Loading...
1992-09-14 TOWN BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 14, 1992 7:01 P.M. MTG #88 RES. # 486-507 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT MICHEL BRANDT -SUPERVISOR BETTY MONAHAN-COUNCILMAN SUSAN GOETZ-COUNCILMAN NICK CAIMANO-COUNCILMAN PLINEY TUCKER-COUNCILMAN TOWN ATTORNEY PAUL DUSEK TOWN OFFICIALS Joyce Eggleston, Marie Paling, Tom Philo, Bob Parisi PRESS: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN MONAHAN Supervisor Brandt called meeting to order ... PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED LOCAL LAW, EARLY RETIREMENT NOTICE SHOWN 7:01 P.M. Supervisor Michel Brandt-The first item on our agenda is a public hearing on a local law regarding early retirement, it is a law that the State has passed and we called the public hearing on it, quite frankly I do not understand it, but at least we are going to do the mechanism and go through the public hearing and then I think we have a window of a week to decide whether it makes sense or it doesn't make sense and we will look at it in more detail and try and make a decision. For right now I am going to open the public hearing on that local law, is anybody here that would like to speak to us on it? Mr. John Salvadore-Has the State passed this as a law? Supervisor Brandt-They passed a law making it a window where we can pass a local law to do this but the window is open and closed rather rapidly and we had to call the public hearing now so that we can keep the window open while we figure out what it is they offered us. Mr. John Salvadore-You have a choice though. Supervisor Brandt-We have a choice, it is our choice. Mr. John Salvadore-What are the advantages and disadvantages, I don't know this. Supervisor Brandt-I wish I did. Councilman Tucker-We don't either. Attorney Dusek-I can read a brief description out of this, if that will help? Supervisor Brandt-Sure Attorney Dusek-It is, the State amended their laws which in turn provides authority to the local governments which includes the Town of Queensbury, to elect by September 22nd 1992 so you do have a week in which still look at this and think about it before you act on it to provide a special retirement incentive benefits to the regular retirement plan that members currently have who are at least 55 years old and otherwise eligible to retire. Basically what it does is, the 1992 retirement incentive program provides eligible employees with an additionall/12th of a year of service for each year of retirement service credit as of the date of their retirement. A maximum amount of additional retirement service that can be provided is three years under the program. If you select that, there is an open period what has to be not less than 30 days nor more than 90 days. It says before adopting the incentive benefit the employers are required to estimate potential costs associated with adoption to assist employers the State of New York will furnish that information and I believe Kathleen has generated a memo on the subject. As I indicated just before the meeting when the Supervisor and I were just briefly talking about it, it seems to me and we can check this further during the week, it seems to me it is an incentive program to allow people to retire this year if they otherwise could not perhaps, or as additional incentive to retire this year even if they could. Councilman Caimano- The question is raised, what is the advantages and disadvantages, the only advantage, well the purported advantage to an early retirement program whether it is here or whether its private industry is in helping to balance the budget, obviously. You are supposed to figure out whether in fact that is going to happen. That is what we we're talking about here earlier, in many cases in private industry those people, those companies that had early retirement programs golden parachutes if you will, in the end it turned out that it wasn't and economical thing to do. I do not know that we have the time at hand to really figure that out, even in the space of a week because it requires that you figure out the net present value of your money down the road and how many people are going to be effected by this early retirement program but lets not kid ourselves the reason for an early retirement program is to shorten up the payroll, period. There is no other reason we are not being benefactors here. Mr. Salvadore-Under this program with the Town would you be saying to the full staff, that they have the option for early retire? Councilman Caimano-Some people. Mr. Salvadore-Who is in the drivers seat? The employees or the Town? Supervisor Brandt-Well, I guess, it is up to us to decide if we want to enact this to give us an advantage for a specific reason. Mr. Salvadore-Is it to your advantage? Supervisor Brandt-But, it is up to us to decide if it is to our advantage and if we want to do it and we really have not addressed it. I can tell you this, we did a study, the study has been given to us telling us every employee that is eligible and what it would cost the town to do this, but what do we save, I do not know, we have not gotten into it. We are making budgets right now for the town and by the end of the week that has to be finished, that should shed some light, are we trying to, is there someone here that needs to be retired out because that is a legal mechanism to get rid of them, rather than just drop the job? I do not know. I will know a lot more by Friday. Mr. Salvadore-Can't you do this in any case? Can't you offer an early retirement incentive to anyone on the your staff? Councilman Caimano-Not anyone, only those who are eligible. Attorney Dusek-Only certain eligible people under this particular law. Mr. Salvadore-Forget this law, without this law are you at liberty to create an incentive program to retire someone early, ... Attorney Dusek-No, it is governed by New York State, they set all of the criteria, this particular time, this was an option that the State said apparently they said for whatever reasons they have at their own level, they thought this was a good idea, they enacted into law but they did not mandate that municipalities use it. Probably, I am just guessing but it would make good sense that why they did not do it is because some municipalities certainly would not benefit from having these people leave whoever it is that may be eligible, it is not across the board. In the government, because New York State runs our entire system we do not have at the local level the same type of control over our retirement as say, IBM does, when a division manager decide it is time to let people go they can decide to open up a window and create it. The Town of Queensbury can't do that, what the Town of Queensbury can do though is when the State offers it and decide whether or not they want to take advantage of that same plan. Councilman Caimano-But, wait a minute lets not get overboard here, even private industry can't do it unilaterally there are rules and regulations mainly IRS rules and regulations, they have a set pattern and so do we on their retirement. We can not violate that unless there is a specific window and rule. Attorney Dusek-My point was is that we do not have locally the same type of control that the State has. Councilman Tucker-John, there is a 90 day time limit. Mr. Salvadore-My only point is the town on behalf of it's taxpayer citizens should opt for the system that gives you the most flexibility. Attorney Dusek-And that is what he is trying to do. Mr. Salvadore-Well, but you do not know? Attorney Dusek-That is what he said. Supervisor Brandt-We will keep the window open until we do know, anyone else to talk to us on this public hearing? We can go ahead and close the public hearing and not act on this and just leave it open for next week. Councilman Caimano-I would leave the public hearing open, because we do not know what might come forth, we want this window of opportunity, you are looking for evidence either way. Supervisor Brandt-If you got any information, put it on at some point here. Councilman Caimano-I would leave the public hearing open Supervisor Brandt-We will leave it open and we will move on. PUBLIC HEARING - MODIFYING AGREEMENTS VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENTS & RESCUE SQUADS NOTICE SHOWN 7:10 P.M. Supervisor Brandt-The next item is a public hearing on the modification of agreement, Volunteer Fire Depts. want to lead us through that? Attorney Dusek-The fire department came through with a request that and I think it was triggered as a result of OSHA requirements and also the fact that the county can no longer provide physical examinations, the fire will not, I do not know if they can but they will not provide the physical examinations to volunteer fire companies. As a result the fire companies now must secure their own physical examinations although I was not party to it, my understanding is that they reviewed a couple of different sources maybe more than two, three different sources for physical examination cost for each of the firemen. They came up with a proposal which I believe was Northcare in the end that they suggested that the Town Board and that they also found that they are going to need an additional $15,000. in this years budget in order, for all of the fire companies and rescue squads in order to be able to have the physical examinations required by OSHA. Now, the only way the Town can possibly give any money at all to the fire companies is through a contract or a contract modification since there is already a contract in place the current contract under law can be modified if the Town Board finds that it is in the publics interest to grant such a modification and obviously grant additional monies to each one of the fire companies. Traditionally when it has been a matter of something that involves, health related I think that the Town Board has quite a bit of discretion and latitude as to whether they want to amend the contract to provide this. Supervisor Brandt-I see by the memo there is money sufficient money to cover this in an account designated for fire protection. Attorney Dusek-This memo came from I guess, you are looking at the Barb Howe memo, after talking with E.J. I did not personally check those figures so, go by what it says. Supervisor Brandt-I did not personally get a chance to do that either although I worked with E.J. a lot today I just did not get to that one. But I have heard it from two different people that it is there and so I am going to assume it is there. So we open a public hearing on this amendment is anyone here to speak on it? Councilman Caimano-I have a question for the, especially for Brian. We kind of settled on Northcare but in the last, but in the last two weeks I received a copy of the letter the one where Dr. Gamer put in his bid. One of the things he talks about is a, in essence a mini stress test, especially for those people who are over 40 years old. In view of the program which we have for fire people now, I just wonder if the other two groups are going to do this also or is this something he decided unilaterally to do because it seems like a good idea given the fact that we are going to pay for people to stay on in the fire group. Mr. Brian LaFlure-1 would like to address that Nick. As I sent a letter to the members of the Town Board I will pass along the information as was given to you. We did what we considered to be what you would call a bid or request for quotations from three organizations to give us prices to do OSHA level entry level physicals and the second part of that which is really what we are under the gun for, the OSHA Fire Burgade stands require that all volunteer firefighters take a respiratory test which means that they are allowed to wear a breathing apparatus to go into a fire scene. If you do not have this test you are not allowed to wear an air pack or a breathing apparatus whatever you want to call it at the fire scene. At that point you are put in a different category and you are not the same type of firefighter as everyone else. This is very important to us, Queensbury Central is under a quite strict compliance date, we are the ones that have been audited so far therefore we have to do something. We have to move ahead with this. As a result of going out and talking number one with Chief Donohue from the City of Glens Falls who is also going through the same situation he had done a lot of research, talked to a lot of people. I talked to the same people all the fire departments in upstate New York are under this, they are being audited by OSHA. Some have been fined heavily, some have not. We were the first fire department to be audited in Warren County. That is not necessarily a prize but that is the way it is. Therefore we are kind of starting out fresh but we were able to get a lot of information from the towns consultant, Ed Corlew, and other people have been through the same thing. We came down with dealing with three different vendors, what we do find is that each vendors interpretation of the rules as far as to meet this requirement their interpretation of what is required. In otherwords what type of test they are going to perform may not be exactly the same. One may do one extra test, one may do something a little differently, the bottom line is, the fire service needs from this physician a piece of paper signed by him stating that the firefighter meets several characteristics. Number one that he can or cannot be a volunteer fireman, number two that he can or cannot wear a breathing apparatus and number three when is the next time he needs to be seen. In otherwords they actually set a time frame from when he must be seen again by a physician. These things have to be dealt with. We found, as I stated in the letter, we were not dealing with apples and apples, because each vendor decided that they would do, one would do a urine test, the other wanted a mini stress test, one wanted some other kind test, I am not a doctor, but what we had to weight in our committee and that was done at the committee with Ed Corlew the consultant that you hired. The OSHA compliance sub-committee which is made up of two representatives from each of the five fire departments, we looked at this heavily. We spent a couple of months on it and we looked at both costs and I will tell you the major thing we looked at was not the cost but the logistics. It does not do any good if one vendor is one hundred dollars or fifty dollars or ten dollars cheaper then someone else or does the test differently if we cannot get physically the firemen to the physical. If they cannot get it into their work schedule if the system becomes prohibited that they cannot make these physical arrangements cannot get to, get the physical done then the system is worthless to us. It is only as good as the fact that the gentlemen, the firefighters can get to it and can actually accomplish that. So that was another thing that we looked at, we did not look strictly at price, we did not look strictly at what the test was going to be. I understand that Doctor Gamer's suggestion made to you or his concern about the mini stress test... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-It goes beyond even mini stress, what he is saying is that even the breathing apparatus because, if the physical well being in other ways of the firefighter is not good then the wearing of a breathing apparatus may very well cause another problem. His concern of course is heart related. MR. LAFL URE- I agree with you there Nick. We find ourselves in a difficult situation if I was an employer at Finch Pruyn and I had sixty people in my fire brigade remember we are talking about 220 firefighters here on the list. If you were the employers of an industrial mill and you had 220 firefighters in your fire brigade you would be an immense operation. What you are dealing with here is if I take all these firefighters and I make the test as strict as we can and I agree we want to be for the safety and the health of the firefighters it does not do me any good to knock out half of the ones that are capable of fighting fire in this town, because of this test. Ok, I am not saying we want to thwart the test I am not saying we want to do it incorrectly what I am saying is we have to weight all sides of it. It would be great to say we are going to make everybody do this and nobody can be more than ten pounds over weight and you will have to be six feet tall and all these things would be great but we wouldn't have any firefighters, we would not have anybody. We know right up front, myself as an example, we are overweight we do not do firefighting for a living but it's something that we do. We cannot expect us all to be like the guys you see on TV it is not going to be that way. So, we need to do what is best as far as scheduling, cost wise for the Town we felt that the vendor we picked was the least expensive and we also want to make it so that they get a good test. The bottom line is the physician has to sign a piece of paper, he accepts the liability. OSHA does not care what the test is, what they want is a physician to look at this person and say, yes or no, that is the bottom line. We are not asking for short cuts but we need to weight all the sides of this program. Councilman Monahan-Is this test going to be standardized for the whole 220 people or is it going to very according to the physician discretion according to the medical history of this person. Mr. LaFlure- Y ou bring up a valid point Betty, Yes, what happens first there is an evaluation form that is sent to all the firefighters when they go for their physicals no matter who the vendor is they bring this evaluation form ok, in the case of Northcare, which is another reason why we decided to go with Northcare so many of the firefighters took their entry level physicals because the town was using Northcare for the entry level physicals, already on file there. Many of them already use Northcare as their health provider through their work or whatever, that file already exists. The Doctor can look at that file and get a history plus what is on the evaluation form. You also have the information that the firefighter is going to provide verbally, do you have a heart condition, do you have this do you have that? A physician is going to look at a guy, and say gee, this guy is thirty pounds overweight I do not know what we are going to do. It is the physicians call he is the one that's got to make the decision. Councilman Goetz-Is it a one stop visit? Mr. LaFlure-No. If the physician deems that it is necessary for the firefighter to continue on and take another test, and he says I like you, you are only thirty nine years old and we made the break at forty but, you are thirty pounds overweight I think you should get an EKG too, I think you should take another type of test, I would like to check you for blood sugar. That's up to the physician and he has to make that decision. I will site you an example the City of Glens Falls going through this now, they hired several new firefighters the first firefighter they put through on this system, the doctor did not like something that he heard when he did the chest sounding. The firefighter at that point had a choice he either lost the job, or he could go out on his own go to a specialist and get a specialist to give him additional information and give that back to the original doctor. Unfortunately the firefighters had to stand the cost of that himself it was about $700. but he did it because he needed the job and fortunately the specialist found that what the original Doctor had heard was not in truth what he thought it was and he was able to move ahead and join the organization. All these things are included in that, it is up to the physician, if the physician feels he does not want to put that person in a position where he thinks it is unsafe it is up to the firefighter the firefighter can turn around and ask for another opinion these are all things that are in there. Councilman Monahan-Nick the reason why I asked this, because if you are normally going for a physical to a physician a certain person might be deemed proper that they have a mini test, a mini stress test and another one think it is a waste of time and money so it does depend, you do not blanket those kinds of test for everybody that comes in front of you. Councilman Caimano- Weare not dealing here with the average, excuse me just for a second Brian, we are not dealing with the average Joe Blow I would agree with you, except we are not dealing with the average Joe Blow, these people when they go and work for us are under some stress in fact in many cases they are under a lot of stress. Exasperated by the fact that they have to climb ladders, lift weights and wear oxygen breathing apparatus. So I do not think it is out of the question no matter who does it that we unilaterally look at EKG's or Stress or whatever, because they are under stress, they are not sales people. Mr. LaFlure- This is where we come down, the bottom line is, it is up to the physician, the physician also has a line I do not have the form I should have photocopied to give you the physicians form that he is going to give back to the fire company which is considered non-confidential information. What he is going to give back also has a line where he can restrict the firefighter in otherwords he can say this man can wear an air pack but only two tanks or only one tank, he can not keep coming back and coming out and getting another tank and going back inside. These things are all included in the forms that he would use. It is not up to me to decide what vendor you want to go with we made our recommendation to be very honest with you on not just the price and not just the test but on how the arrangements would be made so the firefighter could get to the location to take this test. Supervisor Brandt -Really, what we are doing here today is looking at just funding this, and we do not pick the doctors you guys do, right? That's the way Councilman Caimano-It is in the resolution though Supervisor Brandt-But you guys discuss it and you came to a conclusion all we are doing is funding it. I certainly am not going to second guess all those things. Mr. LaFlure-1 do not want to ask you for money and then have you give us the money and then come back to you and say it was a good plan but only half of the guys bothered to go get their appointments because they could not get them. Supervisor Brandt-That is up to you guys that is your call. Mr. LaFlure-Right, but you understand that's where you are coming from, we are dealing with volunteers if we were a paid company we could say you come in an hour early for your shift and we are going to have a physician here and you three guys are going to get your tests. That works great, the City of Glens Falls the physician came four times, they have four crews they did eight people at a time in a month they had completed the entire system because those people were paid to be there. We are talking about asking these guys to come on their off days, vacation days and in the evening whatever it is we are trying to make this system so that they can actually participate in it. Councilman Goetz-It was part of the system because Northcare has more flexible hours? Mr. LaFlure-Bottom line we are trying, for me to administer, I have a full time job, I have a family for me to administer this project, like I say if we were a company if this was an industrial location you would have one or two persons forty hours a week in charge of OSHA compliance, they would be doing all this paper work they would be making the appointments and seeing that everybody gets there. What we were trying to do is make the system so that we could give the firefighters a window and you have the next twenty days for this particular group of the fire department, here is the phone number you call and you make an appointment to get your physical, they will tell you what appointments are available and it is your responsibility to get there at that time period and have your physical done here is the form you need to take with you that way there we throw the responsibility back on the individual firefighter it is his responsibility. If we set it up so that the times that are available for the firefighters are only at certain times and the firefighter works those hours that is a problem for us. Councilman Goetz-So, that is why you picked Northcare, is that it? Mr. LaFlure- That is one of the reasons we picked Northcare, the other main reason we picked Northcare was the costs. They gave us a drastic reduction in the price for those firefighters who have already been part of the system where the paper work, they already had a file in the Northcare system, they almost cut the price in half, so that was another reason. I can go over the specs with you on what we got back it is not an easy comparison, Dr. Gamer was a good price so was Glens Falls Hospital. The City of Glens Falls used Glens Falls Hospital because they came to the fire station and did what they wanted to do, that does not work for us. For me to try to get 220 people no matter how many dates I set up to come to the firehouse and stand around and get a physical I am going to end up spending my whole life on the telephone trying to get people there. We know it happened when we did the HPV inoculations the shots for hepatitis we still had to run around and chase people and that was only a matter of a five minute walk in and get a shot and walk out. This is, they can only do about six to eight physicals at a shot and to get 220 people through that is quite a project, so again, I do not work for Northcare, I am not arguing for Northcare whatever the town wants to do with that they can. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Councilman Goetz-This motion is just to appropriate the money. I will offer the resolution. Mr. LaFlure-1 would like to make just one more comment if! can. Councilman Goetz-You can talk fast, you talk really fast. Mr. LaFlure-Sorry. The resolution calls for the squads and the fire departments as far as I know the squads are not involved in this at this point in time, the squads do have a requirement for entry level physicals but as far as the original purpose of this did we started this project before the county decided they we no longer going to do entry level physicals. I know that is part of the problem that has to be dealt with if you want to leave the squads in there it does not bother me, but the original part that we did is for the respiratory in otherwords for the using of air packs. The original project that the OSHA subcommittee started which got this whole thing going was for the firefighters and that number of 220 firefighters that I gave you was strictly for firefighters. I know you are going to raise a question of what about next year? We are only guessing, we are trying to estimate but my guess is that the doctor is going to say some people three years, some people two years, some people I need to see every year. In that, the fire departments are going to have to include in their budgets for the following years in their own budgets they are going to have to assign some dollars to continue this project, because we know that each year there is going to be probably at least a third of the firefighters in each department are going to have to go in and be re-tested. This is a continuing thing it is not a one time deal. Supervisor Brandt-Do you have a contingency in the budgets that would handle that in the fire? Mr. LaFlure-Not for 93 we don't no. But, we are going into, we are going to be re-doing our budgets now and that is something that has to be addressed, whether we are going to do that as an amendment to the contract? It is not going to be the same amount, you know, on a per department basis you are only talking $1500,2000. dollars per department per year it is not going to be the large lump sum that you are looking at right now, right now we are having to do everybody all at once. We know right upfront there are people that are going to get dropped out, the people that we have now as fire police the elderly the statesmen firefighters that we have that only come to the scene to help out, they are probably going to find themselves in a category that they do not like. They are going to be in a category where they are not going to be able to be there anymore. It is too bad, we are going to lose some valued firefighters some long timers that help us out at the scene and certainly have a lot to add as far as their experience and unfortunately this law is going to force us to lose some of those people. We have no choice at this point. Supervisor Brandt-Anyone else that's wants to speak on this? Attorney Dusek-As a comment on the resolution and the contracts, my office drafted them, at the time from the information I had I thought it was fire companies and rescue squads that is why they were put together in the fashion they have. I think if the $15,000. quote is only for the fire companies my recommendation would be and if that is all it was worked up to be I think my recommendation to the board would be to delete any reference to rescue squads and any lines in the resolution that would deal with rescue squads from this and authorize only an amendment to the fire company contracts until such time as the rescue squads come forward. I had thought that this applied to both, that the whole workup was on both, but if it is only fire companies then it rightfully should, you should drop the rescue squad references. Mr. LaFlure-1 think what you are going to find Paul, is what we have is two situations here, the situation with the County no longer providing entry level physicals, that is something that was required by the counties self-insurance program, that was not something that our own by-law our own requirements in each individual fire department was calling for. So what's going to happen with that particular part of the project whether or not a person actually takes his physical for the squads I do not know. Where that is going to fall in I do not think that should be part of this project. Attorney Dusek-This is on going, this is for people who are already firemen and taking the physical exams required of them to be sure they can ... Mr. LaFlure-ln order for them to be qualified to wear a breathing apparatus they have to go through this whole procedure. Councilman Tucker-These are just active firemen, correct. Mr. LaFlure- That is basically all we have. Councilman Monahan-Is this the only reason for this Brian, to wear the breathing apparatus? Mr. LaFlure- That is pretty much the bottom line. Councilman Monahan-Because you say, you know, that this is going to kick out some of the fire police and stuff like that who never did as far as I know wear breathing apparatus... Mr. LaFlure- This is the problem that we have right now Betty we have people, Chief Mellon is here and John ... from North Queensbury these guys will attest to the fact we have firefighters that we know are never going to wear an air pack, we know that they are not going to. They have jobs that they do that does not require them or would not allow them to wear an air pack their wives would kill them if they wore an airpack. Councilman Monahan-Can't we get a category for them, that's not wearing an airpack, kind of a thing. Mr. LaFlure- That is something we are trying to work on, what you are going to end up is, there is going to be a three class system A B and C firefighters. An A firefighter is going to be someone that do everything a B firefighter is going to be somebody that can do everything but wear an airpack and then we are going to have a class C firefighter which can do neither A nor B and he is going to be the guy that is going to be standing on the side lines without his gear anymore. That's going to be, those people we are going to have to find a category for. Councilman Tucker-You do not have associate members anymore? Mr. LaFlure-We have associate members but they are not included in our membership as far as, since we went into OSHA required training the number of years ago we had to make some real strict changes as far as active and inactive firefighters. Associate members are not even carried on the rolls as far as the membership goes that would be included in anything that has anything to do with firefighting. Councilman Tucker-Well it has always been that way since 1948, you had active firefighters and people that fought fires... Supervisor Brandt-Anyone else that wants to comment on this? UNKNOWN-I think on the behalf of the members where we are I think it is a good thing, I think that it will maybe wake some people up that they are not really in the shape that they think that they are and I think it is going to be the town will benefit in the long run by having this implemented... MR. PHILO-I think with the insurance if they implement this with our insurance it should take a different view on our, we got some guys that are physically fit and as he said they are going to have to wash out some of these guys that do not meet the criteria. Councilman Tucker-Well, Sue. Councilman Goetz-..close the public hearing? Supervisor Brandt-Anyone else, I will close the public hearing. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO AGREEMENTS WITH VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENTS REGARDING PHYSICAL OR MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS RESOLUTION NO.: 486,92 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, a proposed modification to agreements with Volunteer Fire Companies has been presented at this meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury relative to the provision of physical/medical examinations to firemen, and WHEREAS, a public hearing after due notice thereof has been held before the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury on September 14, 1992, concerning the possible adoption of the proposed modification of the terms of the agreements currently in existence between the parties, and WHEREAS, the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the Town of Queensbury will be served, and WHEREAS, said proposed modification to the agreements and payments required by said modification are not expected to exceed $15,000.00 in total, and WHEREAS, Section 184 of the Town Law of the State of New York provides that the contracting parties, by mutual consent, after public hearing, may amend an agreement provided it is in the public interest to do so, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that it is in the public interest to modify the existing agreements with the Volunteer Fire Companies, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury modify the existing agreements between the parties to provide for physical/medical examinations under the terms and conditions specified in the proposed agreements, copies of which are presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed to execute said agreements on behalf of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury and the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 14th day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES : None ABSENT: None Further discussion held before vote: UNKNOWN-On the amendment the funding is for to bring the fire departments to OSHA standards...it is not for ... physicals Supervisor Brandt-That is correct. Mr. LaFlure-1 really think that there needs to be a little research done. Number 1, on however the Town who ever your insurance person is, are you still going to require the fire departments to have entry level physicals? If so, actually we can't call them entry level that is against the ... we have to call them placement level physicals when we get into that I think the Town needs to make a decision as to how that is going to be done and if so how is that going to be funded. That is another whole, another whole ball of wax as it were. Connie is that you back there? You know the squads and the fire departments some of them have in their by-laws that the physical is required and the bottom line is no one has got that in their budgets either because it has always been done through the town and the county's insurance system so this is another part of the project. It is not a large amount in otherwords right now, entry into the fire departments there may be one a month per fire department that may be a lot, maybe two or three town wide per month, we are not talking about a lot of people joining these organizations that is a relatively small amount of money and that is something that is going to have to be dealt with in the budgets next year. Councilman Tucker-Brian, wasn't the reason the County dropped the physicals was that there was a law passed and Mr. LaFlure- The 88 new 88 law states that you can no longer have an entry level physical which means before the person gets the job you can't make them pass a physical after they have the job it is lawful for them to have to take a physical to determine whether or not the job that you are assigning them to is ok. So, what they have gone from what they call entry level physicals to placement level physicals unfortunately the county attorneys office decided that they did not want to make that differentiation they just said that there would be no physicals. Councilman Tucker-But the thing is, there is a law that requires you not to request a physical you take them in wouldn't they apply with this physical that we are giving to them? Mr. LaFlure-That is the State Pliney, OSHA says and the State Dept. of Labor says that within ten days of them joining our organization we have to provide them with this physical and respiratory test. The 88 says we cannot make them take a physical. Councilman Tucker-I understand that, but you were talking about entry level physicals wouldn't this serve as... Mr. LaFlure-Oh, yes very much so for the Fire Dept. that is no problem. The fire departments are still going to have to deal with the on going every time somebody joins has got to have this physical that's not part of the $15,000. that is a continuing process that is going to have to be picked up somewhere in the budgets, we know that, that is not part of this initial shot of doing everyone that is in the system right now. Councilman Monahan-Paul, this resolution does not really say that and I wonder if we have to make some differentiations because there is nothing in here that says that, this money can't be used for those entry levels physicals that is strictly for OSHA requirements and therefore we may get in a mess before we get done having enough money if it starts getting being used for both. Attorney Dusek-You can limit the contract so that its just OSHA. Mr. LaFlure- What you have got to deal with is how are you going to administer this, this is the other problem, I can't tell you that you need six thousand to this fire company and four thousand to that company, those numbers are not available to me as to how we are going to administer this dollar amount and how it is going to go through the towns bookkeeping. Supervisor Brandt - I have a problem because by Monday of next week and I hope to make it by Friday of this week I have to have a budget. I am just looking at fire stuff right now, so, if somebody has got some input on this I sure would like to get as soon as possible. Councilman Monahan-This has got to come out of contingency funds this year, this fifteen thousand would be out of contingency. Supervisor Brandt-This fifteen thousand is coming out of a special fund that is a reserve fund, but that reserve fund is getting small. Councilman Monahan-Then you are thinking of next year for entry level and a continuation of somebody else that will also have to do OSHA stuff once they require, I think what you are going to have to do and we are going to meet with the fire companies tuesday night is have them get together an estimate of what those kind of medical cost are going to be in 1993. Mr. LaFlure-Right now, because we have not been through the physical system I cannot tell you, we are going to get a piece of paper back on every firefighter and it is going to say, I want you in one year, two years, three years, five years. Supervisor Brandt-I think we have got that solved, you said about $2,000 per department per year. Mr. LaFlure-1 think we could estimate that. Supervisor Brandt-Lets estimate it and get on with it. The entry level is a different thing... Councilman Monahan-And then I think you have to estimate, well they have to give us an estimate of how many new people they figure will come on and the same way with the rescue squads. Mr. LaFlure-1 do not think you will see any fire department go over eight or ten new firefighters per year and that would be a lot. Councilman Monahan-And what do those entry level physicals Mr. LaFlure-It is going to be the same physical it is the same as this one right here. Councilman Monahan-It is. Mr. LaFlure-What the squad does, you know, I do not know what their entry level physical is, they would not require the respiratory test, right, Connie or no? Connie-Not at this time. Mr. LaFlure-Not at this time, we are also hearing rumors to the effect that the squads at some point will not be in the same category as the fire departments but at this point they are not. Supervisor Brandt -Squads if you can give me information I would appreciate it, so I can do my best with it. OK Councilman Monahan-We all know they have to be an estimate. Supervisor a motion has been made and seconded any other discussion, please take a vote. Mr. LaFlure-One thing I would like to clear up, you have a meeting tomorrow night you had asked Mr. Corlew to attend that? Supervisor Brandt-That is my understanding. Mr. LaFlure-...what is the time on that meeting. Supervisor Brandt- 6:00 o'clock RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO AGREEMENTS WITH VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENTS REGARDING PHYSICAL OR MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS RESOLUTION NO.: 486,92 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, a proposed modification to agreements with Volunteer Fire Companies has been presented at this meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury relative to the provision of physical/medical examinations to firemen, and WHEREAS, a public hearing after due notice thereof has been held before the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury on September 14, 1992, concerning the possible adoption of the proposed modification of the terms of the agreements currently in existence between the parties, and WHEREAS, the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the Town of Queensbury will be served, and WHEREAS, said proposed modification to the agreements and payments required by said modification are not expected to exceed $15,000.00 in total, and WHEREAS, Section 184 of the Town Law of the State of New York provides that the contracting parties, by mutual consent, after public hearing, may amend an agreement provided it is in the public interest to do so, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that it is in the public interest to modify the existing agreements with the Volunteer Fire Companies, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury modify the existing agreements between the parties to provide for physical/medical examinations under the terms and conditions specified in the proposed agreements, copies of which are presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed to execute said agreements on behalf of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury and the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 14th day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES :Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES :None ABSENT:None Supervisor Brandt-I am going to close the public hearing on the local law in retirement just to get on with it... RESOLUTION CALLING FOR QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 487, 92 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves into the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 14th day of September, 1992 by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: AYES ALL THOSE OPPOSED: NONE ABSENT: NONE Supervisor Brandt-We are going to set a public hearing on Sewer Variance ... Town Clerk-Read application for Sewer Variance of Tom McGovern and Don Furlong RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES OF SANITARY SEW AGE DISPOSAL ORDINANCE FOR TOM MC GOVERN & DAN FURLONG RESOLUTION NO.: 21, 92 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker 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 Chapter 136 of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance to issue variances to such Ordinance, and WHEREAS, Messrs. Tom McGovern and Dan Furlong have applied to the Local Board of Health of the Town of Queensbury for a variance from certain standards of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance set forth in Chapter 136-7, Section A, such standard providing that: "Individual sewage disposal systems shall comply with the standards of this Article and with the most recent editions of the Waste Treatment Handbook - Individual Household Systems, New York State Department of Health, and Institutional and Commercial Sewage Facilities, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. In the case of conflicts among these standards, the most restrictive shall apply. " and therefore, for a variance from certain standards of the latest edition of the New York State Department of Health Wastewater Treatment Standards - Individual Household Systems - Section 75-A.8(h)3(vi), such standard providing that: "The separation between the outside edges of seepage pits shall be three times the effective diameter of the largest pit. This separation is measured as the undisturbed soil between pit excavations. " and WHEREAS, Messrs. McGovern and Furlong have indicated a desire to place the seepage pits 11' from each other, rather than placing them at the mandated 24' distance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on September 28th, 1992, at 7:00 p.m., at the Queensbury Activities Center, (reasonably accessible to persons with mobility impairment) 531 Bay Road, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, to consider the application for a variance of Messrs. Tom McGovern and Dan Furlong, to place the seepage pits 11' from each other, rather than placing them at the mandated 24' distance; on property situated at the corner ofIndiana and South Avenues, Town of Queensbury, New York, and bearing Tax Map No.: Section 127, Block 11, Lot 1, 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 14th day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN AS BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 21, 92 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns as Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 14th day of September, 1992 by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: AYES ALL THOSE OPPOSED: NONE ABSENT: NONE QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION TO APPROVE TOWN BOARD MINUTES RESOLUTION NO. 488, 92 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the Town Board Minutes of August 24th, 31st. and September 2nd. 1992. Duly adopted this 14th day of September, 1992 by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: AYES ALL THOSE OPPOSED: NONE ABSENT: NONE Discussion held on Crandall Library Mr. Mark Lebowitz-The purpose of the resolutions before you this evening is to put on the ballot the question whether the library district should be formed or not. The State legislature has passed the law that authorizes the establishment of the district if the voters vote favorably in each of the effective municipalities. The purpose of the resolution this evening is simply to get the matter on the ballot so the voters can decide. RESOLUTION REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT OF A PUBLIC LIBRARY DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 489, 92 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, the Laws of 1992, Chapter 456, authorize the establishment of the Crandall Public Library District for the Town of Queensbury, in the County of Warren, the City of Glens Falls, in the County of Warren, and the Town of Moreau, in the County of Saratoga, and WHEREAS, the aforesaid legislation provides, and the Board of Trustees of Crandall Library have authorized, that the propositions relating to the proposed Crandall Public Library District be placed on the ballot at the General Election to be held on November 3, 1992, and WHEREAS, the propositions to be determined are as follows: (1) Whether the public library district shall be created or come into existence; (2) Whether the initial annual budget proposed by the Board of Trustees of the Crandall Library shall be approved or disapproved; and (3) The election of one trustee from the Town of Queensbury to the proposed Crandall Public Library District Board; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of Crandall Library have requested that the Town of Queensbury adopt a resolution authorizing the placement of propositions concerning the above issues on the ballot of the November 3 General Election for the voters' approval or disapproval; and WHEREAS, the Warren County Board of Elections has advised, by correspondence dated August 25,1992, that the Board of Elections will require three separate resolutions from each municipality concerning the establishment of the district, the budget, and the trustees to be elected, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury approves and authorizes the following proposition pertaining to the proposed Crandall Public Library District and requests that the same be placed on the ballot in all the voting locations in the Town of Queensbury on the General Election Day, Tuesday, November 3, 1992: ESTABLISHMENT OF A PUBLIC LIBRARY DISTRICT Shall the Crandall Public Library District be created and be comprised of the Town of Queensbury, in the County of Warren and the City of Glens Falls, in the County of Warren, and the Town of Moreau, in the County of Saratoga? and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of the text of the aforedescribed proposition to the Board of Elections or other appropriate officials, with the same to be submitted in the order and form set forth herein. Duly adopted this 14th day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION REGARDING PROPOSED 1993 BUDGET OF THE CRANDALL PUBLIC LIBRARY DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 490, 92 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHEREAS, the Laws of 1992, Chapter 456, authorize the establishment of the Crandall Public Library District for the Town of Queensbury, in the County of Warren, the City of Glens Falls, in the County of Warren, and the Town of Moreau, in the County of Saratoga, and WHEREAS, the aforesaid legislation provides, and the Board of Trustees of Crandall Library have authorized, that the propositions relating to the proposed Crandall Public Library District be placed on the ballot at the General Election to be held on November 3, 1992, and WHEREAS, the propositions to be determined are as follows: (1) Whether the public library district shall be created or come into existence; (2) Whether the initial annual budget proposed by the Board of Trustees of the Crandall Library shall be approved or disapproved; and (3) The election of one trustee from the Town of Queensbury to the proposed Crandall Public Library District Board; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of Crandall Library have requested that the Town of Queensbury adopt a resolution authorizing the placement of propositions concerning the above issues on the ballot of the November 3 General Election for the voters' approval or disapproval; and WHEREAS, the Warren County Board of Elections has advised, by correspondence dated August 25,1992, that the Board of Elections will require three separate resolutions from each municipality concerning the establishment of the district, the budget, and the trustees to be elected, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury approves and authorizes the following proposition pertaining to the proposed Crandall Public Library District and requests that the same be placed on the ballot in all the voting locations in the Town of Queensbury on the General Election Day, Tuesday, November 3, 1992: BUDGET The proposed 1993 budget of the Crandall Public Library District is $1,103,493, to be partially funded by the municipalities comprising the District. The share of the proposed budget to be raised by an ad valorem assessment upon the real property within the Town of Queensbury is $287,956. Shall the proposed budget be approved? and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of the text of the aforedescribed proposition to the Board of Elections or other appropriate officials, with the same to be submitted in the order and form set forth herein. Duly adopted this 14th day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION REGARDING TRUSTEES TO BE ELECTED TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PROPOSED CRANDALL PUBLIC LIBRARY DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 491,92 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHEREAS, the Laws of 1992, Chapter 456, authorize the establishment of the Crandall Public Library District for the Town of Queensbury, in the County of Warren, the City of Glens Falls, in the County of Warren, and the Town of Moreau, in the County of Saratoga, and WHEREAS, the aforesaid legislation provides, and the Board of Trustees of Crandall Library have authorized, that the propositions relating to the proposed Crandall Public Library District be placed on the ballot at the General Election to be held on November 3, 1992, and WHEREAS, the propositions to be determined are as follows: (1) Whether the public library district shall be created or come into existence; (2) Whether the initial annual budget proposed by the Board of Trustees of the Crandall Library shall be approved or disapproved; and (3) The election of one trustee from the Town of Queensbury to the proposed Crandall Public Library District Board; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of Crandall Library have requested that the Town of Queensbury adopt a resolution authorizing the placement of propositions concerning the above issues on the ballot of the November 3 General Election for the voters' approval or disapproval; and WHEREAS, the Warren County Board of Elections has advised, by correspondence dated August 25,1992, that the Board of Elections will require three separate resolutions from each municipality concerning the establishment of the district, the budget, and the trustees to be elected, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury approves and authorizes the following proposition pertaining to the proposed Crandall Public Library District and requests that the same be placed on the ballot in all the voting locations in the Town of Queensbury on the General Election Day, Tuesday, November 3, 1992: TRUSTEES TO BE ELECTED For a vacancy upon the Board of Trustees of the proposed Crandall Public Library District representing the Town of Queensbury to serve a term of five (5) years. Vote for one: Charles F. Adamson or Robert P. McNally. and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of the text of the aforedescribed proposition to the Board of Elections or other appropriate officials, with the same to be submitted in the order and form set forth herein. Duly adopted this 14th day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES : Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO AMEND 1992 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 492,92 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHEREAS, certain departments have requested transfers of funds for the 1992 Budget, and WHEREAS, said requests have been approved by the Chief Fiscal Officer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the funds be transferred as follows, for the 1992 budget: SUPERVISOR: FROM: TO: AMOUNT: 001-1220-10 10 (Supervisor) Unappropriated Fund $ 5,300.00 Balance of the General Fund 001-1340-1140 (Budget Officer) Unappropriated Fund $ 400.00 Balance of the General Fund Duly adopted this 14th day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE CLENDON BROOK WATER DISTRICT WITH THE QUEENSBURY CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, WARREN COUNTY, NEW YORK RESOLUTION NO.: 493,92 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, there has, heretofore, been established and created a Water District known and described as the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, and WHEREAS, there has, heretofore, been established and created a Water District known and described as the Clendon Brook Water District, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of calling a public hearing upon the consolidation of the two (2) aforedescribed water districts, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall hold a public hearing at the Queensbury Activities Center, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, on the 28th day of September, 1992, at 7:00 p.m., for the purpose of hearing all persons interested in the subject matter of the proposal to consolidate the Clendon Brook Water District with the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, pursuant to Section 206 of the Town Law of the State of New York, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that if the Town Board shall determine upon the evidence given at the public hearing that it is in the public interest that both districts as described above be consolidated, it is proposed that the resulting Consolidated Water District would be known as the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, and all the property of the Clendon Brook Water District and the currently existing Queensbury Consolidated Water District, shall become the property of the new Queensbury Consolidated Water District, and the new Consolidated Water District would assume and pay the indebtedness of each of the original districts as if such indebtedness had been incurred subsequent to the consolidation, pursuant to Town Law ~206, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that if the Town Board shall determine to consolidate the Water Districts, there shall annually be assessed upon all taxable real property in such new Queensbury Consolidated Water District at the same time and in the same manner as other Town charges in amounts sufficient to pay the principal and interest of all such Consolidated Districts outstanding indebtedness, including the aforesaid indebtedness of the Clendon Brook Water District, and the currently existing Queensbury Consolidated Water District, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that if the Town Board shall determine that upon the evidence it is in the public interest to consolidate the districts, the future assessments of all costs of operation, maintenance, and improvements of such Queensbury Consolidated Water District, and Clendon Brook Water District, including any such costs that were formally assessable by law, upon the taxable real property in the aforesaid Districts, shall be assessed upon the taxable property in the new Queensbury Consolidated Water District, at the same time and in the same manner as all other Town charges, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that if the Water Districts, aforedescribed, should be consolidated and if there are any Office of Commissioners provided for in any of the districts, the offices shall be abolished upon the aforedescribed consolidation to become effective, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk shall give notice of the public hearing referred to herein by publication of a copy of this resolution at least 10 days prior to the date of the public hearing and by posting the same upon the Town Clerk's bulletin board maintained in accordance with Town Law, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby determines that the action about to be undertaken is a Type II Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and that no further SEQRA Review is necessary, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor and Town Attorney are hereby authorized to complete and file an application for a permit for the consolidation with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Town Supervisor is also authorized to pay any permit fees that may be due in connection with said application. Duly adopted this 14th day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INTERFUND ADVANCES RESOLUTION NO.: 494,92 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 9-A of the General Municipal Law of the State of New York, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is authorized to temporarily advance moneys held in any fund to any other fund, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the temporary advance of funds to the accounts or funds indicated, and in the amounts indicated, as set forth below: FROM: Queensbury Water Fund #40 TO: Highway Fund #04 $ AMOUNT $100,000.00 Queensbury Water Fund #40 Quaker Road Sewer Fund #32 $100,000.00 and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor, as Chief Fiscal Officer, is hereby authorized and directed to arrange for and accomplish the above-authorized transfers, and temporary advances, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor, as Chief Fiscal Officer, shall keep suitable records and arrange for the repayment of the temporary advances as soon as possible, but not later than the close of the 1992 Town Fiscal Year, and the Town Supervisor shall also determine the amount of interest, if any, to be paid, upon repayment in accordance with Section 9-A of the General Municipal Law. Duly adopted this 14th day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT BID FOR PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF OIL-FIRED HOT WATER BOILER AT QUEENSBURY TOWN COURT RESOLUTION NO. 495, 92 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHEREAS, A. Peter Brault, Town Building & Grounds Superintendent, sent a letter to prospective bidders for the purchase and installation of an oil-fired hot water boiler for the Queensbury Town Court Building, a copy of said letter being presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, Kenneth F. Celeste Plumbing & Heating, Inc. has submitted the lowest bid for the aforementioned purchase and installation services, (a copy of their proposal being presented to this meeting), and WHEREAS, Mr. A. Peter Brault, has recommended that the bid be awarded to the aforesaid bidder, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, hereby awards the bid for the purchase and installation of an oil-fired hot water boiler for the Queensbury Town Court Building to Kenneth F. Celeste Plumbing & Heating, Inc., and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that said services are to be paid for from the Air Condo & Furnace Repairs Account, #01-1620-4650-0024. Duly adopted this 14th day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATIONS FOR VARIANCE FROM REQUIRED SEWER CONNECTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 496, 92 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is authorized, pursuant to ~ 136-44.1 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, to, upon request, waive the sewer connection requirement of ~ 136- 44 thereof or vary the time in which such connection must be made, provided that certain standards and criteria or conditions are met or demonstrated and provided that a certain procedure is followed, and WHEREAS, in granting a variance or waiver, the Town Board may consider one or all of the following circumstances: (a) The distance from the building to the town sewer pipeline to which connection is required. (b) The cost of the connection. (c) The existence or nonexistence of any physical obstructions. (d) The financial loss to be sustained by the property owner in the event of nonuse of the current system. (e) Whether the current sewage disposal system is properly functioning. (f) Whether any rights-of-way or easements are needed in order for the applicant to make the connection to the town sewer system. (g) Whether strict application of the connection requirement of ~ 136-44 would result in a specified difficulty to the applicant, for which the applicant has not been given a reasonable time to respond to or address, and whether the variance or waiver would be materially detrimental to the purposes of the sewer connection requirement or that the property and the district in which the property is located or otherwise conflict with the description or objections of the plan or policy of the town and that the interests of justice are served. and WHEREAS, if the Town Board finds any or all of the above circumstances or conditions, the Town Board may grant the following relief: (a) In the event that circumstances giving rise to the request are due to physical obstructions, costs significantly greater than the usual sewer connection costs, a distance greater than two hundred fifty (250) feet from the sewer pipeline to the building or structure to be connected or a documented inability to obtain an easement or right-of-way over which the sewer line must pass in order to connect to the town sewer system, the Town Board may grant a permanent waiver from the requirement that the applicant connect the subject property, provided that the sewage disposal system currently serving the property is operational, in accordance with the Town of Queensbury laws and regulations and appropriate New York State agency rules and regulations, and (b) In the event that the circumstances giving rise to the request are due to excessive costs of connection, the financial loss to be sustained by the property owner in the event of nonuse of the current system or any other specified difficulty which makes it difficult or impractical for the applicant to connect to the town sewer system and the applicant is willing to pay the full and usual sewer rents or taxes accruing against the property, the Town Board may grant an extension of time, not exceeding two (2) years, in which to connect to the town sewer system, provided that the sewage disposal system currently serving the property is operational, in accordance with the Town of Queensbury laws and regulations and appropriate New York State agency rules and regulations, and WHEREAS, Bruce and Hermanette Main have applied to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury for a variance and relief from that part of the law requiring sewer connections upon the grounds that: they estimate the cost of connection to be $2,500.00, and they cannot afford it; and WHEREAS, the applicants have indicated that: their septic tank and drain field are new, large, and no trouble; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on the applicants on September 28th 1992, at 7 :00 p.m., at the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, to consider the application for a variance of Bruce and Hermanette Main on property situated at 31 Everts Avenue, Queensbury, New York, and bearing Tax Map No. 108-1-29.1, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the hearing shall be on written notice to the applicants and said applicants shall be entitled to ten (10) days written notice, with the provision, however, that this notice may be waived by the applicants by affirmative action or by appearance at the time and place of the hearing, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury be and is hereby directed and authorized to publish a Notice of Hearing in the official newspaper for the Town not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing, which Notice of Hearing shall be in a form substantially consistent with the Notice presented at this meeting. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is authorized, pursuant to ~ 136-44.1 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, to, upon request, waive the sewer connection requirement of ~ 136- 44 thereof or vary the time in which such connection must be made, provided that certain standards and criteria or conditions are met or demonstrated and provided that a certain procedure is followed, and WHEREAS, in granting a variance or waiver, the Town Board may consider one or all of the following circumstances: (a) The distance from the building to the town sewer pipeline to which connection is required. (b) The cost of the connection. (c) The existence or nonexistence of any physical obstructions. (d) The financial loss to be sustained by the property owner in the event of nonuse of the current system. (e) Whether the current sewage disposal system is properly functioning. (f) Whether any rights-of-way or easements are needed in order for the applicant to make the connection to the town sewer system. (g) Whether strict application of the connection requirement of ~ 136-44 would result in a specified difficulty to the applicant, for which the applicant has not been given a reasonable time to respond to or address, and whether the variance or waiver would be materially detrimental to the purposes of the sewer connection requirement or that the property and the district in which the property is located or otherwise conflict with the description or objections of the plan or policy of the town and that the interests of justice are served. and WHEREAS, if the Town Board finds any or all of the above circumstances or conditions, the Town Board may grant the following relief: (a) In the event that circumstances giving rise to the request are due to physical obstructions, costs significantly greater than the usual sewer connection costs, a distance greater than two hundred fifty (250) feet from the sewer pipeline to the building or structure to be connected or a documented inability to obtain an easement or right-of-way over which the sewer line must pass in order to connect to the town sewer system, the Town Board may grant a permanent waiver from the requirement that the applicant connect the subject property, provided that the sewage disposal system currently serving the property is operational, in accordance with the Town of Queensbury laws and regulations and appropriate New York State agency rules and regulations, and (b) In the event that the circumstances giving rise to the request are due to excessive costs of connection, the financial loss to be sustained by the property owner in the event of nonuse of the current system or any other specified difficulty which makes it difficult or impractical for the applicant to connect to the town sewer system and the applicant is willing to pay the full and usual sewer rents or taxes accruing against the property, the Town Board may grant an extension of time, not exceeding two (2) years, in which to connect to the town sewer system, provided that the sewage disposal system currently serving the property is operational, in accordance with the Town of Queensbury laws and regulations and appropriate New York State agency rules and regulations, and WHEREAS, Dr. Joseph C. Mihindu has applied to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury for a variance and relief from that part of the law requiring sewer connections upon the grounds that: he estimates the cost of connection to be $3,500.00; and WHEREAS, the applicant has indicated that: his septic tank and drainage area is large and occupies one whole extra City lot; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on the applicant on September 28th, 1992, at 7:00 p.m., at the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, to consider the application for a variance of Dr. Joseph C. Minhindu on property situated at 35 Garrison Road, Queensbury, New York, and bearing Tax Map No. 106-5-10, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the hearing shall be on written notice to the applicant and said applicant shall be entitled to ten (10) days written notice, with the provision, however, that this notice may be waived by the applicant by affirmative action or by appearance at the time and place of the hearing, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury be and is hereby directed and authorized to publish a Notice of Hearing in the official newspaper for the Town not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing, which Notice of Hearing shall be in a form substantially consistent with the Notice presented at this meeting. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is authorized, pursuant to ~ 136-44.1 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, to, upon request, waive the sewer connection requirement of ~ 136- 44 thereof or vary the time in which such connection must be made, provided that certain standards and criteria or conditions are met or demonstrated and provided that a certain procedure is followed, and WHEREAS, in granting a variance or waiver, the Town Board may consider one or all of the following circumstances: (a) The distance from the building to the town sewer pipeline to which connection is required. (b) The cost of the connection. (c) The existence or nonexistence of any physical obstructions. (d) The financial loss to be sustained by the property owner in the event of nonuse of the current system. (e) Whether the current sewage disposal system is properly functioning. (f) Whether any rights-of-way or easements are needed in order for the applicant to make the connection to the town sewer system. (g) Whether strict application of the connection requirement of ~ 136-44 would result in a specified difficulty to the applicant, for which the applicant has not been given a reasonable time to respond to or address, and whether the variance or waiver would be materially detrimental to the purposes of the sewer connection requirement or that the property and the district in which the property is located or otherwise conflict with the description or objections of the plan or policy of the town and that the interests of justice are served. and WHEREAS, if the Town Board finds any or all of the above circumstances or conditions, the Town Board may grant the following relief: (a) In the event that circumstances giving rise to the request are due to physical obstructions, costs significantly greater than the usual sewer connection costs, a distance greater than two hundred fifty (250) feet from the sewer pipeline to the building or structure to be connected or a documented inability to obtain an easement or right-of-way over which the sewer line must pass in order to connect to the town sewer system, the Town Board may grant a permanent waiver from the requirement that the applicant connect the subject property, provided that the sewage disposal system currently serving the property is operational, in accordance with the Town of Queensbury laws and regulations and appropriate New York State agency rules and regulations, and (b) In the event that the circumstances giving rise to the request are due to excessive costs of connection, the financial loss to be sustained by the property owner in the event of nonuse of the current system or any other specified difficulty which makes it difficult or impractical for the applicant to connect to the town sewer system and the applicant is willing to pay the full and usual sewer rents or taxes accruing against the property, the Town Board may grant an extension of time, not exceeding two (2) years, in which to connect to the town sewer system, provided that the sewage disposal system currently serving the property is operational, in accordance with the Town of Queensbury laws and regulations and appropriate New York State agency rules and regulations, and WHEREAS, Ms. Judith A. Martens and Ms. Belle B. Sutton, Co-Executrices of the Estate of Ms. Eleanor S. Backon, have applied to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury for a variance and relief from that part of the law requiring sewer connections upon the grounds that: The residence lies directly behind the house at 339 Ridge Road, and does not have road frontage; and that a physical obstruction exists which makes the connection difficult or impossible, such obstruction being that there is a water main nmning parallel to Ridge Road to be excavated around; and WHEREAS, the applicants have indicated that: the property presently is hooked into a septic system; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on the applicant on September 28th, 1992, at 7:00 p.m., at the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, to consider the application for a variance of Ms. Judith A. Martens and Ms. Belle B. Sutton, Co-Executrices of the Estate of Ms. Eleanor S. Backon, on property situated at 337 Ridge Road, Queensbury, New York, and bearing Tax Map No. 109-3-21.6, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the hearing shall be on written notice to the applicant and said applicant shall be entitled to ten (10) days written notice, with the provision, however, that this notice may be waived by the applicant by affirmative action or by appearance at the time and place of the hearing, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury be and is hereby directed and authorized to publish a Notice of Hearing in the official newspaper for the Town not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing, which Notice of Hearing shall be in a form substantially consistent with the Notice presented at this meeting. WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is authorized, pursuant to ~ 136-44.1 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, to, upon request, waive the sewer connection requirement of ~ 136- 44 thereof or vary the time in which such connection must be made, provided that certain standards and criteria or conditions are met or demonstrated and provided that a certain procedure is followed, and WHEREAS, in granting a variance or waiver, the Town Board may consider one or all of the following circumstances: (a) The distance from the building to the town sewer pipeline to which connection is required. (b) The cost of the connection. (c) The existence or nonexistence of any physical obstructions. (d) The financial loss to be sustained by the property owner in the event of nonuse of the current system. (e) Whether the current sewage disposal system is properly functioning. (f) Whether any rights-of-way or easements are needed in order for the applicant to make the connection to the town sewer system. (g) Whether strict application of the connection requirement of ~ 136-44 would result in a specified difficulty to the applicant, for which the applicant has not been given a reasonable time to respond to or address, and whether the variance or waiver would be materially detrimental to the purposes of the sewer connection requirement or that the property and the district in which the property is located or otherwise conflict with the description or objections of the plan or policy of the town and that the interests of justice are served. and WHEREAS, if the Town Board finds any or all of the above circumstances or conditions, the Town Board may grant the following relief: (a) In the event that circumstances giving rise to the request are due to physical obstructions, costs significantly greater than the usual sewer connection costs, a distance greater than two hundred fifty (250) feet from the sewer pipeline to the building or structure to be connected or a documented inability to obtain an easement or right-of-way over which the sewer line must pass in order to connect to the town sewer system, the Town Board may grant a permanent waiver from the requirement that the applicant connect the subject property, provided that the sewage disposal system currently serving the property is operational, in accordance with the Town of Queensbury laws and regulations and appropriate New York State agency rules and regulations, and (b) In the event that the circumstances giving rise to the request are due to excessive costs of connection, the financial loss to be sustained by the property owner in the event of nonuse of the current system or any other specified difficulty which makes it difficult or impractical for the applicant to connect to the town sewer system and the applicant is willing to pay the full and usual sewer rents or taxes accruing against the property, the Town Board may grant an extension of time, not exceeding two (2) years, in which to connect to the town sewer system, provided that the sewage disposal system currently serving the property is operational, in accordance with the Town of Queensbury laws and regulations and appropriate New York State agency rules and regulations, and WHEREAS, Mr. Robert Blake has applied to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury for a variance and relief from that part of the law requiring sewer connections upon the grounds that: Mr. Blake's house lies directly behind the house at 330 Ridge Street, and Mr. Blake does not have road frontage; and WHEREAS, the applicant has indicated that: his cess pool is very large and is made of cobblestone; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on the applicant on September 28th, 1992, at 7 :00 p.m., at the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, to consider the application for a variance ofMr. Robert Blake on property situated at 335 Ridge Street, Queensbury, New York, and bearing Tax Map No. 109-3- 21.3, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the hearing shall be on written notice to the applicant and said applicant shall be entitled to ten (10) days written notice, with the provision, however, that this notice may be waived by the applicant by affirmative action or by appearance at the time and place of the hearing, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury be and is hereby directed and authorized to publish a Notice of Hearing in the official newspaper for the Town not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing, which Notice of Hearing shall be in a form substantially consistent with the Notice presented at this meeting. Duly adopted this 14th day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT : None RESOLUTION REQUESTING UPGRADE OF STREET LIGHTS RESOLUTION NO.: 497,92 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury currently maintains, through Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, street lights at the following intersections: Luzerne and West Mountain Rd. Sherman Ave. and Clendon Brook Rd. Peggy Ann Rd. and West Mountain Rd. Potter Rd. and West Mountain Rd. Pole #345 Pole # 36 Pole # 42 Pole #112 and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of having the aforesaid street lights upgraded to 150 watt high pressure sodium bulbs, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has been advised that the cost of the same of changing the lights from the existing mercury vapor lights to the sodium lights would cost $14.80 more per year for the light and that the electricity cost would be less for each one of the lights, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to request that Niagara Mohawk upgrade the street lights to 150 watt high pressure sodium bulbs at the intersections indicated in the preambles of this resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to execute any and all documentation that may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of this resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the additional cost of $14.80 per year per light will be paid for from the Account. Duly adopted this 14th day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TOWN SUPERVISOR TO EXECUTE TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF GLENS FALLS RESOLUTION NO.: 498, 92 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHEREAS, the City of Glens Falls has submitted to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury for its consideration, a Transportation Agreement which provides for the delivery of regular, public service transportation to, through, and among the corporate limits and locations of the Town of Queensbury, City of Glens Falls, and other adjacent municipalities, and WHEREAS, the Transportation Agreement is for a period commencing on January 1, 1993 and shall end on December 31, 1994 and provides for the initial payment by the Town of Queensbury of $41,750.00 towards anticipated operation general expenses and capital expenses for the period January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1993 as set forth in the attached Appendix A. The Town of Queensbury shall thereafter pay to the City its proportionate share of the annual capital and expense budget and contribute to this payment of all other reasonable and necessary liabilities incurred by the City, and WHEREAS, the Transportation Agreement establishes public service transportation throughout the Town of Queensbury and which public service transportation will be beneficial to and serve the public interest of the people of the Town of Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board, on behalf of the Town of Queensbury, hereby approves the Transportation Agreement as presented to this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed to execute the aforesaid Transportation Agreement. Duly adopted this 14th day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES : None ABSENT: None At a Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, held at the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Queens-bury, New York, on the 14th day of September, 1992. PRESENT: Supervisor Michel Brandt Councilman Betty Monahan Councilman Susan Goetz Councilman Nick Caimano Councilman Pliney Tucker ABSENT: None RESOLUTION NO. 499, 92 WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has heretofore formed and constructed the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District; and WHEREAS, the expense of constructing sewage facilities within said Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District, is to be borne by local assessment upon the several lots and parcels of land within said area is a Town Function in the manner provided by Section 202 of the Town Law; and WHEREAS, the annual estimate of expense of the improvement and Benefit Assessment Roll for the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District in the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, pursuant to Section 202 of the Town Law, has been duly prepared; and WHEREAS, the expense of said sewer district area is to be assessed in proportion to the amount of benefits derived from the improvement area pursuant to Section 202 of the Town Law of the State of New York; and WHEREAS, the assessment roll for the said sewer improvement area has been prepared and describes each lot or parcel of land contained within the said sewer improvement area and shows the names of the reputed owner or owners thereof and the aggregate amount of assessment to be levied upon each such lot or parcel of land; and WHEREAS, the aforesaid estimates and assessment roll, copies of which are annexed hereto, were heretofore filed with the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, County of Warren, New York; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, RESOLVED, and DETERMINED, that a public hearing, pursuant to the provisions of the Town Law of the State of New York, shall be held at the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, on the 5th day of October, 1992 at 7:00 p.m., to hear all persons interested in relation to the aforesaid estimates and assessment roll and to hear and consider any objections to the aforesaid assessment roll and to take such other action on the part of the Town Board as may be required by law or proper in the premises. The foregoing resolution was offered by Councilperson Mrs. Susan Goetz and seconded by Councilperson and Mr. Michel Brandt adopted by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: None DATED: 9-14-92 RESOLUTION TO AMEND 1992 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 500, 92 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHEREAS, certain departments have requested transfers of funds for the 1992 Budget, and WHEREAS, said requests have been approved by the Chief Fiscal Officer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the funds be transferred as follows, for the 1992 budget: HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT: FROM: TO: AMOUNT: 004-9785-6085 (Installment 004-9730-7030 (BAN Interest) $10,000.00 Purchases) BUILDING & GROUNDS: FROM: TO: AMOUNT: 01-1620-2001 (Misc. Equipment) 01-1620-4100-22 (Telephone Use) $900.00 01-1620-4400 (Misc. Contractual) 01-1620-4670-22 (Telephone Repair) $800.00 Duly adopted this 14th day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES None ABSENT: None Discussion held regarding appointments to QEDC....Town Attorney will study proposal and bring the resolution back to the board next week... RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER TO FIRE SERVICE AWARD TRUST FUND RESOLUTION NO.: 501, 92 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, in accordance with the terms of the Volunteer Firefighter's Service Award Program, the Town of Queensbury shall make an annual contribution, in trust, in the amount of $400.00 for each participating, qualified, and eligible Volunteer Firefighter, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has contracted with EJH Employee Plan Services, Inc., to calculate the amounts due, and WHEREAS, EJH Employee Plan Services has indicated in a letter dated August 31, 1992 that the amount to be paid as of September 1, 1992, including interest is $85,801.00, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the payment of funds from Account No.: 05-3410-4980 to the Glens Falls National Bank for the Fire Service Award Trust Fund. Duly adopted this 14th day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES : None ABSENT: None Councilman Caimano-We are in this fire service award program so when the fire companies talk about A B C firefighters we have to be careful because we cannot be paying for people who are not firefighters... Councilman Monahan-If you look at the fire service award agreement there are certain duties that you do within a fire company that you get points and it is only by the points that you get that you get dollar amounts so it kind of been taken care of. Councilman Caimano-I have read that and I hope it is. Councilman Monahan-If it isn't you are going to have to do a new agreement. Councilman Tucker-If it is done right it should work. RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING AND TO DESIGNATE THE TOWN AS LEAD AGENCY REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, CHAPTER 179 THEREOF ENTITLED "ZONING" RESOLUTION NO. 502, 92 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of amending, supplementing, changing and/or modifying the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, the same having been previously codified and made a part of the Code of the Town of Queensbury as Chapter 179 thereof entitled "Zoning," and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the said Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179 thereof entitled "Zoning" is in the form of a Local Law and is presented to this meeting of the said Town Board with this resolution and is incorporated herein, as if more fully set forth herein, for all purposes, and WHEREAS, a completed Part I of a Long Environmental Assessment Form has also been presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury may, from time to time, pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law and the relevant sections of the Municipal Home Rule Law of the State of New York, amend, supplement, change, modify or repeal the Zoning Ordinance as codified by Ordinance of Local Law, and WHEREAS, in order to so amend, supplement, change, modify or repeal the Ordinance as codified, it is necessary to hold a public hearing prior to adopting said proposed amendment, and WHEREAS, it is also necessary to provide notice to other governmental bodies or agencies as required by law, and WHEREAS, it is also 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 a Type I action under the provisions of and regulations adopted pursuant to said State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates that it desires to conduct a coordinated review and be the lead agency in connection with any reviews necessary pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act and directs that such notices be sent by the Zoning Administrator to such other involved agencies as may be required under SEQRA to notify the agencies of this action and that the Town Board desires to be lead agent in a coordinated review and that a lead agency must be agreed to within 30 days, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall hold a public hearing on October 19th, 1992, at 7:00 p.m. in the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, at which time all parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, upon and in reference to the proposed amendment, supplement, change and/or modification to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance as codified and a part of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179, thereof entitled "Zoning," 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 a notice in a form to be approved by the Town Attorney and substantially in conformance with 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 Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to give written notice of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury as codified and a part of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179, thereof entitled "Zoning," a copy of the Environmental Assessment Form, a copy of this resolution and a copy of the written notice previously described 10 days prior to the public hearing 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 and Municipal Home Rule Law of the State of New York, the Code of the Town of Queensbury and the Laws of the State of New York, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of said proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance as codified and a part of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179, thereof entitled "Zoning," a copy of the Environmental Assessment Form, the Notice of Public Hearing and a copy of this resolution to the Warren County Planning Agency and the Town of Queensbury Planning Board for their review in accordance with the laws of the State of New York and Code of the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Zoning Administrator is also hereby directed to send a copy of the proposed amendment, Notice of Public Hearing, a copy of the Environmental Assessment Form and a copy of this resolution to the Adirondack Park Agency. Duly adopted this 14th day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES : None ABSENT: None DISCUSSIONS Attorney Dusek-We have an October 1st. deadline for filing the landfill closure plan, a closure plan has been filed on the part of the Town of Queensbury as well as closure investigation report for part of the landfill. Initially DEC thought maybe the entire thing was filed and they simply had not acted on it yet but it turned out that we only filed a part of it, now because the deadline date is October 1 st. my recommendation to the Board is to get an extension of time. I spoke with the attorney for DEC and indicated that the Town would like to receive an extension of at least 6 months from October 1st. in order to submit an approvable closure plan. I also indicated to him that I would go to the Town Board and request a resolution authorizing myself to send a letter to DEC making the request and also to say to them that I have been authorized by the Town Board to ensure the dept. that the Town Board feels that the closing of the landfill is a pressing priority and that it is continuously studying the best ways to close the landfill....is that acceptable to the Town Board? (Agreed to by the Board) Councilman Tucker-Who filed the partial closure plan? Attorney Dusek-Clough Harbour and Morse Engineers... Supervisor Brandt-What is obvious with the Clough Harbour Plan is that it anticipated an enormous amount of material that is not there and not coming in so we are going to modify that... we need to identify other sources of material that can increase our income and give us enough material so we can close this thing out without spending a lot of money hauling gravel to close it out. Attorney Dusek-It should be understood that Morse Eng. has in fact made submittals and the Town has made submittals to the dept. and are still waiting for the results of those submittals... RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TOWN ATTORNEY TO REQUEST EXTENSION FROM DEC REGARDING SUBMITTAL OF LANDFILL CLOSURE PLAN RESOLUTION NO. 503, 92 INTRODUCED BY : Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano The Town Attorney has the Town Board's authorization to send a letter to DEC making a request for a six month extension and also to make generally the statement that I have been authorized by the Town Board to ensure the Department that the Town Board feels that the closing of the landfill is a pressing priority and that it is continuously studying the best ways to close the landfill. Duly adopted this 14th day of September, 1992 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None DISCUSSION-Attorney Dusek-The other day there was a resolution appointing Assistant Planner and one creating the position of Assistant Planner I have been informed by the Accounting Dept. that Warren Co. says that the correct title for the position is Planning Assistant instead of Assistant Planner... RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTIONS NUMBER 537 OF 1989 AND 457 OF 1992 RESOLUTION NO. 504, 92 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano A resolution of the Town Board amending Resolution Numbers 537 of 1989 and 457 of 1992 to say Planning Assistant instead of Assistant Planner. Duly adopted this 14th day of September 1992 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None Discussion held regarding Zoning Amendments... Councilman Monahan-It was my understanding that subdivisions were going to have to comply with the setbacks of the new zoning setbacks of 1988 not at the time the subdivisions were approved otherwise we are going backwards... Attorney Dusek-No that is what you currently have in effect right now, that they are exempt until October 1st. and I thought you wanted to keep that going. Councilman Monahan-We said the non-conforming lots would be conforming but that they were going to have to comply with the setbacks....we were willing for the size to be a non conforming size to be conforming but they would have to meet the setbacks of the new master plan. Attorney Dusek-So you do not want any situations where lots, like the theory of generally conforming to the neighborhoods you do not want to do at all.... Councilman Monahan-Otherwise why are we bothering to re-do masterplans all the while? Councilman Tucker-What kind of problems are we going to be creating for people that went through the system and did everything they were told to do and then we change the rules and they have got to comply? Councilman Monahan-I do not think you are going to have any major problems... Councilman Tucker-Herald Square's first Development is not complete, they have 15-20 lots still it is the same with a lot of the subdivisions.. Councilman Monahan-There is no reason why they cannot comply with the setbacks... Attorney Dusek-my understanding is what this seeks to do is if you have a Planning Board approved Subdivision, if you have a 50 lot subdivision and 45 built so every so often there is a lot left over the question is do you want them to conform to the new set backs or do you want them to conform to the setbacks of all the other houses in that subdivisions already conform to? This would allow them to conform to the, be exactly when they put the new house in they would be exactly like all the rest of the houses as opposed to maybe they have to be further back from the road maybe they have to be further away from the sides. Councilman Monahan-I do not mind that with some subdivisions that have a few lots left, I do have a problem with some subdivisions that have not been built on at all and have been approved. Councilman Tucker-How many are there? Mr. Parisi-The total number of lots that you are talking about is probably something on the order of 5 to 7 hundred lots. The total number of houses that, over the next one or two years is hard to say. How many are under construction I have no idea. I can only tell you that several submissions have come in where it was impossible to site the house or the trailer under the current code, however if they followed the setback lines that were already established not in just subdivisions but the entire neighborhood which would not have been an aesthetic problem, they would have been able to put there the trailer or house exactly where they plan to put it. Supervisor Brandt-The problem is going to get down to deciding how many have been started and what constitutes a start and how many houses before you require a new setback. Councilman Caimano-We need to identify what we are going to exempt here and what we are not. Councilman Monahan-If a subdivision is already started and maybe there has been a pause because of the economics that is not a problem but if we have someone out there that has a subdivision approved under old regulations that has made no effort at all, sitting there as raw land that says I am going to be playing at 1983 rules I do not think that is right. Supervisor Brandt-I have no problem with that...but what if they have got their roads in and they have laid out all their lots? Councilman Monahan-That is a different type of thing, I am talking about raw land sitting there and been approved. Supervisor Brandt-I think we agree with Betty the consensus is if it is raw land it goes back to the new regulations, how do we put that back into law? Councilman Tucker-Qsby. Forest-the first phase the roads were 20' wide the second phase the roads were 24' wide I got 900 calls from people in phase one wanting to know how come their roadS are not 24' wide. Attorney Dusek-There are provisions already in place that require development by a certain date otherwise you loose your approvals...do you like the concept that this will give an exemption to subdivisions that have already received planning Board approvals basically to everything. Second, if your concern is if you do not want this exemption to apply to somebody who has done absolutely nothing, no roads etc. then it seems to me the way to address that is separately in the ordinance in another provision, which we can add. The problem becomes that this going into effect you are going to want to move quickly if we need to, to add something else, there are already some protections there. The question is are those protections adequate. Councilman Monahan-Asked that, that be researched. Supervisor Brandt -Our ordinance is extremely complex. I would like to simplify it and not make it more complex. Attorney Dusek-I think to answer some of the question it seems to me that the move you see in the ordinance right now is an opening move, a simplifying move because it is saying subdivisions you are meet your criteria you were there when you were built, the second move that you say you want to look into which is restriction on applying to someone who has not done any development, I guess my suggestion is we look at what the rules are that are in place because maybe they are sufficient so then you do not add complexity to the ordinance... Supervisor Brandt-Research that... Attorney Dusek-Gurney Lane Water Tank you will recall that we had a situation involving a settlement with that and that there was more money on a claim order that was paid, I am happy to let you know that we are not going to pay anything on the extra. We are going to settle, it has gone back to the original $12,000 amount. Councilman Goetz-Re: Sidewalks in So. Queensbury - requested that the Town Board hire Morse Eng. to do work on engineering... RESOLUTION TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH MORSE ENGINEERING FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SIDEWALK SPECIFICATIONS RESOLUTION NO. 505, 92 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has solicited and additional engineering cost estimate for services in connection with sidewalks to be engineered and installed along River Street in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has received an estimate from Morse Engineering in the amount of $4,600.00 for both engineering and construction services NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to execute a contract with Morse Engineering for the development of specifications for the sidewalks along River Street and a contract to cover the construction inspection expenses with the same not to be entered into until such time as the Town authorizes the bid based on the specs and with both contracts to be in a form to be approved by the Town Attorney and be it further RESOLVED, that the expense for the engineer shall be paid for from the general engineering fund. Duly adopted this 14th day of September, 1992 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None Councilman Goetz-We need to set a meeting to name the Ethics Advisory Council and Ethics Board... Councilman Monahan-We do not have enough applicants... Councilman Goetz-Questioned if another ad should be run.... Agreed to go over applicants at next Monday's Meeting.. Councilman Caimano- Where are we on the Quaker Road Traffic Lights? Attorney Dusek-I have spoken with Sterling Goodspeed tonight he advised that he thought that the contract was improved over what they saw the last time he sent it to Fred Austin for his opinion we should be hearing back in a matter of days. OPEN FORUM JOYCE EGGLESTON-I hope you bear with me tonight. I have a lot of notes and I ask your indulgence in letting me go through what I have to say without interrupting me because being my age I have a habit of losing my train of thought. I would like to continue with my thoughts and then I would be glad to answer any questions that you people may have. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-To say, I'm not a happy person to put it mildly, I think some of you all ready know that. For the record, my name is Joyce Eggleston. I'm before you tonight first as a resident of the fourth ward and to be more specific what's known as the Big Boom area. This is part light industry and part waterfront one acre in a critical environmental area boarding the Hudson River. After having a batch plant brought into the light industry zone literally by moonlight which by the way is now a mess and the first thing people see when entering the Town of Queensbury via the scenic Adirondack Northway all without due process no site plan review not even Warren County Planning Board even though it was in 100' of the Adirondack Northway and within 400' of the Hudson River. Now, you have created again without due process, which every other citizen of the Town has had to abide by, another potential mess in my neighborhood, residential neighborhood. I speak of the Rossi garage. This property borders to Town roads, the residents or front if you will borders Big Boom Road. The back of the property borders Twin Channels Road. Between the front and the back, there is a severe difference in elevation. The property was purchased early this Spring or late last Winter, I'm not sure of the date but sometime within that period and Mr. Rossi's first project was to bulldoze the incline between the front and back section of the property and in so doing filled in the drainage ditch that runs in between his back border and the highway. To complicate this matter, the back property line exits at an intersection in the middle of a steep hill. After the bank was bulldozed and no supports were put there to keep it from caving in, every time it rained the sand, dirt, stones, whatever, float across the highway in the middle of this hill, creating a hazard for other residents using the road. I spoke with Paul Naylor personally and he told Mr. Rossi was to clear out and restore the drainage ditch. After nothing was done, again called the Highway Department and spoke with a lady who told me she would relay my concerns to Mr. Naylor and as a matter of fact there was another call from someone else in our neighborhood and that someone would be going to the scene. As of today, the matter has not been corrected. As a matter of fact in the terrific rainstorm we had last week, it literally washed away the banks in back of where Mr. Rossi built his new garage, down the highway, washed out the peoples driveway at the bottom of the hill and the road is covered with sand and gravel. You may go there tomorrow and look at it if you don't believe me. I looked again tonight. Therefore I formally notify the Town of Queensbury that should me or my husband be involved in an accident due to this debris, allowed to run onto the highway, we will personally hold the Town of Queensbury liable since they have not done anything to correct the situation. Now, Mr. Rossi applies for a permit to place a garage on the back section of the property which he is given even though there is an existing one car garage already on the property, not a canopy by Town definition as David Hatin classified it. Let me read you the definition of a canopy for those of you who don't know. A permanent roof like structure either free standing or connected to a principal building or accessory building. Notice the words roof like. Nothing about walls. Okay. Not a canopy but a one car garage since this has three enclosed sides. I point out in Mr. Parisi's mitigation letter, he refers to it as an attached existing garage. To add to this, the front line setback has been violated. The code calls for a 30 foot setback from the lot line but by Mr. Parisi's own measurement, it's only 28 feet from the road, not the lot line, but from the road. Which brings us to another potentially dangerous situation in the middle of this steep hill intersection, that being not enough room between the garage and the road and the vehicles will be backing into traffic. Therefore I officially notify the Town of Queensbury that should my husband or I be involved in an accident on this icy hill while a vehicle is backing onto the highway from this garage, we'll personally hold the Town liable for damages and seek restitution. So what do we have here, distinct violations of the code without benefit of zoning board variances, site plan review, even though it's in a critical environmental area. All and all it's a message to other residents to do what they wish and mitigate their differences. This project could have been stopped before the footings were poured since I personally spoke to Dave Hatin about the situation. I felt there was a business use here since a large dump truck, a flat bed trailer, a backhoe, have been parked on the front yard side of the road of the Big Boom Road property since it was purchased. Also the existing garage was boarded up in front for the storage of chemicals to support Mr. Rossi's pool business. As a matter of fact, Mr. Parisi himself told me, he saw the chemicals there and was suspect of the situation. In lieu of all of this, the building was continually worked on even though a stop work order had been issued before the blocks were laid, before the foundation and the footing was put in. Now, through mitigation Mr. Rossi will be allowed to have his garage without ever having to apply for variances like all other residents and without having to correct the erosion of the bank and fix the drainage ditch. Also under mitigation he will be allowed to clean out his pool chemical containers and store them on the property in a critical environmental area within approximately two to three hundred feet of the Hudson River. It is a steep decline from this property to the shores of the river. Just where or what consideration was given to what will happen to the chemicals cleaned out of the storage containers onto the ground which will eventually wind up in peoples wells of the houses that lie between Mr. Rossi's and the river and what impact this will have on the river itself which eventually the chemicals will make their way there. Keep this bank erosion in mind, as we journey down the hill to the Reynold's residence where they backhoed out their backyard and were forced by the Town Building and Codes Department to shore up the bank or face court action and yet Mr. Rossi, nothing has been done about the erosion ofMr. Rossi's bank. They were also made to move an existing shed which violated the sideline setback by Mr. Hatin while at the same time, he was asked to do something about an illegal fence erected within the past month and he told the Reynolds this was a matter between neighbor and neighbor. As you go further down the road, there is another backhoed back yard which is caving in drastically and the Town has not enforced what they did with the Reynolds and that is to shore it up. As a matter of fact, daily there are loads of fill being taken out of this spot. I feel its being used as an excavation point and need I remind you of the excavation that was permitted at Glen Lake and what a horrendous mess was left behind. Now Mr. Hatin has been down to the Reynolds and the Lamberts many, many times. He can't help but see this mess just passed their house and yet nothing is being done about it. Okay, now let's go across the road from the Reynolds where there was an approximate 20 by 20 foot old camp on the shore of the Hudson River, a permit was issued to remodel the camp and a 3 story, approximate 2,000 square foot house was built within approximately 100 feet more or less, of the shore line without site plan review in a critical environmental area. It seems to me that this is a very selective code enforcement in a flagrant misuse of the definitions within this code to skirt the process and I want to know what gives Mr. Rossi the right to mitigate my rights to live in a residential neighborhood and take away from me the safety of the roads and allow chemicals into my neighborhood. I resent it very much to put it bluntly. The stop work order should have been enforced from day 1, before the project got off the ground because the Zoning Department was well aware of it. I made them well aware of it. Instead it was allowed to continue even after a stop work order was supposedly issued with it, which I never saw posted and that was never enforced and I might say that I work beside a girl, I know it can be enforced, I work beside a girl who got a phone call one day and the sheriff was at her door. Her husband had violated a building code and they issued a stop work order, the sheriff took him to court, he had to post a hundred dollars and was threatened with a fifty dollar a day fine if he didn't comply. So I know stop work orders can be enforced. In this case they were absolutely ignored even though I spoke to Mr. Parisi every time I saw him at the Zoning Board meetings and I called the office. Also the mitigation was done, August 27th even though I didn't leam of it until last Friday. In the mitigation, this, Mr. Rossi is allowed, let's see, the proposed garage may not be used for storage of commercial vehicles. Today and tonight, a dump truck is in the illegal garage. Within in one week, as part of this mitigation between Mr. Rossi and Mr. Parisi, the attached existing garage must be converted into a car port within one week. It has not been touched. As a matter of fact, there's decorations hanging on the front of it which leaves me to believe they have no intentions of doing anything with this existing garage. So he's won his battle without due process as every other tax payer has to do, he's won his battle. He's going to get everything he wants in a residential neighborhood. You can't tell me that this is a private garage, I mean for God's sake, are they going to carry groceries up over an embankment which is 12, 15 feet high to get to the back of the house. It faces away from the house, it's on the back of the property, it's built higher then a normal garage and I don't have the exact dimensions but I know it does not meet the sideline setbacks as well. It is very close, it is not 20 feet from the neighbor's driveway. This leads me to my second reason for being here tonight and I speak only for myself and not for any other members of the Zoning Board but I am here in my capacity as a Zoning Board member. Recently we've had matters before us that frankly are quite suspect and I'll site one. When Mr. Wood applied for permits to build his Tahitian Water World, he had to comply with zoning, site plan review, etcetera. A matter of fact, it became so complicated and so costly he withdrew his project. Now we have a new owner of the Great Escape who completes a residential swimming pool application with a 35 dollar fee and is given a permit to build a comparable water world known as Noah's Spray Ground. I mean, what is going on here? I have the problem now, since all of the above facts have come to light and others within my Zoning Board capacity, I'm going to have great difficulty believing anything David Hatin tells me as a member of the ZBA and also with Mr. Parisi's judgement who had the gaul to mitigate my rights in my residential neighborhood. I resent it very much. You wouldn't see it other neighborhoods, it's the same old story with the west end, we're tried on all the time. It just seems like there is not the concern there that there should be. As I say, I'll have trouble believing anything David Hatin tells me after calling this garage a canopy. It definitely is not a canopy. I have lost all creditability in both of them and I'm asking you people how I am supposed to do my job on the Zoning Board and I know for myself, I'll have to be analyzing my position on the Board over the next three months and decide if I care to continue as a member. I know you can find other people to replace me, fine, Joyce go and I have no problem with that. But within myself and I'm sure Mrs. Goetz, will verify this, I have made ... on the Zoning Board that everyone be treated fairly. I have worked to that degree in every meeting we're at, I have jumped up and down when people weren't treated fairly. I've worked very hard at it and I don't think people are being treated fairly within the Town of Queensbury. I insist as a resident and taxpayer of the Town of Queensbury that some action be taken immediately regarding the situation of the Rossi garage and all corrections necessary be done including Mr. Rossi being made to go through process like every other taxpaying resident. I don't even venture a guess as who is to blame for this mess. Mr. Parisi told me Dave Hatin never gave him my notes of concern which I relayed to him before the footing was ever put in. Mr. Parisi advised me he was suspect to of the situation when he was first there and saw the storage chemicals in the attached one car garage. Why didn't he investigate further? I don't know which one approved the footings or ignored the fact that setbacks were not proper and in violation of the code. I believe that anyone employed by the Town of Queensbury owes certain loyalties to it's employer and if they can't be trusted to do that, whom ever they are, then they should be fired. Also, if they are not capable of understanding the definition in the code and abiding by them, then you should hire people who can comprehend them. Forgive me if I'm wound up about this but I wanted desperately for this type thing not to happen in my neighborhood again after my experience with the batch plant. That is why I supported the ward system but I'll ask here, where was my ward councilman. I didn't call Mr. Tucker personally but I did talk to Mr. Parisi several times, I talked to David Hatin, I talked to Paul Naylor, I talked with Paul Naylor's department, I talked with Mrs. Goetz and I talked with Mr. Brandt personally. Was my ward representative not made aware of this situation? If so, why didn't he intervene? And if he didn't know, why not? This is a Board, not a one, two, three man show. This is a Board just like our Board, the Zoning Board is a Board. I thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. I hope to hear from each and every one of you that substantial changes have been made that will restore my faith in the Zoning process and by that, I insist that everyone be treated fairly within the Town of Queensbury. Does anyone have any questions or have I made myself perfectly clear? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-When was the house built on the edge of the river? MRS. EGGLESTON-I would say about a year ago. I know I talked to Sue about it when it happened and we talked to Pat Crayford about it and it's just the same old story. It's who you know, you just can do things and get away with it and I can not sit on that Zoning Board and judge other people. It isn't fair and it isn't right. Everyone should have the same rights. If Joe Blow has to go through the process, Mr. Rossi should go through the process and this mitigating absolutely has me ticked and I resent it very much. I resent it deeply because now the garage is there and it's what I've said from the beginning with zoning in the Town of Queensbury, you never make anybody take anything down. One time, we made somebody take a fence down. So you have to get it right the first time, I'm sorry but you have to get it right the first time and this situation could have been avoided because I alerted the Town from day 1, I alerted the Town and yet it was allowed to go through the process and there it stands and as I come here tonight, in the front yard is parked a backhoe, no a dump truck, a flat bed trailer towed by a pickup and at the garage is a dump truck, in the garage, a backhoe, a tractor, another dump truck and a dump truck parked in the middle of the hill on the side. The hill is a dangerous, in the Winter time you've got to get a running start and come around at an intersection and come up and there is no way anybody is going to be able to take care of that hill, take the hill without a problem. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Joyce, before you go away, I want you to know that after you called me, I saw Pliney and we went to visit the site together. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That was while the first course of blocks were being laid, I believe. Your messages were relayed to Mr. Parisi and I think Mr. Parisi issued, asked to have a stop work order issued immediately and for whatever reason it didn't get ordered and it didn't get served until many, many days later and I want you to also know that I've made notes on all of this and I've shared them with all the members of the Board and your right and it's time to change it and we will. Alright? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-I want to ask why the mitigation took place? BOB PARISI, Executive Director-I wanted to know first and I've documented everything that Mrs. Eggleston said going back 6 weeks and Mr. Brandt has records of it, as do, in part all of the Town Board members has part of the documentation that you received over 2 weeks ago. I ordered a stop work order the day that Mr. Brandt told me the course of blocks were laid. I was under the assumption that it had occurred. Ten days later Mr. Hatin approached me and said, quote, I made a boo-boo, I never sent it out, I never followed up on it. That was August 27th in fact. I've relayed many details of this. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-But your mitigation said that, he could not keep any commercial vehicles there. He still continues to do that. MR. PARISI-That's right. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-He agreed to take the sides off the carport. Obviously he hasn't done that yet from what your saying in observations today. MRS. EGGLESTON-Absolutely not. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, he's totally violating the mitigation measures. MR. P ARISI -Yes obviously and if all the information that I received from the Building Department is incorrect, as this is, I'm in the position of having to go and I do, as you know, verify these things very often, several days a week. It's impossible for me to be everywhere. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-How many stop work orders have we issued in the last week, two weeks, 10 days? MR. PARISI-Rossi, was the only one I was aware of. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-How many stop work orders have we issued in the last year? MR. PARISI-I haven't counted them. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Probably none. I would think this is a relatively high priority so no one is asking you to do overtime work. I mean I think this was a pretty serious situation, right? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yes and I've asked for a meeting of this Board on Friday to talk about personnel matters and I think this is part of it. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Okay. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That's certainly what I intend to bring forth. MRS. EGGLESTON-Then I'll say to you Mr. Brandt, in lieu of my, David Hatin, not taking care of the stop work order. Why would the Town keep such an employee who doesn't have the interest of the Town at heart. It makes no sense to me whatsoever and it comes right back to my Zoning Board position, I will not believe anything he tells me and there are times where we have to rely on the information he gives us. I'm going to tell you, it's going to be extremely difficult and I'm not bashful at what I say and I will probably tell him frankly, I don't believe him. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I guess I would like to know why a building permit was issued in the first place if the setbacks weren't in compliance. TOM PHILO-Very good. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That's right. MR. P ARIS- Very good is right, because on the information I was supplied, by the Building Department, 30 feet which is the minimum, was required. The 28 feet that Mrs. Eggleston has referred to is something that I confirmed after the concrete was poured. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well I think your not even saying from the setback, your saying from the edge of the road. MRS. EGGLESTON-Right, it's from the edge of the road. MR. PARISI-Yes, that's correct. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So actually he's not even setback 28 feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-No he is not because it has to be from the ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Property line. MRS. EGGLESTON-From the property line. MR. PARISI-That's exactly right. MRS. EGGLESTON-So he's about 10 feet from this road and he's going to be backing into and I insist something be done about it. I don't believe this situation should be allowed to continue. Somebody is going to get killed on that hill. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well in the first place it's illegal under New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law to back into a road and yet we keep permitting this and site plan, after site plan that I see, in single family residences, the only way for them to get out of their yard is to back out onto a road. That is entirely against the V & T law and why do we keep permitting those kind of site plans? TIM BREWER-How do you get out of your driveway Betty? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I don't back out of it, let me tell you, boy... MRS. EGGLESTON-I hope you understand my situation. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-We do. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -I do very much. MRS. EGGLESTON-I'm not trying to be difficult, I just want to get my point across that this can not continue. If this continues with these inaccuracies, whatever within this Zoning Board, I can not continue to serve on the Board. As I said before, you'll find people to replace me, I don't have a problem with that, but... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I don't think we need that, I think we need to continue the attitude your showing. We don't need to break the law to help people get a project through. We need to change the law because what happens is we break the law for certain people and certain situations and we seem to have a habit of doing that. We look the other way and just totally break it and I'm totally against that. In the case of the slide that you talked about, I met with those people and I said as far as I could see, they were replacing a ride or an amusement thing with a different one for about the same number of people and as far as I was concerned I had no problem with that and I didn't want to make a big issue out of it. But I didn't ask my people to break the law and I'm not a technician on the law and if they know the law, by God they should say to me, well that's fine except that he still has to this and this and that. Danm it, we're going to live within the law and we're going to leam to do that and if the law doesn't fit then by God, change it so it's the same for everyone. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, it's a matter offairness. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Right now, some people get through this process danm easy. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes they do. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-And other people can't even get into the process and I'm fed up with it, I don't know my name on it. MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't want my name on it, I'm sorry but I don't. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well then we'll change it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Thank you for your time. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Thank you. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Joyce, thanks, we have a major problem and we're trying to deal with it and your absolutely right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is it too late for my cause? COUNCILMAN GOETZ-I don't think it is, by God, no. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -No, no, your on time. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is my neighborhood stuck. Is my neighborhood stuck with this? COUNCILMAN GOETZ-I know you are in, I don't see why the hell we can't take it down, have them take it down. MRS. EGGLESTON-That was my point because he could have stopped from day 1. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We've tried it, we went to court trying to get one down and the Judge said no. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-I know but it's not right. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-These are legal issues and we've got them all over the place. TOM PHILO-I'm going to talk a little bit on the same thing and a couple more items if it's okay. Number 1, with Betty I went over to that site with Betty. Dick, the day we had the meeting, Mr. Caimano, Franny Tucker, yourself and Mrs. Goetz, Betty was out vacation or something when I was taken in. I said I was going to do the best job I could for you and I was going to be as honest as I could. This case here, I'm going to tell the honest story of it. I was in the hall down in the, where Bob Parisi's office is and I was talking to Mrs. Rourk. lover heard the conversation what this man went through. So far what I see, you people need to look at this Building Department and you've got to look at it serious. I've heard stories back and forth that this one is trying to do this and this, and I see a letter today and the letter was from a building inspector calling this man incompetent. I can see the Board why you put this man in charge of that department. When I went with 2 people from the Town and I see a 60 foot hole in the ground, that is out and out, you couldn't have done any more harm to a person if you took him out and beat him. They dug a 60 foot hole right down, over to Glen Lake, they mined the stuff out of there. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Oh, the Flynn property. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Flynn. MR. PHILO-The Flynn property, that's out and out. This Mr. Parisi, all he's been going, he's putting out fires. I've been here every day, in and out since I took this position and I said I would do it and I would do it with my heart and the best I can. That is one, I said, this is really bad. How can a man issue a permit when he can't even keep the slopes? You know what the slopes are supposed to be on mining, right, Pliney? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Three on one, I think. MR. PHILO-This here is straight up and the guy is losing the bank and they were asked from Mr. Swan's time to go and check this. They go over, even the Town Supervisor was there, I understand, Mr. Brandt, that was the part previous one, Supervisor, Mr. Dancing Shoes there, educator. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Borgos COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Borgos. MR. PHILO-And I said to you people I would do the best I could and I see these people in that building department do everything they can do to upset this man here and the legal system or whatever it is. They're not, what do they say, the man that's failing, is the, makes the most noise. Brother, they're making a lot of noise. Then I get called by 4 or 5 neighbors in our area Betty and they wanted to know why that shopping center was ever allowed to go in and the building inspector, they tell me there's 80 to 90 bad things against that, that weren't corrected. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Which shopping center? MR. PHILO-The shopping center over on Quaker Road. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Quaker Plaza. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-The one we call blue roof. MR. PHILO-Do you say that a building inspector should say they can put on a deck when it's supposed to be a 75 foot offset there and I've measured it from the road, there's a lot of confucally on that, the Town is, the County is wrong on a few things and when I researched that, 50 foot 3 inches to the farthest away building. If we have an accident right there, the Town could be liable and this department, I don't know who ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That's where the deck is and it goes out within, what 30 feet of the property line and there's a 75 foot setback. MR. PHILO-Yes, 30 feet of the property line. Now this man has to go over, he don't know all of these things took off before he went. I hear people chastise, I'm a pretty fair person but when I hear people from this Town ripping this man up when they don't have any reason to rip him up. They're saying let him go. He's going from one fire to the other and putting them out from the incompetency of our building department. How can Charlie Wood up here, we've got 25 if we want to go through it but I'mjust going through a few. How can Charlie Wood get a permit for a building 3 days after he has it and it's in the paper that he's got rooms for changing and there not even on the print? But in the wee hours of the night, somebody pulled the shade, the guy got it inspected and Pliney and everybody here said to me, if I do this job, do it right. Parisi told this guy over there to West Glens Falls, Jim to take the sides down on that thing and I heard him and he said he take it down within 45 minutes. Am I right Mr. Parisi? I was standing in the hall and this is how loud this was, this conversation. I say, if! was the general of this ship, Mr. Brandt and the Board, each one of you, I would look into that Building Department. I've been 40 years in the business, okay and where does this guy get his qualifications? What build, wait a minute, the only thing he's went is to school. I've got 40 years in the field. Somebody ought to have some field experience to take this job and I would suggest Mr. Parisi, it was a good idea when you brought him in because there's so much corruption here to me, when we went out Sunday, I bet you we see 10 things. How did they ever get a permit for this? So ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I think properly... MR. PHILO-It's just like Betty said, when you go up to that blue log, Betty I see you looking at it and flumbing through it, you might better take it and throw it out the window. You spent 300,000 dollars or whatever you spent to develop this thing and your not going by it. The Board, you say the Zoning Board has got to do their job, the Town Board, you first thing you've got to do is look at that building department, that's one I see. I've never see so much animosity with the contractors. I went on one and they got a monolithic pour with no frost wall, they dug it down 4 feet and then they hit water. When we were on construction, when we hit water, we don't stop. You can clot it with powdered concrete, you can pump it and chase it with concrete but you're going to put them footings 3 foot, 4 foot below grade. Right, they didn't. They said fill it in, after the guy already dug it, fill it in. They filled it in, no compaction. You're supposed to have a 110 percent compaction. Nothing, just with a shovel and put the forms back in and put the thing and if it goes to court, I don't want to get the Town in trouble but I can, I've got pictures of that brother. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Your saying our inspectors saw that? MR. PHILO-Yes and let it go. How about this swimming pool that this young lady was talking about right here. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well I think, I think we have to ... MR. PHILO-That building inspector okayed that, then he by, isn't that his ... to let it go? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well I think we have to be very, very careful here. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I think we have to go into executive session to handle this, I think there's ... MR. PHILO-I'm saying every ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I think we've got to be very, very careful here. Mrs. Eggleston, Joyce Eggleston brought up some very serious problems here and we're going to take care of those problems. But to sit here and ... MR. PHILO-What I'm saying .... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Just a second, to sit here and crucify somebody with no evidence of any kind out in public session is just as wrong as anything else. I'm not going to sit here and listen to it anymore. That's the end of it, period. MR. PHILO-Okay, fine. I was just backing up what we've seen of hers. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I don't, that's the end of it, Tom. MR. PHILO-Okay. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- The end of it. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I think we have to do it in executive session properly. I think we have to look at all of the information. I think a lot of this information, I'm certainly aware of and I certainly am going to bring to the Board. I think I already have brought some of it to the Board and I think it's time that we move, do something. MR. PHILO-Mike, when we were out there with this, we just couldn't see how they got the permit for it. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I think there's some questions. Okay... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Tom I think you also and I'm not getting into persons now Nick when I talk about this, when you see some things around the Town, you have to almost check and see, did they ever get a permit or was it just done. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Right. MR. PHILO-Yes, I don't know, I'm just asking. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-If it was done that way, if we see it, why don't other people whose job it is to see it, why don't they see it when they're cruising around this Town? MR. PHILO-Very good Betty. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's a question we always used to ask people when we hired them as a building inspector. Are you going to keep your eyes open as you drive around this Town or are you only going out on the calls that you have a slip of paper for? MR. PHILO- Very good. MARIE PALING-I'm resident of Queensbury, Ward 3 and Joyce has spoken very eloquently about many of our problems this evening, I wouldn't even try to elaborate on what she said or improve upon it. But I want the record to state that I too have seen these things, I am complete agreement with everything she has said. Seven years, seven years, it only seems like seven years, seven months ago when I became a member of the Zoning Board, I was really excited, I was happy. I thought this was going to be a wonderful opportunity to do something for my community and I want to tell you that, it's been very discouraging. I know I can easily be replaced, any of us can be. But I think you should stop and think a minute about the quality of people that care, that come to all the meetings, that visit all the sites, who leam how to read the blue prints and maybe give us a little more support than we are getting. Thank you very much. JOHN SALVADOR, Dunham's Bay-Questioned whether there were still openings on the ethic boards? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Yes. MR. SALVADOR-What do I have to do to apply? COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Write a letter. We've had some very good applicants but we need a few more. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Write it to the Town Board and send it to me, anyone that's interested. MR. SALVADOR-Referred to the replacement of oil fired hot water broiler in the Town Court building. Questioned who wrote the specifications for the 9 bids that you received? How does that work in the Town. ATTORNEY DUSEK-The Town Clerk indicated that Pete Breault, Building and Grounds Superintendent developed the specs. MR. SALVADOR-Does someone understand why you lost the first broiler? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Yes, an engineer did review it. MR. SALVADOR-Shouldn't he be writing the specifications? I mean you could be walking into the same problem. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-No were not, in fact I think he did an investigation, identified what the problem was, we were told what was needed and based on the engineering report, they developed the specs and went to bid. MR. SAL V ADOR- Then the first one didn't fail, it's not size properly? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-It was insufficient for the job. ATTORNEY DUSEK-The Board has authorized litigation in connection with it, so I don't want to get into details in terms of discussing that particular heating unit. MR. SAL V ADOR- Who failed on the first supply, the engineer, the contractor, the supplier? ATTORNEY DUSEK-No, when we bought the building, the work had already been done, the Town did not contract to have this heating work done. After we bought the building, we leamed that the problem existed. We in turn have an action, that's been authorized against the person who put it in. MR. SALVADOR-Questioned whether there's been any progress regarding Dunham's Bay Road? ATTORNEY DUSEK-No, I apologize but I don't have an answer for you yet. MR. SALVADOR-The Board should appreciate the safety concern in that area. COUNCILMAN-Questioned the safety problem? MR. SALVADOR-Boats moving in and out. COUNCILMAN-When was the last accident on that road? When was the first accident on that road as a result of boats moving across that road? MR. SAL V ADOR- The last accident involved an employee of Dunham's Bay Boat Company. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- When? MR. SALVADOR-Probably 3 years ago. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-As far as I know, there's never been an accident because of a boat crossing the road with another car coming across. Never, is that right or wrong? MR. SAL V ADOR-I don't know, I don't keep the records. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I think that's right because we looked at that when I was on the Planning Board and you guys came up so we checked that out. Never been a recorded accident. PAUL FRITSCH, Resident of Eagen Road-Questioned Mr. Tucker on progress regarding the removal of sign and fence for the Threw Construction and Demolition Landfill? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Noted that there's a meeting scheduled with the guys from Warrensburg on Wednesday at 10:30 that I was invited to along with Mr. Threw. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I've got it on my calendar and I think I can make it. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I understand that he has applied for variances with the Town or is going to apply, he picked up the paper work for variances for the sign and fence. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Was the sign required by DEC, for the permitting process. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Yes. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Has that expired? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-No, this is what the meeting is for. The caller that made the call to me, made the comments that DEC was wondering if the Town was going to do anything about anything, that they weren't moving on it. We'll have to ask them about that come Wednesday. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Pliney, you and I had a conversation the other day and I was able to catch up with the proper DEC people on this matter. If you remember, we tried to call a person at DEC who would have more information on their processes and where they were at. I did reach someone who was familiar with their SEQRA reviews and also their permitting processes, although the other guy was more specific in terms of what he was doing. He's looking at the nuts and bolts of reviewing the site. The other guy who I reached had more of an overview. He indicated that there is a two phase process, the construction permit as well as the operation of it. The operation of it has not been authorized, it is not to go ahead. He acknowledged that they did receive new information concerning the water situation and there continues to be some question on the zoning which is not yet resolved, at least in my mind. I know Pliney, you and I talked about it but we've got to discuss it a little further. But he also indicated most importantly that the SEQRA review had been completed in connection with the project, I believe somewhere around April and they considered that the SEQRA review for the entire project, including the operations. He also indicated that their construction permit had been issued, I think it was like July sometime. But they also said, they were considering this new information and they had not yet made a decision as to whether or not this new information should impact their earlier SEQRA Negative Dec. So they're taking a look at that aspect of it and I suspect that they would want to hear from the Town as well as to what your feelings are, as far as whether you want a SEQRA review done or not done. The Town has been working on it, you've got a meeting going, my office has been working on it and I think we should discuss it a little further among the Board members as far as what our legal moves are going to be. I think part of that would be appropriate, because it involves legal advice as to how handle the situation and because that I don't know that I want this broadcast to everybody, it would probably be a good idea to talk about in Executive Session. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Paul, I wrote a letter on this and my opinion is that I can't imagine why we, as a Town would license or allow a new stump dump to be built when we can't get enough material in our own dump to fill and close it out on a cost effective basis. When we all know that everyone of these do create a certain amount of pollution and the neighbors there are very concerned about their springs which is where they get their water. I think we should, as quickly as we can enact a law or whatever process we have to do, to prevent the creation of new dumps in the Town of Queensbury until our's is formally closed, then look at them differently after that. But meanwhile, there's no rational basis for creating more landfills in Queensbury until we get our's finished, closed out and sealed. ATTORNEY DUSEK-There was a law that originally was introduced by the attorneys for Hartford. That's one possibility, although that's a permitting law, it does not preclude landfills all together from the Town. You raise an interesting point and that is, whether or not the Town can perhaps engage in something similar to what the County has done in terms of flow control and that we'd have to take a look at a little further. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I don't know the simplest way or the easy way or the legal way but we ought to find a way to force all this material into one place or at least not license new ones to compete with. ATTORNEY DUSEK-One of the aspects with this particular project is the fact they will have to come to the Town Board for a permit and there's also SEQRA review that has to be engaged in at that point. Also, the fact that this new information has now come to DEC's attention and they're looking at it. I think to get into more advice on how to proceed I'd like to talk to them. Town Board agreed. MR. FRITSCH-So the sign and fence has to stay there now, even though it's against the ordinance and part of the fence is on Town right-of-way property? ATTORNEY DUSEK-I didn't know that part of the fence was on Town property. MR. FRITSCH-According to the measurements or whatever Mr. Parisi took. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-The way this ... system works, he's in violation of, correct me if I'm wrong Paul, in violation of Town Ordinances right now. MR. FRITSCH-Yes, sign ordinance. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Yes, he was required by the State in a permitting process to bring that, during the construction period to bring that project to that point. Now, he's in violation of our rules and regulations but the way I understand it, we can't require him to eliminate those violations. What he can do is apply for a variance in front of the ZBA Board for the sign and the fence. Now they may deny him, I don't know. MR. FRITSCH-In the mean time, we're stuck with it I guess. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-You were asking about Mr. ... letter and Paul has that letter in his file on the case so it's part of the Town record already. You wanted to know if it was going to be read in or not. He's got all the information from the contract. MR. FRITSCH-Yes. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-All the paper work you've got, he'd like to get his hands on it, so he can copy it. Can we do that? MR. FRITSCH-Sure, yes. I can bring it over tomorrow afternoon. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-To his office? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Whatever time is convenient, even ifI'm not there, just ask my secretary to photo copy it all so I have it. MR. FRITSCH-Okay, thank you very much. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you. Anyone else? OPEN FORUM CLOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS RESOLUTION NO. 506, 92 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHO MOVED IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan RESOLVED, that the Audit of Bills appearing on Abstract September 14th, 1992 numbering from 92355200 - 92395700 through and totalling $694,959.98 be and hereby is approved. Duly adopted this 14th day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: Councilman Caimano I vote no on 002428 and 002447 ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Councilman Monahan, CWI, Vendor #1095 Councilman Caimano, GF Post Star, #0127 RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 507,92 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby moves into Executive Session to discuss collective bargaining. Duly adopted this 14th day of September, 1992 by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: AYES ALL THOSE OPPOSED: NONE ABSENT: NONE On motion the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, Miss Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk-Queensbury