1993-10-04
TOWN BOARD MEETING
OCTOBER 4, 1993
7:00 p.m.
#70
RES. 561-573
BOH 36-38
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Supervisor Michel Brandt
Councilman Betty Monahan
Councilman Susan Goetz
Councilman Nick Caimano
Councilman Pliney Tucker
Attorney Paul Dusek
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY SUPERVISOR BRANDT
Supervisor Brandt -Opened the Meeting
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE SHOWN APPLICATION FOR PLACEMENT OF MOBILE HOME OUTSIDE OF A MOBILE
HOME COURT MR. WILLIAM BARBER
Supervisor Brandt - I will declare the public hearing open.
Is there anyone here for the applicant, Mr. Barber?
Come right up and talk to us. Tell us about what you are doing.
Mr. William Barber-I am replacing an old depleted mobile home with a fairly new mobile home that we
purchased for our daughter in Syracuse, their family move to North Carolina. We as parents have a mobile
home on our hands and we are carrying the mortgage on. I felt that since I had the property and being
taxed with a mobile home that I could replace the old mobile home with an updated mobile home.
Supervisor Brandt-Any questions from the Board? Is there anyone else here that would like to speak on
this application? Questions by anybody? Declare the public hearing closed. Thank you very much.
Mr. William Barber-Thank you I appreciate it.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVOCABLE PERMIT
TO LOCATE A MOBILE HOME OUTSIDE OF A MOBILE HOME COURT
FOR MR. WILLIAM 1. BARBER
RESOLUTION NO.: 561, 93
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury regulates mobile homes outside of mobile home parks
pursuant to ~ 113 -12 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, Mr. William 1. Barber has filed an application to replace his old mobile home with a
new mobile home at property situated on Farm-to-Market Road, Queensbury, New York, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury held a public hearing with regard to the
aforesaid permit,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the issuance ofa
revocable permit in accordance with the terms and provisions of ~1l3-12 of the Code of the Town of
Queensbury.
Duly adopted this 4th day of October, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt
NOES None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR BOARD OF HEALTH
RESOLUTION NO. 562, 93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Mike Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves into the Queensbury Board
of Health.
Duly adopted this 4th day of October, 1993 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE OF
SANITARY SEW AGE DISPOSAL ORDINANCE FOR
JAMIE HAYES C/O ADIRONDACK COFFEE SERVICE, INC.
RESOLUTION NO.: 36, 93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is, by operation of Law, the Local
Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury and, as such, is authorized under Chapter 136 of the Town of
Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance to issue variances to such Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, Jamie Hayes c/o Adirondack Coffee Service, Inc., has applied to the Local Board of
Health of the Town of Queensbury for two variances from certain standards of the Town of Queensbury
On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance set forth in Chapter 136, Appendix A, such standards providing as
follows:
APPENDIX A
TABLE I - HORIZONTAL SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM WASTEWATER SOURCES
TO STREAM
WELL OR LAKE OR
WASTEWATER SUCTION WATER PROPERTY LAKE GEORGE
SOURCES LINE (a) COURSE(c) DWELLING LINE AND TRIBS.
Absorption
Field
20'
10'
and
WHEREAS, Jamie Hayes c/o Adirondack Coffee Service, Inc., has indicated a desire to place the
absorption field 10' from the dwelling and 5' from the property line, rather than placing it at the mandated
20' and 10' distances, respectively, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury will hold a public
hearing on October 18th, 1993, at 7:00 p.rn., at the Queensbury Activities Center, (reasonably accessible to
persons with mobility impairment) 531 Bay Road, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, to
consider the application for two variances of Jamie Hayes c/o Adirondack Coffee Service, Inc., to place the
absorption field 10' from the dwelling and 5' from the property line, rather than placing it at the mandated
20' and 10' distances, respectively, on property situated on 4. S. Western Avenue, Town of Queensbury,
New York, and bearing Tax Map No.: Section 117, Block 11, Lot 4, and, at that time, all persons interested
in the subject thereof will be heard, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury be and is hereby directed and
authorized, when in receipt of a list of neighbors within 500 feet of the subject property, to publish and
provide Notice of said Public Hearing as may be required by law, and authorized to mail copies of said
Public Hearing Notice to the adjoining neighbors.
Duly adopted this 4th day of October, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt
NOES None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE OF
SANIT ARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL ORDINANCE FOR MR. PETER JOHNSON
RESOLUTION NO.:37, 93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is, by operation of Law, the Local
Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury and, as such, is authorized under Chapter 136 of the Town of
Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance to issue variances to such Ordinance, and to issue
variances to the Lake George Waste Water Manual issued by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, and
WHEREAS, Mr. Peter Johnson has applied to the Local Board of Health of the Town of
Queensbury for a variance from certain standards of the Lake George Waste Water Manual as set forth in
Table B-2, such standards providing as follows:
TABLE B-2
MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCES (ft.)
SEPTIC
TANK
ABSORPTION SEEP AGE SEWER
FIELDS PITS LINE
Lake George
200'
and
WHEREAS, Mr. Peter Johnson has indicated a desire to place the absorption field 162' from the
Lake George shoreline, rather than placing it at the mandated 200' distance,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury will hold a public
hearing on October 18th, 1993, at 7:00 p.rn., at the Queensbury Activities Center, (reasonably accessible to
persons with mobility impairment) 531 Bay Road, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, to
consider the application for a variance of Mr. Peter Johnson to place the absorption field 162' from the Lake
George shoreline, rather than placing it at the mandated 200' distance, on property situated on Cleverdale
Road, Town of Queensbury, New York, and bearing Tax Map No.: Section 13, Block 3, Lot 24, and, at that
time, all persons interested in the subject thereof will be heard, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury be and is hereby directed and
authorized, when in receipt of a list of neighbors within 500 feet of the subject property, to publish and
provide Notice of said Public Hearing as may be required by law, and authorized to mail copies of said
Public Hearing Notice to the adjoining neighbors.
Duly adopted this 4th day of October, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt
NOES None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN AS BOARD OF HEALTH
RESOLUTION NO. 38, 93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
RESOLVED, that the Town Board adjourns the Board of Health and moves back into regular session.
Duly adopted this 4th day of October, 1993 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION APPROVING TOWN BOARD MINUTES
RESOLUTION NO. 567,93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz
RESOLVED that the Town Board Minutes of August 11th and 17th of 1993 be and hereby are approved.
Duly adopted this 4th day of October, 1993 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt
NOES; None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT
TO ZONING ORDINANCE - REGARDING PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE
OF CHARLES AND BARBARA SEELEY
RESOLUTION NO. 564, 93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz
WHEREAS, on or about July 26, 1993, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury adopted a
resolution authorizing the submission of a request for rezoning of certain property owned by Charles &
Barbara Seeley on Glenwood Avenue to HC-IA (Highway Commercial- 1 Acre), to the Planning Boards
of the Town of Queensbury and Warren County for recommendation and
WHEREAS, on or about the 21st day of September, 1993, the Planning Board for the Town of
Queensbury adopted a resolution to recommend to the Town Board a Change of Zone of Charles & Barbara
Seeley from the current zoning of SFR -1 A to CR -15 (Commercial Residential - 15,000 Square Feet) rather
than the requested rezoning to HC-IA, and
WHEREAS, the Warren County Planning recommended disapproval of the requested rezoning to
HC-IA, stating that the property should be rezoned as transitional, such as Neighborhood Commercial or
Commercial Residential, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is now presently considering an
amendment, supplement, change, and/or modification to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and
map, and more specifically considering a request for change of zone by Charles and Barbara Seeley,
whereby a parcel ofland, known as Tax Map No. 105-1-37, located at 49 Glenwood Avenue in the Town
of Queensbury would be changed from the current zoning of SFR-IA (Single Family Residential- 1 Acre)
to CR -15 (Commercial Residential - 15,000 Square Feet) thus modifying the existing Zoning Ordinance
and Map, and
WHEREAS, in order to so amend, supplement, change, or modify the Ordinance and map, it is
necessary pursuant to Town Law ~265 and the Town of Queensbury Zoning Laws to hold a public hearing
prior to adopting said proposed amendment, resubmit the rezoning to the Warren County Planning Board
and recommence the SEQRA review,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby acknowledges that the
applicant for the proposed rezoning has submitted a Part I Long Environmental Assessment Form and a
number of exhibits, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall hold a public hearing, at
which time all parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, upon and in reference to
a proposed amendment, supplement, change, and/or modification to the Town of Queensbury Zoning
Ordinance and Map described in the preambles of this resolution, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that said public hearing shall be held on October 25th, 1993, at 7:00 p.m., at the
Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed
to give 10 days notice of said public hearing by publishing the notice presented at this meeting for purposes
of publication in an official newspaper of the Town and by posting on the Town bulletin board outside the
Clerk's Office said notice, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the
Executive Director of Planning, Zoning, and Building & Codes to ascertain a list of the names and
addresses of all property owners within 500' of the area to be rezoned, and further authorizes and directs the
said Executive Director to arrange for notification of the proposed rezoning to all said property owners that
a public hearing will be held mailing to said owners a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing presented at
this meeting, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Executive Director is also hereby authorized and directed to send notice of
the public hearing to Warren County, by service upon the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, and such other
communities or agencies that it is necessary to give written notice to pursuant to Section 265 of the Town
Law of the State of New York, the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Queensbury and the Laws of the
State of New York, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Executive Director is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of said
public hearing and the fact that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury desires to be lead agent for
SEQRA review purposes and requests the consent of the other involved agencies to coordinate the review
and be lead agent, and also notify the involved agencies that a SEQRA determination will not be made until
after the public hearing, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Executive Director is also hereby authorized and directed to give notice and
refer this matter to the Adirondack Park Agency and Warren County Planning, in accordance with the laws,
rules and regulations of the State of New York and the Adirondack Park Agency.
Duly adopted this 4th day of October, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt
NOES None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SETTLEMENT OF PENDING ARTICLE 7
TAX ASSESSMENT REVIEW CASE -
ETHEL AND RAYMOND WYNN
RESOLUTION NO.: 565, 93
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt
WHEREAS, a certain Article 7 Real Property Tax Assessment Review Case has been commenced
against the Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has reviewed the tax assessment review
case with the legal counsel for the Town of Queensbury, such counsel and the Town Assessor having made
a recommendation to the Town Board,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the following case be settled with respect to the tax rolls for the year 1993, as
indicated and as follows:
ETHEL AND RAYMOND WINN
Tax Map No.: Ordered Assessment:
Address:
102-1-20
$13,600.00
OffW. Route 9
Queensbury, NY 12804
Duly adopted this 4th day of October, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt
NOES None
ABSENT: None
Discussion held-Attorney Dusek-This is an assessment that was at $50,000, proposal to reduce to $13,600
because there was an error in the calculation of the type of property that it was. Helen tells me that this was
a residue parcel, that is situated behind another parcel and joining it and that once she puts it in the proper
neighborhood classification as to what she uses this is the value that it comes out to be. That is why that is
being recommended to you to settle the case and discontinue the action. Councilman Tucker-Why did an
action have to be commenced on this thing to get this settled. Attorney Dusek-Apparently it did go through
the Board but the Board missed it as well and the only recourse they have after the Board decides the case
is to start an article 7. Noted that Assessment Board did give a reduction but it wasn't anywhere near what
the reduction should be.
RESOLUTION AMENDING RES. 447, 93 CONCERNING
RESOLUTION APPOINTING DOG CONTROL OFFICER
RESOLUTION NO.: 566, 93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury heretofore adopted resolution no. 447,
93 which appointed Ms. Colleen Kimble to the position of Dog Control Officer on a temporary basis and at
an annual salary of $19,000.00 with benefits, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of amending the terms and
words used in the resolution, to be consistent with its intent, as well as amending the salary to be consistent
with the contract with CSEA,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby amends resolution no. 447,
93, to indicate that Ms. Colleen Kimble is appointed to the position of Dog Control Officer "provisionally"
with benefits, rather than temporary, and with the understanding that the Town currently has under review,
a change of the position to that of Animal Control Officer, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the salary paid to Ms. Kimble shall be at the rate provided in the collective
bargaining agreement between the Town of Queensbury and CSEA, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that this is retro active to the date of hiring.
Duly adopted this 4th day of October, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt
NOES None
ABSENT: None
Discussion held before vote: Attorney Dusek-This is a clean up resolution that basically the dog officer
was appointed on a temporary basis and that was an error because on a temporary basis that means she is a
temporary worker only with the thought that the job was going to be done away with and there is no
benefits, whereas the intent was to employ here provisionally until such time as she ultimately takes a test
and qualifies and with the understanding that that title would eventually change to animal control officer.
The other error was that the salary was set at the wrong base, the union contract provides a different salary
of, I do not know, I think it is another eight hundred dollars or so higher so what this does, puts your salary
in accordance with the contract and also puts her provisionally instead of temporary. One correction, this
should be made retroactive...agreed to by the Board... vote taken
RESOLUTION AMENDING RES. 559, 93 CONCERNING
RETENTION OF SERVICES OF MR. BRUCE CAZA
RESOLUTION NO.: 567, 93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury previously adopted resolution no. 559,
93 retaining the services of Mr. Bruce Caza to perform appraisal services of an easement area for Hovey
Pond, said services to be paid for from the "appropriate Recreational Department Account," and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury desires to amend said resolution to read
"appropriate Hovey Pond Account,"
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby amends resolution no. 559,
93, to read as set forth hereinabove.
Duly adopted this 4th day of October, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt
NOES None
ABSENT: None
Discussion held before vote: Councilman Goetz-This is to perform appraisal services for an easement area
for Hovey Pond. Attorney Dusek-This was taken out of the wrong account it was on the Recreation
Account it should have been Hovey Pond Account. vote taken.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY
TO LOCATE A GUIDELINE/ANCHOR TO SUPPORT TELEPHONE POLE
ON TOWN PROPERTY
RESOLUTION NO.: 568, 93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz
WHEREAS, the New York Telephone Company is requesting permission to locate a
guideline/anchor to better support pole #126, said guideline/anchor to be located on Town property on the
east side of Ridge Road at the Ridge/Jenkinsville Park, Tax Map No.: 52-1-60.1, and
WHEREAS, New York Telephone Company has advised that the placement of the
guideline/anchor will improve telephone service, and
WHEREAS, a form has been presented at this meeting regarding the placement of the
guideline/anchor,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the New York
Telephone Company to place a guideline/anchor to pole #126 on the property aforedescribed for the
purpose of improving telephone service, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the
Town Supervisor to execute the form presented at this meeting, and any and all documentation necessary to
allow the placement of the guideline/anchor, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes the Town Attorney to draft a hold harmless clause
with an indenmification provision and insert the same in any agreement signed by the Town Supervisor on
behalf of the Town of Queensbury.
Duly adopted this 4th day of October, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt
NOES None
ABSENT: None
Discussion held before vote: Supervisor Brandt-The Recreation Dept. says that its not in our way and they
recommend we adopt it. Councilman Monahan-Because of the liability of the way the guide wires, I think
we ought to have a hold harmless clause from New York Telephone that if anything, if anybody runs into
those guide wires, because the kids do ride through there....Resolution changed to reflect the hold harmless
clause...agreed to by Board...vote taken.
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO.'S: 538 AND 543, 93 CONCERNING
PUBLIC HEARING DATES REGARDING DOUGLAS E. COONS MOBILE HOME &
BENEFIT ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE CENTRAL QUEENSBURY
QUAKER ROAD SEWER DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO.: 569, 93
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Betty Monahan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury previously adopted resolution no. 538,
93 to reschedule a public hearing regarding a revocable permit to park or place a mobile home on property
in the Town outside of a licensed mobile home court for applicant Douglas E. Coons, said public hearing
scheduled to be held on "October 12th, 1993," and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury previously adopted resolution no. 543,
93 to schedule a public hearing regarding the Benefit Assessment Roll for the Central Queensbury Quaker
Road Sewer District in the Town of Queensbury, said public hearing also scheduled to be held on the "12th
day of October, 1993," and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury desires to amend the aforesaid
resolutions, such that the public hearing dates will read October 18, 1993,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby amends resolution no. 538
and 543, 93, to amend the public hearing dates as set forth hereinabove, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the Town Clerk
of the Town of Queensbury to make the appropriate changes in the notices of public hearing and to notify
the involved parties of said change.
Duly adopted this 4th day of October, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt
NOES None
ABSENT: None
Discussion held before vote: Councilman Tucker-questioned if the mobile home should be in owners
name? Mr. Martin-We should have owners consent at least... Councilman Tucker-Noted that the applicant
is pressed for time and he has been delayed once already...vote taken
Supervisor Brandt-Paul you and I discussed the possibility of needing a resolution to amend contracts with
waste haulers we are at the eleventh hour with closing our landfill on this Thursday we are supposed to
close it technically our contract with all our waste haulers expire on the 5th and they are all calling and
saying can we schedule trucks or can't we and we would like to, I would like to propose an amendment to
continue it at least through the seventh until we find out what is going on next with DEC we do not know
that, yet. We have talked to everyone we know to talk to, Nick has chipped in and called a congressman or
assemblyman and senators on State levels and so have I we tried late this afternoon the Governors Office to
see if he can help us but so far we do not have an answer. I think we do need a resolution to at least enable
us to continue to do business for two days otherwise I am going to shut everything down and it is going to
be a very slow process to start it back up. We are bringing in six thousand dollars a day and I do not want
to shut that stream of income off.
Attorney Dusek-Technically under your contracts you have to stop on the 5th unless the Board authorizes a
further extension of time.
RESOLUTION TO EXTEND CONTRACT DATE FOR C&D TO OCTOBER 7TH 1993
RESOLUTION NO. 570, 93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has previously enter into contracts with various
individuals and companies for the hauling of C&D Materials to the Landfill and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of extending that contract
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to make
such arrangements and execute such documents as may be necessary to extend the time in which persons
already under contract with the Town of Queensbury may extend those contracts for two days to October
7th 1993 provided that such extension also complies with the consent order issued by DEC which the Town
Supervisor working with Town Attorney shall first determine before entering to such contracts.
Duly adopted this 4th day of October, 1993 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt
NOES: Mrs. Monahan
ABSENT: None
Councilman Monahan-Requested that a light be installed on corner of Dream Lake and Bay Road...
Councilman Tucker-Requested that the pole number be given to Barbara and she will contact Niagara
Mohawk.
ATTORNEY MATTERS
Attorney Dusek-Noted he will need an executive session ...Last week when you adopted a resolution
authorizing a settlement of a case on the Queensbury Factory Outlet Center which you approved for 1993 at
three million seven fifty, I in the record at that time I spoke I quoted it at three point eight because I had
been commonly referring to that but the actual number was three point eight two nine seven hundred so the
reduction then is larger than the fifty thousand it is about eighty nine thousand seven hundred it is still an
advisable settlement but because I miss spoke I wanted to clear it up in the record.
DISCUSSIONS
Mr. James Martin-On the proposed Asphalt Plant in the Town of Kingsbury, I attended the Kingsbury
Planning Board Meeting last Wednesday. They had their public hearing already but they were gracious
enough to let me address the Board and present several questions. It is proposed on a 6.1 acre site in the
Industrial Park. Operation from 6am to 6pm...traffic at peak capacity of the plant 26 trucks per
hour...reports were reviewed on traffic and sound, Mr. Ray Irish went through the on site storm drainage
calculations...mitigation measures regarding sound, a sound barrior wall will be constructed along the
southern boundary of the property.. .My sense in observing the Board I think it is their belief that it is an
allowed us and the infrastructure was there with adequate capacity to deal with it. Some of my questions
revolved around the environmental assessment was completed that night they gave it a negative
declaration..., for storm water they are proposing a detention pond, the sound barrier wall in some places
will be eight feet in height...Noted that they have not acted on the permit as of yet... Wilson Mathias
represented a group of neighbors in opposition to the proposal...
Councilman Caimano-Re: Traffic where are most of them coming from?
Executive Director Martin-I asked if they had done any trip distribution, they had not. They are going to
try and limit a lot of the truck traffic down County Line Road and along Hicks Road and ultimately Route
9L.
Councilman Caimano-Certainly the Hicks/Ridge interchange which is dangerous enough as it is now, and
the QueensburyIDix corner are going to change drastically, at 26 trucks that is three a minute.
Executive Director-It was the feeling of the Board that it is not going to operate that often at peak capacity.
Councilman Monahan-At the light at County Line Road and Dix, tractor trailers have to go on the opposite
side of the road to make the turn, I cannot believe that any Planning Board had ever neg. dec. that with a
neighborhood opposition the amount of truck traffic the fumes in the air, tearing up the roads and the
economic impact on the community with the medical places there that need white rooms, I cannot believe
that anybody could have neg. dec. that.
Councilman Goetz-Questioned if Mr. Martin was going to go to any other meetings?
Executive Director Martin-I can go to the next one...! think they would allow me the opportunity to report
any concerns of the Board...
Councilman Monahan-Jim what concerns did you transmit to the Board?
Executive Director Martin-Primarily traffic and dust. Noted Angio Dynamics they had specific potential
health effects of this and how it is going to impact their business from an economic stand point, they made
a statement they would have a need to put on $20,000 worth of filtering equipment into their plant ... the
Asphalt plant will have a cyclone separator and a bag house present on site for controlling of emissions out
of the stack....
Town Clerk-reminded the public that the October 11th meeting has been canceled. ... The Supervisor's
budget has been given to the Town Board...
Councilman Monahan-Tomorrow night is the public hearing for Crandall Library 7 :00 P.M. at the Qsby.
Center...
Executive Director Martin-Mike O'Connor handed me a letter regarding Adirondack Coffee service
addressed to the Supervisor regarding placement of no parking signs on Luzerne Road from the intersection
of Western Avenue...this is incompliance with the two resolutions of the Zoning Board of Appeals and the
Planning Board to have this area of the Street signed for no parking. He is asking for you to consider that
and set a public hearing for it. ...Councilman Monahan-That should go the Highway Dept. for their
recommendation... Executive Director Martin-I think it would be a good idea to keep the public comment
period open on Hudson Pointe to the 18th if we could.
RESOLUTION EXTENDING HUDSON POINTE DEIS COMMENT PERIOD
RESOLUTION NO. 571, 93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz
Resolved, to extend the Hudson Pointe DEIS comment Period through the adjournment of the Queensbury
Town Board Meeting on October 18th 1993.
Duly adopted this 4th day of October, 1993 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr.
Brandt
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
OPEN FORUM
Mr. John Salvadore-A point of clarification the resolution 447 is for a DCO?
Councilman Caimano-Correct.
Mr. Salvadore-Questioned what was put in the budget next year for that position?
Supervisor Brandt-It is my understanding that we are going for an Animal Control Officer and I think it is
budgeted for ACO.
Executive Director Martin-There is some discussion that will have to be had as to whether or not that
position is kept in the bargaining unit, and that will determine the salary if it is?
Councilman Monahan-Jim what are the steps to turn that into a ACO?
Executive Director Martin-We have a unique description in terms of Animal Control and Code
enforcement officer so a test has to be written and made for that position when that is done the test will be
scheduled, there is no set time frame for that.
Councilman Monahan-Can we make that change pending the results of the test?
Attorney Dusek-Yes.
Mr. Salvadore-What concerns me is you are about to move to make a decision to engage in Animal
Control. Does the Town Board understand that animal control is without limit, all animals, all wild
animals?
Supervisor Brandt-If you do not do that and you have a rabid skunk or a rabid animal...
Mr. Salvadore-What do we do now?
Councilman Tucker-She took care of one the other day on Burch Avenue, did she not?
Executive Director Martin-Yes.
Mr. Salvadore-Absent that what do we do?
Councilman Tucker-I had one a couple of weeks ago and I called the Sheriffs Dept. and they came and
destroyed the animal.
Mr. Salvadore-That is what I would do if I had the problem. As I pointed out once before that is a service
that we are already paying for. DEC should be doing this but for some reason they have just decided they
don't do it anymore. My concern is, that the Town is going to engage in this activity called animal control
and it is without limit, you are taking over somebody elses operation, wild animals are not the affairs of the
Town. Taxpayers are paying for this service in another way thorough another medium for another agency
to do it.
Supervisor Brandt-We will consider that.
Mr. Salvadore-Noted water foul will be under this title...this is our biggest single pollution concern on Lake
George...questioned if the animal control officer would get into this pollution control on Lake George? In
any case it will be a Town Board action to convert that. Dunhams Bay Road, Mrs. Monahan talked about
traffic and neg. dec. etc. where are we?
Attorney Dusek-We are waiting for the survey map, from Leon Steves.
Mr. Fred Champagne-I have the same question regarding the Animal Control Officer, I think I heard you
say tonight that we were planning to increase her salary and also to make it retro active to whenever she
started, is that what we heard?
Executive Director Martin-It would be a sleight increase.
Attorney Dusek-It is about an eight hundred dollar increase it is designed not so much as an increase as to
match what the collective bargaining contract provided for that position.
Mr. Champagne-My understanding is that this is a new position that we did not have this position prior to
her coming here we just voted on that?
Attorney Dusek-This is an existing Dog Control position should the Board decide to create the new
position it will be animal control and that will be redefined with the new salary.
Mr. Champagne-At what point in time did the Town send a request to DEC for extending the landfill?
How much time did they have to act on this?
Supervisor Brandt-I do not remember the date, it was a month ago certainly. We have had conversations
about this all year, as it got closer we wrote letter concerning it in great detail about a month ago roughly.
Mr. Champagne-With the landfill closing and recognizing that, that was not going to happen would it have
been more appropriate to have perhaps asked for this request back six months ago?
Supervisor Brandt-We have talked to them about this for the last year and a half we have had many
discussions.
Councilman Tucker-There is still pending Federal regulations
Supervisor Brandt-Friday they came out.
Councilman Tucker-Federal regulations stating that they were going to close our landfill.
Supervisor Brandt-There were Federal Regulations that could have effected us and set the time when we
should which was really the October 7th date, and we figured we did not want to come under those
regulations because there were some liabilities we did not get into. However, they have been extended, but
the exact wording of that extension we have not seen. The State adopted laws separate from the Federal
Regs. which I think were a little more severe at least that is what was represented to us then what the
Federal Regs. are. Just what their regulations mean they do not seem to know, they have to decide what
those words mean as it pertains to our landfill. We are operating under a consent order where basically
they are going to tell us we can and can not do. The material that we are landfilling is a small amount of
material from the County itself the large quantity of material are C&D which is really fill, we are trying to
bring in fill to fill in an area that has got to be filled as part of the closure. It is really part of the closure
plan and I would like to see it looked at as part of the closure plan rather than as an operating landfill. This
is a matter of semantics and how laws are written and laws are it. These are the questions we are asking of
DEC and I asked them today why don't they look at the C&D as a fill and part of the closure plan which
requires that fill.
Mr. Champagne-Beyond the C&D when the closure happens it is going to be everything coming in from
the County the total trash flow gets shut down so the gate gets closed over there, what options do you have
in mind in such case that this actually does happen?
Supervisor Brandt-We do not have any options in mind we have talked informally to neighboring
communities, there are neighboring communities that would take our waste stream for a period of time but
they are also under closure orders. The County was doing a landfill with Washington Co., we hoped that
would come together, that seems to be tangled with the litigation that has to do with the burn plant. The
finances of that landfill were based on the ash from the burn plant now there is all kinds of questions of
whether the ash is forthcoming for the finances are in question so as I understand it Washington County
doesn't want to proceed and so we are sitting with no answers. There are no answers, that are firm we are
going to have to find thern.
Mr. Champagne-I hope in the next four days you are able to do that, because this could be a crisis
obviously.
Supervisor Brandt-It could be a crisis for everyone in the county.
Mr. Champagne-It is unfortunate a plan has not been developed with another scenario that might fall in
place, given that plant shutting down it would appear to me that the Board may have looked at some other
possibilities that they can given this situation than this is what it going to happen.
Supervisor Brandt-There are other possibilities we can certainly haul our non processables to Saratoga
County, there are options the question of what is the most cost effective option and what long length of
term they have.
Mr. Rod Began-I am a resident in the Inspiration Park Development-I am here with my fellow Board
Members of the Association, there are 42 homes in this development and in the 42 homes there are 83
children. Our main concern is the speed limit that is set for 30 mph we feel that due to the large number of
children 30 mph it much too fast, we would like to request from the Board that it be reduced to 15 mph.
RESOLUTION REQUESTING REDUCTION IN SPEED LIMIT INSPIRATION PARK
RESOLUTION NO. 572, 93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury authorizes the Town Supervisor and the
Town Clerk working together to complete the necessary forms to be submitted to Warren County and then
accordingly to DOT to study the speed limits on Goldfinch and Mockingbird roads in Inspiration Park
which roads are currently signed with thirty miles an hour speed limits and the Board request that the same
be lowered and that the new lower speed limit be considered at fifteen miles per hour for the reason of
concerns about safety of children and concern about truck traffic.
Duly adopted this 4th day of October, 1993 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mrs. Robin Brewer-Queensbury What I have to say I am going to read, it is a lot easier for me to read
before you guys, then to
Supervisor Brandt -Go right ahead.
Mrs. Brewer-than to think and to talk.
Supervisor Brandt-Sure.
Mrs. Brewer-Ok. I would like to begin by thanking all of you for extending the public comment period on
the Hudson Pointe PUD. As you are well aware there is a enormous amount of paper work to be read and
to be fully comprehended. I can only speak personally but, I believe that I am not out of the norm in stating
that it is difficult in our day to day lives to find the time necessary to research the material within this book.
As for the DEIS and the Hudson Pointe PUD I would like to state that I believe a project design with less
density or a standard subdivision would be more suited for this area. Furthermore, I believe it is very
important to remove any development and passive recreation from the point both above the bluffs and on
the lower level. I also believe that this no development area should also encompass the area above the bluff
along the wetland. The reasons for my beliefs can be supported by fact found in the DEIS. I am not going
to reflect on all of my concerns regarding the DEIS it would take a long time, but I will state that I believe
the DEIS is not complete and I personally support Mr. Jeff Freidland on all the points that he discussed at
the public hearing. I do want to briefly substantiate my statement regarding density and development on
the point by bring to your attention some of the contradictions as well as areas that are incomplete or
lacking fact within the DEIS. On page 5-2 on Alternative Size of Development, I will read from the DEIS;
A standard as of right subdivision would include one acre lots within the suburban residential zone and
three acre lots within the water front residential zone, resulting in approximately one hundred to one
hundred and twenty lots. There will be little or no difference in the impact to geology because the project
would develop the entire site. At this point I disagree. Due to the provision called cluster design it could
be used and that is not discussed within a subdivision. There would be similar concerns relative to erosion
in the bluffs that point I disagree, there would be less concern for erosion on the bluffs because of smaller
standard size subdivision that is clustered to keep all development off the point and the bluffs. Also, any
passive recreation could be removed from the point discouraging any use. This is not discussed in the
DEIS. There would probably be less impact to water resources because there would be fewer septic
systems and perhaps less storm water run off. However, site investigation indicate that there is plenty
depth of soils to thoroughly treat septic effluent for the proposed density. This we disagree also. There are
numerous wells in neighboring areas close by that reach ground water at a point much less than fifty feet
and that needs to be further researched on the area. The alternative development would result in greater
potential impact to the ecology of the site because most of the land would be private in private ownership,
except for the bluffs and area below the bluffs on the point. Preservation of open space will be greater with
the current proposal. This again, I disagree. The cluster design with a smaller number of lot could be an
option that is not discussed. Less vehicles will be generated by the alternative, therefore there will be less
impact to the road system, however the alternative would require access from Sherman Island Road, the
fewer number of units would not make the development of a roadway through the subdivision to the north
feasible. I believe, maybe it is not financially feasible but in the reports in the DEIS it contradicts this, that
Sherman Island Road could not handle and in the a letter by Kenneth A. Carlson, Sr. Transportation
Analysis; I have enclosed an ITE article that estimates that traffic flows through residential areas on local
streets in excess of two vehicles per minute will result in a poor residential environment. If the one
hundred and fifty nine pm peak hour trips to be generated by Hudson Pointe are added to the existing forty
one pm peak hour vehicles on Sherman Island Road, two hundred pm hour vehicles per hour would result
or three point three three vehicles per minute, well over the ITE threshold for producing a poor residential
environment, thus there is support for not using Sherman Island Road for primary access. So, if you have
two vehicles per minute as a poor residential environment if you take the one hundred homes of a standard
subdivision and by looking at how they figured this out, one hundred and fifty nine peak hour trips they are
saying probably approximately one car per unit. So, we say, one hundred, if there is one hundred units we
will say one hundred cars during that peak hour plus our forty one and if you take out the access from
Southern Exposure lets add those houses in as well so add thirty more you come up with one hundred and
seventy one pm peak hour trips, and divide that by sixty and you get two point eight five vehicles per
minute still well above the threshold for producing a poor residential environment. Also, add that to the
letter from Michael Palmer Chief of the local fire services and the items mentioned should point out a need
for alternate routes for traffic entering and exiting the development. This pertains not just to emergency
vehicles but the general population of the area. I could read their points is you feel I should. Number one
The intersection of Sherman Island Road and Corinth Road poses two problems. Traffic traveling toward
Glens Falls is generally steady possibly causing a delay also traffic moving toward West Mt. Road is blind
to the presence of emergency vehicles stopped at the intersection until they round the bend and enter the
dip. This may not be an adequate stopping distance based on the speed of travel on Corinth Road. Number
two Sherman Island Road is very narrow with a sharp turn near Corinth Road this causes longer response
time and somewhat dangerous for the apparatus drivers and is probably a concern for of homeowners with
children. The second point regards the objectives that must be met for a PUD designation. The following
objectives must be met for a PU designation. Number 2. More usable open space and recreation areas and
if permitted as part of a project more convenient location of accessory commercial and services uses. I feel
that this PUD clearly does not meet this objective. First there are no accessory commercial or service uses
but more importantly there is no usable open space. As I go on to the next page. They have written greater
open space will be provided by the cluster design of the conceptual plan. But, due to this sensitivity of the
bluffs and the wetland accessing us of these areas will be discouraged. I read, if that these areas are to be
discouraged then how can it fit the objective of being usable. It further goes on to the next statement which
contradicts it is confusing to me and it is found many places throughout the book, however, access to the
river will be provided. How can you provide access if you are going to discourage use? It contradicts. It
looks to be almost be a play on words in the sense of fitting that objective and also fitting the demands of
the land as well, sensitivity. Another major contradiction, that would further make that point is on page
339 just below it, deed restrictions will prevent landowners from cutting trees and other vegetation within a
fifty foot buffer from the top of the bluffs and the ravines. This will protect the slopes from erosion. But,
also within the DEIS, are the conservation easements outline, number seven, within the area between the
top of the bluff and inland fifty feet therefrom no trees in excess of six inches in diameter at breast height
existing at any time may be cut. Other vegetation within this area maybe removed. Since the opposite of
what we are reading for the public in this part and yet later we are saying that it can be removed. If you
remove all the vegetation under the six inch, remove everything, if you remove all the vegetation under the
six inch, remove the brush remove the vegetation you are going to create erosion in just removing this
aspect of it. Also which I did not document but what is also in here is any tree that poses a safety hazard or
disease could be removed. I have a tree that looks like the wind may blow it over it is a safety hazard I
could girdle a tree it could become disease I can remove it, there is a lot of contradiction within this various
aspects of the book. On page 313 again another point says, preservation of the buffer zone that extends
fifty feet from the top of the bluffs and ravines into the developable portion of the site, no cutting or other
disturbance will be allowed in this area. Further more there is no plan for utilizing buffer zones for
recreation activity. Again contradicts what the conservation easement outlined. One more major point in
substantiating what I had stated in my introduction. On page 331 therefore there will be no impact to the
wetlands. Two pages before this statement the area below the bluffs including the wetland is the more
sensitive area of the site relative to habitat, encourage individuals to visit this area could have adverse
impact from general use. Use of the area below the bluffs on the point will be limited, to dock, picnic,
shelter area. Although individuals will not be prevented from exploring other portions of the points, use of
the site will be limited to day use. Over night camping will be prohibited, in addition the wetland will be
marked with signs during the construction phase warning people that it is a protected wetland. During the
construction phase that is all and well good but what's more concern is what happens after the developers
leave construction done and what are we left with, and that has to be addressed in the DEIS which I do not
feel has been. There are so many phrases in here as preventing and discouraging and prohibiting there is no
documentation as who that will be affected. There are conservation easements new to the Town but there is
nothing in the DEIS that describes who will prevent, how will it be enforced, how will it be maintained, is
there going to be somebody there walking the grounds, how is it going to be enforced and that is a major
point. There seems to be so many proposed restrictions, ok, that is basically what I just said. In my mind
these are but only a few of the many contradictions within this book, with so many loop holes and missing
parts how can the fragile point in wetlands be guaranteed survival? I believe the only answer is to prevent
any use or development on the point or near the point. In closing this development will have a large impact
on our community and environment. We the citizens have entrusted you the Town Board with the power to
protect our quality of life. In an age where forest and wetlands are being destroyed with increasing
intensity it is more important than ever to step back and ask if this is going to benefit us in the future.
Personally I want our daughter Alli to grow up in Queensbury and know that nature lives and breaths
within our very own back yard. Without it our own existence will soon disappear as well. The Hudson
River to the south of us is protected by the Hudson Valley Greenway to the north the Adirondack Park. In
Queensbury its only protection lies in the wisdom of you five people. I urge you not to allow for this
rezoning and work with NIMO to create a project that does not exploit the nature of this land. As an added
note I urge all of you to accept Mr. Thomas McDonald's offer of a boat ride on the Hudson River if you
have not already done so and I would be more than willing and happy to extend an invitation to walk the
point with any of the town board members or representatives of the developing team. Thank you.
Supervisor Brandt-Robin, let me tell you something. I have heard this and thought about this a great deal
and looked at this property many times and I think about the fact that this town has created a sewer district
for high density development in that sewer district is underdeveloped. More and more I am coming to the
conclusion that it is wrong to put high density development in this kind of an area while not forcing it into
our sewer district. I think as part of the Town plan it should be forced into the sewer district. I also think
that you are right, the Hudson River corridor is a very unique feature and ought to be preserved. This
Town ought to adopt that into its Town plan it ought to go after an open space conservation grant under the
new law and it ought to work with Niagara Mohawk to preserve this very unique feature. I think it is our
responsibility and I have to come down with you on this.
Mrs. Brewer-Great, thank you.
Supervisor Brandt-Anyone else?
Ms. Michel Burch-Michel Birch and Connie Hodkins, and we had some more signatures to add to the
petition that we presented last Monday we would like to have these filed and ... I would like you to take it
into consideration that is how we feel about this Hudson Pointe.
Supervisor Brandt -thank you.
Councilman Caimano-thank you.
Supervisor Brandt-Anyone else?
Mr. Fred Champagne-Mike I guess I would just like a point of clarification, it seems to me that the first
vote here on the DEIS for Hudson Pointe if my memory serves me correctly you and Pliney at that point in
time voted in not to go with the DEIS? Is that correct?
Supervisor Brandt-I did vote against an environmental impact statement and I believe that we know pretty
well all the facts today that we knew at the beginning, I do not think that we have learned a great deal. We
have had, what we have been doing is avoiding making the real decision and the real decision is are we
going to rezone this or are we not. I think that you can drag the process on forever you can add an
enormous amount of cost to it but I think in the end what you got to do is make the decision and I think that
it is wrong to get caught up in the SEQRA process simply to stop a project. I think what you got to do is
look at the question and address it. I am prepared to do that.
Mr. Fred Champagne-I can only say that I feel much more comfortable after the DEIS has been completed
in terms of my knowledge of the point and I happen to believe that some of the other board members may
feel that way too.
Supervisor Brandt-There is a difference of opinion there and you are welcome to it and I think it is valid in
both sides. An environmental impact statement costs a lot of money I think that that the facts are the facts
we have got a delicate bluff you are asking for high density in there, there is a certain road restrictions and I
think we can act on the facts. We can study them until hell freezes over but in the end that just adds costs
to the landowner. In the end we are going to have to be responsible and work with that landowner if the
Town wants to go with an open space conservation plan we are going to have to work with Niagara
Mohawk we are going to have to come to a willing buyer a willing seller type of arrangement but, I am
speaking only for myself! do not believe that, that is the best use our town resources to...
Mr. Fred Champagne-To have a DEIS for that sensitive area?
Supervisor Brandt-To do a rezoning of that property as is requested I do not believe is in the best interests
of the community.
Mr. Fred Champagne-Thank you.
Supervisor Brandt -You are welcome.
Anyone else? call for executive session
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION
RESOLUTION NO. 573.93
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt
RESOLVED, that Town Board of the Town of Queensbury one personnel matter, one matter of potential
litigation attorney client privilege, one matter of attorney client privilege matter in litigation mode.
Duly adopted this 4th day of October, 1993 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
On motion the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Miss Darleen M. Dougher
Town Clerk-Queensbury