2000-11-06
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING
NOVEMBER 6, 2000
7:00 P.M.
MTG#49
RES430-449
B.H. 36-39
L.L. 10
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
SUPERVISOR DENNIS BROWER
COUNCILMAN JAMES MARTIN
COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER
COUNCILMAN DANIEL STEC
COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER
TOWN COUNSEL
MARK SCHACHNER
TOWN OFFICIALS
COMPTROLLER, HENRY HESS
WATER SUPERINTENDENT, RALPH VAN DUSEN
DEPUTY WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, MIKE SHAW
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, CHRIS ROUND
DIRECTOR BUILDING AND CODES, DAVE HATIN
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING - CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION OF LOW LIFT PUMP REPLACEMENTS AT
TOWN WATER DEPARTMENT
OPENED 7:03 P.M.
NOTICE SHOWN
WATER SUPERINTENDENT, RALPH VAN DUSEN PRESENT
MR. VAN DUSEN, WATER SUPERINTENDENT -Several years ago when we completed the plant
expansion the upgrade from three and a half million to fifteen million gallons a day we determined that it
was probably not practically at that point to modify the existing pumps. Our low lift pumps requirements
take the water from the Hudson River pump it up to the treatment plant. We have three pumps there we
can run one, two, and three, pumps just depending on the volume needed. As part of the plant expansion
one of the pumps was replaced a small one was replaced with a larger pump that could pump up to seven
and a half million gallons a day. The other two pumps were left in placed they can produce up to just over
four million gallons a day each. It was envisioned that it was more economical to leave the smaller pumps
in. They are fifty-horse power instead of a hundred and twenty five horse and it would be cheaper to run to
produce water until we grew to the point where it was essential to upgrade the pumps. We've reached that
point within the next few weeks we will be switching over and starting to supply the Village of Hudson
Falls with water. Right now the schedule looks like late spring or early summer we'll be supplying the
Town of Moreau with water and we just weren't comfortable relying on those twenty five-year-old pumps
to be able to do that. We've gone out to bid to modify the existing intake structure to bring it on line up to
the fifteen million gallons a day, which is the current capacity of the rest of the treatment plant.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Does Hudson Falls or Moreau pay any portion of this?
WATER SUPERINTENDENT, MR. VAN DUSEN-Our current contracts with both communities would
stipulate that they would pay a percentage of that cost based on the percentage of the peak capacity that
they have.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-That's a reasonable request then.
WATER SUPERINTENDENT, MR. VAN DUSEN- That's been clear from the very beginning on our
negotiations.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-What do we do is just bill them Ralph?
WATER SUPERINTENDENT, MR. VANDUSEN-Yes.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-At this time we'll ask if any members of the public have any comment on this
topic to please come forward and state your name, address, and your position on this.
NO PUBLIC COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7:05 P.M.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Ralph how long do you anticipate these pumps will last. In other words is
there going to be another upgrade five years from now?
WATER SUPERINTENDENT, MR. VAN DUSEN-We would expect these pumps would certainly last
twenty-five years would not be unreasonable. They are state of the art motors these are high efficiency
motors so they will be more efficient then the old ones were.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Iffor some reason a miracle should happen and the city buys water from us
will they be sufficient?
WATER SUPERINTENDENT, MR. VAN DUSEN-Actually if we were to sign a contract with the city
tomorrow a new intake building would be required so these would stay we would need an additional intake
building so there is really no connection here at all.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Are you trading the old pumps in or do you keep them first.
WATER SUPERINTENDENT, MR. VANDUSEN-The reality is they have very little value in that regard.
I do not remember the details of the contract whether they belong to us or the contract. From practical
standpoint they really have very little value to us they are too small.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Any other questions for Ralph? Thank you Ralph.
RESOLUTION AWARDING BID FOR GENERAL CONTRACT
IN CONNECTION WITH LOW LIFT PUMP REPLACEMENTS
FOR TOWN WATER DEPARTMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 430, 2000
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 322.2000, the Queensbury Town Board authorized the
advertisement for bids for the construction of low lift pump replacements at the Town's Water Treatment
Plant, Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, the Town's Purchasing Agent duly advertised for bids for the construction work, and
WHEREAS, the Town's Water Superintendent and O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc., the engineers
providing services to the Town in connection with the project, have reviewed all bids received and
recommended that the Town Board award the bid for the general contract to the lowest responsible bidder,
U.W. Marx, Inc., for an amount not to exceed $358,000, and
WHEREAS, the Town's Purchasing Agent concurs with the bid award recommendation,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the construction of low lift
pump replacements at the Town of Queensbury Water Treatment Plant, authorizes funding for the project
and specifically awards the bid for the general contract to U.W. Marx, Inc. for an amount not to exceed
$358,000, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Water Superintendent
to execute any necessary Change Orders in connection with the project in an amount not to exceed $5,000,
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Water Superintendent
and/or Town Supervisor to execute any documentation and take such other and further action as may be
necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
Duly adopted this 6th day of November, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower
NOES
None
ABSENT:None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $358,000 SERIAL BONDS TO FINANCE
CONSTRUCTION OF LOW LIFT PUMP REPLACEMENTS AT TOWN WATER TREATMENT
PLANT
RESOLUTION NO.: 431,2000
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury (Town) has established the Queensbury Consolidated
Water District (District) in accordance with New York State Town Law, and
WHEREAS, low lift pumps located at the Town's Water Treatment Plant are in need of repair
and/or replacement, and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 322.2000, the Queensbury Town Board authorized the
advertisement for bids for the construction of low lift pump replacements at the Town's Water Treatment
Plant and the Town's Purchasing Agent duly advertised for bids for the construction work, and
WHEREAS, the Town's Water Superintendent and O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc., the engineers
providing services to the Town in connection with the project, reviewed all bids received and
recommended that the Town Board award the bid for the general contract to the lowest responsible bidder,
UW. Marx, Inc., for an amount not to exceed $358,000 and the Town's Purchasing Agent concurs with the
bid award recommendation, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board previously determined that it was in the public interest to construct
the low lift pump replacements and therefore scheduled a public hearing concerning the proposed
construction project and expenditure of funds, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board duly held the public hearing and heard all interested persons on
November 6th, 2000, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has adopted a Resolution authorizing the construction project and
awarding the bid to U W. Marx, Inc., with the maximum amount proposed to be expended for the project
to be $358,000 and the Town Board wishes to now authorize financing for the project,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY, WARREN COUNTY, NEW YORK, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The specific object or purpose for which the obligations authorized by this
Resolution are to be issued is the acquisition, construction and installation of low lift pump replacements at
the Town of Queensbury's Water Treatment Plant (the "Project") and such specific object or purpose is
hereby authorized at a maximum estimated cost of Three Hundred Fifty-Eight Thousand Dollars
($358,000).
Section 2.
construct the Project.
The Town Board hereby determines that it is in the public interest to acquire and
Section 3. The plan for the financing of such maximum estimated cost is by the issuance of
up to $358,000 in serial bonds or bond anticipation notes of the Town on behalf of the District and the
Town hereby authorizes the issuance of such bonds and/or notes in accordance with the Local Finance
Law. The proceeds of the bonds or bond anticipation notes may be used to reimburse expenditures paid by
the Town from other funds or otherwise on or after November 6th, 2000, the date of adoption of this
Resolution. The Town may submit applications for grants and/or low interest loans from the New York
State Department of Health/New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund and/or the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development Authority and, to
the extent that any such moneys are received, may apply such funds to the payment of principal and interest
on the bonds or bond anticipation notes. In accordance with Local Finance Las ~107(d)(3)(1), no down
payment from current funds is required.
Section 4. It is hereby determined that the period of probable usefulness of the specific
object or purpose is thirty (30) years, in accordance with Subdivision 4 of paragraph a of Section II of the
Local Finance Law. It is hereby further determined that the maximum maturity of the serial bonds herein
authorized will exceed five (5) years.
Section 5. The faith and credit of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, are
hereby irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of and interest on such obligations as they
become due and payable. An annual appropriation shall be made in each year sufficient to pay the
principal of and interest on such obligations becoming due and payable in such years. There shall annually
be levied on all the taxable property of the District a fee sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on
such obligations as they become due and payable. Each property in the District will pay for debt service
based on the benefit received as calculated in accordance with a formula set by the Town Board.
Section 6. For the purpose of paying the cost of this Project, including related preliminary
and incidental costs, there are hereby authorized to be issued serial bonds of the Town up to a maximum
amount of $358,000, the maximum maturity of which shall not exceed the 30 year period of probable
usefulness set forth above and which shall mature on or before the date of the expiration of the period of
probable usefulness as measured from the date of the bonds or from the date of the first bond anticipation
note issued in anticipation of the sale of such bonds, whichever date is earlier.
Section 7. There are hereby authorized to be issued bond anticipation notes for the specific
object or purpose in an amount up to but not exceeding the $358,000 maximum amount of serial bonds
authorized to be issued in anticipation of the issuance and sale of the serial bonds authorized, including
renewals of such bond anticipation notes.
Section 8. Any bond anticipation notes shall be payable from the proceeds derived from the
sale of the bonds or otherwise redeemed in the manner provided by Local Finance Law ~23.00. The faith
and credit of the Town are hereby irrevocably pledged for the payment of the bond anticipation notes and
the interest on them.
Section 9. There are no bond anticipation notes outstanding which have been previously
issued in anticipation of the sale of these bonds. Neither are the bond anticipation notes hereby authorized
renewal notes. These bond anticipation notes will be issued in anticipation of bonds for an assessable
improvement. These notes shall mature at such time as the Town may determine and may be renewed from
time to time, provided that in no event shall such notes or renewals extend more than one (1) year beyond
the original date of issue except as permitted in the Local Finance Law.
Section 10. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Resolution and of the Local Finance
Law, and in accordance with the provisions of Sections 30.00, 50.00 and 56.00 to 60.00, inclusive, of the
Local Finance Law, the power to authorize bond anticipation notes in anticipation of the issuance of the
serial bonds authorized by this Resolution and the renewal of these notes, and the power to prescribe the
terms, form and contents of the serial bonds and bond anticipation notes and the power to sell and deliver
the serial bonds and bond anticipation notes issued in anticipation of the issuance of the bonds is hereby
delegated to the Town Supervisor, the Chief Fiscal Officer of the Town. The Town Supervisor is hereby
authorized to sign any serial bonds and bond anticipation notes issued in anticipation of the issuance of the
serial bonds and bond anticipations notes issued in accordance with this Resolution by manual signature
and the Town Clerk is hereby authorized to affix or impress or imprint a facsimile of the seal of the Town
to any of the serial bonds or bond anticipation notes and to attest such seal by manual signature. The Town
Supervisor, as Chief Fiscal Officer of the Town, is authorized to execute and deliver any documents and
take such other action as may be necessary and proper to carry out the intent of the provisions of this
Resolution.
Section 11. The exact date of issuance of the bonds and/or notes and the exact date upon
which they shall become due and payable shall be fixed and determined by the Chief Fiscal Officer
provided however, that the maturity of the notes or renewals shall not exceed one (1) year from the date of
issue except as permitted by the Local Finance law.
Section 12. The Chief Fiscal Officer shall prepare the bonds and/or notes and sell them in
accordance with the provisions of the Local Finance Law including, but not limited to, the provisions of
Section 169.00, if applicable, and at such sale shall determine the interest rate to be borne by such bonds
and/or notes.
Section 13. If issued, the notes may be in bearer form and may contain a power to convert to
registered form and shall bear interest at the determined rate.
Section 14. The Chief Fiscal Officer shall deliver the bonds and/or notes to the purchaser
only against a certified check or other immediately available funds. The proceeds of the sale of the bonds
and/or notes shall be deposited and/or invested as required by Section 165.00 of the Local Finance Law and
the power to invest the proceeds of sale is hereby delegated to the Chief Fiscal Officer and the power to
invest in any instruments described in Section 165.00 is expressly granted.
Section 15. To the extent that it is permitted to do so under the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 as amended (Code), the Town hereby designates the bonds and/or notes as "qualified tax-exempt
obligations" under Section 265(b)(3) of the Code. The Town hereby covenants that it will (i) take all
actions on its part necessary to cause interest on the bonds and/or notes to be excluded from gross income
for purposes of Federal income taxes and (ii) refrain from taking any action which would cause interest on
the bonds and/or notes to be included in gross income for purposes of Federal income taxes.
Section 16. Miller, Mannix, Schachner & Hafner, LLC, Glens Falls, New York, is hereby
designated bond counsel.
Section 17. The validity of these serial bonds and bond anticipation notes may be contested
only if:
(4)These obligations are authorized for any object or purpose for which the Town is not authorized to
expend money; or
(5)The provisions of law which should be complied with at the date of the publication of this Resolution
are not substantially complied with and an action, suit, or proceeding contesting such validity is
commenced within twenty (20) days after the date of such publication; or
(6)Such obligations are authorized in violation of the provisions of the State Constitution.
Section 18. The Town Clerk shall publish this Resolution in full or a summary thereof in
The Post -Star, the official newspaper of the Town of Queensbury, together with a notice of the Town Clerk
substantially in the form provided in Local Finance Law ~81.
Section 19. The question of the adoption of this Resolution was duly put to a vote on roll
call which resulted as follows:
AYES
Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brower
NOES
None
ABSENT:None
The Resolution was declared duly adopted by a vote of not less than two-thirds (2/3) of the full
membership of the Town Board.
Dated: November 6, 2000
PUBLIC HEARING - LOCAL LAW TO AMEND SEWERS AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL
OPENED
NOTICE SHOWN
7:11 P.M.
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND CODES, DAVE HATIN PRESENT
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES, MR. HATIN-What you have before you is a request by the board
through Chris Round to my office to draft an amendment to the Sanitary Sewage Regulations to require
manholes on any septic tanks or holding tanks that are placed more than twenty four inches below grade
due to a situation currently at court from what I understand. What you have before you is that draft
language to hold the public hearing on tonight. We did add a clause to it since you set the hearing that
would require pre-manufactured manholes with pre-manufactured covers so basically a person doesn't go
out and buy block and put a wood cover on it. This would be a somewhat permanent structure it would
have a guarantee and also some longevity verses wooden covers, which would probably fail over time with
cement blocks it is required to be pre-manufactured from a precast company.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-At this time I'll open up the public hearing for anyone that would like to
comment on this.
JOHN SALVADOR-Is there any provision for the preventing odors from this sort of thing?
SUPERVISOR BROWER-None that I'm aware of.
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES, MR. HATIN-I don't see this as being an issue. Manholes are
traditionally put on all septic tanks in commercial construction. This mainly applies to residential where it
would be used more than commercial. To be on commercial you have manholes to grade odors is not a
problem it has never been a problem in the thirteen years I've been here.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-As I recall that wasn't the point of the original genesis of this anyhow.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-It was the location of the tank.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Being able to get to it to pump it.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-So the answers no.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I don't think there is going to be an awful lot of these that are going to require
these are there?
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND CODES, MR. HATIN-I wouldn't believe so no this is probably the
exception more than the rule.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Would anyone else in the public care to comment on this? Being none I'll close
the public hearing and ask the board for any input.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7:14 P.M.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I just appreciate the staff turning this around so fast. We've heard this
comment what about two months ago now so I think it deals with the issue.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-The problem on Cedar Court cost the homeowners quite a bit of extra money.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-So at least we avoid that problem happening in the future.
RESOLUTION ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO. 10, OF 2000 TO AMEND CHAPTER 136 OF
QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE ENTITLED "SEWERS AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL" ARTICLE II
ENTITLED "STANDARDS"
RESOLUTION NO. 432, 2000
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. James Martin
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: 10 of
2000 to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 136 entitled "Sewers and Sewage Disposal," Article II
entitled" Standards," which Local Law would require that all new septic or holding tanks installed at a
depth greater than 24" below finished grade have manholes with covers installed to finished grade over the
inlet and outlet covers, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board duly held a public hearing on November 6th, 2000 and heard all
interested persons, and
WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Local Law has been presented at this meeting and is in form
approved by Town Counsel,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board of hereby enacts Local Law No.: 10, of 2000 to
amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 136 entitled "Sewers and Sewage Disposal," Article II entitled
"Standards," as presented at this meeting, 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 acknowledges that the Local Law will take effect immediately upon filing
with the Secretary of State.
Duly adopted this 6th day of November, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Brower
NOES
None
ABSENT:None
LOCAL LAW NO.: 10, OF 2000
A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND CHAPTER 136 OF QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE ENTITLED
"SEWERS AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL" ARTICLE II THEREOF ENTITLED, "STANDARDS"
BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 136-8 of Chapter 136, Article II of the Queensbury Town Code entitled
"Standards," is hereby amended by adding a new subsection "F" as follows:
~ 136-8.
General standards.
A.Only sewage may be discharged into the individual sewage disposal system. Surface and subsurface
water, including roof, cellar, foundation and storm drainage, shall be excluded from such systems and shall
be disposed of so that they will in no way affect the system.
B.No component of a leaching facility shall be located under driveways, roads, parking areas or areas
subject to heavy loading, unless the same has been approved by a New York State licensed engineer and
specifically designed for placement under driveways, roads, parking areas or areas subject to heavy
loading. The foregoing shall not be interpreted to apply to absorption fields, which shall not be built under
driveways, parts of buildings or swimming pools or areas subject to heavy loading. Surface waters shall be
diverted from the vicinity of the system.
C. With reference to the one-hundred-foot minimum setback distance required between water bodies and a
leaching facility, in no case shall any disposal field, seepage pit or other leaching facility be located closer
than one hundred (100) feet from the mean high-water mark of any lake, pond, river or permanent or
intermittent stream.
D . Water wastes known as "graywater" and discharged from dishwashers, laundry machines, sinks, bathtubs
and showers shall not be permitted to be discharged into a separate leaching facility not meeting the
standards for sanitary sewage discharges.
E.All septic tanks must be installed below finished grade of this site within a fifty-foot radius of the
installation. This section is intended to prevent the occurrence of mounding in the area of the tank.
F.All new septic tanks or holding tanks installed at a depth greater than 24" below finished grade are
required to have pre-manufactured manholes with pre-manufactured covers installed to finished grade over
the inlet and outlet covers.
SECTION 2. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph or provision of this Local Law
shall not invalidate any other clause, sentence, paragraph or part thereof.
SECTION 3. All Local Laws or ordinances or parts of Local Laws or ordinances in conflict
with any part of this Local Law are hereby repealed.
SECTION 4. This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing in the Office of the
New York Secretary of State as provided in New York Municipal Home Rule Law~27.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING DKC HOLDING, INC.
NOTICE SHOWN
OPENED 7: 15 P.M.
ATTORNEY JOHN LAPPER AND MATT STEVES REPRESENTING APPLICANT PRESENT
MAP OF AREA SHOWN
ATTORNEY LAPPER-We've been here a couple times to talk about this with the Town Board. If you'll
recall we originally came in asking for the entire ninety-six acre parcel to be rezoned. After taking into
account the issues raised by the board and the economic development people in the Town we revised that
so we're only asking for a small area about twenty-two acres along Sherman Avenue be rezoned to
residential which we think is appropriate in terms of the land use in that area. In keeping the rest for light
industrial in the hopes of working with the Warren County Regional Economic Development Corp. to try
and find some appropriate light industrial tenants for purchasers for that property. The applicant is Larry
Clute who is a well-known builder in the Town for DKC as an entity to own this property he is here tonight
to answer any questions that may come up. I'll just ask Matt to quickly talk about this project and then the
subdivisions in the area. Since we've been here last we've been to the Town Planning Board and the
County Planning Board and they both recommended in favor of this rezoning.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Just for the record do you have any input from Warren Rosenthal?
ATTORNEY LAPPER-Warren's position generally is that he wants the Town to be aware that it is
important to keep enough light industrial property. I sent him a letter in the early summer saying that we
would offer either by way of option or with agreement between Larry Clute and WCREDC that he could
have marketing rights to try and help to create something on that property so we've made that offer to him.
Larry is not in the business yet at least of industrial development so he would look to the County to help to
find tenants for that site, but he's very open to that Larry is hoping that Warren and his group can help find
somebody.
MATT STEVES-Good evening. The property in questioned to be rezoned is about six acres to the north of
the power line that is currently SRI-acre. Then to the south of the power line is about sixteen acres it is
currently light industrial which encompasses the entire twenty two acres that John has mentioned at the
beginning as far as what is already residential is the upper six and a half acres approximately. Then south
of the power line would be the remainder of the twenty-two acres to be rezoned. This property lies on the
south side of Sherman Avenue just to the east of the Smoke Ridge development and opposite Leo and
Howard Street. If anybody is familiar to know where those cross streets are they are basically right
opposite one of them being directly opposite our most easterly entrance there.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Could you go up there and outline the perimeter.
MR. STEVES-Certainly. The area of the currently SR-I acre zone is this area here. This area to the south
of the power of line is the current light industrial zone. The area highlighted in pine here on my map is the
area of the entire holdings ofDKC. We're only talking about this portion here on the northerly end and all
the rest of it is still light industrial one acre. You can see all the lots along Smoke Ridge all the lots to the
north of Sherman Avenue east and west all constitutes single family residential lots all of approximately
fifteen to twenty thousand square feet currently.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-If you deduct that front portion you are talking about how do you access does
that go all the way to Luzerne Road?
MR. STEVES-Yes it does.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-That was when we originally talked you were going to put a road all the way
through over there correct?
MR. STEVES-We left in their proposal a connector to that. This is conceptual there will be some type of
connector into that.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-You have to go through subdivision right?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-One question for us up here didn't we suggest that these go to the Planning
Board for SEQRA?
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Yes.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I'm wondering what happened.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-This particular project there is not an application in for
subdivision. The Planning Board can only take lead agency status when they have an action in front of
them. A rezoning is only a recommendation by the Planning Board and not an action by the Planning
Board.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I understand that. We we're going to have as a general course that the SEQRA
reviews be done even in cases of petition for zone change be accomplished by the Planning Board as a
general. . . .
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Could we do that Mark legally?
TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER-There was discussion of that I do recall that discussion. We can do it
so long as it's a project that at some point in time requires some sort of approval from the Planning Board.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I would say most anything that we would do a SEQRA on such as a rezoning
would require. . . .
TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER-Actually many don't if there is not a project associated with it my
understanding here, however, is there is a subdivision associated with it.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-What would be the purpose ofa rezoning if there wasn't a project?
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-They could just rezone it.
TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER-Actually you do that relatively frequently or somewhat frequently.
Somebody will come along and say I own a certain property it is zoned, I'm just making up an example, it's
zoned industrial I haven't been able to get anybody to use it, sell it, or develop it as industrial I'd like to
zone it commercial. I don't have a particular project in mind, I don't have a purchaser, I don't have a user,
and I don't have a project. That does happen from time to time in that type of situation you couldn't really
involve the Planning Board as a SEQRA Lead Agency because they wouldn't have an application.....
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-They would have no involvement.
TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER-Correct. From what I'm hearing about this project involved
subdivision and I do recall previous discussion by this board about letting the Planning Board be SEQRA
Lead Agency on projects that did involve Planning Board decision making authority. The answer is yes
you can do it as long as the Planning Board has that authority.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-How much of a stumbling block would that be for this project?
ATTORNEY LAPPER-We would ask that if you implemented that rule you would do that subsequent to
this project only because many months have gone by in this project since we've changed this I think this is
probably the third maybe the fourth time we've been before this board. We did go through it with the
Planning Board and they were very positive about it unanimously recommended in favor of the rezoning.
So just procedurally I asked you just because we've been doing this for a while and Larry would like to get
going that now would be a bad time for the project applicant if you decided to change the policy.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I thought we decided to do that back in May.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-I think this is a project that stimulated that conversation that this
came up back in the original proposal of February, March of this year.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-If that's the case then it would have been.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-That's fine but in the future can we do that, does anybody else have a feeling
about that?
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I remember talking about it during the rezoning associated with Mega Save.
COUNCILMAN STEC- That was March, I think it was Mega Save.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-This might have predated that.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Chris do you have any comments regarding the application?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-You have been transmitted previously we provided comments to
the Planning Board as part of the rezoning you should have those in front of you. We've also provided
suggested responses to the Part II, EAF. We do have a copy of the letter from Warren Rosenthal that Karen
has in hand that discussed any loss of light industrial land is significant. However, the Comprehensive Plan
identifies this as a piece of property that should be zoned residential. All the adjoining adjacent properties
are residential with exception to the property south. There are some other issues that we've identified
within the contexts of the EAF that you'll have to contemplate as you move forward through the process.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-What do we have to do about buffers? The remaining land will be light
industrial is that only addressed when an application were to come for an industrial application?
ATTORNEY LAPPER-No because residential has to have a buffer also.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-In both cases both properties require buffer both residential. . ...
SUPERVISOR BROWER-And you are addressing that?
ATTORNEY LAPPER-We've shown the buffer.
MR. STEVES-The dash line in the lower half of the proposed lots in the buffer zone.
ATTORNEY LAPPER-We also talked to the Planning Board at their review that the light industrial side
we understand that the buffer would be larger than the standard buffer required in the Town that would
likely be what they would want and we understand that.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Just to repeat you've taken what was originally a seventy six-acre request and
paired it down to twenty-two acres.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I thought it was ninety something?
MR. STEVES-The total property is, but you have the six acres on the north of the power lines that is
currently residential. What we're talking about is changing that to a different zone, but still a residential
zone. The only area that we're talking about rezoning is sixteen acres from light industrial to residential.
Yes it was scaled down from the entire parcel holdings of about ninety-four acres.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-What happens to all of this here?
ATTORNEY LAPPER-That's already developed residentially other people have homes there.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-How does that affect their homes?
ATTORNEY LAPPER -There would just be a residence in their backyard just like if they were in
subdivision like what we're planning.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-How does somebody get to their lot back here is there a driveway?
ATTORNEY LAPPER- Yes.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Any further questions for Mr. Lapper or Mr. Steves?
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I think we're all set for now.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-In that case I'll ask at this time if anyone here would like to comment on the
proposed rezoning application before us?
MR. BOB VOLLARO-Ijust want to say as far as the time line is concerned on this I think Mark did a very
good job of writing the letter to all of us on the Planning Board about the SEQRA process about two or
three months ago I believe am I correct? If you resurrect that memo that should shed some light on
whether or not we should actually do a SEQRA or not do a SEQRA it was very clearly outlined in Mark's
letter.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Thanks Bob.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Would anyone else care to address the board at this time?
BOB KELLY - 510 SHERMAN AVENUE, QUEENSBURY -Actually, I built my house three years ago
which is on the corner I believe of the westerly access to Sherman Avenue. When I built my house it was
anticipated that a road like this would be put in by the previous owner so I am greatly in favor of this
rezoning because we want to be part of a little residential area. My only concern is I know that they own
property all the way to Luzerne Road and I'm looking down the future when a connector between Luzerne
Road and Corinth Road is put in place there is going to be a lot of traffic going up and down Luzerne Road.
I'm not sure that this is the form I should bring this up at I don't know how many other hearings they are
going to have. This connector road that he is allowing for I think it would be more appropriate for the
whole situation if it was put in the middle of this little half circle so therefore people coming over Luzerne
some of them are going to over to Wintergreen to go up to Peggy Ann would turn right and some going up
Upper Sherman Avenue come down past me and turn left. I like to see half the traffic pass my house then
all of the traffic. I think where I saw it proposed when I came up for the Planning Board meeting it was
pretty much opposite the westerly access to Sherman Avenue. I think it would be more appropriate if it
was kind of in the middle of that little half circle. I don't know what other boards that this is going to be
added where I would express this view other than here maybe you can help me out I'd be glad to come
back. Yes, I'm in favor of this little rezoning naturally I'd rather have residential behind me than light
industrial and I'd like to be on this little development. Again, my concern is down the road anticipating all
the potential traffic there is definitely another crossroad is needed between Luzerne and Sherman there is
no question there I just as soon not have it all going by my house if that's at all possible.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-The answer to your question is we're not approving this lot layout as shown
here.
MR. KELL Y - I realize that. I just wanted to get my feelings out for the future.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I appreciate that and I think that we can maybe address that here in a minute.
You'll have an opportunity to comment on this at the Planning Board. You'll be notified at the preliminary
stage of this application and you have an opportunity then to speak specifically to lot layout and road
placement, but we'll address that here in a minute as well.
MR. KELL Y -Thank you. Yes, my wife and I are definitely in favor of this rezoning.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Anyone else care to address the board on this at this time?
DR. MARK HOFFMAN, FOX HOLLOW LANE-I haven't studied this issue in detailed I'm just a little bit
concerned that it appears to me that at least part of this is currently zoned one acre residential and its being
requested to become half acre residential. I'm not sure what the rational is why they couldn't develop this
as a one acre residential. If they wanted to have smaller lots they could have done a cluster type
subdivision it would have allowed for some open space protection. Again, that was the number one issue
brought up by citizens when they were questioned regarding the last Comprehensive Land Use Plan. I'm
just a little bit leery about wily nilly going around and rezoning things down to small lot sizes when there
are other approaches that might be economically feasible.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Would anyone else like to address the board regarding this rezoning application
at this time? Being none I'll close the public hearing at this time.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7:30 P.M.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Mr. Lapper do you have any redress regarding the acreage?
ATTORNEY LAPPER-First of all the location of that road as Jim Martin said that would be a subdivision
design issue and this is a conceptual plan subject to review and change by the Planning Board. We don't
have a strong feeling where the road goes anyway just something that makes sense for some potential
future development.
COUNCILMAN STEC-In a previous discussion though wasn't a map presented that did have like ajog in
it for the traffic control. . ..
MR. STEVES-That's not a problem we can accommodate that during subdivision. This was one of the first
ones that showed all the zone lines. As far as the subdivision plan itself as long as we provide what we feel
is a necessary cross connection between the two roads we can definitely align it such as it gives us a cross
connection but doesn't allow a straight through traffic problem that's not a problem we'll address that at the
Planning Board.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-You said that the area in question here is shown in pink on this particular map.
MR. STEVES-The whole parcel is.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-You'll take some care in trying to look at the alignment of the propose streets
with the streets that are across the road here like Stephanie Lane and things like that.
MR. STEVES-Yes.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I'm not a big advocate of misalignments of sections. I just think to be
responsive to questions we've heard during the public hearing could you get into a little greater detail as to
why you chose a particular lot size that you are indicating and your rationale behind that.
ATTORNEY LAPPER-I was just about to respond to Dr. Hoffman's comments. In this area of Town it
seems more appropriate to us that half-acre lots are more in keeping with the norm in terms of what we
have there and just in terms of affordable homes that it just lowers the price. There are a lot of beautiful
one acre lots in the Town and we think these will be very nice half acre lots, but just that this is keeping
with what's already there and that whole area. I think Matt's map shows you the size of the lots in many of
those subdivisions that are right there.
MR. STEVES-Most of the abutting subdivisions are fifteen thousand.. ...one third acres lots. The half-acre
lots, as a matter of fact that's the minimum size, but you can see in the loop road most of those end up being
quite a bit larger than the twenty thousand, twenty three, twenty four thousand square feet. Twenty
thousand is not a problem it is more than consistent with what is in the area.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Just for the benefit of the audience Matt could you show the proximity to the
mobile home overlay zone up there. For the benefit of everybody else because obviously we're dealing
with much smaller lot size pattern there and this adjoins it on the large part of the. . . ..
MR. STEVES-As far as the mobile home overlay zone our lots here in pink being the entire parcel owned
by DKC Holdings. To the south and east the East Side is all mobile home overlay and to the south is all
mobile home overlay zone. Probably and area about two and a half times the size about twice the size of
our entire holdings.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-You said this is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan in terms of
the rezoning requested?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Any other input from the board?
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Chris just for the record staff position, recommendations?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-We recommended approval of the rezoning. The
Comprehensive Plan processes are where those kinds of recommendations take place. Most of the area
north of Sherman Avenue is ten, fifteen thousand square foot lot sizes. Site conditions generally support
higher intense development its one of the better area in Town good sandy soil. We're still remised about
any loss of light industrial. . ...I would like to hope that light industrial activity would take place in this area
it's not high at this time and that we're focusing on other areas of Town for industrial development.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-In that regard I'd like to be a little aggressive about this a little pro-active. I
know Larry Clute is a community minded person any time I have ever talked to him. I'd like to suggest that
through Chris an arrangement be made to be put on the QEDC agenda and go before that body and actively
pursue some job development on that site and see what could be done. We'd certainly be happy to support
a Small Cities application we're trying to get things done down in that area. I just make that as a suggestion
to see what can be done to really get that in the works rather than just speak to it and give it lip service.
ATTORNEY LAPPER-I mentioned Warren County Economic Development just because between the two
entities QEDC has taken the position that it should defer to Warren County in terms of the marketing, but
working together on land in Queensbury.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I just see it as our local organization here and first point of local contact.
ATTORNEY LAPPER-Sure we will get on the agenda.
COUNCILMAN BREWER- I have one other item Dennis.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Jonathan did you talk to Mr. Drellos as to that piece of property that abuts the
bigger piece?
MR. STEVES-The piece to the north side of Drellos's that abuts Sherman Avenue?
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yeah.
MR. STEVES-I talked to Mr. Drellos told him that I'd be here at the meeting tonight and that if that came
up, yes I have talked to him and yes he would be willing to do that as far as rezoning that to the light
industrial.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-That's right next to the Northway it's a good spot to get out of there.
MR. STEVES-He would actually like it to be.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-If we're in the contexts of a Town wide rezoning that would be a good change
to make.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-That was also identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
MR. STEVES-That's correct and he's in favor of that and would be more than happy to make an application
for them.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN- I would suggest that it be reflected on that proposed zoning map. If we have
agreement of the property owner then we don't have a loss here.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Number 8 on the SEQRA do we have that mapped or is there a plan to map it?
ATTORNEY LAPPER -There were two very small areas on the power line that don't have butterflies but
they have blue lupine so those would have to be protected as part of the process.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-That will be in your subdivision plan to protect those sites? Did we ever get a
complete map of the sites?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-Jim has a copy in his hand.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Didn't we get some money from the Michael's Group to do this?
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-In 1998 this was money that came from Curtis Lumber.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Do we have copies of that Chris?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-In our office we have copies of it. We are also building a GIS
layer to show those habitat areas. Just for the public benefit this was part of the Curtis Lumber project back
in 1997 funded a study for DEC to identify the Kamer Blue Butterfly habitat which is the Blue Lupine.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-He's got them right by tax map here the patches.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Is there one simple map that you... ...
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-We do have a large format map that does identify that in our
office.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Can we reduce that so....
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-You lose the detail it's a pretty large area. When projects come
in we refer to that map to make sure that we've identified those areas.
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, PART II
IMPACT ON LAND
1. Will the proposed action result in physical change to the project site: NO
Examples that would apply to column 2
Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the
general slopes in the project area exceed 1O%.
Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet.
Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles.
Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground
surface.
Construction that will continue for more then I year or involve more than one phase or stage.
Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e.,
rock or soil) per year.
Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill.
Construction in a designated floodway.
Other impacts:
2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes,
geological formations, etc.) NO
Specific land forms:
IMPACT ON WATER
3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? NO
Examples that would apply
Developable area of site contains a protected water body.
Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream.
Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body.
Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland.
Other impacts:
4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? NO
Examples that would apply
A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre
increase or decrease.
Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area.
Other impacts:
5. Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? NO
Examples that would apply
Proposed action will require a discharge permit.
Proposed action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed
(project) action.
Proposed action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute
pumping capacity.
Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system.
Proposed action will adversely affect groundwater.
Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have
inadequate capacity.
Proposed action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day.
Proposed action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the
extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions.
Proposed action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100
gallons.
Proposed action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services.
Proposed action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of
existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities.
Other impacts:
6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? NO
Examples that would apply
Proposed action would change flood water flows.
Proposed action may cause substantial erosion.
Proposed action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns.
Proposed action will allow development in a designated floodway.
Other impacts:
IMPACT ON AIR
7. Will proposed action affect air quality? NO
Examples that would apply
Proposed action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour.
Proposed action will result in the incineration of more than I ton of refuse per hour.
Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more
than 10 million BTU's per hour.
Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use.
Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing
industrial areas.
Other impacts:
IMP ACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
8. Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? YES
Examples that would apply
Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or
near site or found on the site. POTENTIAL LARGE IMP ACT - CAN IMP ACT BE MITIGATED BY
PROJECT CHANGE - YES
Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. POTENTIAL LARGE
IMPACT - CAN IMPACT BE MITIGATED BY PROJECT CHANGE - YES
Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes.
Other impacts:
9. Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? NO
Examples that would apply
Proposed action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or
wildlife species.
Proposed action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of
age) or other locally important vegetation.
IMP ACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES
10. Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? NO
Examples that would apply
The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland,
hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.)
Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land.
The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, if
located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land.
The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land management
systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g.
cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff)
Other impacts:
IMP ACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
II. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? NO
Examples that would apply
Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current
surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural.
Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will
eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource.
Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views
known to be important to the area.
Other impacts:
IMP ACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOCIAL RESOURCES
12. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological
importance? NO
Examples that would apply
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or
site listed on the State or National Register of historic places.
Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site.
Proposed action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS
Site Inventory.
Other impacts:
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
13. Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational
opportunities? NO
Examples that would apply
The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity.
A major reduction of an open space important to the community.
Other impacts:
IMP ACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
14. Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental
area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14 (g)? NO
List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA.
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? NO
Examples that would apply
Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods.
Proposed action will result in major traffic problems.
Other impacts:
IMP ACT ON ENERGY
16. Will proposed action affect the community's sources offuel or energy supply? NO
Examples that would apply
Proposed action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of energy in the
municipality.
Proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system
to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use.
Other impacts:
NOISE AND ODOR IMP ACTS
17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? NO
Examples that would apply
Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility.
Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day).
Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise
outside of structures.
Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen.
Other impacts:
IMP ACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
18. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? NO
Examples that would apply
Proposed action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil,
pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic
low level discharge or emission.
Proposed action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous,
highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.)
Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other flammable
liquids.
Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used
for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste.
Other impacts:
IMP ACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
19. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? NO
Examples that would apply
The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to
grow by more than 5%.
The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5%
per year as a result of this project.
Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals.
Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use.
Proposed action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic
importance to the community.
Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and
fire, etc.)
Proposed action will set an important precedent for future projects.
Proposed action will create or eliminate employment.
Other impacts:
20.Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?
NO
If Any Action in Part 2 is identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude
of Impact, Proceed to Part 3
PART 3 - EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS
RESPONSIBILITY OF LEAD AGENCY
Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impacts(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the
impacts(s) may be mitigated.
Instructions
Discuss the following for each impact identified in Colunm 2 of Part 2:
I.Briefly describe the impact.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-A potential reduction in those species mainly the Kamer Blue Butterfly and a
removal of part of that habitat for the Kamer Blue.
2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by
project change(s).
COUNCILMAN STEC- The impact would be mitigated through the planning process.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-More specifically than that, I would propose that the habitat area be delineated
on the survey. That area not be disturbed and the Planning Board give consideration maybe to some buffer
of that area.
2.Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important.
To answer the question of importance, consider:
?The probability of the impact occurring - With mitigation it is improbable.
?The duration of the impact - If mitigation plan is followed the impact is not important.
?Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value - If mitigation plan is followed the impact
is not important.
?Whether the impact can or will be controlled - It can be controlled it is not going to disturb the area.
?The regional consequence of the impact - With mitigation none.
?Its potential divergence from local needs and goals - The mitigation is consistent with the local needs and
goals. This is what we are trying to avoid is any divergence from our reported Kamer Blue habitat areas.
?Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. - There are none.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Would conclude that's of minor importance with the mitigation that we're
proposing, Town Board in agreement.
DISCUSSION HELD
COUNCILMAN STEC-Noted his concern for the density and half acre lot as opposed to one-acre lot
noting he is not sure he is comfortable going down to the small lot size.
ATTORNEY LAPPER-Part of it is just in terms of what is going to be saleable in that area. We have areas
that were mentioned that are up to ten thousand square feet. There are a lot of very small homes in that
areas as Mr. Steves pointed out a lot of these lots are in excessive of twenty thousand square feet. To go to
one-acre zoning because of the cost of putting in the road for one-acre lots you have to build larger more
expensive homes. This is a very nice residential area, but in terms of one-acre lots whether you are going
to build the size and cost of homes for one acre lots it seems more appropriate based upon what's in that
area that something in the half acre size is going to be saleable.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Noted he generally doesn't like half lots prefers one-acre lots.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Noted he supports the action. (1) That being what he sees in the existing land
use patterns in that area very much influenced by the mobile home adjoining this. (2) The recently enacted
Land Use Plan.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AMENDING ZONING
ORDINANCE TO CHANGE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY DKC HOLDING, INC.
FROM LI-IA (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL - ONE ACRE) AND
SR-IA (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL - ONE ACRE) TO
SFR-20 (SINGLE F AMIL Y RESIDENTIAL - 20,000 SQUARE FEET)
RESOLUTION NO. 433, 2000
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. James Martin
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board is considering a request by DKC Holding, Inc. to
amend the Town Zoning Ordinance and Map to rezone property bearing Tax Map No.: 93-2-20 and
located south of Sherman Avenue, north of Luzerne Road, Queensbury from LI-IA (Light Industrial- One
Acre) and SR-IA (Suburban Residential- One Acre) to SFR-20 (Single Family Residential- 20,000 Square
Feet), and
WHEREAS, on or about August 7th, 2000, the Town Board adopted a Resolution authorizing
submission of the rezoning application to the Town's Planning Board for report and recommendation, and
WHEREAS, on or about September 26th, 2000, the Queensbury Planning Board considered the
proposed rezoning and made a positive recommendation to the Town Board to approve the rezoning
application, and
WHEREAS, on or about September 13th, 2000, the Warren County Planning Board recommended
approval of the proposed rezoning, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board duly conducted a public hearing concerning the proposed rezoning
on November 6th, 2000, and
WHEREAS, as SEQRA Lead Agency, the Town Board has reviewed a Long Environmental
Assessment Form to analyze potential environmental impacts of the proposed rezoning, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has considered the conditions and circumstances of the area affected
by the rezoning,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby determines that the proposed rezoning will
not have any significant environmental impact and a SEQRA Negative Declaration is made, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby amends the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance
and Map to rezone property owned by DKC Holding, Inc. bearing Tax Map No.: 93-2-20 and located
south of Sherman Avenue, north of Luzerne Road, Queensbury from LI-IA (Light Industrial- One Acre)
and SR-IA (Suburban Residential- One Acre) to SFR-20 (Single Family Residential- 20,000 Square Feet),
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to
arrange with a surveyor to update the official Town Zoning Map to reflect this change of zone, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to send a copy of
this Resolution to the Warren County Planning Board, Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals,
Town of Queensbury Planning Board and any agency involved for SEQRA purposes, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, in accordance with the requirements of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance
Article XIII and Town Law ~265, the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to publish
a certified copy of the zoning changes in the Glens Falls Post-Star within five (5) days and obtain an
Affidavit of Publication, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that this amendment shall take effect upon filing in the Town Clerk's Office.
Duly adopted this 6th day of November, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower
NOES
None
ABSENT: None
QEDC ACCOMPLISHMENTS 2000 & GOALS FOR 2001
BELA MUSITS, KATE DUBOIS PRESENT
Presentation made by Mr. Musits regarding QEDC 200 I Budget Proposal the following topics were
discussed.
I.QEDC Mission
2.Year 2000 Strategic Initiatives
3.Year 2000 Tactical Plan
4.Year 2000 Actions Regional Approach
5.Year 2000 Actions Infrastructure & site Development
6.Year 2000 Actions Job Retention and Growth
7.Year 2000 Actions On Hold
8.Year 2001 Major New Initiation
9.Year 2001 Continuing Initiatives
RESOLUTION ENTERING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH
RESOLUTION NO. 434, 2000
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. James Martin
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and
moves into the Queensbury Board of Health.
Duly adopted this 6th day of November, 2000, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower
Noes: None
AbsentNone
PUBLIC HEARING - APPROVING SEWAGE VARIANCE JOHN BOWEN
NOTICE SHOWN
DEBBIE SCIARRATTA REPRESENTING MR. BOWEN PRESENT
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES, MR. HATIN-Just to explain why this variance is before the
board. Approximately two years ago a septic application was submitted to my office by a local engineer on
behalf of Mr. Bowen that showed that the septic system was entirely on the property owned by Mr. Bowen
and in fact was ten feet within the property boundaries. Approximately two or three months ago I was
notified by Ciba Geigy that the septic system installed was in fact twelve feet onto the Ciba Geigy property
and a fence line that had been assumed to be the property line was not the property line. At that particular
time, I contacted Mr. Bowen I also contacted Town Counsel and was advised in order to make the current
septic application we had in our office that we had inspected and approved legal we would have to send it
for a variance. Mr. Bowen is in here tonight with his representative asking you to approve a variance to
allow his system to be twelve feet on the Ciba Geigy property. In the file you should have a letter from
Ciba Geigy who is authorizing that to happen and also is providing an easement to Mr. Bowen to allow that
system to stay where it is. This is basically a housekeeping issue as far as the Town is concerned. We
relied on a map stamped by an engineer assumed that the survey was accurate and it was not.
COUNCILMAN STEC-Mark can we grant a variance on somebody else's property?
TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER-We're not explicitly, although that's the affect of this if the Board of
Health grants the variance. What you are authorizing the existing system that does not comply with the
setback required. As far as going onto the neighboring property owners property as Dave indicates there is
a letter dated August 23rd, from the Counsel for Ciba Geigy saying that Ciba Geigy is willing to grant him
meaning Mr. Bowen an easement if he can establish that it's not possible to place the entire system within
his property boundaries that's the standard to get the variance. If you agree with that position and authorize
the variance then apparently Ciba Geigy is willing to authorize the easement and that should cover the
problem of the neighboring property owner.
COUNCILMAN STEC-So in affect we would be giving twenty-two feet of relief.
TOWN COUNSEL, MR. SCHACHNER-Ten this way and twelve this way, correct.
COUNCILMAN STEC-For my own personal edification who is the surveyor involved I want to know who
not to hire.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-William Montgomery's name is on the stamped plans.
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES, MR. HATIN-Ifyou look on that plan you'll also see a stamp that
was designed by Paul Dusek several years ago I think Jim you might have been in Community
Development at that time. We had the same situation where a person had put a septic system in when I
went out to inspect it we found out it did not meet the setbacks.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Designed by who?
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES, MR. HATIN-Paul Dusek there is a stamp on there that says, to
the best of their knowledge they state that basically all the property lines any structures it should be on that
page somewhere on the bottom I believe it may be on another sheet that is in my office. They sign
basically saying that what they are submitting is a true representation of the property that's the reason that
stamp was put on. That stamp is put on every septic application that comes through my office. Typically
we don't get surveys for septic systems.....
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Why would we have an Attorney stamp that?
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES, MR. HATIN-That was a request of the previous Town Board
because of a situation that happened before. Not similar to this but a situation that happened where they
felt they wanted to put liability back on the applicant. That stamp is what Paul Dusek designed we now
have the applicants sign when they submit their applications. The other thing you should understand is for
I would say ninety percent of the septic system that go through our office surveys are not submitted we do
not have accurate surveys. It would be about another three or four hundred maybe five hundred-dollar
expense to homeowners of low income as well as moderate income. That has never been a policy of my
office we rely on the owner to tell us where the property lines are.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-If Ciba Geigy wasn't as good a neighbor and willing to give them an easement
they'd be in deep trouble.
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES, MR. HATIN-Yes they would. The establishment probably would
not be able to operate because the septic system will not fit on their property.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Any other questions from the board? Any other comments from the applicant?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-What happens if this business changes hands does that go with the easement
part of the property forever?
TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER-Generally speaking this sort of easement does what's called, run with
the land. If Ciba Geigy does not grant easement in a manner that runs with the plan then that would be a
problem for any subsequent owner of the property. That would be revealed in a title search if somebody
were buying the property they would look at the easement in the real property records and if the easement
didn't run with the land you would presumably not want to buy the land.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
ATTORNEY JOHN LAPPER-My firm is local counsel to Ciba Geigy. I would ask that on behalf of Ciba
Geigy that the resolution be conditioned upon the execution of a formal Easement Agreement. Ciba Geigy
has proposed that but it has not come back signed yet from the applicant. Ciba Geigy is concerned that this
variance be conditioned upon the actual easement being signed. Terms and conditions there just in terms of
maintenance that it be prepared by a license engineer because it's on Ciba Geigy property they want to
make sure that it is properly taken care of. I would ask you to condition your approval on the execution of
an agreement between the parties.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you Mr. Lapper.
JOHN SALVADOR-Is this a situation where maybe a holding tank could solve the problem.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-An easement will solve the problem.
MR. SALVADOR-Providing you will grant a variance. Instead of a variance you could allow this facility
to go onto a holding tank.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-I don't know of a commercial facility with a holding tank.
MR. SAL V ADOR- We are a commercial facility and we have a holding tank it's the best thing it's low use
that's what holding tanks are for low intensity use.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-A restaurant bar I wouldn't think would be low use.
MR. SALVADOR-The Alqonquin on Lake George is on a holding tank. The Tahoe Motel on Lake George
is on a holding tank.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-But they have no other choice.
MR. SALVADOR-Maybe this facility has no other choice.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-If they don't get an easement they won't have another choice.
MR. SALVADOR-If they don't get your variance they don't have any other choice.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Right. Any other comments from the public at this time regarding this potential
variance? Chris any comment from staff?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-Dave is staff in regards to sewage disposal variances.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Dave you are recommending this?
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES, MR. HATIN-I'm not recommending I'm just telling the board
based on size of the system that was designed by Mr. Montgomery without this easement they cannot
proceed. They will most likely be shut down have to redesign the system come back with a different type
varIance or. . ..
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Do we have any indication from the applicants duly authorized representative
about signing the easement agreement.
MS. SCIARRATTA-I'm sure Mr. Bowen would sign an easement agreement.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-At this time if there is no further comment from the public I'll close the public
hearing and ask for board member comment.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:26 P.M.
DISCUSSION HELD
COUNCILMAN BREWER-If this is granted are we assured this system will work?
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES, MR. HATIN-This system has been in there for two years.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-What's the desire of the board?
TOWN COUNSEL, MR. SCHACHNER-Do you want to include any condition about the easement
agreement?
TOWN BOARD-Yes.
TOWN COUNSEL, MR. SCHACHNER-I would propose that we add to the resolution at the very end this
is the language as follows. That this approval is contingent upon execution of an Easement Agreement in
recordable form between the parties. The following resolution was passed.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE APPLICATION OF JOHN BOWEN
RESOLUTION NO.: BOH 36, 2000
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. James Martin
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, John Bowen filed an application for a variance from provisions of the Town of
Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, such application requesting that the Local Board of
Health authorize an existing septic system installed on Mr. Bowen's property and extending across his
property line a distance of twelve feet (12') into adjacent property, instead of installing the system at the
required ten feet (10') setback from the property line on property located at 7 Boulevard, Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, the Town Clerk's Office published the Notice of Public Hearing in the Town's
official newspaper and the Local Board of Health conducted a public hearing concerning the variance
request on November 6th, 2000, and
WHEREAS, the Town Clerk advises that property owners within 500 feet of the subject property
have been duly notified,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED,
i) that due to the nature of the variance, it is felt that the variance would not be materially detrimental to the
purposes and objectives of this Ordinance or to other adjoining properties or otherwise conflict with the
purpose and objectives of any plan or policy of the Town of Queensbury; and
j) that the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use
of the land and that the variance granted is the minimum variance which would alleviate the specific
unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health to affect the applicant; and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health hereby approves the
application of John Bowen for a variance from the Sewage Disposal Ordinance to authorize an existing
septic system on Mr. Bowen's property and extending across his property line a distance of twelve feet (12')
into adjacent property, instead of installing the system at the required ten feet (10') setback from the
property line on property located at 7 Boulevard, Queensbury and bearing Tax Map No.: 113.-1-5.1. That
this approval is contingent upon execution of an easement agreement in recordable form between the
parties.
Duly adopted this 6th day of November, 2000 by the following vote:
AYES :Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brower
NOES : None
ABSENT:None
PUBLIC HEARING - APPROVING SEWAGE VARIANCE - GEORGE HEARST
NOTICE SHOWN
OPENED 8:30 P.M.
TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING MR. HEARST PRESENT
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES, MR. HATIN-I'lljust explain the reason for the variance and then
Tom can get into any design questions you may have. Mr. Hearst purchased this property last year I
believe or the beginning of this year and in doing so wanted to renovate the existing camp that is on the
property. Part of these zoning regulations require that if you expand the floor area during a remodeling or
alternation that you must upgrade the septic system to today's standards. Mr. Hearst took what was a three-
season porch and turned it into living area, which triggered the zoning requirement for an upgrade septic
system. They investigated the existing septic system found out that it was undersized for the number of
bedrooms on the property and Mr. Hearst has decided to go ahead and install a newer conforming system.
However, due to the soil conditions he needs a variance from the two hundred-foot setbacks because this
will be a filled system and Mr. Jarrett can get into the specifics of that.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Do I see an existing well here right next to...
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES, MR. HATIN-That's to be abandoned.
MR. JARRETT -Yes you do there is a detail on the plans for abandoning that in accordance with A WW A
Standards.
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES, MR. HATIN-It is also a well that has never been used it contains
methane gas and no water.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Where are they going to get their water from?
MR. JARRETT-Out of the lake.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Really.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Tom do you wish to comment on this.
MR. JARRETT -Actually Dave explained it very well. When we investigated the existing system we found
that it was undersized and located in soils that were not conducive to good operation of a system. In order
to build a system that would comply with current standards we'd have to raise it and build as fill system as
Dave said. In order to do that we recommended moving it as far to the east as possible to get the maximum
setbacks to Lake George. The only area that was available was less than two hundred feet from Lake
George your standard call for two hundred feet. We are now approximately a hundred and sixty feet and
that's the best we can do we need relief of approximately forty feet. We do comply with the vertical
separation requirements to seasonal high ground water or boundary condition, which in this case is a hard
pan layer. We've provided a design in the northeasterly corner of the property as Jim said it is adjacent to
an old well that will be abandoned in accordance with industry standards.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-What is going to be your vertical separation?
MR. JARRETT -A minimum of three feet is called for we are actually exceeding that slightly.
COUNCILMAN STEC-Is a holding tank considered?
MR. JARRETT -I don't find a holding tank preferably to be honest with you. It is very expensive future
owners usually try to find alternate methods some of them legal and some of them illegal for sewage
disposal I think this is a better solution to be honest with you.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-There are no standards that govern drawing household water from an untreated
surface water body?
MR. JARRETT-It is not a public water supply so they can draw water from the lake. It is drawn from the
lake right now they plan on continuing that this well was not used and the neighbors in the area also draw
from the lake.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Okay.
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES, MR. HATIN-A majority of the residents on Lake George draw
from the lake.
MR. JARRETT-Quite a few of them do. Jim they can certainly treat it in accordance with Department of
Health Standards to provide a safe water supply should they chose there is no law against drawing that
water.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I know, but typically it's not treated.
MR. JARRETT-Many people are going to treatment systems these days on Lake Water not everyone, but
many people are.
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES, MR. HATIN-Everyone we've seen so far Jim has some type of
either ultra violet or filter type system on it. I've never seen one that's straight from the lake into the tap.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-At this time I'd like to open up the public hearing and ask if anyone in the
audience would like to comment on this application before us?
NO PUBLIC COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Is they're another place on this lands you can put a well?
MR. JARRETT-They can certainly go down towards the lake shore in the southwesterly corner of the
property.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-My only thought would be what if at some point they can't draw drinking
water out of the lake?
MR. JARRETT-They would have the option of drawing a well there. They could actually obtain an
easement on lands to the east right now that's not available to them, but there is a potential for that in the
future if necessary. On the southwestern corner of the property they could drill a well on the eastern
portion which they don't own at the moment or they could treat the lake water. They are not using that
current well now anyway.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Is this a year round occupancy?
MR. JARRETT -It is not proposed for that that I'm aware of.
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES, MR. HATIN-It is being renovated for year round use, but I think
there intent is seasonal right now.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-It doesn't prevent them from being year round.
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES, MR. HATIN-It will be year round use when they are done they
don't live here they live elsewhere.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-What type of soils are there now Tom?
MR. JARRETT-The upper three feet are basically good granular soils loamy sands below that I think the
shallowest is thirty eight inches there is a hard pan layer that's why we raised the system to get above that.
The right hand side of sheet number one is the subsurface investigation that we performed and I think you'll
see those soil conditions listed.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Is there any development to the south of this house on the next lot?
MR. JARRETT-Yes there is residential development on the north and south.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-And they can still achieve proper separation distances from a leach bed if they
locate a well on the southwest corner?
MR. JARRETT-Yes I talked with the property owner and that's correct.
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES, MR. HATIN-Separation is only a hundred feet, too.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I know that they can get the hundred feet?
SUPERVISOR BROWER-I know for a good part of this year we've suggested or insisted on holding tanks
especially when people were on like lakes and had a problem.
COUNCILMAN STEC- That's how I remembered it, too. I think that's a more conservative route myself.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I'm not bothered by the leach bed here I think a hundred and fifty feet
separation or a hundred and sixty from the lake. . .
COUNCILMAN TURNER-That's pretty adequate.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-There has been all sorts of studies around about how far you have to be back
from the lake shore before you start having leakage getting into the lake. As long as they can get a well in
there I just don't see that as a long-term viable option drawing water out of the lake for drinking water.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-That was my point about putting the well on that...
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-If they can achieve a well location there that meets all the separation distances I
think that's going to be they're long term solution. Just speaking for me the location of system here doesn't
bother me. The two hundred feet I think is a lot of over kill in that separation distance myself. That well
location as long as they can achieve a well location speaking for me.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-What's the wishes of the board?
COUNCILMAN TURNER-I'm satisfied with the proposition just the way it is as Jim says pick up a well
later fine.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-So I guess I'm okay with this speaking for me I agree with Ted.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-And Ted said what?
COUNCILMAN STEC-He is comfortable with it.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I would like to see a location for a well on there.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-I don't think we can determine that Tim. I think they can draw from the lake a
lot of people do draw from the lake on a regular basis.
COUNCILMAN STEC-Should we condition approval on the abandonment of that well they are saying it is
going to be abandoned.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Definitely.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I think that's probably a wise move.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-I still prefer a holding tank myself.
COUNCILMAN STEC-I think it's a better way to go and it's consistent with other things we've done. I'm
not saying that I'm totally against this I'm just saying if I had my druthers if it was up to me and I was King
for a day I'd say I rather have the holding tank.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Mr. Turner moves for approval of this variance.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Seconded by Mr. Martin.
DEPUTY TOWN CLERK O'BRIEN-Don't you want to put a condition in.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-The well be abandoned.
TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER-Be it further resolved, that this approval is contingent upon the
applicants abandonment of the existing well.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE APPLICATION OF GEORGE
HEARST
RESOLUTION NO.: BOH 37, 2000
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. James Martin
WHEREAS, George Hearst filed an application for a variance from provisions of the Town of
Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, such application requesting that the Local Board of
Health authorize Mr. Hearst to install a new fill or built-up system one-hundred sixty feet:!: (160':!:) from
Lake George instead of the required two-hundred feet (200') setback on property located at Lake Parkway,
Assembly Point, in the Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, the Town Clerk's Office published the Notice of Public Hearing in the Town's
official newspaper and the Local Board of Health conducted a public hearing concerning the variance
request on November 6th, 2000, and
WHEREAS, the Town Clerk advises that property owners within 500 feet of the subject property
have been duly notified,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED,
k) that due to the nature of the variance, it is felt that the variance would not be materially detrimental to
the purposes and objectives of this Ordinance or to other adjoining properties or otherwise conflict with the
purpose and objectives of any plan or policy of the Town of Queensbury; and
I) that the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use
of the land and that the variance granted is the minimum variance which would alleviate the specific
unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health to affect the applicant; and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health hereby approves the
application of George Hearst for a variance from the Sewage Disposal Ordinance to allow Mr. Hearst to
install a new fill or built -up system one-hundred sixty feet:!: (160':!:) from Lake George instead of the
required two-hundred feet (200') setback on property located at Lake Parkway, Assembly Point, in the
Town of Queensbury and bearing Tax Map No.: 8-1-13,
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that this approval is contingent upon the applicants abandonment of the existing well.
Duly adopted this 6th day of November, 2000 by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner
NOES
Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower
ABSENT: None
DECLARING HEALTH HAZARD & SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPERTY OWNED BY
ROBERT & KIM NORTHGARD
DISCUSSION HELD
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES, DAVE HATIN PRESENT
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES, MR. HATIN-Just briefly this is an abandoned property owned by
Robert & Kim Northgard. Mr. Northgard as far as I know is down is South Carolina, North Carolina. The
whereabouts of his wife I have heard is still in the area; however, she refuses to acknowledge any dealings
with the property. I did send a certified letter, which was returned two days later undeliverable to the
address, which shows on the property tax records.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Is this the house right across from Webb Graphics?
DIRECTOR OF BUILDINGS & CODES, MR. HATIN-Yes it is. The garage is basically full of about two
feet of garbage and rubbish. I would say a large ten to fifteen yard dump truck full of garbage and rubbish.
I'm not sure how long it's been there it was brought to my attention approximately three or four weeks ago.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-We have any pictures Dave?
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES, MR. HATIN-Yes I do. Also in the file there is a letter from Dr.
Evans, Health Officer.
The following resolution was passed.
RESOLUTION DECLARING A HEALTH HAZARD AND SETTING HEARING ON PROPERTY
OWNED BY ROBERT AND KIM NORTHGARD
(TAX MAP NO.: 147-1-10.1)
RESOLUTION NO. BOH 38, 2000
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. James Martin
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, David Hatin, Town of Queensbury Director of Building and Codes Enforcement, has
advised the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health that he has received a complaint about a large
amount of garbage in the garage on property located at 425 Corinth Road, Queensbury (Tax Map No.:
147 -1-10.1), owned by Robert and Kim Northgard, and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hatin has investigated and inspected the property and has advised the Local
Board of Health that there is a large amount of garbage and rubbish in the garage and therefore, in his
opinion, the property is a health hazard and nuisance to the neighborhood and the structure is unfit for
human occupancy and unsafe to the general public and therefore Mr. Hatin strongly recommends that the
Board of Health take action if the property owners fail to clean-up and secure the property as more
specifically set forth in Mr. Hatin's letter dated October 3rd, 2000, and
WHEREAS, Robert L. Evans, D.O., the Town's Public Health Officer, has advised the Town by
letter dated November 2nd, 2000 that in his opinion the property is a health hazard and public nuisance, and
therefore has recommended that the property be cleaned up and the garbage removed immediately,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that after reviewing all of the evidence presented at this time, the Town of
Queensbury Local Board of Health is of the opinion that property owned by Robert and Kim Northgard
bearing Tax Map No.: 147-1-10.1 and located at 425 Corinth Road, Queensbury appears to be a potential
object of attraction to rodents and animals, a nuisance, health hazard, unsafe and dangerous and therefore
the garbage and rubbish should be removed from the garage and the property secured and cleaned up, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the property owners shall commence cleaning-up and securing the property
within 30 days of receipt of notice from the Town and complete the work within 60 days thereafter unless
good cause is shown by the Northgards or other interested persons whereupon the Town Board shall
consider a time extension and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health shall conduct a hearing
concerning the property owned by Robert and Kim Northgard on November 20th, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the
Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Director of Building and
Codes Enforcement to serve a notice setting forth its determinations upon the property owner or his
executors, legal representatives, agents, lessees, or any person having a vested or contingent interest in the
property, the contents, service and filing of the notice to be in accordance with the New York Public Health
Law.
Duly adopted this 6th day of November, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower
NOES
None
ABSENT :None
DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE:
COUNCILMAN BREWER-How fast can we get this done?
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES, MR. HATIN-That probably leads to my question. There is an
emergency provision in the Health Law after three days notice does that have to take place after the hearing
or I assume we still have to wait for the twentieth?
TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER-If it's truly deemed a public health emergency you do have what are
called Summary Abatement Powers to do something sooner. As Counsel I'm not comfortable
recommending that on the basis on a Public Health Officer Report that appears to indicate that the Public
Health Officer did not visit the property. Unless I'm misreading it the Public Health Officers report
addressed to Dave says, based on your site visit meaning Dave's site visit.
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES, MR. HATIN-He did tell me he was going to visit the property
that was to expedite it get it into the resolution by last Thursday. It's my understanding he has visited the
property.
TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER-That's fine, but I guess what I'm saying as Counsel I would not be
comfortable recommending that you do anything more on a emergency basis than what you are already
proposing to do based on what I see in front of me in paper.
COUNCILMAN STEC-Ifit was July I'd be more concerned it's November.
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES, MR. HATIN-The only reason I ask that is because if you pass a
resolution that's before you on the twentieth that gives him sixty days from the twentieth which basically
puts him to January 20th, before I can take any action.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-That's terrible. Why don't we get Evans over there and have him look at it.
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES, MR. HATIN-I'll call him tomorrow and see if he has gone he told
me he was going to go Friday.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Let's not ask him let's tell to.
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES, MR. HATIN-I can do that. After he goes there are you just
looking letter or are you looking for him to be at the next meeting?
COUNCILMAN BREWER- A letter be fine.
RESOLUTION ADJOURNING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH
RESOLUTION NO. BOH 39,00
INTRODUCED BY: MR. DANIEL STEC
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: MR. TIM BREWER
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health adjourns and moves back into the Town Board of the
Town of Queensbury.
Duly adopted this 6th day of November, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
CORRESPONDENCE
NONE
OPEN FORUM FOR GENERAL & RESOLUTIONS
PLINEY TUCKER-Spoke to the board regarding Resolution Authorizing Engagement of David Barrass,
Land Surveyor, to provide aerial surveys of proposed South Queensbury - Queensbury Avenue Sewer
District.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Aerial surveys of South Queensbury - Queensbury Avenue area that we are
planning on putting sewers in up to the Airport.
MR. TUCKER-Questioned where the funds are coming from?
DEPUTY DIRECTOR W ASTEW A TER, MIKE SHAW-The current proposal is for board approval of the
survey noting it would come out of general funds. Once project moves along the district will be paying for
it there is a possibility it would be refunded through some of our grant money.
MR. TUCKER-Questioned why resolutions concerning Baybridge Homes Development were pulled from
the agenda?
DEPUTY DIRECTOR WASTEWATER, MR. SHAW-Noted they've had additional discussions with
Baybridge about some things they want to add to the agreement it was held so we could discuss it with the
board to see if we wanted to move ahead with those additions or not.
MR. TUCKER-Spoke to the board regarding the Special Town Board Meeting with the City of Glens Falls
asked where it will be held and if the public would be allowed to speak?
TOWN BOARD-Held here.
COUNCILMAN STEC-Sure.
MR. TUCKER-Spoke to the board regarding the library. Asked the board if they received information
regarding the financing if the Town does it?
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Noted if the Town finances it we would look to Mr. Hess to bond at the lowest
rate possible.
COMPTROLLER, MR. HESS-Noted Mr. Tucker asked him what would it cost using current interest rates
if the Town were to finance the same dollar amount for the same period of time. Noted he did a quick
summary of this that showed that it appears that the debt that we're being assessed by the County and the
proposed budget is higher than what it would cost the Town to finance the same amount without knowing
anything more about their budget and their debt service arrangement. The intent was not to seek financing
the intent was just to come up with comparative financing charges so that Mr. Tucker could compare with
what the library is proposing.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Didn't the library openly state that the rate that they provided everybody was a
much higher than probable rate then they would borrow at?
COMPTROLLER, MR. HESS-I didn't evaluate from that point of view. I took their budget numbers and
what they said we should expect to pay and just used that number.
MR. TUCKER-Noted the resolution passed believes used the higher rate.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Not to exceed.
MR. TUCKER-Assuming these figures stay where they are theirs stays where theirs is and our stays where
it's at there is a saving of almost two and three quarter million dollars on bonding this.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Noted the IDA brought up the possibility that they might want to be considered
as a financing source should the proposition pass in all three communities they feel they can be a little more
competitive than the Dormitory Authority.
MR. TUCKER-Noted the voters would have more to say if the Town does it rather than the IDA.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Questioned if this passes after a year could we say we want to finance our
portion of it ourselves?
TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER-The transaction as proposed there is no our portion ourselves.
COMPTROLLER, MR. HESS-If this passes and is accepted and not challenged then it goes away we
would be obligated to the life of it.
MR. TUCKER-Questioned if the Town could challenge this if it goes through?
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Noted if Queensbury residents vote it down, but it passes overall in the three
communities at that time we may go to court and ask for an interpretation from the court. However, if that
doesn't happen we will not get any interpretation because there won't be a basis for it.
SUE DEGROFF, JOHN BURKE APARTMENTS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE TENANTS
ASSOCIATION-Commended the Town Board on the success of the sidewalks in their area noting they are
looking forward to the springtime with addition of the flowers, trees, landscaping, and lighting that has
been proposed.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Noted he thinks the landscaping will be put in this fall.
DR. MARK HOFFMAN-Spoke to the board regarding Amending Resolution No. 387,2000 Dedication of
Road Phase I of Indian Ridge Subdivision.
TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER-Noted the resolution is a propose correction of a real property
description on the portion of road that was accepted and dedicated to the Town several weeks ago.
MR. HOFFMAN-Questioned if the board has taken action with the entrance only designation for the entry
way from the Fox Farm Road to Indian Ridge?
SUPERVISOR BROWER-No. Believes the board felt that they didn't want to take any action at this point
because it was premature not quite sure there is a need to make that a one-way at this time would like to see
how this develops.
MR. HOFFMAN-Noted he is disappointed in that decision noting there is ample evidence that is extremely
difficult to get out onto Aviation Road from Fox Farm Road. Letter submitted to board noted that the
intersection was rated a Level E.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Noted that very point was the reason why we wanted to see noted the Highway
Superintendent noted that with plowing with a one-way road it would be impacted
MR. HOFFMAN-Noted his concern for keeping faith with the neighbors this was part of the original intent
of the plan that this was going to be an entrance only from back in 1995.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Noted there were two or three residents on that section of road that are there
now they have objected to the one-way.
COUNCILMAN STEC-Noted there was confusion as to where the one-way would go.
MR. HOFFMAN-Letter to the board specifically requested that the one-way designation be from the point
where the new road starts not the existing Fox Farm. Asked if properties have been turned over to the
Town based on the PUD Agreement. If it has the Town should assert its property rights which would
require that the construction debris and gravel that's on the Town property be removed from that area
noting there are some areas that were disrupted in the construction process that should be restored there is
also a trailer that is on Town property.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-They have looked at the staging of materials and the trailer
noting the Building Department has taken action on that.
DOUG AUER-Asked if the Recreation Commission will be getting the fee for the number of units that are
ultimately going to be built in there?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-Recreation Fees are being assessed on the Indian Ridge
property.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Questioned when the fees will be paid?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-At the time building permits are issued.
JOHN SALVADOR-Spoke to the board regarding Crandall Library financing. Asked the board the status
of the Assembly Point Road.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-Presentation will be made at the next Town Board Meeting.
MR. SALVADOR-Asked the board the status of the Cleverdale Road drainage project?
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Held hearing at the North Queensbury Firehouse last week Tom Jarrett made
presentation, noting it was a review of what was held here.
MR. SALVADOR-Asked the status of the RFP for legal services?
SUPERVISOR BROWER-It ran Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday of last week. We have received a couple
proposals hope to get more.
MR. SALVADOR-Spoke to the board regarding Baybridge Homeowners Association Sewer asked if this
was appropriate to discuss this in Executive Session?
SUPERVISOR BROWER-It is a contract agreement. Asked Counsel for an opinion.
TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER-Aware of one issue relative to the extent to which the Mayor of the
City of Glens Falls combined the Glens Falls Sewer and Water Board for the sale of sewage capacity.
COUNCILMAN STEC-Is this issue alone appropriate for executive session?
TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER-Doesn't believe so.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Noted will talk about this in open session.
BARBARA BENNETT, 101 DIXON ROAD, QUEENSBURY-Thanked the board for the improved
lighting in the parking lot.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thanked Chuck Rice for doing a commendable job.
MRS. BENNETT-Spoke to the board regarding Indian Ridge noted her concern for diverting traffic down
Dixon Road from the Indian Ridge project noting she is opposed to it. Spoke to the board regarding
Veterans Field noting her concern for a blank endorsement regarding additional planning review for the
project.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-It is not allowing for a blank endorsement it is setting certain criteria and
standards that have to be met up front. If the propose development does not meet those criteria's and
standards then they would have to go through a typical environmental review process. If they meet the
criteria and standards that have been established up front and have already been a subject of an
environmental review then they are allowed to proceed.
KATHLEEN SALVADOR, DUNHAM'S BAY-Noted this evening is another occasion that Dr. Evans
should have been present at the meeting regarding the current health situation. Questioned how much Dr.
Evans is paid a year?
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Four thousand dollars.
MRS. SALVADOR-How many times has he been called upon this year?
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Seven or eight times.
MRS. SALVADOR-Has he attended any meetings this year?
SUPERVISOR BROWER-No Town Board Meetings, noting he has done site visits to locations.
MRS. SALVADOR-Questioned if his contract runs on an annual basis?
COMPTROLLER, MR. HESS-Noted Dr. Evans is currently on a four-year contract starting this past
January.
MRS. SALVADOR-Questioned what was the purchase price of the two grave cemetery lot?
COUNCILMAN STEC-Four hundred dollars for the two.
MRS. SALVADOR-Questioned why the Town is purchasing this?
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Noted they were buried in the Cemetery in Saratoga they paid six hundred
dollars for it we deducted the perpetual maintenance fee that we've expended so far.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-They bought the site before the Veterans Cemetery was built.
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WETLANDS DELINEATION ALONG ROUTE OF PROPOSED
SOUTH QUEENSBURY -
QUEENSBURY AVENUE SEWER DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO.: 435,2000
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. James Martin
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously authorized engagement of Jarrett-Martin,
LLP (Jarrett) to provide engineering services in connection with the proposed creation of the South
Queensbury - Queensbury Avenue sewer district, and
WHEREAS, Jarrett has recommended that the Town Board authorize the delineation of
jurisdictional wetlands along the proposed sewer route, and
WHEREAS, Jarrett has presented the Town Board with a proposal for wetlands delineation from
its project team member, Roberts Environmental Consulting, Inc. (Roberts) and has recommended that the
Town Board authorize "Task #1" of Roberts proposal for an amount not to exceed $3,000 as delineated in
Jarrett's October 24th letter and Roberts' October 5th proposal presented at this meeting, and
WHEREAS, Jarrett has also recommended that the Town Board authorize completion of a field
survey to locate the wetland delineation stakes, which mapping is not included in Roberts' proposal, such
survey costs estimated to be in the amount of $2,500, and
WHEREAS, Jarrett has offered to coordinate Roberts' wetlands delineation work and the field
survey services for an amount not to exceed $500,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the delineation and
mapping of jurisdictional wetlands along the route of the proposed South Queensbury - Queensbury
Avenue Sewer District, such services to be in accordance with Jarrett-Martin, LLP's October 24th, 2000
letter presented at this meeting and as follows:
Roberts Environmental Consulting, Inc. - Wetlands Delineation-
Professional Land Surveyor - Delineated Wetlands Report
Jarrett-Martin, LLP - Support & Coordination
$3,000
$2,500
$ 500
TOTAL: $6,000
such services to be paid for from the appropriate account, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Wastewater Director and/or
Town Supervisor to execute any documentation and take such action as may be necessary to effectuate the
terms of this Resolution.
Duly adopted this 6th day of November, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brower
NOES
Mr. Brewer
ABSENT: None
DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE:
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Questioned ifDEC flags wetlands?
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-No, they will flag wetlands that are qualifying wetlands of 12.4 acres in size.
The way the federal process works is whoever initiates an action has to do the delineation submit it to the
Army Core and they accept, deny, or amend it noting they put the burden on the developer.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Noted if there is someone else who can do this for nothing why should we pay
to have it done.
MR. JARRETT-These are not DEC wetlands these are federal wetlands Army Core of Engineers
jurisdictional wetlands. The initiator of a project must delineate them and submit them to the Core for a
permit to impact and we will have impacts to federal wetlands on this project.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Noted he thinks the process ought to be done right.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF DAVID F. BARRASS, LAND SURVEYOR TO
PROVIDE AERIAL SURVEYS OF PROPOSED SOUTH QUEENSBURY - QUEENSBURY AVENUE
SEWER DISTRICT AND PROPOSED EXTENSION OF ROUTE 9 SEWER DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO.: 436, 2000
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. James Martin
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously authorized engagement of Jarrett-Martin,
LLP (Jarrett) to provide engineering services in connection with the proposed creation of the South
Queensbury - Queensbury Avenue Sewer District, and
WHEREAS, Jarrett has recommended that the Town Board authorize aerial surveys of the
proposed Sewer District and proposed extension of the Route 9 Sewer District, and
WHEREAS, Jarrett has presented the Town Board with a proposal for aerial surveys from its
project team member, David F. Barrass, Land Surveyor (Barrass) and has recommended that the Town
Board authorize Barrass to prepare the aerial surveys only, and not the mapping services at this time, for an
amount not to exceed $3,200 as delineated in Barrass' November 2nd, 2000 letter presented at this meeting,
and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs engagement of
David F. Barrass, Land Surveyor to prepare aerial surveys of the proposed South Queensbury-Queensbury
Avenue Sewer District and proposed extension of the Route 9 Sewer District for an amount not to exceed
$3,200, to be paid from the appropriate account(s), and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Wastewater Director and/or
Town Supervisor to execute any documentation and take such action as may be necessary to effectuate the
terms of this Resolution.
Duly adopted this 6th day of November, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Stec, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Brewer
NOES
Mr. Brewer
ABSENT: None
DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE:
(COUNCILMAN BREWER-Noted if this is going to be a joint venture doesn't think the Town should pay
for all of it.)
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR FUNDS FROM
NEW YORK ST ATE DIVISION FOR YOUTH
RESOLUTION NO.: 437, 2000
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. James Martin
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, Harold Hansen, Director of Parks and Recreation, has advised the Town Board of the
Town of Queensbury that the Town is again eligible to apply for reimbursement funds from the New York
State Division for Youth relating to the Town's recreation programs, and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hansen has requested Town Board authorization to prepare a fund application in
the amount of $10,000, the total amount of recreation funds the Town proposes to expend in 2001 for the
administration, supervision, and operation of its year-round recreation programs, recognizing that the Town
is more likely to receive a grant in the amount of $7,846.45 based on eligibility criteria as it relates to the
Town's youth population,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs Harold Hansen,
Director of Parks and Recreation, to prepare the application for recreation funds from the New York State
Division for Youth and further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the funding
application.
Duly adopted this 6th day of November, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO.: 387.2000 REGARDING DEDICATION OF ROADS
IN PHASE I OF INDIAN RIDGE SUBDIVISION
RESOLUTION NO.: 438, 2000
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. James Martin
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 387.2000, the Queensbury Town Board authorized acceptance of
deeds for dedication of certain roads in Phase I of the Indian Ridge Subdivision, and
WHEREAS, the description of Farr Lane (Additional Extension) was incorrect in Resolution No.:
387.2000 and therefore, the Town Board wishes to amend the Resolution,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby amends Resolution No.: 387.2000 by
changing the road description for Farr Lane (Additional Extension) to read as follows:
Name:
Farr Lane (Additional Extension)
Road Number:
495
Description:
Beginning at Aviation Road and continuing in an northeasterly
direction a distance of 2,329' and .44 of a mile and ending at a dead end.
Feet:
2,329' and .44 of a mile
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby affirms and ratifies Resolution No.: 387.2000 in all
other respects.
Duly adopted this 6th day of November, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower
NOES
None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE OF TWO-GRAVE CEMETERY LOT FROM CLIFFORD
AND JUNE HARTMAN
RESOLUTION NO.: 439, 2000
INTRODUCED BY : Mr. Theodore Turner
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY : Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Cemetery Commission previously sold a two-grave
cemetery lot (Lot #25-C in Mohican) in the Pine View Cemetery to Clifford and June Hartman, and
WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Hartman wish to sell the two-grave cemetery lot back to the Cemetery
Commission, and
WHEREAS, the Cemetery Commission recommends re-purchase of the lot and requests approval
of the re-purchase from the Town Board,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the Cemetery Commission's
re-purchase of Lot #25-C in Mohican in the Pine View Cemetery from Clifford and June Hartman for the
amount of $400, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby further authorizes and directs the Cemetery
Superintendent to arrange for the payment of $400 to Mr. and Mrs. Hartman and properly account for the
sale in the Town's books and records.
Duly adopted this 6th day of November, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Turner, Mr. Martin, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower
NOES
None
ABSENT:None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF HUDSON ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
FOR WATER TESTING AND SAMPLING AT TOWN OF QUEENSBURY LANDFILL
FOR YEARS 200 I AND 2002
RESOLUTION NO.: 440,2000
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. James Martin
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY:
Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury needs to arrange for water testing of wells situated at the
Town of Queensbury Landfill at Ridge Road during 2001 and 2002, and
WHEREAS, the Solid Waste Facilities Operator solicited for proposals for the testing of these
wells, and
WHEREAS, the Solid Waste Facilities Operator has recommended that the Town Board award the
bid for the well and water testing to the lowest bidder, Hudson Environmental Services, Inc., for an amount
not to exceed $6,125 for the year 200 I and for an amount not to exceed $6,125 for the year 2002,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby engages the services of Hudson
Environmental Services, Inc., for the purpose of water sampling and testing as may be required at the
Landfill for an amount not to exceed $6,125 for the year 2001 and for an amount not to exceed $6,125 for
the year 2002 to be paid for from the appropriate Account, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Solid Waste Facilities
Operator to make such arrangements and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this
Resolution.
Duly adopted this 6th day of November, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Brower
NOES
None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HIRING OF PETER ZULAUF AS PART-TIME LABORER FOR
TOWN TRANSFER STATIONS
RESOLUTION NO.
: 441, 2000
INTRODUCED BY Mr. Daniel Stec
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. James Martin
WHEREAS, the Solid Waste Facilities Operator has requested Town Board authorization to hire a
part-time Laborer to work at the Town Transfer Stations,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Solid Waste
Facilities Operator to hire Peter Zulauf as a part-time Laborer at an hourly salary of $10.18 to be paid from
the appropriate payroll account, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or
Solid Waste Facilities Operator to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms
of this Resolution.
Duly adopted this 6th day of November, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower
NOES
Mr. Brewer
ABSENT:None
DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Questioned if there was more correspondence regarding hiring the employee?
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Yes. Noted Mr. Coughlin hires people from time to time sometimes they are
fill-in positions.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Recommended pulling this for discussion due to the one line memo received
from Mr. Coughlin, noting he would like a reason.
COMPTROLLER, MR. HESS-Noted what Mr. Coughlin works from is a laborer pool that do not work
regular hours and he sometimes has problems filling hours on Saturdays. When he doesn't have people to
work at a part -time wage scale he has to go to other departments and bring people in at overtime, noting he
is trying to build up his pool because he can't keep people on.
RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2000 BUDGET
RESOLUTION NO.: 442,2000
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
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 Comptroller,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town
Comptroller's Office to take all action necessary to transfer funds and amend the 2000 Town Budget as
follows:
CENTRAL DATA PROCESSING:
FROM:
TO:
$ AMOUNT:
01-1680-4400
(Misc. Contractual)
01-1680-2032
(Computer Software)
20,000.
CONTINGENCY TO ANIMAL CONTROL:
FROM:
TO:
$ AMOUNT:
01-1990-4400
(Contingency)
01-3510-4760
(Vet Services)
2,800.
TOWN CLERK!RECEIVER:
FROM:
TO:
$ AMOUNT:
01-1330-1070
(Clerk, P.T.)
01-1410-1880
(Sr. Clerk, P.T.)
433.
WATER:
FROM:
TO:
$ AMOUNT:
40-1680-4060
(Service & Maint. Contr.)
40-8340-4240
(Repair of Replacement Parts)
1,000.
40-1680-4060 40-9040-8043 74.
(Service & Maint. Contr.) (First Aid & Pro Fees)
40-8330-4250 40-8320-2899 11,300.
(Chemicals) (Capital Construction)
40-1950-4430 40-8310-1895-0002 298.
(Property Taxes) (Secretary OT)
40-8310-4060 40-8310-4105 200.
(Service Contracts) (Mobile Communications)
40-8310-4060 40-8310-4200 336.
(Service Contracts) (Insurance)
40-8310-4060 40-8310-4820 800.
(Service Contract) (Uniforms & Protective Clothing)
Duly adopted this 6th day of November, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower
NOES
None
ABSENT:None
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (FGEIS)
FOR PROPOSED VETERAN'S FIELD LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PARK AND AUTHORIZING NOTICE
OF COMPLETION OF FGEIS
RESOLUTION NO.
: 443, 2000
INTRODUCED BY : Mr. James Martin
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury and City of Glens Falls are seeking approval for a series of
actions leading to the development of the Veterans Field Industrial Park on an approximately 46.57 +/- acre
site located east of Veterans Road, south of Sherman Avenue and north of Luzerne Road in Queensbury,
such actions including the rezoning of portions of the property to Light Industrial and creation of a special
zoning designation (Veteran's Field Light Industrial District) applicable to the entire project that will allow
a simplified approval process for projects that meet certain site and environmental criteria, extension of
infrastructure to the site by the City and Town and associated approvals by State Agencies, and
WHEREAS, establishment of the Veterans Field Light Industrial District will allow industrial
businesses complying with site requirements and environmental performance standards to construct up to
500,000 square feet oflight industrial facilities on approximately 46.57 acres ofland located along the
western boundary of Veterans Road north of Luzerne Road and south of Sherman Avenue without
requiring additional environmental or site plan review by the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, and
WHEREAS, on or about December 6th, 1999, the Town Board adopted a Resolution indicating its
desire to be designated as SEQRA Lead Agency for environmental review of the proposed action and
authorizing and directing the Executive Director to notify all SEQRA Involved Agencies of the Town
Board's desire to be Lead Agency, and
WHEREAS, none of the SEQRA Involved Agencies objected to designation of the Town Board as
SEQRA Lead Agency and the Town Board issued a SEQRA Positive Declaration requiring the Town and
City prepare a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the Project, and
WHEREAS, the City presented the Town with a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
and the DGEIS was reviewed by the Town Planning Staff, Rist -Frost Associates (RF A), Creighton
Manning Engineers (CME), the Town's consulting engineers, and Town Board, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the rules and regulations adopted by the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation pursuant to SEQRA, the Town Board, by Resolution No.:
48.2000, accepted the DGEIS as satisfactory with respect to its scope, content and adequacy for the purpose
of commencing public review, and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 48.2000 also established a public comment period and public
hearing date concerning the DGEIS to satisfy SEQRA requirements, and a public hearing was held on
February 15th, 2000 and all interested persons were heard, and
WHEREAS, the City then presented the Town with a Final Generic Environmental Impact
Statement (FGEIS) and the FGEIS was reviewed by the Town Planning Staff, RF A, CME and Town
Board, and
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Staff, RF A, CME and Town Board identified additional
information that was needed in order for the FGEIS to adequately address issues raised at the public
hearing and remaining issues of concern, and
WHEREAS, a revised FGEIS was prepared and the FGEIS includes discussion of the substantive
comments received on the DEIS and responses to those comments,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby accepts the Final Generic Environmental
Impact Statement (FGEIS) concerning the development of the Veterans Field Industrial Park presented at
this meeting, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby approves and adopts the Notice of Completion of Final
GElS presented at this meeting, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director of
Community Development to file the Notice of Completion of Final GElS as required by the SEQRA
Regulations, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that Town Counsel is hereby authorized to approve as to form the required notices
and make any necessary additions or modifications to comply with the SEQRA Regulations.
Duly adopted this 6th day of November, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brower
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF CUSACK AND COMPANY, CERTIFIED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS TO AUDIT TOWN OF QUEENSBURY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2000
RESOLUTION NO.: 444, 2000
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY:
Mr. James Martin
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 390.99, the Queensbury Town Board authorized engagement of
the services of Cusack and Company, CPA's (Cusack) to audit the Town of Queensbury's financial
statements for the fiscal year ending December 31, 1999 and provide accounting advice to the Town
throughout 2000, and
WHEREAS, the Town Comptroller has been pleased with the services of Cusack and wishes to
continue engagement of its services, and
WHEREAS, Cusack has offered to audit the Town's financial statements for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2000 at a cost not to exceed $13,000 as more specifically set forth in its letter dated June
30th, 2000,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes continuation of the auditing
services of Cusack and Company, CPA's to provide auditing services to the Town of Queensbury for the
year ending December 31, 2000 and provide accounting advice to the Town throughout 2001 for an amount
not to exceed $13,000 to be paid for from the appropriate account, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or
Town Comptroller to sign any documentation and take any and all action necessary to effectuate the terms
of this Resolution.
Duly adopted this 6th day of November, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Brower
NOES
None
ABSENT:None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO (504 OF TOWN EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK
ENTITLED "JURy DUTY"
RESOLUTION NO.: 445, 2000
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. James Martin
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to amend (504 of its Employee Handbook entitled "Jury
Duty," and
WHEREAS, the Town Comptroller has proposed new language for (504 and it is in form
approved by Town Counsel and AMTEK Management Services Corporation,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby adopts the amendment to (504 of its
Employee Handbook entitled "Jury Duty Leave" as presented at this meeting, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor's Office to
distribute copies of the amendment to all Town employees and elected officials and amend the Employee
Handbook accordingly.
Duly adopted this 6th day of November, 2000 by the following vote:
AYES Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower
NOES None
ABSENT:None
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO.: 391,2000 AND AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL
INCREASE IN CONTRACT COST AND PAYMENT TO TKC CONTRACTORS IN CONNECTION
WITH CHANGE ORDER NO.3 - CONSTRUCTION OF RIVER STREET TRANSMISSION MAIN
FOR PROVISION OF WATER TO VILLAGE OF HUDSON FALLS
RESOLUTION NO.: 446, 2000
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. James Martin
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 152,2000, the Queensbury Town Board authorized engagement of
TKC Contractors to perform the water transmission main construction and upgrade work delineated in the
Project Manual- Village of Hudson Falls Permanent Connection to Queensbury Consolidated Water
System - Contract No. I - River Street Transmission Main for an amount not to exceed $121,250, and
WHEREAS, by such Resolution the Town Board also authorized and directed the Town Water
Superintendent to execute any Change Orders relating to the project totaling less than $5,000, and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 391, 2000, the Queensbury Town Board authorized an increase
in spending in the amount of $1,894.57 for work performed by TKC Contractors in connection with
Change Orders # I and #2 relating to the construction of the River Street Transmission Main for provision
of water to the Village of Hudson Falls, bringing the total Contract amount to $123,144.57, and
WHEREAS, the Town Comptroller's Office has advised that the amounts listed in Change Orders
#1 and #2 are incorrect and therefore, the increase in spending authorized in Resolution No. 391,2000
should be "$2,194.57" rather than $1,894.57, bringing the total Contract amount to $123,444.57 rather than
the total of $123,144.57, and
WHEREAS, the Water Superintendent has now advised the Town Board that he has executed
Change Order #3 in connection with the Project, incurring additional expenses totaling $1,731.50, for a
new total Contract amount of $125,176.07,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby amends Resolution No.: 391,2000 such
that the increase in spending authorized by Change Orders #1 and #2 payable to TKC Contractors in
connection with the construction of the River Street Transmission Main shall be $2,194.57, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes the increase in spending for work required
under Change Order #3 in the amount of $1,713.50 bringing the total Contract amount to $125,176.07, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Comptroller's Office to
amend the 2000 Town Budget, transfer funds and/or take all action necessary to effectuate all terms of this
Resolution, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby affirms and ratifies Resolution No.: 391,2000 in all
other respects.
Duly adopted this 6th day of November, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES
Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower
NOES
None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION SETTING
SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING WITH
CITY OF GLENS FALLS COMMON COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO.: 447, 2000
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to schedule a joint meeting with the City of
Glens Falls Common Council to discuss various issues of intermunicipal cooperation,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby schedules a Special Town Board Meeting
with the City of Glens Falls Common Council on Tuesday, November 14th, 2000 at 7 :00 p.m. at the
Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury to discuss various issues ofintermunicipal
cooperation, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to post and
publish a Notice of Special Town Board Meeting as is customary and required by law.
Duly adopted this 6th day of November, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin
NOES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Brower
ABSENT:None
DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE:
Discussion was held regarding attendance at meeting and postponement of meeting.
TOWN COUNCILMEN'S CONCERNS
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Spoke to the board regarding proposed meeting that was set up regarding
Peneflex for the Volunteer Firemen Retirement Program. Supervisor Brower noted he had cancelled the
meeting will hold this at an appropriate time when the board can be notified in time.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Recommended having a meeting with the City of Glens Falls on November
14th and November 28th.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Asked the boards consideration when they wish to set up a meeting with another
municipality that they come through the Supervisors Office first and asked for some alternatives dates that
might work.
PLANNED DISCUSSIONS
BA YBRIDGE
WATER SUPERINTENDENT, RALPH VANDUSEN DEPUTY WATER SUPERINTENDENT,
TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER-Obviously you're welcome to go through this in whatever level of
detail you want. From our perspective as Town Counsel if Ralph or Mike disagree with this I would invite
them to make that known. From our perspective as Town Counsel this is a process and a project that has
involved somewhat more complexity then perhaps everybody anticipated both engineering, legal, technical,
political, and a lot of other things, but it seems to be approaching the goal line. We think that by your next
Town Board Meeting two weeks from tonight on the twentieth that we'll likely be at that goal line and be
ready to sign an agreement. We're meeting basically with Mr. Vollaro and his Counsel with Ralph and
Mike as necessary in our office to try to get through these issues and hammer through this. I don't care if
we want to go through this in whatever detail our Department folks and the Town Board wants to do
tonight, but I do think progress is being made on a continual basis. I don't know if this is the most efficient
way to further that progress by going through it with the Town Board, but I don't care it's totally up to you.
WATER SUPERINTENDENT, MR. VANDUSEN-From my standpoint what's under discussion is three or
four items some wording in an agreement between the Town and Baybridge Homeowners Association.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-I had a meeting with Ralph and Mike today to discuss these various points that
may be brought up.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Just as a question and I don't mean umbrage against anybody or whatever you
might call it. How long has this contract been possession and how many times has it been read? Why are
we still talking about language at this point?
DEPUTY W ASTEW ATER DIRECTOR, MR. SHA W-I think the most recent changes were suggested by
Baybridge to Town Counsel last Thursday and there were actually changes to it.
MR. VOLLARO- They were not changes that were made unilaterally it was a bilateral arrangement. I got a
call from Mike and that call precipitated my putting some changes it wasn't just me putting some changes
Ill.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I hope that was the case that there was that kind of dialogue that's what I'm
hopeful of.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF WASTEWATER, MR. SHAW-Today I made an attempt to try to get hold of all
the board members to notify them of the changes and what direction we we're headed in. Jim you are the
only one I didn't get a hold of the rest of them I did get a hold of them and they were aware of kind of what
was going on. It was my intent to see what the board if they felt we were going in the right direction or
not. I did notify each member we decedided that we needed to do something other than what BayBridge
wanted to do that we had to re-contact Bob V ollaro and let him know that and sit down and meet with him
and discuss those concerns.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-What is the substance of the changes then I don't know?
DEPUTY DIRECTOR W ASTEW A TER, MR. SHAW-One thing in the contract it was added that they
wanted a set buy-in fee for a dollar thirty-five. Currently we haven't got that set buy-in fee they wanted that
added in there. Also all along when we decided to have a joint project we had a certain percentage set up it
was seventeen point eight for BayBridge and eighty-two point two for the Town of Queensbury. All along
that process I had suggested that the current pump design would probably have to be modified to include
some additional things which Town specs would require, municipal specs would require and it was never
really addressed. In the contract, I guess BayBridge feels that should be a hundred percent cost of the
Town of Queensbury and I'm not sure that was the original intent of our agreement that we had a
percentage set up and that we should live by that percentage that was a stumbling block also.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Was or is?
DEPUTY WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, MR. SHAW-It is.
MR. VOLLARO- The reason that I asked for that is that there was a prior precedent established in the
agreement I'll just go over that for just a second.
The one thousand-foot of six inch PVC pipe that the Town had requested that they wanted to lay along side
our four inch pipe was proposed as a Town requirement. The Town agreed to pick up all of the dollars
associated with that pipe which was eight thousand dollars.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO- That established precedent for when the Town says we want something that is solely for
us we're going to set it aside and we will pay it if it's solely for... I think what Mike is talking about on the
changes to the pumps are solely for the Town. He talked about slide in pumps our pump design I find out
today from our engineer from Kevin that his design showed that it's a slide in pump. Rather than get into
the pump design the basis for my comment is that there are prior precedents in this agreement. For when
the Town wants something soley for themselves they have already agreed to pay for that.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I understand the next issue.
MR. VOLLARO-An issue that hasn't been discussed is the dollar thirty-five. I have a letter here signed by
the Mayor that says this letter is to inform you that the Glens Falls Water and Sewer Board will sell to the
Town of Queensbury eight thousand gallons of additional sewer capacity to be utilized by the BayBridge
Homeowners Association on the following terms, one of those terms without going through them all is the
dollar thirty-five per gallon. My Counsel Mr. Martin Aufferdou has looked at this I have discussed this
with your Counsel as well and from our point of view this is an enforceable document that's where I'm
being directed by. . .
SUPERVISOR BROWER-We've asked for changes on that Bob. As a matter off act I spoke to the Mayor
today regarding that. I said you've agreed to a dollar thirty-five a gallon buy-in for eight thousand gallons,
but the rest of your verbiage should basically say this Sewer District Extension NO.7 of the Quaker Road
Sewer District. All other terms that relate to that will relate back to the original agreement. He said have
your attorney draft some language to that effect and I will review it with counsel and most likely sign it.
MR. VOLLARO- That wasn't the reasoning. The reason that Mike gave to me was that the Mayor of the
City of Glens Falls can not commit the Water Sewer Board. I think that's Mike position I'm not sure.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR WASTEWATER, MR. SHAW-I didn't say couldn't come in I said it takes actions
of the Water and Sewer Board to have a resolution to act upon to authorize that buy-in number that's always
been the process.
MR. VOLLARO- That's fine, but I'm getting information back from my counsel that this letter on the
letterhead of the City of Glens Falls signed by the Mayor with those words is an enforceable document just
the way its written.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-I don't believe he is going to renege let's put it that way.
MR. VOLLARO- If you're that positive on it. . .
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Because we're buying the capacity Bob we have to have a contract signed with
the City saying that's what we're buying. If we don't have that contract how can we guarantee you
something we don't have?
COUNCILMAN STEC-Don't we have a lot of verbal agreements with the City that we're trying to work
our way out of right now, but we've done it in the past. I think from our past practice the Mayor could be
saying, look we've got a half a dozen other examples of hand shake deals and this is just yet another one.
Even though we're trying to get out of the business of doing that it's been acceptable in the past and I don't
like to see this hold up this project. With that said I want us to see get the written, but I don't want to hold
this particular project up just because we're trying to put the foot down now and say it's got to be in ink.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I don't want to hold it up not even one more second, but the fact of the matter
is we're not going to do it this fall....
COUNCILMAN STEC-I agree with you.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-We've got time let's do it the right way.
COUNCILMAN STEC-Ijust think we're sending a dangerous message to the homeowners association
that's stepped up to the plate here and delivered from where I sit tonight.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I agree with you.
COUNCILMAN STEC-I want to facilitate I don't want to throw up roadblocks.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I agree with you.
COUNCILMAN STEC- This isn't their problem this is our problem.
COMPTROLLER, MR. HESS-I've got a perspective on that and I agree with you about the dollar thirty-
five. If it were simply a matter of a shake hand agreement with the dollar thirty-five and trusting the Mayor
to come through with it that wouldn't be the issue, the issue is the other terms he put in the letter and is he
going to hang onto those. They are not germane to the contract and I think they have to be withdrawn
before we feel we have a confident agreement on a dollar thirty-five.
COUNCILMAN STEC- That's just it if he's got some strings attached to that letter then certainly....
SUPERVISOR BROWER-I think we'll be fine in a short period of time on that.
MR. VOLLARO-One of the things that would nail this down is was there a resolution by the Water and
Sewer Board. If I were sitting in your seat I would ask that question. Did the Water Sewer Board make a
resolution to sell eight thousand gallons at a dollar thirty-five to BayBridge?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-And that's where Mike's coming from he doesn't know that right?
DEPUTY DIRECTOR W ASTEW ATER, MR. SHA W-I don't believe it has, but I'm not positive to that.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I don't think the Mayor could act legally.
MR. VOLLARO-I can say this to you. The Mayor called me at my house maybe six or seven weeks ago
and said I will get to the Water Sewer Board and get agreement to this dollar thirty-five and I can't give you
letter until I get the Water Sewer Board Agreement. When I saw this letter it automatically triggered in my
mind that he had talked to them and that he had gotten. . .
SUPERVISOR BROWER-I think he probably has regarding the dollar value for the buy-in, I do believe
that.
MR. VOLLARO-Ifthat's true then what are we arguing about?
SUPERVISOR BROWER-We're not arguing it's just the terms we just want to make sure its consistent
with the Quaker Road Sewer Agreement that's already in place. Once that's settled and he indicated he had
no problem with that we'll wait and see.
MR. VOLLARO- Y ou what then it took me six, seven, weeks to get this letter things move very slowly on
that side of Town and I understand that.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Okay, I've got two points I've got the dollar thirty-five and the pump changes
for the Town costs next issue.
MR. VOLLARO- The next issue has to do with the removal of septic tanks. The only words that I asked to
be put in the document and I will tell you why it says here that BayBridge shall abandon and disconnect
such septic tanks in accordance with the procedure detailed by the Town Wastewater Director. I has asked
to have inserted in there a mutual acceptable procedure reason for that. I really haven't got a very good idea
how our septic tanks are piped. I know where they are but they are piped slightly different. I don't think
how Mike knows how are septic tanks are piped. I thought it might be a good idea if we got together and
mutually came up with a procedure for eliminating the tanks so that we didn't get a procedure that was
overly expensive to do without understanding exactly how those tanks are piped.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-This is being done at your cost?
MR. VOLLARO- This is going to be done solely at our cost.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Do the pipes have to be removed or just the tanks?
MR. VOLLARO- Y our question is very well put because he's got to come up with a procedure to tell us
either to fill them, sand, concrete, reconnect, re-pipe. He's has got to come up with a procedure that says
this is how you do it to be acceptable to me Michael Shaw.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-It would seem to me that if you took the tanks out or cemented them or
whatever if you disable those tanks they can't be used.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR WASTEWATER, MR. SHAW-The proper procedure for abandoning a septic tank
has been used for many years in Quaker Road Sewer District. The proper way to abandon is in this case
you can't have a direct connection going through the tank and we have adopted a regulation for that. The
way to abandon the tank is you have to pump it first of all with a license hauler and then you have to fill it
with a clean fill whether its sand, gravel that's fine. The pipes either can go around the tank after or it's
possible to go through the tank if the hole is twice the size of the pipe. I explained that to Bob and that's
how the procedure would be for abandoning those tanks.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-All they have to do is dig up the tank after its pumped out and knock a hole in
the side of it.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR W ASTEW ATER, MR. SHAW-Correct. We don't want to compromise that
situation because basically it's in our codes how to abandon a tank and that's what we want to follow.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-That's reasonable then you don't have to tank the tanks out or anything.
MR. VOLLARO-We weren't planning to take them out. Recognize that our tanks are fed by more than one
unit they're multiply units. The schematic of how that tank is piped is not really something I understand
yet. I don't know whether it's totally compatible with the words that are in that agreement.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-What difference does it make if you have to know how they are piped. If you
know where the cover is to one. . .
MR. VOLLARO-Cost.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-You dig it up you knock a hole in the side of it what difference does it make
how it's piped.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-The big problem I see if they don't agree to what we recommend we've got a
problem what do they do nothing.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I understand that.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-That's possible.
MR. VOLLARO-All I'm saying is we have a technical problem looked at by both parties.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Maybe you should agree to it before we sign the agreement maybe that should
be hammered out so that you are happy with the procedure that we feel would be appropriate.
MR. VOLLARO-That's fine if you want to do that it's okay with me.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Do you disagree or agree?
MR. VOLLARO-I absolutely agree. We'll sit down with that take a look at the procedure if we agree with
it we'll throw holy water on it if we don't we'll try to get it to change. I have no problem with that I'll
accept that.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I've got three issues. We've got the dollar thirty-five, pump changes, removal
of septic tanks, fourth issue?
MR. VOLLARO-None.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Those are the three. Just so I'm clear this is it right this constitutes the list?
MR. VOLLARO-One more.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Number four I asked, I got an answer.
MR. VOLLARO- The document says that we're to finish up this project no later than December of 200 I.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I think that's very questionable at this point.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I do too.
MR. VOLLARO-It says beginning in 2001 and each year by September 1st, BayBridge at its own cost will
disconnect one septic tank it should be 2002. If we've got till December 31 st of 200 I to complete the
project and then we abandon the first tank it's got to be beginning in the year 2002 not 2001.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-It sounds fine to me.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-We've been almost a year at this so that's reasonable.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Fine. Okay that's not really an issue that's fine everybody agrees I see nodding
heads that's good.
MR. VOLLARO-So really you only have the original three that you've talked about.
TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER-You really only have the original two it seems to me we've resolved
the third one. The way we resolved the third one and I was going to offer the same suggestion that the
Supervisor offered was that rather than have the potential for future quibbling about the manner of removal
of the septic tanks as I understood the Supervisor's suggestion I thought it made sense and Mr. Vollaro
agreed to it the technical discussion of how the septic tanks are to be removed will happen now prior to
execution of the agreement and they'll be agreement as to how the septic tank removals will be
accomplished so that will take out issue three.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-That gives you predictability that's what you want is predictability so number
three is fixed.
TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER-As is four.
MR. VOLLARO-I'm happy with that.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Okay we're on a roll now. We have two left the dollar thirty-five buy-in.
We're saying we want a resolution and unfortunately it's something neither party here tonight it sounds like
to me. We want a resolution from the Water and Sewer Board to resolve this correct? When is the next
meeting of the Water, Sewer Board?
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-Tomorrow night.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Can we make an appeal in twenty-four hours to have them have a resolution on
for this? Its not like they are hearing this for the first time I'll go there myself if I have too it's a public
meeting isn't it?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yes it is.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-What time do they meet?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I think their agenda states is all they are going to discuss...
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Five o'clock.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Five o'clock good no I can't meet tomorrow night. Can we get some sort of
resolution before this body tomorrow night because I understand it will be another entire month then until
we get a resolution correct?
SUPERVISOR BROWER-If the Mayor agrees to put it on the agenda you might be able to get it on
tomorrow night. A lot depends on whether or not we can get the letter off like tomorrow morning.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-We can fax it to them.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-The agreement I talked to Bob about the verbiage that the Mayor asked that we
draft and send an agreement to him for approval. He can bring that before the Water and Sewer Board if he
wishes tomorrow evening.
MR. VOLLARO-Suppose he comes up with the same verbiage and says this letter is to inform you that the
Glens Falls Water and Sewer Board will sale....
COUNCILMAN BREWER-If we tell him we want a resolution Bob.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-We want a plain and simple resolution a dollar thirty-five up to eight thousand
gallons for Sewer District Extension NO.7.
MR. VOLLARO- Absolutely right.
WATER SUPERINTENDENT, MR. VAN DUSEN-In my opinion he gives the same letter that he gave
you but takes away all of the other bulletin items that were piggy backed into that's fine.
TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER-And is supported by a binding resolution.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Let's make every effort to get that on for tomorrow's meeting can we do that
Dennis?
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Yes. The worst case scenario is he'll say not this month next month.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Pump changes.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Let them hash it out Jim.
WATER SUPERINTENDENT, MR. VAN DUSEN-I would recommend that pump changes be broken
into, I don't know that pump changes of any sort will be necessary because we haven't seen detailed plans
on what they're proposing rightfully so they haven't hired their engineer to do that yet until they get farther
down the line. Certainly if the Town ask that they put in changes that have no bearing whatsoever on the
current users it's not fair to ask the current users meaning BayBridge Homeowners to pay that. However, if
there are changes that are necessary to meet our minimum standards for a pumping facility then all users of
the district should pay those costs. Are there any charges that fall in those categories, I don't know because
we just haven't progressed that far down the road to see that design.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-What about the point if we have been past precedent paid for something that
we have imposed as one of our standards and offering to pay for it why doesn't that apply now to this?
WATER SUPERINTENDENT, MR. VANDUSEN-The pipe that we asked that we're paying for the
additional piping has nothing to do with the current BayBridge or even the first round of expansion that's
future expansion down the road a long ways and that's why we would not ask BayBridge to pay for that.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-What's the amount of dollars that we could potentially be talking about here.
MR. VOLLARO- The dollars assigned to the preliminary design of the pump is fifty five thousand two
hundred and eighty dollars that's how much the pump as we designed it in the ground is going to cost.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I'm talking about the changes.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR WASTEWATER, MR. SHAW-It changes as time. The reason we don't know Jim
because they haven't gotten design. When they go design we'll see their detail and then we can say, okay
this is fine, but municipal standards are going to require this, this, and this. Is that going to fifty thousand,
is it going to be twenty thousand, I don't know.
WATER SUPERINTENDENT, MR. VAN DUSEN-Or we may look at it and say it's perfect.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF W ASTEW ATER, MR. SHAW-With them having a clause in they're saying that
additional pump changes will be a hundred percent is not the same intent of the original contract the
original contract had a split percentage.
WATER SUPERINTENDENT, MR. VAN DUSEN -Can I just recommend a clause that would be
indicative if Queensbury request changes solely for future users then Queensbury would be responsible for
that cost.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-How does that sound?
MR. VOLLARO-It works for me.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Done.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-And if it isn't we split it the percentage wise that everything else is.
MR. VOLLARO-One of the things I know is we are not proposing flight pumps I know these folks like
flight pumps. If they want flight pumps because they like flight pumps and from a maintenance point of
view people not having to treat flight pumps that's fine. Mike talked to me he'd like to see the pumps on
slides our pumps are designed on slides right now. If it's a question I like flight pumps and that's what I
want.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-You know Bob there was a point in time I thought it was a good thing that
you're an engineer and your involved in these negotiation, but I'm starting to get off of that idea. In all
seriousness we've got all these issues resolved right. The worst case scenario is the first issue the dollar
thirty-five puts us off to the first of December or that first week of in December.
TOWN COUNSEL, SCHACHNER-In fairness nobody has any control over that time frame.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Right, acknowledging that. Are there any other issues?
MR. VOLLARO-No sir there is none. That's it that's the core of it.
COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Good, done.
SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you.
ATTORNEY MATTERS
TOWN COUNSEL, MR. SCHACHNER-Noted there are three items they can talk about at any time. 1.
The option on Indian Ridge property noted this falls into Executive Session. 2. Sewage buy-in with City
of Glens Falls. 3. Correspondence from Attorney Mausert.
DISCUSSION HELD
COMPTROLLER, MR. HESS-Spoke to the board regarding Health Insurance benefits and cost changes for
retirees.
RESOLUTION ENTERING EXECUTIVE SESSION
RESOLUTION NO. 448, 2000
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. James Martin
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and
moves into Executive Session.
Duly adopted this 6th day of November, 2000, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Brower
Noes: None
AbsentNone
RESOLUTION ADJOURNING EXECUTIVE SESSION AND
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING
RESOLUTION NO. 449,2000
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Executive Session
and moves back into Regular Session, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Regular Town Board
Meeting.
Duly adopted this 6th day of November, 2000, by the following vote:
Ayes: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower
Noes: None
AbsentNone
On motion, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully Submitted,
Darleen M. Dougher
Town Clerk
Town of Queensbury