Loading...
2007-09-24-MTG41 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1003 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#41 SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 RES#413-434 7:00 P.M. LL #5 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR COUNCILMAN RICHARD SANFORD COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER TOWN ATTORNEY Mark Noordsy TOWN OFFICIALS WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, MIKE SHAW SENIOR PLANNER, STU BAKER FISCAL MANAGER, BARBARA TIERNEY PRESS TV 8, POST STAR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN RICHARD SANFORD SUPERVISOR STEC-Opened meeting presented the following proclamation to Chief Chip Mellon of the Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Company. P R O C L A M A T I O N WHEREAS , on Thursday, August 30, 2007 a fire commenced at the Town of th Queensbury Property on Jenkinsville Road, and WHEREAS , upon the Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Company’s arrival, firefighters encountered flames shooting approximately 40 to 100 feet in the air and it was immediately clear that mutual aid would be needed to extinguish the immense fire, and WHEREAS , the fire continued through Monday, September 3, 2007 and this major rd incident required the cooperation and assistance of many agencies and the response and resources of approximately 150 firefighters, auxiliary members and EMS providers from 25 fire companies and rescue squads from Warren, Washington, and Saratoga Counties, utilizing over 50 pieces of Apparatus, and WHEREAS , since there was no water supply at the scene, firefighters utilized a seven mile tanker shuttle from hydrants to the fire scene, with 18 tankers and engine-tankers transporting over one million gallons of water to the scene, and WHEREAS Volunteers , such expended over 3,000 hours away from their families during the Labor Day Holiday Weekend to extinguish this fire, and WHEREAS , the Town of Queensbury wishes to bestow its sincere gratitude to the dedicated and hardworking men and women who provided assistance with the extinguishment of the fire as follows: Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Company Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Company Ladies Auxiliary Bay Ridge Rescue Squad North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company Pilot Knob Volunteer Fire Company Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Company West Fort Ann Volunteer Fire Company West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company South Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company Fort Ann Volunteer Fire Company REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1004 Kingsbury Volunteer Hose Company Lake George Fire Department South Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company South Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Co. Ladies Auxiliary Bolton Landing Volunteer Fire Department Corinth Volunteer Fire Department Fort Edward Fire Department Hartford Volunteer Fire Company Hudson Falls Fire Department Van R. Rhodes Luzerne-Hadley Fire Company Warrensburg Volunteer Fire Company West Glens Falls Emergency Squad Whitehall Volunteer Fire Company Queensbury Highway Superintendent Michael Travis Queensbury Highway Department Queensbury Landfill Equipment Operator Keith Sheerer Warren County Fire Coordinator Marv Lemery Warren County Deputy Fire Coordinator Brian LaFlure Warren County Fire Control Warren County Deputy EMS Coordinator Chris Norton Warren County D.P.W. Washington County Fire Coordinator Ray Rathbun Washington County Fire Control Saratoga County Fire Control Saratoga County Deputy Fire Coordinator Jake Losaw New York State Emergency Management Office Charles Friedman Excavating Jason Morehouse Excavating NOW, THEREFORE , the Queensbury Town Board does hereby proclaim and extend its sincere gratitude to the Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Company and all other Fire Companies and Agencies set forth in the preambles of this Proclamation for their tireless hard work, coordination, dedication and fortitude in extinguishing the fire at the Town of Queensbury Property on Jenkinsville Road from August 30 through th September 3, 2007, and rd BE IT FURTHER , that the Town Board expresses its deepest appreciation to the Volunteers who give so much to the community and do their part in making the Town of and safer Queensbury a better place to live. __________________________________ Daniel G. Stec, Town Supervisor __________________________________ Roger Boor, Ward 1 Councilman __________________________________ Richard Sanford, Ward 2 Councilman __________________________________ John Strough, Ward 3 Councilman __________________________________ Tim Brewer, Ward 4 Councilman PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.0 PUBLIC HEARING – CENTRAL QUEENSBURY QUAKER ROAD SEWER DISTRICT BENEFIT TAX ROLL FOR 2008 OPENED NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2007 WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, MIKE SHAW PRESENT SUPERVISOR STEC-I will declare this public hearing open. Mike Shaw is in the audience I will ask him to come up be nearby in case there are any questions that come from this first one. As most people will recall every year we go through these benefit hearings to validate that the roll of the district is accurate and it is stated publicly it is a REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1005 legal requirement that we do it every year. Mike is there anything that you want to add there are three of them they are all similar this first one is for Quaker Road Sewer District, which is a big sewer district. WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, MR. SHAW-I can give a brief description of what is going on here. As Dan said each year, we update these rolls similar to the assessment roll. We are updating the units assessed to each parcel in each one of these districts. The first public hearing is on the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District. The proposed roll for 2008 is up approximately three hundred and twenty four units to nine thousand one hundred and fourteen. SUPERVISOR STEC-The public hearing is opened if there is anybody from the public that would like to comment on this public hearing. Again, I will ask you to raise your hand one at a time these microphones not only amplify they also record for the record. NO PUBLIC COMMENT SUPERVISOR STEC-Any questions of Mike from the Town Board. I will close this public hearing and entertain a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION ADOPTING CENTRAL QUEENSBURY QUAKER ROAD SEWER DISTRICT BENEFIT TAX ROLL FOR 2008 RESOLUTION NO. 413, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough § § WHEREAS, in accordance with New York State Town Law 202 and 202-a, the Queensbury Town Board has prepared the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District Benefit Tax Roll for 2008 assessing the expense of district improvements of general sanitary sewers located in the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District and filed the completed Tax Roll in the Queensbury Town Clerk’s Office, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk posted and published the required Notice of Public Hearing and mailed copies of the Notice to all property owners within the Benefit Assessment District, and th WHEREAS, the Town Board duly conducted a public hearing on September 24, 2007 and heard all interested persons, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves, confirms and adopts the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District Benefit Tax Roll for 2008 for REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1006 payment of public improvement expenses within the District in accordance with New York § State Town Law §202 and 202-a, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to issue a warrant to be signed by the Town Supervisor and Town Clerk commanding the Town Tax Receiver to collect the sum(s) from persons named in the assessment roll and to pay the sum(s) to the Town. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2007 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT:None PUBLIC HEARING – ROUTE 9 SEWER DISTRICT BENEFIT TAX ROLL FOR 2008 OPENED NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2007 SUPERVISOR STEC-Like wise very similar to the previous one Mike do you want to add anything for a summary. WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, MR. SHAW-Once again the units for this year roll is fifty two hundred forty four a change of twelve hundred fifty eight units that is less units. SUPERVISOR STEC-Anybody from the public like to comment on this public hearing it is opened any questions from board members. NO PUBLIC COMMENT SUPERVISOR STEC-I will close the public hearing and entertain a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION ADOPTING ROUTE 9 SEWER DISTRICT BENEFIT TAX ROLL FOR 2008 RESOLUTION NO. 414, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer § § WHEREAS, in accordance with New York State Town Law 202 and 202-a, the Queensbury Town Board has prepared the Route 9 Sewer District Benefit Tax Roll for 2008 assessing the expense of district improvements of general sanitary sewers located in the REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1007 Route 9 Sewer District and filed the completed Tax Roll in the Queensbury Town Clerk’s Office, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk posted and published the required Notice of Public Hearing and mailed copies of the Notice to all property owners within the Benefit Assessment District, and th WHEREAS, the Town Board duly conducted a public hearing on September 24, 2007 and heard all interested persons, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves, confirms and adopts the Route 9 Sewer District Benefit Tax Roll for 2008 for payment of public improvement expenses within the District in accordance with New York State Town Law § §202 and 202-a, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to issue a warrant to be signed by the Town Supervisor and Town Clerk commanding the Town Tax Receiver to collect the sum(s) from persons named in the assessment roll and to pay the sum(s) to the Town. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2007 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES: None ABSENT:None PUBLIC HEARING –SOUTH QUEENSBURY – QUEENSBURY AVENUE SEWER DISTRICT BENEFIT TAX ROLL FOR 2008 OPENED NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2008 SUPERVISOR STEC-I will declare this public hearing opened Mike if you would like to give us a summary again on this. DIRECTOR OF WASTEWATER, MR. SHAW-Sure. This district is a little different from the rest of the district as such that this public hearing is on a Queensbury portion, but we are also under contract to serving other communities Kingsbury, Washington County and Warren County. The total units in the Queensbury district are nine hundred and eighty six units. The units I will just give them off for the other communities Kingsbury is three hundred and thirty nine. Washington County is six hundred and twenty six and Warren County a hundred and eighteen units’ total units collected on this whole roll is two thousand seventy. Once again, Queensbury’s portion is nine hundred and eighty six units. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1008 SUPERVISOR STEC-Any comments or questions from the public on this public hearing, anything from Town Board members. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Just one item. Maybe Mike you could explain to the public what a unit how you come up with those numbers. WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, MR. SHAW-Sure. Each one of these rolls there is a menu, a menu with classes and units. You take that final class you are in and then you go to the unit class. In commercial classes there are X number of units per class of land. You have a residential class you have a commercial class some are deed restricted some are wetlands. You take your class of your land and multiply it by the acres times the units this is how you get the units. COUNCILMAN BREWER-That is how they are billed that is how you arrive at a dollar figure. WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, MR. SHAW-Correct. What happens is these public hearings are for the units assessed to these parcels. Once the board accepts this it goes along to Warren County with the other assessment rolls. As a budget process, we have dollars in the budget process that are in there for paying bond and principal payments in each one of these districts. The dollars are divided by the units and you come up a dollar per unit figure. If you have, fifty units’ times ten bucks it would be five hundred dollars. SUPERVISOR STEC-Again, if there any comments or questions from the public regarding this third public hearing on sewer district benefit rolls. NO PUBLIC COMMENT SUPERVISOR STEC I will close the public hearing and entertain a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION ADOPTING SOUTH QUEENSBURY – QUEENSBURY AVENUE SEWER DISTRICT BENEFIT TAX ROLL FOR 2008 RESOLUTION NO. 415, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough § § WHEREAS, in accordance with New York State Town Law 202 and 202-a, the Queensbury Town Board has prepared the South Queensbury – Queensbury Avenue Sewer District Benefit Tax Roll for 2008 assessing the expense of district improvements of general sanitary sewers located in the South Queensbury – Queensbury Avenue Sewer District and filed the completed Tax Roll in the Queensbury Town Clerk’s Office, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk posted and published the required Notice of Public Hearing and mailed copies of the Notice to all property owners within the Benefit Assessment District, and th WHEREAS, the Town Board duly conducted a public hearing on September 24, 2007 and heard all interested persons, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1009 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves, confirms and adopts the South Queensbury – Queensbury Avenue Sewer District Benefit Tax Roll for 2008 for payment of public improvement expenses within the District in accordance with § New York State Town Law §202 and 202-a, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to issue a warrant to be signed by the Town Supervisor and Town Clerk commanding the Town Tax Receiver to collect the sum(s) from persons named in the assessment roll and to pay the sum(s) to the Town. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2007 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES: None ABSENT:None PUBLIC HEARING – BARTON & LOGUIDICE, P.C. TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH MAIN STREET INFRASTRUCTURE AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN OPENED NOTICE SHOWN PUBLICATION DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2007 PRESENTATION MADE BY RICH STRAUT AND DON FLETCHER ENGINEERS FROM BARTON & LOGUIDICE PRESENT SUPERVISOR STEC-We are going to receive first a presentation from Barton & Loguidice the two engineers that the Town has been working on this for the last several years they are going to make a presentation so we are going to be getting out of their way. By way of background, this public hearing is not required; there are no legal requirements for it. However, the Town is free to have public hearings whenever we want on matters because of the information that we are going to be presented tonight predominately-new costs estimates for the first time in two years we have given an update a ballpark cost. We felt that it was the appropriate time to seek one, inform the public then two, seek any feedback before the Town continues if the Town chooses to continue going down the Main Street Underground Utilities path. With that said we are going to turn it over, we are going to have the presentation by Barton & Loguidice, and then we will take public comment and go from there. With that said, I will open the public hearing and turn it over to Barton & Loguidice to make their presentation. MR. STRAUT-My name is Rich Straut, I am with Barton & Loguidice Engineering this is Don Fletcher. As, Dan said we have been working on this project and several others with the Town, but this one particularly for several years actually started this back in 2001 with the Town it has been a number of years the project has certainly evolved. We have made several presentations although over the last couple of years I think all of our discussions have really been just with the Town Board. The Town Board thought it would appropriate to provide an update at this point. What we wanted to talk about is the REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1010 focus of the presentation tonight and the hearing is cost estimates with respect to underground utilities. In order to give you the context of the cost estimates we wanted to give you a little bit more background as to everything that has really been going on over in the Main Street area with a number of projects just to give you again the context of what we are talking about here. I am going to give you some of that information Don is going to give you some other information. We are going to give you some of the visualizations most of this information has been presented in the past. The only new information that you are going to see today is some of the cost projections that have been updated and provided by some of the utility companies. The Main Street plan and some of the other projects that are going on are represented on this map here and listed here. This is the Northway, Exit 18 is right here with Main Street coming into the City of Glens Falls. There are a number of projects the first project that really initiated all this work was the County project that involved reconstructing Main Street. The County started that back in about 1998 with an analysis or a study then they began progressing the design a couple years later. The Town got involved in order to retain Barton and Loguidice in order to help develop some of the issues that the Town was interested in with that redevelopment plan to work and coordinate with the County and the County Consultants on what the Town would like in terms of aesthetics redevelopment of the corridor rezoning things like that. The other thing that came out of that was we were able to help the Town secure a grant for what they call Gateway Improvements it involved the Park & Ride Facility over along where the new EMS building is being built. A Gateway Plaza, which is consistent with the Town’s Comprehensive Planning effort and bike connections along Richardson Street back to Luzerne Road and down to the Feeder Canal. The other thing that has happened along the line is the County project has extended from where it was initially going to stop, I think Big Boom Road across the interchange to Big Bay Road. We were brought on again to help the Town develop a concept and promote that within the context of the roadway reconstruction. For aesthetics for streetscape those types of things undergrounding of utilities was a big part of that to redesign and reconstruct the water mains in the area and to construct a new sanitary sewer system to service the area. The County’s objectives in reconstructing the Main Street Corridor were really focused around moving traffic. That is one of the reasons why the Town got more involved was to bring in some of the other aspects that the Town is interested in. The County was looking at traffic flow the project is taking that roadway from a two lane to a three-lane road looking at correcting structural deficiencies in the pavement drainage problems. They wanted to minimize the impact to adjacent properties they did not want to take peoples houses in this effort. With respect with the roadway, they did indicate that would like to enhance aesthetics and to provide improved access control, which is really how cars enter the street or leave the street to individual properties. As we got involved with the Town the Town objectives were to work into that project reconstructing the water mains and upsizing them as part of the district and coordinating that with the road reconstruction. Putting in a new sanitary sewer district to serve that area the initial district was going to extend out to Carl R’s it has since been extended beyond the intersection of Big Bay Road. Putting the power and utilities underground, we will talk more detail about that planning for the redevelopment along Main Street. Main Street is in transition if you noticed there is already transition that is happening from residential to commercial. What we worked with the Town on was developing a vision of how that corridor would redevelop. It lead to new zoning in the area lead to design guidelines for architectural improvements providing the gateway into the Town, which we were able to help the Town secure a grant for Don is going to give you a little bit more on the history and some costs. DON FLETCHER-Good evening as Rich said on the Main Street history to give a little bit of background. The County began this project back in 1998 with a project sponsored with Adirondack Glens Falls Transit Council on a Corridor Management Plan on what to do with the roadway to improve it and they identified two main items identified the need for highway improvements and short long-term recommendations. With that, the Town also in 1998 updated their Comprehensive Plan, which included improving gateway such as this one into the community and the new Zoning Ordinance. Warren County then took the project, hired a consultant Clough Harbour and Associates, began projects scoping back in June of 2000 through March of 2001, and began preliminary design back in March of 2001. The Town of Queensbury who wanted to make sure with this important project that their interests were one hundred percent covered decided to hire a consultant REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1011 beyond the Warren County consultant, which was us back in June of 2001 to progress the Town’s initiatives in this project, which was water sewer engineering some public design...back in September of 2001 to gather all the Town input we developed two plans. The Main Street Plan, which was the economic plan and the zoning changes that need to be for this area as well as the Utility Underground Plan was also completed in April of 2002, which was a Feasibility Study on undergrounding the utilities for various reasons that we will get into such as safety and aesthetics. The Highway project was expanded to include the Exit 18 area of June of 2002. The Town began the utility coordination with us with the utility company back in October 2002 some further highway milestones some concepts were developed and the Preliminary Highway Report was done in February of 2004. Then beyond that, these are some critical dates with regard to the Town and some of their initiatives. The Undergrounding Utilities, Local Law was developed in November 2004, which was for this area as well as several other commercial areas in the Town for undergrounding of utilities. National Grid who obviously did not agree with that filed a lawsuit against the Town challenging the Local Law in March of 2005, but they continued in conjunction with B & L and the Town on some of the design concepts. The private utilities companies prepared their preliminary underground utility design in February of 2006. B & L in conjunction with Clough Harbour prepared the advanced design plans for DOT submission, which is approximately eighty percent of the plans done in November of last year. The County then commenced right-a-way acquisitions for fee takings for the highway portion of the project in March and the National Grid Terra with regard to a local law for other communities was approved by the PSC in July 2007. I would like to talk a little bit about the project costs and where we started back in May of 2002 after the consultants were hired in 2001 and where we are today. As you can see number one is the highway project, which is the project for the federal, state, and local government. The federal paying eighty percent of the project, the state fifteen, and the local share is five percent. As you can see, the budget in May of 2002 was four million dollars. The budget today from the number we got from the highway consultant, Clough Harbour is twelve million dollars. With that some inflation escalation of cost some other items also such as streetscape improvements, which are one of the main Town initiatives in the area trying for….sensitive solutions looking at crosswalks, benches, pedestrian scale lighting things of that nature. We were able to secure to approximately one million dollars through the DOT and Federal Government on behalf of the Town for this project to be included with the streetscape improvements. Also, noted earlier Exit 18 reconstruction is included as well as the relocation of Big Boom Road. The second item is the water item. As you can see as we further developed the cost estimates with regards to the construction of the highway project the budgeted costs for May of 2002 went from four hundred and seventy thousand to three hundred thousand that is the water district share of that cost with the remaining water construction being paid for by the highway project. Meaning the remaining portion...would be distributing of the water system as part of doing their highway job is included in that twelve million dollar budget. The third item is the sewer. The budgeted cost went from approximately six hundred and ten thousand dollars to one point three six million dollars with the majority of it going to a new district that is the district share of one point three million. There are some excess capacity provisions in there for future, which would be the Town general fund at sixty five thousand. One item of note as the highway job is extended from Big Boom Road to Big Bay Road the sewer has also extended in that time. With inflation in the five years as well as that, extension of the project has resulted in the cost increase. The final is the undergrounding of the private utilities. The Undergrounding Utility Study that was developed in 2002 showed one point five seven. The budgeted cost today is four point five five million. Particular items of note are obviously the lawsuit is pending with National Grid on the Main Street Utilities. As part of the twelve million dollar highway job the service connections to all the parcels the underground service connections would be paid for as part of that job under the same eighty percent federal, fifteen percent state, five percent local share. As, I noted we will see the following table for the cost breakdown. For the underground utilities components of the budgeted costs of 2002 to 2007 the National Grid primary lines, which is part of the Local Law was nine hundred and seventy thousand in 2002. Their verbal estimate without any backup this was just a verbal estimate of the overall numbers one point five million at this point rising numbers to two hundred and twenty thousand to an estimate of one point two six million. The cable has decreased in cost from one hundred and thirty thousand to sixty thousand. The services as I originally said are now one hundred percent funded. They were initially REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1012 shown as two hundred and fifty thousand now at five hundred and seventy five thousand some of these numbers are due to a variety of issues. One is we extended the limit west and across the streets of the size of the undergrounding of utilities. One of the items after May of 2002 that was decided that on all the cross streets we would extend one pole length the undergrounding of utility so it would get away from the corridor into the side streets the final number is part of the local law is the easement acquisition. As part of the public charettes in September of 2001 when the budget was developed in May of 2002 donations were assumed the general public wanted this project, understood the need for it , for safetyaesthetics, and economic development reasons. As R.K. Hite who is the County’s consultant on securing the fee takings they have been out there, as I said securing the fee takings for the County. They also have been initiating discussions on securing easements as part of the undergrounding of the utilities particularly for National Grid, Verizon, and Time Warner Cable utilities. It was their stipulation that the utilities be outside the road right-a-way. The Town and B & L have tried talking to them about moving it inside the right-a-way. They have resisted indicated that it needs to be outside the right-a-way for safety concerns. As R.K. Hite has been talking to the owners along the corridor, they have determined that donations are not going to be feasible most people are looking to get paid. We have put some preliminary estimates together and those include almost a million dollars for the easements for this. So, with that Rich is going to talk about the undergrounding alternative and another alternative. MR. STRAUT-I just wanted to give you a little bit of a background as to what is out there now and what has been considered as we have gone along. This is a section through the roadway of basically what is there now. There are two lanes about twenty four feet wide pavement with utility poles on both sides, cobra head lighting, about a forty-foot setback. There are water lines underground there is an existing gas line that meanders. We did find that there are some telephone utilities underground already, which I think when we first started, were not mapped. The propose redevelopment of the corridor is to put in a three lane road there would be a middle turning lane that is the County’s part they are going to upgrade the drainage and put in a new pipe drainage system. The water line is going to be replaced with a larger water line to better serve the feeds through the Town. A new sanitary sewer would be placed on the south side under the sidewalk then there will be underground utilities. You see the yellow blocks it says future infill development that is really looking at some of the redesign and zoning, zoning and design guidelines that were develop to make a pedestrian friendly Main Street type atmosphere. That was done several years ago and you can see there is pedestrian scale lighting. As redevelopment occurs, the goal here is to have a Main Street type atmosphere that is pedestrian friendly, which it is not right now. The advantages that were considered with respect to undergrounding of utilities were that it is really consistent with the gateway concept in terms of aesthetics and putting in a pedestrian friendly gateway to the Town. It is consistent with the redevelopment economic initiatives for revitalizing the area the aesthetics and there were also safety concerns that were addressed by putting the utilities underground because the poles were very close to the travel lanes and are now. The disadvantages are the logistics that is one of the reasons we are talking to you here today about this five years later. Logistically this has been a very difficult and continues to be a very difficult project. There are above ground cabinets that are required so it is not like you don’t see anything you just don’t see utility poles and spaghetti of wires going across the street, but you do see the transformers and cabinets. It has impacted the schedule for construction although the schedule is now to complete design and go to bid early next year. Cost was always listed as a disadvantage and continues to be a concern. These are just some examples of what some of those transformers will look like. These are pictures of actual transformers in other areas, but some of the size of the transformers because it is a commercial area there will be some that are larger than what you see when you drive down a residential street. This is a simulation that we did at the Cumberland Farms looking at redevelop Main Street looking in towards the City. You can see just to the right of the tree where a transformer was located and the design and what that might look like. An alternative that was considered was what they call an armless pole to go overhead and clustering to try to minimize potentially some of the aesthetics concerns. If they were to do that this is all information that has been presented in the past. An armless pole would eliminate some of the multitude of wires if that was considered would still have poles on potentially both sides of the street possibly just one side of the street. An example where you could see REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1013 that if you wanted to is down along West Avenue in Saratoga Springs where that was implemented a few years ago. An example of what that might look like if it was implemented on Main Street as opposed to the undergrounding of utilities. The next steps are to continue to negotiate the easements. As we said, it appears as though donations are not forth coming for many of the property owners as it was anticipated with respect to giving easements for undergrounding of utilities. The County is moving towards completing the right-a-way acquisitions so the negotiations of these easements would occur at the same time by the same Company R. K. Hite. The final design plans and contract documents are going to be prepared by Clough Harbour, the County Consultant over the winter. The resolution of the lawsuit is still out there it has not been resolved. There are many aspect to that I don’t know if you want to say anything about who pays essentially. ATTORNEY NOORDSY-The issue is who is responsible for the additional cost that results from having to put the utilities underground. National Grid contends that is an unreasonable requirement that they should not have to pay it. The Town contends that it is a reasonable requirement that it should be the responsibility of the utility. The law only requires undergrounding when there is construction like this not if there is no construction project at all. The papers were submitted quite a while ago we have been trying to lightly ask for a decision we do not have one yet that could continue to further levels after an initial decision from the court. It is hard to know how to make decisions when you don’t know whether that aspect is going to be covered by the utility or by the Town. MR. STRAUT-That again just remains a question. Once those things are resolved, the intent is to go to bidding over the winter and begin construction next year. SUPERVISOR STEC-The public hearing is opened I figured that probably the Town Board will have most of the questions because frankly we have been following this the closest certainly we are going to take any comment from the public. Two things that I wanted to throw out just first for you guys while they are fresh in my mind I think I mentioned this to you guys to you two maybe not necessarily the board. A week or two ago I had a meeting on another subject with John Murphy and Bill Flaherty from National Grid they had suggested again the idea of the candlestick. You are right some of the very graphics that you showed in this presentation you have shown many times before. Just to point out we have had numerous public hearings over the last five years on this. I think the reason why we are here having this special public hearing is to talk about the cost I want to follow up with one of those. The board informally throughout the last five years has been asked to consider this reconsider this are you sure you are committed. What is new this time is that we do have in fact different new fresh larger estimates on cost. I was intrigued by their suggestion they did make it clear to me that they felt that if we wanted to candlestick on one side of the street. I know you talked about it that it might be possible they told me that it was possible to go on one side of the street that might not be a bad way to go we are going to take public comment on that we will react to it. The other thing that really jumped off the page at me I have seen these numbers before. The more, I think about it and especially because I think you did in fact say, I am jumping to about the middle of your presentation on the project costs table the second page the Project Cost Continued the very last line where you talk about the May 2002 budget was for the easement acquisitions from property owners. That we are talking about assuming that we were going to be able to get donations much in the same way that the Town has historically gotten donations for water and sewer lines. The idea being that the property benefits from having water and sewer there it is not a true huge encumbrance on a property the benefit outweighs the cost so historically these easements have been given not charged to the Town. Looking at the summary, it says that the underground utilities could go from roughly one point five to roughly four point five. Depending on number one the lawsuit, but number two the second page the biggest change because National Grid change I mean, I wouldn’t stop at a half a million dollars it is going from one million to one point five million. In five years, that might not be complexly unreasonable. I guess, what I am saying is the deal buster that perhaps the Town Board has and maybe or maybe not the public is the fact that hey, we thought that the easements we were probably going to be able to get them for nothing. Now we are finding out that people are expecting to not only have the improvement of REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1014 undergrounding utilities, but also be paid for that improvement to a tune of over one point one million dollars potentially hopefully on the high end. I guess just listening to you present it again looking at that it jumped out to me that of all these things like you said the Verizon estimate I don’t know how it went up by six fold the Cable actually went down a little bit. I don’t think that a fifty percent increase it is like you said the highway part, which thankfully the Town is not on the hook for any of that the County, is five percent and the state and feds have the rest not that it is still not taxpayer money, but it is not local share. I think that deal busting number and what we are looking at for underground utilities is in fact the property acquisition. I want to take public comment I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Dan there is more to it than that. Certainly the nine hundred and twenty thousand that the Town might have to purchase these easements for is nothing that any of us had figured on. I think we are also overlooking the National Grid Tariff Approved. SUPERVISOR STEC-Oh yeah…. COUNCILMAN BOOR-If I could address that. SUPERVISOR STEC-Go ahead. COUNCILMAN BOOR-What people need to understand is yes ultimately it may seem that National Grid is going to foot the bill on this, but make no mistakes rates throughout the Town of Queensbury will go up. We will ultimately pay for it one way or the other so it is a little bit of a game simply winning does not mean we won’t pay for it. Certainly this project has escalated from what was considered reasonable with respect to what the aesthetics benefit would be to what I believe not is not only extremely expensive and high, but uncertain at best that it won’t go higher. I have very serious concerns about moving forward without a court decision. I am going to probably be talking about something later on and I am very disappointed with a lot of courts. This decision was made two years ago and we sit here today trying to make a financial decision with information that is sitting on a Judge’s desk. I don’t think it is fair to the public and I have a real problem with the judiciary when they are not timely in their decisions giving the decisions they have made when they make them. I am really not comfortable with what we are looking at. SUPERVISOR STEC-Whole on a minute let me finish my original thought here. My original loop here was that of all these, but certainly I am also troubled that although it has been litigated and the arguments concluded well over a year ago. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Two years ago. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Two years ago. SUPERVISOR STEC-That certainly it is still sitting on a Judge’s desk. Again, I think not to overlook I think if property owners are going to benefit from having it undergrounded I think that is an area that would need to be explored. Who knows tonight we may say we have had enough we don’t care if the property owners are interested in donating or not, but I am bothered by that. The other thing is the Town, Mark if we win this lawsuit the Town rates wouldn’t be the only rates National Grid would have to cover this from everywhere. What they are proposing to us is subjecting ourselves as a settlement to a tariff where it would only be concentrated in the Town. I just wanted to clarify is that the case Mark? ATTORNEY NOORDSY-That is correct just one point of clarification Roger on what you mentioned. The numbers that you are seeing here there would not be a tariff in addition. What the numbers here that they are seeking are the additional costs that they claim it would cost to go underground. What they admitted to us in a meeting is that this tariff applies going forward only would not apply to the Town they would like to try and settle it based on a tariff. There would not be an additional tariff in this case, but they will try to win the litigation….. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1015 SUPERVISOR STEC-They are proposing that we consider it. COUNCILMAN BOOR-My point being is not necessarily the initial decision that determines what we ultimately pay. ATTORNEY NOORDSY-That is correct and again they have looked to trying to settle it by way of a tariff to recapture those costs by way of that. COUNCILMAN STEC-Those are the points that I wanted to throw out initially. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Let me clarify a couple of numbers okay just so everybody is on the same page. In your original 2002, cost estimates you listed them and I assume that they were total cost. In your recent August 13 outline, you provided aerial undergrounding and that what you call the difference or the betterment. I believe in this number it is the total cost not the betterment. MR. STRAUT-Right. These are the total cost, which you also want to look at in terms of a betterment would be the differential cost between going overhead verses undergrounding that would bring that total cost down by about eight hundred and ninety thousand dollars. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-My understanding correct me if I am wrong was that if we go aerial or we go undergrounding we will still incur a cost. It is just that it is more expensive to go undergrounding than aerial, aerial is not going to be free is that correct? MR. STRAUT-If the utilities were to be reconstructed aerially my understanding is that they would be paid for by the utility companies. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-And then charged back to the people. MR. STRAUT-No. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Then why did you give us this August 13 memo, which shows the betterment difference of rather than the total cost for undergrounding because it is not relevant. MR. STRAUT-There is a total cost there and then there is also the cost for going overhead and the difference of those. COUNCILMAN BOOR-You just said that there isn’t a cost for overhead. MR. STRAUT-It would potentially be relevant if you didn’t win the lawsuit. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Wait a second. If we decided to go aerial, you are saying they are going to pay for the aerial changes. MR. STRAUT-Right. COUNCILMAN BOOR-So where is the betterment? COUNCILMAN SANFORD-So the betterment doesn’t make sense in this situation. If we go undergrounding and lose the case, we are on for the total costing of the underground. MR. STRAUT-Minus the cost it would of cost the utility company to put them in overhead. They would deduct that because they are faced with that cost regardless. COUNCILMAN BOOR-On their part. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I guess you are looking at it from Niagara Mohawk’s point of view. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1016 MR. STRAUT-No that’s not true. I am saying according to their numbers and there is a potential if you were to lose the lawsuit there is that potential risk there it is just information on that potential. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-In your bottom of your project cost you go a hundred percent federal, state, local, for services. I don’t want anybody to think that some grant is covering a hundred percent of that. That number according to my understanding is for some five hundred and seventy five thousand dollars. In terms of the undergrounding service amount will be on for twenty-eight seven fifty or five percent none of this undergrounding piece is covered under some of the other situations that we were dealing with where we got reimbursed some eighty or eighty five percent this is really our nickel as we look at it now is that correct? MR. STRAUT-It is going to be under the highway project. MR. FLETCHER-You are talking about the service connections. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Yes. In other words out of the universe of undergrounding most of them are not link with grants and things of this nature with the exception of the service fee of five seventy five and of that ninety five percent is eligible. MR. FLETCHER-Yes. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I just wanted to make sure my numbers…. SUPERVISOR STEC-There is a five percent local share. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-But only on that amount of money. MR. FLETCHER-There is five percent local share it has been determined that the undergrounding of services is eligible for funding through the highway reconstruction project. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-That is a small part of what we are talking about. Here is what I did….. MR. STRAUT-It is over a half a million dollars. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-First of all I agree with Councilman Boor. My feeling is we need to wait for the decision in order to make an informed decision I am talking about the litigation lawsuit decision if that is at all possible that would be my recommendation. I also think what we really need to do and I know you have probably done this at your end, but maybe the Town needs to also bring Verizon in because as Dan mentioned going from two hundred and twenty as a cost estimate in 2002 to one point two six million in 2007…. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Something is wrong. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-We have to talk to them about that number. I certainly wouldn’t want to make a decision tonight incorporating that kind of a huge spread in a number without having a better level of understanding. Having said that, I just want to emphasize what I emphasized a few weeks when I was talking about this and the importance of this presentation and hearing. The impacts to the taxpayers in the Town are very material for this project extremely material. I was using the smaller number I was using the betterment number of three point one four eight now I am seeing it is four point five. Based on what I came up with is on the three point one four eight that is a dollar twelve per thousand of assessed value in the Town of Queensbury. I think it was a buck thirty-six based on four million. If you look at what people’s properties are appraised and if you use…. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Use a million dollar house. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1017 COUNCILMAN SANFORD-If you use one point five as the impact you can do your own arithmetic people are going to be paying handsomely for what I understand to be a stretch less than a mile long. You have aerial wires leading to it then you go underground for this period of time. You hit Glens Falls and you have aerial wires continuing into Glens Falls. I appreciate the fact if money was not an issue it would be nice to have it underground. In terms of what this cost we are talking about equates to in terms of other things. Is we give out and we are very proud to do it with the sales tax rebate in the magnitude of two million dollars a year. We are wondering about the ability for this Town to continue doing that we hope that we will be able to do it. This pretty well would put a pretty good dent into that that is for darn sure. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-The whole argument could be mute. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I just want to wrap it up. In addition, I drove over there this weekend to look it all over. Councilman Boor was talking to me about this these are particularly deep…. COUNCILMAN BOOR-They are not deep lots. My point being I certainly want to encourage businesses. When I look at the depth of these lots and I consider what additional lanes of that highway will take away from these lots we are not going to be putting Lowe’s, Home Depot in there. We are going to be putting Shoe Repair Shops, Donut Shops. I am not sure that the return in sales tax yes it will be much more attractive, but for the amount of money we will be spending, I don’t think there is a financial return that can justify it. These aren’t deep lots it is not like these businesses can be expanded because of this new wonderful exposure they have it is very attractive as a matter of fact; their parcels will be diminished in size. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Richard did you finish your thoughts? COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Roger has to finish. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I kind of like to finish, but go ahead John. SUPERVISOR STEC-Roger wants to finish then Richard wants to finish then we will get to you that is what that conversation was about. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Go ahead Roger you finish up. COUNCILMAN BOOR-No I am done. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-My only other last comment was also that I have been looking at what I call soft cost here and they are not in your presentation. I don’t think too much maybe in the case of Hite, but B & L soft costs are not really in here. I asked the Accounting Department to do their best to reconstruct the soft costs for the Main Street Project, which is what we are talking about. There are two others there is the Connector Road and there is the Gateway Plaza I am going to leave those out. On Main Street, alone we are talking about two hundred and twenty six thousand dollars that the Town has incurred in engineering costs to your firm. In addition we have had other firms involved for a total for the Main Street about two hundred and fifty thousand. My understanding tonight for you to continue on you are looking for an additional resolution for another seventy five thousand dollars. At our Workshop when I brought it up and discussed it you were honest you said you couldn’t give any representation or guarantee as to that being the end of the road on either your costs estimates for the project or for the soft costs associated with services rendered. I just want to point that out as yet another reason for anxiety and I will now turn it over to John. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I joined on the very beginning in 1998. I was on the Main Street Redevelopment Committee. Through the work of the public and professionals and coordinators like members of the committee, we came up with a Main Street design. That included forty-foot setbacks from the street. It included landscaping requirements. It included parking in the rear that would be interconnected. It included the kind of zoning REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1018 that would mandate commercial development on the first floor and allow mix use development on the upper floors. So, you are going to have kind of a mix use environment similar to what you would see in Glens Falls, Saratoga, etc. When you stand downtown in Glens Falls, it is looking great by the way, and you stand downtown in Saratoga, as I was two weekends ago they are doing a fantastic job of revitalizing their Main Streets, their downtowns, I have to give them a pat on the back they are very pro- active people. Have costs been a concern to them, of course they are, of course, we are going to have to balance the undergrounding utilities after a court decision we will have to see what the reality is. I think most of us here would probably agree that if we had our preferences and the cost was not outrageous we have to agree that grounding the utilities would be the proper way to go. I mean if you looked at Glens Falls or Saratoga can you imagine the same Main Street look with the utilities and the spaghetti wire all around you. You would have to admit that it looks better if you did underground the utilities. Not only that, but because of the limitations of our Main Street Redevelopment the telephone poles are actually going to be very close to the road. I don’t know if that is less than ideal we may have to live with that, but it is less than ideal. We are trying to encourage the private development of plazas along Main Street. Plazas that would turn into people places with landscaping, benches, fountains, art work and encourage people to be there. Of course, it is commercially oriented there will be a commercial incentive for doing that kind of thing. It will be privately paid for but our zoning is going to allow that and encourage that kind of thing. So, down the road if it is done right Main Street could be one of our gold stars. It could be something that we would be very proud of that we did this project right. We have to be careful in making quick decisions. We have to wait until the court decides and then we are going to have to make some tough decisions. If you type in undergrounding utilities go on Google you will see the benefits that other municipalities have gotten because they did bury their utilities. The land values actually increased, of course your advalorumtaxes will bring in more tax revenue by burying the utilities. Just type in undergrounding utilities you will go to places like California where municipalities can mandate it unfortunately New York is not there. We are kind of tangled in to a court case here we will just have to see how it comes out. A lot of work has gone into making this something that I think you and I will be very proud of. We may have to put up with utilities in the air less than ideal I just wanted to give you the boarder picture that is it. SUPERVISOR STEC-Tim do you have anything you want to add I figured I would go down the line. COUNCILMAN BREWER-No go right ahead. I will agree with you John, but I am not going to go through that dissertation. SUPERVISOR STEC-You have been on this board since the beginning and I know you know the history. A lot of this wasn’t new except for the new numbers, which increases the risk. I think John probably put it well in saying that it is balance it is a balance where the financial risk verses the improvement to the community. That is a decision that we will ultimately be faced with. I want to let the public have there comment period is there any members of the public that would like to comment on this public hearing. This is not a mandatory public hearing, but we felt that it was an opportunity to get Barton and Loguidice here because you see the history it is a nine-year-old project that the Town, County, and State have been working on. If you talk to people at DOT as I have, they will tell you this is the most complicated project of its nature that they have seen the guys in the local region here. This is not your simple hey, we are going to repave a mile stretch of road and change the water and sewer lines. This is a complicated project with that comes the cost that we are all talking about that everyone of us is very concerned about. The news that we just got a month ago from Barton & Loguidice as far as where the new estimates are weren’t encouraging. We want to see is there public comment out there we area looking for guidance. Up to this point the public has been more less in favor, however, we have new information maybe people are changing their minds, which is what we want to hear from the public. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Dan I have one question of our Attorney or perhaps one of the gentlemen here. Certainly, everybody on the board would like to have the utilities underground I don’t think that is the issue that is of concern here. One of the things that REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1019 has occurred to me is if we were to move forward under the assumption that we are going to underground. We purchase these easements for nine hundred and twenty thousand dollars and then we lose we wouldn’t of needed to purchase those easements if they were over it is that correct so that would be money forever gone. ATTORNEY NOORDSY-No. If you were to proceed before receiving your court decision as I mentioned earlier when we were talking before the meeting I think you have to do it based on a worst-case scenario. That you were going to lose and that you would not recoup the betterment cost that the Town would be out the full cost of putting in underground utilities. If you acquire those easements, you can still pay for the utilities to be underground. The utilities point or argument is that the Town should be responsible for the difference between overhead and underground. The Town position is that the local law is valid and that the utility should be responsible for it. COUNCILMAN BOOR-And are they including the cost of the easements. ATTORNEY NOORDSY-No. COUNCILMAN BOOR-In other words that is solely our cost regardless of the outcome of the litigation. ATTORNEY NOORDSY-Correct. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay, thank you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Correct. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-A good question… COUNCILMAN BOOR-That is what I wanted to clarify. If we went ahead and purchased those easements in anticipation then once we do that we are pretty much committed. SUPERVISOR STEC-If we change our mind we will spend nine hundred thousand dollars that we didn’t need to spend. COUNCILMAN BOOR-That is my point. SUPERVISOR STEC-I agree. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-It would seem to be it would only make sense that we would have a contract with the landowners saying that should we go to undergrounding then we will pay we will not pay ahead of time. ATTORNEY NOORDSY-That can be done you would pay some fee to R.K. Hite to get that far. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Which is additional, costs. SUPERVISOR STEC-To build off what John just said for Don, Rich, and perhaps most importantly you Mark. That gets me back to my original point that the expectation was that these easements might very well follow suit with all other utility easements that the Town has ever dealt with and that they were donated to the Town. Perhaps the question that we need to be asking property owners is how committed are you to making this work. If you want to be compensated to the tune of nine hundred thousand dollars, guess what you might not have underground utilities. I think that really I am not saying it is the only feedback, but additional feedback would be useful to the board is hey, we thought we were dealing with this. R.K. Hite has been in this business for a long time you have been in this business for a long time. You were surprised that people were saying on one hand the property owner was saying they liked the idea of underground utilities on the other hand they are saying we want to be compensated for these easements. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1020 COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Let me just interrupt you for a second because of the numbers. The nine hundred and twenty some odd thousand dollars includes the costs of the easements, which is in the six hundred and some odd thousand dollar vicinity plus Hite’s fee for going around and doing the administration of all of that. SUPERVISOR STEC-I think it was nine hundred plus six hundred up to one point five. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Let’s clarify it. COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s worse. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Am I right. I think I got it right. COUNCILMAN BOOR-You are going to lose the three hundred. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-My point is if we pass the resolution in front of us tonight and we proceed to do what Mr. Strough just suggested, which is line it up in a contractual sense we may never have to execute that contract, but we are certainly going to have to pay Hite three hundred thousand dollars. COUNCILMAN BOOR-So we are not talking about just seventy five thousand tonight we are talking about three hundred and seventy five thousand. SUPERVISOR STEC-Correct. There is one other question I was going to ask you Mark. What was the Town’s assumption because everyone is talking about hey; well you have this question Mark about this lawsuit out there. Obviously, everyone knows the lawsuit has been a question mark for a long time. Up until now, the assumption has been on a smaller number that we knew was growing with time. The assumption was when we initially made these decisions and informally revalidated them over the last course of five years that we knew that we could lose the lawsuit and actually be prepared to pay the whole nut. We have said that I remember being at Town Board Meetings where that was said. COUNCILMAN BREWER-We knew that going in. SUPERVISOR STEC-Now what we are saying is that somebody just drew us a new picture of the nut, the nut is bigger, and now we are saying that might not be a nut that we want to tackle. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Let’s just open it up to the public. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Let’s open it up to the public. SUPERVISOR STEC-Let me open it up to the public is there anybody that would like to comment on this. JOHN HODGKINS, QUEENSBURY-Just a couple, I guess questions. I guess one of the things it looks like to me is that this is being driven not by the Town Board it is being driven by the County developing the highway the road coming in correct? COUNCILMAN BREWER-Correct. SUPERVISOR STEC-Nine years ago. MR. HODGKINS-That date is coming up next year I believe, is correct. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yes. SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1021 MR. HODGKINS-This is not something we can sit back on, wait, and make some of these decisions. The cost goes up a lot more if you have to dig up their highway. A question I had on here as they were presenting here they were talking about funding. COUNCILMAN BOOR-John just so you know you don’t have to dig up the highway and that’s one of the problem is that the utility easements aren’t under the highway and that’s why we have to purchase these additional easements okay so that’s not an issue. MR. HODGKINS-Okay, right. All the project would make sense to be done at once if we are driving this to put it together. Number two. We are looking at here the cost of this project that we are putting in here look underfunding source maybe somebody can just correct me on this. I heard that there was an eighty, fifteen, five percent for the highway. I also heard for the underground and private utilities it was also going to be an eighty, fifteen, five is that correct or not? SUPERVISOR STEC-That was the discussion we had before that is for about a five hundred and change thousand dollar for the service lines from the main lines to the properties. MR. HODGKINS-From the main lines out okay. SUPERVISOR STEC-That is eligible for a state and local match, right not the rest not the betterments we have been talking about. MR. HODGKINS-Looking at that it makes a better understanding what is coming up here. Looking at the last of what we are looking at here, I think it is a point again this is being driven by a short time period. I think if you are looking at another year the Town has basically, I think decided they wanted to do something to improve that area. That was a long time ago we are looking at our development of projects around the Town. I think that is a done deal what we are going to do and I agree with it. The next phase is to get the people the stakeholders that are in here. Are they willing to put in I think it is an immediate thing you have to look in. The question comes up do we want to have underground utilities, do you want to have overhead utilities. If you want to have those then those people that are involved that are going to benefit from this need to be looking at it and need to be coming up to this table right now saying we want it we are willing to put up and work from there. SUPERVISOR STEC-Not to interrupt and I apologize. That nine hundred thousand dollars potential animal out there that is the acquisitions costs if that goes away that may pull these numbers away from the brink of being unreasonable or outrageous back into being marginally acceptable. MR. HODGKINS-I guess my big point this is being driven in a time frame now. We have to make these decisions we have to move on if we go on five more years we are going to have costs that are five times the size. COUNCILMAN BREWER-And it is never going to get done. MR. HODGKINS-And it is never going to get done and it looks like we have something good to drive us. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-The other thing and you are right John by saying that the right time to do it would be all at once. When you are doing the road, lighting, sidewalks you are doing everything that makes to much sense John. The other way that we can do this is phase it in. If we make a law saying that all private, developers as they go along have to put at their expense the laterals in. First of all, so we make Niagara Mohawk put in the nicer looking poles. Then as this redevelops, we have the private developers pay for undergrounding the laterals that will happen over the years. Then as they develop, we can also write into our code that certain amount of their forty-foot setback that an easement would be provided for the potential future burial of these utilities. Years down the road, we could eventually get there, but it is going to take years. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1022 COUNCILMAN BOOR-We would have to change our local law that is not in line with the local law though. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I am saying you could. COUNCILMAN BOOR-We would have to change the local law it would weaken our case with National Grid. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-This would be private developer. MR. HODGKINS-I don’t think one thing we should do on this project is to wait for legal decisions to be made. Legal, I don’t think is ever the way to count on somebody, excuse me, pardon me. ATTORNEY NOORDSY-I would not encourage expecting anything real soon it will continue on. MR. HODGKINS-To move forward every time we get involved in a legal suit is costing more and more money something we should avoid as a Town. My whole thing is your time frame is going let’s move ahead let’s make some decisions based on there is a driving force here. SUPERVISOR STEC-Is there anyone else that would like to comment on this public hearing. BETTY MONAHAN, QUEENSBURY, SUNNYSIDE-My question has to do with safety and convenience. I know what our windstorms, snowstorms, lightning, etc., do to our overhead lights believe me I know so my question is what can affect the underground utilities. SUPERVISOR STEC-In answer to your question if you are looking for an answer in addition to aesthetics the argument that the Town made a few years ago when we created this local law was predominately safety and aesthetics and economic development the value here. Certainly, I think you can argue that they would be a lot more safe than overhead. There are statistics we talked about the Town Board we talked about them there is less down time. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-There is less down time fewer electrical interruptions. SUPERVISOR STEC-Right so it is more reliable. The downside is that when you do need to actually get into the gear it is more expensive to get into the gear underground, but you have to go in less frequently than you do to mess around with overhead equipment. MRS. MONAHAN-Plus the fact you have the safety of the poles not being there for the cars etc. SUPERVISOR STEC-Exactly that was a big factor when we started down this path. MRS. MONAHAN-I think that has to weigh heavily on how you look at this sometimes cost isn’t the only thing that is the most important thing. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-The other thing too is National Grid if they have a certain amount of down time then they are suppose to make then if that exceeds a certain amount then they are suppose to make an investment into the system to upgrade it so that the future down times will be less they are at that point. They are suppose to make investments into their infrastructure to reduce down time why not right here. MRS. MONAHAN-Agree. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to comment on this public hearing? REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1023 DON DANIELS-I own four different buildings our there in West Glens Falls on Main Street. Over the course of the summer, I have been dealing with Hite and they have been coercing me, coercing all the property owners out there, and threatening all of them if you don’t sign these papers, eminent domain is going to take your property away. My properties are all on the north side of the road where I was told about three feet would be taken across the front, which eliminates twenty of my vehicles that could park there. One of my buildings won’t even have an entrance it will be completely cut off; it will not have an entrance. I had these gentlemen over here were there and visited with me people from the County where there. They said there is no way they can give me an entrance in one of my buildings so only two of my buildings will have a driveway. People on the south side I believe they are taking five feet. Now, Roger you made a comment about the depth of the properties. Certainly, Mr. Strough you said about putting up plazas no plazas are going to be put up in a hundred foot depth of property. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-The thinking is they are going to buy the property in back of the project. MR. DANIELS-Yes, I am the guy I wish that I would own some of those properties behind the front properties because the values will increase they are paying practically nothing. I am a Real Estate Broker; I have had a license for forty years I have my own office in Glens Falls. I asked the gentlemen from Hite for comparables of where he comes up with these low figures that he is giving of the pennies he is going to pay per square foot. A month later he sent me, some comparables one was on Bay Road down here a piece of swampland that is up by I think where one of Richie Schermerhorn’s buildings is. I think when I went there and tried to sight it out it is the big hole that he dug for the water retentions I think that is one of the comparables he gave me. Another one was in South Glens Falls on Route 9, Moreau just bare land. I was told that the buildings didn’t make any difference even though they are taking the front of the property the buildings have no bearing on it because there is federal money in it they only go by the amount of land that you have. We are talking about the underground easements. I was told that they are only going to buy what they need for the sidewalks. The underground easements they are going to come back afterwards and take three to five feet on each side of the road. If that is going to be the case then they are not going to pay anybody for it they are just going to take it I am sure that is a concern to everybody. Everybody is getting a different deal I don’t know where there is a list of who is getting what, but you have already run into some of them. I don’t know Mr. Brewer you didn’t make too many comments that is your district out there. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I have not heard any prices of what any person has been offered or has gotten. MR. DANIELS-You should go and knock on some of the people’s doors they will bring you to tears some of the shenanigans that are being pulled. COUNCILMAN BREWER-This is the first I heard of them Don I have not heard this at all from anybody. MR. DANIELS-I have been dealing with them this summer. Some of these people on the south side of the road where they are going to take five feet they are almost going to be right up because we already own ten or twelve feet of the grass, that was already owned by the County. If they take another five feet, they are going to be up to some people’s porches, and steps. Then if they need another three to five feet, they are going to have to cut their porch off to do it so those are some of my comments anyway. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you, Mr. Daniels. Anybody else like to comment on this public hearing tonight. JOHN SALVADOR-Good evening, my name is John Salvador. I always thought underground utilities was a great idea. I took a lot of effort in my days to accomplish that on property that I managed. When you had the public hearing on these corridors, these transportation corridors and you were talking about the requirement for underground REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1024 utilities I asked one simple question who pays that didn’t seem to be a big concern then now you are faced with it. In any case, I have a couple of questions I would like to ask. The page entitled Main Street History Continued the last item says National Grid Tariff Approved July 2007 what does that amount to what is this all about? SUPERVISOR STEC-The answer to that John is that on heals of the Town Local Law and the submission of National Grid’s Lawsuit against the Town, National Grid went after that and sought from the Public Service Commission the Tariff that would apply going forward to other municipalities. The Town of Queensbury in our Local Law is exempt from that, but that was recently approved going forward. If there is another community in the State that says, hey we want underground utilities on our Main Street and we want National Grid to pay for it that they got a tariff situation that is set up that’s been approved with the Public Service Commission we predate theirs so we are not subject to it. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Going to reconstruction three-lane section. What are the boundaries of the County owned right-a-way? SUPERVISOR STEC-The County is also using R.K. Hite. I know Mr. Daniels mentioned before that they have been out there. They have been out there also talking about the utilities, but separately for the County. R.K. Hite is also being used to acquire property for the County’s right-a-way for the purpose of the highway. That is a different easement than the underground utility easement that we were talking about they are securing them. It is my understanding they are more or less finished or very close to being finished acquiring those easement so same company, but different easements. ATTORNEY NOORDSY-They are actually acquiring the title to the portion that is for the widening as opposed to an easement for the utilities. SUPERVISOR STEC-I am sorry they are actually getting title to widen the road. MR. SALVADOR-There is an important difference. SUPERVISOR STEC-I apologize that is right, title. MR. SALVADOR-Again what are the boundaries I can’t tell from this cross section. SUPERVISOR STEC-It varies from property to property. MR. SALVADOR-No. SUPERVISOR STEC-Perhaps we will ask Barton & Loguidice to answer that question when you are finished. MR. SALVADOR-This is a typical cross section of road. SUPERVISOR STEC-Right. MR. SALVADOR-An easement for highway runs this way it doesn’t go in and out depending on the property. Are the lampposts on the County proposed ownership, the lamppost, the sidewalk? SUPERVISOR STEC-I think Don is going to jump in next to you and answer a couple of those. MR. FLETCHER-The pedestrian scale lightening and the sidewalks are shown within the road right-a-way, right here. COUNCILMAN BREWER-How wide is that is that your question John. MR. FLETCHER-You want to know where the right-a-way lines and the cross section they are essentially on I will call it the parcel side of the sidewalk. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1025 COUNCILMAN BREWER-And how wide is that. MR. SALVADOR-Next question how wide is that. MR. FLETCHER-The whole thing. MR. SALVADOR-Yeah. MR. FLETCHER-That, I don’t know off the top of my head. COUNCILMAN BREWER-About within. MR. SALVADOR-What’s the roadway. MR. FLETCHER-That’s what I am doing. MR. SALVADOR-All you have to do is add. MR. FLETCHER-That’s what I am doing I was going to say it is probably sixty feet wide. MR. SALVADOR-Sixty feet. The purpose of the county acquiring land by eminent domain or otherwise the purpose for that is to provide for not only the roadway, but the associated utilities including sidewalks, everything, gas lines. SUPERVISOR STEC-Sidewalks and sewer will be within the County’s… MR. SALVADOR-Why can’t we find a way to put the power, cable, telephone within those boundaries. SUPERVISOR STEC-Don do you have an answer for that. Why don’t we put them in the middle of the street? COUNCILMAN BOOR-I suggested this earlier John at a previous workshop. Typically in California it is done is vaults they can be right in the center of the street. If you think these numbers were high, you should have seen the numbers for that they wanted like five hundred thousand dollars a vault or something. SUPERVISOR STEC-It was crazy money. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I mean man I want that job I’ve got to tell you. SUPERVISOR STEC-It was a lot more money. MR. SALVADOR-It doesn’t have to be that okay. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I know it doesn’t. MR. SALVADOR-Why can’t these lines be put in conduit. COUNCILMAN BOOR-They are. MR. FLETCHER-We have had many discussions with them about the location. One of the things we talked many meetings on was sliding all the private utilities in within the right-a-way talking about just what we did they said per their standards they do not do that. MR. SALVADOR-Whose standards? MR. FLETCHER-National Grid. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1026 MR. SALVADOR-Maybe we need new standards. COUNCILMAN BREWER-We can’t dictate their standards John. SUPERVISOR STEC-We are having a hard time resolving whether or not they have to underground a one-mile stretch in Queensbury that’s another lawsuit. MR. SALVADOR-It’s no wondering you can’t fit this in you don’t have a specification for it. Is there any good reason why all of these electrical utilities can’t be run right down the center of that third lane? COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s what I suggested that is exactly what I suggested. MR. SALVADOR-What is the cost. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Five hundred thousand dollars a vault. MR. SALVADOR-No, no, no. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I am telling you it was an incredible amount of money. SUPERVISOR STEC-It wasn’t percentages more it was multiples more. It has been a while, but it was…. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-John you are trying to make some sense here you know dealing with National Grid; the two don’t mix together well. COUNCILMAN BREWER-They don’t want to do it John that is why they are threatening us with the costs. COUNCILMAN BOOR-They are not threatening they are. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Of being so much they don’t want to do it because it is going to set a precedent for not only here for everywhere around the northeast and they do not want to do that. SUPERVISOR STEC-Not that I want to talk about the litigation too much I don’t want to weaken, but the thing is it has been difficult. MR. SALVADOR-If these are insurmountable problems then you have an ill-conceived project you ought to fold your tent, but underground utilities is a fantastic way to go. SUPERVISOR STEC-Is there anyone else that would like to comment on this public hearing. Seeing none, I had a brief… over here if there are no objections from the other side of the board, I for one I am bothered, as I know Richard and Roger are and the whole board about that. …..Don and Rich that…of six from Verizon. I think what we like to do is to close this public hearing we would like some additional information. For starters, we would like to get some sort of resolution if it means getting Verizon to the table or at least having Verizon meet with our Attorney we would like to get some better justification on those numbers. COUNCILMAN BOOR-And also we have to come up with the realization that maybe we are not willing to pay nine hundred and twenty thousand dollars to people whose properties are going to be improved let’s close this. ATTORNEY NOORDSY-Can I suggest that you adjourn it rather than close it. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I make a recommendation that we adjourn this do we need a second. SUPERVISOR STEC-We are done with the public hearing I don’t think that we want to take action tonight on this. I think we want some additional information one is the REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1027 Verizon and I had two more one of which Roger just touched on. That I would like to communicate something to the property owners hey, you know this is a showstopper here if we don’t get some cooperation on these easements. The third thing that I would like to mention I led with it is that I was intrigued as an alternative the devil may very well be in the details it may be an attractive alternative to National Grid to work with the Town on. I would like to get some more information maybe some costs estimates maybe something firm from National Grid about candle sticking. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I like that, too. SUPERVISOR STEC-Those are the three things. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Here is another thing why don’t we get Senator Little and Assemblywoman Sayward to help us out. This is the introduction to Queensbury and it is the introduction to Glens Falls. You have two communities being introduced we want to do it nicely and right. We want to see economic development both of us this helps everybody. SUPERVISOR STEC-I am not going to argue with that either. I would add that as a fourth. I am not saying I am looking at you Don I am not saying that all four of those fall on your shoulders those are the four items that I think…. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I like to talk to R.K. Hite again. ATTORNEY NOORDSY-My suggestion on the adjournment rather than the closing is if you wanted to receive that information as part of your public hearing. SUPERVISOR STEC-Just say to adjourn it or do we need a motion or a second. ATTORNEY NOORDSY-I would adopt a resolution to adjourn it. My point is if you want to receive that additional information as part of your public hearing that is why I would adjourn rather than close. COUNCILMAN BOOR-We didn’t need to do this to begin. SUPERVISOR STEC-You are saying leave it open that is the terminology you haven’t been here. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Either way it is the same thing Dan. SUPERVISOR STEC-I just wanted to verify. Historically I would say adjourn I would say leave it open. We will carry this public hearing open you are saying adjourn that’s the same thing. ATTORNEY NOORDSY-Yes, leave it open is probably a better way to phrase it. SUPERVISOR STEC-Don’t say that because I am sitting here you are the Attorney you can say whatever you want. ATTORNEY NOORDSY-The point being is that you are going to receive more public comment. SUPERVISOR STEC-I would like to include that as part of the public hearing. If there is, anybody watching that wants to provide us written comment or whatever so we will leave this public hearing open, we will close it at a later date. We may or may not actually take more verbal comment at a later date perhaps we will I don’t think we are going to leave this open very long. ATTORNEY NOORDSY-I think if you were going to take more public comment in this fashion, it would be good to notice that again and publish that. SUPERVISOR STEC-Understood. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1028 NO ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARING TO REMAIN OPEN 2.0HEARINGS HEARING – BASKET BARN OF LAKE GEORGE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE/WAIVER REQUEST FROM SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION REQUIREMENT SET FORTH IN TOWN CODE CHAPTER 136-SEWERS AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL APPLICANT PAULINE WILSON OPENED SUPERVISOR STEC-We have had several of these before. The folks are not going to be connecting this is a waiver from making that physical connection. However, financially they are treated; as though they are still part of the district tied in, there is no financial disadvantage to the district it is for convenience for the property owner. Is the applicant here that would like to comment on this? You don’t have too, but certainly I think it is going to be easy you are here you waited for us I appreciate it. If you want us, just again state your name and address for the record. Did I say anything that was wrong you just want to tie in at a later date? PAULINE WILSON, PUTNEY VERMONT-I am putting the property on the market it is vacant. Actually, there is somebody in there just for a couple of weeks after the Halloween season it is vacant. SUPERVISOR STEC-Does anybody have any questions for the applicant. Hearing none, I will close this hearing and entertain a motion. HEARING CLOSED APPROVING RESOLUTION BASKET BARN OF LAKE GEORGE’S APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE/WAIVER REQUEST FROM SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION REQUIREMENT SET FORTH IN TOWN CODE CHAPTER 136 – SEWERS AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL RESOLUTION NO.: 416, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board is authorized by Town Code Chapter 136 § to issue variances from 136-44 “Connection to sewers required” which requires Town property owners situated within a sewer district and located within 250’ of a public sanitary sewer of the sewer district to connect to the public sewer facilities within one (1) year from the date of notice, and WHEREAS, Basket Barn of Lake George (Applicant) applied to the Town Board § for a second variance/waiver from Town Code 136-44 for a second extension of the REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1029 Town’s connection requirements to connect its property located at 1457 State Route 9 to the Town of Queensbury’s Route 9 Sewer District as the Applicant states that the building is not in use and will be on the market to sell, and the property’s current septic system is functioning properly, as more fully set forth in the Applicant’s application, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk’s Office mailed a Notice of Hearing to the Applicant and the Town Board conducted a hearing concerning the variance/waiver request on th September 24, 2007, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a) due to the nature of the variance/waiver request, the Queensbury Town Board would not determines that the temporary granting of the variance/waiver be materially detrimental to the purposes and objectives of Queensbury Town Code Chapter 136 and/or adjoining properties or otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of any plan or policy of the Town of Queensbury; and is b) the Town Board finds that the granting of the variance/waiver reasonable and would alleviate unnecessary hardship on the applicant; and BE IT FURTHER, approves RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby Basket Barn of Lake George’s application for a variance/waiver from Queensbury Town Code Chapter 136, § grants 136-44 “Connection to sewers required” and hereby Basket Barn of Lake George a th one-year extension of time or until September 24, 2008 in which to connect its property located at 1457 State Route 9, Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 288.-1-57) to the Town of provided that if there is any change in property Queensbury’s Route 9 Sewer District, use, increase in septic use or additional bathroom facilities added, then such variance shall immediately terminate unless the Queensbury Town Board review and approves a new application for a variance/waiver, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that Basket Barn of Lake George shall pay all charges due as if its property was connected to the Route 9 Sewer District, and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1030 RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes the Town Supervisor, Wastewater Director and/or Town Fiscal Manager to take any actions necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2007 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT:None 3.0 CORRESPONDENCE DEPUTY TOWN CLERK, O’BRIEN-Supervisor’s Monthly Report for Community Development for August 2007 on file in the Town Clerk’s Office. The Town Supervisor turned over to the Town Clerk and Town Board Members on September 17, 2007 the Tentative Budget. rd SUPERVISOR STEC-Workshops to be held regarding budget for October 3, and th October 10, 2007, at 6:30 p.m., Preliminary Budget for October 15, 2007. 4.0 INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS FROM THE FLOOR COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Requested a Resolution Establishing Date, Time and Place for a roundtable discussion for a Workshop Meeting to discuss Shoreline Critical Environmental Areas Concerns and Language that might serve as a model for lakeside community. On October 9, 2007 would like to hold a meeting with Members of the Lake George Association, Members of the Fund for Lake George, people from the Darien Institute and other interested parties. After further discussion, the board agreed to notice the meeting in the paper for October 9, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Queensbury Activity Center a meeting with the Planning Board, Zoning Board, and Town Board Members among other members involved in lakeside issues to discuss critical environmental areas issues. 5.0 PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR JOHN SALVADOR-Spoke to the board regarding a letter that was addressed to the Town Board requesting that his request for a zoning change that is two years old be reinstated noting he has not received an answer yet. SUPERVISOR STEC-Part A of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is completed noting they are in the middle of budget season we have the Zoning Ordinance to wrap up. Believes the intention was to try to wrap up the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code before we consider any of these. The time line that we are on right now it may be December or January before we adopt a Zoning Code. MR. SALVADOR-Noted that with the Comprehensive Plan there are no changes recommended in these two zones. SUPERVISOR STEC- Does not think the new Comprehensive Plan is tremendously different from the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. MR. SALVADOR-Spoke to the board noting there have been a number of unorthodox events happening at the Planning and Zoning Board Meetings. Asked how can the Planning Board Members who will eventually rule and vote on a site plan approval how can they rule on that if they participate in a review of the project. COUNCILMAN BREWER-It is like a sketch plan they can have a discussion. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1031 MR. SALVADOR-Have the applicant submit the application. SENIOR PLANNER, MR. BAKER-The application was submitted it is available for review. MR. SALVADOR-Spoke to the board regarding a letter he received in the mail from Mr. Ralph Macchio noting he has a couple of concerns. Is prepared to answer some of the issues that they bring up needs to know what is at the bottom of this, asked if the Councilman can add anything. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I would be more than happy to address that issue. Actually, I prepared a little something for Town Board discussion, but since you brought it up, I am going to take the time now because it is incredibly important. I think when anybody from outside the area who isn’t registered to vote in Queensbury or Warren County tries to affect the election primary I think it is a sad day. What, I am going to do John I am going to give you a chronically of the facts. I have substantiation; I have documentation that I can show you right now that will repute everything that Mr. Macchio has claimed. So, what I would say as while still acting Warren County Republication Committee Chairman, Michael O’Connor brought before the Queensbury Planning Board in the spring of 2006 an application for a road up French Mountain. He was representing Ralph Macchio and several of his LLC’s. The problem facing the Planning Board relative to this application was threefold. 1. The road was already constructed to a large degree so imagine how the Planning Board felt when they were to look and review the contemplation of a road to be built only to find out that it is already constructed. 2. There were and still are ongoing lawsuits disputing land over which this road was constructed. Now, the Planning Board is supposed to make a ruling and yet they don’t even know who owns the property upon which this road was constructed. 3. In order to do a non-segmented SEQRA Review the Town would have to get the Town of Lake George to sign off on any environmental review it might contemplate. The issue here that is problematic is that the time this application came to the Planning Board the same law firm represented Lake George and Queensbury so the fiduciary responsibility of the Attorney would be compromised this presented a conflict. The Town Board was asked at this point and time to find an Attorney that was conflicted. This is the first of three instances where the Town Board were involved in this whole thing. I can say personally, I called about five or six law firms in the Town of Queensbury and all of them had had dealings with either the Stranahan’s, the Spellburg’s, or the Macchio’s, and some others who were involved in some cases. One of the Attorney’s that I talked to who was very good in environmental disputes recommended the law firm of Dreyer and Boyajian out of Albany I called them and they did end up taking the case. The Zoning Administrator for the Town of Queensbury issued a stopped work order and worked with our Attorney from Dreyer Boyajian on issues that needed to be addressed amounting to some nineteen potential violations that occurred on the mountain. If we jump forward in time and look at statements from Behan Communications and Mr. Macchio, I think you are going to see some glaring contradictions of fact. 1. Mr. Macchio claims he has never been sued or sued anyone. Relative to that that statement was made on June 5, 2007 it says right here and it was signed by Behan Communications. We have never sued anyone nor been sued. Now, what is interesting about that is on January 31, of this year Mr. Macchio was involved with a lawsuit with the Town of Queensbury. He was involved with a lawsuit with Stranahan Industries. He was involved with a lawsuit Scott Spellburg. What, I am holding here is a 1990 lawsuit Macchio verses the Planning Board, Town of East Hampton interesting very similar things have taken place here. We are talking about development on slopes that were twenty percent it is very similar to what the Town of Queensbury is facing. We see that in fact he wasn’t telling the truth with regards to having never been sued or sued anybody. 2. Mr. Macchio said the board has been unwilling to meet and try to settle without going to court. Within a month of filing, the suit the Town offered in fact to meet with Mr. Macchio, his Attorney, and the Attorney’s representing Stranahan Industries also named in the Town’s lawsuit as it was unclear who owned the properties where the violations occurred. This wasn’t a vendetta against Mr. Macchio some personal thing the Town wanted corrections made where violations occurred. This was the second involvement that the Town had to corroborate that in fact this took place because clearly Behan Communications and Mr. Macchio challenge everything. I have here a bill from our Attorney Dreyer Boyajian on 11/7/06 telephone REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1032 call to John Hardwick regarding settlement meeting. Now, Mr. Hardwick is the Attorney that represents Stranahan Industries. On 11/9/06 telephone call with Dan Hertaw, regarding settlement meeting that is the new Attorney or one of the new Attorney’s for Mr. Macchio. Now, we turn over to this page. On 11/21/06 settlement meeting with defendants, okay we had this meeting with them and interestingly enough Stranahan Industries agreed to everything we asked. We made a very generous offer to have this thing go away Mr. Macchio said I will see you in court. Mr. Macchio has stated repeatedly to the press and the public that the road was constructed by a previous owner. MR. SALVADOR-May, I just interrupt a minute. I have here a list of the applications and the approvals that Mr. Macchio obtained from the Town of Lake George. The first one is a 2005 site plan review approval to timber harvest and construct an access road. May, I just read one sentence. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Absolutely. While you are doing that, I am going to move the easel because I think there are some interesting pictures the public would like to see. MR. SALVADOR-The second is a 2006 site plan review to continue the use of a preexisting gravel pit on the Wild West property. SUPERVISOR STEC-In Lake George. MR. SALVADOR-In Lake George. Mr. Macchio has represented before the Lake George Town Planning Board by Mr. Michael O’Connor. Mr. O’Connor states as follows. Attorney O’Connor stated that this application is to legitimized two preexisting sand pits. I would read into that they were in some kind of violation. SUPERVISOR STEC-John you know what let me interrupt you here. You five minutes is up. 2. I am really not interested in the Town of Lake George issues this is an issue for Lou Tessier. I understand what you are doing there is a seg way here and Roger is going to go through his stick here that is fine. You want to talk about something that is going on in the Town of Lake George go see Lou Tessier. MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Stec I came here tonight. COUNCILMAN BOOR-John let me finish and then you can come back up. MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Stec I came here tonight because I received a letter in the mail from Mr. Macchio. SUPERVISOR STEC-You made that clear. MR. SALVADOR-I am concern about the misrepresentation in this letter. SUPERVISOR STEC-Correct, you made that clear. Thank you. COUNCILMAN BREWER-That letter is not from the Town Board it is not Town Board business. SUPERVISOR STEC-That has to do with an issue in the Town of Lake George. MR. SALVADOR-The point…. SUPERVISOR STEC-John your time is up sit in your seat your time is up. MR. SALVADOR-He is on my time. SUPERVISOR STEC-Your time is up the bell went off Roger is going to finish what he is talking about. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Mr. Macchio has stated repeatedly to the press and the public that the road was constructed by previous owners what, I would like to do now is show a REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1033 couple pictures of the road. (Presented pictures) This is an aerial view of what he is calling a logging road. Here is another aerial view of the logging road and now I think it gives the representation of the size of this logging road, I would like to show you some close-up. Here is part of the construction of the logging road. Here is a piece of apparatus with an eight foot blade on it so you can see that this road is at least thirty feet wide right there very typical of this road. Here is where Mr. Macchio crossed the Spellburg’s property and built a highway on Mr. Spellburg’s property how did he remedy it he put a bunch of boulders across the road so nobody could go on it anymore. You can see the amount of excavation that is done here. The storm water management that I doubt very seriously DEC signed off on. Here is another picture of the logging road. COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Is that all gravel on there. COUNCILMAN BOOR-That is all blue gravel all blue stone. Here it is again nice job on the…station. If you think DEC, signs off on that kind of logging you are sorely mistaken. Here is another narrow shot of the road a logging road. Another shot of the logging road. Now, we are looking at where Mr. Macchio drained Bear Pond two feet, went in and cut down the wetlands that were designed. We have pictures of a….net that was cut down you can see where these are fresh cuts; you can see where he tried to burn the debris. This was all standing timber in water an incredible amount of waterfowl and wildlife habitat was destroyed. This used to be pond here it has now drained you can see where he is getting ready to burn another pile of wood here. Here is his logging road as it goes along where he cleared this is what he calls a nice logging job. There is part of his road here is another picture of his logging road. Here is the erosion control Mr. Macchio feels that is appropriate. I can guarantee DEC does not sign off on that kind of road and there is another shot of the road. I think those pictures say a lot, but I think this is going to say more. As, I stated earlier Mr. Macchio had said that the road was constructed by a previous owner. I hold here one of the invoices from a company known as Evergreen Timber Corporation it is in the amount of two hundred and twenty three thousand dollars let, me read the accompanying letter that was with this invoice. It is dated from Evergreen Timber Corporation dated May 12, 2006. To, Mr. Ralph Macchio, 1727 Veterans Memorial Highway, Suite 400, Islandia, New York 11749 Mr. Macchio: In regards to your letter dated April 28, 2006, I think you have a misunderstanding about our agreement. The contract stated purchaser will construct a four-wheel drive road from materials readily available on site if practical. However, as time went on you wanted the road improved to a far more extensive and usable roadway that is now useable to all vehicles most of the year. Materials to improve the road to this extent include fabric, pipe, rubble, along with renting equipment and man-hours it is very costly. Not to mention the cost to make the road in compliance with DEC for storm water runoff all this was paid out of my pocket. At times, you asked me if I needed money and I told you we would settle up in the end therefore, you must have recognized the cost to build this road. It is not feasible that I could construct a road of this magnitude to the top of French Mountain for the amount of money realized from the timber value. I am not going to read the last sentence because it has an individual’s name who I think may be filing an additional lawsuit; I don’t think it would be fair to do that without having his consent. Clearly, this is a receipt for Mr. Macchio building this road it is just undeniable. Mr. Macchio says, repeatedly has no development plans okay, let’s look at one of the issues that is involved in the Stranahan’s Industries lawsuit. That is the deed, it is the conveyance, and in it, now this is what Mr. Macchio is saying as a logging road. It says, access easement to include, but not limited to lumbering equipment, construction equipment, and heavy trucking. The above conveyance is subject to the following covenants and conditions. The easements shall be used for ingress and egress to lands of the parties of the second that would be Mr. Macchio. For the construction and laying of utilities from Bay Road to lands of the party of the second so he wants utilities for his logging road, okay. Let us look at this I think this might be of interest also. I apologize for the quality of this it is a reproduction of something that is evidence in another case. I think it is a clear indication of what we are talking about right here is French Mountain it says forty six hundred linear feet of road, thirty four lots, one point two acres to three acres and it says recreation community here you can see the thirty four lots. You go over here this line points right up to this slash right here what does it say here it says public recreation area tents, pools, horses, etc, and possibly sanitary sewage plant. Here is Bear Pond where I showed you all the clear-cutting that occurred let’s look what it says about REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1034 Bear Pond. It says start of trail system for pond area and recreation center with docks, boats, lean twos and cabins for homeowners association. At some point, I don’t know what it takes to get this public awakened to what is going on here. I am sick and tired of Behan Communications misrepresenting fact. Yes, they are paid handsomely and they do a wonderful job, but you the public are suffering when they do what they have been doing in this instance. For Mr. Macchio to continue and maintain that he is just building a logging road is absurd. 5. Mr. Macchio claimed that I trespassed this is not true and I have a letter here from Craig Brown I will read. You asked whether or not I had any recollection of a site visit to the Macchio-Stranahan site with you last summer. I do have a recollection and that is this. We went to the site to drive the road from Bay Road and Stranahan’s side. We met with Mr. Macchio and he provided us access through the lock gate on that occasion. 6. You will also see from the pictures well you have seen the pictures of the endangered species and habitat. Lastly, the last involvement the third time this Town Board was involved was what Mr. Macchio refers to as the setup that we set him up imagine that. That was well publicized most recently in the paper it was clearly only done so that he could write the letter that you are referencing make it appear that the Town wasn’t working with him. I would encourage as I have written in the paper people need to go on line they need to read the 8/27/07 minutes of that meeting. Councilman Sanford and I were courteous, we were respectful everything that has been said and written about that meeting is false just like everything else I pointed out here. If the public is going to buy this kind of stuff there is not much I can do as a Councilman to help you out. If you are watching this on TV tell your neighbors I will supply pictures, I will give this documentation to anybody that wants it. I am not going to sit back and let Behan Communications and Mr. Macchio ruin this community and set the kind of precedent that money can buy anything in this Town its got to stop here and its got to stop now. This is a watershed event because if he succeeds in what he is doing up there you can just kiss everything goodbye. MR. SALVADOR-Understand. I just like to wrap up a couple of my comments. SUPERVISOR STEC-John you have been twenty minutes so far. MR. SALVADOR-I will wrap it up. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you. MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Macchio is concerned and led me to believe that he was being forced to close his business because of everything that is going on. I did a little research in that regard and I can substantiate that he had a plan to close that business a long time before this Town got involved. I have here the advertising brochures. COUNCILMAN BREWER-John this isn’t the time or place for that it really isn’t. SUPERVISOR STEC-John your five minutes expired. MR. SALVADOR-May, I. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Tell him no Dan. MR. SALVADOR-I have here the advertising brochures from 2005, 2006, and 2007. In 2005, they advertised, 2006 they did not advertised. There is no evidence that they obtained their liquor license. There is no evidence that they made application to the New York State Health Department to operate a restaurant. These are activities that have to be done well in advance of a decision to close a business. Who in their right mind would close a business just before the giant cash flow benefit of a seasonal business it doesn’t make any sense at all I will answer Mr. Macchiio’s letter. JOHN STRANAHAN-Lifelong citizen of the Town and a taxpayer in this Town, I am not a politician I never addressed this board before, but feel compelled to do so now. I think just about the entire North Country is aware of the Macchio scandal. To tell you the truth I am sick and tired of hearing about it. Sick and tired of lies and his public communication company. Sick and tired of the poor Macchio’s and the Karate Kid REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1035 Story. I want to know what action is being taken to protect us the citizens, the locals, like Roger is talking about. SUPERVISOR STEC-We are in a lawsuit. MR. STRANAHAN-There is we are party to that lawsuit. SUPERVISOR STEC-That is what I am saying you asked a question I was telling you that we are engaged in litigation. MR. STRANAHAN-Correct. What are we going to do about the violations on that mountain? I know other people I am not going to bring any names and slander anybody else or get anybody involved in it. I know that people have been fined and disciplinary actions brought down on them so far I have seen nothing happen to the Macchio’s, nothing for two years the man has done anything he has wanted to. He has walked all over this Town. He has walked all over the people. He has walked all over the voters. He has bought his way to build a highway from Bay Road to Route 9 just like he told me to my face that he would do. We have been threatened we have been threatened to be thrown off our property to be run out of business what is the Town doing about it. COUNCILMAN BREWER-You know exactly what we are doing about it we are in litigation with it we are not going to discuss here tonight. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-That is why Roger Boor deserves the credit because he is doing something about it. MR. STRANAHAN-Absolutely, my hats off to Roger. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-He is not sitting aside. MR. STRANAHAN-For having a backbone and for standing up for it. I grew up on French Mountain. I hiked that mountain, fished on that mountain in Bear Pond; four wheeled up there have hunted up there my entire life. What has happened on that mountain is flat out disgusting nothing but disgusting. This is a hundred foot wide Northway from Bay Road to Route 9; I am sick and tired of it being called a logging road. I have log, I log for a living my entire family everybody in this Town knows that. We run a great business we have a good reputation we do good work I have never seen a hundred foot wide logging road with blue stone on it with a power easement in my life, ever. I have logged that property myself that same exact property it didn’t need to be logged when he logged it there was no timber left on it to log that is why there is no value to pay for the road that Mr. Barber writes about in his letter from Evergreen Timber. There was no logging to be done on that road this is a joke this is a flat out joke. He illegally butchered and cutoff and clear-cut over thirty acres of property. He cut off the streams he flooded by business, my mulch yard where my Mom and Dad live and where our business is. This year it has never happened before in my entire life to have our entire yard have the County come up and clean Bay Road because the mulch is out in the road some six hundred feet, eight hundred feet from the pile because its flooded with the violations that have gone on up there. He destroyed the wildlife habitat you have seen the photos of Bear Pond and what he has done up there nobody has done a thing besides the Town of Queensbury, no one else. I am not really pointing the finger at the Town to you guys my hats off so far the Town of Queensbury is the only one to step up and protect its people. The Town of Lake George hasn’t done a damn thing for what he has done they give him their hats off hey, good job Ralph go to Town big money that is what its all about. I have news for this Town I am not going anywhere. My kids aren’t going anywhere. I am going to start being at these Town Board Meetings and being active in what’s going on in this Town because what is going on around here is disgusting. The fact that the letter went out I got that letter two days before the elections that this has turned political instead of being about the case law. I will stand here and tell it like it is the man is a liar a flat out liar there is nothing in that letter that’s true. He tells everyone that he is the victim the Town has treated him unfairly. There is nothing in the Post Star about my brother, and myself, and my Dad, and my Mom, and my wife, and our kids, and our business how we have suffered. How we are enduring hundred of thousand of dollars REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1036 with the legal fees that we have to do to work for and cut trees everyday to pay those legal fees no taxpayers, no sponsorships, nobody is endorsing us and giving us any money to pay to stay in business. We have been threatened to our face told that we would be out of business in five years he would see us out of business that he will do what he wants to do, when is this going to stop. The real victims obviously outside of the mountain and the wildlife what he did up there is irrevocable he is not going to fix any of that. Roger is quoted here tonight our agreement I was party to that meeting with the lawyers in Albany last year. We agreed as Stranahan Industries as the owner of Stranahan Industries now that we wanted put back the way it was absolutely…we would agree to every stipulation the Town asked for everyone we had no problem. COUNCILMAN BOOR-And that’s correct. SUPERVISOR STEC-I remember that. MR. STRANAHAN-Nothing is being done the case is sitting in limbo. SUPERVISOR STEC-You heard about another the National Grid case that one closed up about two years ago. MR. STRANAHAN-Yeah. We have been lied to we have been trespassed on we had our property butchered balled. I was party to a meeting with Mr. Macchio prior to the purchase of the property that he claims that he illegally had that Mike O’Connor sold him with David. I was party to a meeting with Mr. Macchio prior to the sale making him aware of the fact that David didn’t own that property and didn’t have any right to sell it to him. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thanks John. MR. STRANAHAN-Bought it anyways. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thanks. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Town Board this evening the other Mr. Stranahan. SKIP STRANAHAN-I will try to be brief here. I think everybody here knows me. I been six foot two, two hundred and ninety pounds most of my life. I don’t need a public speaker to speak for me Macchio’s facts are lies. I want to read you a little email that my wife sent to the Post Star. I want the people of Queensbury to be aware that there are people that have known about this for at least two years and have done nothing. My wife sent this on 9/13/2007 to the Post Star an email. The Macchio articles by Behan Communications are somewhat disingenuous to say the least a ploy on words half-truths designed to deceive the public. The Stranahan Family has no desire to have a blue stone permanent access road sixty to a hundred feet wide with a pole line easement traversing over French Mountain most of the log roads on French Mountain were put there by the Stranahan’s have been there for forty years. The timber has already been cut to a management spec before they cut it so there is nothing up there that needed to be cut. This is not part of her email, but this is a statement that I am making. The Bear Pond Trail has been in existence since the Griffin Lumber Company goes back a hundred years. French Mountain Lumber Company has paid taxes in this area for over forty years. The Stranhan’s have been here since 1885 so we are not likely to do a mess like this. I read the letter and I found it strange the letter that came from Macchio came the same day that the other letter from the Republican Party that they both ended up in my mailbox the same day. I refer to the letter as a love letter I think it is just about like threatening the Town and telling them to go home. What, I like to say here is our taxes alone will pay for the lawsuit. Our sales tax revenue we collect we spent over a million dollars before June in the Town of Queensbury. We purchased over five hundred thousand dollars worth of land in the Town before June. I think that our sales tax revenue will cover the lawsuit. To finish what she had to say about this we actually had Dickinson’s Surveyors measure this road sixty to a hundred and twenty six feet wide. Have any of the Town Board Members ever seen a log road that is a hundred and twenty six wide in places. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1037 COUNCILMAN BOOR-Bay Road isn’t. MR. STRANAHAN-They could be referred to as a log road because we dragged logs down it for the last forty years. I mean if that is where we are going to with it but, I think this is equivalent to Bay Road the width of it in places. The part about the fire truck going up it I am sure it can get up it because a tractor-trailer came down it this is not a log road. I was in the log business with my father we started French Mountain Lumber Company in the fifties with George Stiles this is just a...joke that he is pulling on the people here. I am not sure it is not becoming a soap opera or something to go with what she said. She said let’s talk about the criminal trespass on Spellburg or the thirty two point five acre clear cut that they asked for a permit for themselves. They deny it now, but they asked for it. Maybe we could talk about the bird habitat they leveled in the registered wetlands at Bear Pond about six acres or more it is all first hand knowledge. Read the paper take a hike see it for yourself the people that are doing all this talking they should go up and investigate don’t we have an investigated reporter. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Skip you bring up an interesting point and when you give one of these presentations, you always forgot some things. One of the things that I have requested from day one is that if Mr. Macchio is comfortable with characterizing this as a logging road then by all means he should remove those barricades and each and everyone of you and anybody else in this Town ought to be able to take a ride up there and see what he is calling a logging road. JOHN STRANAHAN-Let the public see it. SKIP STRANAHAN-Let the public see it open the gates let the public see it we have had a lot of time for the grass to grow. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Then he won’t need a communications media firm. MR. STRANAHAN-Lets stop some of the lies here and get on with the process. This is ridiculous I brought with me a paper that was printed on June 23, 2006. I don’t know if you would let me hang it on the board or not or you want to see it. I think this picture pretty much says it all right here. This is first hand knowledge what is going on up there some either people have chose to cover it up or either look the other way. This is first hand knowledge just read through his statements he says he didn’t know what was going on up there some other people were doing some things. The moral of the story is here folks is it is a permanent access road and he paid the bill. Where I went to school, the man that paid the bill was the responsible party. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thanks Skip. MR. STRANAHAN-I don’t know if I said it well or not like I said, I am not a public speaker either. COUNCILMAN BOOR-You did fine. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thanks Skip good seeing you. MR. STRANAHAN-Good seeing you. I think he has road wild over the Town Board and the politics here are disgusting. DAVID STRAINER, RIDGE ROAD, QUEENSBURY-I, too had a lot of questions about what has just been said. I have read the letter that came to the people didn’t come to me I am a Democrat, but the Republicans that I knew gave it to me. I thought when I saw that it was quite coincidental that it would come three days before a primary. It brought a little saying that I would like to share with you. It says that when evil will prevail when good men sit and do nothing. It is very profound because that is evil what they have done up there. I have never heard one person tell me that they done some good. I would like to expand on what John Salvador said, you know I might have been born at night, but it wasn’t last night. When these people have the money they have to spend when they say they can’t open their business, but they have tens of thousands of dollars that they can REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1038 spend on Attorney’s on a public relations firm, and a mailing, come on that is just obvious that they have done something wrong and they are trying to hide it in my opinion. I think the other thing that has always bothered me the most about all of this though and Dan I’ll let you and Tim explain it to me. Every time I have seen these people it is always chastising Roger and Richard, and John aren’t you two on board with this also. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Absolutely. MR. STRAINER-Do you feel what they have done is right. Why is it that when I read this…. SUPERVISOR STEC-There are code issues…. MR. STRAINER-But you guys are omitted it doesn’t seem fair to me that if we are all on board with this thing why would you guys be omitted it is not fair. COUNCILMAN BREWER-You would have to ask the guy that says it. We voted to hire the Attorney’s we consistently backed up what this lawsuit has been brought about. MR. STRAINER-I can walk away and know that you guys are on board with this also. SUPERVISOR STEC-Be careful of what words you put in Dan Stec’s mouth Dave. MR. STRAINER-I am saying on board on board with the fact that you feel something has done wrong. SUPERVISOR STEC-Have any of us said there is nothing wrong up there none of us have said that. MR. STRAINER-But when you read these things in the paper it eliminates you guys and I don’t think it is fair. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I don’t write them Dave. MR. STRAINER-No, but that’s what I am saying public perception the perception is reality. Unfortunately, I don’t sit there and let people the things that I read in the Post Star hold all the weight in the world I come and I ask you the questions and that’s what I am doing now. I firmly believe that you were on board with this or maybe you don’t want to be I don’t know Dan. SUPERVISOR STEC-Yeah, there are issues up there. MR. STRAINER-Huge issues. To send that letter to make yourselves look like you are snow-white is just wrong especially to do it right before the primary. Look, I said my peace and thank you very much. SUPERVISOR STEC-Is there anyone else that would like to address the board before we move on. BERNARD RAHILL, 37 WINCREST DRIVE-QUEENSBURY-I like to address the fact that we are going to have an election and we have had some election politics. I urge you Roger, Richard, and John, and Tim to prepare a full resume with your platform what you feel is important for the Town of Queensbury and the ethical components of your platform arguing why your positions are the right positions. I ask that you submit them to the Post Star prior to the elections so that everybody knows exactly what the issues are and what your ethical positions are with regard to all of these issues. I think it is very important that the Post Star know this and that we have a situation right now that you are talking about lies, lies, and more lies. After this meeting is over you are going to have a little pray see on the back of Part B of the Post Star of the Town Board Meeting. This is the largest municipality in what County? REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1039 COUNCILMAN BOOR-Warren County. MR. RAHILL-You are the most influential people in Warren County right now. There is more money here than any place else right now. Yet, you get a little pray see in the back of the Post Star Part B and consequently nobody knows what’s going on then Ken Tingley and Mark Mahoney say why do we have such low turnouts on our elections. Do you think they don’t know what they are doing? Do you think they don’t know that they are managing the press they are managing the public and they are managing the politics I do, I am a political scientist I knew this forty years ago. I want you to be aware of the fact that you have to put your cards on the table and say this is what I represent as a democrat or a republican. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Or conservative. MR. RAHILL-Or whatever you want to be I don’t care what you are. The fact is I want to see the cards on the table I want to see the issues. You are not going to get them from Ken Tingley you are not going to get them from Mark Mahoney nothing is on the table everything is underneath the table. I think that all of your Post Star Meetings should be on the front page of the Post Star because these are very important issues. These people don’t think they are very important issues but they are to the people because the people are ill informed. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I think you are going to be pleased Bernie that received an invitation for a debate, which we certainly wanted before the primary, but for some th reason couldn’t get that is going to be October 25, at ACC. I will certainly be debating my opponent, as I am sure Mr. Sanford will, Mr. Strough will, and Mr. Brewer. MR. RAHILL-I want them to see what the issues are. I am not somebody who says Republican or Democrat I want to know what the issues are. What is the character of the person how does he support those issues. Once again, I am a political scientist I know this backwards, forwards, and sideways. We are being misrepresented in this community by right-wingers extreme right-wingers who are pushing things down our throats. I know the truth I am not going to tell you anything else. Just as an example who is the only Presidential Candidate who supports National Health Care provided by the government does anybody know? SUPERVISOR STEC-Dennis…. MR. RAHILL-Dennis Kucinich why because Michael Moore said so on CSPAN and Michael Moore did what he wrote Sicko and presented the film. Therefore, there is only one person in the whole Presidential Election who wants National Health Care based on the governments and yet all the voters want National Health Care based on the governments. SUPERVISOR STEC-Bernie you split away limit it to Town issues. MR. RAHILL-These are Town issues. If the people don’t know what is going on Dan we are in trouble. SUPERVISOR STEC-I agree with you a hundred percent I couldn’t of said it better myself. MR. RAHILL-I know you do, God Bless you. SUPERVISOR STEC-Anybody else like to address the board this evening. BETTY MONAHAN-I just want to know have any of you hiked up to Bear Pond before it was damaged. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Long, long, time ago. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I have not. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1040 MRS. MONAHAN-I did many many years ago if my teenage maybe early twenties a little after the Civil War it was a beautiful beautiful spot. To see the photograph of what has been done is horrendous. When I got the letter, I wanted to get out my violin and play for them because I felt so sorry I almost wept tears for the Macchio family they have been so misused by this Town. You know, John I hope when we do the lakeshore regulations you will kind of remember this situation. SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you Betty anyone else before we move on okay let’s go to Town Board discussions. 6.0TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS COUNCILMAN BOOR rd ? September 3, 2005 in the presence of Councilman Strough and two Attorney friends of ours Mr. Macchio approached me and made it very clear, what his intentions were I testified to that in another trial. It was stricken from the record because some kind of legal foundation thing. It won’t be stricken when we go to trial for the Town. He made it very clear he wanted to build cabins up there and this was before I knew anything was going on up there. I look at him and said geez Ralph I’ve got to tell you I believe we are in the Town of Lake George. He said no, no, no, I have property in the Town of Queensbury, too. I said well what you are talking about would have to go to the Planning Board I am on the Town Board this isn’t something I could answer. It was very clear he was very insistent that this is something that should be done something he wanted to do. Like, I say Councilman Strough was with me so I think it is going to be a little bit hard for him to rebut that when we finally do go to trial. COUNCILMAN SANFORD ? Spoke regarding Resolution Enacting Local Law to Amend Chapter 94 Freshwater Wetlands one that he is particularly proud of. ? October 25, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. at Adirondack Community College likely to be a debate encourage the public to attend to hear what the candidates have to say. I accepted hopefully my opponent would accept as well. COUNCILMAN STROUGH ? Roger deserves the credit thought this is what the Queensbury resident wanted was someone with courage, someone willing to stand up for what is right, and he did and got chastised for it. Does not know why anyone would vote against Roger, I know the integrity and courage of the man. ? Read the Senior Citizens monthly publication for activities. SUPERVISOR STEC ? Thanked the firefighters ? Thanked Glens Falls National Bank and TV8 for teleivisioning our Town Board Meetings ? Reminded people of the Towns website www.queensbury.net Town has done a great job over the last six or seven years have not had a Town tax. Given rebates back the last five or six years over ten million dollars in rebates. In order for that to continue, Town needs to control spending. The last three years total Town Budgets were all less than 2004 total Town Budget ? Spoke regarding the Main Street Corridor REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1041 7.0RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION SETTING HEARING ON YUET HON AND SO YING LING’S APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE/WAIVER REQUEST FROM SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION REQUIREMENT CONCERNING FLOWER DRUM SONG CHINESE RESTAURANT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 909 STATE ROUTE 9, QUEENSBURY RESOLUTION NO.: 417, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board is authorized by Town Code Chapter 136 § to issue variances from 136-44 “Connection to sewers required” which requires Town property owners situated within a sewer district and located within 250’ of a public sanitary sewer of the sewer district to connect to the public sewer facilities within one (1) year from the date of notice, and WHEREAS, Yuet Hon and So Ying Ling (Applicants) have applied to the Town § Board for a second variance/waiver from Town Code 136-44 for a second extension of the Town’s connection requirements to connect their Flower Drum Song Chinese Restaurant property located at 909 State Route 9 to the Town of Queensbury’s Route 9 Sewer District as the Applicants state that there may possibly be a sale of the building and property and the current dry wells are properly functioning, as more fully set forth in the Applicants’ application presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board will hold a hearing on Monday, th October 15, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, to consider Yuet Hon and So Ying Ling’s second sewer connection variance/waiver application concerning their Flower Drum Song Chinese Restaurant property located at 909 State Route 9, Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 296.17-1-38), and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to send a Notice of Hearing to the Applicants as may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1042 NOES: None ABSENT:None PART II IMPACT ASSESSMENT (TO BE COMPLETED BY LEAD AGENCY) FOR JOHN W. DREPS BAY ROAD SUBDIVISION A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR PART 617.4? IF YES, COORDINATE THE REVIEW PROCESS AND USE THE NO FULL EAF. B.WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR PART 617.6? IF NO, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION MAY BE SUPERSEDED BY ANOTHER INVOLVED NO AGENCY. ANY C.COULD ACTION RESULT IN ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING (ANSWERS MAY BE HANDWRITTEN, IF LEGIBLE) C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic pattern, solid waste production or disposal. Potential for erosion, NO drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly. C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural NO resources or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly. C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or . NO threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in NO use or intensity of use of land, or other natural resources? Explain briefly. C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by NO the proposed action? Explain briefly. C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1-C5? NO Explain briefly. C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy? NO Explain briefly. D.WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA (CEA)? IF YES, EXPLAIN BRIEFLY NO E. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? IF YES, EXPLAIN NO BRIEFLY. RESOLUTION ADOPTING SEQRA DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE REGARDING CENTRAL QUEENSBURY QUAKER ROAD SEWER DISTRICT EXTENSION NO. 9 – JOHN W. DREPS BAY ROAD SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION NO.: 418, 2007 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1043 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Brewer WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to establish an extension to the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District to be known as Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District Extension No. 9, and WHEREAS, the Town Board is duly qualified to act as lead agency and accepts lead agency status for compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) which requires environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is an unlisted action in accordance with the rules and regulations of SEQRA, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board, after considering the proposed action, reviewing the Short Environmental Assessment Form and thoroughly analyzing the action for potential environmental concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to complete the Short Environmental Assessment Form by checking the box indicating that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board approves of a Negative Declaration and authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to file any necessary documents in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT:None REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1044 RESOLUTION APPROVING CENTRAL QUEENSBURY QUAKER ROAD SEWER DISTRICT EXTENSION NO. 9 – JOHN W. DREPS BAY ROAD SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION NO. 419, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to establish an extension to the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District (hereinafter the “District”) to be known as Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District Extension No. 9, and WHEREAS, a Map, Plan and Report has been prepared by Thomas W. Nace, P.E., Consulting Engineer, an engineer licensed by the State of New York, regarding the proposed sewer district extension to serve the John W. Dreps Bay Road Subdivision containing five (5) commercial lots located on an approximately 6.37 acre parcel of land on the east side of Bay Road (tax map parcels: #296.16-1-16.11, #296.16-1-16.14, 296.16-1- 16.15, 296.16-1-16.16 and 296.16-1-16.17) as more specifically set forth and described in the Map, Plan and Report (hereinafter the “Sewer District Extension”), and WHEREAS, by previous Resolution, the Map, Plan and Report has been accepted by the Town and has been filed in the Queensbury Town Clerk's Office and is available for public inspection, and WHEREAS, the Map, Plan and Report delineates the boundaries of the proposed Sewer District Extension, a general plan of the proposed sewer system, a report of the proposed sewer system and method of operation, and nd WHEREAS, on April 2, 2007 subsequent to the filing of the Map, Plan and Report with the Town Clerk, the Town Board adopted an Order (the “Public Hearing Order”) reciting (a) the boundaries of the proposed Sewer District Extension; (b) the proposed improvements; (c) the fact that all costs of the improvements will be paid for by the Developer and not the Town of Queensbury; (d) the estimated cost of hook-up fees (if any) and the cost of the Sewer District Extension to the typical property and the typical one or two family home (if not the typical property); (e) the proposed method of financing to be employed; (f) the fact that a Map, Plan and Report describing the improvement is on file in the Town Clerk’s Office; and (g) the time and place of a public hearing on the proposed Sewer District Extension; (h) that all the expenses of the District, including all extensions heretofore or hereafter established, shall be a charge against the entire area of the District as extended, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1045 WHEREAS, copies of the Public Hearing Order were duly published and posted and were filed with the Office of the State Comptroller, all as required by law, and WHEREAS, prior to publication of the Public Hearing Order, a detailed explanation of how the estimated cost of hook-up fees (if any) and the cost of the Sewer District to the typical property and typical one or two family home (if not the typical property) were computed was filed with the Town Clerk for public inspection, and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed Sewer District Extension was duly th held on Monday, April 16, 2007 and the Town Board has considered the evidence given together with other information, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has considered the establishment of the Sewer District Extension in accordance with the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and has adopted a Negative Declaration concerning environmental impacts, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to establish the proposed Sewer District Extension as detailed in the Map, Plan and Report in accordance with Town Law, Article 12A and consolidate the Sewer District Extension with the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District in accordance with Town Law §206-a, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby determines that: 1.Notice of Public Hearing was published and posted as required by law and is otherwise sufficient; 2.An application for permission of the Office of the State Comptroller to extend the District is not necessary, given that all costs associated with the extension of the District and construction of the facilities therein shall be borne by the Developer; 3.All property and property owners within the Sewer District Extension are benefited; 4.All property and property owners benefited are included within the limits of the Sewer District Extension; 5.It is in the public interest to establish, authorize, and approve the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District Extension No. 9 to the existing Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District as described in the Map, Plan and Report on file REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1046 with the Queensbury Town Clerk; 6.In accordance with New York State Town Law §206-a, it is in the public interest to assess all expenses of the District, including all extensions heretofore or hereafter established, as a charge against the entire area of the District as extended; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby approves, authorizes and establishes the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District Extension No.: 9 in accordance with the boundaries and descriptions set forth in the previously described Map, Plan and Report and as follows: All that certain piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the Town of Queensbury, County of Warren and the State of New York, more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point in the easterly side of Bay Street at the northwest corner of the lands conveyed to Stewarts Ice Cream Company, Inc.; running thence along said Bay Road, North 05 degrees, 11 minutes and 12 seconds East, a distance of 161.63 feet; continuing along Bay Road, North 05 degrees, 05 minutes and 41 seconds East, a distance of 362.4 feet to the southwest corner of lands of Bay Meadows Golf Club Inc.; thence running along said lands southeasterly along a curve to the left having a radius of 25.00 feet a distance of 39.27 feet; thence running South 84 degrees, 54 minutes and 19 seconds East, along the southerly bounds thereof, a distance of 238.97 feet; thence running along a curve to the left having a radius of 25.00 feet, a distance of 37.95 feet; thence running along a curve to right having a radius of 70.00 feet, a distance of 219.59 feet; thence continuing along said lands of Bay Meadows Golf Club Inc., South 83 degrees, 47 minutes and 10 seconds East, a distance of 152.09 feet to an angle point therein for a corner; thence continuing along said lands of Bay Meadows Golf Club Inc., South 06 degrees, 12 minutes and 50 seconds West, a distance of 440.20 feet to the northeast corner of lands now or formerly of JBJ Queensbury, LLC; thence running along said lands, North 81 degrees, 26 minutes and 40 seconds West, a distance of 287.70 feet to the northwest corner thereof; thence running along said the westerly line thereof, South 05 degrees, 53 minutes and 33 seconds West, a distance of 93.91 feet to the northeast corner of said lands of Stewarts Ice Cream Company, Inc.; thence running along the northerly bounds thereof, North 84 degrees, 06 minutes and 27 seconds West, a distance of 284.03 feet to the point and place of beginning, containing 6.37 acres of lands to be the same more or less. Bearings given in the above description refer to magnetic North. SUBJECT to easements of record. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1047 SUBJECT also to an easement of ingress and egress over the southwesterly corner of said property as described in an easement granted by Roger W. Brassel to Stewarts Ice Cream Company, Inc. recorded in book 1115 of deeds at page 24. and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that construction of the improvements may proceed and service provided subject to the following; 1.The obtaining of any necessary permits or approvals from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; 2.Permissive referendum in the manner provided in New York State Town Law Article 7; and 3.The adoption of a Final Order by the Queensbury Town Board; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this Resolution is subject to permissive referendum in the manner provided by the provisions of New York State Town Law Articles 7 and 12A and the Town Board authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to file, post and publish such notice of this Resolution as may be required by law and to cause to be prepared and have available for distribution proper forms for the petition and shall distribute a supply to any person requesting such petition, and if no such petition is filed within 30 days, to file a certificate to that effect in the Office of the County Clerk. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING BAY RIDGE VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC.’S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF FIREFIGHTING FOAM COSTS AND CORRESPONDING AMENDMENT TO FIRE SERVICES AGREEMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 420, 2007 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1048 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury and the Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. (Fire Company) have entered into an Agreement for fire protection services, and WHEREAS, a fire at the Town of Queensbury’s property on Jenkinsville Road thrd began on Thursday, August 30, 2007 and continued through Monday, September 3, 2007 and during such fire, the Fire Company used 250 gallons of Class A firefighting foam at a cost of $16.75 per gallon or a total of $4,187.50, to fight the fire, and WHEREAS, the Fire Company’s standard practice is to approach the property owner, in this case the Town of Queensbury, to recoup the cost of such foam, and therefore the Fire Company has asked the Town Board to consider reimbursement to the Fire Company for such cost, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to set a public hearing concerning the Fire Company’s request for such reimbursement of costs and the corresponding increase in the Fire Company’s budget and amendment of its Fire Services Agreement, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall conduct a public hearing concerning the estimated $4,187.50 increase in the Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Company, Inc.’s budget for the cost of Class A firefighting foam used to fight the fire at Town Property on Jenkinsville Road and the corresponding amendment to the Fire Company’s Agreement with the Town of Queensbury for fire protection services, on Monday, October th 15, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish a Notice of Public Hearing in the Post-Star Newspaper once at least ten (10) days prior to the Public Hearing. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES: None REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1049 ABSENT:None RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING WEST GLENS FALLS VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC.’S REQUEST FOR ENGINE REPAIRS AND CORRESPONDING AMENDMENT TO FIRE SERVICES AGREEMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 421, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury and the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. (Fire Company) have entered into an Agreement for fire protection services, which Agreement sets forth a number of terms and conditions including a condition that the Fire Company will not purchase or enter into any binding contract to purchase any piece of apparatus, equipment, vehicles, real property, or make any improvements that would require the Fire Company to acquire a loan or mortgage or use money placed in a “vehicles fund” without prior approval of the Queensbury Town Board, and WHEREAS, the Fire Company has advised the Town Board that it is necessary to make unexpected repairs to the engine of its Tower 4 aerial device for the estimated sum of $15,036.41, and WHEREAS, this purchase will increase the cost of providing necessary fire protection services to the Town, and WHEREAS, the Town Board feels that by spending this amount of money for engine repairs, the Fire Company will gain additional life out of such apparatus while the Town considers and studies the future apparatus needs of the Town, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to set a public hearing concerning the proposed increase in the Fire Company’s budget and amendment of its Fire Services Agreement, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall conduct a public hearing concerning the estimated $15,036.41 increase in the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company, Inc.’s budget for repairs to the engine of its Tower 4 aerial device and the corresponding amendment to the Fire Company’s Agreement with the Town of Queensbury th for fire protection services, on Monday, October 15, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1050 BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish a Notice of Public Hearing in the Post-Star Newspaper once at least ten (10) days prior to the Public Hearing. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: M.r Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INCURRENCE OF DEBT BY WEST GLENS FALLS VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC. FOR PURCHASE OF NEW FORD F350 EMS VEHICLE RESOLUTION NO.: 422, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury and the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. (Fire Company) have entered into an Agreement for fire protection services, which Agreement sets forth a number of terms and conditions including a condition that the Fire Company will not purchase or enter into any binding contract to purchase any piece of apparatus, equipment, vehicles, real property, or make any improvements that would require the Fire Company to acquire a loan or mortgage or use money placed in a “vehicles fund” without prior approval of the Queensbury Town Board, and WHEREAS, the Fire Company has advised the Town Board that it wishes to purchase a new Ford F350 cab and chassis to replace its 1985 EMS response vehicle for a sum not to exceed $32,000, and WHEREAS, the Fire Company has arranged for a $32,000, 60 month installment loan with Glens Falls National Bank to purchase such vehicle, with payments to be made from the Fire Company’s operating budget, such monies already included in the Fire Company’s approved 2007 budget and Agreement with the Town, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1051 WHEREAS, the Town Board feels that this new vehicle will provide additional safety protection for the Town and therefore the Town Board wishes to authorize the incurrence of this debt by the Fire Company, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves of the incurrence of $32,000 in debt by the West Glens Falls Fire Company, Inc. for the purchase of a new Ford F350 dab and chassis to replace its 1985 EMS response vehicle, as delineated in the preambles of this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury does not guarantee the debt with Glens Falls National Bank on behalf of the Fire Company, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Fiscal Manager to take any necessary action to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES, P.C. TO PREPARE ANNUAL POST-CLOSURE LANDFILL MONITORING REPORTS FOR YEARS 2008 THROUGH 2012 RESOLUTION NO.: 423, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 103,2003, the Queensbury Town Board authorized engagement of C.T. Male Associates, P.C. (C.T. Male) to prepare a request for re-evaluation of landfill post-closure monitoring requirements in connection with the Ridge Road landfill REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1052 in an effort to reduce the landfill groundwater and surface water monitoring requirements, and WHEREAS, C.T. Male completed such work for the total amount of $3,600 as authorized by Resolution No.: 103,2003, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation did reduce the Town’s landfill groundwater and surface water monitoring requirements, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 272,2003, the Queensbury Town Board authorized C.T. Male to prepare annual post-closure landfill monitoring reports for years 2003 through 2007, and WHEREAS, the Town’s Landfill Equipment Operator has advised that C.T. Male has submitted a proposal to prepare annual post-closure landfill monitoring reports for years 2008 through 2012for an amount not to exceed $4,280.00, including miscellaneous th reimbursables (prints), as delineated in C.T. Male’s August 24, 2007 letter and Contract Agreement presented at this meeting and as follows: ? 2008 Post-Closure Landfill Monitoring Report $ 770.00 ? 2009 Post-Closure Landfill Monitoring Report $ 810.00 ? 2010 Post-Closure Landfill Monitoring Report $ 855.00 ? 2011 Post-Closure Landfill Monitoring Report $ 900.00 ? 2012 Post-Closure Landfill Monitoring Report $ 945.00 Total Years 2008 through 2012 $4,280.00 and WHEREAS, the Town’s Landfill Equipment Operator has recommended that the Town Board engage the services of C.T. Male for preparation of such annual post-closure landfill monitoring reports, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the engagement of C.T. Male Associates, P.C., to prepare the annual post-closure landfill monitoring report for years 2008 through 2012 in connection with the Ridge Road landfill as th delineated in C.T. Male’s August 24, 2007 letter and Contract Agreement for an amount not to exceed $4,280.00, including miscellaneous reimbursables (prints), to be paid for from Account No.: 009-8160-4002, and BE IT FURTHER, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1053 RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Contract Agreement and the Town Supervisor, Landfill Equipment Operator and/or Town Fiscal Manager to execute any documentation and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2007 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF SHELTER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, INC. TO PROVIDE ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION ASSISTANCE IN CONNECTION WITH $400,000 IN GRANT FUNDS RECEIVED FROM NEW YORK DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL RESOLUTION NO.: 424, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 110,2007 the Queensbury Town Board authorized submission of an application to the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), and WHEREAS, the grant application was submitted and the Town was awarded a grant in the amount of $400,000 from the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, such funds to be used for housing rehabilitation, and WHEREAS, the Town wishes to authorize an Agreement with Shelter Planning & Development, Inc. for provision of the Year 2007 program implementation and administration services, and a proposed Contract for Professional Services between the Town and Shelter Planning is presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs engagement of Shelter Planning & Development, Inc., for provision of Year 2007 HOME program implementation and administration assistance services in connection with grant monies received by the Town of Queensbury referenced in the preambles of this REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1054 Resolution and as set forth in the Contract for Professional Services substantially in the form presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the costs for Shelter Planning’s services shall not exceed the fixed fee of sixteen thousand dollars ($16,000.00) for such program implementation and administration, plus an amount not to exceed forty-four thousand dollars ($44,000.00) for project-related implementation services for each housing unit rehabilitated under the Program, as specifically delineated in the Contract, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that payment for these expenses shall be paid from the Town’s 2007 HOME Program Grant funding from the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Contract between the Town and Shelter Planning substantially in the form presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes the Town Supervisor, Senior Planner and/or Town Fiscal Manager to take any other action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2007 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES : None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 28 ESTABLISHING THROUGH HIGHWAYS AND STOP INTERSECTIONS IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, COUNTY OF WARREN, NEW YORK RESOLUTION NO. 425, 2007 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1055 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has in effect Ordinance No. 28 - Ordinance Establishing Through Highways and Stop Intersections in the Town of Queensbury, County of Warren, New York and this Ordinance lists the stop intersections and signs located within the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to consider amending Ordinance No. 28 by adding a four-way stop intersection at the intersection of Hudson Pointe Boulevard and Hyde/Danford Court, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to set a public hearing concerning this proposed Amendment to Ordinance No. 28, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall meet and hold a public hearing th on Monday, October 15, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury to consider the proposed Amendment to Town Ordinance No. 28, hear all interested persons and take any necessary action provided by law, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to publish and post a Notice of Public Hearing in the manner provided by law. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW PROHIBITING PARKING ON EAST SIDE OF MALLORY AVENUE RESOLUTION NO.: 426, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1056 WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to consider adoption of a Local Law which would prohibit parking on the east side of a portion of Mallory Avenue in the Town of Queensbury beginning at its intersection with Nathan Street and continuing in a southerly direction, a distance of 280’±, and WHEREAS, such legislation is authorized in accordance with New York State § Town Law, Vehicle and Traffic Law 1660(18) and the Municipal Home Rule Law, and WHEREAS, before the Town Board may act on such a Local Law, it must conduct a public hearing, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall meet and hold a public hearing at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, th October 15, 2007 to consider the proposed Local Law presented at this meeting, hear all interested persons and take such action required or authorized by law, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to publish and post a Notice of Public Hearing in the manner provided by law. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION APPOINTING DONNA PARTRIDGE TO TOWN OF QUEENSBURY CEMETERY COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 427, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury previously established the Town of Queensbury Cemetery Commission in accordance with applicable New York State law, and WHEREAS, Commissioner Theresa Higgins will retire from the Commission on th September 30, 2007 and before her term expires, and therefore the Cemetery Commission REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1057 has recommended that the Town Board appoint Donna Partridge to complete Ms. Higgins’ term, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby appoints Donna Partridge to st serve as a member of the Town of Queensbury Cemetery Commission effective October 1, 2007 to complete the unexpired term of Commissioner Theresa Higgins, such term to expire st on December 31, 2008. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF ESCROW FUNDS IN CONNECTION WITH NOBLE WAY IN KING’S COURT SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION NO.: 428, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 54,2005 the Queensbury Town Board authorized the dedication of Noble Way in the King’s Court Subdivision, such acceptance conditioned on the Town’s receipt of $26,680 cash escrow from The BH Group, Inc. (Developer), and WHEREAS, the Developer provided the Town with the required $26,680 and entered into an Escrow Agreement with the Town, and WHEREAS, as required by the Escrow Agreement, the Town deposited the $26,680 in an interest bearing account, and WHEREAS, the Town’s Highway Superintendent has advised the Town Board that the Developer has completed to the Highway Superintendent’s satisfaction the top coat of the road and has requested that the monies held by the Town be released, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to therefore authorize the refund of funds currently held in escrow to the Developer as set forth in the Escrow Agreement, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1058 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the return of escrow funds to The BH Group, Inc., in connection with the dedication of Noble Way in the King’s Court Subdivision, which sum shall be the amount of $26,680 plus any earned interest, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Fiscal Manager to take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND FISCAL ADVISORS & MARKETING, INC. FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION RULE 15C2-12 RESOLUTION NO.: 429, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12 (Rule) requires that the Town of Queensbury provide continuing disclosure of certain events and annual updated financial information and operating data relating to the Town’s outstanding indebtedness, and WHEREAS, many municipalities have entered into agreements with Fiscal Advisors and Marketing, Inc. (FA) to assist with such compliance requirements due to the technicalities and time involved in complying with such regulations and the resources required to keep up with any changes, and WHEREAS, FA has offered to act as the Town’s dissemination agent for filing the financial information and operating data with the proper repositories, Rulemaking Board or individual requests as required by the Rule and assist the Town in determining if an event is REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1059 a material event as defined by the Rule thereby requiring notification to the proper organizations, and WHEREAS, FA proposes to provide such services the Town at a cost of up to $1,800 per fiscal year, and a fee of $500 per event disclosure, if any, as set forth in FA’s proposed Agreement for Continuing Secondary Market Disclosure presented at this meeting, and WHEREAS, the Town Fiscal Manager has recommended that the Town Board enter into such Agreement, and WHEREAS, such Agreement is in form approved by Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the Agreement for Continuing Secondary Market Disclosure between the Town and Fiscal Advisors & Marketing, Inc., substantially in the form presented at this meeting, at a cost of up to $1,800 per fiscal year and a fee of $500 per event disclosure, if any, such amounts to be paid for from the appropriate account(s) as will be determined by the Town Fiscal Manager, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Fiscal Manager to sign any documentation and take any and all action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SETTLEMENT OF PENDING ARTICLE 7 REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CASES COMMENCED BY JAMES DENOOYER RESOLUTION NO.: 430, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1060 WHEREAS, James DeNooyer previously commenced Article 7 Real Property Assessment Review cases against the Town of Queensbury concerning the assessed values of property located on 3316 State Route 9L, Queensbury, New York (Tax Map No. 239.18-1-24) and property located at 3308 State Route 9L, Queensbury, New York (Tax Map No. 239.18-1-26) for the 2005 assessment year, and WHEREAS, the Town Assessor has recommended a settlement proposal to the Town Board and the Town Board has reviewed the cases with Town Counsel, and WHEREAS, the Lake George Central School District approves of the settlement, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the settlement of the pending Article 7 cases against the Town of Queensbury by James DeNooyer, concerning property located on 3316 State Route 9L, Queensbury, New York (Tax Map No. 239.18-1-24) and property located at 3308 State Route 9L, Queensbury, New York (Tax Map No. 239.18-1-26) for the 2005 assessment year in accordance with the following revised assessment values: Tax Year Current Assessment Revised Assessment Tax Map No. 239.18-1-24 2005 $ 1,778,400. $ 1,600,000. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-26 2005 $ 1,398,400. $ 1,175,000. and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs payment of any and all refunds without interest to Petitioner’s counsel, James T. Towne, Jr., Esq, The Towne Law Offices, 421 New Karner Road, P.O. Box 15072, Albany, New York, 12212-5072, within sixty (60) days from the date that a Demand for Refunds is served upon the Town of Queensbury and the Warren County Treasurer, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Town Assessor, Town Fiscal Manager and/or Town Counsel to execute REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1061 settlement documents and take any additional steps necessary to effectuate the proposed settlement in accordance with the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford NOES: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND ENERGY CURTAILMENT SPECIALISTS RESOLUTION NO.: 431, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury’s Water Superintendent and Civil Engineer have recommended that the Town participate in Energy Curtailment Specialists’ (ECS) “Operation Save New York” Program, whereby ECS will compensate the Town Water Department to shed electric load during periods of high electrical demands, and WHEREAS, the Town Water Department would be able to eliminate its draw from the electrical grid through the use of its on-site generator and will be compensated appropriately, and WHEREAS, ECS has provided the Town with a proposed Agreement/Enrollment Form for such Program and the Agreement/Enrollment Form is in form approved by Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the Town Water Department to enter into the “Operation Save New York” Program with Energy Curtailment Specialists (ECS), and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to sign the Agreement/Enrollment Form with ECS substantially in the form presented at this meeting, and any other required documentation, and the Town Supervisor, Water Superintendent, Civil Engineer and/or Town Fiscal Manager to take any and all action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1062 th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS – TH WARRANT OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 RESOLUTION NO.: 432, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve the audit of bills th presented as the Warrant with a run date of September 20, 2007 and a payment date of th September 25, 2007, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Warrant with a thth run date of September 20, 2007 and payment date of September 25, 2007 totaling $1,299,406.70, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Fiscal Manager to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO.: 5, OF 2007 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 94 ENTITLED, “FRESHWATER WETLANDS” RESOLUTION NO. 433, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1063 SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: 5, of 2007 to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 94 “Freshwater Wetlands,” to regulate development in and adjacent to wetlands, which wetlands may not be currently regulated under State or local laws or regulations, and WHEREAS, this legislation is authorized in accordance with New York State Municipal Home Rule Law §10, Town Law Article 16 and Environmental Conservation Law Article 24, and th WHEREAS, the Town Board duly held a public hearing on Monday, August 20, 2007 and heard all interested persons, and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Local Law has been presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby enacts Local Law No.: 5, of 2007 to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 94 “Freshwater Wetlands,” as presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to file the Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and acknowledges that the Local Law will take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec NOES: None ABSENT:None LOCAL LAW NO.: 5, OF 2007 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 94 ENTITLED “FRESHWATER WETLANDS” BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS FOLLOWS: REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1064 Section 1. Purpose and Intent. This Local Law provides for amendments to Chapter 94 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury to regulate development in and adjacent to wetlands, which wetlands may not be regulated under maps currently filed with the Town. Section 2. Amendment to §94 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury. A.The definition of FRESHWATER WETLANDS is repealed and replaced, in its entirety, with the following: FRESHWATER WETLANDS- Any [area of land] as depicted on the Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetland Map including wetlands as regulated by NYSDEC, APA, or any Federal Agency or as delineated in the field and approved by the appropriate aforementioned agency. B.The definition of FRESHWATER WETLANDS MAP is amended as follows: FRESHWATER WETLANDS MAP-- A map on which are indicated the boundaries of any freshwater wetland and which has been filed with the Clerk of the Town of Queensbury by in accordance with Environmental Conservation Law, as , the APA, or any Federal such map may from time to time be amended by DEC Agency, or by any field delineation . C.The definition of AGENCY is amended as follows: or any Lead AGENCY-- The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, Agency of the Town of Queensbury for SEQRA purposes . Section 3. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or part of this Local Law or the application thereof to any person, individual, corporation, firm, partnership, entity, or circumstance shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such order or judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder thereof, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or part of this Local Law, or in its application to the person, individual, corporation, firm, partnership, entity, or circumstance directly involved in the controversy in which such order or judgment shall be rendered. Section 4. Effective Date. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 9-24-2007 MTG#41 1065 This Local Law shall take effect upon filing with the New York State Secretary of State. 8.0ACTION OF RESOLUTIONS PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED FROM THE FLOOR - NONE 9.0 EXECUTIVE SESSION - NONE RESOLUTION ADJOURNING REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO. 434, 2007 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Regular Town Board Meeting. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor NOES: None ABSENT:None Respectfully Submitted, Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk Town of Queensbury