2004-05-17 MTG22
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 681
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING Mtg #22
TH
MAY 17, 2004 BOH Res. #11-12
7:08 P.M. Res. #265-282
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC
COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR
COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER
COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH
COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER
TOWN COUNSEL
BOB HAFNER
TOWN OFFICIALS
Ralph VanDusen, Water/Wastewater Superintendent
Chris Round, Executive Director of Community Development
George Hilton, Planner/GIS Specialist
David Hatin, Director of Building & Codes
Harry Hansen, Director of Parks & Recreation
Jennifer Switzer, Budget Officer
PRESS: Glens Falls Post Star
SUPERVISOR STEC called meeting to order….
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH
RESOLUTION NO.: 265, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from
Regular Session and enters as the Queensbury Board of Health.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH
7:09 P.M.
MR. DAVID HATIN, Director of Building & Codes (submitted pictures to the Town Board)-Back
th
on March 15, I received a complaint regarding several properties on Howard Street and proceeded
to do an inspection of the street and notified seven property owners of violations. Mr. Perkins was
one of those properties, whose property was probably the worst out of the seven. The other property
owners have complied or are almost in compliance. Mr. Perkins however, has cleaned up the
property but still has not complied with the law and the pictures you see before you are an
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 682
th
improvement over what was there March 15 but in no way come close to being cleaned up. Mr.
Perkins felt that I have not given him enough time to take care of the problem. We were in court
last week, the Judge has set it down for trial which will put it off until June. At that point in time, I
decided that if we were going to wait until June, I need to take a Board of Health action and
basically have the Board authorize me to clean up the property at Mr. Perkins expense and we will
try to pursue those court costs or excuse me, the cost to clean up in court and make that a part of the
conditions of the court settlement.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-When would you clean it up, Dave?
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-As soon as you give me permission, I believe you can
under the law and maybe Bob can speak to this better. Authorize me as of tonight to clean it up or
you can wait and set a hearing which will be in June again which will let this garbage sit there for
another two to three weeks.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, I’d prefer not to wait but when would you do it if we gave you
the authorization tonight?
MR.HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-I will contact the person who usually does this type of
cleanup tomorrow which would be Troy Bapp and see if he’s available.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Did he take advantage of the free tire disposal day?
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Apparently not.
th
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I mean, that was March 15 though and I’m just wondering if.
th
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Right. He’s been made aware that since March 15 in
a letter, a court action, failed to show up for his first court appearance, was told by the Judge to
appear the second time and did appear last week and it was set down for trial.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-He’s not living there, is he Dave?
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Yes, he and his family live there.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Somebody is living there right now?
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Yes. They live there daily and contribute to the
garbage daily.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I drove by yesterday.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Now, Dave, the resolution before us does say that, it has a resolved in it that
th
we would conduct a hearing on June 7.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Right and that’s what I was going to ask Bob as well as
Town Board if you’d, I believe you can under emergency provision authorize me to clean it up
tonight or within three days.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-If the Town Board finds that it is a sufficient health issue that it takes
immediate action then the Town Board acting as a public Board of Health can act to require
immediate cleanup. We often first have, you know give them a chance to be heard and have a
public hearing but it’s how much of a health hazard you as the Town Board deem this property to
be. I haven’t seen the pictures and I had thought this was what Dave was asking for and I didn’t
hear the comments before. But if you think it’s serious enough, you definitely can act tonight.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Speaking for myself, apparently Dave by letter two months ago yesterday
has given notice that it needed to be cleaned up and according to those pictures and I think in my
opinion, two months is plenty of time and those pictures are a little disturbing to me.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-And there are people living there.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 683
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-That is another concern for you.
MR.HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Also in your resolution is a letter from Dr. Evans who, I
don’t know his status as far as the Health Officer but I went and saw him as a past Health Officer
and he said he would write it and visit the property.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes and I’m happy that he did and actually though, later this evening we’ll
be considering a resolution appointing Dr. Garner to be the Town’s Health Officer but I had talked
with Dr. Evans and I knew that he was still kind of answering the mail in that regard for us.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-So, Dr. Evans was acting as the Health Officer until tonight, okay.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, I would make a motion that we have Dave clean it up within the
next three days.
SUPERVISOR STEC-So, Bob can you, the motion by Mr. Brewer, any second?
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I’ll second the motion.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Second by Councilman Strough. Could you propose how we were going to
change that resolution, though Bob?
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER proposed the following amended resolution:
RESOLUTION DECLARING HEALTH HAZARD AND ORDERING
CLEAN UP OF PROPERTY OWNED BY ALAN PERKINS AND LOCATED
AT 52 HOWARD STREET (TAX MAP NO.: 301.20-1-32.2)
BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 11, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury’s Director of Building and Codes Enforcement
(Director) has advised the Town’s Local Board of Health that he has received a complaint about a
large amount of miscellaneous household debris and household garbage in uncovered containers on
property owned by Alan Perkins located at 52 Howard Street in the Town of Queensbury (Tax Map
No.: 301.20-1-32.2), and
WHEREAS, the Director has investigated and inspected the property and has advised that
there is a large amount of miscellaneous household debris and household garbage in uncovered
containers on property and therefore, in his opinion, there are violations of the Town’s Garbage and
Junkyard Ordinances, the property constitutes a health hazard and nuisance to the neighborhood and
is unsafe to the general public and therefore the Director strongly recommends that the Board of
Health take action if the property owners fail to clean-up the property as more specifically set forth
th
in the Director’s letter dated March 16, 2004, and
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 684
WHEREAS, Robert L. Evans, D.O., serving as the Town’s Public Health Officer, has
th
advised the Town by letter dated May 10, 2004 that in his opinion the property constitutes a public
health nuisance and therefore has recommended that the property be cleaned up and the garbage and
debris removed immediately,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that after reviewing all of the evidence presented at this time, the Town of
Queensbury Local Board of Health is of the opinion that the property owned by Alan Perkins
bearing Tax Map No.: 301.20-1-32.2 and located at 52 Howard Street, Queensbury appears to be a
potential object of attraction to rodents and animals, a nuisance, health hazard, unsafe and
dangerous and therefore the garbage, junk and debris should be removed from the property, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the property owner shall immediately commence cleaning-up the
property, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that if the property owner does not clean up the property within three (3) days
of the date of this Resolution, the Town Board, since it deems the property a sufficient health
hazard, authorizes and directs David Hatin, Director of Building and Codes Enforcement, to arrange
for the clean up of the property and add such clean up costs to any costs associated with Court cases
related to the property owner which are currently pending in Queensbury Town Court, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Director of Building
and Codes Enforcement to serve a notice setting forth its determinations upon the property owner or
his executors, legal representatives, agents, lessees, or any person having a vested or contingent
interest in the property, the contents, service and filing of the notice to be in accordance with the
New York Public Health Law.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of May, 2004 by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
ABSENT : None
DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE:
COUNCILMAN BOOR-What is the maximum where we can, I mean, is it the actual cost to us?
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 685
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-It would be the cost to us plus whatever penalty the court deemed
appropriate. The Court has discretion and the Court, you know, it depends on facts and
circumstances, the Court may say, you know, you did it; it’s your cost. They may say, you should
have cleaned it up, you were given enough notice, you didn’t do it, you know, you’re going to pay
the Town back. I can’t predict what the Judge will say.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-So can we, can the time be, we give them until Wednesday five
o’clock, if he hasn’t got it cleaned up by Wednesday at five, we go there Thursday morning and
clean it up.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-We just said three days.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Three days.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-So that would be Friday, I would think. Yea, I think you do got to, I
mean, I think it’s, to increase your chances of being able to get a Court to say that you should get
paid back for the costs, you’ve got to give them a reasonable time. This is still a relatively short
period but you’ve deemed, you’re considering deeming it a sufficient health issue. Particularly,
people living there that you want that garbage cleaned up so that it doesn’t hurt the people that
COUNCILMAN BREWER-It kind of flies in the face of what we’re saying though Bob, in my
mind. If it’s a health hazard, we’re saying, okay, you can stay there three more days and then clean
it up, essentially.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, we’re
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-You guys have discretion, if you want to increase the chance that
you can assess the costs against the property owner, you need to give more time and more due
process. If you want to have immediate action, you could have immediate action but you’ll be less
likely to get the costs back.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-It also increases the chance of him actually doing the work and us not
having to do it.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-… Is it about the money or is it about the hazard, I guess that’s what it
boils down to.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I think it gives him a greater opportunity to do it himself.
SUPERVISOR STEC-If it was thirty days I’d agree with you but three days.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Three days is a short period and it gives him time to act.
SUPERVISOR STEC-It gives him a chance, another chance.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Given the time frame, I don’t think three days is going
to make a difference.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I don’t either, myself.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-I thought the Court Action would have taken care of it
but it didn’t.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-But that’s what he’s asking for, three days and then clean it up.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Yes, I think, that’s what we’ve typically done.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Okay, three days, that’s fine.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Are you comfortable with it as amended?
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 686
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yes.
SUPERVISOR STEC-John?
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yes.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, both Councilman Brewer and Councilman Strough are comfortable
with the amended resolution. Any other discussion?
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Three days?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Three days so that will give him until Friday morning.
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Yes, I’ll start the works to have it ready to hopefully go
Friday morning, have somebody in line if it’s not cleaned up.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Anything else Dave?
MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-That’s it.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Further questions for Dave or discussion from the Board?
Vote taken.
RESOLUTION ADJOURNING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH
BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 12, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns from session and enters
Regular Session of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
REGULAR SESSION
PUBLIC HEARING – Elissa Duross’ Application For Revocable Permit To Locate Mobile
Home Outside Of Mobile Home Court
NOTICE SHOWN
7:18 P.M.
SUPERVISOR STEC-This is a public hearing regarding locating a Mobile Home outside of a
Mobile Home Court and I see that our Community Development Director is here and this is a
replacement, I believe, Chris is that correct?
MR. CHRIS ROUND, Executive Director-That’s right. It’s a replacement of an existing home, its
outside of a Mobile Home Park so the Town Board under the current law has the permitting
authority and you conduct a public hearing and you have somebody here to speak to you.
SUPERVISOR STEC-And I believe, Ms. Duross.
MS. ELISSA DUROSS-Hi.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 687
SUPERVISOR STEC-Good evening, how are you doing?
MS. DUROSS-Good.
SUPERVISOR STEC-If you would, just state your name for the record and then if there’s anything
that you want to point out to the Board. This is generally a pretty easy decision for us but you’re
certainly welcome to address the Board.
MS. DUROSS-Okay, my name is Elissa Duross and I live at 27 Pinello Road.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright and this is in fact a one for one replacement, you’re going to replace
your existing Mobile Home with another one.
MS. DUROSS-A brand new one.
SUPERVISOR STEC-A brand new.
MS. DUROSS-Yea, the one I have there is thirty years old, it needs a lot of repairs.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, Board Members any questions for the applicant?
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-No, I drove by yesterday and a new Mobile Home is a, it looks like
it’s all in order.
MS. DUROSS-Yea, we’re just tearing that one apart a little head of time so we won’t be behind
schedule.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright.
MS. DUROSS-I only have one question. The Mobile Home I have there I need to get stuff out of it,
can I have a little time to?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea, I’m not sure that’s really before us, as far as, what are you talking?
MS. DUROSS-Well, for one thing the guy that is going to buy it, well, he’s not really buying it,
he’s just going to take it and junk it because they don’t buy them anymore, it’s too old and there’s,
the only thing I want is my stuff out of it. But it’s just the idea of him coming and getting it, he said
it could possibly take him thirty days or ninety days to come and get it.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I don’t think that, Dave is there any issue with that, I wasn’t really
anticipating that question?
MR.HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-I think under the Mobile Home Ordinance, you have
the authority to grant temporary permission for the second one until it’s removed.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Oh, you mean you want to leave the one that’s there existing until
SUPERVISOR STEC-Second one on the site until the new one is on the site.
MS. DUROSS-Yea, pull it off to one side, yea.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Bob, could we include that?
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Oh, okay, I thought, I misunderstood, I thought you were just asking
for a delay before you put the new one on.
MS. DUROSS-Oh, no.
SUPERVISOR STEC-No, there will be two, the new one will be on as well as the old one while
you take stuff out of the old one and then
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 688
MS. DUROSS-The new one will go into place of where the old one is, the old one will be pulled off
to the side.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay.
MS. DUROSS-And, you know, then it will be taken off the property and nobody will live in it or
anything like that.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right and then, you’re saying that the contractor said it might be thirty to
ninety days?
MS. DUROSS-Yea, of course they have a lot of things they’ve got to do and I got to have time to
take my stuff out of there.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Is this a variance?
SUPERVISOR STEC-No.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I mean it sounds like it’s two variances.
SUPERVISOR STEC-It’s not.
MS. DUROSS-It’s what?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, I know you’re asking for one variance and that’s, I have no problem
with it and I probably don’t have a problem with the other one but I think if you have two homes
there, there’s setback issues and stuff, let alone two
SUPERVISOR STEC-Could we Bob in here, is it important for us in this resolution to stipulate that,
to grant or not grant permission for there to be time while there will be two on the site?
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-What this particular resolution is, is just to allow her to put a new
one on.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-If in addition she’s asking for time to leave the old one on and the
Town Board is willing to consider it, we can add some in
MS. DUROSS-Well, I’m not going to live in it.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right.
MS. DUROSS-I’m just going to
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-I think that’s an important part of any resolution and then we could
add some other resolves that let her do it but you’ve got to tell me what the period is, ninety days
sounds like a long time.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s a long time.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Thirty days sounds kind of reasonable but that’s up to you guys.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Thirty or forty-five days to give her time to transfer the stuff .
SUPERVISOR STEC-From the placement of the new one whenever that is, from the placement of
the new mobile home.
MS. DUROSS-Well, it said on the application that you could have up to a year, I believe.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 689
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-It was up to a year to put the new one on.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right but not to have two on the site.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-We’re talking about having the old one still there.
MS. DUROSS-I thought it said that to take the old one off.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-No.
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-You might want to hear from the public before you make any
action on this.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea, well I just want to make sure we know what we’re talking about.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-But see the public, the problem is, is the public wasn’t noticed on what’s
being asked.
SUPERVISOR STEC-It’s not a material change, I don’t think.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-It is if it doesn’t get moved it is.
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-It would be dealt with as an enforcement action as a junk on the
site versus two homes on the site.
MS. DUROSS-Well, it can be put out back, I mean if it’s going to be
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Are we talking about the same person that you’re buying the trailer
from is the person whose going to responsible for removing your old trailer?
MS. DUROSS-No, they don’t take the old trailers, you have to hire a contractor to take it away.
They don’t take them as trade-ins anymore, they used to do that years ago but they don’t do that no
more. You have to hire someone to take it away and I already spoke to a fellow over on VanDusen
Road that does that and they take them away and demolish them.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, before we go any further I’m going to open the public hearing right
now so if there’s anyone from the public in the audience that’s interested in speaking on this public
hearing please raise your hand, be recognize and step forward. Anyone in the public interested in
addressing? Yes sir, come on forward, have a seat, state your name. How are you doing Mr.
Ireland?
MR. KEVIN IRELAND-My name is Kevin Ireland, I do not know this woman next to me but it just
sounds like a pretty cut and dry matter.
SUPERVISOR STEC-It is.
MR. IRELAND-The woman simply wants a little bit of time to straighten out her affairs and she
sounds like she wants to comply so my recommendation is let her do what she needs to do. Thank
you.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright. Thank you, sir. Anyone else from the public that would like to
speak on behalf of this particular public hearing? Alright, seeing none, we can continue with our
discussion.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I think forty-five days is reasonable.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Forty-five days. Tim, you’ve got a consensus too?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yea.
SUPERVISOR STEC-How about you two?
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 690
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, I have a, I just want to understand, I’m looking at the property,
you’ve got fifteen feet on each side, where do you plan on putting the older home while you’re
waiting to have it removed?
MS. DUROSS-Well, that’s up to the people that come and, I can ask them to put it wherever, I
mean.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, certain places it won’t fit obviously, like on the side.
MS. DUROSS-Well, not directly on the side, it could go off to one side or the other. I mean, I do
have
COUNCILMAN BOOR-You have fifteen feet according to this.
MS. DUROSS-Well, that’s where the trailer would sit.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, if she turns it Roger, if she turns it
MS. DUROSS-But I had seventy-five feet in the front and I have a hundred and ten feet in the back.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yea, I know so I’m just
MS. DUROSS-And the trailer sits across.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Your septic is in the back. You don’t want to put it on your septic, right?
MS. DUROSS-No, that’s over to one side, that’s over on this side. The septic sits toward
COUNCILMAN TURNER-But you’ve got fifteen feet on each side, ma’am from the trailer to your
boundary line on each side and what he’s saying is, you’re going to have to move that back
obviously, first and then after you move it back, they’ll have to tear it apart to get it out of there.
MS. DUROSS-The guy told me he can come right there and cut it up.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Okay.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-It’s only fourteen feet wide, you just turn it.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yea, I know it, that’s what I said.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea, there’s room to move it to the back and then cut it up.
MS. DUROSS-Well, they’re going to be moving it with a bulldozer or tractor.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right. Alright. So, I’m hearing from the right side here, that they’re
comfortable with forty-five days, myself I’m comfortable with that but do you
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I don’t care.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, with that I’ll close the public hearing and Bob do you have
additional modification to the resolution?
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
7:25 P.M.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER proposed the following amended resolution:
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 691
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVOCABLE PERMIT TO LOCATE A
MOBILE HOME OUTSIDE OF MOBILE HOME COURT
FOR ELISSA DUROSS
RESOLUTION NO.: 266, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury regulates mobile homes outside of mobile home
courts in accordance with Queensbury Town Code §113-12, and
WHEREAS, Elissa Duross filed an application for a revocable "Mobile Home Outside a
Mobile Home Court" permit to replace her existing mobile home with a new, same-sized 2004
mobile home on property located at 27 Pinello Road, Queensbury, and
th
WHEREAS, the Town Board held a public hearing concerning this application on May 17,
2004 and heard all interested persons,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the issuance of a
revocable permit to Elissa Duross in accordance with the terms and provisions of Queensbury Town
Code §113-12, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes Ms. Duross to continue to
keep her old mobile home on her property for a period of forty-five (45) days from the date the new
mobile home is placed on the property contingent upon the following provisions:
1) no one lives in the old mobile home;
2) the old mobile home is placed behind the new mobile home (in the back part of the
property) and not along each side between the new mobile home and the neighbors on
each side; and
3) the old mobile home is removed within forty-five days of the date of placement of the
new mobile home.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 692
AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARING Proposed Extension To Queensbury Consolidated Water District –
Richardson Street Extension
NOTICE SHOWN
7:33 P.M.
MR. RALPH VANDUSEN, Water/Wastewater Superintendent-First of all, I think attached to the
resolution is probably a copy of the Map, Plan and Report of the district extension. Does each
Board Member have one?
SUPERVISOR STEC-No.
MR. VANDUSEN, Water/Wastewater Superintendent-I have copies here. (distributed copies to the
Town Board) Okay, as the Board knows in Queensbury water is served as a Special District and
what that means is the people that live within that district have to pay the total cost of receiving
water from the Town. It’s broken into two categories, the operation and maintenance costs, what it
costs us to basically take a gallon of water from the river to treat it and pump it out to the customers,
delivered to the customers in the Town, is covered by a quarterly metered bill with the Queensbury
District. Any capital charges, that would be the cost of putting the pipe in the ground, water tanks,
the treatment plant and upgrades to the plant are covered by an ad valorem charge that shows up in
the County Tax Bill in January. In 1982 the Town received a HUD Grant to install a waterline on
Richardson Street from the intersection of Richardson and Fifth down to the City line and it totally
paid for the cost of putting that pipe in. Unfortunately that step was never taken at the time to
actually create a water district or to make it a part of the Queensbury Water District and when we
discovered that, actually, the way we discovered it, we did a comparison using GIS of those
properties paying taxes within the district and where the waterlines and hydrants and we found that
this is a void, that these people had not, had never been included in the district. They always, they
have right from the very beginning have been paying the operation and maintenance costs but
they’ve never paid any ad valorem tax, any capital for any infrastructure whatsoever. When we
discovered that, our discussion with the Attorney Bob Hafner, what are the steps, what are choices
to do and the decision was made to hire Tom Jarrett to prepare a Map, Plan and Report to do a
district extension that would become consolidated into the Queensbury District.
MR. TOM JARRETT-The Map, Plan and Report, the report you have in front of you is essentially a
state requirement that outlines the district to be formed or extended, in this case it’s an extension.
The report is intended to show the members of the district as well as the public-at-large the limits of
the district and there’s a description in the appendix of this report as well as the parcels that are to be
included. It also outlines the cost of any capital improvements in which case there are no capital
improvements needed at this point and spells out the charges that Ralph has described to you for
each individual, or I should say the typical user within that district and those charges are spelled out
within this report.
MR. VANDUSEN, Water/Wastewater Superintendent-The only thing I would add to that is, in
addition to, actually over on the left is a map showing the area and it’s certainly a little difficult to
see but the area in blue, this would be, this is where Richardson Street is in West Glens Falls, Fifth
Street would be in this area here and then the area toward the river and down in here to the City line
is the area of the district extension. In addition to that, we have eight contract customers, people
that live outside the district or have properties outside the district in other areas where there was a
waterline but they were being served by contract. Part of their contract stipulates that the next time
we do a district extension, that their property would also become part of the Queensbury
Consolidated District. This is that first extension we’re doing since they’ve signed the contract and
they will become part of the Queensbury district as well. As contract customers they have been
paying the exact same fees that the residents of the district have been paying so there will be no
change in the financial impact. What they’re seeing is just they will become part of the district and
no longer have to have surcharges on their bills.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 693
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Now, will they become part of Richardson Street Water District
Extension?
MR. VANDUSEN, Water/Wastewater Superintendent-Actually the final step in this is the
Richardson Street District will be consolidated into the Queensbury District so the Richardson
District will exist for a few seconds.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, any other questions for Ralph or Tom at this time?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-How does the ad valorem, a hundred and twenty-nine, how does that
compare with other?
MR. VANDUSEN, Water/Wastewater Superintendent-Well the tax rate is exactly the same so it
just comes down to what the average price of home in the area.
SUPERVISOR STEC-This process you started how long ago, when did you really start this in
earnest, of creating this district? I mean, I know it was built many years ago.
MR. VANDUSEN, Water/Wastewater Superintendent-Actually, we’ve been going through the
process for a couple of years.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay. Is there anyone from the public that would comment or question on
this public hearing regarding the extension of the Richardson Street Water District? Any takers?
Seeing none, Town Board, any further questions or comments? We do have a short form and Chris
I’ll let you walk us through that. Again, we have two resolutions regarding this. One, is a statement
on the Environmental Impact and then the second one is actual extension.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
7:33 P.M.
MR. ROUND, Executive Director lead the Town Board through the following Short Environmental
Assessment Form:
NO
A, Does action exceed any type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.4?
B, Will action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?
NO
C, Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the
following:
C1, Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels,
existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion,
NO
drainage or flooding problems?
C2, aesthetic, agriculture, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural
NO
resources; or community or neighborhood character?
C3, Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or
NO
threatened or endangered species?
C4, A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use
NO
of intensity of use of land or other natural resources?
C5, Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by
NO
the proposed action?
NO
C6, Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1-C5?
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 694
C7, Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of
NO
energy)?
D. Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the
NO
establishment of a CEA?
E, Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?
NO
RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
REGARDING EXTENSION TO QUEENSBURY CONSOLIDATED WATER
DISTRICT – RICHARDSON STREET EXTENSION
RESOLUTION NO.: 267, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to establish an extension to the
Queensbury Consolidated Water District to be known as the Richardson Street Extension, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board is duly qualified to act as lead agency for compliance with the
State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) which requires environmental review of certain
actions undertaken by local governments, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is an unlisted action in accordance with the rules and
regulations of SEQRA,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board, after considering the proposed action, reviewing the
Environmental Assessment Form and thoroughly analyzing the action for potential environmental
concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to
complete the Environmental Assessment Form by checking the box indicating that the proposed
action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and
BE IT FURTHER,
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 695
RESOLVED, that the Town Board approves of a Negative Declaration and authorizes and
directs the Town Clerk's Office to file any necessary documents in accordance with the provisions
of the general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ESTABLISHMENT OF EXTENSION TO
QUEENSBURY CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT –
RICHARDSON STREET EXTENSION
RESOLUTION NO.: 268, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to establish an extension to the
Queensbury Consolidated Water District to be known as the Richardson Street Extension, and
WHEREAS, a Map, Plan and Report has been prepared regarding the extension which will
encompass the area of Richardson Street situated between Fifth Street Extension and the
Queensbury Town line along Richardson Street/Haviland Avenue, plus Edgewater Place and Feeder
Canal Court, such extension more specifically described in the Map, Plan and Report prepared by
Jarrett-Martin Engineers, PLLC, 12 East Washington Street, Glens Falls, New York and filed in the
Queensbury Town Clerk's Office and available for public inspection, and
WHEREAS, the Map, Plan and Report shows the boundaries of the proposed extension to
the Queensbury Consolidated Water District, a general plan of the water system, a report of the
proposed water system and method of operation and the source of water supply, and
WHEREAS, the Map, Plan and Report shows the water infrastructure serving the parcels
included in the District Extension, and
rd
WHEREAS, on May 3, 2004, subsequent to the filing of the Map, Plan and Report with
the Town Clerk, the Town Board adopted an Order (the “Public Hearing Order”) reciting (a) the
boundaries of the proposed Water District Extension; (b) the proposed improvements; (c) the
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 696
maximum amount proposed to be expended for the improvements; (d) the estimated cost of hook-up
fees (if any) and the cost of the Water District to the typical property and the typical one or two
family home (if not the typical property); (e) the proposed method of financing to be employed; (f)
the fact that a Map, Plan and Report describing the improvement is on file in the Town Clerk’s
Office; and (g) the time and place of a public hearing on the proposed Water District Extension, and
WHEREAS, copies of the Public Hearing Order were duly published and posted and were
filed with the New York State Comptroller’s Office, all as required by law, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board held a public hearing and heard all interested persons
th
concerning the proposed Water District Extension on May 17, 2004 and the Town Board has
considered the evidence given together with other information, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to establish the proposed Water District Extension in
accordance with Town Law Article 12-A and consolidate the Extension with the Queensbury
Consolidated Water District in accordance with Town Law §206-a, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has considered the establishment of the proposed District
Extension in accordance with the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and
has adopted a Negative Declaration concerning environmental impacts,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that it is the determination of the Queensbury Town Board that:
1. The Notice of Public Hearing was published and posted as required by law and is
otherwise sufficient;
2. It is in the public interest to establish, authorize, and approve the Richardson Street
Extension to the existing Queensbury Consolidated Water District as described in the Map, Plan and
Report on file with the Queensbury Town Clerk;
3. All property and property owners within the Extension are benefited;
4. All benefited property and property owners are included within the limits of the
Extension;
5. In accordance with New York State Town Law §206-a, it is in the public interest to
assess all expenses of the District, including all extensions heretofore or hereafter established as a
charge against the entire area of the District as extended and it is in the public interest to extend the
District only if all expenses of the District shall be assessed against the entire District as extended,
and
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 697
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes, approves and establishes the
Richardson Street Extension of the Queensbury Consolidated Water District and the Extension is in
accordance with the boundaries and descriptions set forth in the previously described Map, Plan and
Report and construction of the improvements may proceed and service provided and subject to the
following:
1. a permissive referendum in the manner provided in New York State Town Law Article
7; and
2. the adoption of a Final Order by the Queensbury Town Board;
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that this Resolution is subject to a permissive referendum in the manner
provided by the provisions of New York State Town Law Article 7 and Article 12-A and the
Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to file, post, and
publish such Notice of this Resolution as may be required by law.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed Local Law Of 2004 To Amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 160 “Transient
Merchants, Transient Merchant Markets, Peddlers/Solicitors” To Require Transient
Merchants Operating Without Required License To Pay Town License Fees
NOTICE SHOWN
7:35 P.M.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I’ll open the public hearing. Again, this is to propose an amendment to a
Local Law regarding Transient Merchants and I’ll just read the new language that’s affected. The
Town may or is likely to take another view at the Transient Merchant Law in general, we may or
may not change, tonight’s action is specific to one area regarding enforcement penalties for
offenses. And the impetus of this came basically last year when we in fact took a couple of people
or at least one to an enforcement action and the Court ruled in our favor, however it was limited in
the fine that it would levy to the point where the fine was actually less then the fee would have been
so thus basically encouraging people to take a Court fine and not go through the process of filing out
the form and submitting an application. So, I’ll just read for the benefit of everyone the language,
I’ll read the existing language and then there’s an additional sentence or two following the existing
language. Each violation of this chapter or any regulation, order or rule promulgated thereunder
shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000 foreach offense. Each day a violation continues
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 698
shall be a separate offense. That’s the existing language. The additional language would be, in
addition to such fines, any transient merchant who shall operate without the required license shall be
required to pay the license fees such transient merchant would have been required to pay if such
transient merchant had properly obtained such license. The payment of such license fee shall not be
a fine but restitution to the Town of revenues that should have been paid. So, again, it simply
removes, in my opinion, it removes the incentive to violate our transient merchant law. The public
hearing is open, if there’s any members of the public that would like to come and address the Board
on the transient merchant language that we’re proposing to change tonight, just raise your hand and
come forward. Anyone at all? Alright, hearing none, I’ll close the public hearing and ask the Town
Board if they have any questions or comments?
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
7:39 P.M.
RESOLUTION ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO.: 3 OF 2004 TO AMEND
CHAPTER 160 “TRANSIENT MERCHANTS, TRANSIENT MERCHANT
MARKETS, PEDDLERS/SOLICITORS” TO REQUIRE TRANSIENT
MERCHANTS OPERATING WITHOUT REQUIRED LICENSE TO PAY
TOWN LICENSE FEES
RESOLUTION NO.: 269, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: 3 of 2004 to
amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 160 entitled “Transient Merchants, Transient Merchant
Markets, Peddlers/Solicitors,” to clarify its Town Code so that it is clear that any transient merchant
operating in the Town of Queensbury without the required transient merchant license shall be
required to pay the required Town of Queensbury transient merchant license fees, and
WHEREAS, this legislation is authorized in accordance with New York State Municipal
Home Rule Law §10 and Town Law Article 16, and
th
WHEREAS, the Town Board duly held a public hearing on May 17, 2004 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 hereby enacts Local Law No.: 3 of 2004 to
amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 160 entitled “Transient Merchants, Transient Merchant
Markets, Peddlers/Solicitors,” as presented at this meeting, and
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 699
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 17 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
LOCAL LAW NO.: 3 OF 2004
A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND CHAPTER 55 “TRANSIENT MERCHANTS,
TRANSIENT MERCHANT MARKETS, PEDDLERS/SOLICITORS” OF
QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE
BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Chapter 160 of the Queensbury Town Code entitled "Transient Merchants,
Transient Merchant Markets, Peddlers/Solicitors," Section 160-14 thereof entitled “Enforcement;
penalties for offenses,” is hereby amended by adding language to subsection “A” as follows:
§160-14. Enforcement; penalties for offenses.
A. Each violation of this chapter or of any regulation, order or rule promulgated thereunder
shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000 for each offense. Each day a
In addition to such fine(s), any
violation continues shall be a separate offense.
transient merchant who shall operate without the required license shall be required to
pay the license fees such transient merchant would have been required to pay if such
transient merchant had properly obtained such license. The payment of such license
fee(s) shall not be a fine but restitution to the Town of revenues that should have been
paid.
SECTION 2.
The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph or provision of this Local
Law shall not invalidate any other clause, sentence, paragraph or part thereof.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 700
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.
PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed Local Law Of 2004 To Replace Chapter 119 Entitled “Outdoor Furnaces” With A
New Chapter 119 Regulating Use Of Outdoor Furnaces In The Town Of Queensbury
NOTICE SHOWN
7:40 P.M.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I’ll open the public hearing and let’s see, who do I want to pick on to
summarize this. Bob, do you want to summarize the direction that this took to refresh the public’s
memory? I’ll lead in for you. A couple of months ago, the Town Board had a fairly lengthy public
hearing in which case the public hearing had been opened and we took, I believe we took no action.
I know we didn’t pass it, I don’t think we voted it down, I think we chose to take no action and that
was for an out and out ban for all outdoor furnaces in the Town of Queensbury. We had, what I
would say a very congenial exchange of the two different positions that in fact there is at least a
couple in town that are creating issues for neighbors and the town really had nothing with any
significant teeth to it to enforce and we weren’t necessarily on the top of DEC’s list of priorities.
So, we were having difficult with the state helping us enforce their law and at the same time we had
a larger group that were operating them with no problems with the neighbors that had made a
substantial investment in an alternate heating system for their homes. I think that both sides
understood where the other was coming from, I don’t think anyone on the Town Board necessarily
wanted to see somebody that made an eight or ten thousand dollar good faith investment in their
home heating system put in a position where it would be banned or that we would be telling them to
take it out. I think the Board all agreed that that was not necessary but yet we still had a problem
and we anticipated potential future proliferation of these in the town and we wanted to get ahead of
the curve rather then trying to play catch up as is most often the case. So, we went back to the
drawing board, Councilman Boor and myself met with Town Counsel and Chris Round during the
day, I don’t know, a month or six weeks ago and came up with a draft, the town had a workshop on
it and I think that the law is a fair compromise. There is a couple of items that I think are probably
sticking points for discussion but essentially the new law would allow for the currents ones to be
essentially grandfathered provided that they don’t continue to pose a problem and it would provide a
permitting system and a revocation system for current ones out there. So, the ones that are giving us
problems, would be subject to correction or removal but the ones that are operating currently, if they
continue to operate as and perform as they have been would be permitted and grandfathered. It
would allow future ones to come in some parts of the town, essentially larger lots, less densely
populated areas thus protecting people that live in denser populations from the inconvenience of
having one of these located nearby. And of course, as anything else the entire thing is subject to, it
can be, a variance can be sought for portions of, significant portions of the code. So, if somebody
says, gees, I’m having a tough time meeting this part of the code but I’d like to have one, that there
is in fact a mechanism allowed in this local law that would allow people to do that. So, I think,
although it took us the majority of time from our moratorium that we set back in December, I think
that what we’ve come up with is probably a pretty good swing at it but that’s why we’re here
tonight looking to hear from the public. Bob, did I miss anything?
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-No, I can get into more detail, I think you’ve given a good overview
of it.
SUPERVISOR STEC-We tried to make this available, I know I had a copy I believe faxed to at
least one person in the audience that was helpful in our last public hearing. With that, I’ll open the
public hearing, if there’s anyone in the public that would like to speak regarding this local law,
whether it is adequate, not adequate, suggested changes, questions, clarifications, now is the, now is
your opportunity. So, if there’s anyone that would like to speak.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 701
DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-There are copies on the table too.
SUPERVISOR STEC-And the clerk is telling me there are copies available on the table if anyone
wants to grab a copy of the law.
MR. DAVE MCGOWAN-Good evening, I’m Dave McGowan, 48 Birch Road, Queensbury. I’d
just like to say I think the Board has done a good job with all of the conflict that there was last time
around and I’m very happy with the way that this is written. I only have one question and that’s
regarding smoke opacity and enforcement. I guess the Fire Marshal is the one whose going to be
charged?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I’ve got the answer. I’ve been in touch with the Attorney General’s Office
on several different occasions and that was their biggest concern having looked at this and later on
tonight, we’re going to be, I believe approving unanimously a new Health Officer who has agreed to
go for training to do just that. He’s a Glen Lake resident and he’s more then willing to do what’s
necessary to make that an enforceable aspect of this law.
MR. MCGOWAN-Okay, super. So they’re going to be certified with the DEC that requires every
sixth month re-upping.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yes, correct.
SUPERVISOR STEC-And that was an important, to add to what Roger said, that was, my
understanding, that one of the important elements that we had in our deliberation and quest for a
Health Officer, is that we wanted to tweak the role, change the role, enhance the role a little bit
more. So, we apologize that we’re five months into the year technically without a Health Officer
although Dr. Evans has been great in answering the mail for us and defacto providing some backup
as he did earlier tonight in a letter. But Dr. Garner who is the resolution is considering for
appointment has agreed to pursue this training and so to take the Health Officer position here to a
little more involved hands on level in some areas that previously the town did not ask for or require.
MR. MCGOWAN-Well, it’s great. I know in the past the only way that we’d be able to have the
opacity tested was to get somebody from Albany and by the time you get them down here, the
opacity changes.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right, it’s a different season.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea, right, so we agree. It is literally a different season.
MR. MCGOWAN-Yea, thank you.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you, Dave and thanks for your compliment. Anyone else that would
like to comment on the proposed local law for outdoor furnaces? Mr. Ireland, please and Mr.
Ireland, just to embarrass him a little bit, Mr. Ireland was the gentleman I was referring to, he’s been
a wealth of knowledge before the last public hearing, at the last public hearing and since the last
public hearing to me. I know he’s got some expertise in these sorts of furnaces as he is a vendor of
them and an operator. So, Mr. Ireland, thank you for your help.
MR. IRELAND-Thank you, Mr. Stec. Well, I don’t claim to have all the answers certainly, just
trying to make a living like everybody else. I would like to thank the Board for coming up with this
proposed law, I think it makes sense. I do have a few questions about certain aspects of it and
hopefully, I won’t take up all your time. First of all, underneath, well, it would be number 4 on
page 2. Of course, I’m using your faxed copy so hopefully, I
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yup, 4 on page 2, permit.
MR. IRELAND-Okay. What is the, are there existing forms in place already for the permit process
for an outdoor wood stove?
SUPERVISOR STEC-No.
MR. IRELAND-And if there are, what exactly is on the, would be on the form?
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 702
SUPERVISOR STEC-They’re not yet and that’s something that once we pass this law that the Fire
Marshal’s Office, Chris Round’s Office will have to generate that form.
MR. IRELAND-Okay, but the requirements on that form would be similar to what’s in the
proposed law?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Oh, yea. That’s a fair question.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-One would mirror the other.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-The form will be consistent with the law.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right, consistent with the law.
MR. IRELAND-Yea, okay, cause I was going to ask what in fact would the Fire Marshal be
inspecting when he comes to a job site?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Basically, not to speak for him, he’s not here, the requirements of the law as
you know, I know you’ve got a copy, permitted zone, lot size, setback, months of operation, spark
arrestors.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Material being burned.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right, if he’s called to one that’s in operation, what’s the fuel that he’s using.
So, that’s, then beyond that, when we get into the opacity that’s where we would involve the Health
Officer. Hopefully, knock on wood, won’t be required very frequently but, you know, because
ideally no one violates the law. But basically, it would be that sort of level of involvement.
MR. IRELAND-Okay, that’s good, I just was curious because it says in number 5, the next one
down, it says, with regard to someone who already has one, it says that they would apply for, but
only if they receive a permit from the Town Fire Marshal and that was what my concern was, what
exactly is he doing, is it anything different then what’s already in here.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right.
MR. IRELAND-So, you’ve already answered that, I guess.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right and there are exceptions. I mean, the only paragraph kind of meanders
around but basically it grandfathers the ones that violate permitted zone minimum lot size and
setback, i.e. yours.
MR. IRELAND-Yes, okay.
COUNCILMAN STEC-It’s 6B, C, and D.
SUPERVISOR STEC-6B, C & D.
MR. IRELAND-Right, the very next question I have with regard to that is when my outdoor wood
furnace reaches it’s expected, well it reaches the end of it’s life, can I replace it without having to go
through the permit process or would I have to and then now have to comply with these other three
requirements that I currently do not have to?
SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s a good question and Chris and Bob, I, my intent
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-The way it’s written
SUPERVISOR STEC-My intent would be that, well, how would you say it’s written?
MR. IRELAND-I just figure that if it’s not a problem, and it’s never going to be a problem, why do
I need, why would I have to go through?
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 703
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-This doesn’t specifically let grandfathered ones be replace, it does
not give that.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-You know, the ones that are there are grandfathered, new ones are
not. There is a waiver process that the Town Board at that time will be able to consider.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-If you read the last part of it, that’s exactly right, 8.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-But that’s up to that Town Board at that time.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Number 8, page 4 and if you’ve got a history and a record of not being a
problem and assuming that one or all of us are here, you probably going to get it.
MR. IRELAND-Okay. Well, that makes sense and I would imagine that by that time, you know the
equipment would be more efficient and things of that nature.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right, we’re recognizing that, when we talk about the five to ten thousand
dollar investment, not all of that is the unit outside burning wood.
MR. IRELAND-That’s correct.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I mean, you know that’s, right, we recognize that you’ve got a substantial
investment under the ground and in the house as well. So, I mean my personal intent, but it’s a
good question cause I know we didn’t specifically or at least I didn’t, consciously consider it, what
happens when your firebox burns out and you need a new one.
MR. IRELAND-That’s why we’re asking, yea.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I think Roger hit the nail on the head that there’s a provision there for
waivers and obviously if you’ve got a record long enough where you’ve burned through one of
these and you haven’t been a problem, I can’t imagine a reasonable person not granting you the
waiver to replace the firebox.
MR. IRELAND-Okay, it makes sense. Under suspension of permit, letter A, I do not know
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Where are you, what page?
MR. IRELAND-It would be page 3, I do not know what 6 NYCRR 227-1.39(b) actually states,
maybe someone can enlighten me about that.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-It’s the New York State Regulation.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-We actually had copies of it at the last meeting. I can get you one.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-This is a New York State Regulation.
MR. IRELAND-Well, if anybody knows what it is can you maybe just paraphrase it?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s anywhere, you can get it on the internet. I can give you a copy of it
rather then try and
SUPERVISOR STEC-But Bob, could you for the benefit of the
COUNCILMAN BOOR-It has to do with health and safety or health and
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-I don’t remember the exact language.
MR. IRELAND-Well, I guess what I’m trying to ask
SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s the portion that the Health Officer would get training on.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 704
MR. IRELAND-Right, okay. Okay, I just didn’t know if that was a, that was something that
pertained strictly to an outdoor wood burning type of appliance or a woodstove or any other.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Oh, no, that’s a much more general.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, it has to do with smoke and odors.
MR. IRELAND-Okay, cause I was concerned about the time period, I was thinking you would
allow it to burn for six minutes and produce a twenty-seven percent opacity. I didn’t know if that
was actually acceptable. I mean, in my own situation, I don’t go out there with a stopwatch and see
whether it’s burning that good or that bad and I’m sure that the other people that have them don’t
either which leaves me possibly open to a violation that I’m unaware of, that’s all. I just didn’t
know what that spec meant.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-ENCON’s 227-1.3 is referencing opacity and it says, well, I’m not
going to read the whole thing but I’ll give you an idea of what it is, it says no person shall operate a
stationary combustion installation which exhibits greater then twenty percent opacity, six minute
average except for one six minute period per hour of not more then twenty-seven percent opacity
and then it talks about compliance.
MR. IRELAND-Okay, okay, I just didn’t know if it was something that pertains strictly to this
appliance or what.
SUPERVISOR STEC-You don’t need an MD to enforce that but yea, alright.
MR. IRELAND-Okay. Okay, underneath the same suspension of permit, you have several, well,
you’ve got B, C, D and E, I wasn’t so much sure about the letter B, a malodorous air contaminants
from the Outdoor Furnace are detectable outside the property of the person on whose land the
Outdoor Furnace is located. My question about that is, is that what if someone is actually in
compliance with things like setbacks and that sort of thing but they’re adjoining a piece of property
that is vacant or state owned or whatever, yet if you stood on that property you could, you know, if
your more sensitive to it then the next guy, you could say, oh yea, there’s malodorous odors coming
from that unit but
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I think you’d have to have standing in court and if it’s not your property,
it might be difficult.
SUPERVISOR STEC-And I would go back to the route paragraph where it says, a permit issued
pursuant to this local law may be suspended as the Fire Marshal may determine to be necessary to
protect the public health, safety and welfare of the residents of the Town of Queensbury. So, if
you’re in a situation where there’s nobody living next to you, then there’s no public, I mean, you
know what I’m saying?
MR. IRELAND-I do, I do, it’s just that it’s written
SUPERVISOR STEC-So, I think there’s some common sense that you would
MR. IRELAND-Yea, it’s just that it’s written in here and once it’s in writing, it takes longer to get it
out then once it’s already been established, that’s all.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Just think how long this could have been.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea, well yea, we’ve got a four and a half page local law that could be forty
pages I’m sure.
MR. IRELAND-Yea, okay, I’m not trying to give anybody a hard time
SUPERVISOR STEC-No, no, not at all.
MR. IRELAND-Just, I’m a little naïve a little bit occasionally.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 705
SUPERVISOR STEC-No, you’re a user, you got to, you need to know.
MR. IRELAND-Okay. My feelings are that letter C and D actually cover pretty much
SUPERVISOR STEC-B.
MR. IRELAND-Yea and I mean, because if the emissions from the Outdoor Furnace were causing
damage to property or vegetation or they were obviously interfering with the reasonable enjoyment
of life or property, I mean, that pretty much covers everything else. Letter E, where it says the
emissions from the Outdoor furnace are or may be harmful to human or animal health, I think that’s
a given. I think they are, I think they are from our automobile too and your lawnmower or anything
else. So, I just, I’m just stating that it’s written in such a way that, you know, it doesn’t leave much
leeway because any combustion source is harmful to human or animal health. So, I would think
that you’d write it in the manner that says it’s proving to be harmful.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-And then we’d have to prove it.
MR. IRELAND-That’s why the Board of Health or the Health Doctor there that you have. On
enforcement, paragraph 9, page
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yup, page 4.
MR. IRELAND-Page 4, on in just reading down through there, you know you’re saying that you
would offer a five hundred dollar fine or imprisonment of up to ten days if proven to be in violation
of these standards. I thought that was a little harsh, I thought you know, well I just meant it might
be a little harsh if, I think the person should be warned first because, I said, someone’s Outdoor
Wood Furnace may be, may not be in compliance with the opacity rule but he may not be aware of
it. So, I think you should let him know.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s one of the reasons why we want everybody to be permitted so we
can ensure the fact that they’re aware of this law.
SUPERVISOR STEC-There’s an education … for the permit.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-We would love to have everybody that owns one of these things know
exactly what is expected and it’s, you know
MR. IRELAND-I agree, I mean that’s the whole purpose of educating the public but as I said, I
don’t know all the answers and I’m trying to learn something here tonight.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-And I think Kevin, if you look at that it’s the maximum.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea.
MR. IRELAND-Okay.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-It’s not saying that we’re going to fine you a thousand dollars and put
you in jail for ten days.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right and a court is going to use their discretion.
MR. IRELAND-Okay, alright.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s certainly not our intent to have this thing turn into a witch hunt, you
know.
MR. IRELAND-That’s good.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea, I think that’s safe to say.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-This is strictly to prevent things that should be prevented.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 706
MR. IRELAND-Okay. That’s all that I really have, you’ve pretty much cleared it up for me.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, Kevin.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-I have a question for him.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Ted’s got a question for you.
MR.IRELAND-Okay.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Page 3, paragraph F, Spark Arrestors.
MR. IRELAND-Yes.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Do they make a Spark Arrestor for this unit?
MR. IRELAND-For the unit that I have, yes they do.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-They do?
MR. IRELAND-Yes. I do not currently have one on my unit, it didn’t require it, I’ve never seen
anything serious come out of it in the way that it would harm anybody’s property, even my own.
So, but since you have it in here, it looks like I’ll be getting one.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-It sounds like it don’t it.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Kevin, the expense of that, I’m told they’re not very expensive but you sell
them, I mean, or you sell these units, do you have a feel for how expensive the Spark
MR. IRELAND-The Spark Arrestor is?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea.
MR. IRELAND-Well, the Spark Arrestor is something that could be used on pretty much any metal
prefabricated chimney.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right.
MR. IRELAND-I would think that it’s less then a hundred dollars. Like I said, I do not have one on
my own application and I don’t, most people do not require one of these and the manufacturer does
not require one.
SUPERVISOR STEC-You don’t think that’s an undo or ridiculous burden?
MR. IRELAND-The only thing I have a concern with, with the Spark Arrestor is anything that you
have that would obstruct the flow of the draft or the emissions or particulates or whatever, it gives
another place for them to collect upon as well as creosote.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yea.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-But it does make them safer.
MR. IRELAND-Well, it makes it safer in that if there’s a potential for sparks to be emitted from
these units, hopefully it would do it’s job and prevent it from landing in a pile of leaves or
something like that. But generally, the units are running in the winter time when there’s snow on
the ground so, it’s really not much of a problem.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Or in the fall when there’s not snow on the ground, when it’s dry
leaves.
MR. IRELAND-Yup, yea, you’ve got a point.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 707
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yea, well I mean, if our job is to protect public safety to the
maximum extent possible, reasonable
MR. IRELAND-Well, I think that, again, common sense should prevail. If the application requires
one or there’s a potential there for a problem, then I say go for it. But sometimes I think, you know,
we don’t want to be too intruding upon everybody, we think that we can save everybody and protect
them from themselves but let’s just be reasonable.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-I’ve got another question for you. When did they change the design of
this unit?
MR. IRELAND-Well, when you say this unit, I don’t know what unit you’re referring to because
there’s probably a dozen manufacturers out there.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Well, the one that we’ve got here, the one with the new roof in it,
inside, in the fire chamber.
MR. IRELAND-As far as I know, the manufacturer that I
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Has that always been like that? It hasn’t has it?
MR. IRELAND-I don’t know what brand you’re referring to, sir.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Central Broiler.
MR. IRELAND-I do not sell Central Broiler, I couldn’t tell you about there track record or their
history.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Alright, does yours have a similar
MR. IRELAND-Mine has a rippled top heat exchanger in it.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Rippled, that’s what this one has.
MR. IRELAND-Yup but my understanding is, is if you put the two side by side, they are not
constructed exactly the same. The actual ripples on mine are much smoother whereas the one on
Central Broiler is more of a v notch which I guess is some people would think that that would make
it more susceptible to failure of the welding or whatever. What is the point of your question?
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Well I just wondered what affect it would have on the fire in the box,
whether it
MR.IRELAND-Well, as a heating contractor, the more heat exchange surface you have, the more
efficient.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Makes it burn hotter or?
MR. IRELAND-It doesn’t make it burn hotter, or less hot, it simply provides more surface area for
the heat to be extracted from the fire, that’s all. You’ve given it more heat transfer surface by
making it a rippled rather then a flat.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yea but there’s a water chamber all the way around that unit.
MR. IRELAND-Yes.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-So you’re getting, you know you’re getting heat from all sides.
MR. IRELAND-That is the advantage of having a water jacket completely around the firebox, yes.
I hope I answered your question but I’m not so sure.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Anything else Mr. Ireland?
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 708
MR. IRELAND-I don’t have anything else.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-I just thought maybe they might have changed the design.
MR. IRELAND-Well, I’m sure that over the years, the design probably has changed and
COUNCILMAN TURNER-I think if you go back to some of the older ones, it probably isn’t in
there, that roof.
MR. IRELAND-There’s a good possibility, you would have to consult with the manufacturer.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-And that might be why we’re getting, they’re getting a lot of smoke
from some of the older ones and not so much from the newer ones.
MR. IRELAND-I think the burning process whether it’s a new one or an older one, is dependent
upon what type of wood you’re burning, the amount of oxygen that’s going to it.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yup.
MR. IRELAND-Certainly the firebox may or may not contribute to how efficient the unit is. I don’t
have all those answers. I’ve been a dealer now for a couple of years for a particular brand, not the
Central Broiler and as I stated at my first public hearing here a couple months back, if these units
were banned outright right here in Queensbury, it would not affect my business, I do not sell them
to people in Queensbury because generally people in Queensbury do not purchase this type of unit.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right. Okay, thank you Mr. Ireland.
MR. IRELAND-Thank you.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Anyone else from the public would like to speak on outdoor furnaces? Yes,
Ma’am.
MS. KATHLEEN SWEET-I just had a question on the permit. It doesn’t state if it’s an annual
permit or if it’s a one time deal for the unit and about what the cost would be?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Bob?
COUNCILMAN TURNER-We didn’t address that.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-The, it was intended to be a one time permit that lasted for the unit.
MS. SWEET-Okay.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-And we didn’t have a cost and often those type of costs are set in
SUPERVISOR STEC-Just large enough to cover the expense.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s probably just administration.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I don’t want to throw a number out there but
COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s not to make money, it’s just to cover the paperwork.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea, it won’t, I mean it can’t imagine it being
MS. SWEET-Right, but I didn’t know if it was going to be an annual basis
SUPERVISOR STEC-No, a one time shot.
MS. SWEET-like if the Fire Marshal will come in every year, check your unit and then
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 709
COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s really, we just want to know where they are, that’s the only purpose of
it.
MS. SWEET-Okay.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yup, a one time shot and Chris, is it reasonable to say it would be under a
hundred dollars?
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-I have no idea.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Hard to say? I mean, we’re talking thousands of dollars.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-No.
SUPERVISOR STEC-We’re not talking five hundred.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I think it’s going to be well under a hundred but that’s just
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea, I got to imagine it’s going to be under a hundred.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s like a dog license.
MS. SWEET-Okay.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-No, it’s not like a dog license, Roger.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I
MS. SWEET-I can’t walk my woodstove. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you. Anyone else, open, public hearing for the Outdoor Furnaces? I
know Caroline has a letter that we’ll read in pertinent to this public hearing. Caroline?
DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER read the following into the record:
To Queensbury Town Board Members:
On April 27, 2004 the Board of Directors of the Glen Lake Protective Association
unanimously voted to support the proposed law by the Town of Queensbury to regulate
outdoor furnaces. We support this law because outdoor furnaces pose environmental threats
to the quality of the water and the quality of life at Glen Lake. We agree with the provisions
of the proposed law and ask that you move to enact the law as quickly as possible.
Respectfully,
Donald Milne
Chair, Environmental Committee, Glen Lake Protective Association
(on file in the Town Clerk’s Office)
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, thank you. Anyone else from the public? Alright, at this point I’ll
close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
8:05 P.M.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Any Board Members want to comment or discuss anything further?
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Well, I think myself Dan, I think the setbacks are too much, two
hundred feet for setbacks, that’s way too much. The smoke is going to, you know, follow it’s path
of wind source so it’s going to go wherever it has to go. I think that’s way too much.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 710
SUPERVISOR STEC-While Ted is looking, I’ll hit the highlights on the specific requirements
which I think is where any dissention from the Town Board would be in this paragraph section 6, A
through F. A, Permitted Fuel, firewood, untreated lumber. B, Permitted Zones, only in the LC-
10A, LC-42A, RR-3A and RR-5A zone. C, Minimum Lot Size, three acres. D, Setbacks, as Mr.
Turner just referred to, not less than two hundred feet. E, Months of Operation, operated only
stst
between September 1 and May 31 and F, Spark Arrestors, all shall be required to be equipped
with Spark Arrestors. So, those were the six unit specific kind of tape measure kind of requirements
that, in addition to the other, opacity and the other but those are, these six are the area that I think
that if there’s discussion on the Town Board, I’m aware of, there might be some disagreement. For
instance, there was debate over lot size and setbacks.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-But we also include paragraph number 8 which allows a person to
apply to the Board of Health for a variance where they might be in a unique situation and they can
explain that to us and we can take a look at it and we can either agree with them or not.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yup. Ted, did you have any other?
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Well you know, and the other thing is too, that we’ve got to buy the
equipment you know to step out there and address this issue and we don’t have that equipment.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-What equipment?
COUNCILMAN TURNER-The opacity.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, the opacity equipment.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I don’t think it’s that kind of, it’s not an expensive
SUPERVISOR STEC-I didn’t get the impression
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I think it’s an index card.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-It’s a color chart, essentially.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea, I think it’s a chart.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Is that all it is?
SUPERVISOR STEC-I think so.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I don’t think it’s a really expensive item.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, the Ringleman is, the Ringleman is. But I don’t believe, this is more
training then it is equipment the cost of being able to enforce that portion of the law.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-But you know, I know people that have got them and they don’t cause
the things that caused this to come up.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yup, I agree with you there.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-There’s a few people that caused this to come up and that can be
addressed by not going through all of this.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Anything else, Ted?
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Just make something simple that would address that issue.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Sure. Anything else? Anybody else on the Town Board.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I would agree with Ted. I don’t necessarily agree with the smallest lot
being an RR3, and the reason being is if we were to or it was considered to be a one acre zone, you
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 711
would presume that the guy next to you is going to have a one acre zone so you have an area of two
acres. The two hundred foot setback, I just, in my mind I think it’s unreasonable.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-The only thing about this, Tim is they can always come to us, explain
that
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I understand that, John, I just, I’m just telling you that I disagree with
what you’re doing. Having said that, I think the law is a good idea but we’re making it awful, awful
hard for somebody to come in and put one of these on their property. When you put the waivers in
there, you say that anybody can come in but look at the reading that you’ve got, the extraordinary
and unnecessary hardships may result from strict compliance.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yea.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I mean, you might as well say, you know, we don’t want you to have
one and that’s essentially what you’re saying in this thing.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, that’s where we were a month or two ago.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-And I disagree with that.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right and we’ve moved way far away from that.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Not a lot, you’ve moved away from it but not that far. I think we
should have compliance and restrictions but I think you don’t want to make it so impossible that
you’re, that government is looking down on everybody’s back saying you can’t do this, you can’t do
that and I’m just, I’m against that I guess.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Anything else from the Town Board?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I just, I think it’s a good law. It’s not perfect but I don’t think it’s going to
punish responsible users of these furnaces and that certainly isn’t our intent. There, there’s a
perception out there that there’s one furnace that’s a problem, there’s actually a couple, there’s three
maybe, one is grandiose. But how do you address these things? You address them with something
like this that is fair. This is, I hear, Ted, that you’ve got a problem with setbacks and I understand
that and Tim thinks that the lot sizes are too small but
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Too big.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Too big but you’d like to see them smaller.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yea.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-The problem there is that if you go to something like one acre which
there’s large sections of this in the town that are zoned one acre and if everybody had one of those
things, you’d have a very unhealthy environment.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-But having said that, Roger
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Let me just finish and then you can counter because I think, as Dan
pointed out in section 8 and John pointed out, there’s a waiver. If there’s somebody out there that’s
on a substandard and that would be something less then a three acre parcel according to this law,
property and they want to have one of these things and we look at it and it’s obvious that it’s not
going to impact anybody else, we might grant them a, I would say we’re highly likely to grant them
a waiver. But this at least allows us to prevent the really bad situations and that’s why the law is
here because we have no teeth, we have no method of bringing it to compliance, a very unhealthy
situation and we know it’s out there and we can’t turn a blind eye to it. So, what we’ve done is
we’ve done something that allows us to look at every individual, one of these things and make a
judgment call and we put guidelines in here so when people want to put one of these in they can
come in, look at this, they go, well, you know I’m close on all these but I’ve got one little problem
here, maybe it’s not a big problem, they can come before us and if it’s not, fine. But it allows us to
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 712
say no when we should be able to say no and that’s the important thing, is the health and protection
of the public.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-And I’m all for that, Roger and I agree with you a hundred percent but
we’re talking about a town that’s seventy-two square miles in area and you’re saying to people, if
you don’t have anything bigger then a three acre parcel, you can’t just go get a permit and put that
thing on there.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, not
COUNCILMAN BREWER-No, let me finish, I let you finish and I thought I was pretty good about
it.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-You were excellent, actually.
SUPERVISOR STEC-And we’re going to try to move on.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-There’s approximately twelve to fifteen of these things in this whole
town. What does that say to you Roger?
SUPERVISOR STEC-That, well, can I interject there?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-No, no, not until I’m done.
SUPERVISOR STEC-You asked a question.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-You come back when I’m done.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, easy there …
COUNCILMAN BREWER-What I’m saying is, you can put a restriction on these that every person
that has one certainly has to get a permit. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t do that and I agree with
the intent of the law, don’t get me wrong. But to say that you have to have three acres, and if you
don’t have three acres, you’ve got to have extraordinary and unnecessary hardships to come in here,
I think is a crock. That’s just my opinion.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, John.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-No, I think he just made his point for me, is that number 8 says that if
you have extraordinary situations, we’ve got number 8.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Can I try to sum up?
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yea, go ahead.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, thanks. We’ve been talking about this for a long time and none of this
discussion isn’t anything the five of us haven’t all had already in a workshop so, or privately
walking down the street. But, I understand certainly where Ted and Tim are coming from and I
think for me the two arguments, the strong argument is one, we can grant a variance, we talked
about that. I think the other thing is, frankly I don’t think we’re going to have a lot of these come
before us and we can always change the law. So, it’s not like instantly a thousand people are going
to be affected by this law. If all of a sudden, two years from now we say, you know what, we’ve
had a half a dozen come in and they’re all over, they are all over the three lot, and they’re all on two
acre lots, then we look at changing the law. But I’d rather start the law off more strict and ease back
then the other way. It’s always easier to start off a little tougher and throttle back. So, I, you know,
I think this is a perfect compromise in the sense that we’re not telling anyone that the ones that you
got have got to go. We’re not telling anyone you’ve got to live with one next to you that’s obscene.
We’re not telling people that own large acres that are no-brainers, hey, what business do we have
telling somebody not to have one of these on a five acre lot. But we provide a mechanism for the
ones that are marginal and I’d rather us define marginal a little more conservatively from the offset
and I think that there’ll be one or two applicants that come before us a year for a variance at the
most and if we start seeing a trend that hey, you know what, I mean, I just think we can always
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 713
change the law and we can always grant a variance. So, I don’t thing there’s a downside to starting
off a little bit harsh if, you know to use that phrase. But we’ve had this debate, I wanted you all to
benefit from the debate. I think it speaks volumes that we’ve had people that were here the other
night on both sides of the issue compliment the law. So, I think that here’s an example where, you
know what we’ve taken our time, we’ve used almost the full six months on this, it isn’t perfect, no
one’s claiming it’s perfect but you know we had people that are on both sides of the issue that I
think, I mean I really got a good feeling after that last public hearing that there were two very
distinct groups of people that were on opposite ends of the issue and I think that they really could
see where the other side was coming from, that we don’t always get that. I think they left here
understanding that, you know we couldn’t ban them outright but we couldn’t have say, hey, you
know we’re not going to have any regulations at all. So, I’m encouraged that people on both sides
of the issue said, hey, you guys did a good job with this, we can live with this. So, but you’re right,
I’m not saying it’s perfect and you know, is there any magic to two hundred feet or three acres,
you’ve got to start somewhere and you know, maybe five years from now, the next Town Board
will have wisdom and they’ll say, you know what, a hundred and fifty and two acres is a better way
and they change it and it’s probably a ten minute public hearing to have that change, I’m guessing.
But, so I think what we’ve got here, I think we’ve done our homework, I really do. I think we’ve
stepped up where the state wasn’t going to step up, you know and I think we’ve got a good
workable solution here that will probably used as a model in other communities. There are other
communities out there, I got a phone call from the Town Supervisor of Moriah, they’re watching
this up there, he’s curious to see what we’re doing, they’ve got a similar kind of situation. So,
Vermont has got some serious regulation on it already. So, I think that everyone should feel good
that we did our homework and probably a three-two on a issue like this probably says that, you
know what, we hit that sweet spot.
RESOLUTION ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO.: 4 OF 2004 TO REPLACE
CHAPTER 119 ENTITLED “OUTDOOR FURNACES” WITH A NEW
CHAPTER 119 REGULATING USE OF OUTDOOR FURNACES IN THE
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
RESOLUTION NO.: 270, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: 4 of 2004
entitled, "A Local Law to Amend the Queensbury Town Code by Replacing Chapter 119 Entitled,
‘Outdoor Furnaces’ With a New Chapter 119 Regulating the Use of Outdoor Furnaces in the Town
of Queensbury,” which Law is intended to ensure that outdoor furnaces are utilized in a manner that
is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the Town, and
WHEREAS, this legislation is authorized in accordance with New York State Municipal
Home Rule Law §10, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board previously held a public hearing concerning the possible
adoption of a Local Law with a similar or same title, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board did not adopt such law but drafted this new, different version,
and
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 714
th
WHEREAS, the Town Board duly held a public hearing on May 17, 2004 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 hereby enacts Local Law No.: 4 of 2004
entitled, "A Local Law to Amend the Queensbury Town Code by Replacing Chapter 119 Entitled,
‘Outdoor Furnaces’ With a Chapter 119 Regulating the Use of Outdoor Furnaces in the Town of
Queensbury,” 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 17 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : Mr. Turner
ABSENT: None
DISCUSSION DURING VOTE:
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yes, I’ll support the law in that I encourage and respect what the intent
of it is. Some of the stuff I don’t, some of the content I don’t support but I’ll support the law as a
whole.
DISCUSSION AFTER VOTE:
SUPERVISOR STEC-Hey, if it’s a problem and we’ve got to revisit it in a year or two, I think
we’re all on the same page, it’s just.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-I’m not against the idea of it but I think there’s just some things in there
that don’t belong in there, that’s where I’m coming from.
SUPERVISOR STEC-And that’s reasonable.
LOCAL LAW NO.: 4 OF 2004
A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE BY REPLACING
CHAPTER 119 ENTITLED “OUTDOOR FURNACES” WITH A NEW CHAPTER 119
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 715
REGULATING THE USE OF OUTDOOR FURNACES IN THE TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY”
BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
AS FOLLOWS:
1. Title and Authority -
This Local Law shall be known as the Town of Queensbury
Outdoor Furnace Local Law. It is adopted pursuant to Municipal Home Rule Law §10.
2. Legislative Intent –
Although outdoor furnaces may provide an economical
alternative to conventional heating systems, concerns have been raised regarding the safety and
environmental impacts of these heating devices, particularly the production of offensive odors and
potential health effects of uncontrolled emissions. This Local Law is intended to ensure that
outdoor furnaces are utilized in a manner that does not create a nuisance and is not detrimental to
the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the Town.
3. Definitions
- "Outdoor Furnace" means any equipment, device or apparatus, or any
part thereof, which is installed, affixed or situated outdoors for the primary purpose of combustion
of fuel to produce heat or energy used as a component of a heating system providing heat for any
interior space.
“Untreated Lumber” means dry wood which has been milled and dried but which has not
been treated or combined with any petroleum product, chemical, preservative, glue, adhesive, stain,
paint or other substance.
“Firewood” means trunks and branches of trees and bushes but does not include leaves,
needles, vines or brush smaller than three inches (3”) in diameter.
4. Permit Required -
No person shall cause, allow or maintain the use of an Outdoor
Furnace within the Town of Queensbury without first having obtained a permit from the Town Fire
Marshal. Application for permit shall be made to the Fire Marshal on the forms provided.
5. Existing Outdoor Furnaces –
Any Outdoor Furnace in existence on the effective
date of this Local Law shall be permitted to remain provided that the owner applies for and receives
a permit from the Town Fire Marshal within one (1) year of such effective date; provided, however,
that upon the effective date of this Local Law all the provisions hereof except paragraphs 6(B), (C)
and (D) shall immediately apply to existing Outdoor Furnaces. All of the provisions of this Local
Law shall continue to apply to existing Outdoor Furnaces which receive permits except paragraphs
6(B), (C) and (D). If the owner of an existing Outdoor Furnace does not receive a permit within one
(1) year of the effective date of this Local Law, the Outdoor Furnace shall be removed. “Existing”
or “in existence” means that the Outdoor Furnace is in place on the site.
6. Specific Requirements –
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 716
A. Permitted Fuel – Only Firewood and Untreated Lumber are permitted to be burned
in any Outdoor Furnace. Burning of any and all other materials in an Outdoor Furnace is
prohibited.
B. Permitted Zones – Outdoor Furnaces shall be permitted only in the LC-10A, LC-
42A, RR-3A and RR-5A zoning districts as shown on the Town’s Zoning Map.
C. Minimum Lot Size – Outdoor Furnaces shall be permitted only on lots of three (3)
acres or more.
D. Setbacks – Outdoor Furnaces shall be set back not less than 200 feet (200’) from the
nearest lot line.
E. Months of Operation – Outdoor Furnaces shall be operated only between September
stst
1 and May 31.
F. Spark Arrestors – All Outdoor Furnaces shall be equipped with properly functioning
spark arrestors.
7. Suspension of Permit –
A permit issued pursuant to this Local Law may be
suspended as the Fire Marshal may determine to be necessary to protect the public health, safety and
welfare of the residents of the Town of Queensbury if any of the following conditions occurs:
A. Emissions from the Outdoor Furnace exhibit greater than 20 percent (20%) opacity
(six minute average), except for one continuous six-minute period per hour of not more than 27
percent (27%) opacity, which shall be determined as provided in 6 NYCRR 227-1.3(b);
B. Malodorous air contaminants from the Outdoor Furnace are detectable outside the
property of the person on whose land the Outdoor Furnace is located;
C. The emissions from the Outdoor Furnace interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of
life or property;
D. The emissions from the Outdoor Furnace cause damage to vegetation or property; or
E. The emissions from the Outdoor Furnace are or may be harmful to human or animal
health.
A suspended permit may be reinstated once the condition which resulted in suspension is
remedied and reasonable assurances are given that such condition will not recur. Recurrence of a
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 717
condition which has previously resulted in suspension of a permit shall be considered a violation of
this Local Law subject to the penalties provided in paragraph 9 hereof.
8. Waivers; Board of Health Ratification
- Where the Town Board of Health finds
that extraordinary and unnecessary hardships may result from strict compliance with this Local
Law, it may vary the regulations so that substantial justice may be done and the public interest
secured, provided that such variations will not have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of
this Local Law or of jeopardizing the health, safety or welfare of the public. In varying any
regulations, the Board of Health may impose such conditions and requirements as it deems
reasonable and prudent. The Board of Health may, at its discretion, hold a public hearing as part of
its review. If the Board of Health grants the waiver, a permit shall be issued for the Outdoor
Furnace. If the Board of Health denies the waiver, the Outdoor Furnace must either be brought into
compliance with this Local Law or removed. If the Board of Health does not take any action with
respect to the waiver within sixty (60) days from its receipt of an application for waiver, the waiver
shall be deemed denied.
9. Enforcement; Revocation of Permit –
Failure to comply with any of the provisions
of this Local Law shall be a violation and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable by a fine of
not more than $500 or imprisonment for a period of not more than ten (10) days, or both, for the
first offense. Any subsequent offense shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or
imprisonment for a period of not more than thirty (30) days, or both. In addition, any permit issued
pursuant to this Local Law shall be revoked upon conviction of a second offense and the subject
Outdoor Furnace shall not be eligible for another permit. Each day that a violation occurs shall
constitute a separate offense. The owners of premises upon which prohibited acts occur shall be
jointly and severally liable for violations of this Local Law. Any fine imposed hereunder shall
constitute a lien upon the real property where the Outdoor Furnace is located until paid.
10. Effect of Other Regulations –
Nothing contained herein shall authorize or allow
burning which is prohibited by codes, laws, rules or regulations promulgated by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or any other federal, state, regional or
local agency. Outdoor Furnaces, and any electrical, plumbing or other apparatus or device used in
connection with an Outdoor Furnace, shall be installed, operated and maintained in conformity with
the manufacturer’s specifications and any and all local, State and Federal codes, laws, rules and
regulations. In case of a conflict between any provision of this Local Law and any applicable
Federal, State or local ordinances, codes, laws, rules or regulations, the more restrictive or stringent
provision or requirement shall prevail.
11. Severability -
The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph or provision of this
Local Law shall not invalidate any other clause, sentence, paragraph or part thereof.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 718
12. Repealer -
All Local Laws or ordinances or parts of Local Laws or ordinances in
conflict with any part of this Local law are hereby repealed.
13. Effective Date -
This Local Law shall take effect upon filing in the office of the
New York State Secretary of State or as otherwise provided by law.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed Rezoning Of Property Located At The Corner Of West Mountain Road And
Gurney Lane From SFR-1A(Single Family Residential-One Acre) To Professional Office(PO)
NOTICE SHOWN
8:18 P.M.
SUPERVISOR STEC-With that, I’ll open the public hearing on this proposed rezoning on West
Mountain Road and Chris if you want to kind of provide some introductory to this public hearing.
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-Well, you conducted a public hearing, this is a continuation of a
public hearing.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Correction, this is a, and we left that public hearing open, I believe.
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-Back in April.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you.
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-The reason for the delay back in April was the Warren County
Planning Board had not yet taken action on the proposal. The County Planning Board has since
taken action and recommended approval with some stipulations, they just, they had some of the
same concerns that you folks have voiced over the last several months, concerns about impact on
adjoining land uses and citing homes and I’m not reading that verbatim but you should have a copy
of that information in your files. That’s all I had.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, I don’t have a copy of Warren County’s decision, what were
the stipulations?
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-They can not impose conditions, the County Planning Board, it’s
merely advisory, it’s a recommendation of the Board, they recommended approval. I don’t have the
original files, I can’t read a copy of it.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-They’re not in my file either.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, I don’t think any of us got a copy of it either.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I don’t have a copy, I don’t remember seeing a copy either.
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-Yea, sometimes you get that level of detail, sometimes you
don’t, it just allows you to proceed and take action tonight, it shouldn’t influence you.
SUPERVISOR STEC-We don’t need any super majority or anything like that?
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-No.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-No.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay. Alright, with that and thank you for correcting me, this is a
continuation of a public hearing that was opened some time ago. Is there anyone from the public
tonight that would like to comment on this proposed rezoning? Corner of West Mountain Road and
Gurney Lane Road, Gurney Lane, Gurney Lane from SFR-1A to Professional Office, that’s the
corner of, it would be the southeast corner of Gurney Lane and West Mountain Road. Anyone in
the public at all? Yes, ma’am.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 719
MS. KATHY FRANKLIN-Hi.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Hi, good evening.
MS. FRANKLIN-My name is Kathy Franklin and I live next door. I have a question. You didn’t
last meeting have a definition of what this zoning is, do you have a definition yet?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Oh, we do have a definition.
MS. FRANKLIN-Okay.
SUPERVISOR STEC-We’ve had a definition. I think your statement is that we were considering
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Changing it.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Changing the definition.
MS. FRANKLIN-Okay, have you got a resolution on that?
SUPERVISOR STEC-We haven’t, no.
MS. FRANKLIN-Okay, so right now you’re proposing to rezone to the existing definition?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Correct.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Correct.
MS. FRANKLIN-Okay and is that in that piece of information that nobody seems to have right
now?
SUPERVISOR STEC-No, that’s not related, that’s an internal.
MS. FRANKLIN-Can you read me what that definition is, please?
SUPERVISOR STEC-I think Mr. Round has pulled it back out.
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-What am I, I guess
SUPERVISOR STEC-The current definition of what’s allowed in a PO Zone.
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-PO Zone, is that we’re you talking about?
MS. FRANKLIN-Yes, please.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Actually, it is in here too.
SUPERVISOR STEC-In our SEQRA.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yea.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Not our SEQRA but our
COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, it’s in here though because I read it.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, it says what’s allowed but it doesn’t describe the zone.
SUPERVISOR STEC-It’s not a definition as much as what’s, what are allowed uses. There’s a list,
have you found it Chris?
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-Yea, I have it in front of me. Professional Office allows Duplex,
excuse me, Home Occupations as an accessory use, it allows Duplexes with Site Plan Review. It
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 720
allows Multifamily Dwelling with Site Plan Review. It allows Cemetery, Day Care Center, Health
Related Facility, Nursery, Place of Worship, Produce Stand less then one hundred square feet as an
Accessory Use. It allows Professional Office with Site Plan Review, a Professional Office within a
residence with Site Plan Review, Public or Semi-Public Building with Site Plan Review, School
with Site Plan Review. It allows Parking Garage/Facility. It allows Personal Service Business. It
allows Seasonal Produce Business.
MS. FRANKLIN-Maybe we can go about the other way, what doesn’t it allow?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-That goes on forever.
MS. FRANKLIN-It might be simpler.
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-I read the uses that it allows.
MS. FRANKLIN-I had some concerns the last time because we sort of got blindsided the last time
we came to a meeting, the next to last time, yea I think it was November we were looking at a
residential proposal from our adjoining neighbor. And I went and talked to a few people about
what’s happened with this property in the past and one of the things I heard about was, the Glen
Lake Committee actually put the kibosh on a proposed truck stop, like the one down on Exit 16,
within the last ten years. The neighbor, my neighbor himself actually went with a Professional
Office Zoning Proposal and was turned down because it was inappropriate three and a half years
ago. So, I’m still not, I still don’t quite understand why this is appropriate now and wasn’t then
except that from what I can understand, we’re looking for additional sources of revenue for the
Town especially for the School District despite the fact that this is Lake George School District
which is fairly well supported by the Outlet Centers and all of the other industry which is on Route
9. So, I kind of wondered why would this be necessary to, for a transition. I never understood
transition either but the only thing I can come up with is that you pretty much used up all of Route
9. We have now a new seven story hotel going in, we’ve already got the Great Escape and
Martha’s. We’ve got, on the other side of it, all the outlets which is a fair amount of retail and sales
tax producing property. There’s not much room for anybody to expand there anymore, it’s pretty
much taken up. So, where would you go if you had to, if you wanted to put something else in this
area? If you wanted to put, let’s see, a duplex, a multifamily home, a nursery, a produce stand,
professional offices. Well, there aren’t that many places left so you could go around the corner and
put it on West Mountain Road. That’s the only transition that I can see, is from commercial to
residential through professional office. I don’t think it’s a good idea because I think it’s too vague
and I think this is, opens up too many possibilities without any kind of restraint and I would, I mean
last, the last meeting I was, I mean, I think people of, what is the word I want, good intents are very
valuable and I think you guys are basically people of good intent but I think that zoning exists
because people of good intent are A, not always in charge, B, this is not the committee that’s always
going to be in charge and there’s no way of saying that this transition is not a transition in time from
Single Family Residential to a Professional Office to all of a sudden Commercial. The pressure on
that area may be quite strong to be a Commercial area because Route 9 has been eaten up and when
we bought the property and it was Single Family Residential it seemed like a fairly reasonably safe
and quiet place to have a family. I think my neighbors with their kids thought that too. The other
thing I don’t, don’t like, that’s about as clear as I can be, is the method by which this has all
happened. We, not all the neighbors were notified. Most of the neighbors were gone. Ones in
Denmark, one was in Florida, Dolores was with her sister. It came out of the blue, literally came
out of the blue. We came because we thought we wanted to see our neighbor’s next proposal to
make his cluster housing was going to be like and it turned out to be something absolutely different
and not even, even though it was called as a landowner wanting to change the zoning, it wasn’t the
landowner who wanted to change the zoning, it was the Town wanting to change the zoning and
going through the landowner to do so and that’s not, that’s not a fair notice, I think and I still don’t
think, I mean, nobody got, nobody on my block got a message saying, you know, we’re continuing
this discussion, we haven’t really decided whether or not this definition of Professional Office
Building is going to stand or is going to change or how it may change. None of that has happened
and I don’t think that’s appropriate and that’s not to take away from your efforts at making a good
faith effort to make this a good Town to live in which is I think basically your reason for being. I
just don’t think that it’s, this in this particular case it seems to be going in that direction very well. It
seems to be more rolling along on it’s own steam. For instance, did you ask, did you send the Glen
Lake Committee a notification? They are, this is the Glen Lake Watershed, there’s a Class A Trout
Stream next door. There is some environmental impacts that may be, maybe should be taken into
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 721
consideration apart from community feel, I mean, just physical environmental impacts especially
given the amount of development going on across the way, across the Interstate with the Great
Escape and that. If we seem hostile, I don’t mean hostile or, I’m truly nervous. It maybe because
there’s an enormous amount of change going on in our particular neighborhood and we’ve already,
our area has already generated lots of money. I mean, Route 9 has generated lots of money. It’s
very hard to go north and south on any route in the summer, I mean Route 9 is virtually impassable.
It takes fifteen minutes to cross over 49 to get across the south bound exit lane from the Interstate as
it is, as it stands now. So, if you have a school, a nursery, a produce stand, or a homeowner services
on that corner, how much more traffic is going to be there? Do we need more homeowner services?
In two and a half miles from my house, I can get my haircut. I can buy my groceries. I can get my
car fixed. I can go to any number of four different shopping areas, one of which, that fairly
attractive one where the woodworker’s warehouse has had at least twenty or twenty-five different
small professional office building and retail shops come and go in the last two years because there’s
not a need, there’s no need for that particular, that particular zoning. There’s no need for another
one of those, we’ve got enough shopping centers. We’ve got enough. So, I don’t know, I just think
it, I don’t know that it’s ill-advised because I don’t know enough about it and I don’t think we can
know enough about it if you’ve got to, if it’s introduced the way it’s been introduced and if you, you
have an array of items that could go in there. And, and no guarantees that once you’ve made a
transition to Professional Office that you don’t go to full blown Commercial. Anyhow, I apologize
if, especially last, the last meeting we were rude, I guess that’s the best word for it because we’ve
been to several of these meetings not involved with this and I think you guys do a very good job and
you work hard at it and it’s obviously thankless, primarily thankless. But there’s something, there’s
something about this whole thing that doesn’t seem like it’s been considered in the same way. For
instance your last, the thing on the furnaces was considered carefully. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you Ms. Franklin and just for the record, I’ve seen rude and you
weren’t rude either the other night or tonight but thank you for your comments. Anyone else like to
speak on the, Mr. Salvador. Proposed rezoning, right?
MR. JOHN SALVADOR-Indeed yes. My name is John Salvador. I recall the discussion around
this particular parcel of land during our Comprehensive Planning sessions, probably eight years ago
and it was recognized then that this land had very little utility as residential property and you should
check the minutes of the committee meetings because the discussion is there. However, the
decision was made to leave it as it was, recognizing that it had no utility as residential property. I
think addressing it the way you’re addressing it now you run the risk of being guilty of spot zoning.
You’re entertaining this thought for the benefit of someone who wants to do just that, a Professional
Office complex. Mr. Round read a list of uses, there’s a difference between a permissible use, an
allowable use with Site Plan. What are the permissible uses in a Professional Office Zone or in
SUPERVISOR STEC-I thought I heard him differentiate but I could have been wrong. You did say
with Site Plan for several of the last few.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yea, some of them were.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, I think most of them were with Site Plan.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, what’s your question then?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, Site Plan is going to be required on the site regardless, yes.
MR. SALVADOR-In a zoning district, has to have some kind of a permissible use, a use of right,
okay and what will this have? It can’t have everything with Site Plan Review, that’s not a right,
that’s a discretionary privilege that the Planning Board can give for development. So, the owner of
this property has
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-All uses require Site Plan Review.
SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s what I was going to say.
MR. SALVADOR-Pardon me?
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 722
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-All the listed uses are, require Site Plan Review.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right, that’s what I thought too.
MR. SALVADOR-That’s improper. That is improper. The property owner does not have a right to
use, any right to use his property without Site Plan Review. That’s a condition, that’s a discretion
that this Town has to either grant or deny the permit and doing it this way I think it’s a classic case
of spot zoning. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you, sir. Anyone else like to speak tonight on the proposed rezoning?
Okay, with that I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
8:34 P.M.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I’ll entertain comments or discussion from Town Board Members.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I’ll start and cut me off, alright?
SUPERVISOR STEC-No.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Mr. Salvador made a great point and that was that it was recommended for
Professional Office, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan recognized that.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes they did.
MR. SALVADOR-No, excuse me.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, its my turn to talk and that’s the way I read it and I’m talking now.
And the other thing is, the applicant is willing to take any kind of zoning. So, the notion that the
applicant is coming to us and asking us to change it is not correct. We are trying to do what we
think is best for that, I should say I would like to see it go to Professional Office because I think
that’s the best use for that piece of property. It’s quite obvious to me that in the future and I’ve said
this a million times and I’ll say it again, that whole interchange is going to be reconfigured, I think
it’s going to make it exceptionally difficult to have any kind of quality of life as a residential
neighborhood right on that property that we’re talking about. As Chris pointed out, anything that
would go in there under Professional Office would have Site Plan Approval, would require it.
Planning Board, I’m sure is going to take a good hard look at whatever we do, whether we rezone it
or don’t rezone it. Traffic is going to probably the same whether it’s residential or business.
Certainly under Professional Office there will be less curb cuts so I think that area might in fact be
safer, hard to say. But I am seeing a disturbing trend in the Town and that’s where Boards are
starting to jerk applications around. We’ve got the paintball issue, we’ve got a couple of others and
the applicant in this instance has been working with us, he will do whatever we want. He’s been
more then affordable and we seem to want to be stringing him along and unable to come up with a
decision for what I think is very common sense for what we should do here and this trend is getting
disturbing. This guy, this applicant I think has good intentions although we’ve got to look at the
worse case scenario but that’s what the Planning Board will do, that’s their job. I don’t think
they’re going to let some ridiculous business go in there that’s going to cause traffic problems,
noise, pollution and everything else. So, we’ve got to have a little bit of confidence in them and
we’ve got to let them do their job and the notion that that property is best suitable for homes, I have
to disagree with. I grew up in that side of Town and I think it would be a real mistake to put homes
in there. The applicant has also said he’s willing to work with us on a continuous bike trail. You
know, it’s a rarity that we get somebody that’s willing to do as much as this applicant is willing to
do and he’ll take any zoning. He’s not asking for
COUNCILMAN BREWER-He’s got zoning now.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-So, I think we have to look out for the best interest of the Town and I think
the best interest of the Town are Professional Office as the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
recommended, not this Board but an independent group. So, that’s all I have to say.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 723
SUPERVISOR STEC-Before I continue, Town Board, Chris if you could share with the public the
1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, what the composition, how that plan was developed and the
recommendation that came out of that plan on this particular piece of property specifically.
st
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-The Town Board adopted the 1998 Comp Plan September 21,
1998. I arrived at the tail end of that process, it was a process that involved numerous public
outreach and numerous meetings. The Board had appointed a Citizens Committee.
SUPERVISOR STEC-There’s a committee, though, I mean.
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-A Citizen’s Advisory Committee.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Their recommendation.
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-I don’t have that listing but it did, there was some turn over, it
involved Planning Board, Zoning Board, general public, concerned citizens. There was a
recommendation, just to clarify the record, there was a recommendation in the Comp Plan to make
that amendment, that amendment did not pass as the Town proceeded through a re-drafting of it’s
Zoning Ordinance which was adopted in 2002. That particular amendment included both sides of
West Mountain Road, the property that we’re talking about as well as property that’s on the west
side of West Mountain Road and bounded by Gurney Lane or Old West Mountain Road, part of
Old West Mountain Road touching adjoining property and to north of the County Annex. So, that
property, that amendment failed during the Town-wide Rezoning. There was an applicant that came
forward, the property owner of the property in question asked for the property to be zoned from
SFR to Suburban Residential, that occurred last Fall, the Town Board basically tabled that
application and suggested that the project be zoned Professional Office. And that’s, rather then
rehash all that, I think that’s how we got to where we are right today.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Dan, can I just
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea, Tim.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Can I add something that, Roger I understand exactly what you’re
saying but as you said, it was recommended by a committee to rezone this to Professional Office.
That’s just what it was, a recommendation and the Town Board at that time felt that was the wrong
recommendation, otherwise, they would have made it Professional Office.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I voted for it.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-My contention is, they did it as they did for whatever reason, I wasn’t
there.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, we, yes we
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, maybe we were there
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Did vote on it and it was a two three
COUNCILMAN BREWER-If we did then there was a reason
COUNCILMAN BOOR-It was two three
COUNCILMAN BREWER-And when you say that we’re jerking around an applicant, we’re
jerking ourselves around because there is no applicant, as you said. We are the applicant. You
chose to pick this piece of property to have it rezoned, not the owner of the property so I take
offense to that.
SUPERVISOR STEC-You mean, you being the Town Board. The Town Board, you’re right, it
was, there is no, he’s not an applicant.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 724
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Right, so don’t say we’re jerking people around when we’re not.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well
COUNCILMAN BREWER-And the other thing is, we have, let me finish, we have asked and
discussed changes to that zone, it’s my feeling if you’re going to make changes to a zone, don’t start
rezoning properties to a zone before you make the changes.
SUPERVISOR STEC-And I know John feels similarly on that point.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yea, well, I do, I feel that the public has a right to see what the
proposed Professional Office Zoning will be. I didn’t see an immediacy to rezoning this nor am I
going to vote on it anyways because I own the property on the opposite side of the road. So, if I
voted for it, it might look like a conflict of interest. If I voted against it, it might look like a conflict
of interest. So, I’m going to recuse myself but I do agree with Tim that I thought we should have
the zone Professional Office zoning rewritten in accord with what we would like before we rezone
this property but like I said, I’m not going to vote on it.
SUPERVISOR STEC-And Chris and I had a conversation today, Chris could you enlighten us all
with what we discussed as far as, I did not get the impression, not my intent that we have a
significant change to make to the PO Zone.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Maybe you don’t, Dan or maybe Chris doesn’t but we have discussed
several items in that zone that we would like to change. If we’re going to change them, I don’t have
a problem looking at a rezoning but if we don’t have an applicant, why is the Town picking this
piece of property, going, saying let’s change the zone? Answer me that question.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Because it was recommended in the Comprehensive Plan.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-But we didn’t do it Roger when we did the whole Town rezoning.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-You’re asking a question and I’m answering the question, Tim.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-You’re missing the point.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-You’re asking why, because that was the recommendation and the
applicant would be okay with that.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I’m sure he would.
SUPERVISOR STEC-And I’ll add to that question, Mr. Round, has the Town rezoned along this
path before without an applicant? Has the Town done staff initiated
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yea, we have.
MR. ROUND, Executive Session-Yea, I think we addressed this issue at the last month’s meeting,
is that the Town does from time to time revisit property zonings and looks and makes
recommendations and takes action on properties specific rezoning or more regional or you know,
corridor-wide rezoning.
SUPERVISOR STEC-And as far as the changes that you think we’re talking about for the PO Zone.
MR. ROUND, Executive Session-Yea, I think you know we’ve gotten, I think the debate that you
folks are having tonight is reflective of different opinions, number one.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Usually, a debate is.
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-Yea. You suggested some changes I think to the PO Zone with
this particular property in mind, trying to address some specific issues. At our last meeting, we had
th
a workshop back on March 29, I don’t think there has been a clear consensus of what those
changes are. We had suggested, we’ve sent the Board several memos about select changes to the
PO Zone and categorically they’ve included, they’ve tried to address concerns about what are the
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 725
allowed uses in the PO Zone. I think the speaker tonight from the public addressed concerns about
the wide variety of personal service uses that are allowed in the PO Zone and would the Town
Board like to revisit those, narrow that definition, eliminate those type of uses and I don’t think
we’ve gotten clear direction from the Board which approach you’d like to take. My memo to you
today suggested another option, is make sure that that, if it was a personal service use that you limit
it to, inside an existing professional office and make sure, you know language to make sure that it’s
subordinate to the primary use and not another commercial zone.
SUPERVISOR STEC-And to Roger’s point, to interrupt for a second, the owner not applicant, I
agree with you Tim, but the property owner has been cooperative and has stipulated a wide amount
of flexibility as to if we want to limits on it such as the one you’re suggesting, that I’m confident
that the property owner is cooperative and the effort that we’re talking about. I think that’s fair to
say but he’s not here tonight.
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-So again, in our memo today and I think that the debate that
you’ve had over the last several months is, you know, the concern about citing a residential use on
this property, if we’re going to allow residential use to continue to be an allowed use on this site,
should we look at, you know revised setbacks to the Northway, changes in density and our memo
today suggested that setback issue is really something the Planning Board has dealt with, you know,
citing and creating setback for a specific property. We didn’t think that to be good, good policy and
then again, our concern in general, broader then this property was the amount of multifamily
housing that’s been constructed in our Professional Office Zones and we proposed something for
your consideration, is look at only allowing multifamily housing on sites that had wastewater,
municipal wastewater services.
SUPERVISOR STEC-And in fact, I think that the owner did state and correct me if I’m wrong, that
he was not interested in pursuing multifamily which is a concern that we do share in the PO Zone.
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-Well, again, I think, there wasn’t any clear consensus on what
those changes should be. I think the Board Members debated it back the end of March and I think
what we, it was generally split or maybe there was a majority vote that said, let’s proceed with this
project separate but in parallel with the rezoning and I think that’s what you have a continuation of
th
that debate that you had back on the 29.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Yea, but let me just make it clear, what you’re considering tonight is
a rezoning under our current Zoning Ordinance.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Correct. Absolutely.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-These other possible changes are not
SUPERVISOR STEC-May or may not happen.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Are
SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s right.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-not part of
SUPERVISOR STEC-We’re considering it under the current PO Zone, period.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Exactly.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Correct.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Absolutely.
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-And I think there’s a couple of members that would like to see
the changes happen before you take the rezoning and there are some of you that are comfortable
without that and I think that’s where you guys are.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I think that’s very fair. No, I think you’re absolutely right.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 726
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I think that’s a fair statement Chris but if there is no applicant, we are
the applicant and my contention is that we have had discussions about changing the PO Zone, end
of sentence. Why are we in a rush to change this if there’s no applicant? That’s my only question
and nobody can seem to answer that. I don’t know if, why Roger’s in a hurry to do it or Dan is.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I’m not in a
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Or Ted
COUNCILMAN BOOR-He, because
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Whomever is.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Tim, the reason is, is he doesn’t know what to build because he doesn’t
know what the zoning is going to be.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-The zone is what it is, Roger.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, he originally asked to go to SF…
COUNCILMAN BREWER-And we say no.
SUPERVISOR STEC-He was ready, he was ready to cluster and we asked him not to.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, he went to SR, it’s from Single Family
COUNCILMAN BREWER-And we say no, right?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, we didn’t, we
SUPERVISOR STEC-No, we didn’t tell them no, we couldn’t tell him no.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s my point, Tim, we didn’t say no.
SUPERVISOR STEC-We asked him to hold off.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-So, you find a zone so he can find what to build.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-No.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, well
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I don’t want to do that.
SUPERVISOR STEC-We’re going back to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, we didn’t dream
this up.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-We’re going to go by their recommendation, not ours.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Absolutely.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Not my recommendation.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I understand it was not our recommendation but why all of a sudden
Roger, when the guy wants to know what to build, is that a good recommendation but three years
ago it wasn’t a good recommendation. That’s what I’m trying to get through your head. You guys
do what you want to do, I’m going to do what I want to do.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Ted, what do you have to say?
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 727
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Well, I’ll tell you, I’ve looked at this piece of property, one, two, three,
this is the third time.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yea, I know, I’ve been there every time.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yea, no, no, not with you guys but before this and this guy has had the
same problem since the beginning but I think now the way things are settling in over there, with all
the building, with the Great Escape and with county buildings and the other buildings that are
around, that certainly is a piece of Professional Office property.
SUPERVISOR STEC-See, my feeling is, the guy came to us and Roger, I think hit the nail on the
head, not that it affords anyone special consideration but I think it’s, I think it’s an important factor
for us to acknowledge that the owners been cooperative with us and the owner proposed residential.
The Town Board, I don’t think thinks that residential is a very good idea. If we don’t change the
zoning, he had, I mean he had a proposal to put in fifteen houses and umpteen curb cuts and
COUNCILMAN BOOR-There was a plan.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-And if he can provide the information to the Planning Board, then he
should be allowed to do that.
SUPERVISOR STEC-But we asked him not to because we didn’t think that was a wise
COUNCILMAN BREWER-No, we didn’t say, we as maybe one or two of you said that, not all of
us.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, the majority of us did
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Okay.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Say we would like to consider something other then residential there, right?
You thought residential was a good idea?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I didn’t say that, I said you’re speaking
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, he’s got a right to do something with his property, Tim.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right and if we
COUNCILMAN BREWER-But let him propose a project, Roger. I don’t want to go looking for
pieces of property to rezone for people.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Anyways, anything else from the Town Board.
COUNCILMAN TURNER-No, I said my peace.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, just some housekeeping details. When do you want to take
care of those, after the public hearing?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Take care of what, the housekeeping? Well, I close the public hearing so
we’re on housekeeping now.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Number 6 on page 3 of 21.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Of the SEQRA?
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-It says to be confirmed. Has that been confirmed?
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-No is the correct response in that regard.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-So, it has been confirmed.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 728
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-Yea.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Alright, number 11 on page 4 of 21. It says New York State Natural
Heritage Program to be
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, the question, John the reason, the reason I saw these too, but no
matter what gets built that has to get, it doesn’t have anything to do with whether it’s …, with the
zoning, it has nothing to do with the zoning.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-You have a SEQRA Form that remains unfinished, Roger.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I know, my point is
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-That’s my point.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yea, but I mean it’s
COUNCILMAN BREWER-You’ve got to answer the SEQRA question before you can rezone it.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Whether you build a house or you build a store, that has to get answered.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Listen, I’m just writing what staff has written and said, has not been
completed yet.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Right.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-And I’m just, my question is what, you know how does that, affected by
whether it’s a business or a residential.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I’m not voting on this, but you want to have a
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I know but we haven’t got there yet so why are you getting
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, let me ask this question of staff, are you prepared to walk us through a
SEQRA?
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-Yea.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Okay. So,
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-John, to answer Mr. Strough’s question, Item 11 should be
checked no.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-No.
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-And then, it is still subject for further …
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, it’s unchecked.
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-You’re right.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yea, I know.
MR ROUND, Executive Director-I’m answering, I haven’t debated you, I’m answering the
question.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 729
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Okay and number 16d on page 6 of 21, 16 says will the project
generate solid waste? Well no, not until we have an application in front of us and why is 16d
answered no?
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-It should
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-It just should not be answered.
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-It just shouldn’t be answered.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-It should not be answered, that should be
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-Yea, that’s the difficulty with assessing an environmental
impact, typically you’re looking at physical construction projects and that’s why
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, I just said this is housekeeping details, it’s not me talking for or
against and number 11 on page 10 or 21, it says will the proposed action create a demand for any
community provided services, recreation, education, police, fire protection. It’s not creating
anything, the rezoning is not creating anything.
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-So it should read no, I agree with you.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-So, it should read no.
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-Yea and so then 11a you would omit in the response.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And the rest of it’s fine.
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-Okay.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I have a housekeeping question myself for staff and the attorney. If we move
forward with this tonight and it does not pass and this is a staff generated application, what does that
mean as far as bringing this or a similar resolution to rezone, or a project or the applicant applying
in the future? It has to be significantly different? No, we can do it next
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-It’s a legislative proposal.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-It wouldn’t be any different.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, I wanted to make sure I was
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-You can bring it up again. I mean they can ask you to
SUPERVISOR STEC-I wanted to
COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s a good question.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I wanted to make sure we were clear on that, alright because I think that’s
important.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-And you don’t have to listen to it in a future time, I mean, it’s your
discretion whether or not
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right, I just wanted to make sure.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-To decide, you can we’re not interested.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Anything else for the good of the order? Alright, the public hearing is
closed, we have a SEQRA included as part of this. Mr. Round, correct?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-A long one.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 730
SUPERVISOR STEC-We have a SEQRA included with this resolution. Alright, I will entertain a
motion.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I’ll make a motion.
SUPERVISOR STEC-And I will second it.
MR. ROUND, Executive Director lead the Town Board through the following Full Environmental
Assessment Form, Part II
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, PART II
IMPACT ON LAND
NO
1. Will the proposed action result in physical change to the project site:
Examples that would apply to column 2
Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length),
or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%.
Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet.
construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles.
Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing
ground surface.
Construction that will continue for more then 1 year or involve more than one phase
or stage.
Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural
material (i.e., rock or soil) per year.
Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill.
Construction in a designated floodway.
Other impacts:
2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes,
NO
geological formations, etc.)
Specific land forms:
IMPACT ON WATER
NO
3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?
Examples that would apply
Developable area of site contains a protected water body.
Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream.
Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body
Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland.
Other impacts:
NO
4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water?
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 731
Examples that would apply
A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a
10 acre increase or decrease.
Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area.
Other impacts:
NO
5. Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?
Examples that would apply
Proposed action will require a discharge permit.
Proposed action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to
serve proposed (project) action.
Proposed action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per
minute pumping capacity.
Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system.
Proposed action will adversely affect groundwater.
Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist
or have inadequate capacity.
Proposed action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day.
Proposed action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of
water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions.
Proposed action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater
than 1,100 gallons.
Proposed action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer
services.
Proposed action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or
expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities.
Other impacts:.
NO
6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff?
Examples that would apply
Proposed action would change flood water flows.
Proposed action may cause substantial erosion.
Proposed action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns.
Proposed action will allow development in a designated floodway.
Other impacts:
IMPACT ON AIR
NO
7. Will proposed action affect air quality?
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 732
Examples that would apply
Proposed action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour.
Proposed action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour.
Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source
producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour.
Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial
use.
Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development
within existing industrial areas.
Other impacts:
IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
NO
8. Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?
Examples that would apply
Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the
site, over or near site or found on the site.
Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat.
Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for
agricultural purposes.
Other impacts:
9. Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? NO
Examples that would apply
Proposed action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish,
shellfish or wildlife species.
Proposed action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over
100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation.
IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES
NO
10. Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources?
Examples that would apply
The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes
cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.)
Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land.
The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural
land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural
land.
The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land
management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 733
create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to
increased runoff)
Other impacts:
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
NO
11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources?
Examples that would apply
Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp
contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural.
Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources
which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities
of that resource.
Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of
scenic views known to be important to the area.
Other impacts:
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOCIAL RESOURCES
12. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological
NO
importance?
Examples that would apply
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to
any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places.
Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site.
Proposed action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites
on the NYS Site Inventory.
Other impacts:
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
13. Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or
NO
recreational opportunities?
Examples that would apply
The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity.
A major reduction of an open space important to the community.
Other impacts:
IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
14. Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical
NO
environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14 (g)?
List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 734
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
NO
15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
Examples that would apply
Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods.
Proposed action will result in major traffic problems.
Other impacts:
IMPACT ON ENERGY
NO
16. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply?
Examples that would apply
Proposed action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of
energy in the municipality.
Proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or
supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a
major commercial or industrial use.
Other impacts:
NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS
NO
17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action?
Examples that would apply
Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility.
Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day).
Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise
levels for noise outside of structures.
Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen.
Other impacts:
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
NO
18. Will proposed action affect public health and safety?
Examples that would apply
Proposed action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances
(i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset
conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission.
Proposed action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form (i.e.
toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.)
Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other
flammable liquids.
Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet
of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 735
Other impacts:
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD
19. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? NO
Examples that would apply
The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located
is likely to grow by more than 5%.
The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by
more than 5% per year as a result of this project.
Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals.
Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use.
Proposed action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of
historic importance to the community.
Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools,
police and fire, etc.)
Proposed action will set an important precedent for future projects.
Proposed action will create or eliminate employment.
Other impacts:
20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse
NO
environmental impacts?
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-You have a negative declaration drafted for your review.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATIONAND
AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE CLASSIFICATION OF
PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD
AND GURNEY LANE FROM SFR-1A (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL –
ONE ACRE) TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO)
RESOLUTION NO.: 271, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board is considering a request to amend the Town
Zoning Ordinance and Map to rezone properties bearing Tax Map No.’s: 288.-1-63 and 288.1-64
located at the corner of West Mountain Road and Gurney Lane in the Town of Queensbury from
SFR-1A (Single Family Residential - One Acre) to Professional Office (PO), and
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 736
WHEREAS, the Town Board previously received a request to rezone the subject properties
from SFR-1A to SR-1A, and the Town Board did not take any action, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board communicated its preference for designating the property
Professional Office (PO) consistent with the 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan adopted by the
Town Board, and
th
WHEREAS, on or about May 12, 2004, the Warren County Planning Board considered the
proposed rezoning and recommended approval, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board duly conducted public hearings concerning the proposed
thth
rezoning on April 19 and May 17, 2004, and
WHEREAS, as SEQRA Lead Agency, the Town Board has reviewed a Long
Environmental Assessment Form to analyze potential environmental impacts of the proposed
rezoning, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has considered the conditions and circumstances of the
area affected by the rezoning,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby determines that the proposed
rezoning will not have any significant environmental impact and a SEQRA Negative Declaration is
made, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby amends the Town of Queensbury Zoning
Ordinance and Map to rezone property bearing Tax Map No.’s: 288.-1-63 and 288.1-64 located at
the corner of West Mountain Road and Gurney Lane in the Town of Queensbury from SFR-1A
(Single Family Residential - One Acre) to Professional Office (PO), and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town
Clerk to forward a copy of this Resolution to the Town’s Zoning Administrator to update the
official Town Zoning Map to reflect this change of zone, and
BE IT FURTHER,
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 737
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to send a
copy of this Resolution to the Warren County Planning Board, Town of Queensbury Zoning Board
of Appeals, Town of Queensbury Planning Board and any agency involved for SEQRA purposes,
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, in accordance with the requirements of the Town of Queensbury Zoning
Ordinance and Town Law §265, the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to
publish a certified copy of the zoning changes in the Glens Falls Post-Star within five (5) days and
obtain an Affidavit of Publication, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that this amendment shall take effect upon filing in the Town Clerk’s Office.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
NOES : Mr. Brewer
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Mr. Strough
DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE:
SUPERVISOR STEC-Any further discussion from the Town Board on this resolution.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Just, I would only say to the public, just so your understand this, when you
hear all these no’s, there no because it’s just the rezoning, we’re not talking about any physically,
physically changing anything on the property, it’s just a rezoning.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Site Plan may in fact require another SEQRA.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-That may trigger another SEQRA, so.
SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s a good point.
(vote taken)
GIS PRESENTATION
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-The Town has been operating and owning Geographic
Information System Technology for approximately eight years and approximately three years ago,
three and a half years ago we received a seventy-five thousand dollar grant to pursue a change in
how we deliver GIS services. Part of that successful grant application included monies to fund GIS
delivered over the internet to Town Staff. Part of that money was, allowed us to change our GIS
platform from Map Info Technology to Arcview Technology and I think over the last several years
we’ve done a great deal to advance that. You’ve seen maps produced with GIS Technology and the
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 738
map aspect or the cartography aspect is really very minimal part of what GIS is capable of doing.
Two years ago the Town hired George Hilton as our Planner, replacing a vacant planning position
with some staff turnover. What George brought to us also was some extremely good technology
background that George has had using GIS Technology for probably seven or eight years. George
is going to walk you through a little bit about what we have available and a little bit about what we
do.
MR. GEORGE HILTON, Planner/GIS Specialist-GIS stands for Geographic Information Systems,
a database attached to physical features, be it your parcel data, streets, waterlines, streams, water
bodies. With that physical feature you have information behind it such as, in the case of water
bodies or streams, water quality. In the case of your parcels, you do have such information such
owner, assessed value, type of structure, the list goes on and on…. The presentation will focus on
these four items, the creation, presentation, analysis and specific application development. Data
Creation is probably one of the most important, without data you can’t really do anything, you can’t
do any kind of specialized analysis. (referred to slide show) Some examples of data maintained by
Community Development Department are zoning districts and subdivisions, primarily the two big
ones. We do digitized new roads as they come online, we add the district extensions, the
infrastructure. With the rate of development in the Town of Queensbury we’re quite busy
maintaining these data sets and creating additions to these data sets on top of our planning duties….
Data Creation, you have to consider physical relationships of the data you’re creating to other data
sets, there’s more involved, you’re taking into consideration directions, bearings, distances, lengths,
all that that goes above and beyond just plopping some lines on a piece of paper… (showed sample,
the subdivision map of the Town of Queensbury) What you see here is approximately three
hundred and thirty-three subdivisions across Town. But as I mentioned, with the information
system component, you get a database that tells you not only the subdivision name but when it was
approved, number of lots, parcel size, whether it’s a cluster, whether it’s residential, the zoning at
the time, a wealth of information that from this point forward once it’s built into the database allows
you to do any number of queries and extract vast amounts of information. Once the data is created,
one of the primary and traditional uses I would say of the data is presentation and this is a sample of
our zoning map, we’ve made it available as a map series for sale, we’ve also put it on the internet
but that’s a typical use of the data once it’s created. This is a topographic map, the exact map that’s
sitting behind Chris and again, once that data is created, you can certainly display and answer any
number of questions and provide a wealth of information to the public. As I mentioned the Town’s
website has been updated to include a GIS component, we have made a map series available to
anyone with internet access. You can go and look at your property zoning, you can look at wetlands
maps, cultural features, there’s any number of questions that can be answered and as long as you
have internet access and you have the desire, you can go on line and take a look at these maps,
download them for free, there all available at our website…. We do have any number of maps
available and the list keeps growing every day available for anyone to download or take a look at.
That’s another thing we’ve been doing here with the technology, once we’ve created the data, we
make it available to the public. The key part of GIS is the analysis. The fact that you have a
database or multiple databases created, allows you to do any number of queries. This specific
example is an attempt to answer the question, how many vacant parcels are there in Queensbury
with access to water and sewer and to do that you’ve got to look at your parcel database, your water
district database and your sewer database and through the queries and the menus that are shown
here on the screen, you can boil that down to these parcels in red. They’re vacant parcels, they’re
within the districts. This is a very powerful tool, at this point you can extract a variety of specific
bits of information from these parcels, as I said, ownership, assessed value… Graphical Analysis is
another component, another analysis feature. You can take the database, you can summarize it, you
can present it a chart or a some kind of graph, you have the ability to present this data in many
different ways, this is just another way. Another example of the analysis, Population Analysis. This
may be a map some of you have seen, the purpose of this map is to provide information on the
school population within the Queensbury School District and with overlaying the school district
data as I’ve done here, using population data based on the census bureau figures, you can do this for
any district within the Town of Queensbury. Proximity Analysis, this is distance from each
firehouse within the Town of Queensbury and this is something we have the ability to do and we’ve
actually done where we can plot the location of the firehouses as you see here in concentric circles
or rings around each one that tell the actual distance to each firehouse. From that you can build an
application or some analysis that would tell you, or attempt to tell you predicted response times.
Along with some of the applications I’ve shown you, we have two databases, Govern and RPS
which we typically use and those databases contain such information such as building permits for
example. They may have other bits of information that typically aren’t in the GIS database that I’ve
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 739
mentioned but that’s easy enough to join together with this database and here I’ve given an example
of building permits, single family residential building permits in a section of Queensbury between
1999 and 2003. This is helpful, what you’re doing is you’re adding a physical component to the
building permit instead of just looking at the data and seeing where, or recognizing that there was a
building permit, you can look at see in which areas of the Town the most development is occurring,
where the development is occurring and help plan your services in the future accordingly. As far as
application development as Chris mentioned, we typically at the Town of Queensbury have been
using GIS over our internet, we received a grant to purchase the software package ArcIMS and this
is typically what our users within the Town of Queensbury see. It allows them access to query
zoning and building permit data and some of the uses that I’ve mentioned on our local internal
network and it’s very quick, very user-friendly and in some cases it’s maybe not as robust or
provides as much functionality as some people need but in a lot of cases, it helps answer many,
many questions very quickly and easily. We’ve gone and extended this capability, personally in the
Community Development Department by building applications such as this, using the Orthophotos,
these Orthophotos are state-wide, they’re flown in a cycle, they’re available to everyone obviously
across the world and using these images in creating this application, we’re allowing our Town
Employees to access this information and be able to derive the benefits from it. Additionally I’ve
built additional applications here that allow a user to quickly query a parcel, obtain information
wetlands, slopes and produce a quick map that you can hand to the customer and potentially give
them some answers to their questions. That’s a quick overview. Thank you.
MR. ROUND, Executive Director-It’s very difficult to give you a broad overview of the capacities
that we have in our office. I think GIS is very powerful and it allows you to present information in a
graphical format, it allows you to join data and present data in a form or a format that the public and
that many people are used to looking at. Rather then having to look at a table of information, some
people are tabular in nature, some people are graphic and I think most people can relate to a map
and we hope we shared a little bit of that information with you tonight.
CORRESPONDENCE
DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER read the following Memorandum:
To: Daniel G. Stec, Town Supervisor
Town Board Members
From: James T. Coughlin, Solid Waste Facilities Operator
Date: April 26, 2004
Re: Free Tire Disposal Day
th
On Saturday, April 24, the Town held a very successful free Tire Disposal Day.
The Town received 1,380 tires, or approximately 18 tons, and the disposal fee for this
service was $85 per ton.
So the Town’s approximate cost for the day was $2,757.71 as set forth below:
667.71 - Labor Cost
560.00 - Hauling Cost
1,530.00 - Burn Cost
$2,757.71 - Approximate Total
(on file in the Town Clerk’s Office)
DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER noted that the Solid Waste Month-to-Yearly Report for April
30, 2004, Building & Codes Monthly Report and Town Clerk’s Monthly Report for April 2004 has
been received and filed in the Town Clerk’s Office.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 740
SUPERVISOR STEC recognized Former Councilman Pliney Tucker and Former Highway
Superintendent Paul H. Naylor…. Thanked Glens Falls National Bank for sponsoring and paying
for the taping and airing of the Town Board Meetings.. Noted Reminder for the public of the
th
Household Hazardous Waste Day being held on June 5 … Recognized and promoted the Town’s
www.queensbury.net
website
INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS FROM THE FLOOR - NONE
OPEN FORUM
9:17 P.M.
MR. GEORGE DRELLOS, 27 Fox Hollow Lane-Referred to the previous Public Hearing regarding
the rezoning and recommended keeping the public hearing open to include the Town Board’s
discussion… Questioned how the rezoning came about?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Gave history of rezoning as previously discussed earlier in meeting.
MR. DAVID STRAINER, 1124 Ridge Road-Referred to the traffic light on Aviation Road in front
of Church and School and questioned whose responsible for the timing of that light?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Noted that it’s the Town’s responsibility and the town periodically re-times
it, it works for a few months and then it goes the other way again…
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Noted that he’s received many calls regarding the traffic light, it kicks
on in the evening and tries to accommodate the school, school functions, church, church
functions…
SUPERVISOR STEC-That hundred thousand dollar traffic light isn’t smart enough to differentiate
between weekday and weekend…. We’ll look at it again….
MR. STRAINER-Referred to the canceling of the Wick Program from the West Glens Falls Fire
House, agreed that it was disappointing but feels that those gentlemen are taking a bad rap on the
issue. Apparently, a deal couldn’t be reached. I think a lot of people misunderstand the amount of
time that those guys put in at that firehouse, not only do they train, not only do they go to calls, they
put a lot of time with maintenance of apparatus, maintenance of the building and then when public
groups come in, expect them to be the custodians of the building, you know, how much free time do
you gentlemen give yourselves? I mean they give a lot of time and I think kind of in the wash, they
kind of got a bad rap and I don’t think it’s quite fair to them and I wanted to bring that up also.
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Good point, Dave and you’re right they do put in an awful lot of time…
MR. PAUL H. NAYLOR, 15 Division Road-Referred to and complimented the job on Luzerne
Road.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-You can compliment Mr. Round on that.
MR. NAYLOR-You did alright, son…
MR. JOHN FAIR, 17 Webster Avenue-Noted that he owns property in Queensbury, has had
problems with the Town of Queensbury over the last four years and would like to present packets of
information with correspondence, documentation and map of property for the Town Board’s
review. Requested public meeting with the Town Board to discuss the matter….
SUPERVISOR STEC-Sir, two weeks ago Chris Round and I agreed to give you some time in Town
Hall to get brought up to speed and give us the opportunity and courtesy to try to address your
problem. We agreed to that and that was the plan as I understood it.
MR. FAIR-I want everybody to understand and show them what I’ve gone through, it’s not right. I
want it in a public arena, not in a private room. I’m just here to drop this information off.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Let’s see what it is.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 741
MR. FAIR submitted packets to the Town Board and Mr. Round.
MR. JOHN SALVADOR-Noted that the Town Board Workshops are open to the public and that
maybe Mr. Fair is not aware of that… Noted that he agreed with Mr. Drellos’ comment regarding
the public hearing remaining open to include Town Board’s discussion…. Read letter into record
addressed to Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator regarding a request for determination relative to
recreation uses:
Dear Mr. Brown,
As you may be aware, we have recently established that we are still the owners of
three parcels of land in North Queensbury which are all located within a 42-Acre Land
Conservation Town Zoning District.
These parcels are described in a deed filed in the Warren County Clerk’s Office in
Book 1322 at page 1 and are now shown on Land Tax Map Section 252. The three vacant
parcels are designated 252.-1-89, 90 and 91 and have the following respective 911
Emergency locator addresses 3019A State Route 9L, 3019B State Route 9L and 3015 State
Route 9L.
We have recently been notified that the assessed valuation on the latter of these
parcels which fronts directly on Route 9L has been increased from zero to ten thousand
dollars. With that notification we find it necessary to seek a means to recover not only the
original investment cost but all of the annual carrying charges of local school, property taxes
which include County, Town, Fire District and Library District taxes as well as some
portion of those costs of recovering these lands which were irregularly appropriated from us
in 1975 by the DEC.
Town Code Chapter 179 enumerates the allowed uses in Residential Districts in
Table 1 wherein we find that Land Conservation 42-Acre is, in fact, considered a
Residential Zoning District. As such, the only permissible use is a Single Family Dwelling
and uses accessory there too, or what are categorized as other uses are also shown in Table
1. A review of the other uses in the Town Code recognizes are primarily those associated
with outdoor recreation. These include campground, game preserve, hunting and fishing
cabins at various sizes, recreation center and sportsmen’s club/firing range to name a few.
We have come to learn about a legal sporting activity, the popularity and use of
which appears to have accelerated beyond the Town’s ability to regulate it in a logical and
orderly manner. This activity we refer to is, of course, paintball.
Before we expend the time and effort which might be required to site a paintball
facility on any of these three parcels, we need your determination that paintball may be
considered an allowable recreation use in an LC-42 Acre Zone within the meaning of Town
Code Chapter 179.
As we understand and interpret for all that is said about paintball that it is in fact a
sporting activity to the extent that admission may be charged the New York State Tax Code
considers such an activity a participatory sport. Title 20NYCRR Chapter III, Subchapter J,
Part 527, Section 527.10 Admission Charges, expressly exempts a participatory sport from
sales tax on admission charge. Section 517.10(d)(4), admission excluded from sales tax,
reads
“Charges to a patron to or for the use of sporting facilities
or activities in which the patron is to be a participant, are
excluded from tax.”
On the other hand, the same State Tax Code would require a sales tax to be
collected on admission charge if it is not considered a participatory sport. Titled 10NYCRR
Chapter III, Subchapter J, Part 527, Section 527.10(a) requires
“A tax imposed on any admission charge in access of
ten cents, to or for the use of any place of amusement
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 742
in the State.”
One final note for your consideration of paintball as a participatory sporting activity
wherever it is permitted is the provision that the LC 42 Acre Zone allows a hunting and
fishing cabin up to five hundred square feet as a permissible use. This sounds like a perfect
match, a four hundred and ninety-nine square foot hunting and fishing cabin supporting a
participatory sporting activity such as paintball all without the requirement for Site Plan
Review and seemingly no variance is required.
We await your determination that paintball may be considered an allowable
recreation use in a LC-42 Zone. (submitted copies to the Town Board)
Yours truly,
John Salvador, Jr.
(on file in the Town Clerk’s Office)
MR. PLINEY TUCKER, 41 Division Road-Referred to AMG and questioned whether the Town
has received information regarding the proposed settlement?
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Noted, the Town has written to the Counsel for the Federal
Government and asked them to get back to us on the restitution and we have not heard yet but when
we hear, we’ll report to the Town Board.
MR. TUCKER-Referred to article in paper regarding possibility of the Town hiring an engineer on
staff for the Planning Board.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Noted that a week ago Friday, there was about a dozen people that met, half
from the Town, half were attorneys, engineers, surveyors, users of our process, our most frequent
customers about the issues surrounding the Zoning and Planning Department and what they think
we could do to streamline the process or make the process better. The biggest suggestion that came
from that group was bringing on a Town Engineer to the Planning Board Meetings because a lot of
the issues that come up, the frustration with the process is that some times a very simple question is
asked, the Town Engineer isn’t present and an application could get a tabled for a month or
sometimes more where if an engineer was in the room, could be answered and thus saving an
applicant a month of waiting. I think it was well received. Chris Round generated a memo of his
notes from the meeting and distributed it to the Town Board and the Planning and Zoning Board
Chairmen who were also present at the meeting. The Town Board hasn’t had a chance to discuss
this yet, we may do that in a workshop which is a public meeting a week from tonight…. It was a
good meeting, I thought it was productive. In talking to people when they were leaving the
meeting, they thought it was overdue, it was very useful and they were able to pass on some of their
suggestions, knowledge, their perspective on things. They probably represent more then half of the
applicants that come before the staff of either the Zoning or Planning Board. Our Attorney was
there, so I can tell you that our meeting was entirely appropriate. We didn’t touch on any current
applications, we didn’t do anything that we shouldn’t have done because I know there’s a potential
that people would be concerned that that happened… I thought it was useful, in fact I think it was
so useful that I’d be inclined to do that again as an as-needed basis, perhaps it’s a good idea once a
year…
COUNCILMAN BOOR-As a cautionary point… I go back to access and opportunity, you’ve got
to give everybody, if you’re going to give it to some, you can’t give it to a select few.
SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s fine and I wasn’t comfortable with exactly what we did.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I know you were but are you a hundred percent comfortable with doing
with Mr. Fair, no and I don’t how you make that determination.
SUPERVISOR STEC-As a matter of fact, I offered Mr. Fair the exact same opportunity, to have a
meeting with Chris Round and myself…
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 743
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-While we’re on that topic, the Community Development Building &
Codes year-to-date, value of construction in the Town of Queensbury, four months, ten million one
hundred and fifty-four thousand five hundred and thirty-eight dollars of construction work done in
the Town of Queensbury. I don’t think our Community Development Department is doing such a
bad job, that’s a lot of work and I’ll concur with Roger that if we want to have a discussion on this,
let’s have a Community Development Forum and I’ve advocated this since day one.
OPEN FORUM CLOSED
9:50 P.M.
TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I was also at that meeting and think it was productive and for anybody
to say that other groups aren’t afforded that is not so, in my mind… I’ve never refused anybody to
meet with anybody. So, if a group of residents wanted to meet with this Town Board, every
Monday night we meet and we welcome them with open arms. To say that eight or ten people got a
special audience I think is an unfair statement.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Just to share the Bravo of the Post Star in last Monday’s paper.
Bravo to local developers John Michaels, Richard Schermerhorn, Mickey and Jamie Hayes, and
Michael Dickinson for contributing a combined four thousand three hundred and forty dollars to
bridge a funding gap for the Glens Falls City Band Concert Series, their money will match the four
thousand three hundred and forty dollars from the City of Glens Falls and combined will pay for
eight City Band Concerts this Summer in City Park. So, I want to thank them for that…. Noted
that Cornell Cooperative Extension puts on various programs offered to the public and announced
th
the next meeting scheduled for June 10 , at seven p.m. is to discuss the Main Street Revitalization
Strategies and Resources, located on Schroon River Road in Warrensburg…. I get the Queensbury
Post from the Queensbury Senior Citizens and I don’t see why more people are not members of this,
if they’re not they should be, they have Shoreline Cruise and Luncheon, Canoe Island Picnic, Cape
Cod Scallop Festival coming up this fall and all kinds of workshops. If you’re fifty-five years old or
older, you may want to join the Queensbury Senior Citizens… Thank students at Queensbury for
their donations to the DELTA Co., I dropped off the stuff that they had collected and it was about, I
think we had a dozen, thirteen, fourteen boxes, we filled up Darleen’s Office pretty well with that.
So, she was very thankful and she sends her thanks to the Queensbury Students as well.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I see Harry Hansen is in the audience and I wanted to commend him on
the fine work over at Glen Lake, I actually caught him physically turning soil over, over there the
other day and it is an improvement… I have a question with regards to the Stormwater
Management, we have monies in a fund. I’ve been getting calls with issues on Assembly Point,
Cleverdale. How do we access that? Does this have to be done through the Highway Department?
I would like to take a look at some of these and speak with my other Board Members about how we
can maybe address some problems.
MS. JENNIFER SWITZER, Budget Officer-I have to look specifically at the resolution that set up
that reserve to see whether it was specific or non-specific in order to determine how that money can
be used. We need to pull the original resolution and once we find that out, then you can move
forward on using that money or transferring it over to another reserve in order to.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-One other quick thing and that’s I would have changed my vote on that
one that you brought forward the other night with regards to Hevesi and Pataki. I looked into more,
there’s nothing I can do about it now but I did look into it. Essentially what it comes down to is the
private sector having to make up the slack for funding of State Employees and now also School
Teachers. You know, those of us in the private sector that have 401K’s and IRA’s, when the market
goes down, we suffer, we lose ours and when it happens to State Workers and Teachers, they come
looking to have it made up and so I have a little bit of a problem with that.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I apologize that I did not do my due diligence in selling that before the vote.
So, I don’t know, maybe I’ll be encouraged to bring it forward in three weeks.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-The discussion that we had briefly last week at our workshop about
Queensbury Forest, the easement, replacement of the trees. I did go over there Saturday with Dick
Meade, he’s going to put together some sort of a plan. This time of year is not a good time to plant
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 744
the stuff, it’s going to be in the Fall. I just wanted you to know that he is going to draw up some
kind of plan so that we have an idea of what to do over there.
SUPERVISOR STEC-On the Docksider issue, yes, Harry should be commended, that project is
coming out very nicely. I also want to take this opportunity to point out, recognize and thank
Christine Mozal, the owner of the Docksider who has been in communication with Harry and
myself over the last month or so as the project has unfolded. She’s the neighboring property and for
those of you that have been by the Docksider she’s got a very beautifully landscaped lawn area and
she volunteered to share and plant some of her plantings in the berm that the Town constructed next
to her property… Town Board did discuss in a workshop last week, we came to a resolution, we
selected lights, lighting fixture for the Route 9 Outlets that we all thought were attractive. We’re
waiting to hear back from CT Male of what they think we should do as far as number of lights and
placement. In reference to the Great Escape pedestrian bridge and walkway, we’re drafting a letter
right now to DOT from me copied to our Senator and Assemblyperson requesting that in fact the
DOT move favorably and quickly as far as approvals that are going to be required for the pedestrian
bridge and moving the light. The Great Escape has been cooperative in that process but we want to
make sure that it goes as fast as it can from all aspects including the State. That letter should go out
in the next day or so… The Town by resolution hired an independent auditor to review the Town’s
books and practices in the areas of the Receiver of Taxes/Clerk’s Office, the Courts, Parks and Rec
and Solid Waste and the one specific item of examination that I requested of, is the question of the
bail money. They were here all last week and they’re here this week, I believe they said that they’re
going to be finished in two weeks. So, they should be done with the process and we should have
their report in a couple of weeks after that.
MS. SWITZER-A month to a month and a half.
SUPERVISOR STEC-The same independent auditor just wrapped a draft audit of the Fire and EMS
agreed upon procedures which is some level of an audit but not necessarily the same kind of audit
that he’s doing for the Town Departments. The idea behind this was change in Town Board, Town
Supervisor, Budget Officer, we wanted to make sure that we had a good clean slate…. He’s been
very complimentary of what he’s found so far. The draft of the Fire and EMS agreed upon
procedures, the Town Board has had that draft to take a look at and review. If you need any
information or anything clarified or questions, if you can get them to Jennifer by the end of
Wednesday, she’ll get them to the auditor and I imagine it will probably be a week or so afterwards
that we receive the final draft and the final draft, a public document will be made available to the
public… Last week I was at a Committee Meeting up at the County, a Shared Services Committee,
DPW, Personnel, Finance, that sort of thing and one thing that struck me, Supervisor Mike
O’Connor from Glens Falls, he did point out, after I had given him, for a different reason, a copy of
the non-profit funding that the Town does, the ninety-one thousand that we often talk about. His
remark to me was, he apologized, he said, I did not know that Queensbury did this much for non-
profits in the area. The press has been given a copy of the non-profit funding that we do, it is an
annual amount. It did come up when the Hyde was at the County looking for ten thousand dollars
of funding for a project, a one time shot. In their presentation they noted that Queensbury is the
only municipality in the County including Warren County that provides any funding source to the
Hyde and that is, for the public ten thousand dollars a year annually, has been for a very long time.
In fact I moved their ten thousand dollars from the County for this one time project that they’re
doing related to their renovation project and that did pass…
RESOLUTIONS
10:10 P.M.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF INSURANCE
PAYMENT FOR DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION’S 1994
DODGE PICK-UP INVOLVED IN MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT AND
AUTHORIZING REPLACEMENT VEHICLE
RESOLUTION NO.: 272, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 745
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, the Town’s Director of Parks and Recreation has advised the Town Board that
the Parks and Recreation Department’s 1993 Dodge ¾ ton pick up, vehicle i.d. no.:
st
1B7KM26Z5PS268054, was involved in a motor vehicle accident on March 31, 2004, and
WHEREAS, the Town’s insurance company, Cool Insuring, retained a general adjuster
(Seidel Claims Service) to inspect and evaluate the damaged vehicle and Seidel reported that the
damaged truck’s book value is $6,672; the estimated cost to repair the vehicle is $5,900, the salvage
value is $575 and the insurance deductible is $500 and so payment to the Town of Queensbury for
the insurance value less deductible would be $6,172.50, and
WHEREAS, based on Seidel’s report and the fact that the Town’s Fleet Committee had
scheduled and budgeted the vehicle for replacement in 2004, the Parks and Recreation Director has
recommended that the Town accept the insurance payment and authorize the Director to begin the
process to order a similar replacement vehicle,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby accepts the insurance payment of
$6,172.50, as delineated in the preambles of this Resolution, for the Parks and Recreation
Department’s 1993 Dodge ¾ ton pick up, vehicle i.d. no.: 1B7KM26Z5PS268054 which was
st
involved in a motor vehicle accident on March 31, 2004 and authorizes and directs the Director of
Parks and Recreation to execute any and all documents necessary to transfer title to the vehicle and
to receive payment on behalf of the Town of Queensbury, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Director of Parks and
Recreation to immediately begin the process of ordering a similar replacement vehicle as approved
by the Town’s Fleet Committee and as scheduled and budgeted for in the 2004 Town Budget.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of May, 2004 by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AWARDING BIDS FOR PURCHASE OF WATER
CONNECTION MATERIALS FOR USE BY
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 746
TOWN WATER DEPARTMENT
RESOLUTION NO.: 273, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHEREAS, the Town’s Purchasing Agent duly advertised for bids for the purchase of
water connection materials for use by the Town’s Water Department, and
WHEREAS, the Purchasing Agent and Water Superintendent have reviewed all received
bids and have made their bid award recommendations to the Town Board,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby awards the bids for the purchase of
water connection materials for use by the Town’s Water Department to the lowest responsible
bidders in each category and from the respective accounts as follows:
ITEM AND SUCCESSFUL BID ACCOUNT
SPECIFICATION NO. BIDDER AMOUNT TO FUND PURCHASE
1. Copper (#04-02) Everett Prescott $ 7,040.60 40-8340-4320
2. Curb Boxes & Lids (#04-03) Blair Supply Corp. $ 3,776 40-8340-4320
ITEM AND SUCCESSFUL BID ACCOUNT
SPECIFICATION NO. BIDDER AMOUNT TO FUND PURCHASE
3. Cast/Ductile Iron
Pipe Fittings (#04-04) Ramsco $ 2,157 40-8340-2899
4. Brass (#04-05) Winwater $ 6,241.35 40-8340-4320
Works, Co.
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Purchasing Agent,
Water Superintendent 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 17 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough
NOES : None
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 747
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION APPOINTING ANDREW GARNER, M.D. AS TOWN
HEALTH OFFICER AND AUTHORIZING
HEALTH OFFICER AGREEMENT
RESOLUTION NO.: 274, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHEREAS, the term of the Town of Queensbury’s Health Officer recently expired, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board advertised for candidates for the position, conducted
interviews and now wishes to appoint Andrew Garner, M.D. as Town Health Officer and enter into
an agreement with Dr. Garner to serve as the Town’s Health Officer for a four (4) year term, and
WHEREAS, a proposed agreement, in form approved by Town Counsel, is presented at this
meeting,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board appoints Andrew Garner, M.D. as the
Town’s Health Officer for a four (4) year term effective the date of this Resolution through
st
December 31, 2007, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the salary for Dr. Garner shall be $4,000 annually and pro-rated for the
year 2004, to be paid for from the appropriate account as determined by the Town Budget Officer,
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to
execute the Agreement and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the
terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 748
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION APPROVING BUY-OUT OF 2004 MEDIC TRUCK BY
BAY RIDGE RESCUE SQUAD, INC.
RESOLUTION NO.: 275, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury and the Bay Ridge Rescue Squad, Inc. (Squad) have
entered into an Agreement for emergency protection services, which Agreement sets forth a number
of terms and conditions including a condition that the Squad will not purchase or enter into any
binding contract to purchase any piece of apparatus, equipment, vehicles, real property, or make any
improvements that would require the Squad to acquire a loan or mortgage or use money placed in a
“vehicles fund” without prior approval of the Queensbury Town Board, and
WHEREAS, the Squad has advised the Town that the buy-out on its 2004 Medic Truck
exceeded the amount budgeted in the Squad’s current Agreement and therefore the Squad wishes to
buy-out its 2004 Medic Truck by using $10,000 presently in the Squad’s Restricted Vehicle Fund,
and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize the Squad’s buy-out of its 2004 Medic
Truck by using $10,000 in funds from the Squad’s Restricted Vehicle Fund,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the Bay Ridge Rescue
Squad, Inc.’s buy-out of its 2004 Medic Truck for a sum not to exceed $10,000 from funds
presently available in the Squad’s Restricted Vehicle Fund, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer
to take any and all action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Stec
NOES : Mr. Brewer
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 749
ABSENT: None
DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE:
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Jennifer, do you know how much the buyout is?
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-The total buyout, no, I just know that they’re short the ten thousand
dollars.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, I think I’d like to know how much the buyout is because it says
that it was ten thousand more then previously report so I would presume that that means
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-What I was getting from the letter was that it was ten thousand
dollars more from what we had actually budgeted for them in this year’s contract.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-How much did we budget?
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-I’m going to have to pull the original budget.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Let’s try to get them in for a workshop and get our own numbers.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-I will just point out for the Board that they have their, they mention a
time deadline.
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-This is the last meeting that you can have to meet this in order for
them to get the money for it.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I mean they do have eighty thousand in the fund. If it turns out after the
fact that this is something that were not happy with, maybe we can rectify it.
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-Is there a certain dollar amount that you wouldn’t be happy with? I
thought this was something that they brought up at the original budget season, though.
SUPERVISOR STEC-They did.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-We approved the purchase of the vehicle.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-We approved the lease of the vehicle.
SUPERVISOR STEC-They has asked for a dollar amount to buyout the lease before and we said
yes and now they’re asking for ten thousand more. That’s the question.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well if it’s twenty thousand or twenty-five thousand, I’m inclined to
say no… The other question I have, if they intended to buy it, why did they lease it?
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-I wasn’t, but the only other thing I do want to point out is that the
letter is dated May 1, and maybe we should have asked these questions before.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I’m comfortable with it. If there is a serious problem with it, I think
we can rectify it in the next budget round somehow, someway.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s what I think too.
st
SUPERVISOR STEC-In fairness, they did ask, this letter is dated May 1 and we didn’t ask that
question beforehand and I apologize, I’ll take responsibility for that…
(vote taken)
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INCREASE IN FUNDING AND BUDGET
TRANSFER IN CONNECTION WITH GLEN LAKE DREDGING PROJECT
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 750
RESOLUTION NO.: 276, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 218.2003, the Queensbury Town Board expressed its
support of the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District’s Glen Lake dredging project
and pledged its financial support of the project by establishing appropriations and estimated
revenues in the amount of $43,600, and
th
WHEREAS, by letter dated April 29, 2004, the District Manager of the Warren County
Soil & Water Conservation District advised that there is a funding shortfall of approximately
$27,000 and has requested that the Town Board fund such shortfall which would then provide for
completion of the dredging project, and
WHEREAS, in order for the Town to provide the additional $27,000, it is necessary that the
2004 Town Budget be amended,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of additional financial
support in an amount not to exceed $27,000 toward the Glen Lake Dredging Project, such
contribution to be paid for by a 2004 Budget Amendment and transfer of funds from Contingency
Account No.: 001-1990-4400 to Community Services Account No.: 01-8989-4400, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the existing Agreement between the Town and County needs to be
modified accordingly in a form acceptable to the Town Supervisor and Town Counsel, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to
execute the revised Agreement and any other documentation and 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 17 day of May, 2004 by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
NOES : None
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 751
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PETITION FOR
CHANGE OF ZONE FOR PROPERTY OWNED BY JOHN HUGHES
FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) TO SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL – TWENTY-THOUSAND SQUARE FEET (SFR-20)
RESOLUTION NO.: 277, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board is considering a request by John Hughes to
amend the Town Zoning Ordinance and Map to rezone a portion of the property bearing Tax Map
No.: 296.12-1-23 located on the north side of Bayberry Drive, “Brookview Acres” in the Town of
Queensbury from Professional Office (PO) to Single Family Residential – Twenty-Thousand
Square feet (SFR-20), and
th
WHEREAS, on or about March 15, 2004, the Town Board adopted a Resolution
authorizing submission of the rezoning application to the Town’s Planning Board for report and
recommendation and consenting to the Planning Board acting as Lead Agency for SEQRA review
of the project, and
th
WHEREAS, on or about April 27, 2004, the Queensbury Planning Board considered the
proposed rezoning, adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration and made a positive recommendation
to the Town Board to approve the rezoning application, and
th
WHEREAS, on or about April 14, 2004, the Warren County Planning Board considered
the proposed rezoning and made a recommendation of “No County Impact,” 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,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall hold a public hearing on Monday,
th
June 7, 2004 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 property owned by John Hughes bearing Tax Map No.: 296.12-1-23 located on the north
side of Bayberry Drive, “Brookview Acres” in the Town of Queensbury would be rezoned from
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 752
Professional Office (PO) to Single Family Residential – Twenty-Thousand Square feet (SFR-20),
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 the attached 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
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 17 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2003 BUDGET
RESOLUTION NO.: 278, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, the attached 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,
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 753
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town
Budget Officer’s Office to take all action necessary to transfer funds and amend the 2003 Town
Budget as follows:
LANDFILL
FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT:
910-9060-8060 910-8160-4447 10,454.
(Health Ins.) (Trash Burnable)
910-9060-8061 910-8160-4447 1,400.
(Health Ins. Waiver) (Trash Burnable)
910-9080-8080 910-8160-4447 3,017.
(Vacation Accrual) (Trash Burnable)
910-9040-8040 910-8160-4447 2,340.
(Workers Comp.) (Trash Burnable)
VARIOUS
FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT:
01-1990-4400 001-9901-9006 10,000.
(Misc. Contractual) (Transfer to Solid Waste)
01-1990-4400 001-1420-4131 44,886.
(Misc. Contractual) (Litigation)
01-1990-4400 001-5410-4477 5,880.
(Misc. Contractual) (Sidewalk Clearing)
04-5110-4400 04-5110-2899 5,490.
(Misc. Contractual) (Cap. Construction)
05-3410-4400 05-9040-8040-4980 15,199.
(Misc. Contractual) (Workers Comp.)
47-8320-4400 47-9730-6030 1,167.
(Misc. Contractual) (Princ. Shore Colony)
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 754
RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS –
TH
ABSTRACT OF MAY 12, 2004
RESOLUTION NO.: 279, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve the audit of bills presented as
th
the Abstract with a run date of May 12, 2004,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Abstract with a run
th
date of May 12, 2004 numbering 24-200900 through 24-228900 and totaling $636,511.87, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Budget Officer and/or
Town Supervisor to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of
this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION TO GRANT AWARD FOR
CASE FILE #4877 IN CONNECTION WITH
WARD 4 REHABILITATION PROGRAM
RESOLUTION NO.: 280, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has established a Housing Rehabilitation Program
which provides grants up to 100% of the cost of rehabilitation, up to a maximum of $20,000 per
unit whichever is less, and
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 755
WHEREAS, a single family property, Case File # 4877, has been determined to be eligible
for rehabilitation grant assistance and the owner of the property has requested such assistance, and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 165.2004, the Queensbury Town Board approved a
rehabilitation grant in the amount of eleven thousand seven hundred dollars ($11,700) for Case
File #4877, and
WHEREAS, the contractor who was awarded the bid defaulted and therefore the contract
was re-bid, and
WHEREAS, the revised cost to complete the work specified is ten thousand five hundred
seventy-five dollars ($10,575) and is the lowest acceptable cost,
th
WHEREAS, a change order has been received on May 17, 2004 revising the cost of the
project to fourteen thousand one hundred and seventy-five dollars ($14,175.00)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves a revised grant for Case
File #4877, Queensbury, New York, in the amount not to exceed fourteen thousand one hundred
seventy-five dollars ($14,175) and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Senior
Planner to execute a Grant Award Agreement and take such other and further action as may be
necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
ABSENT : None
DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE:
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Briefed Town Board as to background of status of situation
involving resolution…
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXTENSION OF EMPLOYMENT FOR
HOWARD BLUEGE, PART-TIME, TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE IN
TOWN ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
RESOLUTION NO.: 281, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 756
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 507,2003, the Queensbury Town Board authorized the
Town Assessor to extend the employment of Howard Bluege to work in the Town Assessor’s
th
Office on a part-time, temporary basis working approximately 30 hours a week through April 30,
2004, and
WHEREAS, the Town Assessor has advised the Town Board that due to the retirement of
Sharron Meade, Data Collector/Appraiser in the Town Assessor’s Office, she would like Town
st
Board authorization to extend the term of employment for Mr. Bluege until September 1, 2004 or
such time as the Town Assessor can fill the vacant Data Collector/Appraiser position, and
WHEREAS, Town Policy requires that familial relationships must be disclosed and the
Town Board must approve the appointment of Town employees’ relatives, and Mr. Bluege is the
husband of Helen Otte, Town Assessor, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has considered the Assessor’s request and agrees that such
extension of employment is appropriate and necessary,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the extension of the
employment of Howard Bluege to work in the Town Assessor’s Office on a part-time, temporary
st
basis working approximately 30hours per week until September 1, 2004 or such time as the Town
Assessor can fill the Data Collector/Appraiser position vacated by Sharron Meade, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that Mr. Bluege shall continue to be paid a wage of $12.36 per hour to be paid
from the appropriate payroll account, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Assessor, Town
Budget Officer and/or Town Supervisor’s Office to complete any forms and take any action
necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
Regular Town Board Meeting, 05-17-2004, Mtg #22 757
ACTION OF RESOLUTIONS PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED FROM FLOOR – NONE
ATTORNEY MATTERS – NONE
EXECUTIVE SESSION - NONE
RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING
RESOLUTION NO.: 282, 2004
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED IT’S ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns their
Regular Town Board Meeting.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of May, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
No further action taken.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
DARLEEN M. DOUGHER
TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY