2010-04-19 MTG. #15
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 1
TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG. #15
APRIL 19, 2010 RES. 166-178
7:00 p.m. BOH 8-10
LL 5-7
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC
COUNCILMAN ANTHONY METIVIER
COUNCILMAN RONALD MONTESI
COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH
COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN STROUGH
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH
RESOLUTION NO. 166.2010
INTRODUCED BY Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
RESOLVED
, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves into the
Queensbury Board of Health.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2010 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH
Supervisor Daniel Stec-We had scheduled two public hearings at our last Town Board
Meeting for this evening there was an error made in the public notice requirement so we will
not be conducting those public hearings tonight. We will entertain two resolutions to reset
rd
those public hearings for two weeks from tonight which will be May 3. at 7:00 P.M.
Certainly our apologies go out to the two applicants involved, Mr. VanNess and Mr. Rivers.
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON SEWAGE
DISPOSAL
VARIANCE APPLICATION OF THOMAS VANNESS
RESOLUTION NO.: 8, 2010
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board serves as the Town’s Local Board of
Health and is authorized by Town Code Chapter 136 to issue variances from the Town’s
On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, and
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 2
WHEREAS, Thomas VanNess has applied to the Local Board of Health for a
variance from Chapter 136 to install a leaching system 1’6” from the property line in lieu of
the required 10’ setback on property located at 5 Ohio Avenue in the Town of Queensbury,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health will hold a public
rd
hearing on Monday, May 3, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742
Bay Road, Queensbury, to consider Thomas VanNess’ sewage disposal variance application
concerning property located at 5 Ohio Avenue in the Town of Queensbury (Tax Map No.:
309.13-1-62) and at that time all interested persons will be heard, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health authorizes and directs the Queensbury
Town Clerk to publish the Notice of Public Hearing presented at this meeting and send a
copy of the Notice to neighbors located within 500 feet of the property as required by law.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON SEWAGE
DISPOSAL
VARIANCE APPLICATION OF ARTHUR RIVERS
RESOLUTION NO.: 9, 2010
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board serves as the Town’s Local Board of
Health and is authorized by Town Code Chapter 136 to issue variances from the Town’s
On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, Arthur Rivers has applied to the Local Board of Health for variances
from Chapter 136 to allow placement of the:
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 3
1.leech field 4’ from the property line in lieu of the required 10’ setback; and
2.leech field 2’ from the water line in lieu of the required 10’ setback; and
3.septic tank 8’ from the water line in lieu of the required 10’ setback;
on property located at the corner of Ohio and Central Avenues in the Town of Queensbury,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health will hold a public
rd
hearing on Monday, May 3, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742
Bay Road, Queensbury, to consider Arthur Rivers’ sewage disposal variance application
concerning property located at the corner of Ohio and Central Avenues in the Town of
Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 309.9-1-87) and at that time all interested persons will be
heard, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health authorizes and directs the Queensbury
Town Clerk to publish the Notice of Public Hearing presented at this meeting and send a
copy of the Notice to neighbors located within 500 feet of the property as required by law.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION ADJOURNING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH
RESOLUTION NO. 10.2010
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
RESOLVED,
that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns its meeting and
moves back in regular session.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2010 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 4
TOWN BOARD MEETING
2.1 PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED LOCAL LAW OF 2010 TO MODIFY,
RESTATE AND REAFFIRM QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER
179 “ZONING” SECTION 179-4-110 ENTITLED “UNDERGROUND
UTILITIES OVERLAY DISTRICT”
PUBLICATION DATE: April 9, 2010
Supervisor Stec-As we open this public hearing we had set this about a month ago and we
have an underground utilities local law in place however as I explained when we set the
public hearing we were looking to consider making two changes. One change is relevant to
the Main Street Corridor Project, which if anyone has driven that part of town knows is well
underway right now. To define the distance off of on the side streets off of Main Street, at
which point the utilities had to go underground. It wasn’t really clear and in discussions
with the engineers involved in designing the project and National Grid and actually National
Grid made some suggested changes to us to consider tonight and I think we are going to
probably work them in. To just make sure it is crystal clear, generally speaking utilities
have to go underground about approximately a hundred and twenty five feet subject to
conditions in the field, but at least it defines what that distance is. The second change
doesn’t really have anything to do with Main Street, but clarifies some interpretations that
are Zoning Administrator Craig Brown has made over the years as far as customer laterals
connections that are upgrading their service. There is a question mark at one point of
whether or not that upgraded service connection needed to then be under grounded and the
previous interpretation as I recall from Craig Brown was that, no, that sort of thing was not
the intent of our local law. He had made that interpretation this will codify that and it will
also codify and allow if specifically if there is a company, lets say a fiber optic company that
wants to come in and locate a line on existing infrastructure that by itself would not require
all the infrastructure to go underground it would literally just allow for that placement on the
current, above ground infrastructure and then subject in the future if conditions change
where everything had to be underground, then at that point it would have to be underground.
Again it was kind of a common sense thing that if you got one wire that you are going to
add why would you bury that one and leave everything up. By the same token why would
you automatically require, make that one small thing require under grounding? So, this
local law modification to the existing local law those are the two essential changes that we
are considering tonight. With that said I will open the public hearing if there are any
members of the public that would like to comment on this particular public hearing we will
call on folks one at a time. (No one spoke) Bob did I miss anything?
Town Counsel Hafner-We did get written comments and they were sent to the Town Board
Supervisor Stec-Darleen if you would read those.
Town Clerk Darleen Dougher:
Amendments to Underground Overlay District Law
Glasheen, Kevin P.
Bob,
I wanted to follow up on our conversation of last Thursday with a couple of
suggested language changes to the proposed amendment. Here are the suggested language
changes:
Sec. 1 D – 2d and 3d sentences – “The underground utilities shall extend and connect to
existing overhead systems located along side streets within the overlay district corridors.
The first structure of the side street overhead system must be located at a point that is 125 ft.
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 5
from the overlay district roadway corridor certerline subject to adjustment for field
conditions.
Bob, after talking with our folks, we basically thought that going forward, it would
probably be better to have a single fairly clear standard to apply rather than a dual that was
dependent on the happenstance of whether there was a building or no building at the corner
of the specific intersection. It would avoid the problem of potentially having to extend
underground faculties beyond the 125 ft. boundary of the Underground Overlay District. A
single standard would provide a single, clear guide to facility designers. It would meet the
Town’s desire to have an attractive views cape for persons traveling in cars or pedestrians
and avoid unnecessary additional expense that does not provide any substantial benefit. It
would also provide a more uniform appearance for side street overhead facilities rather than
one that might vary on a street by street basis. It also avoids the problem of what happens
when a new building is built or an existing building is replaced with a larger building. I have
included an adjustment for field conditions because it is possible that there may be
conditions that make UG installation up to the 125’ very problematic from a cost or
operational reliability standard or other reason. For example, there may be a rock formation,
a municipal underground water or sewer structure or a swampy area located in close
proximity to the 125 ft. location. For this reason, there should be some installation
flexibility that can be worked out between the utility and the Town.
If there is some variation from the standard that B & L and National Grid have
already designed into the Main St. project, I think that we can leave that alone pursuant to
Sec. 1 G. as a project that has already been substantially commenced.
st
2.Sec. 1 H.-I would suggest that the 1 clause read “The provisions of this section
shall not be deemed applicable to new Utility Lines, including service upgrades,
proposed to be placed within the Underground Overlay District”. I would suggest
the same change to clause 2).
This addition would make it clear that new Utility Lines includes new lines to
upgrade services and avoid any future misunderstandings or disagreements with respect to
the meaning of the term. It will serve to encourage business owners to expand operations
without the fear of incurring heavy undergrounding costs if the existing overhead
infrastructure will accommodate the upgrade. It will hopefully, at least to some extent,
avoid the situation where one business owner must underground while all of this neighbors
have their facilities overhead.
These were our thoughts and suggestions. If you should have any questions or want
to touch bases regarding these suggested edits, please give me a call. I will be tied up with a
deposition this morning but should be around sometime after noon. Thanks and take care,
Bob.
Kevin
Supervisor Stec-Bob maybe now is an appropriate time for your to highlight for the Board
and the public where exactly the proposed changes are.
Town Counsel Bob Hafner-You have the version that was sent with the notice of the public
hearing, due to the comments that were raised by National Grid which we do not think
substantially change the proposal but that they would clarify things for one of the main
people that we are dealing with so we do not spend a lot of time fighting over what the
words mean. We have put together after talking with you Mr. Supervisor and with Stu
Baker.
Supervisor Stec-Craig Brown and Stu Baker just for the Board’s knowledge, both Craig
Brown and Stu Baker reviewed the proposed language and they did not see an issue with it.
Town Counsel Hafner-So, what we have done is we have made some changes, if you look
on pages two to three of the version that was sent to you this morning at 11:58 it should be
in red and it shows the changes. What it basically does it says that along the side street the
undergrounding of utilities will go along the side streets up to a 125’. That is what makes it
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 6
a clear thing for the and I am talking about the local law itself and that will make it clear
rather than be the version you had before, it had two choices either a hundred feet or the
other side of the building, it was unclear whether or not that was intended to extend past the
125’ our whole local law, is within a 125’ of the center line of these four roads in the Town
of Queensbury these are main districts our main corridors.
Councilman Strough-I have a question do you want me to wait until you are done?
Town Counsel Hafner-No, In this section, go ahead.
Councilman Strough-Well, my question deals with as it is worded it says that the overhead
system must be located at a point that is 125’ from the overlay district roadway corridor
center line, subject to adjustments for field conditions. So, with that being, is that the
minimum of 125’ meaning they can go more than that but lets say there is an obstruction
there, lets say the development project itself exceeds 125’ you do not want a telephone pole
to be there, so is 125’ a minimum?
Town Counsel Hafner-The way I had read this it was a maximum because our zone right
now is an area that is, it is a line following these four main roads that goes 125’ either side
of the center line, like Main Street, like Quaker Road, like Route 9 and it ends there. The
idea was as I recall, because I think I sat in on all these meetings over the many years you
guys have been dealing with Main Street. I think the town board’s rational was that they
wanted to have increased safety concerns and esthetic concerns along our main very busy
corridors.
Supervisor Stec-So, it is a minimum distance from the center.
Councilman Strough-Yea, the 125’ the way it is worded right now says like you have to
establish it at 125’
Councilman Metivier-But if you wanted to go to 150’ you could.
Councilman Strough-But that is what I am saying 125’ is minimum depending on the
project.
Councilman Metivier-The way you worded the question I think is different, it cannot be a
maximum it has to be a minimum.
Supervisor Stec-It cannot be a maximum because then somebody could put a telephone pole
right on the sidewalk.
Councilman Strough-Would it be more to all, if we intended to do if we put a minimum of
125’? In other words if they went underground further than 125’ I do not think there is
anybody here is going to have a problem with that.
Supervisor Stec-I agree I think it is, the way I understand it
Town Counsel Hafner-I understood it as the maximum because our current has a 125’ from
the center line, and this is
Supervisor Stec-So, if a guy comes in and says I want to go underground fifty foot off the
center line.
Town Counsel Hafner-They have to go 125’ unless field conditions go the other way.
Supervisor Stec-A 125’ minimum from the center line.
Councilman Brewer-But what Bob is saying the way..it could be 115’.
Town Counsel Hafner-I am not fighting with you, you are the Town Board, you can make it
say the way that you want.
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 7
Supervisor Stec-Well, again, I am the property owner and I want to put it, I want to make it
go underground right at the curb, what you are saying that is not how it works. We want it
to be a minimum.
Councilman Strough-Or I am a property owner and I have a large parking area in the back
of me I do not want to put a telephone pole in the middle of it and
Town Counsel Hafner-They can always choose to go farther because that is their choice.
Supervisor Stec-So it is a minimum. If they can choose to go farther then it is a minimum.
Town Counsel Hafner-They can choose to go farther but our requirement is 125’ but it
could be less if field conditions allow.
Supervisor Stec-How much less if field conditions allow, and that is where Don Fletcher’s
last change to the change comes in. Do we want it subject to Town Board and or Town
Engineer approval.
Town Counsel Hafner-Based on the questions that you are raising I think that you would
add his language
Supervisor Stec-As close to 125’ as conditions permit. Then the question becomes you are
going to have an engineer that says can’t put it there you got to put it way up here by the
roadside.
Town Counsel Hafner-What we ran into on Main Street or sometimes it was slightly less
and sometimes it was the full hundred and twenty five feet, and that’s again the different
conditions along those different side streets. That is being done right now.
Supervisor Stec-Then the question is well, if you can’t do 125’ but then can do 120’ or they
can do 150’ are we going to let them do 120’ or are we going to make them do 150’.
Councilman Brewer-Not if you use 125’ as a minimum.
Supervisor Stec-That is what I am trying to hash out.
Town Counsel Hafner-We can make it say what you would like it to say.
Councilman Strough-I feel better if we said minimum.
Town Counsel Hafner-Then why don’t we just get rid of subject to field conditions then it
will be, it has to be 125’.
Councilman Strough-Or greater.
Town Counsel Hafner-More than that isn’t a requirement but it is allow, you could always
underground, people have that right.
Councilman Strough-So, if they wanted to go 130’?
Town Counsel Hafner-If they wanted to go farther they can.
Councilman Strough-So we want to word that to allow that. But they should be
undergrounded at least 125’ to make it look uniform down that corridor.
Town Counsel Hafner-We should get rid of subject to adjustment for field conditions or you
can have subject to field conditions which is in here and add the language that Barton and
Loguidice e-mailed that says that would allow for the Town Board and the Town Engineer
to sign off they could do it a 115’.
Supervisor Stec-I do not think it will come up often so that might not be a bad way to go.
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 8
Councilman Strough-So, why don’t we put minimum and then also include the word that
you get a variance from the Town Board to go less and we will take a look at the conditions.
Supervisor Stec-Minimum of a 125’ unless otherwise approved by the Town Board.
Councilman Strough-Yes.
Supervisor Stec-A minimum of a 125’ unless
Town Counsel Hafner-So, I says it must be located a point that is 125’ which already means
that is how far it has to be unless something else happens.
Councilman Strough-Or greater.
Supervisor Stec-Or more.
Town Counsel Hafner-Ok. So, we can add or greater
Supervisor Stec-Or minimum of however you, grammar…
Town Counsel Hafner-I will add or greater than
Supervisor Stec-Unless otherwise approved the Town Board.
Town Counsel Hafner-Unless otherwise approved by the Town Board that sounds
Supervisor Stec-Then that gives the Town Board authority to say, 115’ is ok because you
have a huge block out problem.
Councilman Strough-There might be conditions where
Town Counsel Hafner-So, that is how we will deal with that, ok?
Supervisor Stec-Do you want to go over the other changes?
Town Counsel Hafner-The other change was in H, which if you remember H was the one
that would allow if there aren’t the conditions that would require the undergrounding you
would let people be able to use existing lines such as along one of these corridors if there
was someone that wanted to put fiber optics in and none of the other people were going to
have to underground theirs’ they could be able to be like everybody else and hang on the
same exact poles that were already going to be there, see you got the improvements that you
were looking for anyway and also the laterals to the businesses. We have run into this in our
real life examples where some of the businesses wanted to upgrade and National Grid has
interpreted our language as to require them to have to underground and we have had to deal
with that, because you do not want to impose more costs on our businesses which don’t
meet the goals that the Town Board is setting.
Supervisor Stec-So, that the phrase that you are adding in H is
Town Counsel Hafner-Is including lateral service upgrades to customers, just to make it
clear. We thought, I thought that, that was implicit in the language we used and National
Grid did not think so. So we do not want that kind we do not want National Grid to have to
have a disagreement.
Supervisor Stec-Which is important.
Town Counsel Hafner-Well, because they are going to require their customers which is our
residents our property owners to make costly improvements that we are not requiring.
Supervisor Stec-So, those or the two amendments that are proposed to what was noticed a
couple of weeks ago. Again the public hearing is open if anyone would like to comment on
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 9
this public hearing I would just ask you to raise your hand. All right are we ready to go
through SEQRA then?
Town Counsel Hafner-If you closed the public hearing yes. I am going to do through that.
Supervisor Stec-I will close the public hearing and Bob if you want to walk us through the
SEQRA please.
Town Counsel Hafner-You are also restating and reaffirming the existing, because
sometimes when you keep making changes it gets harder to read the whole thing so this is
what the law will be at the end. That is what we are doing. You have gone thorough
SEQRA in the past and I understand your questions but we are going to go though the long
form and I want to I hope that you all got a copy of the long form and I think we should take
a few minutes to go through Part I to make sure you acquaint yourself with the facts and you
agree with the facts. Then I will go thorough the different questions. You have done a prior
negative declaration after SEQRA analysis and we are proposing some changes and you
heard the types of changes that you were proposing and we think it is appropriate to consider
the potential environmental impacts of the revised Underground Utility OverLay Zone. The
Long Form EAF is to help you to go through this process and if you determine that there are
no adverse significant environmental impacts then you will affirm, ratify and reaffirm the
prior negative declaration and make one today. Some of the questions as you know from
going through SEQRA are going to ask whether or not there is an impact by this project.
Some of these may have a yes answer but it may be a positive benefit and not an adverse
environmental impact. So, that is something that we need to make clear on the record when
you do and we are going to ask all of you to answer and if you are going to say yes or no
clear so the record shows what everyone’s answer is for all twenty questions.
PART 2- SEQRA FORM LONG FORM
Impact on land
1.Will the Proposed action result in any physical change to the project site? YES
(Positive)
2.Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? NO
(i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological, formations, etc.)
3.Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? (under
Articles 12, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) NO
4.Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? NO
5.Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? NO
6.Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? NO
7.Will proposed action affect air quality? NO
8.Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? NO
9.Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered
species? NO
10.Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? NO
11. Will proposed Action affect aesthetic resources? YES (Positive)
12. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or
paleontological importance? NO
13. Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open
spaces or recreational opportunities? NO
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 10
14.Will proposed action impact he exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical
environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR
617.14(g)? NO
15.Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? YES (Positive)
16.Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply?
NO
17.Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed
action? NO
18.Will proposed action affect public health and safety? YES (Positive)
19.Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? YES
(Positive)
20.Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts? NO
Town Counsel Hafner-We have gone thorough that and answered the questions that there
are either no or there is a yes but a positive impact, it seems that you could make a
determination in the Town Board Resolution you have before you that you are considering
that you have a negative declaration as part of it.
Supervisor Stec-There is a revised resolution that factors in these amendments that we made
tonight as well as the fact that just to make clear that the County Planning Board has had this
for over thirty days and they did not take any action on it so therefore we can move forward
with this.
Councilman Strough-Questioned sentence?
Town Counsel Hafner-That is the one that Don Fletcher sent.
Supervisor Stec-That is not included.
RESOLUTION ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO.: 5 OF 2010 TO
MODIFY, RESTATE AND REAFFIRM QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE
CHAPTER 179 “ZONING” SECTION 179-4-110 ENTITLED
“UNDERGROUND UTILITIES OVERLAY DISTRICT”
RESOLUTION NO. 167, 2010
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board (Town) wishes to consider adoption of
Local Law No.: 5 of 2010 to modify, restate and reaffirm in its entirety Queensbury Town
Code Chapter 179, “Zoning,” §179-4-110 entitled “Underground Utilities Overlay
District,” originally enacted by Local Law 6 of 2004 and thereafter amended by Local
Law 1 of 2005, and
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 11
WHEREAS, the Town wishes to alter the bounds of the Underground Utility
Overlay District relative to certain portions of adjacent roadways that intersect with the
corridors of the Underground Utility Overlay District, and
WHEREAS, the Town wishes to clarify when new aboveground facilities can be
constructed within the Underground Utilities Overlay District, and
WHEREAS, Notice of Public Hearing was provided to neighboring municipalities
and the Warren County Planning Board, and
th
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2010, the Town Clerk duly forwarded the proposed
Local Law to the Warren County Planning Board for its review and comment in accordance
with New York State General Municipal Law §239-M and the Town has not received any
response within the 30 day period set by law, and
WHEREAS, if the Town Board does not receive a response from the Warren
County Planning Board within 30 days, the Town is authorized to act, and
th
WHEREAS, the Town Board duly held a public hearing on Monday, April 19,
2010 and heard all interested persons, and
WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Local Law has been presented at this meeting
and is in form approved by Town Counsel,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board has reviewed a SEQRA Full Environmental
Assessment Form relating to the Underground Utilities Overlay Zone and its previous
and proposed amendments and determines that the proposed amendment will not result in
any new or different environmental impacts not previously identified during the SEQRA
review for the enactment of Underground Utilities Overlay District (Local Law # 6 of
2004) and its previous amendment (Local Law # 1 of 2005) and that the proposed
amendment will not, in itself, result in any significant adverse environmental impacts,
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that, both separately and when considered together, the
Underground Utilities Overlay District (Local Law # 6 of 2004) and its previous
amendment (Local Law # 1 of 2005) and the proposed amendment and the Main Street
Utilities Relocation Project will not result in any significant adverse environmental
impacts, and
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 12
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board therefore reaffirms its prior
SEQRA Negative Declarations with regard to the Underground Utilities Overlay District
(Local Law #6 of 2004, as amended by Local Law #1 of 2005 and proposed Local Law #
5 of 2010) and authorizes the filing of a SEQRA Negative Declaration relating to the
Underground Utilities Overlay District as so amended.
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby enacts Local Law No.: 5 of
2010 to modify, restate and affirm Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179, “Zoning,” §179-4-
110 entitled “Underground Utilities Overlay District,” as presented at this meeting, and
amends the official Town Zoning Map to reflect the enactment of such Local Law, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury
Town Clerk to send a copy of this Resolution and a copy of the Local Law and Zoning Map
to the Town Planning Board, Town Zoning Board of Appeals and Zoning Administrator in
accordance with §179-15-080(D) of the Town Zoning Law, and
BE IT FURTHER,
§
RESOLVED, that the Town Board modifies, restates and reaffirms 179-4-110
entitled, “Underground Utilities Overlay District,” as amended, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury
Town Clerk to file the Local Law, and the official Town Zoning Map, as amended,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 19 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 13
LOCAL LAW NO.: 5 OF 2010
A LOCAL LAW TO MODIFY, RESTATE AND REAFFIRM
QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 179 “ZONING” SECTION
179-4-110 ENTITLED “UNDERGROUND UTILITIES OVERLAY
DISTRICT”
BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1
. Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179, “Zoning”, Article 4 entitled
“Schedule of Regulation” is hereby modified and restated in its entirety as follows:
[Added 7-26-2004 by L.L. No. 6-
§ 179-4-110. Underground Utilities Overlay District
2004]
A.Purpose and findings. The Town of Queensbury is currently experiencing
significant new construction and reconstruction in developed areas which
involve either installation or relocation of electric, telephone, cable television
and telecommunication utility lines. Placement of these utilities underground
would improve the safety and welfare of Town residents and visitors for several
reasons. A multitude of utility poles close to the street constitutes a traffic
hazard by increasing visual clutter and the likelihood of accidents related to the
resulting distraction as well as by presenting a collision obstacle for vehicles
which leave the lane of travel for any reason. Utility poles and overhead utility
lines also pose a threat to public safety as they are vulnerable to being downed
by ice and wind storms. Finally, the appearance of the major arterials in the
Town contributes significantly to the overall impression of the community held
by residents, visitors and commuters. Placing utilities underground will
improve this general perception and positively impact the appeal of the
community. This section is intended to provide these benefits by requiring the
placement of electric, telephone, cable television and telecommunication
utilities underground within the overlay district.
B.Definitions. As used in this section, the following term(s) shall have the
meanings indicated:
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 14
UTILITY LINES — Transmission, truck and lateral distribution lines, including
electric, telephone, cable television, telecommunication and all other wires and
cables.
C.Creation of overlay district. An overlay district is hereby created to be known as
the “Underground Utilities Overlay District” which includes all properties
located within 125 feet of the center line of the following roads:
(1)Warren County Route 28 (Main Street) from Exit 18 of the Adirondack
Northway (NYS Route I-87) to the City of Glens Falls municipal
boundary;
(2)NYS Route 9 from NYS Route 149 to the City of Glens Falls municipal
boundary;
(3)All of Quaker Road (NYS Route 254) lying within the Town; and
(4)Aviation Road (NYS Route 254) from west of the bridge over the
Adirondack Northway (NYS Route I-87) to NYS Route 9.
D.Undergrounding required. Any utility lines within the Underground Utilities
Overlay District which are required to be relocated in connection with any
construction project and any new utility lines to be installed within the overlay
district shall be installed underground. The underground utilities shall extend
and connect to existing overhead systems located along side streets within the
overlay district corridors. The first structure of the side street overhead system
must be located at a point that is one-hundred twenty five feet (125’) or greater
from the overlay district roadway corridor centerline unless otherwise approved
by the Town Board. Utility companies shall obtain all necessary approvals and
permits prior to commencement of construction. Wherever practicable, trenches
through utility easements shall be occupied jointly by electric and
telecommunications utility lines. Whenever main distribution and trunk utility
lines are located or relocated underground, lateral distribution lines from those
lines to individual structures shall also be located or relocated underground. All
new or relocated lateral distribution lines shall be located underground whether
[Amended April
or not the main distribution and trunk lines are underground.
19, 2010 by L.L. No. 5-2010]
E.Removal of existing poles and overhead lines. The utility company which owns
existing utility poles and overhead utility lines shall remove such poles and lines
immediately following installation and activation of the underground lines.
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 15
F.Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, individual telephone poles
or electric poles (or similar separate and distinct utility structures) which are
damaged or destroyed due to automobile accident of natural disaster (lightning,
fire, flood or the like) may be repaired or replaced at the same or substantially
similar aboveground location at the discretion of the utility company and/or
[Added 4-
property owner bearing responsibility for the repair or replacement.
4-2005 by L.L. No. 1-2005]
G.The provisions of this section shall be deemed to be applicable to any activity or
project which has not already been substantially commenced. For this purpose,
“substantial commencement” shall mean that the physical, on-site construction
or work associated with the project or activity has actually begun in the field
[Added 4-4-2005 by
and was substantially underway at the time of enactment.
L.L. No. 1-2005]
H.The provisions of this section shall not be deemed applicable to new Utility Lines,
including lateral service upgrades to customers, proposed to be placed within
the Underground Utilities Overlay District provided 1) undergrounding has not
taken place in the location at issue and aboveground utility facilities are present,
2) any new Utility Lines, including lateral service upgrades to customers, utilize
the existing aboveground utility infrastructure and 3) no relocation of such other
existing aboveground facilities is otherwise required. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, if thereafter such aboveground facilities must be relocated in
connection with any construction project and the provisions of this Section are
[Amended
therefore triggered; such facilities must be placed underground.
April 19, 2010 by L.L. No. 5-2010]
SECTION 2
. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph or provision of
this Local Law shall not invalidate any other clause, sentence, paragraph, provision or
part thereof.
SECTION 3
. All Local Laws or ordinances or parts of Local Laws or ordinances
in conflict with any part of this Local Law are hereby repealed.
SECTION 4
. This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing in the
Office of the New York Secretary of State as provided in New York Municipal Home
Rule Law §27.
2.2PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED LOCAL LAW TO AMEND
QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE BY ADDING NEW CHAPTER NO. 44
ENTITLED “HOTEL AND MOTEL REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER
OCCUPANCY LICENSE LAW”
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 16
PUBLICATION DATE: APRIL 4, 2010
Supervisor Stec-Before we open the public hearing on this as I try to do before every public
hearing the summary here, those of you that been living under a rock the last couple of
months as far as what have been in the local newspaper. There have been several articles
and concerns and I suspect there will be another one tomorrow that not only deals with this
local law that we are considering tonight but also the fact that sure enough, the sex offenders
in question in the first set of articles about a month or two ago have now migrated to a
different business and I think in my mind at least emphasizes that the Town because the
State has not acted on any of this the local municipalities throughout the State have been
forced to entertain their own solutions to the problems of, ok somebody is a registered sex
offender according to the criminal process of New York State and they have served their
time and they are now free and often times the question is where they can live. The State
has not taken that mantel up much to my disappointment but not to my surprise. Counties
have identified overlays there sex offenders that are required to register whether it be in a
hotel or private residence or apartment or whatever cannot live within certain distances of
schools and playgrounds and daycare centers and whatnot. In addition to that though we say
what was happening was a concentration of sex offenders living in hotels though out the
Town some of which were placed there by Warren County Social Services others of which
were placed there by our neighbors Washington County and Saratoga County who are guess
are trying to maybe help the local economy by putting their sex offenders in Warren County.
Then perhaps others who are not being placed there by Social Services at all. But, the
concern a concentration here presented in my opinion and I think the Board’s opinion and I
think most residences opinions an accident waiting to happen or an issue waiting to happen
and certainly a concern for the traveling public as they travel though. They get tired they
feel a need to stop they cannot continue their journey so they pull off to the road side, they
want to stop in a hotel there was nothing in the past that really helped make them aware that
they could be pulling into a hotel that has decided to make a cottage industry of accepting
folks that are registered sex offenders. So, the Town of Colony about a year ago, a little less
than a year ago, established a local law that so far withstood the test of time. Recently Lake
George and Lake Luzerne have adopted very similar if not identical laws to what the Town
of Queensbury is creating, proposing to create tonight. It does a few things for us, one it
would require a hotel that wanted to house registered level two and level three sex offenders
to seek, apply for and pay for and seek a license from the Town so that this would be
regulated. What I like most about this proposal is that the Town Board could be providing
the size defined in the law 11x17 license be displayed in the registration area. So, again for
that traveling family that is coming through they can make a wise consumer choice whether
or not they want to patronize that establishment by seeing that there is a license to house sex
offenders there. But, further more it would restrict how many could live at a hotel. Real
simple the town is considering a point system similar to what the other local laws in the
region have incorporated, whereas a level three sex offender would be assigned three points,
a level two sex offender two points and ours would limit any hotel that has this license to
five points. So, in other words they could house one level three and one level two or two
level twos but no more than that. I would certainly address the article that you will probably
see in tomorrows paper about another hotel in the Exit 19 area that has five or six according
to Don Lehman who I spoke to this afternoon. Then of course a month or two ago the
article that started all this was that there was about ten or twelve that were living down there
in a hotel near Exit 18. So, this would limit how many could live in a hotel at a time, give
the town enforcement capability to address that and if nothing else it would require that, that
sign be placed in the registration of the lobby so that somebody that is walking in can at
least buyer be ware what the situation maybe. There are those that would say well why
can’t the town go farther or the county go farther, why not make it even more difficult. I
think a lot of us would be comfortable with that from a practical standpoint what becomes
the issue then is that if we get overly aggressive with making it very restrictive it invites
legal challenge and then again we go back to, do we want to fight or do we want to win,
what is the goal here? This I think is a step in the right direction but short of us saying you
cannot live in the Town of Queensbury which maybe there are a lot of towns and a lot of
people out there that would like to do that probably not withstand a legal challenge. But,
again, it all goes back to my frustration that the State of New York is certainly the one that is
in the best position and has the best standing to address this issue and that way it would be
uniform across the State and you would not run into situations where you know different
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 17
municipalities have different rules and basically push their sex offenders population from
one town or county to another neighboring town or county. However, in the absence of the
Town of Queensbury doing that, that is exactly what is going to happen that is what
Saratoga County and Washington County have been doing with some of their sex offenders.
Now, that Lake George and Lake Luzerne have adopted similar ordinances you know the
population is going to be looking for a new home and there are not a lot of hotels in
Thurman. So, I think it is important for Queensbury to be ahead of this curve as much as we
can and so that is the jest of the local law that we would be considering here this evening.
So, with that as an intro if there are any members of the public that would like to address the
Board on this public hearing regarding the hotel, motel sex offender occupancy license law I
will call on folks one at a time. (no one spoke)
Councilman Metivier-When will this take place?
Supervisor Stec-We pass this tonight it gets filed, in a few days to a week or so. The County
will know that immediately.
Town Counsel Hafner-The Town Clerk has already, she is a step ahead and already
prepared an application for people that want to apply for a license.
Councilman Strough-44-5 Criminal convictions barring issuance of license. It says no
license shall be issued to any person who has been convicted of any crime defined as a
felony or Class A misdemeanor or so forth…who is the person are we talking about the
applicant , are we talking about the owner are we talking about management?
Town Counsel Hafner-We are talking about the applicant will be the person who owns the
hotel.
Councilman Strough-So management is allowed to have a conviction?
Town Counsel Hafner-The license talks about person, partnership, corporation or limited
liability company or the High Managerial.
Supervisor Stec-Is entity a better now than person
Councilman Strough-Or applicant?
Supervisor Stec-Is person the best word there?
Councilman Strough-Or applicants?
Town Counsel Hafner-Through out that whole long sentence it talks about all the different
things that would be an entity. It will not be issued to a person, it will not be issued to a
partnership it won’t be issued to a corporation or a limited liability company or to an officer
or compensated employee basically ….
Supervisor Stec-A company will not have a Class A misdemeanor but a person would.
Town Counsel Hafner-Yes.
Supervisor Stec-So that is the train of thought that you have got going there Bob.
Town Counsel Hafner-Yes.
Councilman Strough-I am just making sure that it coordinates with 44-3 and I guess it does.
Forty four – three talks about license required and it says no person shall engage in the
business of owning or operating so I guess we are talking about management an
establishment as defined and so forth. So, that person in 44-5 is the owner or operator, I just
want to understand if that is correct, I am fine with that.
Town Counsel Hafner-Right, the owner or operator.
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 18
Councilman Montesi-Who applies for the license? In otherwords you could have an owner
apply with a clean record and the operator may have a tarnished record.
Councilman Strough-Who does the applying?
Town Counsel Hafner-The person who owns or operates the establishment, it would usually
be the owner sometimes it would be franchise holder.
Councilman Strough-This really doesn’t cover management then?
Councilman Metivier-Well a manager is not going to apply for a license.
Councilman Brewer-They are not staying there John, they have a right to work someplace.
Councilman Strough-I am not disagreeing with you.
Supervisor Stec-If you have a criminal record you cannot even get the license.
Councilman Strough-I am just looking for clarification, I am not saying one way or the
other.
Councilman Brewer-I would take it to be the person who owns the hotel.
Councilman Strough-That is fine if that is what we all agree on.
Town Counsel Hafner-That is how I interpreted it that is if you own or operate.
Supervisor Stec-Any other questions? The public hearing is still open if anyone has a
question or comment? (No one spoke) Seeing none I will close the public hearing.
RESOLUTION ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO.: 6 OF 2010 TO
AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE BY ADDING NEW CHAPTER
NO.: 44 ENTITLED, “HOTEL AND MOTEL REGISTERED SEX
OFFENDER OCCUPANCY LICENSE LAW”
RESOLUTION NO. 168, 2010
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to promote the public health,
safety and general welfare of the guests of hotels and motels located within the Town of
Queensbury and that of the general citizenry of the Town, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board therefore wishes to consider adoption of Local Law
No.: 6 of 2010 and amend the Queensbury Town Code by adding a new Chapter No.: 44
entitled "Hotel and Motel Registered Sex Offender Occupancy License Law,” and
WHEREAS, this legislation is authorized in accordance with New York State
Municipal Home Rule Law §10 and Town Law §130, and
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 19
WHEREAS, the Town Board duly held a public hearing concerning such proposed
th
Local Law on Monday, April 19, 2010 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.: 6 of
2010 to amend the Queensbury Town Code by adding a new Chapter No.: 44 entitled,
"Hotel and Motel Registered Sex Offender Occupancy License Law,” 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 19 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
LOCAL LAW NO.: 6 OF 2010
A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE BY
ADDING
A NEW CHAPTER NO.: 44 ENTITLED, “HOTEL AND MOTEL
REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER OCCUPANCY LICENSE LAW”
BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY AS FOLLOWS:
GENERAL REFERENCES
§44-1 Purpose and intent.
It is the purpose and intent of this Local Law to promote the public health, safety and
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 20
general welfare of the guests of Hotels and Motels located within the Town and that of
the general citizenry of the Town.
§ 44-2 Definitions.
As used in this Local Law, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated.
HIGH MANAGERIAL AGENT
The same meaning as set forth in New York State Penal Law §20.20, and in addition,
means a member of a limited liability company or any other agent in a position of
comparable authority with respect to the formulation of corporate policy or the
supervision in a managerial capacity of subordinate employees.
HOTEL or MOTEL
Any Tourist Accommodation or Housekeeping Cottage as defined in the Zoning
Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, and any other inn, tourist home, trailer park,
trailer camp, boarding house, rooming house, halfway house, rehabilitation facility,
prison transitional facility, or any other structure, building or part of a building used in
the business of renting rooms, individual or several, or similar establishment where
sleeping accommodations are furnished for pay to guests, lodgers, tourists, transients or
travelers, whether meals are served therein or not to such guests, lodgers, tourists,
transients or travelers, intending to include but not be limited to all of those facilities
described in New York State General Business Law §204.
LICENSE
A Registered Sex Offender Occupancy License issued under this Local Law.
LICENSED PREMISES
Includes the Hotel or Motel as defined above, together with all other real property and
improvements appurtenant thereto, owned or leased by the Licensee or one (1) or more of
its officers, directors, shareholders, partners or other principals.
LICENSEE
The holder of the License to conduct such Hotel or Motel business.
PERSON
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 21
Includes an individual, or any firm, partnership, corporation, limited liability company or
association of persons or entity of any kind.
REGISTER
The register required to be maintained under §44-11 of this Local Law and New York
State General Business Law §204.
REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER
A person who has been convicted of a violation of a sexual offense, as defined by the
New York State Penal Law or Federal law, and who has received a Level Two (2) or
Three (3) designation as described in New York State Correction Law Article 6-C or
under any other State or Federal law which would require that individual to register as a
sex offender under such respective State or Federal law.
Unless specifically defined above, all terms used in this Local Law shall be interpreted to
give them the meanings they have in common usage and to give this Local Law its most
reasonable application.
§ 44-3 License required.
No person shall engage in the business of owning or operating an establishment as
defined in §44-2, i.e., rooming, tourist house, tourist accommodation or Hotel and Motel
as defined in §44-2 that accepts placements, referrals or payment by or on behalf of any
Federal, State or Local government or any subdivision thereof, or front any not-for-profit
group, association or entity of any type or nature, on account of providing
accommodations to one (1) or more registered sex offenders without first obtaining a
License for each establishment owned or operated by such person from the Town of
Queensbury Town Clerk as hereinafter provided.
In addition to all the other enforcement provisions in this law, if it is determined by the
Town Board or the Director of Building and Codes Enforcement that the operation of a
Hotel or Motel requiring such a License is continuing in the Town of Queensbury without
such License or if any such Hotel or Motel is operated after the determination or
revocation or expiration of such License, the Town Board may direct Town Counsel to
seek Injunctive Relief in Supreme Court and secure an Order directing that the operation
of such Hotel or Motel be immediately terminated pending whatever further directions
may be given by the Court issuing the Injunction.
§ 44-4 Application for License.
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 22
A. Each applicant for a License under this Local Law shall make a written application
on a form supplied by the Town Clerk setting forth:
(1) The name, residence and postal address of the applicant and the name under
which the applicant intends to do business, if different.
(2) The exact location of the proposed Licensed premises.
(3) A description of the buildings, structures and accommodations that
comprise the Licensed premises.
(4) A statement of the number of lawful housing or lodging units at said
establishment and the maximum number of persons that can lawfully be
accommodated in the Licensed premises and each individual unit thereof at
any given time.
(5) The number and location of the automobile parking spaces and parking
facilities at the Licensed premises.
(6) The name and address of the owner of the Licensed premises.
(7) The name or names of the person or persons on the Licensed premises upon
whom process may be served.
(8) A detailed description of the register or system used for the registration of
persons to whom accommodations are extended as required by the New
York State General Business Law.
(9) Whether the applicant, or any partner of a partnership applicant, or any
officer. director, High Managerial Agent or stockholder of a corporate
applicant holding five percent (5%) or more of the stock thereof, or any
member of a limited liability company, or any principal of any other
applicant that is not a natural person has ever been convicted of any crime
listed in §44-5 of this Local Law, and if so, the details thereof, including,
with respect to each conviction, the name of the person convicted, the date
thereof, the nature of the crime, the Court in which the conviction was
entered and the punishment imposed.
(10) If applicable in accordance with §44-5 of this Local Law, a certified copy
of a certificate of relief from disabilities or certificate of good conduct
granted to the applicant in accordance with New York State Correction
Law Article 23-A.
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 23
(11) In the case of any applicant that is a corporation, limited liability company,
partnership or other entity:
(a) The place of incorporation or establishment of applicant.
(b) A copy of the applicant’s certificate of incorporation, limited
liability organizational instruments, partnership agreement or other
organizational documentation.
(c) Any fictitious or assumed name under which the applicant does
business.
(d) The names and residences of all stockholders, partners, members or
other principals holding five percent (5%) or more of any stock or
other interest of the applicant.
(e) The names and residences of all officers, directors and High
Managerial Agents of the corporation and the office held by each.
B. Any premises required to be Licensed in accordance with this Local Law which
are in operation on the effective date of this Local Law shall apply for a License
hereunder within thirty (30) days of such effective date. Such application shall
include all information set forth in Subsection “A” above.
C. The Licensee shall notify the Town Clerk, in writing, of any change in information
provided by the Licensee in the License application during the term of the License
within ten (10) business days of such change.
§ 44-5 Criminal convictions barring issuance of License.
No License shall be issued to any person who has been convicted of any crime defined as
a felony or a Class A misdemeanor under New York State Penal Law Articles 120, 125,
130, 135, 140 or 160, subject in each case to the rehabilitation procedures under New
York State Correction Law Article 23-A, nor shall any License be issued to any
partnership in which any general partner shall have been convicted, or to any corporation
or limited liability company in which any stockholder holding five-percent (5%) or more
of any of the stock thereof or any director, officer or High Managerial Agent thereof, or
any other applicant other than a natural person, any owner or other principal of which
shall have been convicted of any crime defined as a felony or a Class A misdemeanor
under New York State Penal Law Articles 120, 125, 130, 135, 140 or 160, subject in each
case to the rehabilitation procedures under New York State Correction Law Article 23-A.
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 24
§44-6 Investigation; issuance of License.
The Director of Building and Codes Enforcement (Director) or his or her designee and a
representative of the Queensbury Fire Marshal shall inspect the premises within thirty
(30) days of application, to determine whether or not the Licensed premises and operation
thereof comply with all applicable health, fire, safety, construction and zoning
ordinances, laws, regulations and statutes. If the Licensed premises do not comply with
such regulations, the Director or designee and representative of the Queensbury Fire
Marshal shall so notify the Town Clerk within ten (10) days of such inspection, who shall
notify the applicant that the application is denied, setting forth the reasons for the denial.
The applicant shall have thirty (30) days to correct any deficient condition and request a
re-inspection for the purpose of securing a License.
§ 44-7 License Fee.
The annual fee per year for a License for any Licensed premises will be set by Town
Board Resolution and will be on file in the Town Clerk’s Office. The initial fee as set by
the Town Board is $3,000. The fee is due upon application and is non-refundable even if
a License is not granted.
§ 44-8 Term of License; display required.
A. All Licenses issued under the provisions of this Local Law shall be for a term of
one (1) year commencing on the date of their issuance, unless sooner revoked in
accordance with this Local Law.
B. All Licenses shall be prominently displayed in a conspicuous place in the lobby or
registration area of the Licensed premises. The License shall be denominated as
the Registered Sex Offender Occupancy License.
C. Licenses shall be in a form approved by the Town Board and will be issued by the
Town Clerk. The License shall be at least 11” x 17” and will include the name of
the Licensed Premised, the Words, “HOTEL AND MOTEL REGISTERED SEX
OFFENDER OCCUPANCY LICENSE” and reference the NY State Registry.
The Town Board may designate the color of the License and may change such
color from year-to-year. Every Licensee shall provide that a printed copy of this
Local Law is available for inspection by the public in such registration office.
D. A License may not be altered in any manner.
§ 44-9 Transfer of License.
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 25
A License shall be valid only to the applicant to whom it is issued and for the Licensed
premises stated on the License. No transfer of any License issued hereunder shall be
permitted. Any sale of all or substantially all of the Licensed premises or the assets of or
merger or other consolidation of or any transfer of more than fifty percent (50%) in
ownership or voting interest in any Licensee that is a corporation, partnership or other
entity shall be deemed a transfer for purposes of this Local Law.
§ 44-10 Inspection of premises.
The Director of Building and Codes Enforcement or designee and a representative of the
Queensbury Fire Marshal shall have the authority to inspect the public areas of the
Licensed premises from time-to-time, at any hour of the day or night without prior
notice, to determine that the provisions of this Local Law are followed.
§ 44-11 Register.
Every Licensed Premise shall keep a register which shall show the name, residence, date
of arrival and departure of all persons provided with sleeping accommodations at the
Licensed premises. Such register must be available for inspection by any representative
of the Town of Queensbury, including but not limited to, the Director of Building and
Codes Enforcement, who shall have the authority to inspect the register from time-to-
time, at any time of the day or night without prior notice, to determine that the provisions
of this Local Law are followed. Such records shall be maintained by the Licensed
Premises for a period of three (3) years.
§ 44-12 Occupancy Points.
A. There is hereby established in the Town of Queensbury an occupancy point
system applicable to Licensed Premises based upon and equal to the risk level
designation assigned to a sex offender by the sentencing court in accordance with
New York State Correction Law §168-n. For the purposes of this Local Law, a
Level Two (2) sex offender is hereby assigned two (2) occupancy points and a
Level Three (3) sex offender is hereby assigned three (3) occupancy points.
B. Hotels, Motels and other Licensed Premises as defined in this Local Law are
granted a total of five (5) occupancy points.
§ 44-13 Prohibited uses.
It shall be a violation of this Local Law to knowingly provide accommodations to persons
who are registered sex offenders in any Hotel or Motel or other Licensed premises in the
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 26
Town of Queensbury if the occupancy by such registered sex offender results in the
Hotel, Motel or other Licensed premises to exceed the maximum number of assigned
occupancy points at any one time on any given day.
§ 44-14 Suspension or revocation of License; hearing.
A. Any License issued under this Local Law shall be revoked by the Town of
Queensbury for any of the following causes, provided that the Licensee be
afforded a hearing before the Town Board or its designee, and notice of such
hearing be made prior to such evocation:
(1) The violation by the Licensee or any officer, director, member, partner,
five-percent (5%) or greater shareholder, High Managerial Agent or other
principal of Licensee of any provision of this Local Law or New York
State General Business Law §204.
(2) Upon the recommendationof the Director of Building and Codes
Enforcement, the Town Zoning Administrator, or the Queensbury Fire
Marshal for the failure to cure any violation of any applicable health, fire,
safety, construction or zoning ordinance, law, regulation or statute within
the time provided in the Town of Queensbury Zoning Law or other
applicable code after notification to the Licensee of such violation.
(3) Upon the recommendation of the Director of Building and Codes
Enforcement, or designee, or representative of the Queensbury Fire
Marshal, for knowingly permitting the Licensed Premises to be used, alone
or in association with others, for acts constituting violation of New York
State Penal Law Articles 220, 225 or 230 or failure to make reasonable
effort to abate such use by ejecting such occupants or other persons on or
about the Licensed Premises, notifying law enforcement authorities or
other legal means.
(4) False statements made in an application for a License.
B. Notice of the hearing for revocation of a License shall be given in writing, setting
forth specifically the grounds of complaint and the time and place of hearing.
Such Notice shall be given personally or mailed by first class mail, postage
prepaid, to the Licensee at the address provided in the application for License at
least five (5) days prior to the date set for such hearing.
C. Such License may, pending revocation proceedings, be suspended by the Town
Clerk if, in the opinion of the Director of Building and Codes Enforcement or
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 27
Queensbury Fire Marshal, the nature of the violation of this Local Law by the
Licensee is such that operation of the Hotel or Motel may be detrimental to the
health, safety and welfare of guests of such Hotel or Motel or the inhabitants of the
Town. In the event of any such suspension, the Licensee shall be entitled to a
hearing before the Town Board within twenty (20) days after the suspension.
§ 44-15 Penalties for offenses.
A. Any Person, including but not limited to any Licensee, who violates any provision
of this Local Law shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished as follows:
(1) Upon a first conviction, by a fine not less than $250 or by imprisonment for
a period not to exceed seven (7) days, or both.
(2) Upon a second conviction, by a fine not less than $500 or by imprisonment
for a period not to exceed 10 days, or by both.
(3) Upon a third or subsequent conviction, by a fine not less than $950 or by
imprisonment for a period not to exceed 15 days, or by both.
(4) Notwithstanding a conviction for an offense against any provisions or
sections hereof, a person, association or corporation convicted shall be
subject to revocation of any License herein granted without reimbursement
of fees paid therefor.
(5) Any penalties provided under the Town Zoning Ordinance Article.
The continuation of a violation on each successive day shall constitute a separate
offense, and the person or persons allowing or permitting the continuation of the
violations may be punished as provided for above for each separate offense.
B. An action or proceeding in the name of the Town of Queensbury may be
commenced in any court of competent jurisdiction to compel compliance with or
restrain by injunction the provisions of this Local Law.
§ 44-16 Pre-existing Use.
Any Hotel or Motel or other premises required to be Licensed in accordance with this
Local Law in operation on the effective date of this Local Law shall have thirty (30)
days to obtain a License hereunder and to comply with the terms of this Local Law.
§ 44-17 Interpretation.
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 28
This Local Law shall be liberally construed so as to effectuate the purposes described
herein. Nothing herein shall abridge the powers and responsibilities of any police
department or law enforcement agency to enforce the provisions of this Local Law.
Nothing herein shall be construed to abridge the emergency powers of any health
department or the right of such department to engage in any necessary or proper
activities.
§ 44-18 Conflicts.
If this Local Law conflicts with any Federal, State or local legislation then, in that
instance, the more stringent law shall apply. A law shall be determined to be more
stringent if it limits the allowable number of registered sex offenders that may reside at a
Hotel, Motel or other Licensed premises at any one time to a lesser number of registered
sex offenders allowed by this Local Law.
§ 44-19 Records.
The Town Clerk shall keep a record of all applications, the determinations thereof and all
Licenses issued and their date of termination and/or revocation and shall maintain a
record for each License issued of the reports of violation relative thereto.
§ 44-20 Severability.
If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, article or part of this Local Law shall be
adjudged by any Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not
affect, impair or invalidate the remainder thereof, but shall be confined in its operation to
the clause, sentence, paragraph, section, article or part thereof directly involved in the
controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered.
2.3PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED LOCAL LAW TO AMEND
QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 179 “ZONING” SECTION 179-
3-040(b)(1)(a) AND SECTION 179-3-040(C)(1)(a)
PUBLICATION DATE: APRIL 4, 2010
Supervisor Stec-There is essentially two changes, two allowed uses to two different zones
in the Town in this public hearing, one change would specify that food service
establishments would be listed as an allowed use by site plan review in the enclosed
shopping center zoning district which is essentially that corner of Exit 19 that
encompasses the mall and the properties between the mall and the intersection of the
Northway, and the second change would be to allow Health Related Facilities as a use
permitted by Site Plan Review in the Commercial Light Industrial Zoning District. With
that said I will open the public hearing and if any members of the public would like to
comment on this public hearing.
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 29
Councilman Strough-First of all they are both in the same resolution and the SEQRA asks
us to address both of them at the same time even though I think they are very different
issues. One is allowing a restaurant use in our enclosed shopping center zone, the other is
allowing a health related facility in our light industrial zone. I think they are so different
I am just wondering why they are in the same resolution. You either say yes or no to
both almost not fair. In addressing the SEQRA I would argue that they are so different
that the potential replies to the SEQRA questions would be different in each case. This is
my first concern. My other concern is with allowing a health facility in a light industrial
zone. Now, I want to make it clear that I support Hudson Headwaters, I think the
location is fine it is very good. I would like to see them expand, and I also understand
that where they are located in a light industrial zone they cannot expand because they are
defined as non-conforming. I agree that we need to do something. We come down to
basically two things. One is we can change our commercial light industrial zone and add
health facility as an allowed use to that zone because it is not an allowed use currently.
As a matter of fact you will not see health facilities as an allowed use I do not think in
any towns industrial or light industrial zones. They are just incompatible. Let me read to
you some of the uses that are allowed in our light industrial zone. Whole sale business,
warehouse, truck depot, sand and gravel extraction, sawmill, shipping, pallet mill,
recycling, light manufacturing, logging, heavy equipment, construction company, now if
you think those uses are compatible with a health facility you are wrong.
Councilman Brewer-In your opinion.
Councilman Strough-In my opinion, and I think in most people’s opinion.
Councilman Metivier-Not mine.
Councilman Strough-Now, if you allow health facility in your light industrial and a health
facility, and now keep in mind, this light industrial zoning is prevalent throughout the
town. It is prevalent over by the airport, Queensbury Avenue, Quaker, Lower Warren,
Corinth Road, Carey, and other areas around town, where we want to zone the area to
encourage industrial uses. Now if the health facility should happen to locate in a vacant
lot surrounded by vacant lots, and the health facility goes in first it may deter some
industrial uses from coming in because they would know that they are congruent with the
health facility. They are going to make noise, they are going to make dust, they are going
make, they are going to have chemicals, there maybe explosions, it is just not a safe
facility to have next to a health facility. So, that is why you won’t see health facility in
your light industrial zoning. You want to leave the integrity of the zoning pure and you
want to allow the zoning to do what it was intended to do and that is attract light
industrial. So, keep that option in mind and what I just told you about light industrial.
Now, what I offered was why don’t we rezone this particular area office. We have an
office zone it will allow full expansion of the facility you do not have to change a thing
because health facility is already an allowed use. Not only that but the office zone is
meant to be transitional. In otherwords it is meant to be sandwich between industrial and
residential uses it fits perfect because that is exactly the situation we have on Carey and
Corinth Road. So, I suggested that we just zone it office and it will make the health
facility happy and makes everybody happy.
Councilman Brewer-And then we would have no light industrial how would that be
good?
Councilman Strough- No, no just the parcel where they want to expand to.
Councilman Metivier-And what did our Attorney say about that, John.
Councilman Strough-Did I say all of Carey Road I did not mean that.
Councilman Brewer-Well you just said rezone
Councilman Strough-I said rezone the parcels in questions, the two parcels that they are
asking to be rezoning.
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 30
Supervisor Stec-But then all the surrounding properties would still be light industrial uses
and all that stuff that you said that no one else would like next to be in a health facility
next to could happen.
Councilman Strough-But the thing about it is, is what I am saying is what you are doing
affects the whole town. It affects the zoning of the whole town. What I am saying what I
am proposing just affects this little parcel and now when you weigh the two options as to
what has the, this is an opportunity cost to everything you do. The opportunity cost to
allowing a health facilities into your light industrial zoning it jeopardizes the integrity of
the zoning through out the town. That is a tremendous cost, versus the cost rezoning the
particular area where they want to exist and expand in to office which would allow them
to expand and I don’t think anybody in the community will challenge that. So, you know
you talk about that is spot zoning, but I sent you a summary, if you take a look at the
States, probably authority in zoning, James Coon he writes a local government series.
Now, he says that zoning a particular parcel is not necessarily spot zoning. He mentioned
that in Save Our Forest Action Coalition Inc. vs the City of Kingston a hundred and
seven acre parcel within a residential district was rezoned to light industrial, just that one
spot. So, he says that is not that was not spot zoning. And the Court rejected the spot
zoning challenge.
Councilman Brewer-They rezoned a hundred and seven acres.
Supervisor Stec-We are talking about what eight?
Councilman Brewer-We are talking about eight acres in the midst of forty John.
Councilman Strough-So you did not get to the reasoning. The reasoning is if you have a
legitimate public purpose to your zoning and you have given it due consideration, I am
reading I am taking excerpts out of what the Court said, and you gave it due
consideration that this was the best practical means of achieving a community interest,
you are not necessarily going to be spot zoning. Now, furthermore if you talk about legal
challenges and that is the issue to you I would argue you are going to end up more legal
challenges by putting health facility as an allowed use into light industrial then you would
otherwise. So, in summary, I have shone you what the law says or the Court Case it is
not necessarily spot zoning. I have showed you the uses that we currently have ok, and I
have given the argument that you have two options, in my mind it is very clear that the
option that is best for this community, best for sustaining economic viability, best for
preserving the integrity of the light industrial zone is to rezone this parcel for office.
Allow them to grow allow them to expand everyone is happy and I seriously doubt that
anybody is going to challenge that as spot zoning to overturn this decision. I really doubt
that. So, that is my argument on that.
Supervisor Stec-All right, thank you. Comments from the public, Mr. Sears to the
microphone please.
Mr. Bob Sears, I am a broker-Commercial Real estate Broker-John you mentioned
industrial zones, that zone that you are talking about you referred to as an industrial, light
industrial zone what is the title in the zoning book.
Councilman Strough-Commercial light industrial.
Mr. Sears-So it is commercial light industrial so it does allow for commercial uses as well
as light industrial. So, what I am saying is this, when you refer to that zone you have
always mentioned that was industrial zone. What you did there is allow for commercial
uses in that zone. In that zone where it says commercial uses you allow for offices. The
only thing that is different between the offices that are allowed in that zone is that they
want to serve the general public that is the only difference. The interesting thing is Exit
18, there should be many other uses that should be allowed in that zone other than just
industrial that close to the exit because of traffic concerns. But that is a side issue, the
bottom line is when you respond John, you ought to keep in mind that it is a commercial
zone as well as light industrial zone.
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 31
Councilman Strough-But like I said, commercial light industrial Bob, and I read to you
the uses that are allowed.
Mr. Sears-But you did not read all of them.
Councilman Strough-Well I read most of them.
Mr. Sears-No you didn’t read offices for one thing which is a big, big use.
Councilman Strough-I was reading most of them which did include potential for
incompatible uses.
Mr. Sears-You did not read offices.
Councilman Strough-In any event, Bob, we are talking about allowing a facility to
expand, what I am proposing allows them to do that.
Mr. Sears-Well, I think you are mico managing it because it already allows for offices
and your modus operandi was to say that we should rezone that particular use for offices.
That zone says offices already.
Councilman Metivier-Bob how long have you been in real estate?
Mr. Sears-Thirty two years, thirty three years longer than a lot of people are old.
Mr. Metivier-If you drive through Carey Industrial Circle with a client that is looking for
an office space for his new health facility what are the chances he is going to go with the
Carey Circle? If he is really pushing to grow his business, bring in clients.
Mr. Sears-Don’t ask me that question because that zone should not be zoned light
industrial because
Mr. Metivier-But I am saying
Mr. Sears-Let me finish, the reason is this, that zone should be zoned highway
commercial intensive because you get volume people to get off the exit go and shop go
and allow for offices mixed use, allow for any general or commercial uses then get right
back on the highway. The way you have that zoned now or the way you have done a lot
of your commercial uses in the town you have a lineareffect. They have to go through
all kinds of red lights they have to get off the exit they have got to go up Quaker, down
Quaker Road they have got to go up Route 9, traffic is a problem. You should have your
retail uses where you have the maximum exposure right off the exits. Coming into town
to have this a mixed zone at this point that is a hell of a nice leap compared to what it was
before was a lot more restrictive and allow for just light industrial uses. Here at least you
are allowing for offices and what they want to propose as use is office and you have that
in this light industrial zone and it is light industrial commercial, John not just light
industrial.
Councilman Strough-Well, Bob, I think you made some good points but it is still
industrial that is the key word here and I would like to read to you
Mr. Sears-It says commercial, John.
Councilman Strough-I would like to read to you what one of the people who owns an
industry in this area, wrote to this Board. Gentlemen, I encourage you to reject the
requested zoning change that would allow health facilities in commercial light industrial
zone property. Health facilities are not compatible with light industrial manufacturing.
As an owner of light industrial manufacturing company we purposely avoided locating
our manufacturing facility near any operations that we not of like kind. Zoning and site
plan requirements to the Town already discourage good paying industrial businesses from
locating here changing the rules for those companies that have already made the
commitment to our town is just unfair and might put pressure on them to consider
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 32
relocating. As a further note the Town put a lot of effort into building shovel ready
industrial sites off of Queensbury Avenue. Unfortunately the decision to allow the Guard
Building which was a mistake.
Councilman Metivier-Keep on reading it John don’t pick and choose, keep on reading it.
Councilman Strough-I am reading it.
Councilman Metivier-You stopped there for a minute.
Councilman Strough-Well, excuse me Tony.
Supervisor Stec-All right please continue.
Councilman Strough-Health facilities and government agencies are similar. Health
facilities are necessary but these operations are services only and do not bring new jobs
and money into our town. Manufacturing provides the kinds of jobs that allows the
payment of health services, please reject the request to change the current commercial
light industrial zone.
Councilman Metivier-How many jobs does Hudson Headwaters bring into this area,
come on up here, answer the question for me.
Councilman Strough-Well
Councilman Metivier-No, John answer my question.
Councilman Strough-Tony it is my floor.
Councilman Metivier-No, John.
Councilman Strough-Tony, let me finish. We are not talking about jobs because nobody
here
Councilman Metivier-Of course were not because it is Queensbury, we do not want jobs
in Queensbury do we John.
Councilman Strough-Tony, Tony, Tony lets get on the same track here. I said in the very
beginning I prefaces by saying we want to encourage the health facility to exist and
expand we enjoy those jobs that is not in dispute Tony. What you are missing here is loss
of jobs that might occur allowing this as an allowable use in our industrial zone. Now,
Bob, to get back to you. The points that you make that what Corinth Road could be
especially near Exit 18, are good. Where were you at the time we were doing the
Comprehensive Land Use.
Mr. Sears-I was here, I was..you asked the question, I was here for three meetings
Councilman Strough-Those suggestions were good. I am going to disagree with you on
that because I think the integrity of this zone is in question here.
Mr. Sears-The other thing allows for in that zone if you refer to the Town of Queensbury
the allowed industrial uses under the light industrial commercial zone it does allow for
retail. It does allow for self storage, telecommunications, radio station, veterinarian
clinic, all these are of mixed use which I think the Board had the great foresight in doing
it. Part of that, part of the zoning is giving people the ability to expand in a business that
is a credit to their community in a location that is a credit to them. I appreciate your time
and your efforts and John, I appreciate your concerns but you and I are in disagreement
on this and unfortunately we are.
Councilman Strough-Just one more question, just one question Bob before you leave,
please. If a health facility locates in some of that prime light industrial, commercial light
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 33
industrial property that we have over near the airport on Queensbury Avenue, is a pellet
manufacturing company going to be able to locate next to it?
Mr. Sears-No. That zone
Councilman Strough-Any many other uses
Councilman Brewer-Why wouldn’t they be able to?
Mr. Sears-John, is that zoned over there comm
Councilman Brewer-No, John why wouldn’t they be able
Councilman Strough-If you think those uses are compatible?
Councilman Brewer-I did not say that, I said why would they not be able to?
Mr. Sears-I think we are belaboring the point, I appreciate your time, thank you.
Councilman Metivier-Can I ask one question, was trying to answer before? Lets go to
the Airport Industrial Park. If you had a client in town and they are looking to open up a
health facility are you going to bring them over to the Airport Industrial ?
Mr. Sears-No
Councilman Metivier-My point exactly. If they wanted to locate over there why they
would, I do not know, I mean this is an allowed use.
Mr. Sears-I would encourage them not to.
Councilman Metivier-I agree with that also, but my point is this, that if they choose to do
you think that the pallet manufacturer is going to say oh god I do not want to bother the
medical facility.
Mr. Sears-I would take them to the pallet manufacturer and say do you want to locate
next to these people, that is all.
Councilman Metivier-Thanks, Bob.
Councilman Montesi-The truth of the matter is on the industrial at the airport the only
industrial park that we own is on Queensbury Avenue and there are only a couple of lots
left anyway. So, we got a pellet manufacturer in the Town of Kingsbury that nobody
would really want to continue with.
Mr. Sears-Anyways, thank you very much.
Supervisor Stec-Thank you Mr. Sears.
Councilman Metivier-Now can I ask how many jobs Hudson Headwaters is going to
bring to town?
Supervisor Stec-I think Councilman Metivier would like Hudson Headwaters
Councilman Metivier-I really do want that answer.
Supervisor Stec-I can get it for you.
Councilman Metivier-Good
Supervisor Stec-Look at that.
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 34
Attorney John Lapper-For the record John Lapper and Trip Shannon from Hudson
Headwaters.
Supervisor Stec-I think the question was at hand was how many jobs does Hudson
Headwaters brought to our community?
Mr. Shannon-In terms of the proposed project we are anticipating thirty to thirty five new
positions.
Supervisor Stec-You are not moving them from one site to another site these are
Mr. Shannon-Some of the mix will be from others in total …thirty seconds this project
will involved approximately eighty one hundred square foot facility of which some of the
providers will come from some of our other health centers which are running at capacity
in the Glens Falls Queensbury area. But we also intend to bring new folks. We have
already done some recruiting in total between this location and the ability to free up some
space at Queensbury and Broad Street we still anticipate thirty to thirty five new people.
We would also expect a pharmacy that is talking about subleasing from us would
probably at least initially three to four people.
Councilman Metivier-How many in the Hudson Headwaters that you just built?
Mr. Shannon-Our administrative space there is I think almost seventy five people there.
Councilman Metivier-So, you are talking over a hundred jobs average salary fifty
thousand maybe?
Mr. Shannon-Maybe a little less than that I would think.
Councilman Metivier- Yet John said that you don’t generate any jobs in town.
Councilman Strough-No, I did not say that.
Councilman Metivier-Yes you did, you just read it.
Councilman Strough-I was reading a letter Tony.
Councilman Metivier-Yes, but you read it in. My point is this there is over a hundred
jobs here
Councilman Strough-Tony you missed the point.
Councilman Metivier-No, John you missed the point.
Councilman Strough-He is talking about different kinds of jobs.
Councilman Metivier-I am not going to argue anymore, I welcome you to the town. You
made your point John.
Councilman Strough-The point I would like to make is you don’t care what your zoned
as, as long as you can comfortably exist and expand is that correct?
Mr. Shannon-I am not a zoning expert John.
Attorney Lapper-I guess simply John we think that this is really positive to the town
because it is economic development and medical jobs are higher priced than
manufacturing jobs.
Councilman Strough-John would you answer my question.
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 35
Attorney Lapper-I am concerned with the safest and the simplest way and I am concerned
about spot zoning challenge, I understand that there was some nuances to that but this just
seems like the cleanest way to accomplish it.
Councilman Strough-I am going to disagree with you but at anytime at all did I say I
wanted to limit the number of jobs that you are going to offer the area.
Attorney Lapper-No. But in terms of economic development
Councilman Metivier-The fact is John every time we have somebody come into town that
wants to promote jobs you have to argue with it.
Councilman Strough-No.
Councilman Metivier-Yes, you do, you absolutely do. Try working in the private sector
sometime John to see how difficult it is. Good jobs in town are hard to find.
Councilman Strough-I want to encourage development I think what you are doing is well
intended but your thinking is misplaced.
Councilman Metivier-I disagree.
Councilman Strough-I think your thinking will discourage
Councilman Brewer-Ok, Dan can we stop arguing and move on?
Supervisor Stec-I agree with you, you are an attorney that practices in this area of law as
is Mark Schachner our Attorney who provided us with guidance that essentially said the
same thing that you just said that this is of the two options this is certainly the cleanest
way to do it. My question for you is your again, a developers attorney you have done a
lot of work throughout the town you are about in touch with what is going on
commercially out there as somebody can be, do you and I am asking you, your opinion
would anticipate that this change to allow health facilities in our commercial light
industrial zones is going to result in some huge proliferation of doctors offices opening
up next to pellet manufacturers?
Attorney Lapper-I would say on the one hand as Bob Sears said office is already a
permitted use in the commercial light industrial zone so you could already have
veterinarian office other offices I do not think there is going to be proliferation but if
there were a couple in other zones or even here you know specialty clinics what have you
it is well paying jobs so it is good for the town.
Councilman Strough-This is a health facility not just a commercial office, and some
health facilities might be yoga oriented, it might be a rehab center I mean would require
you know quiet and dust free environments and so forth.
Councilman Brewer-John if they are that concerned which I am certain they do have
concerns that is their business.
Attorney Lapper-There is language in the commercial light industrial zone that says that
it should be also for services for people working at the light industrial uses and I would
think if you are working at a manufacturing company and you need to go to see the
doctor it is convenient to have the doctor right down the street. I think it isn’t necessarily
incompatible.
Supervisor Stec-Is there anyone else from the public that would like to comment on this
public hearing. I will close this public hearing…questioned if Mr. Strainer did not hear
him…recognized Mr. Strainer for comment…
Mr. Dave Strainer Realtor-Ridge Road - For one if someone gets hurt at a manufacturing
plant they do not take them to the health center they take them to the hospital.
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 36
Supervisor Stec-I think the point was most employee might have a doctors appointment
during the work day.
Mr. Strainer-Well that wasn’t what was said, I am just saying what was said. I am just
saying what was said. You are saying if someone had to go to an emergency where they
work that is what I am saying, they are picked up. I also did not hear John say that he
didn’t want Hudson Headwaters to locate here he was looking for a way to do this, he
was not looking to get rid of job which I don’t think any of us are but tempers seem to be
a little warm here. You are taking on person, you talk about spot zoning, you are taking
one applicant that comes in here and you are broad brushing the whole light industrial for
one person. The same as you just did for professional office to have multi families closer
to the boundary so you are doing this for one person, where is that any different than spot
zoning.
Councilman Brewer-Dave, please, where were you saying this a few years ago after this
zone was created before any of these guys were on the Board.
Mr. Strainer-I do not have a problem with what is in that zone.
Councilman Brewer-Wait let me finish Dave, you did not have a problem when they
increased the distance did you?
Mr. Strainer-I believe that
Councilman Brewer-Now you are up here bitching because we reduced the distance.
Supervisor Stec-Well, that was like two weeks and four public hearings ago.
Mr. Strainer-No, but you did it for one entity
Councilman Brewer-No, we didn’t Dave you are wrong.
Mr. Strainer-that is exactly what you did. Tim, one entity came in an complained about
Councilman Brewer-You are wrong, you were not here you don’t know.
Mr. Strainer-I was here
Councilman Brewer-You weren’t.
Mr. Strainer-Well, I am here tonight and one entity came in and complains and you
changes the whole thing. You broad brush the whole thing.
Councilman Metivier-They bring the jobs here Dave what is the problem?
Mr. Strainer-This isn’t about jobs.
Councilman Metivier-It is too about jobs.
Mr. Strainer-No, it is not because John did not say that he did not want that in the zone he
said lets make it compatible and make it work there. You on the other hand want to
broad brush all light industrial for this.
Councilman Metivier-But, you know what if we have two hundred more health facilities
come into town great.
Mr. Strainer-I do not have a problem with that.
Councilman Strough-But our Attorney also encourages …
Mr. Strainer-Then we should change it, it should not be for the whole town you are broad
brushing the whole town with one vote for one applicant and then I agree these people
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 37
should put the health, that is not a problem here, but you want to change everything for
one applicant for the whole town when you want to be specific for one area.
Councilman Brewer-It is not a bad use to be allowed in that zone.
Councilman Metivier-You have veterinarian you have offices.
Supervisor Stec-Alright, thanks Dave, thanks is there any other public comment, again
before I close the public hearing again? (no one spoke) I will close this public hearing.
We do have SEQRA to entertain and then after SEQRA perhaps if there is new
discussion amongst the Board, we can have that.
Town Counsel Hafner-If you have the long form EAF in front of you and if you would
please acquaint yourselves with the facts of part one.
Supervisor Stec-We have had this since before the weekend.
Town Counsel Hafner-Have you all had a chance to go through part I and acquaint
yourself with the facts and do you agree that they are accurate in there?
Board agreed
Discussion held before SEQRA Form:
(Question 1 Part 2 SEQRA Long Form)
Councilman Strough-When I respond to this question, think about this question am I
talking about allowing a health facility into a light industrial, which one
Town Counsel Hafner-Sadly the way SEQRA works as I think you know that you would
think that either one of them would do it and that is you answer and then it might to go
into whether or not you think it is small or to moderate or potentially large.
Supervisor Stec-My answer to that would be how did we ever get through SEQRA on a
new Zoning Code because there was dozens of zones and uses and all. The other thing I
want to emphasize that this is different from a site specific, project specific, this
Town Counsel Hafner-These are town wide.
Supervisor Stec-And a paper change there is no shovel
Town Counsel Hafner-There is no project.
Supervisor Stec-There is no project that this is affiliated with.
Town Counsel Hafner-
PART 2- SEQRA FORM LONG FORM
1.Will the Proposed action result in any physical change to the project site? NO
2.Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site?
(i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological, formations, etc.) NO
3.Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? (under
Articles 12, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) NO
4.Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water?
NO
5.Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? NO
6.Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? NO
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 38
7.Will proposed action affect air quality? NO
8.Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? NO
9.Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered
species? NO
10.Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? NO
11. Will Proposed Action affect aesthetic resources? NO
12.Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or
paleontological importance? NO
13.Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open
spaces or recreational opportunities? NO
14.Will proposed action impact he exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical
environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR
617.14(g)? NO
15.Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? NO
16.Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply?
NO
17.Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed
action? NO
18.Will proposed action affect public health and safety? NO
19.Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? NO
20.Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts? NO
(Councilman Strough-voted yes on number 19: Will Proposed Action affect the character of
the existing community?)
RESOLUTION ENACTING LOCAL LAW N0.: 7 OF 2010
TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 179
“ZONING” §179-3-040(B)(1)(a) AND §179-3-040(C)(1)(a)
RESOLUTION NO. 169, 2010
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to amend the Queensbury Town
Code in the following Town Code sections:
A.§179-3-040(B)(1)(a) to specify that food service establishments should be
listed as a use permitted by site plan review in the Enclosed Shopping
Center (ESC) zoning district; and
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 39
B.§179-3-040(C)(1)(a) to specify that health-related facilities should be
listed as a use permitted by site plan review in the Commercial-Light
Industrial (CLI) zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: 7 of
2010 to accordingly amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179 “Zoning” §179-3-
040(B)(1)(A) and §179-3-040(C)(1)(a) as presented at this meeting, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with General Municipal Law §239-m, before enacting
the legislation the Town must first refer the proposed Local Law and obtain a
recommendation from the Warren County Planning Board, 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 a Type I action under SEQRA in accordance
with §179-15-060 of the Town Zoning Law, and
th
WHEREAS, on or about April 14, 2010 the Warren County Planning Board
considered the proposed Local Law and determined that there would be no County
impact, and
th
WHEREAS, the Town Board duly held a public hearing on Monday, April 19,
2010 and heard all interested persons, and
WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Local Law has been presented at this meeting
and is in form approved by Town Counsel,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board, after considering the proposed
action, reviewing the Full Environmental Assessment Form and thoroughly analyzing the
action for potential environmental concerns, determines that the legislative amendment will
not have any significant effect on the environment, and
BE IT FURTHER,
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 40
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town
Supervisor to complete the Full Environmental Assessment Form by checking the box
indicating that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental
impacts, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board approves of a SEQRA Negative Declaration or
determination that no Environmental Impact Statement is necessary and authorizes and
directs the Town Clerk's Office to file any necessary documents in accordance with the
provisions of the SEQRA regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation,
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby enacts Local Law No.: 7 of
2010 to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179 in the following Town Code sections:
A.§179-3-040(B)(1)(a) to specify that food service establishments should be
listed as a use permitted by site plan review in the Enclosed Shopping
Center (ESC) zoning district; and
B.§179-3-040(C)(1)(a) to specify that health-related facilities should be
listed as a use permitted by site plan review in the Commercial-Light
Industrial (CLI) zoning district;
as presented at this meeting, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury
Town Clerk to send a copy of this Resolution and a copy of the Local Law to the Town
Planning Board, Town Zoning Board of Appeals, Zoning Administrator, County Planning
Board and Adirondack Park Agency in accordance with §179-15-080(D) of the Town
Zoning Law, 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
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 41
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 19 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Brewer
NOES : Mr. Strough
ABSENT: None
Chapter 179-3-040 – Zoning – Use Changes – 4-19-10
LOCAL LAW NO.: 7 OF 2010
A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND CHAPTER 179 “ZONING” OF
QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE TO REVISE §179-3-040(B)(1)(a)
AND §179-3-040(C)(1)(a)
BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179, “Zoning,” §179-3-040 entitled
"Purpose and establishment of zoning districts," Section (B)(1)(a) is hereby amended as
follows:
§ 179-3-040. Purpose and establishment of zoning districts.
B. Commercial Districts.
(1) Enclosed Shopping Center ESC. The ESC District encompasses those
areas where shopping center development exists or is anticipated. The
intent of this district is to ensure that shopping center development, as well
as compatible commercial infill development, provides safe access points,
coherent and safe traffic patterns, efficient loading and unloading,
aesthetically pleasing shopping environments and safe pedestrian
circulation. This area of the Town formerly consisted, under the 2002
Zoning Law, of the same district boundaries as are currently established
herein but with the zoning district designation of "ESC-25A."
(a) Uses allowed. The uses allowed in this district are set forth on
Editor's Note: Table 2 is included at the
Table 2 of this chapter.
end of this chapter.
Freestanding buildings are permitted in this
district.
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 42
SECTION 2.
Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179, “Zoning,” §179-3-040 entitled
"Purpose and establishment of zoning districts," Section (C)(1)(a) is hereby amended as
follows:
§ 179-3-040. Purpose and establishment of zoning districts.
C. Industrial Districts.
(1) Commercial-Light Industrial. The purpose of the Commercial-Light
Industrial (CLI) District is to provide for mixed commercial and light
industrial uses in order to maximize utilization of this area of the Town
that will enhance the Town's tax base and provide quality jobs,
particularly those areas that are in transition between older industrial uses
and newer commercial warehousing and retail uses. This area of the Town
is described in the "Industrial Corridors/Economic Development" section
of the Comprehensive Plan, adopted on August 6, 2007, and merges the
former CI-1A and LI Districts provided under the 2002 Zoning Law.
(a) Uses allowed. This district allows light industrial uses which are its
main focus, as well as warehousing, storage, and truck depot uses.
In addition, commercial uses such as retail and services areas are
allowed with certain restrictions as to size and location. These
restrictions are provided to ensure that the district's purpose
remains light industry and that the nonindustrial uses do not
predominate but serve as compatible infill to serve the area. All
allowed uses require site plan review. A complete list of the uses
allowed in this CLI District is set forth on Table 1 of this chapter.
Editor's Note: Table 3 is included at the end of this chapter.
SECTION 3.
The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph or provision of this
Local Law shall not invalidate any other clause, sentence, paragraph or part thereof.
SECTION 4.
All Local Laws or ordinances or parts of Local Laws or ordinances
in conflict with any part of this Local Law are hereby repealed.
SECTION 5.
This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing in the
Office of the New York Secretary of State as provided in New York Municipal Home Rule
Law §27.
3.0PRIVILEDGE OF THE FLOOR
Mr. George Drellos-27 Fox Hollow Lane - re: Queensbury Central Addition – spoke on
the local and state economy and unemployment in the area…it amazes me that we are
really thinking of this 2.3 million addition to a fire house and really doesn’t need it.
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 43
Supervisor Stec-There is no action by the Board on that at all yet.
Mr. Drellos-How is Queensbury doing?
Supervisor Stec-We are struggling like everyone else.
Mr. Drellos-Is the Town tax coming up probably?
Supervisor Stec-We are going to see but likely yes.
Mr. Drellos-Is there loan paid off for their mortage?
Supervisor Stec-The building is yes.
Mr. Drellos-In there budget they still have the money coming in for the loan why can’t
you take that out and give the taxpayers a break.
Supervisor Stec-We are not approving that tonight we are setting a public hearing.
Mr. Drellos-You will have this public hearing in two weeks, and you included in the
budget money for the addition.
Supervisor Stec-Money that would go to a restricted account just like we have done in
other companies.
Mr. Drellos-That does not need to be there, that could come out. This isn’t the time to be
thinking about this.
Ms. Tammie Sullivan-Questioned the board on the status of the drainage on Homer
Avenue.
Supervisor Stec-Noted a phone conference had been held on this issue with our Attorney,
Mr. McCall’s Attorney and Mr. McCall and the Towns engineer…believes that he knows
that this project needs to happen, and a district is not in his best interest, informally what
we got was a list of, if you can fix several issues which appear to be minor, if you address
these concerns of mine I can support the project going forward this late summer and early
fall. Noted the project will have to go to bid.
Ms. Tammie Sullivan-Questioned if the district formation will still be under process.
Supervisor Stec-A lot of the ground work has been done and if we can work out the
questions he raised in the next week or two then we will not pursue the district if longer
then we will move ahead.
Councilman Montesi-There are three or four issues: He can’t do the building until his
drainage easement is in: Requests 1. Can I get the building permit if I sign off on all this
stuff so I can put the drainage into the new ditch 2. Can I park behind Minogues with
my people 3. Removal of stone from the wine merchant ..they said they would take a
few out to get to the front of the office only
Supervisor Stec-I honestly believe that we have made progress because of the core of
public opinion kicking around on this is out there.
Mr. Brian Granger-63 Wincoma Lane Queensbury and a business on Newcomb Street-
Re: Fire Department Expansion – Spoke on the fire departments stations – Qsby. Central
in three of the bays right now is an ATV and a trailer, a brush truck a fifteen passenger
van and a blazer …suggested they build a 40x60’ steel building with heat and lights
approximately two hundred thousand ..to do roof and canopy improvements was one
hundred and thirty two thousand interior alterations a hundred and sixty thousand and
new boiler a hundred and eighty…totaling six hundred and seventy two thousand instead
of 2.3 million dollars.
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 44
Supervisor Stec-The building expansion is not on for tonight it will not be on two weeks
from now, if we give this contact and go out to bid about five or six months from now
they will come back to us with bids that will give us three numbers 1. Phase I 2. Phase
II and then a Grand total
Mr. Granger-The people at home that are watching this need to pay attention on what is
being spent here.
Mr. Pliney Tucker-41 Division Road-Queensbury - How much of a grant did the City of
Glens Falls get for the closure their landfill?
Supervisor Stec-I do not know.
Mr. Tucker-Any information on the Honey Do problem?
Supervisor Stec-I have not heard anything since the last time you asked and indicates that
the insurance company will change their mind, this may go to court.
Mr. Tucker-Noted that the insurance company was to meet Mr. Kevin Tucker and his
attorney on Good Friday, and they cancelled the meeting, set another date and cancelled
that one moving it to the next day and then moved the meeting up a month.
Noted the truck is in storage at $45.00 per day.
Councilman Metivier-If the insurance company has not settled the insurance company
pays for the storage costs.
Mr. George Winters-4 John Clendon Road Queensbury – Re: Fire Company Expansion
You have got to put a stop to is somewhere, I have been here several years saying it, the
Town of Queensbury is spending too much money on fire.
Mr. Peter Brothers-I understand the spirited debate in regard to zoning, and I think we are
going to have in my opinion a lot more of these heated discussions about zoning issues if
we keep on yielding to business people who are wanting to put up apartments in
commercial zones. I think when you are putting up more apartments and not having any
more room for commercial or industrial business growth that is killing a lot of jobs.
Mr. John Salvador-Resident of North Queensbury – Re: Homer Avenue project Is it clear
to the participants of what the estimate is for the job?
Supervisor Stec-Yes.
Mr. Salvador-Re: Honey Do Man –There is no question in my mind why the insurance
companies will not pay. You are simply not covered.
Councilman Metivier-The insurance company will not pay due to a State Law.
Mr. Salvador-There is no state law the prohibits the insurance company from paying, the
fact is you are not covered for this.
Councilman Metivier-Is anybody in New York State covered for it?
Mr. Salvador-I do not think so. They have no obligation to pay. Received the annual
drinking water quality report, questioned why Shore Colony Dist. wasn’t covered in the
report? Why Spoke on the Seyboyer project
Water Superintendent Ostrander-It is not required for Shore Colony Water Dist. ..will
follow up on it…
4.0RESOLUTIONS
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 45
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HIRING OF TEMPORARY,
SEASONAL LABORERS IN TOWN HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
RESOLUTION NO. : 170, 2010
INTRODUCED BY Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY :Mr. Anthony Metivier
WHEREAS, the Town Highway Superintendent has requested Town Board
authorization to hire two (2) temporary, seasonal Laborers to work for the Town’s Highway
Department,
WHEREAS, funds for such position have been budgeted for in the 2010 Town
Budget, and
WHEREAS, the Highway Superintendent has advised the Town Board that such
temporary, seasonal Laborers are Cody Gebo and James Huntley, and
WHEREAS, Town Policy requires that familial relationships must be disclosed
and that the Town Board approve the appointment of Town employees’ relatives, and
James Huntley is the stepson of Tom VanNess, Deputy Highway Superintendent and
Cody Gebo is the son of William Gebo, a Mechanic in the Town’s Highway Department
and Connie Gebo, a Senior Account Clerk in the Town’s Accounting Department,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the
hiring of James Huntley and Cody Gebo to work as temporary, seasonal Laborers to work
approximately 16 weeks for the Town Highway Department commencing on or about May
rd
3, 2010, subject to the Town successfully completing background checks as reasonably
necessary to judge fitness for the duties for which hired, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that such temporary, seasonal Laborers shall be paid $10.00 per hour
as set forth in Town Board Resolution No.: 56,2010 to be paid from the appropriate payroll
account, and
BE IT FURTHER,
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 46
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Highway
Superintendent, Deputy Highway Superintendent, Town Budget Officer and/or Town
Supervisor to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of
this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HIRING OF JAMES ROBERT
SMITH AS PART-TIME WATER TREATMENT LABORER TO
PERFORM INSPECTIONS FOR SHORE COLONY WATER
DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO.: 171, 2010
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY : Mr. Ronald Montesi
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury’s Water Superintendent has requested Town
Board authorization to hire a part-time Water Treatment Laborer to work for the summer for
the Town’s Water Department to perform inspections at Shore Colony to meet New York
State Department of Health requirements,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the
hiring of James Robert Smith as a part-time Water Treatment Laborer to work for the
summer in the Town’s Water Department to perform inspections at Shore Colony to meet
st
New York State Department of Health requirements commencing on or about May 1, 2010
st
and continuing through approximately October 31, 2010, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that Mr. Smith shall be paid $13.00 per hour as set forth in Town
Board Resolution No.: 56,2010 to be paid from the appropriate payroll account, and
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 47
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Water
Superintendent, Budget Officer and/or Town Supervisor to complete any forms and take any
action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION APPROVING TRANSIENT MERCHANT/TRANSIENT
MERCHANT MARKET LICENSE FOR BOSS HOSS CYCLES, INC.
RESOLUTION NO.: 172, 2010
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, Boss Hoss Cycles, Inc., has submitted an application to the
Queensbury Town Board for a Transient Merchant/Transient Merchant Market License to
thth
conduct a transient merchant market from June 9 through June 12, 2010 at 1468 State
Route 9, Queensbury in accordance with the provisions of Town Code Chapter 160, and
WHEREAS, the Town’s Zoning Administrator has advised the Town Board that he
has reviewed the application materials and they are consistent with the requirements for
such uses, and since the 2010 application depicts the same level of operations as approved
with the applicant’s 2009 Transient Merchant License, it is not necessary to again refer the
application to the Planning Board for site plan review, and
WHEREAS, the Warren County Planning Board also reviewed the applicant’s prior
application(s) and recommended approval of the prior application(s),
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that in accordance with the requirements set forth in Queensbury
Town Code §160-8, the Queensbury Town Board hereby grants a Transient
Merchant/Transient Merchant Market License to Boss Hoss Cycles, Inc., (Applicant) to
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 48
conduct a transient merchant market located at 1468 State Route 9, Queensbury, subject to
the following:
1. Applicant must pay all fees as required by Town Code Chapter 160;
2. Applicant must submit a bond in the amount of $10,000 as required by Chapter
160;
3. Applicant must submit proof of authorization to do business in New York and
authorization of agent to receive service of summons or other legal process in
New York;
thth
4. The License shall be valid only from June 9 through June 12, 2010 from 9:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and the license shall expire immediately thereafter;
5. The Transient Merchant License shall not be assignable; and
6. The Applicant must comply with all regulations specified in Town Code §160-8;
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs Town Code
Enforcement Personnel to rigorously enforce the terms of the Site Plan, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Zoning
Administrator/Code Compliance Officer to send a certified copy of this Resolution to the
Warren County Sheriff and also contact the Warren County Sheriff to request that the
Warren County Sheriff’s Office enforce parking issues on Route 9 and throughout the
community.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 49
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON CHANGE
OF ZONE FOR PROPERTIES ON LOWER WARREN
STREET FROM COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (CLI)
TO
HEAVY INDUSTRY (HI)
RESOLUTION NO.: 173, 2010
INTRODUCED BY : Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board is considering amending the Town
Zoning Ordinance and Map to rezone two (2) parcels of property on Lower Warren Street
from Commercial Light Industrial (CLI) to Heavy Industry (HI), and
WHEREAS, before the Town Board may amend, supplement, change, or modify its
Ordinance and Map, it must hold a public hearing in accordance with the provisions of
Town Law §265, the Municipal Home Rule Law and the Town of Queensbury Zoning
Laws, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall hold a public
th
hearing on Monday, May 17, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury
Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury to hear all interested parties
concerning the proposed amendment to its Zoning Ordinance and Map
whereby the properties bearing Tax Map Parcel No.: 303.19-1-49 and
303.19-1-58 located along Lower Warren Street in the Town of Queensbury
would be rezoned from Commercial Light Industrial (CLI) to Heavy
Industry (HI), and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk’s
Office to provide 10 days notice of the public hearing by publishing a Notice of Public
Hearing in the Town’s official newspaper and posting the Notice on the Town’s bulletin
board, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Community
Development Department to provide the Town Clerk’s Office with a list of all property
owners located within 500' of the area to be rezoned so that the Town Clerk’s Office may
send the Notice of Public Hearing to those property owners, and
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 50
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further directs the Community
Development Department to forward the proposed zoning change to the Warren
County Planning Board for its review and comment in accordance with New York
State General Municipal Law §239-M, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Clerk’s
Office to send the Notice of Public Hearing to the Clerk of the Warren County Board of
Supervisors, Warren County Planning Board and other communities or agencies that it is
necessary to give written notice to in accordance with New York State Town Law §265, the
Town’s Zoning Regulations and the Laws of the State of New York.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION SETTING HEARING ON JOHN
GARDNER/TURNPIKE ENTERPRISES, INC.’S APPLICATION FOR
VARIANCE/WAIVER REQUEST FROM SANITARY SEWER
CONNECTION REQUIREMENT CONCERNING GLEN DRIVE-IN
PROPERTY LOCATED AT
983 STATE ROUTE 9, QUEENSBURY
RESOLUTION NO.: 174, 2010
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier
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
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 51
sewer of the sewer district to connect to the public sewer facilities within one (1) year from
the date of notice, and
WHEREAS, John Gardner/Turnpike Enterprises, Inc., has applied to the Town
§
Board for a second variance/waiver from 136-44 for an extension of (or exemption from)
the Town’s connection requirements to connect its Glen Drive-In property located at 983
State Route 9 to the Town of Queensbury’s Route 9 Sewer District, as the Applicant states
that the property is used as a seasonal drive-in movie theatre serviced by a properly
functioning and maintained septic system and in order to connect to the Sewer District, the
sewage would need to be pumped uphill from the building thus requiring a force line and
therefore would be extremely cost prohibitive, as more fully set forth in the Applicant’s
th
December 12, 2009 letter and application presented at this meeting,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board will hold a hearing on Monday,
rd
May 3, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury,
to consider John Gardner/Turnpike Enterprises, Inc.’s sewer connection variance/waiver
application concerning the Glen Drive-In property located at 983 State Route 9, Queensbury
(Tax Map No.: 296.13-1-20), and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town
Clerk to send the Notice of Hearing presented at this meeting to the Applicant as required by
law.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AWARD OF BID TO TOM
KUBRICKY CO., INC. FOR BROADACRES, CARLTON DRIVE
AND LYNNFIELD DRIVE PROJECT AREAS WATER MAIN
REPLACEMENT PROJECT
RESOLUTION NO. : 175, 2010
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 52
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 134, 2010 the Queensbury Town Board authorized
the replacement of water mains onCarlton Drive to Aviation Road area, Broadacres in the
Hughes Court area, Lynnfield Drive, Moorwood Drive, Crestwood Drive, Pinewood
Avenue, Sunset Drive, Westmore Avenue and a small section of Buena Vista Drive
(hereinafter referred to as the “Project”) and established funding for expenses associated
with such Project, and
WHEREAS, C.T. Male Associates, P.C., prepared bid documents and specifications
to advertise for bids for the Project improvements, an advertisement for bids was published,
and bids were received, and
th
WHEREAS, on April 7, 2010, all received bids were opened, and
WHEREAS, C.T. Male Associates, P.C. and the Town Water Superintendent
have recommended that the Town Board award the bid to the lowest responsible bidder,
,
Tom Kubricky Co., Inc., for an amount not to exceed $1,229,264 and
WHEREAS, the Water Superintendent has advised the Town Board that there are
times when Change Orders may become necessary for such Contract and has requested
that the Town Board also authorize him to approve and sign certain Change Orders up to
a 5% contingency for Change Orders that he deems necessary or appropriate, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to establish appropriations and revenues for
the Project, with funding of the Project to be from Capital Fund #141 and Water Fund
#40,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby accepts and awards the bid
for replacement of water mains onCarlton Drive to Aviation Road area, Broadacres in the
Hughes Court area, Lynnfield Drive, Moorwood Drive, Crestwood Drive, Pinewood
Avenue, Sunset Drive, Westmore Avenue and a small section of Buena Vista Drive
(Project), from the lowest responsible bidder, Tom Kubricky Co Inc., for an amount not
to exceed $1,229,264, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town
Supervisor to execute an Agreement between the Town and Tom Kubricky Co Inc., in
form acceptable to the Town Supervisor, Water Superintendent, Town Budget Officer
and/or Town Counsel, and
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 53
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes the Town Water
Superintendent to approve and sign Change Orders pertaining to the Contract up to a 5%
contingency or in the total amount not exceeding $61,463.20 that he deems necessary or
appropriate, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes Capital Fund
#141 to account for expenses associated with the design, contract administration,
construction and/or easement preparation services in connection with the Project, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs that funding for
this Project shall be established from the balance of remaining funds in Capital Fund
#141, approximately $391,694, and by appropriation of undesignated, unappropriated
Fund Balance in Water Fund #40 of $899,034 and a transfer this amount from Water
Fund #40 to Capital Fund #141, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby establishes initial appropriations and
estimated revenues for Capital Project Fund #141 in the amount of $1,290,727.20, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town
Budget Officer to take all action necessary to establish the necessary accounts for such
appropriations and revenues, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town
Budget Officer to amend the 2010 Town Budget, make any adjustments, budget
amendments, transfers or prepare any documentation necessary to establish such
appropriations and estimated revenues and effectuate all terms of this Resolution, and
BE IT FURTHER,
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 54
RESOLVED, that upon completion of work and/or any necessary Change
Order(s), the Town Board further authorizes payment for these services with such
amounts to be paid from Account No.’s: 141-8340-2899 and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that upon completion of this project the Town Budget Officer
and/or Town Accountant shall be authorized to close Capital Project Fund #141 and to
return any and all unexpended balances from this project to Water Fund #40, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town
Supervisor, Purchasing Agent, Water Superintendent, Town Budget Officer and/or Town
Counsel to take any and all action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
Discussion held before vote: Councilman Brewer-Why on page three the second
resolved why is that number different from the contract award? Town Counsel Hafner-
That is the five percent contingency. Supervisor Stec-noted that all the bids came under
the engineer’s estimate.
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON
2010 – 2012 FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND
QUEENSBURY CENTRAL VOLUNTEER FIRE CO., INC.
RESOLUTION NO.: 176, 2010
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi
WHEREAS, fire protection services are provided to the Town of Queensbury by the
Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., Queensbury
Central Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., South Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., and West
Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., in accordance with agreements between each Fire
Company and the Town, and
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 55
WHEREAS, the Town and the Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Co., Inc. have
negotiated terms for a new three (3) year Agreement for fire protection services, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Town Law §184 and General Municipal Law
§209(b), the Town Board wishes to set a public hearing concerning the proposed 2010-2012
Agreement for fire protection services,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall conduct a public hearing
concerning the proposed 2010-2012 fire protection services Agreement between the Town
rd
of Queensbury and the Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., on Monday, May 3,
2010 at 7:00 p.m., 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 19 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier
NOES : Mr. Brewer
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS –
TH
WARRANT OF APRIL 19, 2010
RESOLUTION NO.: 177, 2010
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve an audit of bills
thth
presented as a Warrant with a run date of April 15, 2010 and payment date of April 20,
2010,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 56
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Warrant with
thth
the run date of April 15, 2010 and payment date of April 20, 2010 totaling $140,869.40,
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town
Supervisor and/or Town Budget Officer to take such other and further action as may be
necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
5.0CORRESPONDENCE
Ltr. – To The Town Board
Sirs:
In regards to the Queensbury Central’s addition to the fire station on Lafayette
Street, please be advised that I am opposed to the board spending money to put on an
addition that is not necessary at this time, in view of these tough economic conditions.
Everyone has been urged to cut-back in order to survive the economic hardships today.
This will be especially difficult for people on a fixed income. In my opinion you are not
taking into consideration the tough road ahead for the Queensbury taxpayers.
Even though I am not in favor of this addition, I am 100% satisfied with the
services our fire department provides. I think that they do an excellent job. I have always
supported you in the past and will continue to do so, but do not put on the addition.
Sincerely,
/s/
Arnold Alkes
6.0TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS
WARD IV TIM BREWER
?
Read an e-mail from an constituent thanking the Highway Dept. especially
Peter Flewelling for taking care of a drainage problem
?
Received an e-mail regarding the traffic control on Veterans and Luzerne-
requested that be spot checked during the day
WARD III JOHN STROUGH
?
Spoke on the Ohio State University Fact Sheet-re: Community
Development cost of community services how variance types of land uses
effect local government taxation and spending
?
Queensbury Senior Citizens Newsletter – reviewed their upcoming events
CALL 761-8224
TOWN BOARD MEETING 04-19-2010 MTG. #15 57
SUPERVISOR STEC
?
The last apartment building, site plan approved by the Planning Board –
Pine Street spring of 2006 it has been four years since an apartment has
been approved by the Planning Board-only two zones in Queensbury that
allow apartment buildings Office Zone and Main Street Zone –the total
undeveloped acreage in Office Zone and the Main Street Zone is
approximately two hundred acres out of thirty eight thousand acres in the
Town of Queensbury, a half of one percent of the towns landmass is left for
any apartment building development-noted school enrollment has decreased
?
Towns website www.queensbury.net
?
Thanked TV 8 and our sponsors for televising our meetings
WARD II RONALD MONTESI
?
Ltr. James Gerrard-was guard at our Court-summarizing concerns at the
court-working with Chuck Rice regarding restroom facilities for
prisoners…working on more parking…etc.
WARD I ANTHONY METIVIER
?
Doing quick math with the proposed Hudson Headwaters expansion you
are looking at least another seven million dollars of income in this town,
and I cannot understand why every time we have a project like this that
comes to the town somebody has to argue it. On two occasions I have
tried to bring people to this town to establish businesses and on two
occasions they said they don’t want to deal with the Town of Queensbury.
I think that is a problem, we have worked hard on our zoning and I think
our departments down stairs have gotten a lot better and yet we still
manage to make these businesses feel unwelcome and I just don’t
understand why that is. Health facilities do generate business in the town,
income, jobs, and these are people that will spend seven million in our
town. I hope that as we progress we can generate more jobs and it if is
another fifteen hundred health jobs so be it I have no problem with that at
all.
RESOLUTION ADJOURNING TOWN BOARD MEETING
RESOLUTION NO 178. 2010
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Ronald Montesi
RESOLVED,
that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Town
Board Meeting.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of April, 2010 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Respectfully,
Miss Darleen M. Dougher
Town Clerk-Queensbury