Loading...
1993-03-22 TOWN BOARD MEETING MARCH 22, 1993 7:00 P.M. MTG #23 RES NO. 196-209 BH NO. 11-12 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT MICHEL BRANDT -SUPERVISOR SUSAN GOETZ-COUNCILMAN NICK CAIMANO-COUNCILMAN PLINEY TUCKER-COUNCILMAN BOARD MEMBER ABSENT BETTY MONAHAN-COUNCILMAN TOWN ATTORNEY PAUL DUSEK TOWN OFFICIALS Jim Martin, Dave Hatin, Helen Otte PRESS: GF Post Star PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN GOETZ Supervisor Brandt called meeting to order ... first on the agenda calls for the Queensbury Board of Health. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 196,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns Regular Session and enter as the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 1993, by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: Ayes ALL THOSE OPPOSED: None ABSENT: Mrs. Monahan QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH PUBLIC HEARING - SEWER VARIANCE - JOHN MCCALL NOTICE SHOWN 7:00 P.M. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Dave, do you want to lead us? DAVE HATIN, Director of Building and Codes-Does the Board have the latest, the updated copy? I gave it to Darleen. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Of the map? MR. HATIN-Yes. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Yes. MR. HATIN-Alright, Howard Krantz is here, I assume representing John McCall tonight. Howard may answer any questions on John's behalf. I'll quickly go through what you have before you. Basically, you have a request from the Lake George Park Commission requirements of two hundred feet for septic systems within the boundaries of Lake George and acting under the agreement between the Park Commission and the Town, you can act and act on this variance on their behalf. This plan you have before you right now does meet the requirements of the Town Ordinance and the Park Commission is the only reason it's here before you tonight. Other than that, I don't know if you have any specific questions. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-What is the proposed septic system? Is it a mound system? MR. HATIN-No, this is a standard trench system, as it stands right now. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-What kind of soils are there? MR. HATIN-I believe up in the upper right hand corner Mike on the plan, it might tell exactly. There was two test holes done and it gives a report of those test holes. I believe they're all fine sands with some clay down about five feet, if I remember right. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Okay and obviously, you got to be above ground water table to ... MR. HA TIN -Yea, right now the plan shows that the, our requirement is three feet above ground water, they are showing that they will meet that. We discussed, if ground water should be higher in the Spring when we do another test hole to make sure that we still can meet that ground water requirement, they'll have to raise the system slightly, if groundwater comes in extremely higher than what they predict right now, then they will have to come back to the drawing board. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -So, in otherwords, they have to actually go there and test the soils this Spring. MR. HATIN-Soils were tested, a test hole was done with my presence last November. We went down almost six feet and didn't find any groundwater standing. I've already told everybody involved that this Spring we'll have to do it again because our Ordinance requires it be done between mid March and I think it's mid June. So they've been advised that that's what we're proceeding under right now, is that that test hole will come in about the same. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Have you made a recommendation? MR. HATIN-Other than the fact that it needs requirement for the variance from the Park Commission regs, it meets all our requirements for our local ordinance. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-We have a letter here. Caroline, does this letter pertain to ... DEPUTY TOWN CLERK MITCHELL-This sewer variance request. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-To this sewer? DEPUTY TOWN CLERK MITCHELL-Right, would you like me to read it? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Yes. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Yes, would you please? Listen to this. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK MITCHELL-It's from Frances K. Gower and Kathy Gower. We are writing this letter in reference to the public hearing beheld on 3/22/93, section 7, block 1, lot 16.7 Assembly Point. Being residents of Assembly Point for thirty-one years and very familiar with the topography of the area, we are very concerned with maintaining the quality of the water. We use the lake as our primary source of drinking water, as do most people on Assembly Point. It has come to my attention that serious consideration is being given to the owner for a variance request from two hundred feet to 100 feet for an absorption field. This property is in close proximity to a designated wet land area. Two years ago the original property owner decided to clear the area of many trees and place approximately three feet of fill on the land. The absorption field will be located on this fill, not on virgin soil. It should be made known that this particular parcel of property has a high water table and is within a few feet of the surface and is always a problem in the Spring. It is also known that a perk test was performed in January of this year and was not taken in virgin soil. By locating an absorption field within a hundred feet of the lake, it would have great potential of having sewage or contaminated water find it's way into the lake. Therefore I urge the Town to deny the request for a variance. It also says, I am very concerned with this issue and since I will be out of Town when this meeting takes place, I would like to designate John McGuire to speak on my behalf. Sincerely, Kathy Gower. (letter on file in Clerk's Office) SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, this is a public hearing and formerly it's open, go ahead. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Before you got into the public hearing, I just thought I would mention, when I came in tonight, I found a fax from the Lake George Park Commission on this. It's about a page long, a little over on their comments concerning this and questions that they wanted to raise to the Board. Did you want Caroline to read that? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Please. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK MITCHELL-Dear Mr. Dusek, this is in response to your letter dated March 9, 1993 concerning notification of a variance application to the Commission's Wastewater Regulations by Mr. John McCall for a parcel on Assembly Point. Your letter indicated the public hearing would be held on March 29, 1993. I have leamed today that the public hearing will be held this evening. There is no question that the Agreement Governing Administration And Enforcement of Wastewater Regulations entered into between the Lake George Park Commission and the Town of Queensbury vest the authority to grant a variance to the Town Code or Commissions's Wastewater Regulations with the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. However, for the record, we are concerned with a couple aspects of this application and furnish the following comments: Number 1, the Site Plan indicates test holes and percolation tests were conducted on January 7, 1993. It is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain reliable test data in the Winter. Was it possible to get water to flow through the frozen soil? Doesn't your local Code preclude conducting these tests except during certain times of the year? Number 2, the method of recording the percolation test results is rather unusual, the rate was given as three minutes for zero to twelve inches and five minutes for twelve to eighteen inches. Where in those are ranges did the tests occur? Number 3, was Dave Hatin or one of his staff present to observe these tests? Number 4, it is our understanding that, at the time of the original wastewater treatment system application, the applicant was aware of a setback requirement of only one hundred feet. In other words, if one hundred feet was thought to be the requirement, why look any further? Is there an acceptable site a one hundred sixty feet, or one hundred twenty feet, etcetera from the lake? Has anyone investigated as to whether this is the minimum variance necessary? If a variance is to be granted for the setback from the lake, then the design of the rest of the system should be outstanding. With the whole design based on data gathered in January, an outstanding wastewater treatment system is not likely to result. Please feel free to give me a call if you should have any questions. Sincerely 1. Thomas Wardell, P.E., Director of Engineering. (letter on file in Clerk's Office) ATTORNEY DUSEK-I just want to make a comment for the record. One is, he refers to the 29th date. If the Board will recall, that date was originally set for the 29th and then, when it got changed, we didn't notify them but apparently he did find out and that was purely inadvertently, not done intentionally. The other thing is, the reason why the Lake George Park Commission was notified to begin with is because the agreement between the Town and the Lake George Park Commission does require that you notify them in advance of all variances that come to their, you know to these regulations. So, that explains the notification to them and the comment back. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-But their comment asking, well first they ask, were you there when these tests were made. MR. HATIN-I was there in November when we did perk tests and the result came back almost identical, or the results were done in January almost identical to tests were done in November. They were greater than three minutes in November when we did them but those were not officially the ones that recorded on that. See, he went back and did them again in January, when there was very little frost in the ground at that time, too. That I do know for a fact. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Okay, now and your saying in effect, we're going to have to do them again anyhow at least ... MR. HATIN-Not perk tests, the deep hole tests for groundwater he definitely will have to do again in the Spring. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Is there three foot offill all over this lot? MR. HATIN-There's fill in that area Pliney, but it's been there for three, for over two years which is acceptable in our Ordinance, it only has to be there six months and it's not considered a fill system either under our Ordinance. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Okay, this is a public hearing, is there anyone that would like to speak on this? Come one at a time, come on up and put your name on the record because there's ... MR. JOHN MCGUIRE-My name is John McGuire, I'm the spoke person for Mr. and Mrs. or for Kathy Gower. Up until approximately two years ago, that section of, that parcel of land would be what I would consider saturated. In the Spring time, it was almost impossible to walk through there. Even in the Summer time, it was very, very wet. About two years ago, the owner of the property at that time came in and put in two to three feet offill, maybe three and a halffeet offill. Any system that's going to be located within this section offill, in a saturated area to me is not going to be effective and if it's located within one hundred feet of the lake, it's a, the effluent that comes out of the septic system is going to really find it's way into the waters of Lake George and have an impact on the quality of water that is used in the immediate vicinity. And alot of residents around there drink the water, that's their main primary source of water, is their drinking water, they have pipes that go on into the water. So, I just wanted it known that this is a very saturated parcel of land that has been backfilled and I'm not sure what the design of the system is because I haven't looked at the design of the septic system. But I think if they're calling for a trench system, there's got to be a certain amount of cover over the trench and it's going to be located a couple of feet under ground. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Are there, I don't know what other alternatives there are, you know, if there are other alternatives. MR. MCGUIRE-The idea is to locate it, instead of doing two hundred feet, going a hundred feet closer? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Yes. MR. MCGUIRE-To me, that would make things a little, you know, worse. What's the problem with staying back two hundred feet? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I think the problem is, as I see the map, is that you can't. That it's a hundred feet from one side of water or a hundred feet the other side of water, so it seems to be from the map, centrally located. But I don't know what choices we have so far ... UNKNOWN-There is an alternative, Mr. Brandt, a holding tank. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Come on right up and speak to us, please. MR. ED BAERTSCHI-My name is Ed Baertschi, I own property right, very close, we're within six cottages or six places from this piece of land which is in question in regard to the septic system. There are a number of things that I believe that the Board does not know about. Number one is, that a great majority and I believe Susan Goetz can verify that, a great majority right up and down the Assembly Point Road, most of these people use the lake as drinking water or cooking. Am I correct? COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Yes. MR. BAERTSCHI-Everyone from where I am located on down, right next to that property, use the water for drinking. There are no wells. Reason being, you have to go down at least five hundred feet to get a well and then the water is sulfur. This I know. Secondly, where this particular piece of land is back in the 1920's there was a canal that went through the little neck of Assembly Point, so you didn't have to go all the way around Assembly Point and that has been filled in over the years and that is now no longer virgin soil. Now in regard to this perk test, it's a very close possibility, yes it did, the water did disappear very rapidly. I don't know what the requirements are for this water to dissipate but due to the fact that this particular piece of land has been filled in over the years, plus with this soil that is being put on top of it, sand and I understood and saw a couple of years ago that alot of this sand wound up going into the lake but that's either here or there. This whole area right there is marshy. To the north of that piece of property is a piece of land designated as a wet land. There is a culvert that runs from that wetland into Lake George into Harris Bay. It's there, it can be seen, you can see the water running into Lake George. On the other side which would be on the side where the, where his property goes to the lake is quite low in regards to the or I should say the height of the land to where the water table or the water is, the lake water is and my, there's no doubt in my mind that with this particular system, just trench type system, not even considering a Wisconsin Mound, that inevitably, that water will leach into Lake George. My neighbor who is over three hundred and some feet from the lake was required to put in a holding system. Now, I don't quite understand if and I also see that in his application that Mr. McCall signed that he was aware that there's a possibility that this system could contaminate the lake. I don't quite understand that if I'm going to build home and I'm going to use that lake, that I'm going to put something out there that can very possibly contaminate that lake and I'm going to be using or swimming in my own cesspool. I'm definitely against it and I'm strongly saying this right here to the Board, that if this does go through and we find that our water is being unfit to use for either drinking or consumption or cooking, I will strongly tell you right now, that I would fight it, I would definitely start a law suit against the applicant and against the Town for allowing this particular variance to go through because there is a very bad problem there. And it would be a worse problem if that starts to contaminate the lake. That's all I have to say in regard to this matter. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you. MR. DENNIS MACELROY -Good evening. My name is Dennis MacElroy, I'm a resident of Queensbury, property owner on Assembly Point and also I'm a professional engineer involved with site design and septic system design of this nature and I guess I was the one that called it to the Town's attention, that they weren't adhering to the proper jurisdiction and proper regulations. I have a letter that I'll just briefly read and submit for the record. Dear Board Members, in regards to the variance application submitted by Mr. McCall, it is my understanding that the Town of Queensbury by legal agreement is required to administer the Wastewater Management Regulations enacted by the Lake George Park Commission, Sub-part 646-3. By the terms of the Town's Sanitary Sewer Disposal Ordinance, Section 3.010, individual sewage disposal systems, must comply with the most current additions of the New York State Department of Health and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation standards for septic system design. The most restrictive of these standards shall apply. The applicant is requesting a variance from a two hundred foot setback requirement for the absorption system from the high water mark of Lake George. The design information presented as part of the building permit application, does not comply with Section 5.030 B-7 or Appendix F in terms of the site's high seasonal groundwater. The absorption system as shown on the applicant's site plan, appears to fall within one hundred feet of a wetland as delineated by the official New York State Freshwater Wetlands Map, Warren County Map 23 of29. Prior to taking any affirmative action on this application I would urge the Board to complete the following. Require the applicant to comply with Section 5.030 of the Queensbury Sanitary Sewage Disposal Ordinance, specifically subsection B6 and B7. As the Board will be considering lessening the separation distance to the waters of Lake George, I urge you to be certain that all other design parameters are met. Depth to seasonal high groundwater is the most critical. Number two, determine the regulatory implications of the proposed absorption system being within one hundred feet of an officially designated wetland. In addition, I would ask the Board to pay special attention to Section 5.035, Subsection C, which requires that the variance granted is the minimum variance which would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship and thus allow the reasonable use of the land. As the applicant was unaware of the setback requirement, I am not sure any effort has been made to determine the minimum variance required. Thank you for your attention to these issues and for your efforts in requiring compliance with all the rules and regulations affecting this application. I would just add to that, as some others have indicated and Dave Hatin covered some of the issues regarding retesting but I would note that that's not a condition of the permit that I saw in the file. It's acknowledged that it will be done but it wasn't ever a part, a condition of the permit. And I would have concern about this seasonal high groundwater in that area as others have indicated. I've lived there for a number of years and familiar with the area so I think that it's worth a close consideration and review of the test pit at a proper time. And also the perk test results is, I think the Lake George Park Commission letter eluded to or at least in their presentation in the application needs to be clarified, presented a little bit better as far as design information. The wetlands issue, it's another case that perhaps the Town was unaware that wetlands exist there. There are two other properties just north of there that have been constructed, houses that have been built. One within the wetlands, septic system included and one that's certainly within a buffer area of the wetlands. It was built under Town review and approval. Now this goes back several years, one of them certainly before Dave's administration. But I guess that's something as a resident in the area I want to be sure that the Town is aware of what the regulations are and that they're carried out fairly and consistently. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Dennis, when you say that a variance should be given for minimum, a minimum variance what does that mean in simple english? MR. MACELROY-Well, that's language from the Ordinance. It's language from your Ordinance. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Right, but put that in english for me. What does that mean? MR. MACELROY-Well, I'm not sure that the applicant because as he addresses the issue, the setback was one hundred feet and that's what the design requests. I'm not sure that it was looked at in terms of how it could be less of an impact or less of a variance. The requirement is two hundred feet, I think as another comment or another letter addressed, it was, could it be a hundred fifty feet, could it be a hundred thirty feet, a hundred and five feet? That's just, that's the point that I'm making and a responsibility I think of the Board is they review the variance and prepare to take whatever action on it. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Are you suggesting that they should be granted some kind of a variance? MR. MACELROY-I'm not suggesting either. I think that that's, what I want the Board to do is take on your responsibility of reviewing the regulations that there are in making that judgement that is consistent with those regulations. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Okay. One thing that concerns me is the size of the house, eighty-two hundred square feet and it seems to me that that would suggest a heavy use on a septic system. MR. MACELROY-Well the design is for a five bedroom house. It's true that that house is larger than, probably twice as large as any house on Assembly Point but if the site can support it, then perhaps if the applicant can afford it, then that should be allowed. That's not really the issue here. But in terms of the minimum variance allowed, maybe that comes into play. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Well, to me it does. Because I mean, in a eighty-two hundred square foot house, I think you would have maybe, how many bathrooms? UNKNOWN-Well, it's the number of bedrooms ... MR. MACELROY-It's the number of bedrooms, it's a five bedroom design. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-But I'm also interested in the bathrooms too. I don't care if it's a requirement, I want to know what the answer is. UNKNOWN-There are programmed seven bathrooms but ... COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Seven bathrooms? UNKNOWN-But they're all various sizes, some are halfbaths. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Who is speaking for the record, here? MR. ALBERT MUGRACE-Al Mugrace, I'm the Architect. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Okay, anyone else that would like to speak on this? MR. BAERTSCHI-May I bring up just one more thing. I believe on that plan there shows that they are calling for on this particular sewer system that the, at a later date, that by the later time apparently when this thing doesn't work, that they want to add or make this septic system larger. Has anyone looked at that map? I saw this the other day from Betty Monahan and I just briefly glanced at it. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-It's still within the hundred foot. MR. BAERTSCHI-But, I'mjust saying that apparently somewhere, somewhere someone is saying, if this doesn't work, we've got to make this thing bigger. So, I mean it should be taken into question. MR. MUGRACE-That's part of the design criteria that the Town adopts and that ... we've got to do that. That's part of the design and it's all within ... setback. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Anyone else that would like to speak? MR. CHARLIE ADAMSON-I'm Charlie Adamson, I live on Assembly Point. I'm very much aware of the problem of septic systems on Assembly Point. I live on the outer part of it but I have found that the point for some reason has, generally has very high groundwater. I'm concerned about, as Mr. MacElroy was, about the groundwater and how it's being handled. I would like to ask the question as to what the regulation Queensbury, I would, I think is the governing regulation says about the measurement of groundwater. It is my understanding that ground, as I recall reading the regulation about six weeks ago, that at the groundwater, the high groundwater has to be measured in the Spring roughly six weeks after the ice goes out and I think there is a reason for that. But is there anybody, is somebody here that ... COUNCILMAN TUCKER-David? MR. ADAMSON-David? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Could you answer that for ... MR. HATIN-Charlie, repeat it, I was reading this, I didn't hear you, your question. MR. ADAMSON-Oh, it's the question I brought up with you some weeks ago. When is it proper to measure the high groundwater on the shores of Lake George? MR. HATIN-Our Ordinance requires I believe, I would have to read it again, I believe it's mid March to mid June. MR. ADAMSON-I believe it's six weeks after, I believe it's related to six weeks and the ice going out. MR. HA TIN - I have to read it specifically Charlie but I don't know if it ... I doubt they're referring to ice. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, we've got an answer. Tell us. MR. MACELROY-The determination of ... seasonal high groundwater shall be made in the months of March, April, Mayor June, within six weeks of the time that the frost leaves the ground. MR. ADAMSON-Okay and that, as far as I know, that has not been done here. MR. MACELROY-All determinations shall be accompanied by a detailed statement of the testing methods used as well as the basis of the determination. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Just to continue with that though, there is additional language that says, if such determination is made at other than such times, the seasonal high groundwater shall be evaluated and certified by a qualified person approved by the local Board of Health. So the implication being that it is possible to do it at other times if you have the proper qualified person. MR. ADAMSON-And that, in other words, there was a measurement I believe in January and if that was properly certified. But what would proper certification mean? If somebody doesn't know the nature of the Lake George ground, and the fact that there has been fill there and so forth then your in a real ... But I understand that they are, they are now planning to redo this. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-But either way, in any rate, nobody has approached this Board of Health for, to present their qualifications to do that earlier. MR. HATIN-Nick, I'll just clarify. There is six engineers that were approved by the previous Town Board. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That did this? MR. HATIN-Yes. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Okay. MR. HA TIN-That can do this, there are six of them. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Not can do this, did they do this? MR. HATIN-No, to my knowledge ... COUNCILMAN TUCKER-No, they haven't done it because they haven't been requested to do this. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That's my point. MR. ADAMSON-And these people are qualified to do that sort of work on the shores of Lake George? MR. HATIN-Any where in the Town of Queensbury. MR. ADAMSON-How often does the renewal of their certification have to take place? MR. HATIN-There's no requirement for renewal, once they're approved, they're approved. MR. ADAMSON-In other words, they can be now until the turn of the century, right? MR. HATIN-Basically. MR. ADAMSON-Is there a public listing of who these people are? MR. HATIN-I have one in my office if you would like to see it. MR. ADAMSON-Okay, well I think that this is a problem. The groundwater, if the groundwater is high, then you have the problem of how much fill would be required and how you handle that. That's all I have to say, thank you. MR. MUGRACE-Do I have the right to question Mr. Hatin? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Sure. MR. MUGRACE- The pits, the test pits that we did in November, at that particular time we were undergoing quite a bit of, I would say a relatively good amount of rain. MR. HA TIN -Correct. MR. MUGRACE- The season was relatively rain and the ground at the lake was pretty well saturated, I would say. MR. HATIN-I think that's a fair statement. Although it doesn't meet the requirements of the ordinance, we did do it, in fact the day we did it, it was a soaking rain. We all got soaked ourselves doing it. We went down five to six feet with no standing groundwater and no water rushing into the hole either. As we, I've made Al aware, I made John McCall aware and Howard Krantz aware, that we're going to do this in the Spring just to be in compliance with our ordinance and they're going based on the tests that were done in November. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-But, I believe under normal circumstances, the driest time, if you don't want to find water, it's October. MR. HATIN-Well this was done the end of November, so. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I mean you're into the ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Dry time. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Dry time under normal circumstances. MR. HATIN-You know, everybody's made statements about this being a wet area, as you can see we put the wetlands on the map. We met with the APA, Jim, myself, Howard, John McCall, Al Mugrace was there and a few others, we met with Don Smith from the AP A The wetlands that shows on the AP A Wetlands Map is not necessarily the boundary of that wetland. In fact, he openly admitted that if they come back in the Spring time, they will probably down size it, it may even be a misprint on their map. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Who is he? MR. HATIN-Don Smith from the APA, the field rep. It was a fair statement Jim, what was ... MR. JIM MARTIN, Executive Director-Yes. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-There was another comment made about an old canal? Do you have any idea where that is or any idea if there's any truth to that? MR. HA TIN - I have no idea. MR. ADAMSON-Excuse me, it is true. I remember from my, it has been filled in. It's obviously where it was because it's an extension of the road coming out of Assembly Point, you can see exactly where it was. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Is it on your drawing, do you know? UNKNOWN-Pardon? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Do you know of anything on that drawing about that? UNKNOWN-About a canal? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Yea. UNKNOWN-No. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Okay. MR. ADAMSON-Water used to flow in the twenties between the Harris Bay and the main lake, so in a sense, that part of Assembly Point was in the high water period ... an island. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak on this? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I've got a question for Dave. In the immediate area, what kind of systems are there? MR. HATIN-Your guess is as good as mine, Pliney. Problem, none of them, not very many of them conform to today's ordinance and I would say most of them are probably within one hundred feet of Lake George. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-But there was a comment that, somebody said that there was a property three hundred feet away that was required ... you did. MR. BAERTSCHI-Yes, my neighbor, I have, approximately fifteen years, fifteen to seventeen years ago, I put a septic system in, I was required and I'm three hundred and sixty-five feet from one from the lake, I was required to put in Wisconsin Mound which I was happy to do. My neighbor who had a problem, actually the problem that he had was not a water problem, he had a root problem in his, going from the septic system to the leach fields. Applied to the Town, the Town came up there and said, you've got to put in holding tanks. He's over three hundred and some feet from the lake. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-How long ago was that? MR. BAER TSCHI -That was last year. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Dave, do you know anything about that? MR. HATIN-I would have to know the name, I'm not familiar with the exact project. Where's it located, sir? MR. BAERTSCHI-Right, it's on, if your going onto Assembly Point it would be on the right hand side. Do you know where my place is, Baertschi, the swiss chalet? MR. HATIN-No. MR. BAERTSCHI-Near Brayton Lane. MR. HATIN-I know where Brayton Lane is. MR. BAERTSCHI-What's it, Holly... UNKNOWN-Your on Holly. MR. BAERTSCHI-Holly Lane? MR. HATIN-Okay. MR. BAERTSCHI-We're the second ... UNKNOWN-The last house on the left. MR. BAERTSCHI-Your right, it's the last house on the left on Holly Lane. MR. MUGRACE-Excuse me, are holding tanks just a temporary solution? MR. HATIN-No, what a holding tank basically is, is a septic tank that doesn't leach into the ground. It's just it's there and you pump it out, it's like having an annual mortgage, you have to pump it as it's required. MR. MUGRACE-But according to the ordinance that's a, just a temporary solution. MR. HATIN-You can apply for permanence with a septic variance. The one the gentleman is talking about, I'm not totally familiar with. I can certainly go over and pull it if you want it right now, I'll go pull the file. But I'm sure there was a specific reason why the holding tank was required. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That's a good idea, to find out why. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Yea, would you? MR. HATIN-I know that in the center of Assembly Point, we've had mound systems put in there because the groundwater is basically right at that top and it's all clay, there is no sandy soil. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-It might be a good idea to do that. MR. HATIN-But this particular one, I'm not familiar with. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Can you get that Dave? MR. HATIN-I can go over now if you want. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Yea, would you? MR. HATIN-Sure. UNKNOWN-I just have, I wanted to say, they're mentioning holding tanks and I don't think that's an alternative ... COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Mam, would you come up and speak in the mic and give your name so that we can have it on the record please. MS. SHARON DAVIES-My name is Sharon Davies, I just wanted to say that I believe it's against the New York State Health Codes, to issue a permit for a holding tank on vacant land. If there were pre-existing home, that would be an alternative but, I don't believe it's an alternative in this case. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-We'll check with Mr. Hatin when he gets back here, he knows all that stuff. MR. HA TIN-What? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Go ahead. You're coming back aren't you? MR. HATIN-Do I have to? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Maybe. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak on this? ATTORNEY HOWARD KRANTZ-A little cart before the horse here, usually the proposal is set before the Board, but that's okay. Howard Krantz, I represent John McCall whose under contract to purchase the parcel in question from Paul Knox. I believe you each have in front of you a map or are familiar with it. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Yes. ATTORNEY KRANTZ-Okay. Not a small lot but it has a shape which creates the problem. The lot is almost one and a half acres in size but given all the requirements and there are many that must be met as far as setbacks are concerned from the lake and from the road, this is the only location where the house can go and this is the only location where the septic system can go and now Mugrace the architect for Mr. McCall can testify to that. As has been stated, this meets all requirements of the Town of Queensbury. There has been no proof at any time submitted by either the test holes and the two test holes by the way, are right smack in the middle of where these leaching fields would go, they're not out in some other area. Taken last Fall when there were extremely heavy rains and pouring rain that day and they didn't hit the groundwater. Right now there is no evidence before this Board that the depth of groundwater is a problem. We understand the situation that these may have to be retested in the Spring but right now as we're here before you, it meets all the requirements. The single requirement that it doesn't meet, is a requirement of the Lake George Park Commission that it be setback two hundred feet. Twice the standard of the Town of Queensbury. Twice the standard of the Adirondack Park Agency. Twice the standard of DEC. There is no place on this lot that you can set this septic system and meet that requirement. Right now it's equal distance setback from both Bays, so it has at least the one hundred foot setback. I understand the anx.' s of the neighbors who have this vacant lot for many, many years, for decades and now a home is proposed to be built and it's not the same. I understand that but the reality is we're dealing with the regulations as they exist and as I understand it, the arrangement you have, the agreement you have with the Park Commission is that, should there be a request for a variance, it comes before you rather than the Park Commission to determine. The requirements of the Park Commission are that the applicant must demonstrate unique and peculiar conditions to the applicant's particular situation which imposes substantial technological, financial or safety burden upon the applicant or the public. I submit to you that it is the particular situation and the shape of this lot that place and impose a severe financial distress upon the owner of the property. Because of that neck area and because you can not meet the two hundred foot setback, if you were to deny a one hundred foot setback for the septic system from the requirements of the Lake George Park Commission, in effect you're saying that no residence can be built on that property. Under the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, the only permitted uses in this zone are a single family dwelling or a hunting or fishing cabin less than three hundred square feet. In either case you have to have a septic system. One's a house, one's a hunting camp. If you deny the variance, you can not use this property for any permitted use. You can not get a reasonable retum, you can't come any where close to a reasonable retum for the property. Secondly, because and I'm reading now from the Park Commission Regulations, because of such uniqueness, there is no reasonable possibility that the applicant's property or if no property is involved, the continuation of the applicant's business, enterprise, use or activity will bring a reasonable retum following conformity with the regulations. I think it's rather obvious that if you can't meet, if you can't build a house on this property, you can't get a reasonable retum because nothing else is permitted in the Town of Queensbury under this zone. Three, that the proposed activity will have no adverse impact on public health, safety or welfare, the environment or resources of the Park. We've heard opinion from some of the residents that their drinking water is going to be contaminated if a septic system comes in on this lot, but there's no proof of that. There's nothing before you. When the test holes were done, they went down up to six feet and didn't hit any groundwater, number one. Number two, and I think Dave Hatin will confirm this when he comes back, I would venture a guess that at least ninety-five percent on the homes on Lake George do not meet a two hundred foot setback requirement. I would submit right now, you've got, as Dave said, God knows what out there for all the existing homes. Here the existing homes pointing fingers at an applicant whose going to build a new home with a brand new septic system in all of Queensbury's regulation, all the Department of Health regulations and will have a minuscule opportunity to pollute the lake as opposed to what is existing presently. So don't look at us, hold the newcomer to a much, much tougher standard. Hold him to an impossible standard. Number four, that the granting of a variance will not alter the essential character of the area in which the proposed use or activity is located. This is a residential area, this is a residence. Yes it's a large home but under the regulations, it's the size of the bedrooms that the State has determined is the indicator or the correlation with how much is going to go into that septic system. It's a five bedroom home which is not unusual for Lake George, some of these very large homes that you have. You have some small homes on Lake George with that many bedrooms that are going to produce the same amount of effluent as this home will do. Also here is Al Mugrace the architect and with him is an engineer who can answer any technical questions that you have. Also here and I would ask to speak when he has a tum is Mark Schachner representing Paul Knox. I would be glad to answer any questions that you have. But right now, it meets all the requirements and every requirement but this two hundred foot setback, twice what your's is and there's no need or demand to put a mound system in or a different type of system until there's proof that one is required. When Dave comes back and tells you that another house had the requirement of putting in a holding tank, I guarantee you there was a reason for it because it didn't meet the requirements. The groundwater must have been too high. You don't have proof of that here. So to require this applicant to design something before the proof is in that it's required, I don't think is appropriate. I'd be glad to answer any questions that you have. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Can I take issue with the fact that it meets all the requirements. First of all, the ordinance, correct me if I'm wrong, as I recall say's you dig the test pits in March, April or May of the year. The test pits were dug in November which historically is closest to the driest point of the year. So, from that standpoint, it hasn't met all the requirements, right? ATTORNEY KRANTZ-Well, I don't, no I don't agree Nick. I'll tell you why. First of all, as David said, Dave was present. This isn't a situation with someone that you don't know has gone out and done test pits and reported back. Dave was present and gave his own eye witness version of the results. Secondly, last Fall was saturation with rains, including right up to and including the day in question. There was a down pour that day, you couldn't pick a worse condition. But any event, I understand that there has to be another test hole done in the Spring. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Right, that can be a stipulation, can't it, that we can say because certainly the Lake George Park Commission made that comment that they... MR. HATIN-It's a stipulation right now, they know that going in. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Excuse me, has this project started yet? ATTORNEY KRANTZ-The house, no. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Is there anything happening there yet, at all? ATTORNEY KRANTZ-I think there was some site work done but the house is not started. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-When do you expect to start the house, any idea? MR. MUGRACE-As soon as the weather permits. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Okay and weather will permit you to dig test holes. ATTORNEY KRANTZ-And that, we understand that. We understand that. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-He was going to say something. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Paul? ATTORNEY DUSEK-No, I was just, Mr. Caimano had pointed out that the ordinance does require and correctly so that tests be done at certain times of the year. This test obviously wasn't done during that time frame or I don't know if they've got a certification of somebody whose qualified to test at other times of the year. The only other correction I think I should make too, is that our ordinance itself does indicate that disposal fill or mound systems may not be located within two hundred feet of Lake George. So there is, you know, our own ordinance has it as well as the regulations and I just thought we should mention that so you have that as part of your record. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Our ordinance requires that it can not be within two hundred feet? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Right, it says no sewage disposal fill or mound system may be located within two hundred feet of the shorelines of Lake George. And then it goes on, it says for the repair or replacement of existing systems, the distance may be a minimal of one hundred feet. But that's in 136-9B of your laws so it's here as well as in the Lake George code. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, the only other thing and maybe it's a technical aspect, oh go ahead, I'm sorry. MR. MUGRACE-... system, it's a fill system or a mound system ... we're not proposing for this particular property and I discussed that matter with Mr. Hatin. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- The only other question that I had was the fact that you made a statement that if Mr. McCall can't build it, no one can. If with no aspersions on Mr. McCall, if a smaller residence were built requiring a smaller septic tank, couldn't it not be reasonably put on that lot or are you saying it could not? ATTORNEY KRANTZ-No, he can't. As I understand it, the, oflength of the leach fields and such, your not, in other words, if you went with a smaller home, your not going to cut this septic system in half. MR. MUGRACE-It's the number of bedrooms. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Yes, I know. MR. MUGRACE-Right. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-How many feet is required for the five bedroom? MR. HATIN-Under the ordinance, I think it's almost, over three hundred feet. I don't have the exact number right in front of me, I can look it up real quick. UNKNOWN-A hundred and fifty per bedroom. MR. MUGRACE-Seven hundred fifty-five ... MR. HATIN-No, that's gallons per day, it's not ... MR. MUGRACE-Gallons per day. MR. HATIN-I can take Paul's ordinance, I can tell you right off, right out of the ordinance. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Is it different at Lake George then it is anywhere else in the Town? MR. HATIN-No, that part of it doesn't change. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-That part is the same? MR. HATIN-That's the same. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I know down here, you can build a three bedroom a hundred eighty-seven linear feet. MR. HATIN-A three bedroom up there is a hundred eighty-seven linear feet. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Yea, okay. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Y ou were going to get an answer for us on something. MR. HA TIN -Yea, this particular one that Osgood is on Brayton Lane, Assembly Point. This particular one was submitted by an engineer to the Town, now I don't know the specifics of the conversation between my department and this engineer, but generally if these engineers cannot design a system and the engineer in question, Ray Buckley, usually he'll try to design a system. If he doesn't design a system, that pretty much tells me that this area is not suitable for any type system. On a particular area he shows, he shows a wet area fifty feet from the holding tanks and I have to assume that that's the reason why. There was wet area, he shows groundwater at four feet, I don't know the topography of this particular parcel without going out and seeing it. But, it would tell me that the engineer won't submit for a system or submit for a variance, then there's a problem with this particular lot. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Was there a date on the time he did the work, by any chance? MR. HATIN-This was done June of 91. MR. BAERTSCHI-Just one thing on regard to that. That piece of property that McCall wants to buy is just across the road from this wet area that he's talking about. And just north of that is another wet area which I believe they said something about the AP A or ENCON or something, saying it was not a designated wet land. It's still a swamp, it still has a culvert running into Lake George and it's a possibility that the septic system with the amount of bathrooms that are going to be in this house, that this system can not absorb that and it's going to wind up going, I'm not saying it is but it's a very close possibility. And my concern is, what happens to me and the rest of the people in the area if this happens, if this winds up going into the lake? That's my concern, what happens down the road and I can no longer use the Lake George water? MR. MUGRACE-Well, can I respond to the issue of the wetlands? We did come up with an alternative, we have designed an alternative solution there for this particular property and it's under plan and we are within a hundred feet, outside of the hundred foot setback which is a requirement by the AP A. So there should be no effect or no impact on the wetlands. Even if that was an issue, I'm saying. ATTORNEY KRANTZ-Also, every neighbor talking about the property to the north which is owned by Klemm, it's on your map as being this wetland, the Adirondack Park Agency has ruled that it's not jurisdictional. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Because, did they say why? ATTORNEY KRANTZ-It's not, it's too small. It's too small, it's not jurisdictional. We have that in writing. That was determined in 1985 and it was reconfirmed this past week. It is not jurisdictional. The owner of that property has the right to fill it if they want. So all this talk about that being a wetland is not so, it is not jurisdictional, it's too small. The State of New York and the Adirondack Park Agency has a threshold of one acre in size, it's much smaller than that. And we have that from Dan Spade at the AP A and I can provide a copy of that to the Town Board. MR. BAERTSCHI-But the point is, it is wet, it is running into Lake George and even though the owner has the discretion to fill it, and if he doesn't fill it, it may for the next twenty years, that water is still running into Lake George. I don't care who the ... property, who designates what it is, it's still water, it's still wet and it's still running into Lake George. ATTORNEY KRANTZ-If Mrs. Klemm elects to fill that ... MR. BAERTSCHI-Pardon? ATTORNEY KRANTZ-If Mrs. Klemm elects to fill her lot, it isn't wet. It's a non-jurisdictional wetland. Now I would also say that, let's be honest here, what this is about is the neighbors don't want a house on this site. MR. BAERTSCHI-No, that's not the truth. ATTORNEY KRANTZ-If I could finish ... MR. BAERTSCHI-That's what you're saying. ATTORNEY KRANTZ-If I could finish ... MR. BAERTSCHI-It's not the truth. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -One at a time. ATTORNEY KRANTZ-If I could finish uninterrupted. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -One at a time, please. ATTORNEY KRANTZ-This is about a fact that the neighbors don't want a house built on that site and they certainly don't want a large house built on that site. They can't come before you and argue, we don't want a house built on that site. So they come before you with the one remaining issue and that is, the Lake George Park Commission setback requirements. What I'm saying is that I know they don't like it but the law and the regulations now support the approval of the variance. Should, which is required as I understand it from Dave Hatin, should when the test pits are redone in the Spring and should groundwater be encountered that do not meet the Department of Health regulations, then yes, a different system has to be proposed that would meet the requirement. But for right now, we don't have any evidence to the contrary. We have to come back in the Spring and redo it but to hear people talk about holding tanks and mound systems before there's any evidence that is necessary or required by law, doesn't make sense. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-There's a person in the back here that would like to speak who hasn't yet. UNKNOWN-I just wanted to say, I am the neighbor and I've never met Mr. McCall but, I'm not objecting to Mr. McCall. That ground has been wet, we've been there for twenty-five years. That's basically what I want to say. One Winter, we couldn't even get on our driveway because it was so wet, I had to park in Mr. Baertschi's driveway and walk into my house. It is a wet area and that's the only point I want to make. I have nothing against Mr. McCall at all. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-What is your name mam? What is your name mam? Mam? Wait a minute ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Wait a minute, we need ... UNKNOWN-She's my wife Barbara. UNKNOWN-Oh, Barbara. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-And your last name is? MR. FRED HARDT -And I'm Fred Hardt. I need to respond to the issue on the wetlands because I may have originally instituted Dave talking with Don Smith. As far as we know what the situation was and the Attorney may have mentioned 1985, we're going by a letter written to us as an adjoining property owner, this was dated 1987 served by mail that that property was a jurisdictional AP A 8wetland. Now, I have talked with Mr. McCall this afternoon and he advised me that the AP A, even before we got a certified letter telling us, if we're going to do anything within a hundred feet, we may need a permit. Now, any follow up was never given to the adjoining property owners nor was the map that currently exists in the Warren County Municipal Center which I brought a copy to Dave Hatin's Office on Friday, was no longer in effect. And yes, it is true, the AP A even when they sent out letters saying this was a jurisdictional wetland, had decided it wasn't because it is not a full acre in size, which it is not. So, we're not, I'm not here to challenge John's right to purchase this land but I don't want to create an argument that we're raising issues to prevent a house from being built. If anybody is going to be affected by this building, it's me. I mean it's a large building, I would certainly be happy if it was a smaller building. I can't afford to purchase the land which is the only I can preserve it. Now I have talked with John, I am hopeful that, what is built, how it's built, all the problems which maybe, in my view more ... drainage will be taken care of. The septic tank issue is a very difficult one. The Attorney rightfully has indicated many, many properties on Assembly Point do not meet two hundred foot setback. Some don't meet a hundred. It's a very difficult issue for all of us and we don't have a solution for it. I just have to challenge a couple of comments and I think, John we talked earlier about this. The front of that property is wet regardless of what anybody want's to say. It is a wet area and there is concern on drainage there. How that will impact the septic system, I, as an engineer, I couldn't stand here and say, without doubt if that system isn't two hundred feet from the lake, it's going to pollute the lake. There's just no fact and figures and I wouldn't try to even challenge that. Granted if it was two hundred, there's a less probability that some of the ... leaching from the absorbent field may enter the lake. There's an equal probability that, even if it is a hundred feet it may... it's a grey area and either the Park Commission, the Town of Queensbury, the New York State DEC, the Adirondack Park Agency, we can't provide proof positive. I think the thing that I want to be sure of is that, that system and I know this is not the subject of this hearing because this is totally different but other situations concerning the building of the house, is not going to affect my property and it's not going to affect the lake quality. I, again I'm standing up only because I do want to clarify this point of the AP A. It's not something that we have been trying to use to prevent the building. This is all we know because the AP A never advised the adjoining property owners that there had been a change in their original mapping and I agree with John, I had talked with the AP A and yes, even before they sent the letters out certified mail, they had said it was not a jurisdictional APA wetland. But that's not the fault of the homeowner's because all we can go by is what we receive in the mail and what maps exist. And I want to repeat as my wife did. I don't want to hear an attorney saying that we're trying to prevent somebody from building on the property. MR. BAERTSCHI-And I'd like to get some names. If he's making this remark in front of this Board, I want names of who is saying that they don't want a home built there ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-But really, as I understand the issue, we're talking about a variance on a sewer system, period. MR. BAERTSCHI-Correct but he brought this issue up. He brought this up. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Right, I understand that. MR. BAERTSCHI-He's the attorney then he should open up his mouth and say who is saying this. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, okay. MR. MACELROY-I'd like, a couple points of clarification. APA regulations of March 91, state that their requirement is two hundred feet setback to an absorption system. I think Mr. Krantz indicated that it's one hundred feet ... I agree with alot of things that Fred has indicated and I do also seriously object to Mr. Krantz's speculation as we're, the property owners are here to stop the building of a large house. I want to assure Mr. Krantz and Mr. McCall, we don't think we're better, we're not faster, so we care. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-At least you watch television, right. MR. MUGRACE-Canl ... COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Would you come up to the mic please? The young girl over there has got to get all this stuff. MR. MUGRACE- ... was the professional, so if you can concur with me on the idea that, if the system is designed properly and installed properly, even if he was fifty or sixty feet away from the lake or even closer, would not fail? MR. HARDT-Well, again ... MR. MUGRACE-It's just a speculation but, just like you speculated. MR. HARDT-The concern. You know if I were the engineer now and I'm not the engineer, I would have the concern myself of stamping a set of plans based on a high water mark that was taken in November. Now, I don't care if it was three inches of rain coming down, your following a relatively dry period, the ground isn't saturated. The ground will be saturated this April, I guarantee you because it's been five years since we've had this amount of, this amount of snow cover on the ground. And again, I'm trying to be a friend here and I'm going to call John, John. We talked to him this afternoon and I mentioned then and I suggest John, this is something you have to be aware of in iliat area. That area is wet and my wife and I, we have been there for twenty-five years and as she said, in some Winters past when we used to have Winter around here like we have Winter here, the entrance, the access road to our property and the road that will provide the access to the planned new house and garage, there have been times when we could not get into that road because of the amount of water that accumulates in that area. MR. MUGRACE-Do you think that's partially due to poor drainage there? There's a couple of culverts ... MR. HARDT-There's a drainage, there's certainly a drainage problem and I can't give you a hundred percent fact because I wouldn't take a backhoe and dug down either in my property ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, let me try and get you guys off of this a little bit. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Mr. Chairman, I've got a question. Some of the homeowner's there. Sir, how far are you out in the lake are you drawing your water? MR. BAERTSCHI-Pardon? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-How far are you out in the lake where ... ? MR. BAERTSCHI-In the lake, I'm approximately I would say around seventy-five to eighty feet from the shore. I'm down around fifteen feet. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-And the gentleman back there? MR. HARDT-Our water intake is plus or minus seventy-five feet range. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-How deep? MR. HARDT -We're in about ten feet of water. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-You know it's funny, we're the Board of Health and you know, because we ran for election, all of sudden we're supposed to be the engineers. DEC isn't here, the Department of Health isn't here, suddenly we have to make the decision and I have to rely on what common sense I have and what education I've gleaned and that's none too much. Several things, I mean I look at this, we're talking a sewage system and there's two things that I know that a sewage system does if it's working properly. One, it takes the pathogenic organisms out of the sewage or the waste stream and the other one, it takes the nutrients out. And the question is, does it take the nutrients out in this kind of a situation and I think this is far more than an issue of this site on this piece of property. We've got the same thing to look at all around the lake. Now, there's one thing that I, there's some technology I see where there's aerobic sewage systems, that is septic systems. Would they help in this situation? Whether it's this situation or anywhere along the lake where you can, I would assume that that's better for pathogens and it might help in getting down nutrient load, I don't know? No, it wouldn't help in ... it wouldn't get rid of nutrients. Does anyone have input they could share with us on this? MR. MUGRACE-Well may I just call on Mr. Gene Biledeau here, to give us some input on the ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Sure, please. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-On the mic, please. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-You can't imagine how inadequate I feel about this. MR. GENE BILEDEAU, Mr. Gene Biledeau , Allen Associates, I'm an engineer that's been called in on this at this late date and I'm just listening to all of the information that's been proposed here. But I've been through this dozens of times and it's parallel in every respect. But getting back into the design of mechanical systems, the State in general, the Health Department frowns on the use of mechanical systems as you had mentioned. That's what specifically Al had asked me to call on because they have to be operated, they fail, when they fail, there's no one to go to, to get them fixed and so they would prefer that that be used only in a very rare case where they might permit it. Where I come from in Rensselaer County, there's just no way they would ever permit a mechanical system to exist, these aeration systems that you talk about, they do allow mound systems or as we call them raised bed system which is slightly different then Wisconsin Mounds and they work better. They allow sand filters which is one way to get around the problem where you have this, where actually the water goes through the sand and the filtration comes out on the bottom, then it's discharged from there. It can be looked at, tested and whatever other effort want's to be made to make sure it's pure. It can then be deposited into another system and essentially you get a **turshurior system, in this effect where you're actually polishing the effluent with another system for discharge. Those are, those are solutions to the problem if there need be. A sand filter is about the, in Rensselaer County, the only system that they will allow that is other than the standard three that they use which are inground, shallow trench and raised bed. The only other one they really will allow is a sand filter and that has to be located such that the discharge can be deposited into a water source, a stream or whatever. But they do have the opportunity to look at the effluent and the effluent that comes out of the sand filter is very, very pure in most cases. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- To answer your question too, is a function of depth of time, what, tell me again what the time is and the depth in the ... ? MR. HA TIN-The depth of the groundwater? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Yes. MR. HA TIN-Three feet. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-And what's the perk time? MR. HATIN-Right now you got, I don't have it ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I didn't see it, I couldn't find it. MR. HATIN-You've got three minutes in zero to twelve and twelve to eighteen inches down five minutes. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Okay. And how deep do you say, one more time? MR. HATIN-Pardon me? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-How deep did you say it was? MR. HATIN-Groundwater is, the minimum is three feet that's allowed or required. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-How much do you got? MR. HATIN-Right now, if you go by the design we have right now, based on the test we had in November, we're looking almost four feet, four to five feet. That's, again, that's why we're doing it again in the Spring, to make sure. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-If we granted a variance, as a part of the stipulations that it has to be retested during the time period stated within the law and if it didn't meet that, then it's your problem, you've got to come up with some other system. Is that correct? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Mr. Chairman, I'm not in favor of granting a variance until we have all the information. Is there some way this hearing can be held open? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Is there some way we could physically look at this thing? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Certainly, we can go look at it but ... COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Us? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Yes. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-What are we going to know? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, see what these people are looking at though, in terms of ... MR. MARTIN-You know what I might suggest, what's typically done on the Planning Board is you could, you know refer this over to Rist-Frost if you want some sort of technical review of this. MR. HATIN-There's another shorter answer too and that's to do a test hole right now and require them to have one of the approved engineers by the Town go up and look for mottling, is basically what they're going to do. MR. ADAMSON-Oh I object to that, absolutely. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Now hang on a second, before you guys all jump in. We're not so far away from the time period when the tests should be taken and is there a reason why we can't do that? UNKNOWN-The frost is still in the ground. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -No, I'd say wait for a month until the frost is out and then test. Is there a reason we can't do that? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-We hope it will be out in a month. ATTORNEY MARK SCHACHNER-Waiting one's tum, I take it, is not the approach to be used tonight. Is that a fair assumption? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Say again? ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-Waiting one's turn, I've been waving my hand for the longest time. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Oh, certainly. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-And I'm under the impression tonight's forum is just jump in, interrupt, whatever. Is that the forum? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-You got it. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-I don't know, you know. I'm serious, I've been raising my hand and raising my hand ... COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Oh, you've been here enough times to know the system, jump in. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -I didn't even see you, you know. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Yea, you've been so quiet. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-Since I'm a lawyer, I guess I'm trained to try to maintain an orderly proceeding and I don't think it's an emotional issue. I think it be, if I were the Town Clerk, I would find it impossible to properly record the Minutes of a meeting with the back and forth like this, but that's her problem and your problem, not my problem. For your record I'm Mark Schachner, I represent the owner of the property. I don't think this is an emotional issue. But I also think that it's not a novel issue that's never come before this Board acting as a Board of Health. I can certainly appreciate, that you sort of inherit becoming a Board of Health, you don't seek to become a Board of Health but that's by operation oflaw and there's not much any of us, I don't think, can do about that. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-This is my first one on the lake. I don't know about the rest of these people but this is the first one I've had on the lake. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-There have been, as I understand it, there have been a fairly large number on the lake over the years. But again, I think that to some extent, we are the victim of changing law and changing regulations. The Lake George Park Commission Regulations that we're talking about here, have not been in place all that long. In any event, I think there a couple of very important points that have to be made. Number one, it sounds like the timing of the testing is a legitimate issue. But it sounds like it's an easy to deal legitimate issue. It seems to me that, I think several or many minutes ago, Supervisor Brandt suggested a very rational, logical resolution of that issue. Namely, that any variance that's granted should be contingent on a satisfactory test and if that's your principal concern, it seems to me that's a very valid, rational, logical principal concern. But the easy way to deal with it, rather than having this be an ongoing thing that you have to deal with Monday night after Monday night, or even month after month, is grant the variance with a specific contingency. If the contingency is met, great. If the contingency is not met, from your perspective, also great. Meaning, the permit doesn't get issued, the palace doesn't get built. That's a very common approach in municipality after municipality, including this municipality. It seems eminently rational, eminently logical and eminently reasonable. As far as the issue of wetlands on the property, alot of people have bantered around the notion that the only reason that these are not, quote, unquote, designated freshwater wetlands is because they're too small. That's not the only reason. I'm reading from the letter dated March 17th, 1993 which was St. Patrick's Day, last Wednesday from the Adirondack Park Agency which indicates that there are two reasons the wetlands are not jurisdictional. One reason is in fact the reason mentioned earlier, that they're not very large. The second reason, from the standpoint of environmental protection, which is really what we're talking about here, environmental protection. The second reason is in my opinion, the more important reason and I'm reading verbatim, they have no free interchange with any water body and therefore are not jurisdictional to this agency. So, no one's mentioned the second reason that they're not jurisdictional. That's absolutely critical from the standpoint of environmental protection. MR. BAERTSCHI-Will you clarify that last statement, please? ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-What I guess I'd like to do, is just continue, if it's okay with you all and then if you want me to answer questions, I'll answer questions. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Alright, but I'd like to have you read that. MR. BAERTSCHI-Well, I'djust like you to clarify that one thing. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-Okay, read the letter? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-No, that same statement, that second reason again. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-Okay. There are wetlands on the property, I'm reading the entire sentence now from the letter, there are wetlands on the property but because they are less than one acre in size and have no free interchange with any water body, they are not jurisdictional to this agency. MR. BAER TSCHI -But what is free interchange with any water body? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-There's no brook or stream running through the wetlands. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Back and forth. MR. BAERTSCHI-There is a culvert running from this piece of wetland in the lake. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Now, hang on, hang on. One guy at a time. You're on the floor. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-I'm not, all I'm telling you is what the Adirondack Park Agency Wetland's Specialist, Daniel Spada has determined and I'm reading to you verbatim from a letter dated St. Patrick's Day, last Wednesday. The issue, I frankly think that both Mr. MacElroy and Mr. Hardt have made some very candid and very honest and very legitimate comments. First of all, they've indicated that their complaint is not the size of the house. They've both, I think candidly indicated that the issue for purposes of septic system design is the number of bedrooms. The number of bedrooms we have here is five. That's not a tiny number, it's not a gargantuan number. It's a reasonable number. An applicant's entitled to apply to build a five bedroom house. And an answer to a very reasonable question, which was, what if it were only one or two bedrooms, wouldn't we have a much, much smaller septic system and therefore meet the setbacks or come close to meeting the setbacks. My read on this is, not even close. We would still be way, way, way less than two hundred feet. Okay so and that's a reasonable question but that's the answer. There have been two standards that have been described to you as the standards by which you should measure this. They've both been sort of referred to quickly. One public commentor mentioned the standards that exist in your Sanitary Sewage Disposal Ordinance. However, and we don't have a problem, by we I mean really the applicant but we're here sort of with invested interests obviously, the applicant has clearly met the standard in the Sanitary Sewage Disposal Ordinance and the standard that Mr. Krantz mentioned which came right out of the Lake George Park Commission Regulations. However, with all due respect to both the gentleman who made the comment about the Queensbury standard and with all due respect to my colleague Mr. Krantz, the Lake George Park Commission Regulations actually include a very specific sentence governing this very specific section for granting of a waiver. And essentially you're sitting here today doing their business and I have my own, in were you. I'd have my own trouble with that but that's again not the issue for tonight and I confirmed this today with Thomas Wardell, the Wastewater Engineer with the Lake George Park Commission and the standard comes from Section 646-3.12A2. I'm saying that more for your record, I assume you don't have it in front of you but I will read the standard. The standard states that, for good cause shown you may waive any specific requirement of these design standards and that's what we're looking at, this specific requirement of two hundred feet is from their design standard, above a finding that such waiver will not compromise the effectiveness of the system to be constructed or modified. You have a design professional or actually two design professionals that have certified on behalf of the applicant, that the conventional septic system will not compromise the, at it's location, I'm sorry that's an important phrase, at the proposed location, will not compromise the effectiveness of the system. That's the regulatory standard for granting of what is actually a waiver, not a variance. Mr. Hardt candidly states and I don't think, the engineers I work with, would agree with, I don't think they would disagree is what I mean to say with his statement. He candidly stated that perhaps a hundred feet and two hundred feet, may not make a difference from the standpoint of engineering effectiveness. He mentions other concerns which we understand but that's the bottom line, that's the standard. My understanding of your local regulations, the Town's regulations with respect to setback of two hundred feet is that, that refers to non-conventional systems and I think Mr. Hatin, that's your understanding as well. So that in that sense, the applicant meets the Queensbury standards with one subject to the condition, we talked about the timing of the testing and your job, as you sit here, is playing Lake George Park Commission, if you will, in reading that variance or waiver standard and does he meet the standard. And I guess lastly, I think it's extremely unusual, and I think I'm following up on a comment made by the engineer and I'm agreeing with it, it's extremely unusual to the point of almost unlIeard of in my opinion, for people who are objecting to anything, to be proposing or advocating alternative systems. Alternative systems, that I think you're aware, are really, to use his phrase, generally frowned upon by all the State Regulatory Agencies for a whole variety of reasons. Conventional septic systems were not invented yesterday or the day before. If they're properly designed, then typically they work properly and I haven't heard anything other than wild speculation here. The land maybe wet, all the statements made by the public comments or most of them may well be true. But the bottom line is, you have a competent licensed professional whose stating, here's where we're putting the septic system, it meets a hundred feet back from every place. It also maximizes setback from the non-jurisdictional wetland, as best it can. So you have three things to worry about here. Lake George one way, Lake George the other way, non- jurisdictional wetland the other way. Even a hundred foot setback from the wetlands, so it's really the best job you can do given this piece of property. And if you view it in that context and take the emotional stuff aside, I don't think it's that hard a decision. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, thank you. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-Thank you. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-The lady back here is asking. MS. JOAN STONE-I'm Joan Stone, I'm a resident of Assembly Point, not in the immediate vicinity of the property being considered. I would like to make just one point. I heard some reference earlier to the fact that there are alot of non-conforming septic systems on the lake and on Assembly Point in particular. Adding to non-conforming systems is not a good reason just because they're there. They need to be upgraded rather then to add to the problems they present. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you. Is there anyone else? MR. BAERTSCHI-I'll make one more comment. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yes sir. MR. BAERTSCHI-They might, possibly you got professional people here that can build a system to all the specifications to have this thing work properly. Now, I have done alot of construction work myself especially for the Navy and the Navy is very, very particular in regards to construction, may it be buildings, dams, bridges, septic systems, whatever the case may be and we could get the best engineers in the world in there and build this system, that's not to say that this system is not going to work this year or next year or five years down the road but the system can break down. This system is not going to last forever and correct, there are systems in that whole area which again, as this lady stated, should be upgraded. I'm sorry to say that over the years, that there hasn't been more stringent things done to have these systems upgraded. But what is happening and what I'm afraid of and again, I'm not opposed to having this man build a house there. I'm six places down, I don't, I won't even see his place. The point that I'm getting at is, distance wise from where ever his property is to where my water is coming from, I'm afraid, what is going to happen to me if all of a sudden this water does get contaminated? What happens, you talk about emotion, what happens? What do I do? MR. MUGRACE-Well, what's John McCall going to do? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, okay... MR. BAERTSCHI-Well, John McCall can drill a well. So can I. But I don't want to have to drill a well five hundred and some feet and get sulfur water and that's all you get there. I've got water that is good. MR. MUGRACE-Well my question is ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Wait a minute, wait a minute. This isn't an argument between you guys, this is a hearing and you talk to us please. One at a time, okay. Howard? ATTORNEY KRANTZ-Mike, in summation, some of the neighbors have given anecdotal evidence that the area has a high groundwater table. On their terms, wet. That is contrary to the test pits that were done on the property but never the less, they have to be redone in the Spring. It seems to me, the proper procedure is to grant the variance, contingent upon and subject to, satisfactory test pits being done in the Spring and if they are satisfactory, we're done. If they're not satisfactory, something else has to be designed and come back. Am I correct Dave? We would then have to come back ... MR. HATIN-That's where it stands right now. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-What if we specify that our person witness that test as well as the engineer? Will that satisfy? ATTORNEY KRANTZ-Dave is welcome to be there. MR. HATIN-I have to be there. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Why, why, why do they have to have their okay tonight? They're not going to start the project until the weather allows them to start it. ATTORNEY KRANTZ-Pliney I'll tell you why, if I may, because I can answer that. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Well, I hope so. ATTORNEY KRANTZ-It seems to me, the procedure is such that if the variance were not granted tonight, we would have to go back, we would have to wait at least six weeks after the frost is out of the ground, do the test pits, then we're still coming back. We're still coming back for another hearing. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-We, no, we can arrange that right here tonight that you haven't got to come back. ATTORNEY KRANTZ-That's what I'm proposing. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That's what he's saying. ATTORNEY KRANTZ-That's right. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, that's what he's saying. If we pass it subject to that test and certification of that test, then it's settled. And if it doesn't meet that criteria, then they have to do something else and it's their problem, not ours. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-It seems to me, the gentleman most affected by it, has, seems to lean in that direction. He is not, he and she are not concerned about that house being next to them but are concerned about the quality oflife, quality of water, etcetera and if we put those contingencies in there, it seems as if that settles the question. I, if I'm wrong, please tell me. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-You're going to have one of the designated engineers look at this? I respect Dave here but Dave ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-But it would be an engineer that would has to certify it and Dave can be there, you know, as our representative. I would like that. MR. HATIN-If! could just back up a little. Before this came to the Board, we had discussed that I would go up there in the Spring anyway and do a test hole with whoever. When they dig the foundation hole, we're going to know if we have a problem with groundwater anyway. It's going to be no secret right then before the septic system even thinks about getting constructed. So we're going to know pretty much when they get ready to build this house, whether we've got a groundwater problem or not based on what I'm hearing tonight. I was going to witness the test anyway so you've got a person on site. I went up there last November. Sharon Davies has tried to sell this property several times, has called me several times and that's always been one of the big questions that I've put to her. Can you prove to me that we can put a septic system on this site? And that's when we scheduled the test holes last November, figuring that we're going to strike groundwater at some point in time and didn't to our surprise because it had been a wet year last year, regardless of whether it has any affects on groundwater or not, I'm not an engineer I don't know. But it was a wet year last year and we did have a problem with groundwater. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-The only thing I'm concerned about is, we've got rules and regulations in this book over here and there's a gentleman already sat here tonight and says if we put this system in and his water gets polluted, he's going to sue the Town. So, me personally... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I'm not worried about that. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I want to take every step that we're supposed to take. MR. HATIN-Just let me put that in perspective Pliney, dealing with the Park Commission reviews, okay for the last three years, doing, having my people go up there and do the inspections for the last three years, we know where most the majority of the systems are on Assembly Point. We know they are non- conforming. To prove that one system over another is failing is almost impossible, number one, alright. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Well, still. MR. HATIN-You've also got, this gentleman openly admits, he's got six places, he's the six place up from Mr. McCall's, so you've got five places in between. What's to say one of those places isn't causing a problem, not Mr. McCall? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-There's nothing to say. MR. HATIN-I know that but I'mjust saying, for the Town to worry about getting sued, we can get sued tomorrow for all the variances we've granted over the last ten, twelve years. So, I don't think that's an issue. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-If we, do you agree or do you disagree, if we jump through all the hoops, we're in a better position if we do have a problem? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well, I think, you certainly as a Board want to do your job in terms of making sure that you've complied with your regulations and I think that to the extent that you're, you know, one of the things that you must do I think, you could not just grant the variance, you would have to at least have that groundwater testing done again because your own ordinance requires that. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Right but if we stipulated that and we said an engineer had to witnessed it and we had to be there with one of our representatives, we've set ourselves up with a decent defense, haven't we? You're the guy that would defend it, would you be comfortable with defending that? ATTORNEY DUSEK-I will say this, you certainly have had information submitted to you by licensed engineers, a licensed engineer will ultimately stamp it on behalf of the applicant and I'll tell you, the Town has every right in the world to look towards those individuals too because they're making representations here tonight. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-Absolutely and Mr. Tucker please, please don't even suggest that because a citizen or a group of citizens show up at a public meeting and threaten litigation, that you're going to be intimidated and change the manner in which you conduct your business. That would be just a terrible precedent, a terrible precedent. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I hear from your friend over there all the time, jump through all the hoops and then guys like you won't be representing somebody on the other side six months down the road, trying to skin us. ATTORNEY SCHACHNER-You're right, you're absolutely right. You have to jump through the hoops but the hoops that your colleagues are suggesting, are perfectly appropriate. You're absolutely right. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Technically Paul, I think Mark is right too, we are not granting a variance, we're granting a waiver, aren't we? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I don't know. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I think we ought to know. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I saw it as a variance but I think you can, you know, you have a formed resolution in front of you that I think will cover you in any event, you just have to add the conditions to it. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Okay. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Mike, just to clarify the statement you made. You said a engineer, one of the certified engineers authorized to do this for the Town, is this what you're talking about? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I'm talking about someone certified by New York State, I don't care who it is. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-One of the six that ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT -As long as they got the stamp. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Our ordinance says that we have people that are certified to do this. Why don't we do it by the ordinance and if we do it that way, I agree with you. We can give them their variance tonight. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-One of those six, right? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- What? COUNCILMAN GOETZ-One of the six approved? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-One of the six approved. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Yes. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Yea, meaning no disrespect to Dave, it's just a matter, he's not approved. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Well, I wouldn't think he'd want to take that on anyway, that we should have the authority. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea well, okay all of them are approved and licensed by New York State. It's still open so go ahead. MR. ADAMSON-I'm not sure what you're planning to do. There are two ways of doing this. One is to get one of the six engineers and he can do it any time. But I, what I think is important is that we follow the time schedule of the ordinance to let Mother Earth go through it's ... COUNCILMAN TUCKER-That's what we're doing. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That's what we're going to do. MR. ADAMSON-Okay, okay, as long as that's what you're doing. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-But the six engineers as you ... MR. ADAMSON-Because Dave was saying before we could do it sooner by taking one of these engineers. I think that would be a gross mistake. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Right the six, that's the law, the six would be to go in there and certify it at a other then high groundwater table. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Yea. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We want to test high groundwater table and anybody licensed by New York State can do that. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-During the time that the ordinance says. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Right. MR. ADAMSON-Six weeks after ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Whatever the ordinance says. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Wait a minute, wait a minute. The ordinance says, that one of the six certified by the Town of Queensbury to do this, will do it. Is that correct? MR. HATIN-What that is, is that's an alternative when your out of those time frame, because development happens all year round so you have to have a mechanism to do this out of that season. That was put into effect, these six engineers had to submit resumes, a matter of fact, one of them is a soils engineer for an engineering firm. I think these people are quite capable of doing what they've been approved by the previous Town Board to do any time of year. They're all what I consider experts in the field. But if you want to put it off to the six weeks after the frost is out of the ground and then have one of them go up, above and beyond that, I don't care. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-No, no, no. I want it done as soon as possible but any engineer certifying it as soon as possible is a, will obey the law? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, as soon as possible within the ordinance. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Within the ordinance, during that time period within the ordinance which was ... COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Read that thing to me again. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Okay. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-March, April, May, June, right? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Wait a minute, let him read it. ATTORNEY DUSEK-The determination of seasonal high groundwater level shall be made during the months of March, April, May, or June within six weeks of the time that the frost leaves the ground. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-That's all it says? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well, it goes on past that. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Alright, go on. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Okay, such determination may be made by monitoring the water level in the open soil test pit as described above for a period of not less than twenty-four hours and recording the highest level observed. If such determination is made at other than such times, the seasonal high groundwater shall be evaluated and certified by a qualified person approved by the Local Board of Health. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-What's the number and section of that you're reading. ATTORNEY DUSEK-It's actually an Appendix F of your, of Chapter 136. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I'm on board. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, is there anyone else that wants to speak on this? Yes, of course. MR. MACELROY -Dennis MacElroy. I just have one further comment that. I talked to Paul and Jim last week, this adds another complication potentially. If you grant a variance or have conditions attached to the variance, I believe and obviously Paul would have to determine the ruling on that, that you are required to notify AP A of any action that you've taken for them to rule on it within a thirty day period. Just to make those, that aware of. ATTORNEY DUSEK-If the AP A does apply, that's just a notification procedures of what you've decided and they have a right to review it, that's all. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Right, certainly we can't do much about that. Okay, is there anyone else that would like to speak? Yes sir. MR. HARDT-I just have one ... on the copy of the plans that the Town gave me, you were talking about engineers certifying this and certifying that, I'm just wondering if the Town does have a stamped plan certifying to the septic system? The copy I have, there's no engineer stamp on it. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No. MR. HATIN-Right now, we don't because this is a standard system designed our ordinance and does not reqUIre one. It's a, anybody that can read our ordinance can put this system in the ground, basically. That's the way it works and that's the way it's always been ever since, before I've been here. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, anyone else? I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8: 30 P.M. Supervisor Brandt-I'm going to offer the resolution to approve the variance with the stipulation that a proper test of groundwater be made during the month of March, April, Mayor June, as the ordinance requires within six weeks of the loss of frost and that be witnessed by one of our employees and that test has to be made by a certified engineer and stamped. Attorney Dusek-On the resolution now that you offered, is it your intent to supplement paragraph C on page 2, with that condition that you indicated? Are you basically moving this resolution with that condition added? Supervisor Brandt -Yes. Councilman Caimano-I'll second it. RESOLUTION APPROVING A SANITARY SEW AGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE FOR MR. JOHN MC CALL RESOLUTION NO. 11, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, Mr. John McCall previously filed a request for a variance from certain standards of the Lake George Waste Water Manual, such standards being more specifically that requiring that there be a 200 foot separation between an absorption field and the Lake George Shoreline, and WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was given in the official newspaper of the Town of Queensbury and a public hearing was held in connection with the variance request on March 22, 1993, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk advises that property owners within 500 feet of the subject property have been duly notified, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, a) that due to the nature of the variance, it is felt that the variation will not be materially detrimental to the purposes and objectives of the Lake George Waste Water Manual or to other adjoining properties or otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of any plan or policy of the Town of Queensbury; b) that the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and that the variance is granted as the minimum variance which would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health to affect the applicant; and c) that the Local Board of Health imposes a stipulation that a proper test of groundwater be made during the month of March, April, Mayor June as the Ordinance requires, within six weeks of the loss of frost and that it be witnessed by one of our employees and that test has to be made by a Certified Engineer and stamped, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health grants the variance to Mr. John McCall allowing the placement of the absorption field 100 feet from the Lake George Shoreline, rather than placing it at the mandated 200 foot distance, on property situated on Assembly Point Road, Queensbury, New York, and bearing Tax Map #: Section 7, Block 1, Lot 16.7. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 1993, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: Mrs. Monahan RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 12, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns and enter Regular Session of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 1993, by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: Ayes ALL THOSE OPPOSED: None ABSENT: Mrs. Monahan QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD Discussion- Assessment and Revaluation in the Town of Queensbury 8:35 P.M. Supervisor Brandt-Helen, I know you've been going through alot of criticism, as we all have and so I want to discuss this, give you a chance to talk to us formerly as a Board and for us to formerly talk to you. Councilman Goetz-Helen, on behalf of my constituents, I'm concerned because people are telling me that they can't get appointments and I think that's wrong, everyone should have a chance to. Helen Otte, Assessor-We have scheduled about twelve or thirteen hundred appointments so far. All the available time slots are filling up. I just talked to the contractors and last Friday received two more days when we can schedule more appointments which we then did from a waiting list that we had. We're also trying to get people in where there are cancellations which we have alot of these days. Unfortunately we have alot of no-shows, so we're wasting appointments on these individuals. We're telling people to write letters. We're also informing them that they can come in May, there are opportunities in the month of May in a more formal atmosphere but still, they come and talk to me and I can help them with the presentation to the Review Board. But we do have a time limit. We have to handle all of these twelve hundred appointments, plus all the walk-ins to the office. There's computer time that we have to get. We have to tum our files into the County by probably the 22nd of April. Our appointments are ending on the 8th of April, so that we can have the 8th from the 22nd to handle all of this work and get it to the County. Councilman Goetz-I had a person that called this evening and I feel that this person should have an audience with you or whoever. Are you telling me that there would be another chance for this person? Mrs. Otte- This individual could keep calling. Our lines aren't as busy, we have four lines into the office and I realize for the first ten days, people got very discouraged trying to get into the office. This person should keep trying even up to the 1st of April or afterwards to see if there's been cancellations. Councilman Goetz-But do they have to call every day? Mrs. Otte-No, just every couple of days to see if there's any cancellation and we would also put them on list to call them if a cancellation came up. Councilman Goetz-What I'm hearing from you doesn't satisfy me because if you're the one person that can't get the information then you're going to feel really upset about it. Mrs. Otte-I know, I realize that and we're trying to do the same for twelve thousand property owners in Queensbury and we have a very limited time to do it. The notices went out on schedule on March 2nd. I would have wished that they had gone out on February 2nd so that we could have increased this time. Councilman Goetz-What about Cole, Layer and Trumble, are they giving you help? Mrs. Otte- Yes, they are. They've been very cooperative. Councilman Goetz-Can they give you more then they're giving you now? Mrs. Otte- They've given us everything that they have contracted to give us and more. They have their schedules filled right up, they're willing to squeak in cancellations at the last moment if necessary. I feel they've been very cooperative. I would just say to this person, keep trying, we'll still have a couple of more weeks of meetings. Councilman Goetz-He said that he was told a waiting list. Mrs. Otte- There are no more right now. We're trying to get people to write letters to us and that would be handled exactly in the same way that a personal meeting would be handled. Councilman Caimano-I have two general questions, one has to do with land and the other has to do with market value versus assessment. I have had two situations and they were on opposite sides of the spectrum, where someone was assessed a certain value and if did not coincide with a recent purchase that person made. According to the people, they were told in one case for example, where this person actually bought within the last nine or twelve months a house in the hundred twenty range, it was assessed at a hundred and forty-four. They were told, well yes, you bought it a hundred and twenty-nine but it should have been a hundred and forty-four. I wonder if what I heard is true and if it was, how did we arrive at those kind of conclusions. Mrs. Otte-Naturally, the best measure of market value is a sale on a particular property and if you're doing a fee appraisal you would use sales on that one property or on three other properties to compare. What we're doing is mass appraisal and we can't always hit the exact selling price on any given property in mass appraisal. We try to use all of the sales to develop a schedule of costs for buildings and also a land value schedule and then we have to apply this even handily across all of the properties in the Town. Councilman Caimano-But if I just recently bought the place for a hundred and twenty-nine and your group assessed it higher, can then I assume that when I come to you and talk to you about it, you are going to make some kind of adjustment. Mrs. Otte-We will certainly listen to the fact that there's been a sale on it, yes. Councilman Caimano- The other question has to do with land. I understand as you were quoted in the paper and I hope you were quoted accurately, that what you were trying to do was to upgrade the assessments of land so that people would be forced to move them. Mrs. Otte-No, that comes across as being a policy of the Town Board. No, I was asked that same question and I said absolutely not. I said, this may be a result of higher assessments on land. The land in my opinion, in the last revaluation was assessed very low in many areas. So now, when I've brought them up to a more realistic market, they have had a substantial increase but it certainly was never a deliberate policy to say, we're going to really tax these particular parcels in Town. There again, the law says market value and we're always going for market value on whatever type of property it is. Councilman Caimano-So what we read was supposition on the part of whoever was writing the story? Mrs.Otte-Apparently. Councilman Tucker-How do you justify someone's assessment going up and their taxes going down? Mrs. Otte- That's a result of two things. The fact that there is more assessed value now so that there is a broader base to spread the budget over, the tax rates drop so that the amount that you would be paying even know your assessment is higher, the amount you would be paying could be lower because of the lower tax rates per thousand. Councilman Tucker-Shouldn't everybody benefit that way? Mrs. Otte- It depends on how much of an increase you've had in your assessment. If your assessment goes up over the average amount of increase, then you're going to be in that one third of the properties that will be paying more. Councilman Tucker-This particular case that I'm talking about, these people built an addition on that house, your department assessed this house less than two years ago and now his assessment has gone up and his taxes have gone down. Mrs. Otte- The tax rates are lower and also, the second item that comes into play is the burden perhaps has shifted away from that type of property. There was a shift in burden from relatively new construction which was carrying a very heavy share of the burden in the past. There has been a slight shift away from that to other types of property. Supervisor Brandt-When you say the burden, you're really reflecting market? Mrs. Otte- Yes. Supervisor Brandt -You're not designing where burden goes, it's a reflection of what the market is showing, by what your people have found. Mrs. Otte- That's correct. Supervisor Brandt-Two years ago when you were doing an appraisal on a property, an assessment on a property, do you base it on all the values of the whole system in Queensbury or do you base it on market value at that time? Mrs. Otte-I was basing it on market value of the previous reval which was 1987, so we were using 85,86, 87 market and then I had to hold with that market when I put new assessments on in order to keep those in line with the one's that had been placed on in 1987. Supervisor Brandt-So all those values should be coming up with this reval? Mrs. Otte- Yes. Councilman Caimano-When you did commercial property, did you test for market income and cost and take one, and did use that standard across or what did you do? Mrs. Otte-We did, we used market income, rentals. This does not mean that we use the actual income of one business. We used, what you're calling market income and expense information. Councilman Caimano-Excuse me, I meant three. Aren't there three tests? Mrs. Otte-Market, income and cost. Yes, we used all three and we developed again schedules for incomes. You eliminate the vagaries of management and you use market income and expenses on various type of property. When we have meetings now with the individual owners of the commercial properties, we can refine that because they can give us information about actual income, actual condition of their business and expenses and then we can really tailor these. Councilman Caimano-Was there a standard? Did you decide before hand that you would take the median of one of the three for all commercial properties or was there not a standard? Mrs. Otte- Y ou do a reconciliation of all three, if you have good market, you can do that. Supervisor Brandt-I want to point out to the public that this Board was very reluctant to go into a revaluation and it was really sold that we needed to do it Town wide because we had too many problems in too many places. Having made the decision, we can't go back and change it, we've made it and we went into the process. Now, under the laws as I understand it, there's only one person that can rectify any problems that come up and that's our Assessor. So, whether we like it or not, I think we have to work together to bring the best out of this process and give you all the chance we can of rectifying whatever is wrong and seeing if we can get it corrected and end up with something for the money we've spent. We've spent quite a bit of money in this process and it would be a shame to lose it. I'm very skeptical of the whole danm process, this is the third time Queensbury goes through this, this is the third set of convulsions we're going through. One's never better than the other and I know that New York State feels that we should be doing this even more often. It would seem to me that it would be worth our while as a Town to work harder or spend more with our own people to keep a system up rather than constantly go out, bring in an outsider and I'm not saying anything bad about them, they don't know the Town, they don't know the people, they don't know what's going on and they come in, try to do their best to put all this information together and they make errors. That's hardly a good answer in my estimation, it might be that we spend a little more money between revals and try to hold our values closer to market. Mrs. Otte-Let me address the issue about the process which you questioned. What we're doing right now is refining the mass appraisal portion of this which is, you rightly say, is difficult and cumbersome. It's too huge, it's impossible to look at twelve thousand properties and do as careful ajob as you would like to. The process as it's running it's course right now, we're into our third week of hearings with individuals. This is where we get our education. We have already a very firm idea of where some of the main problems are coming. We hear it from the people that come in, we don't see with a deaf ear to these things. We make notes, we begin to see patterns in various parts of the Town where there are problems. I talk to CLT about it every day, I've talked it Hill Pierce. We've identified, one of the big problems that you all have come to be about, is some of the vacant land prices being high in certain areas of Town. Many developers have come to me and talked to me about high values on lots in their subdivisions which really don't have all the services to them yet. We have a little pocket on Cottage Hill, some older houses there that need to be looked at. We're finding all of these and we will make adjustments on all of these things based on these hearings. There are several others that we've discussed. The best education comes from talking to the property owners and we talk to them one on one and you have all the time in the world to really discover what it is about each individual property that you need to be looking at from an appraisal standpoint. It's particular important up on the lake, we have those meetings, we give people a half an hour to forty-five minutes time to talk to us about their properties. We will handle problems on an individual basis, mass appraisal just doesn't work in an area like North Queensbury or is it very good on Glen Lake. It's very difficult, you need to spend alot of time with these people on a one by one basis and the only way for us to do that is if they will come in and see us. That's the process that's working right now, we have April to finish this up and produce changes and listen to recommendations, then we have to produce a tentative assessment role for May 1st which is then filed. Still these are not final assessment values, these are tentative and people have the month of May to get more information from our office and then to make a presentation to the Review Board to have them hear their point of view as well. Councilman Tucker-Do you believe that you can handle all the problems that are out there in the time limit that's required? Mrs. Otte-We're trying very hard. Councilman Tucker-That isn't what I asked you. I asked you, do you think you can handle all the problems? Mrs. Otte- Yes. Councilman Tucker-Suppose you can't? Has this thing got to go into effect this year? Mrs. Otte-You've got contracts that you've entered into. Councilman Tucker-We've paid the contracts. Have you got to put that information into the tax system this year? Mrs. Otte-Yes, I will put it in and sign the roll on May 1st. Councilman Tucker-I didn't ask you if you will, I said do you have to? Mrs. Otte-I don't know in have to. Attorney Dusek-It's ajudgement call that the Assessor has to make based upon all the information she has available to her. Under the law, she is required to put together a uniform roll and she'd have to look at everything before making that decision. Councilman Tucker-I know danm well there's alot of problems out there and like I stated last week, I think we could have a hundred Helen Otte's and they're not going to get taken care of. What I'm asking here is, we paid for this information, is she required by law to put in on the tax rolls this year? Supervisor Brandt -Really, if she finds it flawed, she doesn't have to do it but it's her call. Attorney Dusek-Right. Supervisor Brandt-So my feeling is, let's work together, get down to the wire and truthfully, if we can show you that we think it's flawed, we'll show you what we believe but it's your judgement. We can't substitute our judgement for yours but that's law. My feeling is, if it's flawed, dump it. We'll take the loss and we'll have to re-examine how we're going to go from there. But let's go that far, let's find out. Councilman Tucker-Why would you have to dump it? This information is here, why do you got to throw it away? Supervisor Brandt-Well, I'm saying if the new information that is brought forward is so flawed that it's going to cause problems, then don't use it, use the old information. But we can call that when we get there. Meanwhile, you got alot of work ahead of you and all we can do is try and help. And help people understand the system, I think that's part of it. We're all in it together, whether we like it or don't like it. Mrs. Otte-I will add to that too, I've heard from probably two thousand people. That means that there are nine thousand property owners out there and I've had a couple of them on the phone and I've had a few of them at the meetings, tell me that they think that this is a good job. Now, that's nine thousand people compare to two thousand. That's a silent majority but they're still out there. Councilman Tucker-Their taxes probably went down. Supervisor Brandt-I'll tell you, it's not enough to elect any of us. I think we have some problems, there's no question and we have to try and solve them. We've got to work at it and one thing, I have to agree with Sue, if there are people that want to talk, we've got to find a way to talk to them. We've got to give them our time. Mrs. Otte-Myself, I come in evenings, I work until nine-thirty at night and I come in on Saturdays and I set up appointments with these people. If CL T can't take them and Hill Pierce can't take them, I put them on my schedule and I'm here seven days a week sometimes. Councilman Goetz-I know you have worked incredibly hard. Can you get CLT to help you more? Mrs. Otte-I believe so, I just made that plead last week and they responded. Supervisor Brandt-And we're talking to them tomorrow night. If we have enough complaints, they're the guys that generated the information, maybe they can help us get through and I think we need to talk to them, see what we can do there. Mrs. Lillian Adamson-Referred to 1987 revaluation, questioned whether the lake properties will be handled one by one or across the board? Mrs. Otte- The lake properties will be handled on a one by one basis. Mr. Richard Nicholson-Questioned the amount we paid to the contract firms to do this job? Supervisor Brandt-We've paid them some and we've got some more that we owe. Mr. Nicholson-Over a hundred thousand? Supervisor Brandt-No. Councilman Goetz-Are you sure, I was looking in my figures, it looked like the total with postage, etcetera, it came to a hundred and thirteen thousand. Mrs. Otte-That's probably the total cost of the project. Mr. Nicholson-That's an awful lot of money for people who don't seem to be doing a very good job. She talks nice but she's not realistic. Supervisor Brandt-Don't lose track of one thing, she's the law. Mr. Nicholson-I'd like to know if the tax rate is going to change? Mrs. Otte- The rate per thousand, yes. Mr. John Dicking, Ridge Road-I think you're on the right track but apologies to Mrs. Otte, she's in a tough spot. It appears to me this ought to really be deferred as Mr. Tucker says, until we really get down to hearing everybody that's got to be heard. Mr. Terry Fraiser-I would like to know if! call up on Tuesday to the Assessor's Office if! can get a time, just to go over my assessment? I've been there twice and I keep on being told that, you can not get any more appointments, they've all been filled. Mrs. Otte-When was the last time that you were in? Mr. Fraiser-Last Wednesday. Mrs. Otte-On Friday, I did manage to get CL T to give us two more days of hearing times and so my recommendation is the same, you just need to try one more time. We will have another attempt tomorrow afternoon to maybe get some more times from CL T. Supervisor Brandt-Leave us your name and phone number, we'll take it, she'll have it tonight so someone can call you. Councilman Tucker-That only takes care of one out of twelve thousand. Councilman Goetz-Is that true about mine? Mrs. Otte-Same thing, Sue. Mr. Nicholson-How many have been tumed away? Supervisor Brandt-Well some, without any question and I know my office gets many of these calls and we take the phone numbers to her and so far she has made the appointments. Attorney Mike O'Connor-There's a meeting of the Glen Lake Association this Friday or Sunday, you're probably going to have about eighty complaints that come out of that, in addition to what you've already seen. I have a church bill in front of me which I know was protested in 87 which has a reassessment for an addition since 87 and still has gone up twenty percent. I've had other people and I know some are making appointments, that have their wetlands assessed as their hard ground in the nature of development property. It is a mass assessment and I don't think it works. You can't do this with models out of the computer and I think you've got to allow the time for everybody to come forward and speak on an informal basis. Or at least I would hope that would you before you make them go through the formal process. I don't think I agree with some Board Members expression that this is up to the assessor whoever the assessor might be. I think the assessor serves at the pleasure of this board. Supervisor Brandt-Every six years. Six year appointment, I think. Attorney O'Connor-1 believe that there's also other means by which you can bring that about even sooner and if it's such an injustice to the Town, I think that you might have to look at that, if you think that it's going to come through that way. I do think that you need to put this off until there's an opportunity for everybody to be heard. Unfortunately, alot of people who have had a decrease in their assessment, think that everything is rosy. But if they went back over the history of it, they would find out that that's not, in fact the truth. Mr. George Ryan-The process, it's just a bunch of paper work that gets shuffled around and half the people aren't going to be heard from. I think we should throw the whole thing out and start all over. Mr. Charlie Adamson-Has the Town Board discussed with Helen the definition of market value, since we covered that last week when she wasn't here? I think it's kind of important to do so because I'm aware of a vast number of properties in North Queensbury where the values now, particularly seasonal houses and lots of times, several others don't conform in any way, shape or fashion to the market value as given in the grievance handbook. Let me read the definition because I think it's the basis of what everything that's going on. The value of property must be determined as of the valuation date. Helen, the valuation date is the first of March this year? Mrs. Otte-The valuation date for the reval, this update is January 1st, 1992. Mr. Adamson-So it's a year ago. Let me repeat, the value of property must be determined as to the evaluation date, the first of January 1992. What a willing buyer would have paid on January 1st, 1992 a willing seller for the property at that time. I don't think there's any recognition of what real values are except in terms of what I call tum-key properties on the lake. The other point that I want to make, is since 1987 it has been generally agreed that the lake got hit harder than any other part of Town. The point of this revaluation we've been going through, I have always understood was to even out the Town. That's not what's happening. The lake property is being hit just as hard as the rest of the Town. I think there has to be a broader look at, not all of the properties but the properties that have been significantly raised without justification in North Queensbury. Supervisor Brandt -Don't feel isolated, I feel the same way on the other side of Town. Mr. John Salvador-Mrs. Otte, in this phase of the revaluation that we're in now, is everyone entitled to a hearing? Mrs. Otte- Yes. Mr. Gilbert Boehm-The County taxes, the Lake George School taxes all are proportioned upon the basis of equalization rates. As a result of this re-assessment, our equalization rate will change. As a result, presumably all the tax rates are going to change. If we don't do something, the other surrounding Towns have been going through revals, their equalization rates are also changing and will be getting closer to one, as they do that, they'll be loading more into us. Supervisor Brandt-And that's the argument of why we did this. Mr. Boehm-That's right and most of these people don't understand that. Mrs. Otte-It's not just enough to sit still and not do anything and think that the situation is going to be alright because things are going on around you in surrounding municipalities that keep decreasing our standing in this. Mr. Boehm-What happens is, instead of us perhaps absorbing thirty percent of the Lake George School tax, we might wind up absorbing fifty percent. That changes the tax rate. The point is, if you do nothing, you're going to be effected too. You've got two equalizations you've got to contend with. First of all, presumably you're trying to equalize within the Town, then you try to equalize outside the Town between the various Towns. Mr. George Kuba, Montray Road-I've been over to the Assessor's Office and I've had good response from them in the sense that I got all the information I needed to compile data which I'm probably going to use on Grievance Day. The place is a mad house, people calling and the abuse is umeal. I think they're really directing it in the wrong place, they have to direct it to this company that did these horrendous assessments. I've had my appointment, he's promised me some help but he won't give me an answer. We all have to realize that we are going to pay more taxes but if taxes are going to be raised, they need to be raised in an equitable manner. I don't know why I have to wait until May 1st to have an answer, what the result of his investigation is. Why can't he tell me today? I don't think they're being fair. Mrs. Otte-I'm telling people the same thing, the people I have meetings with. The main reason for that, you might see merit in what Mr. Kuba is saying about his property but afterwards you have to go and check and see what similar properties look like and what the assessments are on like properties. The other thing is, that in this process, the most important thing is consistency and we have to treat everyone consistently, fair and we're going to release all of the notices with the decisions at the same time so that everyone has the same opportunity and time to react to this. We're going to try and have the notices out on these meetings hopefully ten days before May 1st. Mr. Kuba-I'd like to ask the Attorney, you mentioned something before, you used the term that a uniform roll needs to be submitted by May 1st. What's the definition of that uniform roll? Attorney Dusek-Meaning that all properties are evaluated the same, proportion of market value. The legislature modified the law to read that uniform rate, meaning that you could theoretically have properties assessed at something less than the market value. So you're not required under law to have it at a hundred percent, as long as it's a uniform rate. So you're roll would be acceptable. Mr. Kuba-Ifthey are uniformed, does that mean they use the same formula? Attorney Dusek-No, it means that they are the same percentage of market value. Supervisor Brandt-And right now, we're trying to go a hundred percent of market value, January 1st, 1992. I'd like to get on with our other agenda. I think everybodies had a chance to be heard and I think this Town Board wants to know from the public, how the process is going along. As we get further down the road, we want input, if we've still got major problems, we want to know that because we have to look at all our options. Thank you very much for coming over Helen. RESOLUTIONS 9:45 P.M. RESOLUTION APPROVING MINUTES RESOLUTION NO. 197,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the Town Board Minutes of March 1st, 4th and 11th of 1993. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 1993, by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: Ayes ALL THOSE OPPOSED: None ABSENT: Mrs. Monahan ABSTAIN: Mr. Tucker RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FILING AND PUBLICATION OF POSITIVE DECLARATION RESOLUTION NO. 198,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Sue Goetz WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, by Resolution No. 149 of 1993, determined that a Positive Declaration should be issued under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act with respect to the Hudson Pointe Planned Unit Development Application submitted to the Town Board for approval, and WHEREAS, a Positive Declaration has been prepared for purposes of filing and publication in accordance with SEQRA Rules and Regulations, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves of the content and attachments to the Positive Declaration and hereby authorizes filing and publication of the same, as required by the SEQRA Rules and Regulations. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 1993, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: Mr. Tucker ABSENT: Mrs. Monahan RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RETAINING SERVICES OF MUNICIPAL APPRAISAL AND REVALUATION CO. REGARDING SASSONE MATTER RESOLUTION NO. 199,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes an expenditure of not more than $2,500.00 as payment for the services of Municipal Appraisal and Revaluation Co., in preparing for trial and providing expert testimony regarding the matter of Sassone v. the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the cost of said appraisal shall come from the Joint Landfill Operation, Miscellaneous Contractual Account, number 910-8160-4400. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: Mrs. Monahan Attorney Dusek reviewed proposed local law with the Town Board. RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW NO. _, 1993 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY CHAPTER 14, ENTITLED "ETHICS AND DISCLOSURE" RESOLUTION NO. 200, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHEREAS, at this meeting there has been presented for adoption by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Local Law No. _, 1993, A Local Law to Amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 14, entitled "Ethics and Disclosure", and WHEREAS, such legislation is authorized pursuant to the General Municipal Law and Municipal Home Rule Law of the State of New York, and WHEREAS, prior to adoption of said Local Law, it is necessary to conduct a public hearing, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall meet and hold a public hearing at the Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, at 7:00 p.m., on the 5th day of April, 1993, to consider said Local Law No. _, 1993 and to hear all persons interested on the subject matter thereof concerning the same to take such action thereon as is required or authorized by law, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to publish and post the notice that has also been presented at this meeting concerning the proposed Local Law No. _, 1993 in the manner provided by law. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 1993, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: Mrs. Monahan RESOLUTION TO CONDUCT W ALK-A- THON FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GLENS FALLS AREA HABIT A T FOR HUMANITY RESOLUTION NO. 201, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Sue Goetz WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, the Glens Falls Area Habitat for Humanity has requested permission to conduct a Walk-A-Thon for the benefit of their organization, as follows: SPONSOR: Glens Falls Area Habitat for Humanity EVENT:Walk-A-Thon DATE: April 24, 1993 PLACE: Beginning and ending at Adirondack Community College (Letter on file dated 3/12/93 from organization regarding exact route of the run) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby acknowledges receipt of proof of insurance from the Glens Falls Area Habitat for Humanity to hold their Walk-A- Thon in the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that Town Board approval of this event be subject to the approval by the Town Highway Superintendent, which may be revoked due to concern for road conditions at any time up to date and time of the event. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: Mrs. Monahan ABSTAIN: Mr. Caimano RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INTERFUND ADVANCES RESOLUTION NO. 202, 93 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: TO: $ AMOUNT 40 - Queensbury Water 34 - Hiland Park Sewer 1,000.00 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, and the Town Supervisor shall also determine the amount of interest, if any, to be paid, upon repayment. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 1993, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: Mr. Tucker ABSENT: Mrs. Monahan RESOLUTION AMENDING TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PURCHASING PROCEDURES RESOLUTION NO. 203, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Sue Goetz WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury presently has in effect, Purchasing Procedures, last revised on March 1, 1993, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of amending the said Purchasing Procedures by adding the following language under GENERAL RULES APPLICABLE TO PURCHASES: "All contracts for professional services require Town Board approval before retention of said services. Town Board approval shall be based upon a review of Request for Proposals, where major projects are planned where the professional services are expected to exceed the cost of $10,000 in any calendar year. " NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby amends the Purchasing Procedures by adding the language as written hereinabove. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 1993, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: Mrs. Monahan Executive Director, Jim Martin spoke to the Town Board regarding the overall study plan and the funding involved. RESOLUTION REGARDING PLANNING STUDY OF ROUTE 9/ROUTE 254 INTERSECTION AND SURROUNDING AREA RESOLUTION NO. 204, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Planning Department is undertaking a planning study of the Route 9/Route 254 intersection surrounding area, and WHEREAS, James M. Martin, Director of Planning, Zoning and Building & Codes, has advised that the focus of the study will be the transportation system within the study area, and WHEREAS, Mr. Martin has further advised that he has contacted the Planning Division of the New York State Department of Transportation and has leamed that the transportation planning component of the study is fully fundable through planning assistance from the local transportation council, (the Glens Falls Transportation Council) of which the Town of Queensbury is a member, and WHEREAS, to receive said funding, the Town of Queensbury would have to commit to providing the funding up front, with the New York State Department of Transportation reimbursing the Town of Queensbury within 60 days, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves of providing the funding described in the preambles hereof, up front, with the understanding that the Town of Queensbury's commitment for funding is contingent upon the availability and commitment of the funds for reimbursement from the New York State Department of Transportation, and should funding through the New York State Department of Transportation not be available, then this resolution shall be null and void, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes funding of the aforedescribed program in the approximate amount of $50,000.00, with the source of funding to be from the contingency account, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to execute, and place the Town's seal, on any and all applications and other documents in support thereof that may be necessary to apply for the New York State Department of Transportation Funding Program. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: Mrs. Monahan RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT BID FOR PURCHASE OF COPPER TUBING AND BRASS SERVICE CONNECTION MATERIALS AND CURB BOXES RESOLUTION NO. 205, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, the Director of Purchasing for the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, duly advertised for the purchase of copper tubing and brass service connection materials and service clamps, as more specifically identified in bid documents, specifications previously submitted and in possession of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, Thomas K. Flaherty, Town Water Superintendent, has made recommendations in connection with the bids, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, hereby awards the bid for the copper tubing and service clamps, to RAMSCO, Inc., and hereby awards the bid for the brass service connection materials to L&C Municipal Sales, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that said items are to be paid for from the appropriate Water Department Account. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: Mrs. Monahan RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RETAINING SERVICES OF TAFFNER & DANG RESOLUTION NO. 206, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Sue Goetz RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the retaining of Taffner & Dang as special counsel to the Town Attorney in an amount of not more than $3,000.00, without further Town Board approval, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the cost of said legal services shall come from the Town Attorney Miscellaneous Contractual Account, number 01-1420-4400. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 1993, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: Mrs. Monahan RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT REGARDING FEEDER CANAL ALLIANCE RESOLUTION NO. 207, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Sue Goetz WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, it would appear that the Feeder Canal Alliance may be eligible to apply for a Federal Transportation Enhancement Act Funding Grant (ISTEA), and WHEREAS, the main focus of the ISTEA Grant (80% funded/20% local match) is to encourage off-road alternative transportation including bicycling and walking, and WHEREAS, the further development of the Tri-County Multi-Purpose Trail, including construction of seven miles of towpath, which is a part of the development of the Feeder Canal Park, and would meet the criteria for this ISTEA Grant, and WHEREAS, a portion of the Feeder Canal Park/TowPath is located in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Feeder Canal Alliance has requested municipal sponsorship, as well as support, from the Town of Queensbury as the Warren County sponsor in this three county project, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury does agree, to the extent that it may so legally act without the commitment of, or appropriation of, local funds, to act as the Warren County Municipal Sponsor for the Feeder Canal Alliance, Tri-County Trail project, ISTEA grant request to the project, and authorizes and directs Michel R. Brandt, Town Supervisor, to draft a letter of support to this effect. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 1993, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: Mrs. Monahan RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTRACT RESOLUTION NO. 208, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt Supervisor Brandt-The Landfill Superintendent has asked us to put in place a resolution so that we can receive material from the sewage treatment plant in the Village of Lake George as we did last year. What I'd like to do is authorize us to enter into a contract similar to the one last year to go ahead this year. It seemed to work out very well and we certainly need income. We did a good test of it last year and I think it worked out, as far as I know, there was no complaints at all. So I'd like to make such a resolution. SECONDED BY: Councilman Caimano- I'll second it and my only comment is that we strike the word similar and make it exactly the same as last year. Councilman Tucker-I was just wondering, we've got one rate for everybody up there. Supervisor Brandt-We'll leave it at the rate that they paid, it was a good rate for us and exactly the same except for the date. Attorney Dusek-My recollection is that the contract that you had last year had a limitation on number of trucks that would be taken in. Supervisor Brandt-We altered that, remember we did start it that way and then we raised it by resolution. I can give you the resolution because I had my secretary look it up. The alteration was done on Resolution No. 354 of 1992 where we raised it up to one hundred truck loads. Attorney Dusek-So would that be the same though this year, one hundred truck loads? Supervisor Brandt -Yes, the full amount. In other words, they only have a certain amount and we accepted it all last year and I have no problem with that this year, treated the same way and done the same. Attorney Dusek-Up through to the time we close then basically. Supervisor Brandt-Yes. Okay, So I'll introduce that motion. Councilman Caimano-I second it. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 1993 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: Mrs. Monahan Supervisor Brandt-We need to do some interviews for the Planning Board and the Zoning Board and I'd like to set a date for it. I'd also like to set a date for policy discussion on the Water Department and looking at the new plant that we're looking at building and how we're going to pay for it and looking at potential cost saving measures. Town Board agreed to schedule the following meetings: Thursday, April 1st at 5:00 p.m. - conduct interviews, Friday, April 2nd at 2:00 p.m. - Water Department discussion, and Tuesday, April 6th at 7:00 p.m. - Sign Ordinance Workshop. DISCUSSION - NO PARKING ZONE - MANOR DRIVE Executive Director Jim Martin-We've had some complaints from people living on Manor Drive, the road off of Aviation Road that services the apartments up there. Several truckers have been coming in, leaving the trucks running all night long and parking in the streets. During further investigation, we found out that the Highway Department is having trouble plowing the streets because of the parked cars in the streets also. So with a consensus opinion, there's little that can be done about this but to this extent we can at least post no parking signs. As being a Town Road, the Town Board has authority over placement of those signs. Town Board agreed to have formal resolution and local law prepared for next Town Board meeting. OPEN FORUM 10: 15 P.M. Mr. Gilbert Boehm-A general question relative to the water plant. When you bond that out, do the cost of that get born by the Township at large or just the users? Supervisor Brandt-Just the users. Mr. John Salvador-Noted, a Lake Affairs Committee meeting at the County level for Tuesday of next week. I haven't been told but I hope the subject is the EIS. Supervisor Brandt -Yes it is and I have a copy of the entire EIS in my office as of a couple of days ago and you're welcome to come and look at it. I have reviewed it and I believe I asked the staff to be prepared to talk about alternative systems in Queensbury. But I will call them again and the report dances all around and it does not address that. Mr. Salvador-Have they made an effort to prepare a supplemental EIS for North Queensbury? Supervisor Brandt -Come and read it and give me some advice. I've read it and I don't remember the details anymore. I'd gladly review it again and I need to do that before we go into the meeting. Mr. Salvador-A million dollars was made available to this County to study the problem. More sore, they were supposed to prepare a bid package ready for construction financing and bidding. That's a hell of alot of detail engineering work. I don't think they're doing it. I don't think they intend to do it. Now, that could be considered a real gross misuse of taxpayer's money. We're going to get something for this in North Queensbury, a definition of our problem and a design to take care of the problem, whatever it is. Ms. Joan Stone-Having moved here last May from New Jersey and everybody said, why are you moving there, it's the country. What will you do when it snows? How will you get out? I would like to commend in particular the roads department for the job they have done for this Winter. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. Attorney Mike O'Connor-You set a meeting tonight to discuss the proposal for the, is that for the Water Department expansion? Supervisor Brandt-We talked about the Water Plant expansion already and it's really to discuss policy of, operating philosophy of the Water Department. Attorney O'Connor-If you want, there are people that are associated with the Queensbury Business Association that have been talking about the proposed expansion. They're trying to get together their thoughts. Supervisor Brandt -Sure, we have had dialogue with them, I don't know if you're aware of that. In fact, they were at a meeting and in fact, we met with the engineer that wrote some comments on that and I think that's fairly well handled. Attorney O'Connor-We should have a formal position for you, I don't know if we'll have it by April 2nd. Supervisor Brandt-We certainly want your input and we welcome it. Attorney O'Connor-Okay, is that going to be the purpose of that meeting, going forward with that? Supervisor Brandt-The purpose of that meeting is to discuss the philosophy of where we're going with the Water Department. We've basically made a decision, we basically said we're not going to build a real large treatment plant to try and sell water to other people. We're basically addressing Queensbury water needs. Attorney O'Connor-1 don't know all the details of what we've looked at but I do not that we're going to look at it. We didn't have enough time to get it out to enough Board members so that it could be a Board position which is what we wanted. I know Dave Kenny has spoken to you and spoken to Nick but my position was that we should have a Board position before we do anything and bring that forward to you in an informal basis to give you our thoughts and simply for the purpose of giving you our thoughts. You weigh them, you consider them, you decide what you want to do. But we are, we do have enough interest that we would like to take an active role in giving you an outside opinion as to what we think what the businesses would like. Supervisor Brandt-All input is welcome. Attorney O'Connor-1 don't think we'll have that by April 2nd, more likely the 10th of April before we get a formal position. Supervisor Brandt-Thank you. OPEN FORUM CLOSED RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 209, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session to enter Executive Session to discuss two Matters of Litigation and a Personnel Matter. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 1993, by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: Ayes ALL THOSE OPPOSED: None ABSENT: None No further action was taken. On motion, the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK-QUEENSBURY