Loading...
1991-06-03 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING JUNE 3, 1991 7:10 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR STEPHEN BORGOS COUNCILMAN GEORGE KUROSAKA COUNCILMAN MARILYN POTENZA COUNCILMAN RONALD MONTESI COUNCILMAN BETTY MONAHAN TOWN ATTORNEY PAUL DUSEK TOWN OFFICIALS KATHLEENKATHE, PAUL NAYLOR, JIM COUGHLAN, PRESS CHANNEL 8, G.F. POST STAR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN RONALD MONTESI PUBLIC HEARINGS RESOLUTION CALLING FOR QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 314, 1991 Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns into the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 3rd day of June, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent:None PUBLIC HEARING SEWER VARIANCE KENNETH PIACENTE OPENED SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Has this been advertised? TOWN CLERK-Yes, it has. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-At this point is there anyone here who wishes to speak for or against this or ask questions about this particular public hearing? Seeing no hands, Board members have any questions we've had all these materials for some period of time? Mr. Hatin do have any comments to make, Mrs. Monahan? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Paul, I just know that if some of our previous resolutions until we had the form changed that we had that Hold HarllÙess as part of the resolution, is that necessary now since that form has been changed? ATTORNEY DUSEK-I believe it's part of the paperwork, Mr. Hatin can correct me if I'm wrong. MR. DAVID HATIN-They may have went in after. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's why I just wanted to make sure. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Yes, it's in the original packet and it's signed. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I have no further questions. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-No further questions, going once, twice, no one else we will close the public hearing. RESOLUTION APPROVING SEWER VARIANCE REQUEST OF KENNETH D. PIACENTE RESOLUTION NO. 24, 1991 Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza: WHEREAS, Mr. Kenneth D. Piacente previously filed a request for a variance from certain provisions of the Sanitary Sewage Disposal Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, such provisions being more specifically those requiring that there be a 10' separation between the septic tank and the dwelling, and WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was given in the official newspaper of the Town of Queensbury and a public hearing was held in connection with the variance request on June 3, 1991, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk advises that property owners within 500 feet of the subject property have been duly notified, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health grants the variance to Mr. Kenneth D. Piacente, allowing the septic tank (holding tank) 1" from dwelling, and A. that due to the nature of the variance, it is felt that the variation will 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; B. 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 is granted as the minimum variance which would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health to affect the applicant, and C. that the Local Board of Health imposes a condition upon the applicant that he must also secure the approval of the New York State Department of Health. Duly adopted this 3rd day of June, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent:None COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Is this involved in how far back it has to be from Lake George? MR. HA TIN-This is strictly between the foundation and the. . . NEW BUSINESS RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE OF SANITARY SEW AGE DISPOSAL ORDINANCE FOR NORMAN E. & JOYCE M. TEATOR RESOLUTION NO. 25, 1991 Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is, by operation of Law, the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury and, as such, is authorized under Section 5.035 of the Sanitary Sewage Disposal Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury to issue variances to such Ordinances, and WHEREAS, Norman E. & Joyce M. Teator have applied to the Local Board of Health of the Town of Queensbury for three (3) variances from certain standards of the Sewage Disposal Ordinance set forth in Section 3.050-5, such standard providing as follows: APPENDIX A TABLE I - HORIZONTAL SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM W ASTEW A TER SOURCES TO STREAM WELL OR LAKE OR WASTEWATER SUCTION WATER PROPERTY LAKE GEORGE SOURCES LINE (a) COURSE(c) DWELLING LINE AND TRIBS. " " " " " " Septic Tank " " 10' " " " " " " " " and WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Teator have indicated a desire to place the seepage pit: 1) 53' from their well; 2) 100'+ from the well on property to the South; and 3) 100' + from the well on property to the North, rather than placing it at the mandated 150' distance(s), NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on June 17th, 1991, at 7:00 p.m., at this Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, to consider the application for three (3) variances ofNormanE. & Joyce M. Teator to place the seepage pit: 1) 53' from their well; 2) 100' + from the well on property to the South; and 3) 100'+ from the well on property to the North, rather than placing it at the mandated 150' distance (s), on property situated on Hall Road, Queensbury, New York, and bearing Tax Map No.: Section 45, Block 3, Lot 78, and, at that time, all persons interested in the subject thereof will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury be and is hereby directed and authorized, when in receipt of a list of neighbors within 500 feet of the subject property, to publish and provide Notice of said Public Hearing as may be required by law, and authorized to mail copies of said Public Hearing Notice to the adjoining neighbors. Duly adopted this 3rd day of June, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent:None RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN AS QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 26, 1991 Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza: RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health adjourns from regular session and moves into the Queensbury Town Board. Duly adopted this 3rd day of June, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent:None PUBLIC HEARINGS PROPOSED LOCAL LAW TO AMEND FIRE PREVENTION/BUILDING CODE SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I'll ask if this has been advertised. TOWN CLERK-Yes, it has. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Is there anyone here now who wishes to speak for or against or ask questions about this. This is essentially a technical change which gives the Town of Queensbury, Building and Code Enforcement Department the authority to inspect places of public assembly under the requirements of the State Labor Law. There are a number of places in Town that would normally come under their jurisdiction it's been very difficult to get state agencies here to inspect and do it timely we certainly have that capability and we are more than happy to assume that and relieve our citizens of one extra bureaucratic level. Anyone wish to speak for or against this proposal? Mike, would you come up please and identify yourself. MIKE BAIRD-Executive Secretary for the Queensbury Business Association. The Queensbury Business Association is opposed to the Town of Queensbury taking on any additional functions that are currently being handled by the State or County governments, I would like to use. . just as an example. I don't know a whole lot about it, I tried to investigate it today a lot of people don't know a whole lot about it, but what we do know is that it is already taken care of by another form of government, why do we need to increase more monies into the Town of Queensbury? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I think I can answer that and we have some other people in the audience I think who would be glad to speak about this in a minute. We're proposing to do this at the request of the Queensbury Business Organization they are represented here tonight because in their dealing with the state they've been unable to get anything like quick service. It's a relatively small function that we are essentially performing anyway and this is just a technical change which had been made in at least one other town in the state that we are aware of and the whole idea of this is to help small business help get through the hurdles faster deal with us locally very quickly. At this time, I would ask perhaps, Mr. King would explain why he had requested this some of the problems they had before and how this would resolve this quickly. DAVID KING, VICE PRESIDENT LAKE GEORGE RV PARK INC., LAKE GEORGE-We have a public assembly building on our property the French Mountain Play House which has been there for three years. I am also a member of the Queensbury Business Owners Association, I have a strong feeling that the Town of Queensbury should have the same responsibilities in the enforcement and inspection of the building as they do with the approval of a building of that type. In the Town of Queensbury if you were to build a building of public assembly today, a new building you would submit the plans to the Town of Queensbury they would go under plan review a building permit would be issued by the Town of Queensbury inspections would be performed by the Town of Queensbury. I believe to have another government agency do simultaneous inspections of the same building is a conflict of interest somewhat. We have one board coming from Albany infrequently, unexpected visits making certain observations that the Town of Queensbury may not make they're inconsistent in their evaluations of the code and the way they are enforcing the code. I really believe the Town of Queensbury has the best interest at hand in evaluating the public safety of a public assembly building in the way that the public assembly building effects the people in it's own community and I really think the responsibility should solely lie with the Town and not with the State. The State has clearly indicated to me through their process that they are not interested in doing a quick and efficient job in inspecting these types of buildings and it is costing me a taxpayer lots of time and money to deal with the conflicts that have arisen between the two different types of evaluations. I just have had three years of nothing but trouble with the state because they send different inspectors every time never the same people nobody seems to know the same story and here with the town at least I have a communication open they know from day one exactly what we've tried to do with the building they evaluated the plans several times they know exactly what's at stake. I think they have the public's interest it's best protected here in terms of public safety for our community, I think it's best to be held by our own community and not the state. They don't want to do it anymore they just have to until we make a provision here tonight to allow us to have that jurisdiction. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you. Anyone else from Queensbury Business Association or anyone else to speak? DAVID KINNEY-I own a business in Town and also a member of the Queensbury Business Association. I guess I'll agree with Dave and concur with him, but in reality I've been told plenty of times by the Town they have to enforce what the state regulations are. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- That is correct. MR. KINNEY-I don't see how this project is going to make it any easier I really believe the bottom line is it's going to put another burden on the town government. It seems to me every time, I've heard you state it we're passing regulations upon regulations upon regulations I don't know when to get up and go to bed in the morning because you'd be telling me. All I'm saying here is that he cannot have his building changed by the Town of Queensbury the Town people cannot look out for his benefit. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-He is not asking to have his building changed he is asking to be able to come in here and see one organization Town of Queensbury have it all down at one time one place rather than having us do what we're suppose to do under law then saying to the State, all right Queensbury did it now it's your turn when do you think you'll get time to come up and look at it. When they got up there as I understand the inspectors came back several times spent two or three weeks in one room and still couldn't come up with an answer therefore, he couldn't comply with the state regulations. Where our inspectors thoroughly familiar with the building while he is in there making the Town inspection can check off yes, I make this inspection complying with the State and it's all done saving all taxpayers a lot of money and time. That was the whole idea I didn't dream this up nobody on the Board did this came to us from a local business owner who said help us please we've got a problem. This appears to be the real quick easy inexpensive way to solve that problem. MR. KINNEY-Who's going to inspect all the High Schools? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We already do we've been doing them for years, Mr. Hatin will speak to that if you wish would you tell us please, they already inspect the movie theaters and all those places. COUNCILMAN MONTESI -Hey Dave, before you explain Article 17 of the Labor Law of the State of New York entitled Public Safety and Rules Adopted Thereunder. What additional responsibility would you be assuming different from what happens today when a State comes up to inspect a new building this is only new construction that we're talking about? MR. HATIN-Director of Building and Code Enforcement. New and existing. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-New and existing public assemblage. Explain to us what Article 17 encompasses. MR. HATIN-I'm not familiar with Article 17 of the Labor Law, but I do know from investigating it from going through this problem with Mr. King we've been able to find out what I've dealt with with the Labor Department they do the same thing we do what their doing we already do. Bill Bodenweiser and Kip Grant Fire Marshal, Deputy Fire Marshal, inspect every business annually in this Town as well as public assembly that is already being done that is part of Labor Departments reign. They inspect new buildings for construction and with their building code which was somewhat similar to ours but a little different, but now the State has just passed a law that all State Agencies must comply with the New York State Uniform Building Code so I don't see any difference. Mike the representative who spoke for the business association, I had him in my office today and I explained that to him nothing changes for us we do exactly the same thing we're doing today, tomorrow when this becomes law nothing changes. It does not burden anybody it doesn't cost anybody more money the only thing it does is you don't deal with the State Labor Department you strictly deal with us. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-What I'm getting at is that Article 17 must specifically address one or two or three items in a new building or an existing building does it have an alarm system, does it have smoke detectors, what does it deal with. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I think our Town Attorney can answer you he did a lot of research. ATTORNEY DUSEK-The reason why Mr. Hatin is not familiar with Article 17 is because that is just the. . .legislation of New York State and it just very loosely refers to provide for inspections concerning the construction, maintenance, health, safely and welfare of the people using places of public assembly. The nitty gritty of it is really covered by the rules and regulations which is what Dave was attempting to explain that he has become familiar with working with the Labor Department did you say? MR. HATIN-Right. ATTORNEY DUSEK-This Article 17, just so everybody doesn't get sidetrack into that that is just like an overall language and it says to the Labor Department promulgate some rules and regulations to do the inspection and make sure things are safe. COUNCILMAN MONTESI -Your saying that you already do a good deal of those kind of inspections in new construction. MR. HATIN-Everything the labor departments does we do. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-David, is it a duplication of services. MR. HATIN-Basically, yes. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-And if in your permit or application you go through your copies and your checking off what's required under New York State Building and Codes Regulations than the local business gentlemen is waiting for a state representative to come up and basically repeat the same type of application or same type of process that you have done. MR. HATIN-Right. I think Mr. King can even state, I don't think they were anywhere present during construction of the building they showed up after the building was constructed. They sighted violations of our code to him which we found that we disagreed with some of them and some of them we do agree with so we're dealing with the same code. Basically I can't understand why anyone would be against this because it makes it simpler because you don't have to deal with the State Labor Department once this becomes law. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-If this law were to be passed then there would be no need for a state representative to come up? MR. HATIN-They won't. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-They will bow to the knowledge and expertise of the local government. MR. HATIN-As long as we have a local law on the books that said we will do it the State Labor Department will not come in the Town of Queensbury for their part of this. COUNCILMAN MONTESI -And what we're doing in abiding by the New York State Building and Codes. MR. HATIN-Correct. I think it simplifies everything. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you, David. Come back and state your name and address please. DAVID KING, LAKE GEORGE RV PARK-When I expressed my frustration with the cost, I also want other local business owners to know if you have not been paid by a visit by the labor department yet and you are unfortunate to have a business, you know you build a new public assembly building tomorrow and they come around two years after it's built and believe me they don't make any effort to get involved in your building on a efficient basis they might just show up three years later and start to evaluate your building when they do this they put a lot offees on you. To evaluate our plans after the building was built I spent over $800.00 just to have the state look at the plans of the building that had already been built. What the engineer and service department and labor department was doing was approving a building that already existed which already had been approved by the Town of Queensbury where an occupancy permit had already been issued and it all met the code, but they went back later and wanted to go through this whole process. Every time they visit your building and take a look around they charge you $200.00. They just come in and spend sometimes three hours on one occasion they spend two weeks in our building training people and this is uncalled for if you think it's going to cost you more with your local taxes it's wrong because our department here is doing that anyway they have to it's the law they're not going to be doing anything more in the future when this passes then they have in the past. What we are going to do is save our money our taxpaying money that goes into that state budget with the labor department the labor department is voluntarily trying to cutback on it's services to cut down the cost and I think we can all save in the future by letting all the towns in this state take it upon themselves to do this enforcement of the code which they have been invited to do so for many years. There are several towns in the surrounding area the Town of Saratoga, Stillwater, I know several that are doing this and they've done it for years and the reason they past the law is to avoid this ridiculous process which was wasting people's time and money. It is just a matter of fact thing it is not going to cost anyone anymore money here our department is better mandated then it's ever been to do these kinds of duties they are well trained in the code and I just think it's absolutely necessary to avoid delays. If your ever thinking of building a public assembly building here this is to your advantage because otherwise your going to just go through all kinds of problems with the state and the state doesn't want to be here it's clear because they don't really understand what they're doing when they come up here. I can't say anything more. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I guess you said it all. MR. KING-It's a simple thing, like Steve said there is nothing complicated about it there is no hidden questions here. I really thing it's obvious that it is just the way it should be. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I think way back in my years of retailing when a State Labor Department came into a retail store you shuddered especially at Christmas time because they are the folks that are in charge of taking pillows and bedding and cushions that don't have the bedding tickets if you don't have a bedding label they take it off sale. It's always interesting to have that happen in December when your looking at sales. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That's a do not remove under penalty of law ticket. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-That's the one. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-You can remove it after you buy it. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-How the Labor Department oversees that I don't know. JOHN SAL V ADORE-I like to ask if the Town adopts this local law does that mean the State Labor Department no longer has jurisdiction in the Town of Queensbury? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I'll ask our Attorney for that interpretation. ATTORNEY DUSEK-The short answer, I guess is no. What is means is that they will bow to Queensbury and let us do it after they certify this local law. There is nothing to say that the State Legislature could perhaps change the law at some point in every institute, but right now the way it's written once they give it up as long as we're doing our job they don't take it away from us. MR. SALVADORE-But, they haven't given it up. ATTORNEY DUSEK-We have to submit this local law and then it's my understanding as a matter of. . . they will just of ahead and let us have it. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-. . jeopardy code the state comes in later and says we want jurisdiction. ATTORNEY DUSEK-What I'm saying is that conceivable that would happen practically I will never see that happen. MR. SAL V ADORE-Well we get visited periodically from an inspector from the State Labor Department if you adopt this law, I would like to invite him out. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Are you saying for this particular issue or for your labor law for your hours and wages. MR. SALVADORE-Public assembly. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Public assembly portion of it, my understanding that would be gone. MR. SAL V ADORE- I can invite him off the premises he has no jurisdiction. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Not for the public assembly the Town will be handling that. MR. SALVADORE-Okay, thank you. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-David one other question. At time I can recall that the Great Escape the amusement park those rides the certification of the safety of those rides that falls under the jurisdiction of the Labor Department. MR. HA TIN -Correct. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Are we assuming responsibility for that? MR. HATIN-No, not to my knowledge. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- V ery specifically are not, they have special ride inspectors who do nothing but inspect rides all over the State and this is excluded from what we're talking about. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-We will have State inspectors from the Labor Department in our community the only thing their not going to be involved in if this passes is public assemblage. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- They will still be checking payroll records and those kinds of items, but not this. Any other comments or questions, if not will close this public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7:35 P.M. RESOLUTION TO ENACT LOCAL LAW NUMBER 7, 1991 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, CHAPTER 88 THEREOF ENTITLED FIRE PREVENTION AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION TO ADD A NEW SECTION IDENTIFYING FURTHER DUTIES ASSIGNED TO THE DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT RESOLUTION NO. 315, 1991, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of enacting a local law to add a new section to Chapter 88 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury which would identify further duties assignable to the Director of Building and Code Enforcement, and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed local law entitled "A Local Law to Amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 88 Thereof Entitled Fire Prevention and Building Construction to Add a New Section Identifying Further Duties Assigned to the Director of Building and Code Enforcement, has been presented at this meeting, a copy of said local law also having been previously given to the Town Board at the time the resolution was adopted which set a date and time for a public hearing, and WHEREAS, on July 3, 1991, a public hearing with regard to this local law was duly conducted, and WHEREAS, the proposed action about to be undertaken is identified as a type II action under the rules and regulations of the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and no further SEQRA review is necessary, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby enacts the proposed Local Law to Amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 88 Thereof Entitled Fire Prevention and Building Construction to Add a New Section Identifying Further Duties Assigned to the Director of Building & Code Enforcement, to be known as Local Law Number 7, 1991, the same to be titled and contain such provisions as are set forth in a copy of the proposed law presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to file the said Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and that said Local Law will take effect immediately and as soon as allowable under law. Duly adopted this 3rd day of June, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION EMPOWERING TOWN BOARD TO ENFORCE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 17 OF THE LABOR LAW RESOLUTION NO. 316, 1991, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury adopted Local Law No.7, 1991, entitled, "A Local Law to Amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury Chapter 88 Thereof, Entitled Fire Prevention and Building Construction to Add a New Section Identifying Further Duties Assigned to the Director of Building & Codes Enforcement," and WHEREAS, said Local Law authorizes the said Town Board to assign the enforcement of Article 17 of the New York State Labor Law to the Director of Building and Code Enforcement and his Assistant Building Inspectors, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that: 1. The Director of Building and Code Enforcement, and his Assistant Building Code Inspectors, are hereby empowered by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, pursuant to Section 472 of the Labor Law and the aforesaid Local Law, to enforce the provisions of Article 17 of the Labor Law and rules adopted thereunder; 2. The Town of Queensbury hereby assumes responsibility for enforcement of Article 17 of the Labor Law, and releases the Commissioner of Labor from enforcement of the same law within the boundaries of the Town of Queensbury; 3. The Town Clerk is authorized to send a certified copy of this resolution to the New York State Commissioner of Labor as provided in Section 4 72(b) of the Labor Law; and 4. This resolution shall take effect upon the receipt by the Town of Queensbury of certification by the Commissioner of Labor that this resolution has been filed with the said Commission. Duly adopted this 3rd day of June, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None PROPOSED LOCAL LAW - ELEVATORS 7:38 P.M. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Has this been advertised? TOWN CLERK-Yes, it has. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-This is the proposed Local Law that will say, in any housing unit wherein there will be ten or more units for elderly or handicap above the first floor an elevator will be required. This for your information is again at the request of a developer who says that obviously it's a good idea to have an elevator for the elderly or handicapped to get them to a second floor and if we have the law the official law in the books there is some extra grant money available to help put it in if you wait till after it's built and then pass the law and find that it's needed the money won't be there. That is what the background of this one is. This hearing is open anyone who wishes to ask questions about this or speak for or against may speak now? NANCY KELL Y-Queensbury, member of Queensbury Business Association and we did have some questions about this. Is this just going to pertain to new construction? SUPERVISOR BORGOS- To my knowledge it is. MRS. KELLY-Isn't there already a federal law in place that mandates this? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I'm not aware of any, I'll ask Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith would you state your name and where your from. MR. MERLE SMITH-works as a consultant for the National Church residences which builds elderly and handicap housing projects, I'm from Buffalo, New York. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Are you aware of any federal regulations that already require this? MR. SMITH-There is not a federal regulation that requires the installation of an elevator. There is a State Law which probably interpreted and be construed to require an elevator, however, HUD will not recognize that as acquiring an elevator. It makes a significant difference in the fair market. . . supply to the project which makes it significant as to the amount of money that is available. This is also a benefit significantly in that we first occupied a housing project for the elderly we have our healthiest population as time passes people knees get weaker and they have a. . .as people aged they lose some of their strength, I'm losing mine at times and having the elevator makes their life much easier and makes it possible for them to stay in that building for many additional months or even years. MRS. KELLY-I'm still confused about it and I think a couple of us are. Is this just for a particular project or will this effect everything that is being built that has more than ten units on the second floor for the elderly? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-For the elderly or the handicapped. MRS. KELL Y -For elderly and handicapped in the Town of Queensbury. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-It has come to our attention for the first time because for the first time to my knowledge such a unit is proposed to be built in Queensbury, I don't know of any that are currently existing. MRS. KELLY-So if didn't have the elevator does that mean that the handicap would have to be. . . SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Walk upstairs. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-They would put them on the first floor like they usually do. MRS. KELLY-That's what I wondered, do they move them. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think an interesting question has been brought up. If this is enacted would any complexes that are renting to the elderly have to be retro-fitted to add an elevators. ATTORNEY DUSEK-No, I can answer that question. If you look in 58-3 Elevator required, it indicates that all housing complexes for the elderly that contain ten or more units, so you have to also have this next requirement, which are constructed within the Town of Queensbury after the date of adoption of this Local Law shall be equipped with suitable elevators. MRS. KELLy-It isn't going to effect anything that is preexisting. ATTORNEY DUSEK-That's correct. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-It won't affect anything that doesn't have at least ten units specifically for the elderly and handicap above the first floor so if you have two or three handicap people on the second floor you don't need an elevator. Next state your name and address please, although I know it. MR. . .LEOMBRUNO-Old Coach Manor. I came here for a different matter tonight, but now this one concerns me. I have a complex with. . .a second story does that mean we would have to put an elevator in? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Ifyou have ten or more units in anyone building above the first floor. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-And if they're specifically designed for elderly or handicap. MR. LEOMBRUNO-Mine would be specifically for elderly. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Would you have ten units above the first floor in anyone building? MR. LEOMBRUNO-Offthe first floor, not in anyone building. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Then it won't apply to you. MR. LEOMBRUNO-Okay, fine. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Paul, I want to make sure we're not reading something into this. If there are more than one building in the complex do we read this as applying to one building or to the complex? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well, I'm looking at that as that was being said. It says all housing complexes referring to the overall complexes as opposed to just one building for the elderly or handicap which contain ten or more units so. . . MR. LEOMBRUNO-Steve, I have thirty three already. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The intent of this, I will check on the wording, the intent of this is to deal with a particular single unit a building that would have ten or more units. ATTORNEY DUSEK-We can clarify that if that's what you want. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- That's been the intent. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-You certainly would want to. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That's why we have public hearings so when these questions come up will clear them up now. Anyone else who wishes to speak for or against or ask questions about this? Board members any comments or questions, hearing none will close this public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7:45 P.M. RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF LOCAL LAW NUMBER 8, 1991 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 58 TO BE ENTITLED "BUILDINGS, ELEVATORS REQUIRED", WHICH CHAPTER PROVIDES FOR THE INST ALLA TION OF SUIT ABLE ELEVATORS IN ALL HOUSING COMPLEXES FOR THE ELDERLY OR HANDICAPPED, WHICH CONTAIN 10 OR MORE UNITS ABOVE THE FIRST FLOOR IN ANY SINGLE BUILDING RESOLUTION NO. 317, 1991, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering the action of the adoption of a Local Law which would amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury by adding a new Chapter 58 to be entitled "Buildings, Elevators Required", which Chapter provides for the installation of suitable elevators in all housing complexes for the elderly or handicapped, which contain 10 or more units above the first floor, in any single building WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified to act as lead agency with respect to compliance with SEQRA which requires environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is an unlisted action pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board after considering the action proposed herein, reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form, reviewing the criteria contained in Section 617.11, and thoroughly analyzing the said action with respect to potential environmental concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect 0 the environment, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to complete and execute Part III of the said Environmental Assessment Form and to check the box thereon indicating that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section 617.15, the annexed Negative declaration is hereby approved and the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to file the same in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Duly adopted this 3rd day of June, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent: None RESOLUTION TO ENACT LOCAL LAW NUMBER 9, 1991 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 58 TO BE ENTITLED "BUILDINGS, ELEVATORS REQUIRED", WHICH CHAPTER PROVIDES FOR THE INST ALLA TION OF SUIT ABLE ELEVATORS IN ALL HOUSING COMPLEXES FOR THE ELDERLY OR HANDICAPPED, WHICH CONTAIN 10 OR MORE UNITS ABOVE THE FIRST FLOOR IN ANY SINGLE BUILDING RESOLUTION NO. 318, 1991, Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of enacting a local law to amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury by adding a new Chapter 58 to be entitled "Buildings, Elevators Required", which chapter provides for the installation of suitable elevators in all housing complexes for the elderly or handicapped, which contain 10 or more units above the first floor, and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed local law entitled "A Local Law to Amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury by Adding a New Chapter 58 to be Entitled "Buildings, Elevators Required", Which Chapter Provides for the Installation of Suitable Elevators in all Housing Complexes for the Elderly or Handicapped, which Contain 10 or More Units Above the First Floor", has been presented at this meeting, a copy of said local law also having been previously given to the Town Board at the time the Resolution was adopted which set a date and time for a public hearing, and WHEREAS, on June 3, 1991, a public hearing with regard to this local law was duly conducted, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby enacts the proposed Local Law to amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury by adding a new Chapter 58 to be entitled "Buildings, Elevators Required", which chapter provides for the installation of suitable elevators in all housing complexes for the elderly or handicapped, which contain 10 or more units above the first floor, to be known as Local Law Number 8, 1991, the same to be titled and contain such provisions as are set forth in a copy of the proposed law presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to file the said Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and that said Local Law will take effect immediately and as soon as allowable under law. Duly adopted this 3rd day of June, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent:None PROPOSED LOCAL LAW AMENDING SEWER/SEW AGE DISPOSAL LOCAL LAW OPENED 7:50 P.M. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I'll ask if this has been advertised? TOWN CLERK-Yes, it has. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-This specifically is proposed at the request of the Queensbury Business Association, which brought this to our attention as far as making it part of our formal regulations probably six or eight weeks ago they had noticed that for a number of times over the past couple of years we had routinely been requested to issued variances for businesses that were putting some of their septic systems components under parking lots. That had been in violation under normal circumstances of our regulations was brought to our attention that this would be a good positive change to make so we put it through the system and tonight we're ready to have the public hearing and hopefully adopt this change in our regulations. Would anyone like to speak for or against or ask questions about this? JOHN SAL V ADORE-You mentioned only the subject of location of facilities under parking, I have here Section (3) which talks about separation distances. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Ijust went into the one particular item that brought it to our attention. We knew it was there we were going to get to it sooner or later, but the business association brought that particular section to our attention so we cleaned up a number of items. MR. SAL V ADORE-This is included the separation distances? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-My understanding, yes. MR. SALVADORE-Do you have anything to say concerning that? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-What particulars do you want to know, I'll ask Mr. Hatin to address that. DAVE HATIN, DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT-The other changes that Mr. Salvadore refers to are changes that were made in order to bring our Ordinance into conformance with the Lake George Park Commission Ordinance. As the Board is aware of we are now charged with enforcing the Lake George Park Commission Regulations rather than have two regulations to deal with, I felt it was much easier for us to be in line with the Lake George Park Commission Regulations. I met with Tom Wardell, who is their engineer and went through the changes a week ago that should be made to our ordinance and these are the changes that we came up with. There will be a few other ones coming, but they do not deal with the park commission they deal with the. . .other standards that are changed also. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-In case the public doesn't know by agreement assumed the inspection responsibilities of Lake George Park Commission again, to save our taxpayers money and avoid duplication. The Park Commission was set to impose fairly significant fees on private owners and operators not only individual dwellings, but businesses all around the lake and we have jumped in and had them agree that we can certainly do it with our inspectors we can do it more efficiently we don't have to have those fees or the annual permit fees and all that other stuff. COUNCILMAN MONTESI -Dave, when someone did an alteration or built a new septic system on Lake George in the Park Commission jurisdiction and they met all of the Town of Queensbury Ordinances, but they didn't meet the Lake George Parks who had final jurisdiction. MR. HATIN-The Park Commission has only come about since last year, up till now it strictly the Town of Queensbury had to deal with. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-But, I mean in this interim it could have been within the last year. MR. HATIN-Right. Basically the park commission we afforded all the septic systems we have done according to our ordinance to my knowledge they have not gone against anybody or anybody. . .to replace it. These changes that we're making tonight, I don't think will effect anybody so far that we dealt with. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Is it a matter offeet? MR. HATIN-The biggest changes you see in depth of bedrock it's going from two feet to four feet that's the biggest change which is the requirement of the new DEC reg's which are in line with the park commission also. COUNCILMAN MONTESI -You must have clean fill four feet above bedrock. . . MR. HATIN-Bottom of the trench. It could be hard for some people to meet especially around Lake George. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Whether we made these new regulations as part of ours or not they would still if they were going to build on Lake George have to abide by that four foot regulation. MR. HA TIN-The agreement now says that our regulations basically are the ones that we enforce, but I also picked up what is different from the park commission so whether we make these changes or not I still believe and Paul can answer that we still have the obligation to enforce the park commission rules. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-What I'm saying is we're not changing the State of New York or Lake George's rules we still have to abide by them is the question. MR. HATIN-Right. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Mr. Salvadore, does that answer all your questions? MR. SAL V ADORE-You imply that there is a free lunch. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I never said that, before you start misquoting me let's get it straight the words I say are the words I'll stand by, but don't put words in my mouth you said free lunch. MR. SALVADORE-Okay. Basically I'm wondering what consideration the Town gave to the preparation of an environmental impact statement concerning the modifications to the Sanitary Ordinance as they effect these separation distances? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I think we have a statement here but, Paul maybe to speak about this. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Actually quite a bit. Lee York reviewed them and actually issued a comment memo, Dave Hatin reviewed them and I believed Dave today and. . .also reviewed it with our Town Engineer. MR. SAL V ADORE-I have part 617 here of the Environmental Conservation Law and it's clear to me that the Town as an agency of government undertaking of revision to the sanitation code constitutes an action a modification and it clearly states in here that an environmental impact statement would be required. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Does it say that or does it sayan environmental review? We have to do the SEQRA under the State Environmental Quality Review Act we have to do a SEQRA statement we do not have to do an environmental impact statement which is significantly different. MR. SALVADORE-Part 617.2 Paragraph (P) Section (1) Subparagraph (II) reads as follows: In the case of an action where the responsible agency proposes a modification of the action and the modification may result in a significant adverse effect on the environment an environmental impact statement shall be prepared with respect to such modification. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-That is a comment that I have not heard before, Paul have you read it? ATTORNEY DUSEK-I think in essence what Mr. Salvadore is indicating is that and maybe what also your indicating is let me see if I can sum it up. First of all the proper procedure is to do a long form environmental assessment form which is what's been done. The Board then analysis that and if it determines that there would be a significant impact or that there may be a significant impact then you would graduate on to the environmental impact statement that is not an automatic step that is a step that the Board must first analyze and determine whether or not there maybe a significant impact. MR. SAL V ADORE-You don't think that this modification which may lead to the requirement of a sewer system in North Queensbury would have any adverse environmental economic and social impact. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Your looking at me and it's not up for me to determine that is up to the Board. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-It is certainly not our intent although most of us believe that a sewer system would be very good up there, I do also, it is not our intent by this particular piece of legislation to force people into believing as we do about that. The intent of this legislation is, number one to take care of the parking lot situations for the business, number two is to bring us into compliance with state regulations as far as sewer systems. It is not my understanding that people who have existing systems have to go back and rip them out or replace them, I believe. . .as long as they are functioning. MR. SALVADORE-As long as they are functioning if they fail they become subject to this modification. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I'm looking at our Director of Building and Code Enforcement he has been dealing with the park commission. MR. HATIN-A lot of that would depend on what the failure is. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We sometimes have slight failures that can be repaired with no major changes in which case they are permitted to be repaired is that right? MR. HATIN-I mean if they have a broken pipe they are not going to be required to meet this ordinance if you have to put a new leach field in then yes you will. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-If we didn't make this change in our law if the Town did not make this change would an owner of a business or a residence have to still go four feet? MR. HA TIN-They are still going to have to meet the park commission regulations whether we adopt this or not. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-What's the argument then John? MR. SAL V ADORE-The argument is the park commission promulgated those wastewater regulations without the benefit of an environmental impact statement number one. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-But, you still have to meet those requirements. MR. SAL V ADORE-Three of us have gone in action against the Park Commission and it's pending it's still in the courts it has not been dismissed. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-What your saying to us. MR. SAL V ADORE-Your making the same mistake your proceeding with an action that may have an adverse environmental impact in the absence of preparing, we don't know the answers everyone is assuming that this is a good thing we don't know the answers. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I think we heard our Director of Building and Code Enforcement has carefully reviewed this our Senior Planner has carefully reviewed this and this has been reviewed by our consulting engineers it's been reviewed by our legal counsel as far as we're concerned, I understand we're satisfied that this is beneficial to everyone and as beneficial to Lake George. MR. SALVADORE-But the necessity for a environmental impact statement is to quantify the impacts to identify the problem. . . SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Ifthey are. . . MR. SALVADORE-Excuse me, and to compare the suggested solution with the no action alternative that is a requirement of an E.I. S. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Ifyou get to the E.I.S. stage, but if there is a concern on the part of the organization the lead agency that this might happen then you go to the E.I.S. If the lead agency says we've looked at all the data we got and all of the experience and says, no problem then it is not required to go to the E.I.S. stage as best we understand it. I think I hear that's what are adviser's are telling us the people who are experts in this field. MR. SAL V ADORE-The speaker is very very clear if I may read. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- To a limited extent. I don't mean in anyway to shut you off I see basically that you already have a legal action going here and I don't know how appropriate it is to bring your legal action. MR. SALVADORE-It's another organization. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Well it maybe, but I'm just wondering if this becomes a platform for some of that and maybe inappropriate at this point. MR. SALVADORE-Not at all. I think the Town of Queensbury is taking an action. . . SUPERVISOR BORGOS- True. MR. SALVADORE-And that action according to SEQRA is the modification of an existing code and code is required. . . SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We do these all the time. MR. SALVADORE-Okay. It says in here if this action may, may have. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-In the opinion of this Board is that correct? ATTORNEY DUSEK-The lead agency is charged with making that determination. MR. SALVADORE-Did you make that determination? ATTORNEY DUSEK-They have to before they graduate on to the legislation they have not. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We have the public hearing going now so we can make that determination. MR. SALVADORE-So you would prepare a negative declaration? ATTORNEY DUSEK-There is a format prepared for the Board for their consideration. I do have a suggestion to the Board which may help with this. In light of the concerns raised it is possible to go ahead and adopt Section one and put Section two and three on hold until such time as we definitely clear up any. . .questions with our engineers. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-If after the public hearing we're at that point. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Right, if you feel that would be appropriate. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Section one is the parking lot. ATTORNEY DUSEK-That's the one that's right, I don't think there is any dispute with regard to that one. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-John, one of your concerns I'm trying to get some understanding to I understand your litigation but, could one of your concerns be that a situation could exist where you could not positively could not with a failed system get four feet of bedrock even adding four feet on top of the soil for a pressurize system that mayor may not work. MR. SALVADORE-Not permitted. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Then you would be forced into a situation where you have no alternatives except to wait for a community sewer system. MR. SALVADORE-Pump out. These are the impacts that you are required to identify and to quantify that is spelled out in here. MR. HATIN-Just one step, I think maybe everybody is missing here there also is a variance route that we routinely do and we did two tonight. There are still options available for people who cannot meet these regulations and the Board still has the same obligation the only thing now is that they have to notify the park commission is the way I understand the agreement right Paul, about any variances but this Board is also in charge of doing the variances instead of the park commission. ATTORNEY DUSEK-But, there is a number of rules that go along with that. MR. HATIN-But, that is still available. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Would you please identify yourself please. DAVID KINNEY-Queensbury Business Association. We are in favor of Section One as pointed out. We had a couple of questions with Section Two we don't understand them. . . sleeping porch there is no definition saying what they are. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I'll ask Mr. Hatin and Mr. Dusek to respond to these. These others were picked up and said while we're going through the code let's address those things that have been bothersome to us and has been causing people problems. MR. KINNEY-I tend to agree we discussed these at length the sleeping porch and attic in the critical environmental areas may be a problem with the Lake George Park Commission Association, but a lot of Queensbury is not in those areas and to adopt the thing Town wide for a guy who has twenty acres of land up in the mountains someplace. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I think there are some other state regulations that we are required to follow Dave can explain that. MR. HATIN-Again, this is in line with the Park Commission regulations also the D.O.H. regulations which are both the same. We are not imposing anything new with a sleeping porch area the added condition is basically when you turn it into a bedroom this would mean you would have to enlarge your system to come up to today's standards. This is simply another means that DEC and DOH, I guess through research have decided to maybe to include this in their expansion of systems and new systems. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Do we currently do that throughout the Town? MR. HATIN-We don't enforce this part of the regulation throughout the Town no this is something that isn't, but again it is consistent. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-I had a question on adding to an existing dwelling do we have to enlarge this sewer system to match that's the problem. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-As Mr. Hatin has addressed that in the case of an enlargement of an existing dwelling we would require people to enlarge their septic system? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Again, this is septic tank capacity. This says if you have a three bedroom now and you have to put a new tank in or you build an addition you got to put a new tank in, that is going to be five bedroom you have to put in a 1500 gallon tank in if you got a 1000 gallon tank that's what it means. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think what George wants to know though if you put on an addition that includes a bedroom, but your septic system is okay. . . MR. HATIN-Ifyou don't modify the system you can't require this, this is only for new installations. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-In otherwords your putting it on the existing systems on the end. MR. HATIN-But, still George the way I read it I don't believe it applies to existing systems. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-The question came up because they asked me if you do something and go from three to four bedrooms or even six. . . .or like my house I've got 500. MR. HA TIN-What I've got in front of me says that. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-It's on page 2. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Second page, says existing systems minimum tank capacity. MR. HATIN-Right. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-This is existing systems. MR. HATIN-It says new construction. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-All the way to the right hand side. MR. HA TIN-Those are if you have an existing system your exempted, I take it back instead of maintaining 1500 you would be allowed to maintain 1000, that's my mistake. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Ifyour going to extend your house you've got a 1000 gallon tank you can put up to five bedrooms in your house. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-When you go to the sixth bedroom then you would have to increase it to 1250. COUNCILMAN MONTESI -Let's take the scenario that George just said he has a 500 gallon system in his house all right now that doesn't even exist here 500 gallon and lets say he adds a sleeping porch or adds a sleeping attic somehow and now he got's five bedrooms. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Six bedrooms. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- The systems to small. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I know it's to small, but does he have to put a new tank in? COUNCILMAN POTENZA-If the system breaks down and he has to put a new system in he would have to go to 1000 gallon. MR. HATIN-My understanding is that an existing system can remain as is. If you put a new system or want to put a new system in then you have to conform with this. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-In otherwords if it works then don't fix it. MR. KINNEY-I guess I'll have to put in, into clarification suppose I want to add a bedroom then do I have to come to code, your saying if no one knows about it it's in the ground it's done. But, now I have a three bedroom house with a sleeping porch or enclosed porch so it's really five bedrooms under the code from a distance I'm okay and all of a sudden I want to change the sleeping porch into a bedroom or add another bedroom on I have to come to compliance and how do I do that? COUNCILMAN POTENZA-If the system works you don't have to do anything, but if the septic system should happen to break down and you have to replace it then you have to meet the code then you would have to put in the 1000 gallon tank. MR. KINNEY -You mean I can build onto my existing house without worrying about my septic system. COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Without increasing your septic system unless something goes wrong. MR. KINNEY-With this new law it doesn't say that. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Let me ask Mr. Hatin a question. To my knowledge for the last twenty years a three bedroom house would need a 1000 gallon tank and it may go back further than that do you have any idea? Any added home built at least in the last twenty years would already have 1000 gallon tank. MR. HATIN-I would think probably in the last ten. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Pliney says no. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-My house is eighteen years old and I know it was a requirement then. PLINEY TUCKER-Different subdivisions have different regulations. Bronk Subdivision is on West Mountain Road and Peggy Ann Road and I built a house up there last fall that only required a 500 gallon septic tank with 90 feet of leach field. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Do you know when they were built? COUNCILMAN MONTESI-The Bronk Subdivision was approved twenty years ago. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- That has to be before those regulations. MR. HA TIN -But, I believe he put into a system to meet today's standards right Pliney? You were made to put in a system into today's standards. MR. TUCKER-I built one on Bronk Drive twelve years ago and I didn't have to put in a new system, but I did. At that time I didn't have to do it, but I did so it doesn't go back twenty years it vary's from subdivision to subdivision. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-State Law doesn't though. COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Dave, my understanding is that if you have an existing system you go from three bedroom to six bedrooms you have to go to 1250. TAPE TURNED OVER ATTORNEY DUSEK-I have a suggestion to the Board and I kind of alluded to it early and as I sat here thinking about it, I was not aware of the fact that there is any kind of litigation going on with the Lake George Park Commission concerning their regulations. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Let's find out if there is and how far that litigation has gone. Is Mr. Salvadore still here, have papers been filed. MR. SAL V ADORE-Oh indeed. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Can you tell us which court this is in? MR. SALVADORE-It's in the Albany Supreme Court. ATTORNEY DUSEK-In light of that and because of the fact part of this certainly did come from the Lake George Park Commission Regulations because of our agreement with them, I would like an opportunity to further investigate that as well as this language as well as make some of the correction. I think my recommendation to the Board would be you can certainly go ahead with Section One, but two and three it might not be a bad idea if we check it out more carefully. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Any other comments from any member of the public about Sections Two, Three or One, we're still open. Letter handed to Supervisor Borgos from Mike Baird SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I'm requested to read this into the record this comes from Hannen Engineering signed by Tom Nace, P.E. Gentlemen: I have reviewed the proposed amendments to the Queensbury Sanitary Sewage Disposal Ordinance and I generally support them. However, based upon my experience with the sub-surface disposal systems, I would like to offer the following comments. 1) I'm opposed to the propose changes to Appendix B which would reduce the vertical separation distance between the bottom of the absorption system and groundwater within the Lake George basin. I strongly agree that the areas adjacent to the lake shore need more protection then is afforded by the propose two foot separation. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I thought someone said a few minutes ago it was a four foot separation proposed? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We're talking about two different parts of the. . . SUPERVISOR BORGOS-(Continued letter) I do not believe, however, that the entire basin needs this entire protection, therefore I would suggest that the old Appendix B should be maintained and infact consideration should be given to increasing the groundwater separation from three feet to four feet for areas within 1000 feet of the shoreline. I would also suggest that this separation apply to Glen Lake and Lake Sunnyside. 2) The existing code in Section 3.010 paragraph (a) states that the system shall be designed in accordance with the Department of Health and the Department of Environmental Conservation standards and that indicates some conflicts among these standards the most restricted shall apply. I believe that this requirement creates design problems where the two specified codes are not compatible and should be removed. I would suggest replacing the statement in quotes with the following. "New York State Department of Health standards shall apply to residential systems with average daily flow rates less than 1000 gallons the Department of Environmental Conservation standards shall apply to all institutional and commercial systems and to residential systems with flow rates greater than 1000 gallon per day". Thank you for your time to consider my comments. Very Truly Yours, Tom Nace SUPERVISOR BORGOS-This is interesting it adds some more information and runs. . .to some of the things I think we heard earlier but certainly it is new information for us. Mike thanks for bringing this in. Anyone else, yes sir please state your name and address. GILBERT BOWEN-Lake George. Relative to the Environmental Assessment Form, I suggest you not take this lightly. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We never take them lightly. MR. BOWEN-The one aspect you should recognize is that as a result of some of the changes you may make you will in effect be furthering the effort of a sewer as such you should recognize your responses in the Environmental Assessment Form should address those as well. That brings with it a whole host of environmental impacts which change that probably from a negative declaration to a positive declaration. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-It's an interesting comment because we certainly didn't have that intent and I suppose one could come up with a hypothesis that's the direction moving in, I'm sure you won't find in the law anything that says we propose a municipal sewer. I see where your coming from and depending upon what your interest's are you could go in almost any direction. MR. BOWEN-The point is there is more and more people cannot meet the new requirements in effect you would be moving them towards a sewer district that in effect has vast consequences environmentally which should be addressed. As an example, there are questions in there as to whether or not blasting is required etc. The Park Commission made the mistake of saying no, no, no, on a lot of those particular questions they therefore came up with a negative dec which were the wrong answers considering the fact that there were already movements afoot relative to putting a sewer around the lake. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-It is interesting when we talk about Lake George and we've talked a lot about this we're dealing with approximately 900 parcels that are within 1000 feet of Lake George and in the Town of Queensbury and we find every conceivable configuration of geography there we've got rock ledge, sand and gravel, believe it or not we've got everything and people who have been met with rock ledge say, please put in a sewer system or let us put in holding tanks to resolve these issues other people say, gee we've got a great sand and gravel area we don't need anything and that's part of what the sewer project is doing in it's analysis of that. On the other hand, we are faced with this regulation from the Park Commission which has been saying the State is going to take over the inspection the State will make annual inspections give annual permits and you will pay exorbitant fees for this service mandated and you still have to follow the regulations. We said, we've got a great system right now a good deal of inspectors we can handle this nicely and solve the problems. What your doing is taking us beyond where we certainly intended to go your introducing some questions that we should look at and then will come back. MR. BOWEN-At the hearing that the Park Commission had at that time when they brought up the negative dec there were a lot of people who took issue with that in terms of their responses they went forward with erroneous statement in there that's what part of the suit is about. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- Thank you. Anyone else for the first time before Mr. Salvadore comes back in, Mr. Salvadore. MR. SAL V ADORE-We talk frequently about environmental impacts SEQRA is a little broader in it's definition. It says here, accordingly it is the intent of this part that a suitable balance of social, economic and environmental factors be incorporated into the planning and decision making process of local agencies. It is not the intention of SEQRA that environmental factors be the sole consideration in decision making. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We agree 100 per cent we've made exactly the same pitch to the State DEC regarding landfills, regarding sewers, we're on your side 100 per cent and we try to do that that's why we saved you personally untold thousands of dollars by our first action in taking over the regulations of the Lake George Park Commission so you don't have to pay those huge fees every time. MR. SAL V ADORE-You keep telling me there is a free lunch. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-No, I didn't say that. I don't know what your annual fee bill was going to be whether it was three, five, or ten thousand dollars that you won't have to pay this year because we're going to be doing it. MR. SAL V ADORE-Without the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement you don't quantify these subjects and that's the requirement. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Except in they are flagged in the long form environmental assessment form then they do get quantified we flag them as we go through. Thank you. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Is it the opinion of the Board tonight that we should take that Article One out? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Let's see if we have anymore comments first, I think we're leaning in that direction. Anyone else wish to speak about this particular public hearing, hearing no other request to speak will close this public hearing. TOWN ATTORNEY TO REVISE RESOLUTION PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND LOCAL 4, 1991 RECYCLING 8:25 P.M. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Has this been advertised? TOWN CLERK-Yes, it has. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-As I recall, at least the major part of this was to change the penalties for violation. Originally the regulation we have on the book which has been there a short time it says, for the first conviction there would be a warning and it's the first conviction not the first time your stopped and told your doing something wrong, but the first conviction of a violation of the recycling law you get a warning and the proposed changes keep it the same. For the second conviction within a five year period the current law says, $100.00 fine and the propose law says, $25.00 so there is a propose reduction in the fine for the second conviction in a five year period. For the third conviction the propose language would be the same as it currently is up to $250.00 so now we're already passed warning and a small fine and $250.00. Now for any subsequent conviction within a five year period the current language says up. . . COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA- They are leaving five years. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I'm sorry. For any subsequent conviction up to $500.00 penalty is proposed to be change to up to $2500.00 penalty. This is obviously intended for everyone, but primarily intended for the solid waste haulers who bring in large volumes to try to discourage them, but you have to be convicted several times before you get to this point then at the discretion of the judge it's up to $2500.00. Those are the propose changes anyone wish to speak for or against these items? Yes sir, please state your name and address. GILBERT BOWEN-Lake George. I have some questions, how do you enforce this, where does it get enforce, who does the enforcing and are your fines commensurate with if we just throw it on the side of the road? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The last part of your question is a little ringer is because hopefully we're going to be acting very quickly to change those regulations and dramatically increase the fine for throwing it on the side of the road. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Or in the pole line. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Or on the pole lines we couldn't drive through there because it's so full of kitchen sinks, refrigerators. I'll ask our Landfill Superintendent to address this. Jim, will you explain what happens if you find something in the solid waste that shouldn't be there by the person or hauler and what you would do about it and who would write a ticket? MR. BOWEN-Is the hauler also the policemen? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-No. Jim Coughlan is our Landfill Superintendent he is also the Director of Solid Waste from the Town and recycle. JIM COUGHLAN, LANDFILL SUPERINTENDENT, RIDGE ROAD LANDFILL-The question you just ask me the recycling has been going very well so far we haven't had those problems yet. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-How many people have received an official ticket and gone to court? MR. COUGHLAN-None. If we did have that problem I would just call the local police agency and have them come and take action. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Any other question? MR. BOWEN-It seems then a local individual a private individual doesn't have to do separation or anything like that is that true? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-No. I think what Jim was saying is that they are all doing it. MR. COUGHLAN-Everybody is recycling putting all the efforts they can into it, yes. MR. BOWEN-But,your going to get some people that are going. . . SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Probably will and I imagine they will end up in court. MR. BOWEN-Then what happens is then the haulers a policemen, does he then call them. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The haulers I've spoken to have said to me very bluntly, if they find someone bringing our their trash with things in it that shouldn't be there they are going to leave the trash there. That's the way they are going to enforce it they are not going to write tickets they are not going to bring people to court they are just not going to take the solid waste away. MR. BOWEN-I visualize people just putting everything into a bag regardless of what it is. Does the hauler open it up? SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The hauler looks at it through the bag or he is going to open it up or if he knows he is going to be fined and then leave it right there. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-It's his responsibility if he doesn't. MR. BOWEN-I would expect then the haulers going to increase the fees. SUPERVISOR BORGOS- That's up to the hauler. A lot of people are choosing to bring their own solid waste to the landfill or transfer station and that's fine. It kind of introduces some competition into this it forces the hauler to keep the fees lower because he knows he has the alternative to go to the transfer station. If you didn't have that alternative then you'd be paying a lot of money. Anyone else wish to speak about this, seeing no other hands will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:29 P.M. DISCUSSION HELD COUNCILMAN KUROSAKA-Questioned the City's proposal for recycling? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Noted that he had met with the City's Attorney and one of the Councilman to go over the law. Noted that the City has brought their law almost into identical format with the Towns with the exception to grass and those type of things that they already take care of themselves the Towns proposal is to match up with the City's in terms of penalties. Noted that he doesn't anticipate the city asking for any further amendments. RESOLUTION TO ENACT LOCAL LAW NUMBER 8, 1991 A LOCAL LAW AMENDING LOCAL LAW 4, 1991, TITLED, A LOCAL LAW PROVIDING FOR MANDATORY COLLECTION, SOURCE SEPARATION, AND SEGREGATION OF RECYCLABLES OR REUSABLE MATERIAL FROM SOLID WASTE RESOLUTION NO. 319, 1991 Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of enacting a Local Law entitled, "A Local Law Amending Local Law NO.4 or 1991 Titled, A Local Law Providing for Mandatory Collection, Source Separation, and Segregation of Recyclables or Reusable Material From Solid Waste," and WHEREAS, a copy of the aforesaid proposed Local Law has been presented at this meeting, a copy of said Local Law also having been previously given to the Town Board at the time resolution was adopted which set a date and time for a public hearing, and WHEREAS, on June 3, 1991, a public hearing with regard to this Local Law was duly conducted, and WHEREAS, the proposed action about to be undertaken is identified as a Type II action under the rules and regulations of the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and no further SEQRA review is necessary, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby determines that the approval and adoption of the proposed Local Law entitled, "A Local Law Amending Local Law NO.4 of 1991, Titled A Local Law Providing for Mandatory Collection, Source, Separation, and Segregation of Recyclables or Reusable Material From Solid Waste," the action about to be undertaken, is a Type II Action, as the same is prescribed by the rules and regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and adopted in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and therefore no further environmental review is necessary, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby enacts the aforesaid, proposed Local Law to be known as Local Law Number 9, 1991, the same to be titled and contain such provisions as are set forth in a copy of the proposed Local Law presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to file the said Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and that said Local Law will take effect immediately and as soon as allowable under law. Duly adopted this 3rd day of June, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent:None LOCAL LAW NO.9, 1991 A LOCAL LAW AMENDING LOCAL LAW NO.4 OF 1991 TITLED A LOCAL LAW PROVIDING FOR MANDATORY COLLECTION, SOURCE SEPARATION AND SEGREGATION OF RECYCLABLES OR REUSABLE MATERIAL FROM SOLID WASTE BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS FOLLOWS; Section 1. Local Law No.4, 1991 entitled A Local Law Amending Local Law NO.4 of 1991 titled a Local Law Providing for Mandatory Collection, Source Separation and Segregation of Recyclables or Reusable Material from Solid Waste of the Town of Queensbury, Section 8 paragraph d) is hereby amended to read as follows: d) The violation of this Local Law shall be punishable by a fine as described below. The following fines may be levied upon any person convicted of violating this Local Law: i) For a first conviction: A warning. ii) For a second conviction Up to Twenty-Five Dollars ($25.00. iii) For a third conviction Up to Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00). iv) For any subsequent conviction Up to Twenty-Five Hundred Dollars ($2500.00). Section 2. This Local Law shall take effect immediately as provided by the Municipal Home Rule Laws of the State of New York. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Complimented Jim Coughlan and thanked him for the work he has done on cleaning up the road sides by using voluntary action help. Noted he has cleaned Ridge Road from Route 149 to the Glens Falls City line, Luzerne Road to the Queensbury Fire Station to the other side of the Northway and has cleaned Jenkinsville Road and Sunnyside Road. RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF A LOCAL LAW ENTITLED" A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, CHAPTER 136 THEREOF, ENTITLED 'SEWERS AND SEW AGE DISPOSAL TO AMEND AND ADD A NEW PARAGRAPH CONCERNING STANDARDS FOR LEACHING FACILITIES RESOLUTION NO. 320, 1991 Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering the action of the adoption of a Local law which would amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 136 thereof, entitled "Sewers and Sewage Disposal", to amend and add a new paragraph concerning standards for leaching facilities, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified to act as lead agency with respect to compliance with SEQRA which requires environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is an unlisted action pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board after considering the action proposed herein, reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form, reviewing the criteria contained in Section 617.11, and thoroughly analyzing the said action with respect to potential environmental concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to complete and execute Part III of the said Environmental Assessment Form and to check the box thereon indicating that the proposed action will not result in any signigicant adverse impacts, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section 617.15, the annexed Negative Declaration is hereby approved and the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to file the same in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Duly adopted this 3rd day of June, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent:None RESOLUTION TO ENACT LOCAL LAW NO. 10, 1991 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, CHAPTER 136 THEREOF, ENTITLED "SEWERS AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL" TO AMEND AND ADD A NEW PARAGRAPH CONCERNING STANDARDS FOR LEACHING FACILITIES RESOLUTION NO. 321, 1991 Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of enacting a Local Law, entitled, "A Local Law to Amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 136 Thereof Entitled, 'Sewers and Sewage Disposal' to Amend and Add a New Paragraph Concerning Standards for Leaching Facilities, and WHEREAS, a copy of the aforesaid proposed Local Law entitled "A Local Law to Amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 136 Thereof Entitled 'Sewers and Sewage Disposal' to Amend and Add a New Paragraph Concerning Standards for Leaching Facilities has been presented at this meeting, a copy of said Local Law also having been previously given to the Town Board at the time the resolution was adopted which set a date and time for a public hearing, and WHEREAS, on June 3, 1991, a public hearing with regard to this Local Law was duly conducted, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby enacts the proposed Local Law to Amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 136 Thereof Entitled "A Local Law to Amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 136 Thereof Entitled 'Sewers and Sewage Disposal' to Amend and Add a New Paragraph Concerning Standards for Leaching Facilities to be known as Local Law Number 10, 1991, the same to be titled and contain such provisions as are set forth in a copy of the proposed Local Law presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to file the said Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and that said Local Law will take effect immediately and as soon as allowable under law. Duly adopted this 3rd day of June, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent:None Local Law to follow on page - HEARINGS REZONING REQUEST KERRY GIRARD SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that there was a major question off act that are there deed restrictions against the proposed rezoning. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Noted that he met with clients Attorney and it appears although the properties come from a common background the restrictions that were referred to as a single family were designated towards the subdivision and those particular written restrictions are not in the chain of title for the particular land that is conveyed into Mr. Girard. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Asked what the next step would be for the rezoning of this piece of property? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Noted that he has to review the documents submitted by the applicant's attorney and finalized them with the Board's approval. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Noted that his concern is the deed restriction that was raised by the neighborhood and the negative declaration, asked how will the public have an opportunity to understand that the Board is reviewing this? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Noted that if they disagreed it would be that there is an impact and if there was an impact then the Board would have to engage in further SEQRA proceedings which would give everybody more notice. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Noted that there was a concern that there is only one ingress and egress into the development from Meadowbrook Road. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Noted that he didn't have any further information regarding the ingress and egress. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Asked if any neighbors had anymore specific concerns that have not been raised yet? TERRY RY AN-24 Meadowbrook Road. Spoke to the Town Board noting her concern about the wetlands being built on. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted the building would be 100 feet from the wetland and the wetlands have been flagged by DEC. JOHN ADELMANN-Spoke to the Town Board noting his concern over zoning being changed on properties after individuals have purchased them. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that the Board tries to do what is best for the whole community all the time and still do. MERLE SMITH, BUFF ALO, NEW YORK, CONSULTANT FOR NATIONAL CHURCH RESIDENCES-Spoke to the Board in regard to the project. Noted when they first discussed this if there was a rezoning it would be conditional upon this type of a project. This is not multi-family housing this is a specific type of housing that serves people who are 62 years of age or older or people who are physically handicapped if they are over age 18. Noted that for each ten apartments there are four vehicles and that this project would probably have five to six vehicles for each ten persons. All of the units are one bedroom units with the exception of the manager's unit which is a two bedroom unit. Noted that this is one of the finest neighbors that you could have and that he knows of no instance where a development such as this for the elderly has been placed in the community where it had a negative impact on property values. MERV GRAY-Meadowbrook Road, Queensbury.Spoke to the Board noting his concern with the traffic on Meadowbrook Road. DICK MCCARTHY-Wilson Street, Queensbury. Noted that when the Board is making a decision on this matter that he hopes that they would be influenced by the number of people present at the meeting opposed to this. Questioned the Board on finding a new location for this project. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that the Board has spent many hours on researching for other alternatives for this project. MARILYN TALLON-Meadowbrook Road-Questioned what kind of Association the National Church Residences was? MR. SMITH-Noted that the National Church Residences was the Ohio Church Residences and came into being about twenty five years ago and started in Columbus, Ohio. HUD had issued mortgage insurance and community development insurance to back the loans for the project so they ended up owing the Town. Four Presbyterian Churches got together and raised one half a million dollars and went to HUD and said they would like to take over the Town and turn it into a retirement community and were able to get some loans which HUD backed with mortgages. Five years after that HUD established a program under which this particular project is built and questioned churches in various parts of the country for assistance in how you develop these things. They went into the business which is a non for profit corporation and change the name to National Church Residences and have developed between 130 -140 of these projects in size anywhere from 30-151 units in many different sections of the country. PETER WETTERSTEN-Questioned if the National Church Organization employed any lobbyist? MR. SMITH-Noted they do not hire lobbyist. MR. WETTERSTEN-Noted he spoke to Lee York, Planning Department regarding water table on wetlands, noted in his opinion he thinks it would take federal money to make this land habitable. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that the report prepared by the Planning Department says, that there is five acres on non-wetland area that can be developed. (Read report from Planning Department) MR. WETTERSTEN-Spoke to the Board in regard to the notification of meeting. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that this has been brought to the Boards attention. MR. WETTERSTEN-Thanked Councilman Monahan for notifying him. Noted it was her opinion that Mr. Smith has not made a good faith effort to relocate. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Noted that it was her opinion that there are other areas in Town that can be looked at. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Noted that the Town Board has become aware that some of their practices have to be changed in notifying people when projects come before the Board. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Asked Mr. Smith how many sites did he look at and evaluate? MR. SMITH-Noted that he looked at over twenty sites. CHRIS BOCKO-Wilson Street. Noted to the Board that she made a phone call to Econ and that they are going to be sending a man out to look at the property to see if it will meet the state requirements for a wetland. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Asked Mr. Girard if Econ had been to the property to designate the wetland. KERRY GIRARD-3 Cline Avenue, Queensbury-Noted Econ came in 1987 and designated the wetlands. Discussion held on history of location of project. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Noted that National Church Residence has put a building up in Whitehall, New York. MARIL Y AN TALLON-Meadowbrook Road. Spoke to the Board in regard to the entrance to the propose building. MIKE REGAN-Noted to the Board that he purchased a piece of property in this area and that the project did not effect the value market of surrounding properties. STEVEN MALLORY-26 Meadowbrook Road. Spoke to the Board in regard to being opposed to the project, noted that this project would change the character of the neighborhood. NANCY KELLEY-6 Meadowbrook Road, Queensbury. Noted that if the concerns she had raised previously could be met that she would be in favor of the project. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Asked Mr. Girard if Board members could walk his land. Questioned Mr. Girard when DEC gave him his original permit for his subdivision what were the conditions that were put on the permit? MR. GIRARD-Noted that they had to put hay bales around the perimeter of the property to take care of any potential runoff, all contractors would be notified if they were constructing within a wetland area within the buffer zone and that notification had to be on site and that the disturb land was to be reseeded. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Noted that if the zoning does not go through on this project that she will require a clause that the zoning will revert to the original zoning if the project doesn't go through. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that there would be no Town Board action taken tonight on this project. DISCUSSION CLOSED 9:45 P.M. REZONING REQUEST-FRANK AND TERESA ROLLO 9:50 P.M FRANK ROLLO-Spoke to the Board on his rezoning of property on Route 149. Requested to the Board that this come before the Board as soon as possible. RESOLUTION OF TOWN BOARD TO BE DESIGNATED AS LEAD AGENCY REGARDING ADOPTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING PETITIONS FOR CHANGES OF ZONE RESOLUTION NO. 322, 1991 Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is presently considering the amendment, supplementation, change or modification of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury which was adopted on October 1, 1988, and more specifically a change of zone of properties owned by Linwood & Peggy Hastings and Frank & Teresa Rollo, their parcels of property being tax map nos. 52-2-1.33 and 52-2- 1.34, changed from Suburban Residential- 1 Acre to Highway Commercial- 1 Acre, thus modifying the existing Zoning Ordinance and map, and WHEREAS, it would appear necessary to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act in connection with conducting an environmental review of the proposed action which consists of adopting the proposed amendment, and WHEREAS, it would appear that the action about to be undertaken by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is an unlisted action, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates that it would desire to be the lead agency in connection with any reviews necessary pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and hereby directs the Planning Department for the Town of Queensbury to notify the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, the Warren County Planning Board, the Adirondack Park Agency, and any other involved agencies, of this desire, and that a lead agency must be designated within 30 days and to further send a copy of Part I of the Short Environmental Assessment Form, this resolution, and the proposed amendments and notifications to these agencies. Duly adopted this 3rd day of June, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent:None RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE - REGARDING PETITIONS FOR CHANGES OF ZONE RESOLUTION NO. 323, 1991 Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is presenlty considering an amendment, supplement, change, and/or modification to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance which was adopted on October 1, 1988, and more specifically considering petitions for changes of zone by Linwood & Peggy Hastings and Frank & Teresa Rollo, whereby their parcels of land, known as Tax Map Nos. 52-2-1.33 and 52-2-1.34, would be changed from Suburban Residential - 1 Acre to Highway Commercial - 1 Acre, thus modifying the existing Zoning Ordinance and map, and WHEREAS, in order to so amend, supplement, change, modify, or repeal the Ordinance, it is necessary to hold a public hearing prior to adopting said proposed amendment, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall hold a public hearing, at which time all parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, upon and in reference to a proposed amendment, supplement, change, and/or modification to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance which was adopted on October 1, 1988, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said public hearing shall be held on June 17th, 1991, at 7:00 p.m., at the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed to give 10 days notice of said public hearing by publishing the notice presented at this meeting for purposes of publication in an official newspaper of the Town and by posting on the Town bulletin board outside the Clerk's Office said notice, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Department of the Town of Queensbury is also hereby authorized and directed to give written notice of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury in accordance with the written notice presented at this meeting, if it has not yet already done so, to be delivered 10 days prior to the following: Warren County, by service upon the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, and such other communities or agencies that it is necessary to give written notice to pursuant to Section 264 of the Town Law of the State of New York, the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Queensbury and the Laws of the State of New York, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Department of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of said proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and refer said proposed amendment, if it has not already done so, to the Warren County Planning Agency and the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury for their review in accordance with the laws of the State of New York and Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, and that copies of the Ordinance, this resolution and copies of the notices be given to said agencies unless said agencies already have copies of the same, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Department of the Town of Queensbury is also hereby directed to give notice and refer this matter to the Adirondack Park Agency in accordance with the laws, rules and regulations of the State of New York and the Adirondack Park Agency. Duly adopted this 3rd day of June, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent:None REZONING REQUEST-CHARLES DEIHL 10:15 P.M. No action taken by Town Board awaiting action as to who will be lead agent the Town Board or Planning Board. RESOLUTION AMENDING MEETING DATES RESOLUTION NO. 324, 1991 Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby reschedules the Regular Town Board Meetings of the Town Board for the month of July as follows: July 8th, 1991 and July 22nd, 1991. Duly adopted this 3rd day of June, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent:None OPEN FORUM 10:35 P.M. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that the Town Board will hold a Special Town Board meeting on Monday, June 10th, 1991 at 4:00 p.m., to discuss the landfill sighting criteria. Noted that he has received a letter from the Bureau of Census noting that there was a discrepancy with the census count for the Town and they are not done with the census count for the Town of Queensbury. Noted that he has received word from Assemblyman D'Andre's office that the Governor had proposed that the Town get zero per capita aid for this current year and where the State by written correspondence in late November told us we would get at least $235,000.00 which was put in the budget the new number is $93,041.00 per capita aid. DAVID KINNEY-Representing the Queensbury Business Association. Presented Board members with a copy of resolution adopted by the Queensbury Business Association with changes of zoning that the association would like to see made. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that the Board is aware of most of these changes and that some are already being addressed. RICHARD HUGHES-Bayberry Drive, Queensbury. Submitted petition to Board from residents from Bayberry Drive over the concern of Adirondack Community College having an open leach field system. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Has met with DEC and noted that DEC is uncomfortable with this situation. There is a proposal for a number of property owners on Bay Road to join together in creating a mini sewer district, awaiting for this information to come back. DAVID HATIN, DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT-Noted if the plant is maintained properly then you would not have this problem with the sewage and odor that comes from this open pit. ALAN LOCKIN-7 Bayberry Drive, Queensbury. Spoke to the Board in regard to the sewage that comes from Adirondack Community College, noted that his concern is that it cannot handle the amount of sewage that comes from the college. MR. LEOMBRUNO-Coach Manor, Queensbury. Spoke to the Board in regard to the proposal for a sewer district in this area, noted that Sue Balfour of Balfour Reality is going to look into this issue further. JOHN HUGHES-375 Bay Road, Queensbury. Spoke to the Board in regard to the design standards for sewage facilities, noted his concern was that Adirondack Community College should have records available for residents. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that the Board will be checking into this. MICHAEL O'CONNOR-member ofBRB Group. Spoke to the Board in regard to the sewer district, noted that his group has an interest in forming a district. MR. HUGHES-Questioned the Board as to what kind of problems they might run into as far as right -of- ways. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted it is his understanding that they cannot get involved in this, but if you can stay on private property as much as possible and try to limit to one or two crossings on Bay Road he doesn't think there would be a problem. FRANK'S PIZZERIA-Spoke to the Board in regard noting his concern on the number offood carts on Route 9. Noted it is taking business away from the restaurants in this area. DAVID KINNEY-Noted that this was brought to the Towns attention last year. Spoke to the Board in regard to vendors, noted he has one food vendor in his mall that rents space and has had to move outside because of these vendors because he is losing business, feels there should be some control. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that this was a serious problem and the Board will look into this further to try to solve the problem. PLINEY TUCKER-Ward 4. Questioned the Board as to what has been done with the guardrails on Corinth Road. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that he brought this to the attention of Fred Austin. MR. TUCKER-Questioned the Board on the balance of the money regarding Hiland Sewer. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that he has been in contact with them, but doesn't have an update on the current status of this. MR. TUCKER-Questioned the Board on the hiring of a consultant for the landfill. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that they have sent a request for proposal to three engineering firms they all came in and made presentations to the Board. The Board reviewed the presentations and did select the firm of Malcolm Purdy of Albany to handle the landfill closure activities. MR. TUCKER-Questioned the Town Attorney on the cost of the proceeding for the flag pin issue. TOWN ATTORNEY-Noted he believes that the cost was between $2,500.00 and $2,700.00. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Noted that he has received a request from a constituent regarding the repair of her sidewalk on the Boulevard. Noted he will look at the rest of the sidewalk on the Boulevard, handed this request to Supervisor Borgos. MIKE BAIRD-Queensbury. Spoke to the Board in regard to the public hearing on the proposed Noise Ordinance. Noted that the Queensbury Business Association has reviewed the proposed Noise Ordinance in it's present form and is opposed to it. Questioned the Board on the Recreation Fee for subdivisions. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that if you buy a vacant lot, build one house doesn't apply to you, but if you buy a lot subdivide it then you would have to pay the recreation fee. OPEN FORUM CLOSED 11 :30 P.M. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MINUTES RESOLUTION NO. 325, 1991 Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the minutes of May 9th, 13th, and 28th, 1991. Duly adopted this 3rd day of June, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent:None RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAYÆASEMENT AND FILL AGREEMENT RESOLUTION NO. 326, 1991 Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury previously adopted Resolution No. 146, dated March 4, 1991, authorizing the Town Supervisor to sign a certain Right-of-WayÆasement and Fill Agreement with 73 Quaker Road Associates, L.P., and WHEREAS, the Town Engineers, Rist-Frost Associates, PC, and the Department of Environmental Conservation have recommended the relocation of a certain excavated channel and culvert pipe relative to the aforementioned Agreement, and WHEREAS, a Modification of said Right-of-WayÆasement and Fill Agreement has been prepared, presented at this meeting, and approved by the Deputy Town Attorney, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Modification of Right-of-WayÆasement and Fill Agreement is hereby approved, and the Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed to execute said Modification. Duly adopted this 3rd day of June, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent:None RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW PROVIDING FOR THE TEMPORARY BLOCKING OF TOWN STREET, HIGHWAYS, AND ROADS RESOLUTION NO. 327, 1991 Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has been presented for adoption, a proposed Local Law which would provide for the temporary blocking of Town streets, highways, and roads for purposes of allowing a neighborhood block party, celebration, or other like event, and WHEREAS, such legislation is authorized pursuant to Section 64 of the Town Law of the State of New York, and WHEREAS, the Town Board must, in accordance with the Municipal Home Rule Law of the State of New York, hold a public hearing prior to adopting said Local Law, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, AND ORDERED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall meet and hold a public hearing at the Activities Center, Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, at 7:00 p.m., on the 17th day of June, 1991, to consider the said proposed Local Law presented to this meeting and to hear all persons interested on the subject matter thereof concerning the same and to take such action thereon as is required or authorized by law, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, AND ORDERED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to publish and post the notice that has also been presented at this meeting concerning the proposed Local Law in the manner provided by law. Duly adopted this 3rd day of June, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent:None RESOLUTION TO APPROVE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY RESOLUTION NO. 328, 1991 Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka: WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of amending the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, a copy of proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations have been presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board for the Town of Queensbury has held a public hearing concerning said proposed amendments whereat all parties in interest and citizens were heard and thereafter adopted said amendments, and WHEREAS, Section 272 of the Town Law of the State of New York provides that the adoption of amendments to the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Queensbury is subject to the approval of the Town Board, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the amendments to the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Queensbury, and also approves the actions of the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury in adopting said amendment to their Subdivision Regulations. Duly adopted this 3rd day of June, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SERVICES OF EDWARDS, WILLIAMS, MC MANUS, RICCIARDELLI & COFFEY P.e. RESOLUTION NO. 329, 1991 Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of authorizing the retention of the services of Edwards, Williams, McManus, Ricciardelli and Coffey, P.C., in providing assistance for the correction of the Quaker Road Sewer District March 1, 1991 billing, in accordance with the terms and provisions of a letter dated April 12, 1991, by said Certified Public Accountants, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and approves of the retention of the services of Edwards, Williams, McManus, Ricciardelli, and Coffey, P.C., in accordance with the terms and provisions set forth in the preambles of this resolution, with the cost of said services to be paid for from the Queensbury Central Quaker Road Sewer Capital Project Account. Duly adopted this 3rd day of June, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PERMIT FOR FIREWORKS DISPLAY RESOLUTION NO. 330, 1991 Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is desirous of contracting with Torrington Explosives to conduct a fireworks display as follows: SPONSOR: Town of Queensbury PLACE: West Glens Falls Fireman's Field DATE: July 6, 1991 TIME: 9:30 P.M. (approx.) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk, in accordance with the Penal Law of the State of New York, Section 405, is hereby authorized to issue a permit subject to the following conditions: A. An application for permit be filed which sets forth: 1. The name of the body sponsoring the display and the names of the persons actually to be in charge of the firing of the display. 2. The date and time of day at which the display is to be held. 3. The exact location planned for the display. 4. The age, experience and physical characteristics of the persons who are to do the actual discharging of the fireworks. 5. The number and kind of fireworks to be discharged. 6. The manner and place of storage of such fireworks prior to the display. 7. A diagram of the grounds on which the display is to be held showing the point at which the fireworks are to be discharged, the location of all buildings, highways, and other lines of communication, the lines behind which the audience will be restrained and the location of all nearby trees telegraph or telephone lines or other overhead obstructions. B. Proof of insurance be received which demonstrates insurance coverage through an insurance company licensed in the State of New York, and that the Town of Queensbury is named as an additional insured and that the insurance coverage contain a hold harllÙess clause which shall protect the Town of Queensbury; C. Inspections and approval must be made by the Queensbury Fire Marshall and the Chief of West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., D. Cleanup of the area must be completed by 10:00 a.m., the following day, and all debris must be cleaned up including all unexploded shells, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the permit or letter of authorization by the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury shall, pursuant to the Penal Law of the State of New York, Section 405, provides: the actual point at which the fireworks are to be fired shall be at least two hundred feet from the nearest permanent building, pubic highway or railroad or other means of travel and at least fifty feet from the nearest above ground telephone or telegraph line, tree or other overhead obstruction, that the audience at such display shall be restrained behind lines at least one hundred and fifty feet from the point at which the fireworks are discharged and only persons in active charge of the display shall be allowed inside these lines, that all fireworks that fire a projectile shall be so set up that the projectile will go into the air as nearby (nearly) as possible in a vertical direction, unless such fireworks are to be fired from the shore of a lake or other large body of water, when they may be directed in such manner that the falling residue from the deflagration will fall into such lake or body of water, that any fireworks that remain unfired after the display is concluded shall be immediately disposed of in a way safe for the particular type of fireworks remaining, that no fireworks display shall be held during any wind storm in which the wind reaches a velocity of more than thirty miles per hour, that all the persons in actual charge of firing the fireworks shall be over the age of eighteen years, competent and physically fit for the task, that there shall be at least two such operators constantly on duty during the discharge and that at least two soda-acid or other approved type fire extinguishers of at least two and one-half gallons capacity each shall be kept at as widely separated points as possible within the actual area of the display, AND BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor on behalf of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized to execute a contract between Torrington Explosives for the fireworks demonstration, the form of the contract to be approved by the Town Attorney and the amount of the contract not-to-exceed four thousand ($4,000.00) dollars to be paid for from the Celebrations account. Duly adopted this 3rd day of June, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent:None RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AUDIT OF BILLS RESOLUTION NO. 331, 1991 Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos: RESOLVED, that the Audit of Bills appearing on AbstractJune 3rd, 1991 and numbering 91232201-0201 through 91270900-0201 and totaling $423,148.24 is hereby approved. Duly adopted this 3rd day of June, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent:None RESOLUTION TO SET FEE FOR QUEENSBURY CODIFICATION BOOK RESOLUTION NO. 332, 1991 Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby sets the fee for the purchase of a Code of the Town of Queensbury at $200.00 each. Duly adopted this 3rd day of June, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent:None RESOLUTION TO SET FEE FOR QUEENSBURY ZONING BOOK AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS RESOLUTION NO. 333, 1991, Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby sets the fee for the purchase of Queensbury Zoning Book at $25.00 and for Subdivision Regulation Book at $15.00. Duly adopted this 3rd day of June, 1991, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos Noes: None Absent:None On motion, the meeting was adjourned.