2010-10-18 MTG. #39
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-18-2010 MTG #39 36
TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG. #39
OCTOBER 18, 2010 RES. 343-352
7:00 p.m. LL#12
BOH # 28-29
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS
SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC
COUNCILMAN ANTHONY METIVIER
COUNCILMAN RONALD MONTESI-ABSENT
COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH
COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER
Town Counsel Cathi Radner
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LEB BY SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC
Supervisor Stec-Councilman Montesi is absent tonight he is out of Town at a conference for the Warren
County Soil and Water Conservation District, he is a member of the Board of Directors.
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH
RESOLUTION NO. 343.2010
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves into the Queensbury Board
of Health.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2010 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mr. Montesi
1.0 BOARD OF HEALTH
PUBLIC HEARING RAVIS AND ASHLEY LEOMBRUNO’S APPLICATION FOR SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL
VARIANCE
NOTICE SHOWN
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 10-08-2010
Supervisor Stec-This application for a sanitary sewage disposal variance is for property located at 345
Glen Lake Road in Queensbury. It would be to allow the replacement of an existing thousand gallon
septic tank and proposed new leach field one foot from the front property line in lieu of ten foot setback
and the proposed new leach field ten foot from the residential basement in lieu of the required twenty
foot setback. If there is anyone that would like to comment on this public hearing or if the owner or
their agent is here and wants to add to that? I will open the public hearing. No one spoke
Any discussion from Board Members?
Councilman Brewer-Are there sign off letters from the neighbors?
Mr. Leombruno-I can get the letters from the neighbors if you…
Councilman Brewer-No, usually they are in the paper work if there are any objections I am sure the
neighbors would be here and say something.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-18-2010 MTG #39 37
Councilman Metivier-This is also an area that we fixed last June, the road on your corner there. There
was some water problems on the corner just before you moved in and so the Town came and fixed the
culvert so hopefully that will help you out with your leach field.
Councilman Strough-This is the old George Williams place.
Mr. Leombruno-The previous owners were Amy Scott…
Councilman Strough-Before that.
Supervisor Stec-If there are no comments from the public I will close the public hearing and entertain a
motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING TAVIS & ASHLEY LEOMBRUNO’S
APPLICATION FOR SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCES
RESOLUTION NO.: 28, 2010 BOH
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, Tavis and Ashley Leombruno filed an application for variances from provisions of the
Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, Chapter 136 to allow placement of the:
1. existing 1,000 gallon septic tank and proposed new leach field 1’ from the front property line
in lieu of the required 10’ setback; and
2. proposed new leach field 10’ from the residential basement in lieu of the required 20’
basement setback;
on property located at 345 Glen Lake Road in the Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, the Town Clerk’s Office published the Notice of Public Hearing in the Town’s official
newspaper and the Local Board of Health conducted a public hearing concerning the variance requests on
th
Monday, October 18, 2010, and
WHEREAS, the Town Clerk’s Office has advised that it duly notified all property owners within 500
feet of the subject property,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
1. due to the nature of the variances, the Local Board of Health determines that the variances
would not be materially detrimental to the purposes and objectives of this Ordinance or other
adjoining properties nor otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of any Town
plan or policy; and
2. the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variances is necessary for the
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-18-2010 MTG #39 38
reasonable use of the land and is the minimum variances which would alleviate the specific
unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health to affect the applicants; and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health hereby approves Tavis and Ashley Leombruno’s
application for variances from the Sewage Disposal Ordinance to allow placement of the:
1. existing 1,000 gallon septic tank and proposed new leach field 1’ from the front property line
in lieu of the required 10’ setback; and
2. proposed new leach field 10’ from the residential basement in lieu of the required 20’
basement setback;
on property located at 345 Glen Lake Road in the Town of Queensbury, and bearing Tax Map No.: 289.9-1-
62.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
ABSENT: Mr. Montesi
RESOLUTION ADJOURNING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH
RESOLUTION NO. 29.2010 BOH
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Queensbury Board of
Health Meeting and moves back into regular session.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2010 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mr. Montesi
REGULAR SESSION
2.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS
2.1 Public Hearing-Local Law to Amend Queensbury Town Code by Repealing Existing Chapter
73 “Dogs and Other Animals” and Replacing it with a New Chapter 73 Entitled “Dog Control
Law”
PUBLICATION DATE: 10-08-2010
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-18-2010 MTG #39 39
Supervisor Stec-The reason why we have Darleen here tonight as opposed to one of her deputies is she
has been working on this off and on for the last several months as she was the first one to bring it to the
Board’s attention, that New York State has decided that they want to get out of the dog licensing
business. They still want it done and they still want a piece of the financial action but they want all the
nine hundred local towns and dozens and dozens of local cities and villages to do that. So, I think that
they have gone for the decentralization route and that forced us to review our current dog law and it
needed to be tweak. So essentially that is what Darleen did and brought to the Town Board tonight and
so being that she is the subject area expert, if there are any questions about what we are doing with the
new law. You will still come to town hall the same way you always have. Some people will probably
recall that a couple months ago a mailer went out basically trying to solicit people to license their dogs if
they hadn’t already done so. There was huge turnout of people that acknowledge that they had
st
unlicensed dogs and in fact they started licensing them. This local law would go into effect January 1.
2011. The licensing fees I will not get into them all but there is a second tier rate for Senior Citizens so it
is not as expensive otherwise. There is an allowance for service dogs you still have to license them but
they are exempt from paying the fees for a service dog. Basically in many other ways mirrors what we
currently have in place. So with that said I will open this public hearing and if there is anyone that would
like to comment on this public hearing just raise your hand. Yes, Sir.
Mr. John Cozzens-I am John Cozzens the third of 2 Tree house Lane. I was just curious as to whether
there was a chance of an inter municipal agreement or County wide implementation of this down the
road and if that would be beneficial to Queensbury?
Supervisor Stec-Sure, the short answer to that is, each municipality is on the hook to license their own
animals, however there is an opportunity we believe for the County to get involved as an intermediary
because as I said some of the funds that would be collected by the individual towns are either supposed
to go back to New York State or if the County is involved they could go to the County. The purpose of
that fund is for spayed and neutering programs. I sent an e-mail to the Town Board and I am sure that
most people would agree that whatever fees are collected locally we would prefer them to stay locally
so that we make sure that the dog licensing fees in Queensbury that might be doing a very good job
trying to make sure that were aggressively licensing every dog doesn’t go to benefit Erie County or
Rockland County or Long Island or somebody else. A lot of our money seems, ends up flowing to one of
the five burrows and so perhaps it would be best to keep that money at least at the local level in Warren
County and we are looking into that. If there is an opportunity to do that I think we would all prefer
that.
Mr. Cozzens-Thank you.
Supervisor Stec-You are welcome. Anyone else like to comment on this public hearing? No one spoke
I will close this public hearing and entertain a motion.
RESOLUTION ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO. 12 OF 2010 TO AMEND
QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE BY REPEALING EXISTING CHAPTER 73
“DOGS AND OTHER ANIMALS” AND REPLACING IT WITH A NEW
CHAPTER 73 ENTITLED, “DOG CONTROL LAW”
RESOLUTION NO. 344, 2010
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: 12 of
2010 to amend the Queensbury Town Code by repealing current Chapter 73 “Dogs and Other Animals” and
replacing it with a new Chapter entitled "Dog Control Law,” to ensure compliance with the New York State
Agriculture and Markets Law Article 7 regarding the licensing, identification and control of dogs, and
WHEREAS, this legislation is authorized in accordance with the New York State Agriculture and
Markets Law Article 7 and the New York State Municipal Home Rule Law, and
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-18-2010 MTG #39 40
WHEREAS, the Town Board duly held a public hearing concerning such proposed Local Law on
th
Monday, October 18, 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.: 12 of 2010 entitled,
"Dog Control 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 New
York State Municipal Home Rule Law and acknowledges that the Local Law will take effect on January 1,
2011.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier
NOES : None
ABSENT: Mr. Montesi
LOCAL LAW NO.: 12 OF 2010
A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE BY
REPEALING EXISTING CHAPTER NO.: 73 “DOGS AND OTHER
ANIMALS” AND REPLACING IT WITH A NEW CHAPTER 73
ENTITLED, “DOG CONTROL LAW”
BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1:Purpose.
The Queensbury Town Board finds that the running at large and other uncontrolled
behavior of licensed and unlicensed dogs has caused physical harm to person, damage to
property and have created nuisances within the Town. The purpose of this Local Law is to
protect the health, safety and wellbeing of the persons and property by imposing restrictions on
the keeping and running at large of dogs within the Town and to ensure compliance with Article
7 of the New York State Agriculture and Markets Law regarding the licensing, identification and
control of dogs.
SECTION 2:Authority.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-18-2010 MTG #39 41
This Local Law is enacted pursuant to the provisions of Article 7 of the Agriculture and
Markets Law and the Municipal Home Rule Law of the State of New York.
SECTION 3: Title.
The Title of this Law shall be “Dog Control Law of the Town of Queensbury.”
SECTION 4:Definition of Terms.
As used in this Local Law the following words shall have the following respective
meanings:
“Dog”
A. means male and female, licensed and unlicensed, members of the species
Canis Familiaris.
“Owner”
B. means person entitled to claim lawful custody and possession of a dog
who is responsible for purchasing the license for such dog unless the dog is or has
been lost, and such loss was promptly reported to the animal control officer and a
reasonable search has been made. If a dog is not licensed, the term owner shall
designate and cover any person or person, firm, association, or corporation, who
or which at any time owns or has custody or control of, harbors, or is otherwise
responsible for any dog which is kept, brought or comes within the Town . Any
person owning or harboring a dog for a period of one (1) week prior to filing any
complaint charging a violation of this Local Law, shall be held in and deemed to
be the owner of any dog found to be in violation of this chapter shall be under 18
years of age, the head of the household in which said minor shall be deemed to
have custody and control of said dog and shall be responsible for any acts of the
said dog in violation of this Local Law.
“Run at Large”
C. means to be in a public place or on private land without the
knowledge, consent, and approval of the owner of such lands.
“Town”
D. means the Town of Queensbury.
“Animal Control Officer”
E. means the individual appointed by the Town to
enforce the Town’s Animal Control Law and Article 7 of the Agriculture and
Markets Law of the State of New York. The authority of such individual shall
include the powers and duties identified as those of a Dog Control Officer under
the Agriculture and Markets Law.
SECTION 5:Restrictions.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-18-2010 MTG #39 42
It shall be unlawful for any owner of any dog in the Town to permit or allow such dog to:
A.Run at large unless the dog is accompanied by its owner or a responsible person
and under the full control of such owner or person. For the purpose of the Local
Law, a dog or dogs hunting in the company of a hunter or hunters shall be
considered as accompanied by its owner.
B.Engage in habitual and loud howling, barking, crying or shining or conduct as to
unreasonably and habitually disturb the comfort or repose of any person other
than the owner of such dog.
C.Chase, jump upon or otherwise harass any person in such manner as to reasonably
cause intimidation or fear or to put such person in reasonable apprehension of
bodily harm.
D.Habitually chase, run alongside of or bark at motor vehicles, motorcycles or
bicycles while on a public street, highway, or place, or upon private property
without the consent or approval of the owner of such property.
E.If a female dog, when in heat, be off the owner’s premises, unrestrained by a
leash.
SECTION 6:Licensing of Dogs
.
A.All dogs in the Town of Queensbury must be licensed with the Town Clerk by the
age of four months and are required to present a current Certificate of Rabies at
the time of licensing or the renewal of an existing license.
B.All dogs licenses will be for a period of one year and will expire at the end of the
month one year from the date of issue.
Fees for Licensing of Dogs
C. - Effective for all licenses obtained or renewed on or
st
after January 1, 2011, the fee for a spayed or neutered dog will be $6.00 which
shall include a $1.00 surcharge for the purpose of carrying out the New York
State Animal Population Control Program. The fee for an unspayed or
unneutered dog will be $13.00 which includes a $3.00 surcharge for the purpose
of carrying out the New York State Animal Population Control Program. The fee
for replacing a lost license tag will be $2.00.
Licensing Fees for Senior Citizens Age 65 and Over
D. - Effective for all licenses
st
obtained or renewed on or after January 1, 2011, the reduced fee for a spayed or
neutered dog will be $2.00 which shall include a $1.00 surcharge for the purpose
of carrying out the New York State Animal Population Control Program. The fee
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-18-2010 MTG #39 43
for an unspayed or unneutered dog will be $7.00 which includes a $3.00
surcharge for the purpose of carrying out the New York State Animal Population
Control Program. The fee for replacing a lost license tag will be $2.00.
Purebred License -
E.The Town of Queensbury will not be issuing Purebred or
Kennel Licenses. All dogs must be individually licensed as set forth above.
Service Dogs
F. - Any Guide dog, Service dog, Hearing dog or Detection dog, as
those terms are defined at §108 of Article 7 of the New York State Agriculture
and Markets Law must be licensed but are exempt from license fees.
G.All licenses for dogs sheltered within the Town of Queensbury must be obtained
from the Town Clerk. No shelter, kennel or other entity is authorized to issue dog
licenses. Any shelter placing a dog for adoption must refer the adoptive dog
owners to the Town Clerk to obtain a license. All shelters within the Town must
maintain a record of all dogs sold or adopted and must provide such information
to the Town Clerk upon request.
H.All dog licenses may be purchase by visiting the Town Clerk’s Office or by mail.
If licensing or renewing a license by mail, the appropriate fee must accompany
the forms. There will be no refund of fees.
I.All fees will be used in funding the administration of the Dog Control Law of the
Town of Queensbury.
Fees for Seizure of Dogs
J. - If any dog is seized and impounded for violation of
this Law, a fee shall be imposed for a First Offense of $20.00 per dog. For a
Second Offense the fee shall be $35 per dog, and for a Third or subsequent
Offense, the fee shall be $50.00 per dog. In addition to the impoundment fees, the
Dog Owner shall pay the daily room and board for the dog(s). In the case of a
dog that is euthanized, the Dog Owner shall be responsible for such fees in
addition to all other fees.
SECTION 7:Procedure for Seizure of Dogs
.
A.The Animal Control Officer may seize:
1.Any unlicensed dog whether on or off the owner’s premises;
2.Any dog not wearing a tag, not identified and which is not on the owner’s
premises;
3.Any dog found in violation of paragraphs (A)-(E) of Section 5 of this
Local Law.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-18-2010 MTG #39 44
4.Any dog previously determined by a Court to be a Dangerous Dog under
§123 of Article 7 of the Agriculture and Markets Law if such dog is not
maintained consistent with the conditions imposed by the Court.
B.The Animal Control Officer observing a violation of this Law may issue and
serve an appearance ticket for such violation.
C.Any person who observes a violation of this Local Law may file a Complaint,
under oath, with the Animal Control Officer on forms provided by the Animal
Control Officer. The Animal Control Officer, in his/her sole discretion, may use
such Complaint as the basis for pursuing a violation of this Law in the Town
Justice Court for the Town of Queensbury. Any individual who files a Complaint
with the Animal Control Officer may be required to appear in the Town Justice
Court and testify regarding the alleged violation.
SECTION 8:Penalties.
Any person convicted of a violation of this Local Law shall be liable for a civil penalty of
Fifty Dollars ($50.00) for a first violation; Seventy-five Dollars ($75.00) for a second violation,
and One-Hundred Dollars ($100.00) for each subsequent violation.
SECTION 9:Severability.
Each separate provision of this Local Law shall be deemed independent of all other
provisions herein and if any provisions shall be deemed or declared invalid all other provisions
hereof shall remain valid and enforceable.
SECTION 10:Repealer.
This Local Law shall supersede all prior Local Laws, Ordinances, Rules and Regulations
relative to the control of dogs within the Town of Queensbury, and they shall be upon the
effectiveness of this Local Law, null and void, except that, the fee schedule shall remain valid
st
through and until December 31, 2010.
SECTION 11:Effective Date.
st
This Local Law shall be effective January 1, 2011.
2.2 Public Hearing- 2010 Ambulance Service Agreement Between Town of Queensbury
and West Glens Falls Emergency Squad, Inc. and Ambulance Purchase
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-18-2010 MTG #39 45
PUBLICATION DATE: 10-08-2010
st
Supervisor Stec-All three rescue squads expired December 31. 2009, there is a provision in all the
contracts that we have taken very good advantage of this year that allows the town and the Squad to
continue to maintain the terms of that expired contract with a one twelve monthly payment of the
previous contract amount while we work on a new contract. We are getting close on a few items that
are not really relevant tonight but for all the squads as far as paid staffing and a couple of other squads
are looking at some things that are not exactly a carbon copy of last years budget, so their budgets are a
little different. In this case with West Glens Falls, there are two reasons why this is on tonights agenda.
In one case West Glens Falls for 2010 has proposed to the Town other than the second part of what I am
about to say, they proposed keeping the budget the same in 2010 as 2011. So, we only have two and a
half more months of 2010, we have been paying them these last nine or ten months they have been
getting a check so we are not talking about a large remaining balance on their 2010 contact. But, the
total would be the same for 2010 as it was in 2009 with this exception and it is a significant exception,
but it was unforeseen and if it wasn’t for the vehicle accident an ambulance was involved in, it would
not have come into play this year they would have in fact come in with a flat budget for the year. One of
their ambulances was involve in an accident, it was in the paper a couple of months ago, and it was
serious enough where the ambulance needs significant repairs. I think a ball park number was about
thirty thousand dollars however the ambulance is old enough where the squad determined and the
Board I think has agreed from the conversations and e-mails that we have had that it is not worth
putting thirty thousand dollars into fixing this ambulance. So, the rescue squad and to their credit and
there are several members here tonight, went out and got a little creative as have some of our other fire
and EMS companies in the town recently especially in this economy it is a good thing. They found a
demo ambulance, a typical price for a new ambulance these days depending on how it is outfitted can
run for a brand new ambulance a hundred seventy, hundred and eighty a hundred and eighty five
thousand dollars. The ambulance that they found is a demo so it is not brand new but it has not been
owned by anyone other than the company that built it and showing it off. The sale price is for about a
hundred and twenty seven thousand dollars and between their trade in value and some discounts and
some other funds that they have including insurance check. In order to get this demo to replace this I
believe it was a 2001, it is replacing a nine year old ambulance which is the life span of an ambulance
and then actually a little bit. They would need ninety thousand dollars from the town. In this instance
what the town will do and we have advertised this as part of the public hearing the ems fund and
several years ago, well fire and ems under state law have their own separate fund they are not part of
the general fund they are not part of the water fund, they are not part of a sewer district or lighting
district they are their own stand alone thing. When the town implemented shortly after not
immediately upon but shortly after the town implementing the bill for service which has been very
successful and we have raised about four and a half million dollars since inception total town wide and
West brings in about seventy percent of that. But, since that was initiated the Town Board did take
action, well actually our accounting office took action to track a fire fund balance separately from an
ems fund balance, because ems is bringing in a revenue and certainly I think it is very fair to say that it is
reasonable to track their revenue is theirs and not the fire companies or anyone else. That is how we
got there. But, the bottom line is that because they brought in four and a half million dollars over the
last five years and in fact they are in pace last year they brought in more than a million town wide and
this year they are on pace to bring in more than a million town wide. We are using it, we used it to buy
other ambulances we have used it largely for paid staffing. It is a story that I think the ems squads and
the town should be very proud of that we have increased patient care and response times dramatically
through the use of these funds to have a paid staff component which I think has worked out for the
best. But in spite of all that we were able to significantly lower the ems tax rate over the years and at
the same time there is a healthy fund balance in the ems fund. So, rather than having a loan which
typically the rescue squads when they buy an ambulance they usually get a five or six year loan to pay
for it the town has adequate funds in the ems fund to provide the ninety thousand dollars from the
town fund balance. So, again this would be to replace the damaged 2001 ambulance with a new 2010
ambulance that they are getting frankly a pretty good price on. But, in order to give them that money
we needed to have a contract in place so kind of married these two things together and said yes, we
know it is the end of 2010 we need to start thinking about the 2011 contract which we do. But, if we
adopted it, an agreement tonight a resolution to authorize this contract then that carries them to the
end of the year and it provides the funds to replace the damaged ambulance. So, we are trying to kill
two birds with one stone so to speak. So, that is it that is the explanation of what we are doing. I will
open the public hearing, if there is any members of the public that would like to comment on either the
contact or the ambulance purchase I just ask that you raise your hands one at a time and we will call you
up to the mic. Mr. Naylor
Mr. Paul H. Naylor-Division Road, West Glens Falls – Git –r- dun.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-18-2010 MTG #39 46
Supervisor Stec-Thanks, Paul. Anyone else this evening that would like to address the board? Mr.
Salvador
Mr. John Salvador-Good evening my name is John Salvador I am a resident in North Queensbury. Is
there any reason why the West Glens Falls EMS audit reports for the years 2009, 2010 have not been, 08
and 2009?
Supervisor Stec-The 2009 which is getting worked on in 2010 is not complete yet. It should have been
completed already, they have turned in everything we are waiting it to get back. The auditor is not
finished with it Sandy so we do not have it yet. But, we do not have one for 2009 yet.
Mr. Salvador-How can you establish a budget if you do not have the previous years audit report?
Supervisor Stec-Well we do it all the time.
Mr. Salvador-I know you do it all the time but it does not seem that you have a foundation to do it.
Supervisor Stec-Sure we do we know what they spent in 2009.
Mr. Salvador-Not if its not been properly audited.
Councilman Metivier-Well you know from 2008 and if that is audited then you can go to 2009 and if it is
not out of whack then you are going to go 2010 and we will work on 2011 with 2009 audit and just so on
and so forth. So, they are not raising everything that much that it is an eye opener to us.
Mr. Salvador-Would you explain to Mr. Metivier that it should have been done by now?
Supervisor Stec-He knows and agrees.
Mr. Salvador-He is defending the fact that it is not done by now.
Supervisor Stec-No you are saying how can we possibly without one establish a budget, very easy.
Councilman Metivier-I am defending the fact that we are doing a budget without it, and we have done it
before and we will do it again.
Mr. Salvador-I am awaiting a copy of it, I FOILED it I am waiting, I have the others but I have not got that
one. I just do not understand how budgets can be established without knowing what is behind you has
been done right, the monies appropriated properly one if the foundation of the other. Thank you.
Supervisor Stec-Is there anyone else that would like to address the board this evening? Seeing none, I
will close the public hearing and entertain a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING EMERGENCY 2010 AMBULANCE SERVICE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND WEST GLENS
FALLS EMERGENCY SQUAD, INC. AND AMBULANCE PURCHASE
RESOLUTION NO.: 345, 2010
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
§
WHEREAS, in accordance with Town Law 184, the Queensbury Town Board may contract with
ambulance services certified or registered in accordance with Public Health Law Article 30 for general
emergency ambulance service within the Town, and
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-18-2010 MTG #39 47
WHEREAS, the agreement currently in effect between the Town and the West Glens Falls
Emergency Squad, Inc., expired on December 31, 2009, and
WHEREAS, the Town and the West Glens Falls Emergency Squad, Inc., have negotiated terms for a
new one (1) year Agreement for general emergency ambulance services, and
WHEREAS, the Squad also wishes to purchase a new 2010 ambulance to replace one of its
ambulances damaged in a motor vehicle accident, for the approximate purchase price not to exceed $127,000,
and
WHEREAS, the Squad plans on paying the total cost of the ambulance in cash as follows:
1. Up to $90,000 from monies paid to the Squad by the Town as part of the 2010
Agreement, with such maximum amount of $90,000 in funding from the Town to the
Squad to come from unappropriated, undesignated EMS Fund Balance; and
2. All remaining amounts from funds already on deposit in an account of the Squad, including,
without limitation, approximately $31,000 from insurance proceeds, vendor discounts and
trade-in amounts; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board feels that this new ambulance will provide additional safety protection
for the Town, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Town Law §184 and General Municipal Law §209(b), the Town
Board duly conducted a public hearing and heard all interested persons concerning the proposed Agreement
for emergency ambulance services and the proposed ambulance purchase, and
WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Agreement has been presented at this meeting,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the emergency ambulance service
Agreement between the Town and the West Glens Falls Emergency Squad, Inc., substantially in the form
presented at this meeting and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute such Agreement, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes the Squad’s purchase of a 2010 ambulance for
the approximate purchase price not to exceed $127,000 with the Squad paying the total cost of the ambulance
in cash as follows:
1. Up to $90,000 from monies paid to the Squad by the Town as part of the 2010
Agreement, with such maximum amount of $90,000 in funding from the Town to the
Squad to come from unappropriated, undesignated EMS Fund Balance; and
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-18-2010 MTG #39 48
2. All remaining amounts from funds already on deposit in an account of the Squad, including,
without limitation, approximately $31,000 from insurance proceeds, vendor discounts and
trade-in amounts; and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to use up
to $90,000 in funding from the unappropriated, undesignated EMS Fund Balance for such ambulance
purchase and to amend the 2010 Town Budget as necessary to effect the terms of this Resolution, 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 necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier
NOES : None
ABSENT: Mr. Montesi
2.3 Public Hearing-Adopting Determination of Non-Significance Regarding Proposed Local law
To Amend Queensbury Town Code by Repealing Existing Chapter 140 “Signs” and Replacing it
with a New Chapter 140 “Signs”
PUBLICATION DATE: 10-08-2010
Supervisor Stec-We had set this public hearing, now we will not be adopting the sign ordinance tonight,
any time we do a town wide code change like this that involves the Adirondack Park Agency they are in
the approval process like we were for the subdivision regs and the zoning ordinance. The sign regs are
something that are subject to APA review. In order to get APA to look at it, we first need to establish a
resolution after a public hearing determining whether or not there is a SEQRA significance to the sign
ordinance. We will conduct our public hearing on the sign regs. tonight and presumably if we take
comments after we hear from anyone we may in fact close the public hearing and act on a resolution
regarding SEQRA but we will not act on adoption until a later date when we hear back which probably
will not be until the middle of November that we will hear from the APA. So, an approval resolution for
this probably will not follow until our first meeting in early December. So, just to explain the process a
little bit. Now a little bit about the sign regs. this is the first time in a couple of decades that the Town
has done a comprehensive, we of course have made amendments to the sign regs off and on over the
years. But, this was a town wide review of the sign regs. The sign regs for the most part have not
changed a great deal although our zoning code has changed a little bit so we needed to tweak the sign
code to match the current zoning districts a little bit. Some areas, specifically Main Street or Office Zone
we are a little more cautious a little more careful in what we wanted the signs to look like and that
translates for the most part to smaller signs as opposed to the larger signs that you might see in a more
commercial district. But, by enlarge it is not a lot different. Now I know Maury Thompson and the
paper was at the workshop where we talked about this and although we talked about it for about an
hour and half workshop a couple months ago we did spend two or three minutes regarding human signs
and I think the newspaper took from that, that we focused entirely on people that wear costumes and
walk up and down the right of way, side walk on Route 9. We spent a little bit of time on that and I think
that the Board has, and so anyways I remind that just because I think people will remember oh, yea, I
remember that being in the newspaper. There is certainly much more to our sign ordinance then, that
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-18-2010 MTG #39 49
but that was something that certainly I think a few people had opinions on. My personal opinion on it is
the purpose of the sign regs among other things is for the safety of the traveling public, to limit
distractions and the appearance of the town. What do we want for the town to look like? I would
rather be proactive than reactive to sign regs to any regulation if possible before it becomes an issue
where you have got maybe two or three businesses that might want to continue the practice, I would
rather take action now than before you have got twenty or thirty that are doing the practice and it is a
little bit harder to close that genie bottle so to speak at that point. Be that as it may I just want to point
out to everyone that these sign regs are the ones that include the prohibition on human signs in the
town. In the interest of complete disclosure what we are talking about, but like I said, for the most part
the document just tweaks the sign regs that we already had, it does go on to limit animated signs there
is a lot more technology out there as far as signs today than you know this isn’t your grandfathers
billboard kind of thing anymore. You have got the animated signs the marquees with the LED lights and
the computer controlled. We had previously amended the sign ordinance to prohibit that. So, I think
our sign regs have basically been tweaked a little bit from what we already had, and in some instances
like in the office zone and in the Main Street zone where we have got specific design guidelines that we
are shooting for we tailor the sign regs to meet that. So, with that said as an introduction if there is any
member of the public that would like to comment on this public hearing regarding the sign regs. Yes,
Sir. Come on up and if you want to state your name and address for the microphone, these microphone
not only amplify but they record for the purpose of the record.
Mr. John Koskinas-My name is John Koskinas I am a resident of Queensbury. I took the opportunity to
review the new text, Chapter 140. I applaud the direction of the changes, they include the prohibition
on human signs and the construction of new or the extension of existing advertising panels. The
reduction of area of window signs, credit card acceptance signs, apartment complex, free standing and
attached to building and off premises directional signs and reduce the height of free standing and
business complex signs. Also noted is the new or expanded text regarding signs in Lake George or
Adirondack Park specified zoning districts, variances and appeals and enforcement authority. Of the
changes, additions and deletions published . The most salient and affording the opportunity for our
community is the newly numbered section 140-10 non conforming sign. Herein the window for full
compliance to the new regulations is set at five years with the current text, which in the current chapter
is Section 140-8 allowed only sixty days. With a five year allotted window of tolerance, I made the up,
but I am suggesting this Board is being tolerant for five years.
Supervisor Stec-It is a balancing act.
?
Mr. Koskinas-But it is a great thing, it is an opportunity. Surely we can initiate regulations that add
to the beauty and serenity of our community with standards appreciably higher than those being
put forth. Businesses in Queensbury do not need towering signs, consider we do not have long
straight roads, we do not have multi lane traffic, we do not have thoroughfares’ with dividing
medians, boulevards or frontage roads. Our commercial districts do not front interstate 87, we have
all seen communities that have managed signage better than we, lets copy some of what they do.
We have an opportunity in this revision in my view and perhaps an obligation as well. I am
suggesting the Board look again at each section of the regulations that reference size, height,
lighting and materials of construction with a view toward a future that is five years away. Reduce
every reference dimension and proposed revision to Chapter 140 by another ten percent. You are
talking about lowering your tallest signs by about two feet. Have all free standing signs include a
monument base and minimal level of landscaping. These rusty poles that you see up and down
Route 9 and along Quaker Road, there is no need for it in our Town. These businesses easily can
accomplish these maintenance things. Specify natural materials, wood, stone, ceramic, wrought
iron reduce limit or eliminate lighting. In regards to materials and lighting, include allowances for
sign area in exchange for wooden frames or limited or complete elimination of lights or agreeing to
have lights shut off when businesses are closed. I live on Ridge Road, the sky is never dark when I
look west. In the winter when it is snowing it is a brilliant hallo, we are lit up. Simply the
understanding of this regulation by putting the requirement in tables. Going from paragraph to
section to subsection to find out which size your sign should be is complex. Tables by zoning would
be easy and other communities have done it. Restrict placarded or lettered vehicle parking by
statue. Include language to make known void approved application and variances when specific
conditions exist like a business closed, changed its name or is abandoned. Set requirements for
maintenance and upkeep to include reasonable penalties is an incentive. Severely restrict
temporary signs. They are practically an authorized circumvention of the zoning. We have zoning
laws and then we have temporary signs. You can get five, twelve day, you get sixty days worth of
temporary signs and as good as our zoning gets every time we allow a temporary sign we said we
did not really mean it. We got zoning regulations but we don’t really mean it. Look at communities
like Roswell, Georgia which you can see on line or Carmel, California there is a bunch of others that
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-18-2010 MTG #39 50
you can look at for inspiration. We have examples of what we may and may not want within our
business community to guide us. Consider the signage approved for the mobil station at Aviation
and Glen and compare it with the Sunoco Station at Bay and Quaker. The new mobil station that
they are building on Glen Street I do not know how they managed to get the big signs. But, I would
recognize that as a gas station without and I think most other people would to. Go to the corner of
Bay and Quaker the Sunoco Station has a downsized one side at the corner it looks great. It is low it
is compact it looks right. Home Depot has multiple towering signs, compare them Lowes, they are
direct competitors. Lowes signs are monument style, compact, maintained look great. Adirondack
Audio and Video I took a ride down the street the other night, two fully lettered trailers and two full
lettered trucks parked parallel to the street over the entire weekend on one of our main business
thoroughfares.
Fitness in motion does the same thing and there are others who do it as well. Water spouts on
Quaker Road I do not know if that is a sign or not.
Supervisor Stec-Well, they are going away, as a side note as this was mentioned earlier, John if I
could interrupt you, those water spouts in front of the Tire Warehouse are in the County right of
way, the County has verified that and send a letter to the owners that they need to come down and
they gave them a dead line by which they need to be taken down or the County will take them
down. That is a distraction, certainly.
Mr. John Koskinas-Our zoning should not be an accommodation to business but rather an obligation
and commitment to the community and its citizens. If we develop an attractive serene and pleasing
environment people want to live and do business here. Business want to be where the people are
raising our standards one time with a longer view on what is best for the town is in the better
interest of our citizenship and it is in the better interest of our governing bodies as well. On the
variance the ZBA and variances for signs are difficult to deal with. People make these impassioned
pleas about their business and they point without exception they point to previously allowed
variances. Some of those businesses are not even there any more but they were allowed this big
sign why can’t I have it? That is why I am saying I know you like to get these things done and that is
good, here is an opportunity, now I would like to see this Board jump on it.
Supervisor Stec-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to comment on this public hearing?
Mr. Sipp
Mr. Donald Sipp-Courthouse Road- I agree quite heartedly with the previous speaker he has a lot of
good points there. I do not have these pages numbered but I will try to read off the Code Number.
On these temporary signs I realize there is a political end of this you cannot touch they are
guaranteed by freedom of speech but the placement of them can be controlled. The removing of
them should be controlled so that when the signs are over, which means election day or day after
they should be removed by that time. Secondly some of these signs are for one candidate are too
close together. We do not need these signs four feet apart so they are massing on the corner of
where there is going to be a lot of traffic you get a complete conglomeration of signs sometimes for
the same person. I would like to see a rule which would not affect the freedom of speech but would
move these signs apart. You have got one glaring example across the street here where there is a
sign for a candidate for US Representative and on either side there is a sign not four feet from
distance from one to the other for another candidate. There is no need for this complete blanketing
of the whole area with signs, temporary signs. I would like to see them removed very quickly. On
146-4 you have regulations on the height of free standing signs. One regulation is in a commercial
district of twenty feet.
Supervisor Stec-It used to be higher, their current code is twenty five.
Mr. Sipp-Right above it you have a listing for rural residence PUD’s of twelve feet, I wonder if that
height is needed in the rural residence zoning, if we would cut down two feet off of each one so you
had ten feet for the rural residence or PUD and eighteen feet for commercial I think we would be
further ahead. As to monument signs, I think we need more of them not only in an office zoning but
all over. If you take a look at Route 9 Suttons all monument signs one of them happens to be over
the six foot limit that you have there. But it is very well done and very attractive I am sure it catches
a lot of people’s eyes the monument sign. These can be used as places where flowers can be
planted the rural atmosphere can be done by stone work and they are very good in a lot of different
zoning districts. Lastly you want to put this in effect that they have five years to correct the present
sign, I think this should be lowered to two or three years. Get this done quickly. Lets not wait
around for five years for everybody to change signs. Lower these signs down.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-18-2010 MTG #39 51
Councilman Strough-In some cases Don, according to an e-mail that I sent out last night, there were
some errors in this that we have corrected. For example, you were concerned about the height of a
twenty foot sign my argument was in the Main Street zone with a build to line, landscaping
requirement and advertising allowances on the lental, the canopy and on the windows to some
degree, that takes care of it. You probably not going to have any free standing signs. So, I argued
that you know that should be taken out but the argument was made well, it may not be the case in
every situation, so there might be a free standing sign. A height of twelve foot and I agree with you
ten would be satisfactory. Now, the other case the office zone there is a conflict there too. In the
office zone, and that is also in the sign code ordinance, you are allowed to have a monument sign
only at six foot height. So, there is a conflict that some of that has been cleaned up between what
was available to the public and what I had pointed out. Again, through out this and both you and
John make some excellent points, but we have reduced this and pretty much in accord with the
PORC Committee too. For example it says the off premise directional signage we used to have one
hundred square feet that was reduced to forty feet. Another one, apartment complexes it used to
be fifty square feet that was allowed they reduced it to thirty two feet. Double sided used to be fifty
we have reduced it to forty five square feet, set back were increased. You know over and over again
I made notes, here is one, it used to be a hundred square feet reduced to eighty square feet. Ok, we
could argue that it did not go far enough but it is an improvement. It is an improvement over what
we have now.
Supervisor Stec-In just about every instance they are smaller, shorter
Mr. Sipp-It is vastly improved over what
Councilman Strough-And John Koskinas made a lot of excellent points, very good points that I think
this would take, we could sit down and take another look at this and improve this even more. But,
this in itself is an improvement over what we have and part of the problem is that when I have e-
mailed, you know, part of the process is that it is already going. That if you make major changes to
it you have to start the process all over again. Alright, so, rather than do that I would rather get this
which is better than what we have in as soon as possible and then work on the improvements that
both you and John are suggesting.
Supervisor Stec-There is no reason why two or six months from now we can’t go back and change
two or three things, but once the ball gets rolling with APA I really do not want to stop it, and it is
generally goes in that direction.
Mr. Sipp-It is really complex, it doesn’t sound complex but it is when
Supervisor Stec-I have been reading the paper lately they make everything..
Councilman Strough-If we were to re-write this and John had a whole list of points I totally agree
with him on, if we were to rewrite this it would start it all over again. We can always amend this and
the same time line process that we are in right now. In otherwords, approving this makes it better
but amending this is the same time line. But you will also notice in here too, that we had another
section put in here to address signage in our Main Street and also specifically to address signage in
our office zone, that is what I had pointed out. Some, areas conflicted with other areas but we got it
cleaned up today.
Supervisor Stec-If I could interrupt both of you just, Darleen for the purpose of the record, Craig
Brown gave you today a copy of a red lined, John was referring to, but just to make sure it is in the
record that the Town Board may include making this modification upon adoption is on, and actually
Craig’s note is wrong it is Section 140-6B as in Boy not C as in Charlie his note, his hand written note
said C but its 140-6 B 4 height and under one we would be adding the Main Street Zone to those
districts with a limit of twelve feet and in item number two we would be scratching the Main Street
and the Office from those that are limited to twenty feet and then as John mentioned elsewhere in
the sign code or the zoning code it refers to office zoning a limit of six feet and we have created or
are considering adding a line number three for office zoning district of six feet. So, as John pointed
out a couple of these the Main Street zone we may in fact correct it and I think it is more of a
correction than a decision to change it but if somebody was saying twenty feet in the Main Street
zone now we are considering making that twelve feet and also twenty feet in the office zone now,
that should be six feet and we are going to correct that. But, for the purpose of the record just that
was a comment that John asked the question about and Craig looked at it and agreed that those are
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-18-2010 MTG #39 52
things that are minor in nature and we could change. Sorry to interrupt, anything else though
Don?
Mr. Sipp-Thank you.
Supervisor Stec-Alright, thank you. Would anyone else like to comment on this public hearing? Mr.
Salvador
Mr. John Salvador-My name is John Salvador In quite a few places in this resolution you are going
to adopt you leave it to either the Town Clerk or Senior Planner to do the notification. How many
Senior Planners do we have?
Supervisor Stec-Just one.
Mr. Salvador-Wouldn’t it be better to have one or the other?
Supervisor Stec-No.
Mr. Salvador-Single source responsibility Mr. Stec.
Supervisor Stec-This will get done John.
Mr. Salvador-Ok. Section 140-8 Signs within the Lake George Park or the Adirondack Park the first
paragraph says the signs proposed for properties in the Lake George Park shall also comply with the
requirements of 6NYCRR Part 646-7 I do not know if you are familiar with 646-7 but it is very, very
much involved and probably in great conflict with what we are writing here. I happen to have a
copy of what was 646-7 it used to be 645 it was given to me by a New York State Forest Ranger in
fact I still have his card here Mr. George J. Stec.
Supervisor Stec-He was a great Forest Ranger and retired long ago, and underpaid all that time that
he worked and over worked. Go ahead
Mr. Salvador-Chasing sign ordinances, in any case I have a copy of it here this is thirty five years old.
I do not know if it has been reviewed at all to see that it was even close to being in compliance with
this. There is going to be a lot of confusion there already has been. Then you run into the situation
of the town says go get your Park Commission permit and the Park Commission says well go get your
Town Permit. Now who is going to dance first? Paragraph two signs proposed for Class A or Class B
regional projects within the Adirondack Park and not also in the Lake George Park shall be subject to
sign standards of the APA. Does that mean that the APA is giving up their sign jurisdiction in the
Lake George Park? That is the way I read to.
Supervisor Stec-In order for us to adopt this the APA has to approve this Code tonight, well not
tonight, but, the Code that we are looking at has to go through an APA approval process. In fact
they have already and that is why I am really reluctant to stop the APA ball once you get it rolling.
They have done an informal review once already, provided us comment so we kind of try not to
send them something unless they have already had a courtesy opportunity to look at it and make
their comment on it. So, that we do not get stuck in a inter… loop where we never adopt anything
because we are chasing our tail with the APA. But, yes, the APA relinquishes to the Town’s that
have an approved management plan in place authorities to control zoning within the APA.
Queensbury is one of about a dozen, they are all not in there but Queensbury is one of them. But, in
order to achieve that designation from APA they have to have the opportunity to review and
approve your regs.
Mr. Salvador-Did you do the same thing with the Park Commission? What you are going to do is
send them a copy of the proposed revised sign code for their …recommendation.
Supervisor Stec-They are not as entrenched legally in the process as APA is. APA for the reason I
said , we have an approved plan with the APA and one of the conditions of that is that they get a say
so on our zoning codes where as I believe it is fair to paraphrase that the Park Commission does not
have that level of jurisdiction or authority over our codes. Of course this is all redundant anyways,
in my opinion although the APA may want us to dance a certain dance for them and include certain
language in our code I do not think our code needs to say you need to comply with other laws that
you are subject to, anyways I think these paragraphs are redundant. If you are going to do a sign in
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-18-2010 MTG #39 53
the APA you are going to have to follow their rules to. But, you know I think in that level these two
sentences are redundant to a large extent but there is no prohibition to being redundant.
Town Counsel Radner-I would just point out before we go on if you look at page five of the SEQRA
our Planning Staff has indicated that they will be seeking Lake George Park Commission approval.
Supervisor Stec-There you go.
Councilman Strough-To address some of John’s concern I mean, John is saying that the rules are
thirty five years old and it used to be called 645 and so forth, should we put down that this will
comply with the requirements of 6NYCRR Part 646-7 or and as might be amended?
Supervisor Stec-I jotted notes myself do we want to make it specific reference to our Code or do we
want to be generic in, because what happens if next week they change it and it is not 646-7?
Councilman Strough-…if we added the words and as might be amended.
Town Counsel Radner-You certainly could make that change it would make for greater flexibility in
the future, it is sort of implicit that if the law is changed, but it does happen, we have other places in
our code already where the regs were changed.
Supervisor Stec-If you wouldn’t mind then could you write a note either for Mike Hill I think has
been shepherding this for the most part or copy, maybe send it coordinate with Mike and our
Senior Planner to add that language. I jotted that down, do we want to make a specific code
reference, because if that reference changes then you know.
Councilman Brewer-It will just follow suit won’t it?
Supervisor Stec-Well belts and suspenders.
Town Counsel Radner-And it is a fairly minor change that we can make just to clarify that.
Supervisor Stec-On both of those, the one that refers to the Lake George Park Commission rules and
the APA rules those two.
Mr. Salvador-Has any consideration been given to the cost of enforcement for this?
Supervisor Stec-Well, our, do you mean in the town?
Mr. Salvador-Yea.
Supervisor Stec-Well, if you want to have a sign ordinance we are going to have enforcement and
actually that is one of the things you know, somebody say well can’t you do a better job on
enforcing temporary signs on Saturdays and Sundays? Yes, if we wanted to hire more people and
get people to chase temporary signs on Saturday and Sunday. So, what has our fall back position
been? Somebody brings it to our attention that somebody had a sign in violation on Saturday and
Sunday, you let us know on Monday and Monday our people will take over and if there is a
complaint and somebody wants to sign the compliant then we can pursue it. We do not staff our
Code Enforcement, which is why you know a lot of people will see the going out of business signs
sprout up on a Friday afternoon and will come down on a Sunday or Monday and how much money
do you want to spend on this. If the room fills up with people that say we want the town to spend
more money on enforcing these regulations, I do not think that will happen. That is why we do it
the way we do it.
Mr. Salvador-Mr. Stec we are all due equal protection of the law. We are all due that.
Supervisor Stec-…cop on every corner
Mr. Salvador-If you are going to make the laws we do equal protection.
Supervisor Stec-John then we should have a cop on every corner and we don’t. That is the nature of
enforcement. If we wanted to do that then we would have a cop on every street corner and we
would pay for it and we do not want to pay for it.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-18-2010 MTG #39 54
Mr. Salvador-What you have to do is a realistic enforcement one or two times and everyone will get
the message.
Supervisor Stec-I think we are getting that done.
Mr. Salvador-Thank you.
Supervisor Stec-Thank you. Does anyone else like to comment on this public hearing? Mr. Cozzens
Mr. John Cozzens-Thank you Mr. Stec and to the rest of the Board for indulging me the public
tonight for this public hearing. I have a couple of comments I agreed generally with what the other
gentlemen already said so I will try to be concise but definitely this revision puts a lot of what seems
like teeth into the enforcement of the Chapter on Signs and I think that’s probably going to go a long
way toward getting the message across to those who might seek to be a non conformance or
outright violate it. A couple of specific comments first I will touch upon the human sign which Dan
had already alluded to. Specifically the human signs shall be prohibited so it is good to know what a
human sign is so we can talk about what we are prohibiting. I will just quote basically it says a
human sign is a sign held by or attached to a human for the purposes of advertising or otherwise
drawing attention to an individual, business, commodity, service, activity or product. It is quite a
mouth full. But, the language itself to me seems vague, I do not necessarily know what specifically
we are banning. If I was holding a sign you know walking down Main Street and it said vote for so
and so would that be
Supervisor Stec-We do not regulate political speech.
Mr. Cozzens-Would it be such a thing if I was on Glen Street waiving a orange flag saying park here
or whatever.
Supervisor Stec-That is a human sign.
Mr. Cozzens-That statue of liberty I think has already been covered. Car wash fund raiser, children
you know that kind of thing, lemonade?
Supervisor Stec-We are not the Gestapo. And we do not have people running around in church
parking lots on Saturdays and Sundays, it is very difficult to write an all encompassing every possible
scenario, what if it is raining on a Tuesday after a Monday holiday? Occasionally we are going to run
into those conundrums where it is a head scratcher what do you do here, we either tweak the law
or our Code Enforcement guy is empowered under law to make that decision. Craig Brown is our
Zoning Administrator he has the authority to make that interpretation. If somebody says what
about this it is his call, there is a process, there is an appeal process if you disagree with that and
certainly if it becomes an issue the Town Board can always say you know what we need to dial it up
a notch and get away from this determination. We need to amend our law again, but yes, it is
impossible to think of every possible scenario. I would rather though not have a tremendous
amount of experience I hate the sign I hate that human sign I hate that, fortunately we are nipping it
in the bud so we do not know all the what ifs out there that, I would rather do it that way and then
find out later you know what our human signs definition could have been worded better and as John
pointed out you know we can always change it, there is a process for that. I agree with you I mean
what is a human sign, what is pornography you know intentionally offensive.
Mr. Cozzens-So you intentionally left space so that there is room for interpretation.
Supervisor Stec-…you see if it is kind of hard to define and you know that old adage.
Mr. Cozzens-Moving on to 140-4 part E and this was alluded to earlier, regarding the temporary
signs where E1 says five temporary sign permits per applicant and then two says only one active
temporary sign and permit per applicant so the
Supervisor Stec-One at a time up to five and up.
Mr. Cozzens-Ok, so is the word and that seems to have been added from the last version is that
intentional or?
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-18-2010 MTG #39 55
Supervisor Stec-I am looking for the word and actually that could be a typo I will ask about that.
Only one active, temporary sign and permit per applicant I am going to guess that word probably
does not need to be there, but
Mr. Cozzens-As long as we are looking at typo’s on that page it might be on that page 140-5 on B the
last sentence there
Supervisor Stec-You said B as in Boy?
Mr. Cozzens-B as in Boy,
Supervisor Stec-Signs known as digital billboards?
Mr. Cozzens-Yea, there was originally a comma after billboards I did not know
Supervisor Stec-I am sure there is
Mr. Cozzens-More substantively if that is a word, 140-6 on five deals with off premises directional
signs on section D or part D however you want to look at it. Such signs would be limited to arterial
and collector streets, it used to say major and collector streets and seeing as arterial is not defined
in the definitions
Supervisor Stec-There is a list in the zoning code of what is an arterial street.
Mr. Cozzens-So, that is covered.
Supervisor Stec-I believe that both arterial and collector, I know for a fact that arterial is defined and
there is a list of what is an arterial street.
Councilman Strough-We took out a lot of definitions that were in the original sign definitions
because they are in the, they are defined mostly in 179. But it does not make a reference to that for
other definitions see elsewhere in code book or something like that?
Councilman Brewer-We just have one section for definitions you do not have it in four different
places.
Councilman Strough-I know we pulled a lot out of here because they are already in 179 for the most
part, I am just saying
Councilman Brewer-So, you want to say reference 179?
Councilman Strough-Or elsewhere in the Code Book inotherwords to find elsewhere in the Code
Book just to leave yourself covered. Some people will read this and strictly say well it is not in the
sign Chapter.
Councilman Brewer-But that is part of our Town Code though John.
Supervisor Stec-Again, belts and suspenders. John is saying why not also say
Councilman Strough-Why not say that other definitions elsewhere in the Code also apply.
Town Counsel Radner-I will refer that back to Mike Hill and Craig Brown as well to make sure that is
covered. There used to be something in there and I would be surprised if it isn’t any longer.
Mr. Cozzens-Section E it refers to 140-11 which is the section on permit procedure and fees, but I do
not think that was meant to be 140-11.
Supervisor Stec-There is 140-11 Permit procedure
Mr. Cozzens-It says such signs will also comply with 140-11 but since that deals with Permit
Procedures and fees I do not think that is necessarily what supposed to be complying with there is
probably another section that is supposed to be there.
Supervisor Stec-I will ask staff about that.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-18-2010 MTG #39 56
Mr. Cozzens-I noticed that we are changing the fees from being directly in the Code to being on the
fee schedule?
Supervisor Stec-Yes. That makes it easier to change from time to time.
Mr. Cozzens-So, instead of being necessarily a public hearing it is just a regular resolution during
meetings?
Supervisor Stec-Exactly.
Mr. Cozzens-Are the new fees going to be the same as the old fees were or are they going to be
adopted as different?
Supervisor Stec-They are not changing unless we change them, I do not think we have even talked
about changing them. It is not to say that in six months from now we won’t increase them, but off
the top of the head I could not tell you what the fee structure is right now for signs.
Mr. Cozzens-Will the town have to adopt a resolution when it adopts this new chapter in order to
have the fee schedule?
Supervisor Stec-I think our intent was that they would be a mirror image of what they currently are.
Mr. Cozzens-I just did not know if there had to be a resolution at the time of, in order for it to be?
Supervisor Stec-Yea, when we adopt this we will either have to also adopt a fee schedule I suppose.
Mr. Cozzens-On 140-13 the title reads Penalties for offenses which incidentally is the same title for
140-14 Section D and I did not know if that was intentional also or not.
Supervisor Stec-What number are you?
Mr. Cozzens-140-13 and 140-14 D as in Dog.
Councilman Brewer-Are they different definitions?
Mr. Cozzens-One is its own section and the other one has to do with enforcement. The text is
different.
Town Counsel Radner-I believe that the second penalty section was intended to preserve the towns
various remedies in terms of enforcement as either a criminal offense, a civil offense or an
alternative remedy which would be for example when we get somebody who absolutely refuses to
comply and this board determines to commence a Supreme Court action where the penalties that
are set forth in 140-13 have to do with the fine that the town justice would be imposing so it may be
worthwhile though to change those two titles to distinguish what the purpose of each is. But, they
do have distinctly different purposes in this law.
Councilman Strough-Do you have a suggestion Cathi?
Town Counsel Radner-I would change the entire section that is 140-14 D to Alternative Remedies
that would be my suggestion to you, which is exactly what B is called
Councilman Strough-I can see where that would be confusing.
Supervisor Stec-We don’t want to have two
Town Counsel Radner-Why don’t call it Alternative Remedies for
Supervisor Stec-Alternative Remedies for Offenses and then leaving E the same as it is Alternative
Remedies.
Mr. Cozzens-On 140-13 it’s the last sentence as well, it states that the
Councilman Strough-The last sentence where John?
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-18-2010 MTG #39 57
Mr. Cozzens-The last sentence, oh I am sorry the
Supervisor Stec-Of E the very last one
Mr. Cozzens-The very last sentence of the section.
Supervisor Stec-The Zoning Administrator may cause
Mr. Cozzens-We changed it from the sign can be removed summarily without notice, now its upon
notice of the property owner. But if someone is really in immediate peril as it says person or
property is in immediate peril I understand why it would be summarily without notice and if there is
a property owner that necessarily cannot be reached because of out of state or what have you, so I
am just wondering if there is some play in that to cover the town if they were to remove a sign
without out
Supervisor Stec-We need to make every reasonable attempt to contact the property owner before
we enter their property to remove a sign. I understand what you are saying what if time is of the
essence as in minutes as opposed to days or weeks, again
Mr. Cozzens-Or if we were to remove the sign and the property owner would say you did not tell me
before you did it or something.
Supervisor Stec-We need to make every effort to notify the property owner.
Mr. Cozzens-Whether that is covered in the text or just understood I just didn’t know that is why..
Supervisor Stec-That is how we do business.
Councilman Strough-If it truly posed a safety hazard a clear and apparent safety hazard I think we
could removed it right away.
Supervisor Stec-We could go see a Judge right and get a court order if we wanted it. Or if it is
literally
Town Counsel Radner-There is a degree of reasonableness that is always applied if a sign was
literally falling over and the Zoning Administrator caught it as it was falling that is one extreme, if its
eaten by termites there is enough time to tell the owner get it down before it falls down. There is a
degree of reasonableness involved.
Councilman Brewer-Kind of like the mall, it is kind of deteriorating we tell them to get it down.
Supervisor Stec-You had to mention it.
Councilman Brewer-I had to.
Mr. Cozzens-I am winding down here I am running out of material but on 140-14 H as in Henry,
Complaints, it says all complaints will be filed in writing and that the Zoning Administrator or
authorized designee may require such complaint in writing I just thought that was a little redundant,
that it has to be in writing and they may require it to be in writing. On 140-18 That is the Main
Street Corridor exemption, that was an amendment added by Local Law in 2009 and it is presented
here word or word in 140-18…I am working off a different copy, I believe, 140-18 it is in B it is copied
word for word so it says pursuant to this Section 140-16 even though it is now 140-18 in the revised
version. I did not know if that needed to be changed to 140-18 as well? If that is going to be the
current section.
Supervisor Stec-You think that should be 140-18, it was renumbered and it wasn’t caught.
Mr. Cozzens-It was renumbered and it wasn’t changed in text.
Supervisor Stec-Quite possibly that is the case.
Mr. Cozzens-Other than the nit pickety and the general sentiment that I think that this is moving in
the right direction and the enforcement gives it some bite. That is all I have.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-18-2010 MTG #39 58
Supervisor Stec-Ok.
Councilman Strough-Thanks, John.
Supervisor Stec-I am sure that probably is an oversite.
Councilman Strough-You are right John, that is the way it was, it is 140-18 - John thank you for
reviewing this you know the same thing with John and Don.
Supervisor Stec-Any other comments from the public? I will close the public hearing. We will not
adopt it tonight we have a few things that we need to look at and maybe tweak and modify based
on the comments that we received tonight. Also we need to hear back from APA and everyone else
that is on our hit list. But, in order for APA to consider it we need to do SEQRA so Cathi do you want
to walk us through?
Town Counsel Radner-I will be happy to. Your charge here is to compare, consider potential
negative impacts, certainly as you go through the list you are also allowed to consider positive
impacts but you do not have to identify positive impacts for purposes of this what we are looking for
is the potential negative impact because this is a town wide zoning ordinance it is not like most
SEQRA reviews you are used to doing in considering different projects, you are looking at the
potential environmental significance, changing your zoning ordinance town wide and with that said I
will walk you through. This is the long form. I will read of twenty questions for each one you will say
yes or no, if you identify an impact then you will determine whether it is small to moderate,
potentially large, and if it is potentially large whether it can be impacted by mitigation that will
change it.
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
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 Positive impact
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
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-18-2010 MTG #39 59
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 Positive impact
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
RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
REGARDING PROPOSED LOCAL LAW TO AMEND QUEENSBURY
TOWN CODE BY REPEALING EXISTING CHAPTER 140 “SIGNS” AND
REPLACING IT WITH A NEW CHAPTER 140 “SIGNS”
RESOLUTION NO.: 346, 2010
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, pursuant to 6 New York Code of Rules and Regulations ("NYCRR") §617.6, the
Queensbury Town Board is the Lead Agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act
("SEQRA") for an action consisting of adoption of a Local Law to amend the Town Code by repealing
existing Chapter 140, “Signs,” and replacing it with a new Chapter 140, “Signs,” and
WHEREAS, it appears that the action is a Type I action under SEQRA and, therefore, the Town
Board prepared Part I of the Long Environmental Assessment Form ("EAF"), and
th
WHEREAS, on October 18, 2010 the Town Board conducted a public hearing regarding the
proposed Local Law and SEQRA, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has considered the repeal and replacement of existing Chapter 140,
“Signs” of the Town Code and has reviewed Part I of the EAF, and has completed Part II of the EAF, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has determined that the action will not result in any large or
important impacts and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby finds that the action will not have a
significant adverse impact on the environment, declares a Negative Declaration under SEQRA and
authorizes the filing of the attached SEQRA Negative Declaration - Notice of Determination of Non-
Significance for this action, and
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-18-2010 MTG #39 60
BE IT FURTHER
,
RESOLVEDthat the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Clerk and/or Senior Planner
to file any necessary documents relating to this Negative Declaration in accordance with applicable laws
and regulations.
th
Duly adopted this 18day of October, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough
NOES : None
ABSENT: Mr. Montesi
3.0 PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Mr. Pliney Tucker-41 Division Road-Queensbury 12804
?
Noted that the Assessor has some good ideas
Supervisor Stec-Will be discussing a County wide re-val in 2012
The State has all kinds of incentives to keeping the assessment more current.
Will be meeting with the Assessor sometime next year.
?
Spoke on the assessment challenge by Pyramid Mall
Supervisor Stec-Not uncommon for commercial property to challenge
assessments
?
Questioned the tearing down of the Pyramid Building
Supervisor Stec-They presented the Town Board with a letter stating that they
will file for a variance from the State Dept. of Labor to allow them to tear down
the building … 21 days to get the variance – once they get the variance within
three weeks they will start the demolition.
?
Who condemned the building? (Pyramid Building)
Supervisor Stec-The Town Board has declared it an unsafe structure
?
Requested a four way stop on Ashley, first intersection from Western onto
Ashley Place…
Councilman Strough and Brewer noted that they will look at the location
Mr. John Salvador-
?
Spoke on the Hudson Falls Waste Energy Plant it has got a bad history
We should be careful that we have a way to dispose of our trash and meets the
market.
Mr. John Cozzens-
?
Regard Round Pond Road (County Road) there are sign along both sides of it
No parking – there are cars parked there…
Supervisor Stec-The sheriff could write tickets
?
On Dixon Road just before City limit there is a school zone sign..need sign that
says stop ahead
Supervisor Stec-Will mentioned that to the Highway Supt.
?
Signs for Children at play, watch out for deaf people…people move
Supervisor Stec-The Highway Superintendents over the years have been
hesitant to install children at play signs… causes false sense of security…
4.0 RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF
COYNE TEXTILE SERVICES FOR PROVISION OF
UNIFORM AND MISCELLANEOUS TEXTILE RENTALS
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-18-2010 MTG #39 61
RESOLUTION NO.: 347, 2010
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury’s Purchasing Agent requested quotes for rentals of uniforms
and other miscellaneous textiles for participating Town employees, and
WHEREAS, the Purchasing Agent received, evaluated and ranked all quotes and has made a
recommendation to the Town Board to accept the quote of Coyne Textile Services as Coyne submitted the
lowest quote and currently provides the Town’s uniforms, and
WHEREAS, a proposed Agreement has been presented at this meeting and is in form acceptable
to Town Counsel,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs a three (3) year
Agreement with Coyne Textile Services for the provision of rentals of uniforms and other miscellaneous
textiles, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute
the Agreement with Coyne Textile Services substantially in the form presented at this meeting, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Budget
Officer and/or Purchasing Agent to take any other action necessary to effectuate the terms of this
Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2010 by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES : None
ABSENT: Mr. Montesi
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CHANGE OF ROAD NAME FROM
“ELLIS MOUNTAIN” TO “ELLIS MOUNTAIN ROAD”
RESOLUTION NO.: 348, 2010
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-18-2010 MTG #39 62
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 125,2010, the Queensbury Town Board accepted for dedication
“Ellis Mountain,” a private roadway located off of 1135 West Mountain Road, to the Town’s list of private
driveways and road names, and
WHEREAS, the residents on such road have requested that the Town Board authorize the change of
the name from “Ellis Mountain” to “Ellis Mountain Road,” and
WHEREAS, the Highway Superintendent and Town Clerk have advised that they have no objection
to such name, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to approve the request for such road name change,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves and authorizes the road name
change from “Ellis Mountain” to “Ellis Mountain Road,” as described in the preambles of this Resolution,
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Highway Department to
arrange for installation of the necessary poles and street signs identifying “Ellis Mountain Road,” and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Highway
Superintendent, Town Clerk and/or Director of Building and Codes Enforcement to notify any necessary
parties concerning the road name change for 911 emergency notification purposes and take any other actions
necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
ABSENT: Mr. Montesi
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY 2011 PRELIMINARY BUDGET
RESOLUTION NO.: 349, 2010
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-18-2010 MTG #39 63
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board has prepared a Preliminary Budget for the Town of
Queensbury and its Districts for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2011, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to approve the Preliminary Budget and conduct a public
hearing,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Town of Queensbury
Preliminary Budget for 2011, comprised of statements of appropriations and estimated revenues, a copy of
which is attached and made a part of this Resolution, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that copies of the 2011 Preliminary Budget for the Town of Queensbury shall be filed
in the Town of Queensbury Town Clerk's Office, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury where it shall be available for
inspection by interested persons during regular business hours, and
BE IT FURTHER,
st
RESOLVED, that the Town Board will conduct a public hearing on Monday, November 1, 2010 at
7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury and all interested persons will be
heard concerning the Town’s Preliminary Budget, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to
publish and post a Notice of Public Hearing in the manner provided by Town Law §108, such Notice to be
substantially in the following form:
NOTICE OF HEARING ON PRELIMINARY BUDGET FOR THE
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY FOR THE YEAR 2011
NOTICE is hereby given that the Preliminary Budget of the Town of Queensbury, County of
Warren, State of New York for the Fiscal Year beginning January 1, 2011, which includes the S495
Exemption Impact Report, has been filed in the Queensbury Town Clerk’s Office where it is available for
inspection by any interested person during normal business hours.
FURTHER NOTICE is hereby given that the Queensbury Town Board will hold a public hearing on
st
Monday, November 1, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury
and that at such hearing the Town Board shall hear all interested persons concerning the Preliminary Budget.
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-18-2010 MTG #39 64
AND FURTHER NOTICE is hereby given in accordance with Town Law §108 that the proposed
salaries of Town of Queensbury elected officials for Year 2011 are as follows:
TOWN SUPERVISOR 67,276.
TOWN COUNCILPERSON (4) 17,382.
TOWN CLERK 66,442.
TOWN HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT 67,161.
TOWN JUSTICES (2) 42,969.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr.Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier
NOES : None
ABSENT: Mr. Montesi
RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2010 BUDGET
RESOLUTION NO.: 350, 2010
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, the following Budget Amendment Requests have been duly initiated and justified and
are deemed compliant with Town operating procedures and accounting practices by the Town Budget
Officer,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town’s
Accounting Office to take all action necessary to amend the 2010 Town Budget as follows:
From To
Code Appropriation Code Appropriation $
001-1680-4400 Misc Contractual 001-1680-1020 O/T 500
001-1990-4400 Contingency 001-1440-4720 Engineering Consultant 10,000
001-3620-4090 Training Bldg&Codes 001-3410-4090 Training Fire Marshall 350
001-7010-1010 Wages 001-7110-4824 Rec Programs 3,300
001-7010-1010 Wages 001-7110-4120 Printing 2,900
001-7110-4410 Fuel 001-7020-4030 Postage 1,000
32 Fund Balance 032-8110-4130 Town Counsel Retainer 3000
32 Fund Balance 032-8110-4200 Insurance 3500
34 Fund Balance 034-8110-4130 Town Counsel Retainer 2,500
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-18-2010 MTG #39 65
NOES : None
ABSENT : Mr. Montesi
RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS –
TH
WARRANT OF OCTOBER 19, 2010
RESOLUTION NO.: 351, 2010
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve an audit of bills presented as a Warrant
thth
with a run date of October 14, 2010 and payment date of October 19, 2010,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Warrant with the run date of
thth
October 14, 2010 and payment date of October 19, 2010 totaling $496,851.06, 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 18 day of October, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Metivier, Mr.Strough
NOES : None
ABSENT: Mr. Montesi
5.0 CORRESPONDENCE
NONE
6.0 TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS
WARD IV TIM BREWER-No Comment
WARD III JOHN STROUGH-
?
Have visited the Town Court House … we need to put on an addition and tighten
security … we need to work on that 2011.
WARD I ANTHONY METIVIER-
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 10-18-2010 MTG #39 66
?
Councilman Brewer and myself have been over to Lake Sunnyside looking at town
access…Mr. Huntz noted that the survey they have done on the tax district those
received back were in favor of moving forward with a taxing district. Councilman
Brewer will be calling the individual regarding access…
SUPERVISOR STEC-
?
Queensbury Website-www.queensbury.net
?
Thanked TV8 and our sponsors for televising our meeting-along with our Records Access
Officer, the Town of Queensbury is one of the most open governments in New York
State and relatively easy to access information
RESOLUTION ADJOURNING TOWN BOARD MEETING
RESOLUTION NO. 352.2010
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Town Board Meeting.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2010 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mr. Montesi
Respectfully submitted,
Miss Darleen M. Dougher
Town Clerk-Queensbury