearing concerning the proposed th Local Law on June 19, 2006, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby adopts and enacts the Local Law Rescinding Prohibition of Parking on a Portion of Algonquin Drive in the Town of Queensbury, to be known as Local Law No.: 6 of 2006, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to file the Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and the Local Law will take effect immediately and as soon as allowable under law, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Highway Superintendent to remove the no parking signs currently located on the east side of the portion of Algonquin Drive from Sherman Avenue to John Street and take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 19 day of June, 2006 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT:None LOCAL LAW NO.: 6, OF 2006 A LOCAL LAW RESCINDING PROHIBITION OF PARKING ON PORTION OF ALGONQUIN DRIVE IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS FOLLOWS: 1. Purpose: REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 305 The purpose of this Local Law is to rescind Local Law No. 6 of 1994 which prohibited, under penalty of fine for violation, the parking of any vehicle on the east side of Algonquin Drive from Sherman Avenue to John Street in the Town of Queensbury. 2. Definitions: For the purpose of this Local Law, the words "Motor Vehicle," "Vehicle," "Person," and "Park" shall have the same meanings as set forth for the definitions of such words in the Vehicle and Traffic Law of the State of New York. 3. Parking No Longer Prohibited by Town on a Portion of Algonquin Drive in the Town of Queensbury: Local Law No. 6 of 1994 was duly enacted by the Queensbury Town Board to prohibit any motor vehicle or other vehicle of any kind to park and for any period of time on the east side of or in the right-of-way of the east side of that portion of Algonquin Drive in the Town of Queensbury, County of Warren, State of New York, lying and existing between Sherman Avenue and John Street. The Town Board now wishes to rescind such Local Law. . Effective Date: 4 This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon its filing in the Office of the Secretary of State. PUBLIC HEARING – TOWN HIGHWAY DEPARTMENTS REPLACEMENT OF COLLAPSED MANHOLE DRAINAGE STRUCTURES LOCATED ON WEST GLENS FALLS VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY’S PROPERTY AND CORRESPONDING AMENDMENT TO FIRE SERVICES AGREEMENT NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: June 9, 2006 SUPERVISOR STEC-Last time I claimed that I could summarize this in under five minutes. For those of you keeping score at home that may be saying gee, didn’t they just do this a couple of months ago? In fact, we did amend West Glens Falls Fires contract a couple of months ago to go in authorize the Town to use in kind services Town labor and equipment to repair collapse main hole drainage structures. We have been calling them manholes, but they are the drainage structure in the parking lots that was approved through a public hearing process. As the Highway Department went over there to inspect the job to get ready to do the work they looked at a couple other structures. They found three other very similar structures that are in the same situation. The fire company explained to the Town that they have plans to reseal and stripe the parking lot. The Highway Department the Town, and at least myself so far and the fire company all agree that it made some sense to consider repairing these structures before the company improved the parking lot. Again, the fire company will be paying the cost of REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 306 all the materials, which are estimated to be eighteen seventy-five. That comes out of their existing contractual money. We are not providing them any additional cash to purchase these materials. They are eating that from other portions of their current contract. There are references made to we’re increasing their contract for these three structures by fifteen hundred dollars. That, again is on paper it is not a financial transaction that we will be giving them fifteen hundred dollars in cash. Each one of these manhole structures requires approximately five hundred dollars worth of in kind services labor and equipment from the Highway Department, but we need to enumerate that in this contract that’s why that language is in there. Basically this is identical to what we did a couple of months ago for one structure, but instead of doing one we will be doing a total of four, three others assuming that we pass this. The fire company is wholly in support they contacted us and the Highway Department said that they could do it provided that we go through the necessary steps here because this is a contract with West Glens Falls Fire it requires a public hearing. With that introduction if there are any members of the public that would like to comment on this public hearing or ask any questions, or ask me to explain it again I’ll be happy, to. I was under five minutes, Tim. COUNCILMAN BOOR-So far. SUPERVISOR STEC-The public hearing is opened. Is there anybody that would like to comment or ask any questions on this, anybody at all? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO PUBLIC COMMENT SUPERVISOR STEC-Hearing none, I’ll go ahead and close the public hearing and entertain a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING TOWN HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT’S REPLACEMENT OF COLLAPSED MANHOLE DRAINAGE STRUCTURES LOCATED ON WEST GLENS FALLS VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY’S PROPERTY AND CORRESPONDING AMENDMENT TO FIRE SERVICES AGREEMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 307, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury and the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. (Fire Company) have entered into an Agreement for fire protection services, which Agreement sets forth a number of terms and conditions including a condition that the Fire Company will not purchase or enter into any binding contract to purchase any piece of apparatus, equipment, vehicles, real property, or make any improvements that would require REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 307 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, three (3) manhole drainage structures located on the Fire Company’s 33 Luzerne Road firehouse property have collapsed, and WHEREAS, this unexpected property damage will increase the cost of providing necessary fire protection services to the Town, and WHEREAS, the Town Highway Department Superintendent advised the Fire Company and Town Board that the Highway Department could make the needed repairs with the dollar value of in-kind services estimated not to exceed $1,500, where the Fire Company will pay the cost of the necessary materials which are estimated to be $1,875, and th WHEREAS, on Monday, June 19, 2006, the Town Board held a public hearing concerning this matter and the corresponding amendment to the Fire Company’s Fire Protection Agreement, and the Town Board heard all interested persons, and WHEREAS, the Town Board feels that such arrangement for such repairs will cost less to the Town’s taxpayers than the Fire Company paying to correct this damage by contracting with a third party and therefore has determined that it is necessary and in the public interest to act on such proposal to facilitate continued provision of necessary fire protection services to the Town, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the estimated $1,500 increase in the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company, Inc.’s budget for the Town Highway Department to replace the collapsed manhole drainage structures on the Fire Company’s Luzerne Road property and the corresponding amendment to the Fire Company’s Agreement with the Town of Queensbury for fire protection services for the year 2006 by an additional $1,500 and correspondingly authorizes an amendment to the Fire Company’s Agreement with the Town, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to sign any necessary documentation, including an amended Agreement between the Town and the Fire Company in form approved by Town Counsel, and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 308 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to take all action necessary to transfer $1,500 from the Town’s fire services budget to reimburse the Town Highway Department so that Town Highway funds are not being used for this purpose and amend the 2006 Town Budget as necessary, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Budget Officer to take any action necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 19 day of June, 2006 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES :None ABSENT:None PUBLIC HEARING WATER TRANSMISSION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS IN MEADOWBROOK ROAD AREA WITH QUEENSBURY CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: June 9, 2006 SUPERVISOR STEC-This would be to authorize the improvements in Meadowbrook Road area south of Quaker Road. I’ll let Bruce Ostrander come to the microphone here to perhaps provide more detail. The Town Board met on this earlier this year in a workshop to discuss the needs south of Quaker Road in the area of Sargent, Cline, Streets. I see Jim Edwards from C.T. Male is here with him. We talked about this the dollar amount that was in the report that we saw was a cost estimated to be seven hundred thousand dollars. The second resolution would establish the capital project fund #160. We would address that after this first resolution so with that Bruce the floor is yours to turn over and give us a little more information for the public. WATER SUPERINTENDENT, BRUCE OSTRANDER-This resolution is to replace deteriorating pipe in the Meadowbrook Road area south of Quaker and the Sargent, Wilson, Cline area. We also would like to extend that pipe on Meadowbrook Road from the intersection of Cline another two hundred and fifty feet and put another section of pipe about three hundred feet over an existing easement to connect to Ridge Road to improve system hydraulics and eliminate two dead ends one on Ridge Road and the other on Meadowbrook Road. We’ve had a history of water main breaks in that area we’ve had at least five in the last year in that area. Even though in years past we may have not had that many I would expect the condition only to get, worse so we would like to replace a new ductile iron pipe. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 309 COUNCILMAN BOOR-I’m sure Councilman Sanford is going to have a few comments, but I’d like to preempt him a little bit. I want to go back to a project that I believe is almost complete or maybe complete has the appearance of being almost complete that’s the neighborhood of Meadow Drive. WATER SUPERINTENDENT, MR. OSTRANDER-Meadow Lane, Meadow Drive, Meadow View. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Certainly for the residents of that area that’s been a painful experience certainly it appears that more rock was in the ground than anticipated. I suspect due to that there is probably I can’t speak; I haven’t spoken with anybody from the contractor. I would suspect that there is a level of frustration when you start hitting the kind of rock and you are not anticipating it. I think it was indicative and evident by the way, the job looked at it progressed because it really was a tough area to live in while this was taking place. As we move into the future, improving neighborhoods like this I hope that we can somehow with our crystal ball avoid that type of environment when the works taking place. I’m not telling you anything you don’t know. But, I think it’s important for the record and for the public that maybe didn’t live in that neighborhood just the incredible stress and frustration on the part of the people that had to drive to their home drive through ditches, heavy equipment parked on their lawns for a long time replacement parts, valves, pipes. There was an appearance that certainly many areas were dug, re-dug, then re-dug, and then re-dug. I don’t know what the reasoning was I’m not going to pretend to understand. WATER SUPERINTENDENT, MR. OSTRANDER-Okay, let me. COUNCILMAN BOOR- I’m just about done. I just hope that in the future we can make sure that the engineering and that the contract award is such that we don’t run into these types of issues. WATER SUPERINTENDENT, MR. OSTRANDER-I would like to at least address one issue there and that was with re-digging areas. When they finish a section, they do a pressure test to make sure there are no leaks, in several sections, they had leaks, and they had to chase the leaks so they had to dig up where the pipes were put together so you would re-dig an area. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Bruce that hydrant at the corner of Meadow Drive and Meadow View Road they dug that up ten times if they dug it up once, but that’s not really the point that project is thankfully behind us. What I’m looking for and I want to also thank you, you have been communicating with me regularly on this and I appreciate it. I want to make sure as we discuss we treat this kind of a project that we are contemplating over in Sargent, Wilson and Cline Avenue different than we do the more rural ones along as you said, Ridge Road or Route 9 where we are dealing with more commercial applications. That we put in performance standards addressing how the site should be maintained and cleaned up at the end of the day and things of this nature with some form of enforceability. In addition to all of the other issues that we had over there, it was kept at a very sloppy half ass manner. There were old tires thrown around, remnant pipes thrown around with no effort to do a cleanup on the part of the contractors at REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 310 the end of the day it really did look like a war zone. Having said that the good news is I think the final cleanup with the paving and the grooming of the grounds has gone reasonably well. The other issue, I have and I picked this up through conversations with many people residents, neighbors, contractors and everything else is I don’t believe the engineering drawing at least what I’m hearing did a very accurate job in indicating or getting the message across about the severity of that bedrock. I think that, you know there are probably two sides to this story, but I think the drawings showed borings at a considerable length apart. That area if you had asked me I could have told you is filled with bedrock. I have to anticipate that the construction company got in there with a bid that was to low to justify the kind of work that was needed and if they had a better, understanding of that bedrock that wouldn’t have done it, and so we all paid a price that lived in that area because you had a contractor who underbid a project because he didn’t know the reality of the rock conditions there. I hope to think that we have a better map of the Cline, Wilson, and Sargent area going into this project. I also want to make sure that you incorporate those types of performance standards into the contract and are willing to enforce them, as a Town of Queensbury official will that be done. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Can it be done. WATER SUPERINTENDENT, MR. OSTRANDER-Can it be done, I guess I would ask Jim. We will go back to site maintenance on a day-to-day basis we have talked about that and has indicated there is certainly a different method…. JIM EDWARDS, C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES-This contractor didn’t do this project in the way that I expected it to be done as far as the daily maintenance and the cleanup. In some cases showing full respect to the people that lived out there, I totally agree with that. One of the things we plan on doing for Meadowbrook area project is to put a fixed cost pay item in the contract, which will include daily cleanup, sweeping, dust control and things like that. It will be a fixed cost type item where if they do not adhere to the contract documents the strong notes on the plans they will not be paid that item in partial value or probably at no value whatsoever. The best way to enforce items like that is through a cost component in the contract. That’s what we plan on doing on Meadowbrook is to put in strong notes, put in bid items that will control the daily cleanup, daily traffic control, dust control, and just basic housekeeping of the project site. This is the same type of job as Meadow Lane. It is a difficult project people live there it is going through people’s front lawns, driveways; it’s a tough site to maintain. Good pedestrian traffic control without strong language we will do that on this next project make sure the inspector is aware of it. At the pre-bid meeting make sure the contractors who are bidding the job is aware that this job is going to be built to full Town standards, which was an issue on this project. Also, we will a hear strongly to the language in the contract about the day to day housekeeping, traffic control, and dust control and items like that. SUPERVISOR STEC-Not to belabor the points that have been made already. At my own emphasis, I think what we are really talking about is to learn from the shortcomings and the errors or the issues, or however, … you REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 311 want to put on them that we experienced in this project that we are wrapping up thankfully to make sure that they don’t happen. There is a big difference between residential work and Bruce you and I talked about this again this morning. There is a big difference between the residential nature of the work and running a line on a arterial road where the lots are much larger and you just have a lot more room to work. It’s the same work that’s going on but because the housing density is lower, you are inconveniencing people less. It is important to learn from that and whatever can be written into these contracts as you made reference too, I think is going to be important. My personal opinion, I drove through the neighborhood a lot over the last couple of months, and I have several friends that live in the neighborhood and because they are friends, I don’t think they pulled any punches. For whatever reason not that I’m looking for trouble, but I think that people were very patient and their patience was maybe not intentionally, maybe so, I don’t know, I can’t look into the hearts of man. I’m shocked that we didn’t have people with pitchforks and torches up here at Town Hall with some of the stuff that I saw done there. I know that individual Councilman were catching grief from the neighbors especially if you live in the neighborhood. Again, I know people down there and they came up only because they knew me and they said, Dan what’s going on here I think people were extremely patient. I don’t want us to assume that well then because people who didn’t show up with pitchforks and torches that what happened was okay. I’m not saying that either one of you two felt that way or I’m not saying anyone felt that way. But, if anyone feels that way, I want to make sure that we dispel that right now and make sure that this next contract we put more emphasis at the end of day, end of shift cleanup to make sure that we don’t let it get away from us. What I saw got away from us, us the buck stops with the Town. The contractor and the Town we could of done a better job there. I know that you two know that and I just want to make sure and reiterate what I think everyone on the board feels. I want to focus back besides what we’re not going to do with this one. Is there anything else on what we are going to do going forward with what we’re talking about on this proposed project tonight that you want to add or answer any questions. WATER SUPERINTENDENT OSTRANDER-No, I think I covered everything on that that I wanted to. SUPERVISOR STEC-The public hearing is opened. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SUPERVISOR STEC-Is there are any members of the public again; I think I did the high points here. This first one will approve commencement of the project and authorize the funding. The funding is estimated at seven hundred thousand dollars. We are approving a Map, Plan, Report in an amount not to exceed seven hundred thousand dollars from the water district capital reserve subject to a permissive referendum thirty day permissive referendum as provided in New York State Town Law. Of course, the next resolution that we will be approving would be to establish the capital projects, which is more of an accounting function. Is there anybody that would like to comment on this particular public hearing? NO PUBLIC COMMENT REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 312 SUPERVISOR STEC- Seeing none, I’ll close the public hearing. Introduced by Councilman Brewer. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WATER TRANSMISSION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS IN MEADOWBROOK ROAD AREA WITHIN THE QUEENSBURY CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 308, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board duly established the Town of Queensbury Consolidated Water District (District) in accordance with New York Town Law, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to improve the District’s water transmission facilities by replacing water mains on Meadowbrook Road, Cline Avenue, Sargent Street and Wilson Street, and installing a water main loop on Meadowbrook Road and copper service lines to the 41 homes served, all in accordance with Town Law §202-b, and WHEREAS, C.T. Male Associates, P.C., professional engineers, have prepared an Engineer’s Report (Map, Plan and Report) concerning the proposed water transmission system improvements together with an estimate of the cost of such improvements, and WHEREAS, the Map, Plan and Report was duly filed in the Queensbury Town Clerk's Office and made available for public inspection, and WHEREAS, although the Town of Queensbury is a town partially within the Adirondack Park the District does not contain State lands assessed at more than thirty percent (30%) of the total taxable assessed valuation of the District, so permission of the State Comptroller to the proposed expenditure is not required under Town Law §202-b(5), and th WHEREAS, on June 5, 2006, subsequent to the filing of the Map, Plan and Report with the Town Clerk, the Town Board adopted an Order (Public Hearing Order) reciting (a) the proposed improvements; (b) the maximum amount proposed to be expended for the improvements; (c) the fact that a Map, Plan and Report describing the improvements is on file in the Town Clerk’s Office; and (d) the time and place of a public hearing on the proposed Water District improvements, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 313 WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed Water District improvements was th duly held on Monday, June 19, 2006 and the Town Board has considered the evidence given together with other information, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize the proposed Water District improvements in accordance with Town Law §202-b, and WHEREAS, the Town has the funds to pay for the proposed Water District improvements in a Capital Reserve Fund previously established, and WHEREAS, any expenditure from such Capital Reserve Fund is subject to permissive referendum, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby determines that these actions are Type II actions under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and therefore are exempt from SEQRA review, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that it is the determination of the Queensbury Town Board that: 1. The Notice of Public Hearing was published and posted as required by law and is otherwise sufficient; 2. It is in the public interest to authorize and approve the improvements to the Queensbury Consolidated Water District as described in the Map, Plan and Report on file with the Queensbury Town Clerk, such improvements generally being the: A. replacement of existing 6” diameter asbestos cement (ACP) and cast iron water mains with class 52 (heavy wall) 8” ductile iron pipe (DIP) along Meadowbrook Road south of Quaker Road to Cline Avenue (1500 lf), Cline Avenue (550 lf), Sargent Street (430 lf) and Wilson Street (400 lf); B. installation of approximately 250 lf of 8” DIP water main along Meadowbrook Road south of Cline Avenue and 350 lf of DIP water main connecting Meadowbrook Road to the existing 6” main along Ridge Road to provide a loop connection to help improve service quantity and quality; and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 314 C. replacement of service laterals to individual property lines with ¾” copper pipe; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and approves the improvements to the Queensbury Consolidated Water District as set forth above and in the previously described Map, Plan and Report and construction of the improvements may proceed and service provided subject to the following: 1. the obtaining of any necessary permits or approvals from the New York State Department of Health; and 2. the obtaining of any necessary permits or approvals from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 3. a permissive referendum in the manner provided in New York State Town Law Article 7; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes the expenditure for the improvements as set forth above and in the Map, Plan and Report, in an amount not to exceed $700,000, shall be paid for from the Water District’s Capital Reserve Fund subject to a permissive referendum in the manner provided in New York State Town Law Article 7, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to publish and post such notices and take such other actions as may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 19 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Sanford, Mr. Sanford Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING NEW CAPITAL PROJECT FUND #160 – WATER TRANSMISSION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS IN MEADOWBROOK ROAD AREA WITHIN QUEENSBURY CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 315 RESOLUTION NO.: 309, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to establish a Capital Project Fund to fund the design, contract administration, construction and easement preparation services in connection with the replacement of water mains on Meadowbrook Road, Cline Avenue, Sargent Street and Wilson Street and installing a water main loop on Meadowbrook Road and copper service lines to the 41 homes served (Meadowbrook Road Area Water Replacement Project), and WHEREAS, by prior Resolution, the Town Board authorized the improvement to the Consolidated Water District’s water transmission facilities by authorizing such replacement of water mains in accordance with New York State Town Law §202-b, and WHEREAS, the total Project cost is estimated to be $700,000 and the Town Board wishes to appropriately establish a Capital Project Fund, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the establishment of a Capital Project Fund to be known as the Meadowbrook Road Area Water Main Replacement Project Fund #160, which Fund will establish funding for expenses associated with the design, contract administration, construction and easement preparation services in connection with the replacement of water mains on Meadowbrook Road, Cline Avenue, Sargent Street and Wilson Street and installing a water main loop on Meadowbrook Road and copper service lines to the 41 homes served (Meadowbrook Road Area Water Replacement Project), and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs that funding for this Project shall be by a transfer of $700,000 from Water Capital Reserve #065, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby establishes initial appropriations and estimated revenues for Capital Project Fund #160 in the amount of $700,000, and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 316 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to take all action necessary to establish the following accounts for such appropriations and revenues as necessary: ? Revenue Account No. 160-0160-55031 – Interfund Transfers - $700,000. ? Expense Account No. 160-8340-2899 - Capital Construction - $632,000. ? Expense Account No. 160-8340-4403 – Engineer/Surveyor - $ 68,000. and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Budget Officer to amend the 2006 Town Budget, make any adjustments, budget amendments, transfers or prepare any documentation necessary to establish such appropriations and estimated revenues and effectuate all terms of this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this Resolution authorizing the transfer of funds from the Water District Capital Reserve Fund No.: 065 shall be subject to a permissive referendum in the manner provided in New York State Town Law Article 7, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to publish and post such notices and take such other actions as may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 19 day of June, 2006 by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES : None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING - ESTABLISHMENT OF ROUTE 9 AND GLEN LAKE ROAD TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS CAPITAL PROJECT FUND #159 NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: June 9, 2006 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 317 SUPERVISOR STEC-By way of summary last November the Town Board entered an Intermunicipal Agreement with Warren County regarding traffic improvements at the intersection of Glen Lake Road and Route 9. Some of which was triggered by activity by the Great Escape and that brought us and the County to the table for the traffic light and improvements at the Glen Lake Route 9 intersection. The Town of Queensbury would pay Warren County sixty five thousand dollars and Warren County would contribute to that an additional from the County two hundred and thirty five thousand dollars or a total of three hundred thousand dollars for the perceived and stated public portion of the project the public benefit. We entered into that agreement the sixty five thousand dollars is due to the County and because it is a capital improvement, we felt that the appropriate thing to do would be to take it from the capital reserve. In order to transfer money from the capital reserve a public hearing is required so that brings us to tonight. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Dan, I have one question and it’s only because when we have Town Board discussion it’s going to be relevant. As you pointed out the County pony up two hundred and thirty five thousand Queensbury sixty-five do you know roughly, what the Great Escape put in? SUPERVISOR STEC-I know roughly somebody asked me last time we talked about it it was more than that amount. The total between the Town and the County was less than half. COUNCILMAN BOOR-We got three hundred between the County and the Town and you are assuming that it’s at least three hundred to the Great Escape. SUPERVISOR STEC-I’m ninety-nine percent sure it’s at least three hundred, but it might be closer to five hundred. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s important for people to understand that there is a reasonable assumption its six hundred thousand anyway okay, thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Like I said, I don’t have the exact number but I do believe it was significantly higher than the six hundred thousand dollar total that doesn’t include the pedestrian bridge, which is opened now. I think that number was almost two million dollars this is separate from that. Again, the purpose of the public hearing tonight was to authorize the creation and to take this money from the capital reserve and certainly, I think this qualifies as capital improvement because it was capital construction. However, we got there or whatever triggered it there was a capital project. So the public hearing is opened…. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-Supervisor Stec can I just jump in. This was not a resolution that we were asked to look at. This should be subject to permissive referendum like the last one. SUPERVISOR STEC-So you would like to make sure that we add that. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-Add that at the end just like we did at the last one. This is moving money from a general capital reserve fund into a specific project. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 318 SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you for catching that for us. The public hearing is opened, Mr. Tucker. PLINEY TUCKER, 41 DIVISION ROAD, WEST GLENS FALLS, QUEENSBURY-If the Great Escape hadn’t been expanding would any of this happened? SUPERVISOR STEC-You have asked this before. As a matter of fact, before the Great Escape expansion with the pedestrian bridge and all everything that it triggered on Route 9 the Town and it was well publicized in the newspaper and several articles. The Town had been asking in fact begging several two, three, four years ago for a light at the intersection with Glen Lake Road DOT said that it did not warrant a light. Even though the Town wanted one we said, there is a benefit there. It didn’t raise to the level where it was triggering the right flags and DOT’s formula to say, that needs a traffic light. There would not be a traffic light there, which we had wanted because it didn’t qualify. Now with this new improvements good or bad it does qualify that intersection. The project not only required it, it also allowed it to move forward because we did have a lot of people that were living along Glen Lake Road that wanted that improvement. We were left holding the bag explaining the happy homeowner that the State won’t let us do it, but now this did qualify because of making that a four way intersection and the anticipated flow into not only the Hotel, but ultimately the parking lots we couldn’t of put the light there without the project. MR. TUCKER-But the project went ahead. SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes. MR. TUCKER-And you eliminated traffic lights down the road. SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes. That was all approved by the State. MR. TUCKER-Why should the Town of Queensbury and even Warren County be involved in traffic controls on a state highway. SUPERVISOR STEC-Again, that’s between the County and the County Attorney, and DOT, and their Attorney’s. I know that the Town and the County precedes the benefit Glen Lake Road is a Town road certainly the County access a lot of it off Glen Lake Road. There is a lot of traffic residential from Courthouse Estates and Glen Lake Road that comes up through Route 9. The Town proceeds, not all of that traffic at that intersection was attributable to the Great Escape. Again, I’m going off the top of my head from something that happened almost seven months ago, but that was the rationale. MR. TUCKER-I’m remembering things as you are going through it. Sure, looks like a little bit of corporation welfare. SUPERVISOR STEC-And the decision was made already this is really what pocket does the Town want to take the money from now. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 319 MR. TUCKER-I know, but you said you got a right to comment. SUPERVISOR STEC-But, we already committed the money oh, absolutely. Anybody else, Mr. Rahill. MR. BERNARD RAHILL-In regards to the project itself the traffic light and all the area around to the north of it, yes it is to the north of it was related to the bridge directly or indirectly and that the traffic was going to be going down the line. The only thing I like you to clarify was any Town money or County money spent for the bridge or did the Great Escape pay for the whole bridge? SUPERVISOR STEC-They did. Part of the hold up and the history is that the Great Escape believed that there was an opportunity for them to secure some State grant money for assisting and paying for the bridge. That all occurred that summer I never saw a memo that said that they pulled the plug or gave up on it. In fact, what happened was I believe that they determined that there was no State money coming so they gave up and they did pay the whole nickel for the bridge. The Town did not contribute any financing the County did not contribute any financing and to my knowledge the State did not contribute any financing either so it was all private the bridge itself. MR. RAHILL-The reason I asked you the question is because there are a lot of people in the Town of Queensbury who don’t know that and now they do. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you for asking. I know there is a perception out there that perhaps public money was used there. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-We’re trying to get the County to help out. SUPERVISOR STEC-The role that the County needed to play is that the State needed to funnel is probably not a great way... COUNCILMAN BREWER-They needed an application, right. SUPERVISOR STEC-The County to participate in the grant application itself so that’s how the County got dragged into the bad press of the situation. Is there any other public comment on this application on the Glen Lake Road Route 9, sixty five thousand dollar capital fund establishing the project number one fifty nine. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ESTABLISHMENT OF ROUTE 9 AND GLEN LAKE ROAD TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS CAPITAL PROJECT FUND #159 RESOLUTION NO.: 310 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 320 SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer th WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 528.2005 dated November 7, 2005, the Queensbury Town Board authorized an Intermunicipal Agreement with Warren County in connection with roadway infrastructure improvements mandated by the New York State Department of Transportation (DOT) at the Route 9 Corridor/Glen Lake Road intersection including the installation of a traffic light with the understanding that the Town of Queensbury would pay up to $65,000 and Warren County would pay up to $235,000, and WHEREAS, the Town Board received a request from the Town’s Budget Officer to establish the Route 9 and Glen Lake Road Traffic Improvements Capital Project (Project), and WHEREAS, such proposed Project shall not exceed the amount of $65,000 and is requested to be a part of the Capital Improvement Plan and financed through the Capital Reserve Fund, and WHEREAS, in accordance with the Town’s revised Capital Improvement Plan Policy (CIP), the Town Board must conduct a public hearing before approving any specific Capital Project listed on the CIP, and WHEREAS, the Town Board scheduled and duly held a public hearing on th Monday, June 19, 2006 concerning establishment of the Route 9 and Glen Lake Road Traffic Improvements Capital Project, and § WHEREAS, in accordance with New York State General Municipal Law 6(c), the Town Board is authorized to withdraw and expend certain funds subject to permissive referendum, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the establishment of the Route 9 and Glen Lake Road Traffic Improvements Capital Project, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the establishment of a Capital Project Fund to be known as the Route 9 and Glen Lake Road Traffic Improvements Capital Project Fund #159 which Fund will establish funding for expenses associated with this Project, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 321 BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs that funding for such Capital Project shall be by a transfer from the Town of Queensbury Capital Reserve Fund #64 in the amount of $65,000 to transfer to Route 9 and Glen Lake Road Traffic Improvements Capital Project Fund #159, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED that the Queensbury Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to take all action necessary to establish the following accounts for such appropriations and revenues as necessary: ? Revenue Acct No. – 159-0159-55031 (Interfund Revenue) $65,000; and ? Expense Acct No. – 159-3310-2899 (Capital Construction) $65,000; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to amend the 2006 Town Budget, make any adjustments, budget amendments, transfers or prepare any documentation necessary to establish such appropriations and estimated revenues, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Budget Officer to sign any necessary Agreements or documentation and take any and all action necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this Resolution is subject to a permissive referendum in accordance with the provisions of Town Law Article 7 and the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to publish and post such notices and take such other actions as may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 19 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 322 NOES : None ABSENT : None CORRESPONDENCE NONE INTRODUCTIONS OF RESOLUTIONS FROM THE FLOOR DISCUSSION HELD TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-Spoke to the board regarding Resolution Approving Sewage Works Corporation in Connection with Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District Ext. 10 Bay Road to Serve the Cedars Senior Living Community. Received changes to the document that were requested noted they are signed. Asked if the board passes, the resolution tonight he will leave consent form with Clerk to be signed. The resolution authorizes the Supervisor to sign, it has five signatures if you all want to sign that it fine it meets the statatory requirements. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you very much. Presented Mr. Tucker with a copy of the land transfer with Niagara Mohawk noting Mr. Tucker has been asking for this for at least two years or more noting the deed was filed and recorded this afternoon at the County. Thanked Mr. Tucker for keeping an eye on this now the Town and Water Department has acquired recreational opportunities about ten acres between the two parcels. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR PLINEY TUCKER, 41 DIVISION ROAD, QUEENSBURY-Spoke to the board regarding the land on the Airport Road that belongs to the Town for the Industrial Park noting there is a big sign there. Asked if the situation at the park over the land has been solved. SUPERVISOR STEC-We addressed this thinks it is being handled appropriately asked Mr. Tucker to contact him regarding this. MR. TUCKER-Questioned if this is still going to happen. SUPERVISOR STEC-It was communicated to them that the same rules that apply to any other group stands. We are not saying you can’t come, but we are also saying you don’t have exclusive use you are like any other group. What the rules are I couldn’t tell you off the top of my head the Recreation Department is working on that arrangement so they will be treated the same as anybody else that uses the park. MR. TUCKER-Spoke to the board regarding article in newspaper where Warren County is leaning towards not giving the eight cents off on gasoline. SUPERVISOR STEC-That comes up for quarterly review. The Finance Committee decided unanimously to table it until the next quarter for a variety of reasons. Noted his quote in the paper was accurate that said he would much prefer if forced to picked and I think we are between property REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 323 taxes and sales taxes would rather collect the sales tax than a property tax noting he is only one person out of twenty. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Part of the debate is for a County who wants to promote tourism to then turn around and not want to assist tourism by taxing them higher than they need to noting this seems to be contradictory to some degree in terms of philosophy. SUPERVISOR STEC-That is part of the debate. MR. TUCKER-Saratoga voted to do it noting he can remember sales tax just three cents a gallon people were going from here over there to get it noted it is going to happen again. Spoke to the board regarding his request for the Budget Officer to put a financial deal together based on what the library would cost Queensbury if they were on the own noting he hasn’t heard anything. SUPERVISOR STEC-To ask Budget Officer, Switzer tomorrow. MR. TUCKER-She is putting one together for the meeting at City Hall over the Library Board determining how they are going to finance. PETER BROTHERS-Spoke to the board regarding information he shared with the board the last time he was before the board. Noted he comes before this board not to be mean spirited maybe that was the way someone had taken it the last time. Just asking for information that I, feel should be available with that in mind speaking specifically of the recording of the minutes word for word so people get an accurate portrayal of what is being said. Asked for a reconsideration of this as far as a resolution is concerned. Spoke to the board regarding the Solid Waste Management District asked the board to reconsider it for adopting a resolution or sending something to the County if possible. SUPERVISOR STEC-We decided not to pursue a Solid Waste District. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Thinks he just wants to codify it with a resolution. SUPERVISOR STEC-Does not think it is necessary. MR. BROTHERS-Spoke to the board regarding the Authority noted it does not seem that the County Supervisors have an idea from a budget standpoint how much the cost is going to be noting it is the taxpayers money. Thinks this is a serious concern that they have given the impression they don’t want a limit to how much money noting they have to understand we are not a bottomless pit it is something one should consider. Spoke to the board regarding people purchasing parcels noting this has an impact on our assessed valuations also spoke to the board regarding the realtors and people involved who sell these parcels noting the board feels the pressure to answer on these applications thinks this is something the board should keep in mind. MR. JOHN SALVADOR-RE: Wastewater management asked the board if they have given any thought to some kind of Task Force Organization to deal with wastewater in this Town noted the scenario tonight with these two REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 324 applications is very uncalled for and not fair to them. RE: Crandall Library noting the Glens Falls IDA has scheduled a public hearing dealing with the IDA’s intent to serve as the financing conduit for the 12.875 million dollar voter approved Crandall Public Library Expansion. Questioned if anyone has ever witnessed either of the local IDA’s holding public hearing before agreeing to finance local and industrial projects such as hotels, office complexes, shopping centers, supermarkets and car dealerships. Re: The financing procedure for the library expansion. Taxpayer’s funds should not be used to finance the debt of a public corporation that is a violation of Article 8, Section I of the State Constitution noting he does not think the library has a plan. BERNARD RAHILL, 37 WINCREST DRIVE, QUEENSBURY-Asked Supervisor Stec if he has any response to Mr. Salvador’s statement. SUPERVISOR STEC-No. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Noted he has a response to portions he understands relative to if they have a shortcoming. Received an unsatisfactory answer relative to what they would cut back if the private sections donations do not come through noting the response he got was unrealistic relative to construction of a building. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Concerned with the using the Glens Falls IDA as a vehicle for funding. Typically, the IDA is a private type of transaction to encourage people to bring industrial or commercial applications and increase employment things of this nature. This is little bit different in that all the players seem to be governmental or quasi-governmental entities involved in an organization that stands for industrial. Noted his concerns that this Town may have passed some form of a resolution regarding the financing or the fiscal instruments being used noting he needs to get that history. Wants to make sure that we are not going to be paying more for the cost of capital going through IDA as opposed to geo bonds asked Supervisor Stec if he has any insight on this. SUPERVISOR STEC-No. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Questioned if Jennifer would have information on this. SUPERVISOR STEC-Jennifer. One comment to answer Mr. Rahill question, these questions at this level of detail are appropriately asked to the Library Board of Trustees. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Questioned to what degree do we have a say in this manner other than just going as a concerned person. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thinks we handed this off through the referendum process noting he is not prepared tonight to discuss Crandall Library. COUNCILMAN STROUGH- About a year and a half ago we looked at options. One of the options was for us to take up the obligation, each municipality. That obligation would be divided up according to a percentage REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 325 once established this does not change. We think we were on the high side of that burden and things could change and there were other factors that we looked at in relationship to that and there were some downsides to it we decided to go this way this was the best route. MR. RAHILL-Spoke to the board regarding asking the Town to put a six- foot apron on either side of the road to promote safe pedestrian and bicycle transit in the Town of Queensbury. Spoke to the board regarding his concern for the flashing traffic lights coming off Sweet Road and in other locations that are being used to speed up traffic asked the board to look into this. Has spoken with other residents around the Town and no one has expressed favorable views on this. Spoke to the board regarding Supervisor Thomas indicating there was a fifty million dollar cap on the Sports Authority noting fifty million is a lot of money. SUPERVISOR STEC-Actually he did not, but it did come across that way in the paper. Tomorrow at ten o’clock in the morning, the County Board of Supervisors will hold a special meeting just for this purpose because the State Assembly would like a cap as opposed to no cap; it still does not appropriate one nickel. MR. RAHILL- If we are using GASB or any other accounting form with Frank O’Keefe at the County level suggested that Mr.O’Keefe give all the numbers for this Sports Authority what are the projections for every aspect of it before we go one-step further. We are entitled as taxpayers to know what the numbers are. GEORGE DRELLOS, 27 FOX HOLLOW LANE, QUEENSBURY-Spoke to the board regarding the brush pickup, commended the Highway Department for doing a good job noting he does not see any more bags or bush. SUPERVISOR STEC-Received numerous calls of concerns from residents that the Town was not going to do the pickup noted that the brush pickup has not been pulled they are talking about ways to improve the program. MR. DRELLOS-Spoke to the board regarding the caution light in front of the School noting with the School closed thinks the light should go caution. Asked if there was something, the board could do to make it easier for the applicants that come before the board. TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS SUPERVISOR STEC-Regarding Councilman Sanford’s request regarding the hiring of people that are related to Town employees. Last year the seasonal part time people hired during the year mainly Recreation Department but also Cemetery and Highway there was a hundred and forty four. Of those hundred and forty-four three were related to Town employees and two additional ones were related to Elected Officials. I was told that those numbers are typical from year to year. Spoke to the board regarding his attendance at a meeting with members of Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council last week. AGFTC at his request last fall did put out to bid and they did hire a company to come in and start doing a traffic study REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 326 on Aviation Road from Exit 19 to Potter Road. We had a meeting to look at some preliminary current situation data no recommendations were made as th far as how to solve the problem yet we are still in the process. On July 11 at the Queensbury High School at 6:30 p.m. there will be a public work session to talk about where they are their findings so far and to gain some public input on this as we move forward. Anyone who is hoping that there is going to be construction this year to correct or mitigate anything on Aviation Road should know that it will not happen, but hopefully by the end of this year before the next construction season we will have in place a game plan that well inputted by the public. Updated the board on DOT, talked with representatives from DOT today they are waiting for signatures on Route 9 and 254 Improvement. There was a hold up for a while the bids came in higher than the State thought that they would. There were questions for a little while whether or not it was go and proceed this year. They did decide to let it proceed and it is literally waiting any day they expect this week the signature from the State Comptroller’s Office to let the bids. Once this happens Route 9, 254 should be starting the construction likely in July you will start seeing activity at Route 9 and 254, which really encompasses improvements up near the Carleton Drive near Exit 19. Anyone that travels down Aviation Road east bound that median is not quite wide enough for a cars width everyone is trying to use it as a turning lane it has been the cause of a lot of fender benders so they are going to include that in the work. This project has been rolled into a County sponsor project to improve the timing of the Quaker Road traffic lights. They state that they will be sensitive to the Balloon Festival week so that they are not disturbing the traffic flow anymore than it already is. Asked by Town Clerk, Darleen Dougher she had been heading up the collection of mailing goods that people of Queensbury have donated to send to a unit in Iraq. We do have a new unit that we are going to be sending things to noting the Town Clerk’s Office does stst coordinate this. The new unit is ALFA Company, 1 Battalion, 1, Brigade, st of the 101, Airborne Division Kirkuk, Iraq. If people want the information to send it directly, we can make it available on our website. Asked to talk to the County about the possibility of relocating the VanDusen House, which is north of Route 9, and Route 149 intersections, it is about a hundred and sixty year old home to see if there was interest in moving that to the Warren County campus to use as a Welcome Center. Asked Chairman Thomas and the Tourism Committee Chair, Lou Tessier if they had interest in that house and they both assured me that they did not. Spoke to the board noting the Great Escape pedestrian bridge did open for pedestrians this Saturday morning. Received calls since the park has started to charge for parking that now there is a new market that has been created for parking and others have pursued that same dollar. Our Code Enforcement people for those who have called they went out and started looking at this. It is an approvable use if it is approved by site plan Code Enforcement is working to try to take care of this situation. Also, noted Towns website www.queensbury.net. Thanked TV 8 and Glens Falls National Bank for sponsoring the televising of the Town Board Meetings. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Spoke to the board regarding the commendations that were given to the Boys Track and Alpine Skiing. Over this past weekend, it was asked to me, why we did not give credit to the JV Boys Football they went undefeated this year and the JV Boys Lacrosse went undefeated as well wanted to give them credit for their hard work. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 327 Spoke to the board regarding Free Tire Day noting it was this past Saturday. Thankfully the count was down thinks it’s a natural progression less and less every year is a good sign hopefully we will be able to go ever other year in the future. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Spoke regarding the Aviation Road Traffic Study was looking at current conditions. They did not address the queuing of traffic that occurs shortly after 7:00 a.m. That occurs from the main entrance to the high school parking lot westward towards Sokel’s sometime th beyond, but they will. Believes the July 11 public hearing is going to be with the schools traffic study. SUPERVISOR STEC-The school board is coordinating their own interior traffic flow issue study. They have coordinated that over the last several months with the efforts that AGFTC has been doing. They are sharing account data with each other and hopefully addressing and coming up with solutions that will at least coordinate a little bit with each other. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-In addition to giving the kids at school a pat on the back noted they contributed about ten boxes of stuff to the troops in Iraq, which he recently delivered noting he organized this effort for the school it was the kids who did the donating they deserve the credit. Spoke regarding the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. There was a consensus among some of the board members that some parts of the 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan that is currently in effect were well liked. We liked the parts that keep these descriptions to certain significant parts of our Town. They incorporated those descriptions of certain sites into neighborhood descriptions. The neighborhood idea did not seem to set well with anybody I think that is what holds true with most Town Board members. SUPERVISOR STEC-I liked it. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-What you like about it was the descriptions of the areas within the neighborhood. Senior Planner, Stu Baker sent to me it is in an electronic format and I can work with it relatively easily the 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan he has also sent the Zoning Code. I will be able to draw from those as well as the Open Space Plan and be able to put together a skeletal structure of certain sites within each one of your Wards. A little bit of history, current conditions, and community vision if any for each one of those areas. You will have an opportunity to view that and input that then it will go from there to the committee to a public hearing. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Suggested that each Councilperson address the neighborhoods in their respective Wards using as you are suggesting the 1998 as a point of departure. That way we can update it or tailor it and it will not fall on your shoulders. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-That’s actually right, but we have to have a skeleton to work from. I will provide you with a skeleton then you can add to it as you see fit. They would like to have your input by the week of July th 10. Spoke regarding the Fund for Lake George presentation on community planning regarding suggestions to try mitigate some the visual impacts that development is having along the lake noting he thought it was a very good REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 328 presentation, it was televised. Would like to see the Town pay for the opportunity or maybe the Fund for Lake George would be willing to split it with us to get this presentation out there to the public to look into this. Spoke to the board noting he would like to see a three or five-year budget plan for the Town will continue to work on this. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Spoke to the board noting that last week he met with Executives from Duke Concrete at their request they were concerned about the recent decision that was made by the Recreation Commission to not do business with them even though their price lower, but to pick a Schenectady based outfit. Requested at the next Workshop we discuss the ins and outs of concept of doing business locally. I do not know enough about it and I know there are probably legal implications and things of that nature, sent this on to Supervisor Stec he will give material that has been done in the past. SUPERVISOR STEC-Since that request it’s not to say that we couldn’t have further inquiry. At least in the question of giving preferential treatment to using local firms or local material or local suppliers. Talked with Town Counsel, Bob Hafner. Talked with County Attorney Paul Dusek and Jennifer has talked with Mitch Morris who is the lead Counsel for the State Comptroller’s Office all three of them gave the same answer. The State Law is illegally to give preferential treatment to a local bidder or local supplier; I want to give you more information. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Would like to discuss this is not suggesting that the Town do anything illegal at all. A few suggestions were given to me by those people at Duke, which would not be giving preferential, but would be at least giving equal treatment to local vendors. I have some specifics to show where the specs sheet, the RFP’s, and things of that nature actually did just the opposite. I don’t think I’m looking for preferential treatment I’m looking for equal treatment, certainly want to have a discussion. I appreciate you providing to us ahead of time any information you can which might give us some insight. SUPERVISOR STEC-I don’t have it yet, but I’m hoping to have it soon. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Spoke regarding the Town Board looking at an RFP for Town Counsel noting they are having a disagreement on how to proceed to some degree in terms of how to advertise and how to get to the level of awareness on this. We are running some ads and they are appearing in the Help Wanted Section of the papers right next to Tile Setters and Waiter and Waitresses is not sure that it is going to get the kind of exposure that I’m looking for. The Town Board had stated that they wanted it to appear in the Local Section of the newspapers in a block ad format, which was not done hoping that we can without going to resolution resolve this issue in the next week. SUPERVISOR STEC-In addition to the email that was unsolicited that Lisa did put together trying to explain what had occur. She is working on coming up with exactly if you want a 2 by 2 or 2 by 3 ad in the paper this is what it will cost. I have seen some of the work so far you are talking depending on the paper a couple hundred dollars for the ad. It maybe that we end up REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 329 supplementing what we have currently done with a couple of additional ads. Every newspaper is a little different some of them say we can put it in the local section some of them say we can’t guarantee where we are going to put it some are very expensive and some aren’t. Hopes to have this information tomorrow I will copy the whole Town Board on it. There will be cost information in there. If you guys want to shoot me a hey why don’t we do this email if I can get it in this weekends paper, I would be happy to. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Spoke regarding Aviation Road noting he has had the occasion to travel it quite a bit lately I was brought up on Aviation Road, I lived on the first house on Buena Vista the Pines didn’t exist. My initiation into politics was Fuller Road and Indian Ridge. Fought desperately to have the project known as Indian Ridge cut back from a hundred and ninety units to seventy five. When I drive through there now and I see the neighborhood, it is a beautiful neighborhood and yet I can’t imagine what it would look like if a hundred and fifteen more units were in there. Is pleased that a grassroots organization could achieve that kind of a result, however, I am still dismayed that the Town Board at the time when the pleas were made to take a good look at this issue was of the thinking that all development is good, we know what we are doing leave us alone. One of the other things that we emphasized that we pleaded with was please make the developer pay for the impact fees for traffic mitigation on Aviation Road. The politics to be let that slip by the wayside. I have come in and out of Indian Ridge, I have some friends that are in Community Band and elsewhere they have been pleading with me for a long time it is very dangerous. I know it is dangerous, but didn’t realize how dangerous it was until I was there ten or twelve times this week. Earlier when we had the public hearing regarding the traffic light at the corner of Glen Lake and Route 9 is the cost. The cost is six hundred thousand dollars approximately for a traffic light it is needed there. The public is going to have to pick up the dime on that because the board at the time didn’t have the foresight what I feel is the interest of the public at heart. It would have been much less to have been done back there at that time it certainly would have elevated some of the problems we are experiencing now. I don’t know what the Adirondack Transportation Council will come up with. It is dangerous to the point of ridiculousness. I get there and say how can this exist in the Town of Queensbury and certainly in my Ward there are some other intersections that I would like to address Bay Road, and Sunnyside, I think a flashing light isn’t appropriate I think a full blown light would be appropriate there. In this instance, I just hope and pray that they come up with what is needed there. I think the Town does a much better job planning nowadays. I think that we do ask more of developers, I don’t think we ask enough of developers. I don’t think it is fair to be characterized as anti-development, I’m certainly not anti- development, I just don’t want the taxpayers to get stuck with somebody making a ton of money and then moving on. I say go for it build a wonderful beautiful project with all the amenities the sidewalks, the street lights, the playgrounds, the traffic lights, but you pay for them don’t take your profit and run away and leave the taxpayers holding the bag. Ultimately, as we move forward those types of decision will be made like that certainly there are going to be some corrections necessary on Aviation Road. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 330 SUPERVISOR STEC-The good news is since 1998, 1999 when the Indian Ridge Development was approved and moved forward the Town has gotten better about being mindful of that. I know that we put some traffic impact fees on some of the Aviation Mall Development. Perhaps that was too little to late or maybe we need to have more of that. I know that we have gotten a little bit better you are right it would have been nicer if we were ahead of the curve we need to learn from previous issues. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-This is a very good example of when people like John Strough talk in terms of what it costs for a residential home in terms of what it brings in, in terms of the taxes and what it costs to support and how it’s a losing proposition verses commercial businesses. When you are talking in the neighborhood of a six hundred thousand dollar traffic light, it is not because of commercial business. th COUNCILMAN STROUGH-On Wednesday, July 12 at 7:00 p.m. at the Activity Center, sponsored by the Town of Queensbury, there will be a discussion of preserving history through certified local government recommended everyone to come. Questioned how much time did Mr. Thomas give to the consideration of the VanDusen House the only surviving structure of the French Mountain Hamlet. SUPERVISOR STEC-I don’t know. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-By the sounds of it, it doesn’t sound like he put in a whole lot of time. That’s only two how many Supervisor do we have? SUPERVISOR STEC-Twenty. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I think due consideration should be given to the proposition that I made at the last Town Board Meeting. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I don’t think he meant that he didn’t want to consider saving historic preservation. I think he didn’t want to give it consideration for being at the County for a Welcome Center. SUPERVISOR STEC-I will tell the Chairman of the Board that you have concerns about how sincerely he considered it. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HIRING OF CATHERINE STROUGH TO WORK FOR DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION RESOLUTION NO. : 311, 2006 INTRODUCED BY Mr. Richard Sanford WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY : Mr. Roger Boor REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 331 WHEREAS, the Department of Parks and Recreation has requested Town Board authorization to hire Catherine Strough to work part-time for the Department as a seasonal Youth Arts and Crafts Director, and WHEREAS, Town Policy requires that familial relationships must be disclosed and that the Town Board must approve the appointment of Town employees’ relatives and Catherine Strough is the daughter of Town Councilman John Strough, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the hiring of Catherine Strough to work for the Town’s Department of Parks and Recreation as st a part-time Youth Arts and Crafts Director effective June 21, 2006 to be paid at the appropriate hourly wage approved for seasonal recreation positions, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Director of Parks and Recreation and/or Budget Officer to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 19 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN:Mr. Strough (Noted his daughter has been working for Parks and Recreation before he got on the Town Board) RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HIRING OF KAITLIN O’SHAUGHNESSY TO WORK FOR DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION RESOLUTION NO. : 312, 2006 INTRODUCED BY Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY : Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Department of Parks and Recreation has requested Town Board authorization to hire Kaitlin O’Shaughnessy to work part-time for the Department as a seasonal Recreation Counselor, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 332 WHEREAS, Town Policy requires that familial relationships must be disclosed and that the Town Board must approve the appointment of Town employees’ relatives and Kaitlin O’Shaughnessy is the daughter of Town Recreation Program Specialist Lori O’Shaughnessy, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the hiring of Kaitlin O’Shaughnessy to work for the Town’s Department of Parks and st Recreation as a part-time, seasonal Recreation Counselor effective June 21, 2006, to be paid at the appropriate hourly wage approved for seasonal recreation positions, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Director of Parks and Recreation and/or Budget Officer to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 19 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HIRING OF THOMAS MC NALLY TO WORK FOR DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION RESOLUTION NO. :313, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY :Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Department of Parks and Recreation has requested Town Board authorization to hire Thomas McNally to work part-time for the Department as a seasonal Recreation Leader, and WHEREAS, Town Policy requires that familial relationships must be disclosed and that the Town Board must approve the appointment of Town employees’ relatives and Thomas McNally is the son of Town Justice Robert McNally, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 333 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the hiring of Thomas McNally to work for the Town’s Department of Parks and Recreation as a st part-time, seasonal Recreation Leader effective June 21, 2006, to be paid at the appropriate hourly wage approved for seasonal recreation positions, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Director of Parks and Recreation and/or Budget Officer to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 19 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HIRING OF FREDERICKA RAMSEY TO WORK FOR DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION RESOLUTION NO. : 314, 2006 INTRODUCED BY Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY : Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Department of Parks and Recreation has requested Town Board authorization to hire Fredericka Ramsey to work part-time for the Department as a seasonal Park Maintenance employee responsible to plant and maintain the flowerbeds and other floral garden display areas at all Town Parks, and WHEREAS, Town Policy requires that familial relationships must be disclosed and that the Town Board must approve the appointment of Town employees’ relatives and Fredericka Ramsey is the mother-in-law of Parks and Recreation Department Senior Typist Simone Ramsey, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the hiring of Fredericka Ramsey to work for the Town’s Department of Parks and Recreation as REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 334 nd a part-time, seasonal Park Maintenance employee effective May 22, 2006, to be paid at the appropriate hourly wage approved for seasonal recreation positions, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Director of Parks and Recreation and/or Budget Officer to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 19 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING GRANT APPLICATION FOR FUNDING FROM ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FUND, APPLICATION FOR STATE ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS, LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM, YEAR 2006-2007 IN CONNECTION WITH NEW YORK STATE LAKE GEORGE PLAN FOR THE FUTURE - MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION RESOLUTION NO.: 315, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the environmental health and overall quality of life in the Lake George Watershed area is critical to the social and economic well being for the Town of Queensbury, Warren County and the region in general, and WHEREAS, the protection, preservation and proper management of water quality within the basin is an essential ingredient to maintaining this revered natural resource as a key to the social and economic vitality of this region, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has been an active participant in developing the critically important water quality management plan, and WHEREAS, the adopted document, entitled, “Lake George – Plan for the Future” identifies numerous recommendations and actions as being critical to pursuing the objectives of preserving, protecting and enhancing the water quality throughout the Basin, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 335 WHEREAS, the State has recently solicited (competitive) applications for Financial Assistance Grants from municipalities around the State, and WHEREAS, an Application for funding has been prepared in response to such solicitation for applications, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury acting on behalf of and in concert with all the several communities that make up the Lake George Watershed, authorizes submission of the Environmental Protection Fund Application for State Assistance th Payments – Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, Year 2006-2007 dated May 27, 2006 in response to New York State’s solicitation of Financial Assistance Grants and agrees to serve as custodian for such grant funds, if awarded, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to sign such Application and/or any other documentation for such funding assistance for submission to New York State and take any other action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 19 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT : None DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE: DAVE DECKER, DIRECTOR OF LAKE GEORGE WATERSHED Explained the grant process to the Town Board. CONFERENCE- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF GRANT APPLICATION TO NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE UNDER THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION FUND FOR THE LAKES TO LOCKS ALL AMERICAN ROAD CORRIDOR PROGRAM RESOLUTION NO.: 316, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 336 WHEREAS, it appears that grant funds are currently available from the New York State Department of State for the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Environmental Protection Fund specifically aimed at communities in the Lake George area and intended to create a Lake to Locks All American Road Corridor to display the lives of thesix communities of the Lake George Loop Byway, and WHEREAS, this appears to be a good opportunity for the Town of Queensbury to, in cooperation with other communities and State and Local Agencies, develop tourism opportunities in the area, and WHEREAS, several initiatives are currently underway as developed by the Lakes to Locks Passage All American Road Program, and WHEREAS, one such initiative is the Visitor Information and Interpretive Plan which identifies the need and location for Lake George region interpretive and visitor information signs that will link the communities and provide substance to the heritage tourism strategy, and WHEREAS, a second is the development of waterway-based interpretive theme routes that will establish itineraries and a marketing package for economic development, and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the Warren County Planning Department and Lakes to Lock Passage, Inc. shall work cooperatively with the Town to secure grant funds and to fulfill the obligations of the anticipated grant, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute and submit a grant application to the New York State Department of State Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Environment Protection Fund and to do so with assistance from Warren County Planning Department and Lakes to Locks Passage, Inc., and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED that the Town of Queensbury shall serve as the community sponsor for this Project, and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 337 RESOLVED that Town of Queensbury Community Development Department Staff may work in cooperation with Staff from Lakes to Locks Passage, Inc., Warren County Planning Department, and/or Warren County Tourism, to fulfill the obligations of the grant, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Executive Director of Community Development and/or Budget Officer to take such other and further actions as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 19 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT: Mr. Boor DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MS RYBA-Explained the grant application process to the Town Board. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TOWN OF QUEENSBURY’S INCLUSION IN WARREN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS’ BIDDING PROCESS FOR 2006/2007 UNLEADED FUEL AND HEATING FUEL RESOLUTION NO.: 317, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, in the past the Town of Queensbury has purchased unleaded fuel and heating fuel through New York State Contracts, and WHEREAS, the Town’s Purchasing Agent has advised that New York State is no longer able to obtain such contracts in Warren County and will therefore not be going out to bid again until 2007, and WHEREAS, the Purchasing Agent has further advised that the Warren County Department of Public Works has extended its bids for unleaded fuel and heating fuel to REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 338 political subdivisions and therefore the Purchasing Agent has recommended that the Town be part of Warren County’s bid process for the 2006/2007 term, and WHEREAS, the Town Board concurs with the Purchasing Agent’s recommendation, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the Town of Queensbury to be included in the Warren County Department of Public Works’ advertisement for bids for 2006/2007 unleaded fuel and heating fuel, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Purchasing Agent to notify and forward a certified copy of this Resolution to the Warren County Department of Public Works so that the Town of Queensbury may be included on such bids and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 19 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CLOSURE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL RESERVE FUND RESOLUTION NO.: 318, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury no longer utilizes funds in the Economic Development Capital Reserve Fund, and WHEREAS, the final accounting shows that there is approximately $70,362 (plus accrued interest through the approval of this Resolution) in such Fund, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 339 WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to close this Capital Reserve th Fund as of June 19, 2006 and transfer the Fund’s remaining fund balance to the General Fund, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Accountant to close the Economic Development Capital Reserve Fund and transfer the Fund’s remaining fund balance to the General Fund, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Budget Officer and/or Accountant to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 19 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CLOSURE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL RESERVE FUND RESOLUTION NO.: 318, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury no longer utilizes funds in the Economic Development Capital Reserve Fund, and WHEREAS, the final accounting shows that there is approximately $70,362 (plus accrued interest through the approval of this Resolution) in such Fund, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to close this Capital Reserve th Fund as of June 19, 2006 and transfer the Fund’s remaining fund balance to the General Fund, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 340 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Accountant to close the Economic Development Capital Reserve Fund and transfer the Fund’s remaining fund balance to the General Fund, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Budget Officer and/or Accountant to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 19 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF THE COMPASS COMPANY, INC. FOR INSURANCE & RISK MANAGEMENT CONSULTING SERVICES RESOLUTION NO. 319, 2006 PULLED INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford SUPERVISOR STEC-The Town Board in last years budget allocated funds and we have done this in the past for Risk Management Consulting Services. Where the Town would go out and contract with a consultant to help us review put out and prepare the RFP and get out to bid and help us select a Risk Management Company. Jennifer went out and advertised with the Professional Organization for Risk Management that’s where she went to get these bids for consultants. They are independent they do not sell an insurance product so they are not motivated in that sense. She did put that out and she did hear back from three firms from this mechanism. One of them had asked for additional information she sent them additional information and never heard anything back from them. The other two had sent complete packages Compass Company was the lower of the two for a variety of reasons. I think it was because they were more local than the other one. I think the other one that put in a number was from western New York these are from the lower part of the Hudson. I know that there were some questions and I was hoping that if Jennifer were here she would be able to answer them. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I want it pulled for discussion at a Workshop. I reviewed the three proposals that were received. One of the proposals from Massapequa was a good proposal, but it didn’t give prices. I don’t REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 341 think she actively pursued that based on my discussion I had with her. We received three proposals, but one firm didn’t give a price I would like to have the price on that. I think there might be confusion at least it wasn’t clear when you read the responses Dan from these people about how they are received our workers comp need. Compass doesn’t include workers comp, but Regent does. I have some background with these types of firms and self-insured workers comp. A lot of Risk Management typically does involve the self-insured market place. As you read through these proposals, I get the tone when they talk about engineering and they talk about loss experience and they talk about third party administrators they are basically talking in terms of Risk Management in the context of a self-insured environment. My understanding is the Town of Queensbury used to self- insure but no longer does. In which case I have to then question and this is why Jennifer needed to be here. I needed to know whether or not these people have a clear understanding of our set of circumstances and price their services appropriately. COUNCILMAN BREWER-You want to do the whole process all over. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-No. I just want to sit down I have a whole lot of questions about this. The question is the context of the Compass quote removes workers comp. I’m not sure why its removed and why we are not interested in evaluating workers comp at the same time that we are looking at P & C insurance. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I heard enough…. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I have a couple more things John. Dan said he is going to answer them for me if he has the answer. Compass suggests a prequalification in preparation of exclusive broker of record letter for individuals insures. My question is I like to know why they are doing that because that is suggestive of a non-objective process. Then they talk in terms of the screening of agents and brokers my question is why and what criteria are they going to utilize in their screening process. Compass then offers to make the selection for us why not the Town Board how objective is their process. I got to tell you I don’t share Jennifer and yours, I guess knee jerk reaction that Compass gave the kind of proposal that I was particularly taken with. Yet, I do want to go a little further with it I think we have time. st Compass recommends doing a decision by July 1 so that the insures can have ninety days to quote the coverage. For someone who has been in the business they don’t need ninety days to quote the coverage. SUPERVISOR STEC-Point made. I’m not sure it’s fair to characterize any decision that myself or Jennifer Switzer make as a knee jerk answer. The mechanism would be you withdraw your second you withdrawn your motion and we pull it. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I’ll do that. COUNCILMAN BREWER-You going to have a workshop and explain all this to us? SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 342 COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I hope to be able to communicate offline with her and give her some of this so she can prepare for it. SUPERVISOR STEC-I was hopeful that it would be able to happen, but today the added issue was that she was ill. RESOLUTION APPROVING SEWAGE-WORKS CORPORATION IN CONNECTION WITH CENTRAL QUEENSBURY QUAKER ROAD SEWER DISTRICT EXTENSION NO. 10 – BAY ROAD TO SERVE THE CEDARS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY RESOLUTION NO. 319, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 227,2006, the Queensbury Town Board established, authorized and approved an extension to the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District known as Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District Extension No. 10 – Bay Road, such extension to include The Cedars Senior Living Community (the “Community”), and WHEREAS, the Green Mountain Development Group, Inc., on behalf of The Cedars Senior Living Community (GMDG), has advised the Town Board that the New Deleted: either York State Department of Environmental Conservation requires the formation of a Sewage- Works Corporation to own and maintain the Cedars’ on-site sewer collection system, pump station and force main connection to the new sewer line to be constructed in accordance with Extension No. 10(the “sewer works”), and th WHEREAS, by letter dated Mary 25, 2006, GMDG formally issued its request that the Town Board consent to the formation of a Sewage-Works (or “Transportation”) Corporation to be known as the Cedars Housing Sewage Corporation (the “Corporation”) which will own and maintain the entire sewer collection and force main system on the Cedars property as shown on plans submitted by GMDG to the Town’s Wastewater Director, and WHEREAS, the maps and specifications of the sewer works to be owned and operated by the Corporation have been filed with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation which has indicated that it is prepared to approve the plans upon formation of the Corporation and satisfactory responses to its comments on the plans, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 343 WHEREAS, C.T. Male Associates, P.C., the Town’s engineer, has examined the plans and specifications of the sewer works and provided a written report to the Town Board finding the information complete and the facilities acceptable, and WHEREAS, the contractor installing the sewer line, Edward & Thomas O’Connor, will add the Town to its existing payment and performance bonds for completion of the construction of the sewer works, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has received a guaranty from the owners of the first, second and third phases of the Community of payment of all costs of operation and maintenance of the sewer works and this payment obligation constitutes sewer rents payable to the Town secured by a lien on all the real property in the Community, and WHEREAS, the stock of the Corporation will be placed in escrow providing that title will pass to the Town in the event of certain occurrences pursuant to an Escrow Agreement provided to the Town, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has satisfied itself that it has received all materials it needs to issue its consent, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to issue its consent to the creation of such Sewage-Works Corporation in accordance with New York State Transportation Corporations Article 10, “Sewage-Works Corporations,” NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and issues its consent to the Sewage-Works Corporation required by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and as requested by the Green Mountain Development Group, Inc., on behalf of The Cedars Senior Living Community (GMDG), in connection with Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District Extension No. 10 – Bay Road, such extension including The Cedars Senior Living Community, such consent being in Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt, accordance with New York State Transportation Corporations Article 10, “Sewage-Works Hyphenate, Tabs: Not at -0.5" Corporations,” and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED; that the Town Board retains the continuing right to review the Formatted: Not Expanded by / adequacy of the security provided in connection with the sewer works to determine Condensed by whether it should be modified on the basis of fiscal performance or other conditions, and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 344 RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town’s Wastewater Director to forward a certified copy of this Resolution to the Green Mountain Development Group, Inc. and/or the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Wastewater Director and/or Town Supervisor to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 19 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AMENDING 2006 BUDGET TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS AND AMEND FUND BALANCE RESOLUTION NO.: 320, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Route 9 Sewer District has incurred miscellaneous contractual costs greater than originally budgeted for, and WHEREAS, the Route 9 Sewer District has sufficient surplus fund balances and has met New York State Comptroller's requirements for the appropriation of fund balance during the fiscal year, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to increase appropriations and appropriated fund balance in the Route 9 Sewer Fund, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves, authorizes and directs that the 2006 Budget be amended by increasing appropriations and increase Appropriated Fund Balance in the Route 9 Sewer District Fund - Misc. Contractual Account No.: 038-8120-4520 in the amount of $8,000, and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 345 RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town's Budget Officer to make any necessary adjustments, transfers, or prepare any necessary documentation to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 19 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough NOES : None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND WARREN COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADIRONDACK WATERFEST RESOLUTION NO.: 321, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has received a request for funding in the amount of $2,000 from the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District (County), which organization is sponsoring the Adirondack Waterfest to be held at the Gurney Lane th Recreation Area in Queensbury on August 25, 2006 in conjunction with the Greater Adirondack RC&D and Regional Planning Board, and WHEREAS, such event is expected to draw at least 1,000 to 2,000 people to the Town of Queensbury, its hotels and motels, restaurants, stores and other businesses, thereby benefiting the general economy of the Town and all of Warren County, and WHEREAS, by prior Resolution the Town Board provided for the Town’s receipt of occupancy tax revenues from Warren County in accordance with the Local Tourism Promotion and Convention Development Agreement (Agreement) entered into between the Town and Warren County, and WHEREAS, the Agreement provides that specific expenditure of the funds provided under the Agreement are subject to further Resolution of the Queensbury Town Board, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to provide funding for the Adirondack Waterfest event in the amount of $2,000, with occupancy tax revenues received from Warren County, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 346 WHEREAS, a proposed Agreement between the Town and County has been presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves and authorizes the funding of the Adirondack Waterfest to be held at the Gurney Lane Park in Queensbury and the Agreement between the Town and the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District (County) substantially in the form presented at this meeting, and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Agreement, with such funding not exceeding the sum of $2,000 and to be provided by occupancy tax revenues the Town receives from Warren County, to be paid for from Account No.: 001-6410-4412, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that such Agreement is expressly contingent upon the Town Budget Officer confirming that the Town has unallocated occupancy tax funds available from Warren County. th Duly adopted this 19 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Brewer NOES : None ABSENT:None ABSTAIN:Mr. Strough DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE: SUPERVISOR STEC-Contacted recently by Dave Wick requesting for Warren County Soil and Water, a non profit, non-governmental agency looking for two thousand dollars from occupancy tax to fund an event at Gurney Lane on August 25, 2006. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Why is this even in front of us because this suggests to me that the decisions been made. SUPERVISOR STEC-I think they are coming rain or shine anyways. They are coming whether we give them two thousand dollars to assist this or not. They made the decision a while ago to come they made the decision to ask us if we could help us defray these cost very recently. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-This is held annually in every community did those other communities have to chip in money. SUPERVISOR STEC-I don’t know the answer to that question. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 347 COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I’m not arguing it’s a good thing it’s a nice thing. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I got this today from Susan Bardin to the Town Board dated today the Town is sponsoring this event. I would have liked to be involved with it before Susan Bardin makes a conclusion that we are sponsoring it. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MS RYBA-Can, I just interrupt to clarify something. I had asked Susan to put that together just as an informational piece. That was something that was discussed in the Stormwater Management Plan Annual Report that the Town is working with the Warren County Soil and Water to have it at Gurney Lane Park that was the only sponsorship that was implied in that memo. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I think probably the point that’s being made is again as the elected officials I don’t know if we are last to know, but some of us were darn near last to know that we were sponsoring something. Again, it creates an embarrassing situation sometimes if somebody would come up to me on the street and say, hey I see you are sponsoring this thing and you are funding it and stuff I would like to know that ahead of time. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MS. RYBA-We did discuss it in the Stormwater Management Plan it was part of my presentation, which was a while ago. In terms of sponsoring money this is actually when I got the resolution was the first that I had heard about that. I only asked for a memo just to inform the Town Board a little bit more detail about what was going on with it. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Wouldn’t the appropriate process be this be put on a discussion item at a Workshop we discuss it. If we reach consensus that, it sounds like a good idea it then becomes a resolution and we vote on it instead of Friday getting the packet and reading about it in my case for the first time. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MS. RYBA-It was just an information piece to try to help with the awareness it was discussed in the Stormwater Annual Management Plan and that was presented at that time that this was part it is actually included as part of an educational and public awareness program. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I think what Richard’s trying to say is they have been probably been organizing this for months like I said, it sounds like a great program. All of a sudden Friday at school I pick it up and I get to read it and then it has nothing in Schedule A usually it has in Schedule A why they need it, there is nothing it is a blank page. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MS RYBA-I got it the same time you did. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I don’t think it’s targeted at anything it is nice to have the knowledge ahead of time so that we as a board could say, yeah great idea not a problem. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 348 COUNCILMAN STROUGH-It says here Schedule A identifies and itemizes the services rendered and the materials furnished for this money. SUPERVISOR STEC-If Jennifer were here I think she probably say the same thing that she usually says when you ask about Schedule A that we get that later. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-No, she says it’s the same as we’ve gotten in previous years Dan this is the first year we’ve done this. SUPERVISOR STEC-The event is more than two months away and its two thousand dollars. If you have a big problem about it vote, I don’t know how quicker I could of gotten it to you guys. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s the procedure. SUPERVISOR STEC-The procedure it’s brought before you. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Why doesn’t somebody ask these questions before Monday. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Friday afternoon I picked up my packet, I didn’t review them then I reviewed it over the weekend. COUNCILMAN BREWER-You couldn’t of called Jennifer this morning. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-She is sick. SUPERVISOR STEC-Did you call me. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Dan I’ve been emailing you and you haven’t been returning my emails. SUPERVISOR STEC-This wasn’t one of them, I have Richard. Let’s call the vote Karen. RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2006 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 322, 2006 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 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 349 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 2006 Town Budget as follows: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 001-1950-4430 001-7110-4991 8,000. (Property Taxes) (Lease & Rental - Land) 001-3410-4090 001-3410-1020 200. (Conference Exp.) (OT) 001-1110-4335 001-1110-1020 1,500. (Software Subscription) (OT) 032-8120-4400 032-8120-2001 1,000. (Sewer Line Maint.) (Misc. Equipment) FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 040-8320-2899 040-1940-2799 19,528. (Capital Construction) (Purchase of Land) 040-1990-1010 040-8310-4400 1,007. (Contingency) (Misc. Contractual) th Duly adopted this 19 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS – TH WARRANT OF JUNE 19, 2006 RESOLUTION NO.: 323, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve the audit of bills th presented as the Warrant with a run date of June 15, 2006 and a payment due date of June th 20, 2006, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 350 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Warrant with a thth run date of June 15, 2006 and payment due date of June 20, 2006 and totaling $463,044.94, 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 19 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT: None DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE: COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I noticed we are paying a modest amount to Cool Insurance for self-insured workers comp. My guess is that is a runoff claim that hasn’t yet been closed, but do you know that. SUPERVISOR STEC-I don’t know that. COUNCILMAN SANFORD- I know we have going back from when I was reviewing the audit statement a long time ago. I know we have a pretty sizable fund balance in the self-insured fund. My understanding is we could probably do what we just did with closing out most of that. I assume this is a tail claim and I would like to know that because otherwise it doesn’t make sense. I feel comfortable enough doing it, but I would like to inquire with Jennifer to make sure that it is what it is. SUPERVISOR STEC-Feel free or if I think of it tomorrow morning, I will ask her when I see her. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-All right. SUPERVISOR STEC-Any other discussion on the audit go ahead and vote. RESOLUTION ADJOURNING REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO. 324, 2006 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: MR. John Strough REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 06-19-2006 MTG#22 351 RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Regular Town Board Meeting. th Duly adopted this 19 day of June 2006, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford Noes: None Absent:None On motion meeting adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk Town of Queensbury