The URL can be used to link to this page

2014-02-24 - Mtg 7 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-24-2014 MTG 47 772 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#7 FEBRUARY 24, 2014 RES# 74-81 7:00 P.M. B.H. 1-2 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR JOHN STROUGH COUNCILMAN ANTHONY METIVIER COUNCILMAN BRIAN CLEMENTS COUNCILMAN DOUG IRISH COUNCILAN WILLIAM VANNESS TOWN COUNSEL ROBERT HAFNER TOWN OFFICIALS CHRIS HARRINGTON, DIRECTOR OF WASTEWATER/ENGINEER PRESS: GLENS FALLS POST STAR, LOOK TV SUPERVISOR STROUGH called meeting to order... PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN WILLIAM VANNESS 1.0 RESOLUTION ENTERING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 74, 2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Brian Clements RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from regular session and enters into the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 24th day of February, 2014 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT: None QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE APPLICATION OF ADIRONDACK MOUNTAIN RIDGE ESTATES, LLC SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Okay, the first resolution is to set a public hearing and it's on a sewage disposal variance application. It's for 85 Hanneford Road; the public hearing will be Monday, March IOth right here. The hearing is about some variances that the applicant is asking for; an effluent line two feet from a property line in lieu of the required 10 feet setback, an effluent line five feet from a property line in lieu of the required 10 feet setback, an absorption field two feet from northerly property line in lieu of the required 10 foot setback, absorption field five feet from the eastern property line in lieu of the required 10 foot setback and an absorption REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-24-2014 MTG 47 773 field seven feet from the southern property line in lieu of the required 10 foot setback. I see an applicant or an agent is here to speak tonight. STEPHANIE BITTER, AGENT-We can give a brief presentation if you'd like us to,just to give you an overview of the variances that are being sought? SUPERVISOR STROUGH-You are welcome to review that. MS. BITTER-Okay. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Yes. MS. BITTER-We are here to represent Adirondack Mountain Ridge Estates, LLC, the owner of 85 Hannaford. There are two tax map parcels that are at issue relative to this septic variance. The property was purchased in September of this past year, it's a one story, three season modest cottage. The existing footprint is 1,000 square feet in size; it maintains three bedrooms and will continue to do so. The cottage itself is over 70 years old and the applicant is pursing renovations to the structure. In order to do those renovations they have to enhance the septic system so that it can be upgraded to meet the necessary code. Again, they're not expanding the footprint. The new absorption field in the upgrade to the entire old system is part of the variances being set. The main item that we were trying to achieve is the setback to the private well. There will be that 100 foot setback that's required. The well is shared with the neighbor to the south, which is located on the plan. The property itself is unique in a sense that it's located off of Pilot Knob Road, it's a strip of property that's on Lake George but then it's a steep terrain and then it flattens out and that's where the cottage itself is located. The proposed absorption field is actually located in the back of the parcel, as far back as possible, again to meet that 100 foot setback from the well. Due to width of the parcel as well as the layout, finding a compliant location for the effluent line from the absorption field is not possible so those variances as you sited earlier are being sought. We understand that you are going to be looking at the variance criteria, but it is going to result in an unnecessary hardship to the applicant if these variances aren't obtained because they will not be able to pursue any renovations to the structure that require a building permit. The cottage being 70 years of age is in need of some repairs and renovations. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Okay and thank you for the overview. Again, I think that's good for the public's understanding of what's being required here, and it's a unique and unusual situation. You could argue that the number of variances requested is mitigated by the way it's set up and other things, but again our public hearing on this is going to be on March 10th Given that, is there any immediate questions by the members of the town board? COUNCILMAN IRISH-John, if I may? SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Yes. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Have you heard from the neighbors that share the well? MS. BITTER-I'm glad you asked that. We did reach out to all the neighbors and we're actually setting up meetings, we've been trying to call them. We understand obviously it's the middle of winter but we have been reaching out to them to try and get their questions before the public hearing and see what we can do to answer those questions. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Well, anything else from the board as of this time? I know we are going to be doing our site visits and things like that. So, thank you for coming forward and sharing that with us. Is there anything else on behalf of the applicant that you would like to say at this time, keeping in mind the public hearing will be set for March 10th? MS. BITTER-Check to see that the road's plowed, if they're going to get up there. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- I saw the look, I know where that's going. MS. BITTER-Who knows it might be spring by then. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-24-2014 MTG 47 774 SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Yeah, well we can hope. MS. BITTER- Thank you. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Thank you very much. Okay is there a motion to close the public hearing or the Board of Health? CAROLINE BARBER, TOWN CLERK- We need an introduction and second on the resolution, I didn't get that. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- What the first one? TOWN CLERK, BARBER- Setting the public hearing. COUNCILMAN METIVIER- I'll introduce. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Oh yes, I'm sorry. Thank you Caroline. We have a resolution 1.1 if you would Caroline. TOWN CLERK, BARBER- Resolution setting public hearing on sewage disposal variance application of Adirondack Mountain Ridge Estates, LLC. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Do I have a motion approving that, setting of the public hearing? Yes, Councilman Irish; do I have a second to that? Councilman VanNess RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE APPLICATION OF ADIRONDACK MOUNTAIN RIDGE ESTATES,LLC RESOLUTION NO.: BOH 1,2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Doug Irish WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr.William VanNess WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board serves as the Town's Local Board of Health and is authorized by Town Code Chapter 136 to issue variances from the Town's On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, and WHEREAS, Adirondack Mountain Ridge Estates, LLC has applied to the Local Board of Health for variances from Chapter 136 to place the: 1. Effluent Line two feet (2') from a property line in lieu of the required ten feet (10') setback; 2. Effluent Line five feet (5') from a property line in lieu of the required ten feet (10') setback; REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-24-2014 MTG 47 775 3. Absorption Field two feet (2') from the northerly property line in lieu of the required ten feet (10') setback; 4. Absorption Field five feet (5') from the eastern property line in lieu of the required ten feet (10') setback; and 5. Absorption Field seven feet (7') from the southern property line in lieu of the required ten feet (10') setback; on property located at 85 Hanneford Road in the Town of Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health will hold a public hearing on Monday, March 10th 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, to consider the Adirondack Mountain Ridge Estates, LLC's sewage disposal variance application concerning property located at 85 Hanneford Road in the Town of Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 227.18-1-30 and 31) and at that time all interested persons will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish the Notice of Public Hearing presented at this meeting and send a copy of the Notice to neighbors located within 500 feet of the property as required by law. Duly adopted this 24th day of February, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. BOH 2, 2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Brian Clements REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-24-2014 MTG 47 776 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns and moves back into the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 24th day of February, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements NOES: None ABSENT: None REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 2.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS ORDER APPROVING PROPOSED EXTENSION TO ROUTE 9 SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT TO SERVE PROPOSED SWEET ROAD CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION SUPERVISOR STROUGH-I see the applicant and the applicant's engineer is here. We're talking about the proposed Sweet Road Conservation Subdivision and the sewer extension to that subdivision actually. DAN RYAN, ENGINEER- Yeah, that's correct. If you've got a minute I'd be happy to kind of go through a summary of where we're at. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Yes, would you please? MR. RYAN- And also describe some of the technical information in the map, plan and report. I know you all have a copy of it so I'll be somewhat brief in that respect, but certainly would be happy to answer any of your questions. This project entails three parcels on the north side of Sweet Road. You all should be somewhat familiar with that area; it's a large wooded parcel. It consists of about 29.5 acres. What is proposed and what has received preliminary approval from the Planning Board in January is a conservation subdivision in accordance with the Chapter 183 of the Town Code. We did apply the conservation subdivision regulations, which do have added benefits from a lot of perspectives, but primarily the predominate benefit is that you preserve natural habitat. So through the design of the conservation subdivision, which does require clustering, a reduction of impervious surfaces and obviously reducing impacts of development on the land, we're able to preserve 55% of the land as green space. So, there are added benefits to having a conservation subdivision. Now, the reason we're here tonight is to propose the Route 9 Sanitary Sewer District Extension Number Two. Without sewer and public water on this property in this development we would not be able to obtain preservation of natural space. One of the key elements of keeping the lot smaller and keeping the development footprint smaller is having access to water and sewer so we do not require large areas for septic systems on the lots. That is the primary reason we chose to and elected to connect to the sewer district and provide that extension. We did provide a detailed map, plan and report which outlined both the boundaries of the district extension as well as the infrastructure cost, as well as the operation and maintenance cost and the benefit taxes that result. I can go over a few of the details and again I'll be real brief. The project as proposed with 29 single family dwellings would, and I'll use round numbers, approximate to 95 hundred gallons per day of sewage flow. I have confirmed with the sewer department that there is adequate access capacity to receive that 10,000 gallons per day. We do have plant capacity in excess of 405,000 gallons per day and distribution capacity in excess of 103,000 gallons per day. So, the extra 95 hundred gallons per day that the project develops as a result of the single family dwellings is certainly within that capacity. There is an infrastructure and capacity buy-in cost that the developer will pay for, and that is approximately $21,000. In addition to that there will be benefit taxes and operation and maintenance cost per lot yearly, once they're connected to the sewer. That total annual amount once at full build-out, that would be about $22,000 a year in additional revenue. I think that's about it in REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-24-2014 MTG 47 777 terms of the overall project. I know many of you are familiar with it. We did have SEQRA done at the Planning Board level, which they determined a negative declaration for environmental impacts. We do have to return to the Planning Board for final approval once all the agency reviews are done, and we would anticipate to do that in the next month or two assuming the sewer district is formed. I'd be happy to answer any questions; I know the public hearing is to follow here. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-I did have one concern that got answered for me. I said the Route 9 Sewer District, which this serves, is mostly intended for commercial expansion, and so my question to our Sewer Administration was with full build-out on Route 9, is this development, this residential development, and what you're putting 95 hundred gallons per day of wastewater flow into the system, would that adversely impact the commercial development on Route 9? I was assured in no way, we have plenty of capacity for the full expansion of Route 9 that could be envisioned as well as this. That was my concern and it got answered. COUNCILMAN IRISH-What's the expected timeline for full build-out? MR. RYAN-I would suspect, and I have Steve Cerrone with me here, he's here to answer any questions related to the construction side, but I think we're anticipating probably at least a three year build-out period. We wouldn't anticipate starting this year in terms of getting infrastructure in and road, and perhaps getting some sales or specs built. But, it would take probably about three years for a project of this size. COUNCILMAN VANNESS- And the cost attributed to this is carried by the contractor? MR. RYAN- Yeah overall and it is outlined in the map, plan and report that we anticipated or estimated the project cost for sewer capacity and sewer infrastructure to be about $150,000. The contractor will pay the entirety of that including inspections and getting things up and running for clean outs and that sort of thing. All of that will be done prior to dedication back to the town, similar to if we were constructing a town road for this development as well, same type of thing, we meet the specifications required by the town including the inspection process and ... COUNCILMAN VANNESS-Okay, thank you. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Any other questions by the board? One resident will probably come up. Mr. Cerrone, you are a very good builder, by the way. STEVE CERRONE- Thanks. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-I like your houses, they're well designed and beautiful. But, I had one neighbor ask if the town board could have some kind of a sidewalk that allows pedestrians to be able to go from your development let's say to the bicycle trail. I said well that's possible but I think the Planning Board will ask you, it's not the privy of this board but I'll just give you the heads up. I think the Planning Board is going to ask you for a little bit of right of way along Sweet Road for sidewalks. So, you might see that forthcoming. I looked at your plan and I don't see where it would inhibit anything so anyhow you don't have to give me an answer, I'm just giving you a heads up. MR. CERRONE- There is definitely room there, what we're trying to preserve there also might be disrupted. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I drove up there after I was asked that question and took a look, and I don't think you're talking about any vegetation removal for allowing some kind of MR. RYAN- There is a minimal clearing amount between the edge of row and ... COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Yeah, but you'll notice there is a clearing between the road and where the brush starts and so forth, so I don't think that would be an issue. But, as we proceed forward, is there anybody from the public who would like to speak to this proposed Sweet Road Conservation Subdivision? Yes John. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-24-2014 MTG 47 778 JOHN SALVADOR-Thank you. For the record, my name is John Salvador; I'm a resident in North Queensbury. The applicant has submitted a map, plan and report, the purpose of which is to support a request to extend an existing sanitary sewer district to include the wastewater from this proposed 29 unit residential subdivision located north of Sweet Road. In order to shoe horn these 29 units into the 29 acre parcel, the Planning Board granted waivers from the maximum road length of one thousand feet. This road is actually twelve hundred feet long and has one egress, one, where as it should normally require two being twelve hundred feet. Additional waiver from the Planning Board, initial waiver from the need for sidewalks and minimal lot size in a medium density residential zone, which is one acre. It turns out these lots vary from a quarter to a third of an acre, as a significant, a significant reduction and represents a change in zoning. All without ZBA granted variances or the application for a PUD. As stated in the report, the proposed sanitary sewer district extension will be the second such extension on the existing Route 9 sanitary sewer collection system. Do you remember what the first one was? SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Well I'm looking up right now John that our code allows what's called a conservation subdivision. MR. SALVADOR-I understand. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Which allows you to go to smaller lots and, with the intent that it's going to be green space preserved by creating a greater density of homes, still resulting in... MR. SALAVDOR-Density of larger homes, these are going to be three and four bedroom homes. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Yeah. MR. SALVADOR- On a one quarter, one third acre lot? Okay,just a point. Back to the Route 9 sewer district and this being the second extension. The first extension, I believe, was the Comfort Inn up on Route 9, the Stark property. Wasn't that the first? SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Was it the first extension? MR. SALVADOR-Well this is the second, what was the first one? SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Yeah, that was probably the first one, yeah. ROBERT HAFNER, TOWN COUNSEL-No, the Stark's is not. CHRIS HARRINGTON, WASTEWATER SUPERINTENDENT- The numbering is for Royal Hospitality, it is supposed to be the first. That's still in discussions so (inaudible- speaking from the audience). TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-That hasn't happened. SUPERINTENDENT HARRINGTON-That has not happened yet. MR. SALVADOR-I'm not hearing, what? SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Stark's was the first? TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-No, Stark's was intended to be the first. SUPERINTENDENT HARRINGTON-It was intended to be the first. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-It has not occurred yet. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Oh. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-He's keeping it because it's been in the works for a long time. There are some things that need to be provided to the town before we can go through that process. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-24-2014 MTG 47 779 SUPERVISOR STROUGH- So that hasn't been accepted yet? TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- Correct. MR. SALVADOR-Okay, so what is the first one then? SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Stark's was the first if it ever gets accepted. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-But it hasn't been accepted by this board yet, there's still a few thing that have to be ironed out. MR. SALVADOR- Okay, so the number one is being reserved. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Right. MR. SALVADOR- Okay. All right, in any case this is the second. Actually, lest we forget the Route 9 Sanitary Sewer District was brought on as an extension of the Quaker Road Sewer District. The point I'm trying to make here and have you understand, there's only one sewer district in this Central Queensbury. All the rest are nothing but add-ons, okay. They're all extensions, onto the Quaker Road Sewer District. Wastewater flows from this proposed 29 unit subdivision have been estimated at 9,570 gallons per day. This figure was arrived at by assuming an average of three bedrooms per dwelling, that is some dwellings having two bedrooms, some dwellings having three bedrooms and some dwellings having as many as four bedrooms. It is totally unrealistic to assume that some would invest in a house with only two bedrooms. It is totally unrealistic,just from a resale point of view, you're not going to build a house with two bedrooms. I think they should have figured on, between three and four. People like extra space, they have a library, they have a home office, storage, whatever have you and I really believe that their wastewater flows have been understated and are probably more in the order of 11 or 12,000 gallons per day. This board should be aware that the need for sewering Quaker Road was addressed by Warren County going back to the late 1970's, early 1980's. As a reminder, the Warren County referendum creating Warren County Sewer District Number One was nullified by the New York State Court of Appeals, nullified because Warren County failed to undertake a proper environmental review before issuing a negative declaration. We have continued to issue negative declarations on all of these sewer extensions, including this one. Following the demise of the Warren County Sewer District Number One, the United States Environmental Protection Agency on behalf of the Upper Hudson Region undertook the preparation of a full environmental assessment in accordance with the regulations published under the National Environmental Policy Act. Central Queensbury was a part of the EPA study area, including the area of this project. Listed among the preferred alternatives to the Warren County Sewer District were provisions for extending sewer service from the City of Glens Falls collection system to parts of certain neighborhoods in Central Queensbury, including the area of this project. The 1983 EPA findings and recommendations, and I have a copy of it here;this is the final environmental impact statement. Recommendations for new sewer service to the neighborhoods in Central Queensbury, never envisioned that the sewage generated in the Queensbury neighborhoods of Central Queensbury, including this project, would be transmitted to the City of Glens Falls Sewage Treatment Plant through the City in conduits other than new sewers. This is one page out of the executive summary; I'll leave copies with you. (refers to handout) This note down here, Central Queensbury new sewers to existing plant. Only new sewers, all the way to the City Sewage Treatment Plant, new sewer lines from Central Queensbury running directly to the City's Treatment Plant would purposely bypass the City's combined sewer system. Everybody knew that the City, like many, many cities in New York State and all over the Country whose sewer systems go back to the turn of the last century, have combined sewers. And it, you know, it's extremely expensive to dig up the whole City. Now, they're doing this piece meal as they can, but it's a big job. Of course, by its very description, combined sewers is a term used to describe a sewer system which conveys both storm water and wastewater in a single conduit. The problem with such a system arises during REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-24-2014 MTG 47 780 storm events, sometimes aggravated by simultaneous snow and ice melting. Because of the nature of any wastewater treatment plant and its process, including the one in the City, it becomes necessary several times each year to shunt the combined contaminated flow directly to the Hudson River, and or the Feeder Canal. Actually, there are four points where the City's sewer system overflows during a storm event directly into the Feeder Canal and ones location at the sewage treatment plant directly to the Hudson River. Included in the combined contaminated flow going directly to the Hudson River, could be as much as 600,000 to 800,000 gallons per day from this Town's Meadowbrook Pump Station as untreated raw sewage. This extension, as did all previous extensions, will add incrementally to these flow rates. But my point here is that every time we add an extension and make a negative declaration, we are increasing the concentration of raw sewage in that bypass flow to the Hudson River. We are not helping the situation at all. Besides, we're supposed to have our own sewer line to the plant. Shortly after the issuance of the EPA's final EIS Queensbury embarked on the Quaker Road Sewer District with total disregard for that agencies recommendation that sewage collected in the new Queensbury districts, including this proposed district, be transmitted to the City's Treatment Plant via new sewers. The force main from the Meadowbrook Pump Station delivers raw sewage to the City's combined sewer system at the intersection of Bay and Sanford Street. That's as far as we go with it and we dump it into the combined sewer. How is it that the Town of Queensbury has been able to authorize, in violation of the Clean Water Act, the addition of over a dozen sewer extension projects to the same Quaker Road Sewer District without satisfying the need to comply with the EPA's recommendation for new sewers to the Glens Falls Treatment Plant? Easy, by doing exactly what this Town has done with this project review process, for purposes of SEQRA, it's called segmentation. That is, treating each extension from the Quaker Road Sewer District as a separate project, instead of as a project subordinate and supplemental to the original Quaker Road Sewer District, for which an environmental review was undertaken by the EPA. There is only one project, the Quaker Road Sewer District. All district extensions are simply add-ons, as is this project. Accordingly and pursuant to SEQRA 6NYCRR Part 617 Section 617.97C, because of a change in circumstances, that is the extension of the Quaker Road Sewer District boundaries, the lead agency should have required a supplemental EIS, supplemental to the EPA's upper Hudson Region EIS. Speaking of SEQRA, following the pattern of approval for all previous Quaker Road Sanitary Sewer Extensions, the Town's Planning Board made a finding of no significance and issued a SEQRA determination of what is referred to as a negative declaration. This was justified because the board was unable to understand that there will be negative impacts on the surface waters of our region because of an increase in the concentration of the raw sewage flowing to the Hudson River during periods of storm events from this project as well as all previous Quaker Road extensions. This Map, Plan and Report is said to analyze the sewer district extension cost system capacities and benefits. I would like to address the reports approach to the analysis of system capacities, as outlined in the report Section 6 and more particularly 6.1, Treatment Plant Capacity. Even though the Town has purchased capacity at the Glens Falls Treatment Plant sufficient to satisfy its average daily needs, the plant is not capable of processing peak flows associated with storm events. As such, it becomes necessary to shunt the combined City flow and the total of Queensbury wastewater flow directly to the Hudson River. If we had a separate line, a new sewer to that Sewage Treatment Plant, egal how much of a storm we'd have, our wastewater could still be processed by the plant and the City's combined sewer would be overflowed to the river. Now, it's understood that the City probably hasn't had a lot of growth in recent years so their combined sewer problem is no greater today than it was maybe twenty five years ago. But as we keep adding this raw sewage to this bypass stream, we are increasing that level of concentration. The sewer plant calls for a twelve inch pipe from the subdivision to connect to the existing twelve inch sewer main running west to east along Sweet Road. As I recall, the Route 9 Sewer District as it ran down Sweet Road was made only three feet wide. I think that district doesn't include the whole road, it's three feet wide. This, because the bed of Sweet Road is not Town property. I think you understand that a municipal utility, if it's to be built, has to be built on Town owned land and a road by use is not owned by the town, the land is not owned by the town, it's a public easement. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-24-2014 MTG 47 781 COUNCILMAN IRISH-I'm sorry John, I missed, can you back, I missed that part of your, what did you say just before that? MR. SALVADOR-Sweet Road is a town road by use, the town does not own the bed of the road, the land. It has a public easement across other people's property. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-But a municipal utility, if it's going to go into the, the Town has to take the land, that's why you have that power of eminent domain, for that very purpose and Mr. Metivier can attest to the fact that this has been our major problem in North Queensbury. Every time we try to do something, the people object to giving up their land and the Town doesn't have the strength to take it, as they can. Anyway the map that you have in the Map, Plan and Report shows the proposed sewer district ending at the edge of Sweet Road. That's not enough, it's not connected to the sewer district, it's got to be advanced to within a foot and a half of that line because the district is only three feet wide. In addition to that, while I am on the subject, I have a copy here of the resolution and final order approving the creation of the Route 9 Sewer District. There's a very lengthy map, plan or very lengthy legal description of the Route 9 Sewer District, Town of Queensbury, County of Warren. Sweet Road isn't in here. This district ends up at the head of Sweet Road up at Route 9. This plan does not include Sweet Road so that's a flaw in this whole ... It is assumed that once the domestic water supply and wastewater collection system have been installed within the subdivision, each system will become the property of the Town. I think that is safe to say. Likewise, the road will have to be taken and dedication by the Town, including the collection systems. Has the Highway Superintendent agreed to take this road and dedication, which I think is the usual process? Likewise the Town has to approve this. Take a look at this plan and try to visualize the difficulty of snow plowing this road with all of these curb cuts, one on top of the other, okay. Where are you going to put snow? Where's going to go? These units are cheek to jowl around that, curb cuts are going to be one on top of the other. So I think, first of all I think the road has to be taken in dedication to accomplish this and the Highway Department has to agree to it and so do you, but there is an obligation to maintain that road. In any case the Map, Plan and Report should include a deed for that road, it should include a deed description. Wastewater flows from the proposed 29 unit subdivision have been, I've been over that. In the grand scheme of things, basically what we have here is 29 acres of undevelopable land and trying to shoehorn in 29 units, they have not taken out the unbuildable areas, there's a net here of, in fact the district is only 25 acres. And the road is unbuildable; you can't include that in your 29 so the density is a little higher than it should be. Maybe it's in the order of only 20, 23 units. But in any case there are many, many questions to be answered and we have got to come to grips with this problem of our not having our own sewer line to that Glens Falls Sewage Treatment Plant. That should be the first order of business, on behalf of everyone. Thank you. COUNCILMAN IRISH-John I have a question, before you leave you mentioned and I don't know if it was just your comments but you mentioned that you thought that all of the Queensbury effluent during a storm event winds up in the river verses what Glens Falls is putting in? Did I misunderstand you? MR. SALVADOR-No, all of Glens Falls combined goes into the river. COUCILMAN IRISH-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-But their combined is, you know goes back to the days when they built the sewers in Glens Falls and there hasn't been much more development so the problem that was recognized to exist in 1983 when they did the EIS for the City's part, hasn't increased at all. We're the ones contributing those hundreds of thousands of gallons of raw sewage and remember ours is through a force main. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-24-2014 MTG 47 782 COUNCILMAN IRISH-Alright. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Chris, is there anything that you want to address or? TOWN ENGINEER, DIRECTOR, MR. HARRINGTON-No. SUPERVISOR SROUGH-Okay. Counsel, is there anything here that? COUNCILMAN METIVIER-Does anybody else want to speak? SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Yea, we will, I was just wondering in response to John because John's contention that we only own three feet and I don't know where he got that, of right-a-way through Sweet Road, therefore we need to take measures to adopt,take all of Sweet Road. I don't know if it necessarily applies here, if I understood John right, I am not sure I did but I thought it was one of his points of contention but does that come into play in terms of your opinion? TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-I don't know exactly how wide our easement is along Sweet Road for existing infrastructure. I was not, it wasn't a question that we had in advance. Do you know the answer to that question? TOWN ENGINEER/DIRECTOR, MR. HARRINGTON-I don't know, I would assume there is a utility easement of ten feet... TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-We would have only accepted the lines for our sewage system and a width that was approved by Chris and his predecessor's at the Wastewater Treatment Plant, but I don't remember off the top of my head what it is. MR. RYAN, ENGINEER-The storm water and water lines are also on the north side, all the way beyond, past the edge of the road. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-Okay, so there are easements to the Town that were granted at the time that was put in? MR. RYAN, ENGINEER-I haven't had that information but if the Town...water system it has to be off the edge of the road and closer to the Sweet Road property that we are developing. In addition between the sewer and the center line of the road and the water on the north side of the road there is also storm water infrastructure that the Town owns and operates. So between all three utilities, it seems almost impractical that the Town wouldn't own from the center of the road where the sewer is, to the north property line. DEPUTY CLERK, MELLON-Excuse me, could you come back to the microphone because we cannot pick it up. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-But, we currently have sewage infrastructure that is owned by the Town and they are going to connect to our current infrastructure. MR. RYAN, ENGINEER-The district proposed is not to include the entire Sweet Road, it's to include the three parcels we're developing and provide connection. I think what John was trying to say is we didn't have the easement to connect from our property line, our southernmost property line to the sewer pipe in the center of road. However, there is Queensbury utilities from center of road all the way to the property line because of the water system as well as the storm water system. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-So basically what we are talking about is the connection from the Cerrone proposed development to the Sweet Road line, to an existing line. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-To existing infrastructure. MR. RYAN, ENGINEER-An existing pipe in the road, yes. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-24-2014 MTG 47 783 SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Okay. Chris, you can nod your head one way or the other and I will report to the public. Is Sweet Road part of the Route 9 Sewer District? MR. HARRINGTON, TOWN ENGINEER/DIRECTOR-The line is part of the Route 9 Sewer District. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-The line is, part of the Route 9 Sewer District. COUNCILMAN VANNESS-So John if I'm getting this, there will be no extension onto Sweet Road other than what they're running off from their development into the existing line that is on Sweet Road at this point in time. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-Correct. COUNCILMAN VANNESS-You are not extending any sewer lines along Sweet Road, you are just running into the sewer line that is already existing on Sweet Road. MR. RYAN, ENGINEER-The width of a pipe trench, yeah. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-That's the way I understand it as well. As far as the EPA recommendation to put a new line, I am not so sure about that, but it doesn't prohibit us from approving this. The other thing John that you brought up is a valid point is that there is wastewater going to the treatment plant that is owned and controlled by the City of Glens Falls and on certain rain events, largely because of what you pointed out, the storm water and sewer in the lines that the City has are tied together and it's the rain event that makes it sometimes overflow and there is raw sewage going into the Hudson River and the DEC is well aware of that. As well, Ed Bartholomew leading the Adirondack Gateway Council, which is an organization put together to look at the regional needs, waste water has surfaced as one of the primary regional needs and those are problems that we're going to look at. It's not just Queensbury, it's Kingsbury, it's the Town of Moreau, it's, and we're all contributing to that. We are going to take a look; it is a problem, approving or not approving this particular project is not solving that problem. But the direction that we are going in as far as the Adirondack Gateway Council is going to hopefully solve these problems and they do need to be solved and you are right about that. But it doesn't prohibit us from accepting this particular project which is rather small in light of the big picture. Is there anything else that the applicant or the engineer to the applicant would like to say? I am going to still allow the public hearing, there might be other members of the public that wish to speak but okay. MR. RYAN, ENGINEER-I think in terms of compliance with the code, this project is a hundred percent compliant with the zoning regulations. We didn't require any variances nor did we ask for any. There is Article 10 of the Subdivision Regulations, it's Chapter 183-35, which does give the Planning Board, empower them to modify both lot area, lot width and setback requirements for the purposes of consolidation of the development to reduce impact. So obviously we did comply with that requirement. We do have the density calculations on drawing C 1;they are very clear and concise. They do subtract out public easements and rights-of-ways proposed. They do subtract out the proposed road, water bodies, rock-out crops, wetlands and steep slopes. All of them have been reduced thereby the density calculations does provision for all of those factors. In terms of sewer capacity, it's this builder's experience that predominant share of the smaller homes in this type of development, which is maintenance free will be purchased by people with second homes or reducing size families where two bedrooms is a large share of their current business. They do continue, plan to continue that model. There are often times where three bedrooms is more typically the average so they do have that extra study or that extra room for college kids that do come back home from time to time. The reason we did an average of three is because we do expect a large share of two bedroom homes and then we did expect possibly someone might want three bedrooms plus a spare room so that's why we did provision for an average of three to allow for two's and four's as well so I think the overall average will be met. I can't speak to the macro picture here with the City, I know we have, the Town has contracted with the City for Treatment REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-24-2014 MTG 47 784 Plant capacity of eight hundred thousand gallons a day. You're currently only using four hundred of that so we have half the capacity in terms of treatment capacity available. It would obviously be wise for the Town who is paying the City for that eight hundred gallons per day to try to utilize that and get reimbursement for it so that's what this does achieve. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Bob, I guess, I will address this to you. Is there any penalty or mechanism in place so that if the average number of bedrooms is over what they project? Is there some penalty to the builder or the developer for that? I mean I tend to agree with John, although I am not a builder so maybe you're building a lot of two bedroom homes but I can't imagine in Queensbury there's a lot of... MR. RYAN, ENGINEER-I think overall, I mean, if the map, plan and report were to reflect 100% four bedroom homes that would be a little bit impractical but maybe it's a possibility. If the flows go up to 12,000 gallons per day it means absolutely nothing in a capacity standpoint since were using up less than five or ten percent of what remains anyway. Ultimately, the sewage usage is determined from water usage metering, so there is some ability to remedy that. Your operation and maintenance and cost and benefit tax all that are somewhat based on the properties and obviously the usage. So, there is some payback for that as well. COUNCILMAN IRISH-But, you'd be paying the usage fee but you wouldn't necessarily have to pay the buy-in fee if you were over that, or maybe I'm missing that Chris? SUPERVISOR STROUGH-No, no, you're right. COUNCILMAN IRISH-I mean if you projected at three and that actually comes in at three and a half or four, you didn't pay a buy-in fee on that, you're right, you'll pay the usage fee but you didn't pay the necessary buy-in fee. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-If it exceeded that. COUNCILMAN IRISH-If it exceeded that, correct. That's really my concern. MR. CERRONE-Right now I'm doing a maintenance free subdivision in South Glens Falls, four out of the five homes under construction right now are two bedroom homes with a flex room, office or whatever you'd like to make it. I'm not even going to propose a four bedroom design for the development. They're all going to be two to three bedroom homes. Like I said, it's not even on the plans to even propose anything more than three bedrooms. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Okay. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-It when through the Planning Board and subdivision approval and these were, we get these type of engineer reports based on what is expected all the time and as Dan said, it seems that we have people buy-in and the average use ends up being less because of how the engineers have to calculate this. If they do end up selling houses that are four bedrooms, they'll end up paying a lot more because they will use more water, which will flow both in the water bill and in the sewer bill. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Right, but my point was you're not paying the same buy-in to the sewer district for that as you would; you're paying the same usage or more usage. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- Correct. COUNCILMAN IRISH-But, the sewer district doesn't get the revenue that they should get based on the projected number of bedrooms, if it's over what they project. And the other question I would have since you brought it up and I don't think we've ever done it is how often have we ever gone back through a development and determined whether or not the number of bedrooms in that development met what the developer projected? Have we ever done that anywhere? REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-24-2014 MTG 47 785 TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-I'm not aware, no. COUNCILMAN VANNESS- And I think that's what John, and John correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to put words in your mouth but I think that's what John was getting at. It's something we do have to correct, something we do have to look at in the future. As Bob said, they've gone thought the Planning Board, got their approval coming out of the Planning Board, and we're looking at it that way. But, I agree with you that it's something that we do have to look at in the very near future as far as I'm concerned. But, to hold these gentlemen hostage seeing that they've gone through all the steps to this point, but I think that it's something we can't forget about, we have to remember this in coming developments as something we need to look at. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- And we may have that trigger, but you're right Bill, it's something that Bob and I will take a look at and see if it needs repairing. MR. RYAN, ENGINEER-I think one of the other things too to consider is when you're talking about sewage flows or water usage you're talking about averages. There are peaks that do exceed and you may have, even in you commercial district within this sewer district, times when they are predominately exceeding what was anticipated, but then there's times that are substantially less. So, you always look at it in terms of averages. If you're looking at a peak condition here, you're averages if you took them over a year, over a half year, whatever your period base was, you're going to find that it's going to fluctuate pretty substantially. So, it's hard to really utilize and guess exactly what it's going to be in. It's hard to consistently adjust upwards or downwards in what you buy-in or pay. That's why the benefit and operation and maintenance taxes are based on usage, the buy-in, it's equally possible we're less than we anticipate and would the Town be willing to credit it for every user at that point. I think it's just as risky in both directions. You have to come up with a reasonable number that seems to be what's anticipated based on engineering calculations and that's what usually is done to make sense. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- And in this case too, knowing a little bit of Mr. Cerrone's history. I've seen some of your houses, the two bedroom styles, the low maintenance versions. They tend to be upper end, tend to be an older cliental, and the children are gone and the extra bedroom is in case they show up kind of deal, and he's been very successful with that. So, I would anticipate seeing more of it here giving what I've seen as something that he's already done, and I can verify that. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS-Did they make the point that you wanted to make Chris? CHRIS HARRINGTON, WASTERWATER SUPERINTENDENT- Good evening, yeah, I just want to reiterate this buy-in. Until last year we never had a buy-in. So this is something I wanted to do as fairly as I could. Dan made the point that more than likely if you look at full build out it may not reach 9,000 gallons per day. There's 110 gallons per day they use per bedroom that something that DEC tries to come up with to estimate. These are estimates, engineers always estimate, we do a job of really over building, over designing; it's unbelievable sometimes. So, if there's 110 gallons per day, per bedroom I can tell you the average person in Queensbury, we sell water to 42,000 people, to Hudson Falls, to Moreau, to Kingsbury. When I do the numbers on a winter day, what people consume is about 75 gallons per capita. So, like Dan was saying, if you're going to look at bedrooms and want to charge more, you better get ready to issue a credit. I for one don't want to be going back and doing the numbers and really, I mean, this is a buy-in, this is something we're getting, and again this is something that really I was shocked before I came on board last year that we weren't getting anything to compensate the people in the Route 9 District. I think we should not get all worried about the buy-in, we're going to get something and I think it's equitable what we're going to get. Again, DEC numbers, from what I heard intermediate systems; they're really padded, compared to on-site systems. So, we're pretty making out a little bit here, but it's the best I could do. I'm holding the engineer to some kind of standard, and right now that's the DEC intermediate standards with bedrooms. COUNCILMAN IRISH- Okay, thanks Chris. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-24-2014 MTG 47 786 SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Thanks Chris. Chris Harrington is our Wastewater Superintendent and Engineer. COUNCILMAN IRISH- John, I had one more questions. I'm a little concerned with one way in, one way out with that road, for a couple of reasons John spoke about. Do you have enough road frontage to make another ingress or egress out of there? MR. RYAN, ENGINEER- This is about a three year design process for us. We did go to the Planning Board for sketch plan on two different occasions. Originally we started with a u-shaped model that did have two points of ingress and egress; in addition we showed the alternative of a conservation subdivision as compared to a traditional subdivision to show the significant improvement over the cluster type design. So, that was all done I believe two or three years ago, then the town did implement officially it's conservation subdivision regulations, at which time we took advantage of those to make this final design concept. The road access, which is typically for fire safety, which is the biggest concern, is regulated by the fire code of New York State. This road complies with the fire code of New York State; it provides the adequate apparatus widths and road access widths. There are criteria depending on road lengths and the types of entrances in terms of what you have to have for clear distances and pull-off, and other site safety features which take into account large fire trucks. So, all of that is code compliant, so that has been addressed from that perspective. COUNCILMAN VANNESS- Okay, all right personally, I kind of like, to be honest with you, the one ingress, regress, security reasons; as John said it kind of, Mr. Cerrone kind of caters to an older cliental. You've got one way in, one way out, I mean observation and security reason wise it makes it a little easier for the neighborhood, and even if it were children in there you haven't got bypassing roads, so as long as the fire safety and EMS safety can get in there it's probably, it's not a bad idea. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Have you had any feedback from the Highway Superintendent as far as snow removal, snow plowing? MR. RYAN, ENGINEER-It was issued to them at the beginning of the Planning Board process. I honestly think they had one comment and we did address it, but I don't think it had anything to do about snowplowing. COUNCILMAN IRISH-He didn't have any concerns about turnaround or anything like that? MR. RYAN, ENGINEER-No. COUNCILMAN IRISH- Okay. MR. RYAN, ENGINEER- That's the best I can recollect at this point. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-When are you going back before the Planning Board? MR. RYAN, ENGINEER-We do have to wait until we hear back from the agencies, DEC and Department of Health on the permitting side. That usually can take anywhere from two to five months depending on how expedient they are. So we're hoping this will happen in a couple of months with any luck, otherwise probably a little further out, but we're hoping to expedite that, within a couple months we'd ideally be back in front of them for final approval. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Anything else from the board?I'm going to ask other members of the public and then I know John wants to say something, but are there other members of the public that wish to speak to this sanitary sewer district extension? Seeing none, John, you'd like to come and return. JOHN SALVADOR-Mr. Harrington said something about 75 gallons per day, per capita. Two people in a bedroom that's 150 gallons, that's more than the 110 we're figuring on. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-24-2014 MTG 47 787 SUPERVISOR STROUGH- 110 per bedroom. MR. SALVADOR- 110 per bedroom, but if you've got two people in a bedroom that's 75 gallons per capita, you've got 150 gallons. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-But, theirs is based on three bedrooms, which is 330 gallons per house. MR. SALVADOR- Okay, you got me? COUNCILMAN METIVIER-I actually do John. I don't have anything to say to it. MR. SALVADOR-He wasn't teaching Math. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS-It's Math, it's not arithmetic. MR. SALVADOR-In any case, we have to straighten out this district boundary issue. If this project is in addition to Route 9 Sewer District Number Two,then we don't know what number two was? COUNCILMAN IRISH-I think you've got a good point there John, but I would say that if the line runs down Sweet Road is it really an extension to Route 9 or is it just an addition to what's there? I kind of agree with you that this is not an extension, it's just an addition. But to Chris' point, the line runs down Sweet Road so we're not extending that line, we're adding to the capacity. MR. SALVADOR- Sewer lines have to be in the district. COUNCILMAN IRISH- That one is, that's part of the district for the Route 9 District. MR. SALVADOR-We haven't established that. I can't find a town board resolution, okay, defining the district down Sweet Road that they want to tie into. COUNCILMAN VANNESS-I think that's something we can continue research, I mean but... TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-We have our sewer line on Sweet Road, we've had it for a while, this connects to that and through that line it connects to Route 9 Sanitary Sewer District, that's why it's an extension to that sewer district. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- And I'm sure when we did the map, plan and report... TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-Because the flows go from here down, probably up to SUPERVISOR STROUGH-When we did the map, plan and report for the Route 9 Sewer District you had to include Sweet Road. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-I think we specifically added the Sweet Road line because the idea, I believe, was that the town board thought there might be need for it in that area, but that's a long time ago that we... COUNCILMAN VANNESS-But it's something that we can look at and find out, if not we can correct it. MR. SALVADOR-Not so long ago that I don't remember... COUNCILMAN VANNESS-I mean we can correct it if it hasn't been, but the problem is... MR. SALVADOR-In any case, if that's the case it has to be in writing. It's got to be documented, these districts have to be mapped, okay, a meets and bounds that's what's in here, meets and bounds. COUNCILMAN IRISH-I don't disagree with you John. MR. SALVADOR-Yeah. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-24-2014 MTG 47 788 COUNCILMAN IRISH-I think if it's in the ground we ought to know where it is and it ought to be on paper. COUNCILMAN VANNESS- And that's something we can work on. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-If it was part of the Route 9 Sewer District, which I think it was we should have a map that shows where it is and Chris can find that. COUNCILMAN IRISH- Just hope it's not filed at the County. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-He's supposed to get a copy in his office. MR. SALVADOR- There was one other, the disappointing thing in all of this is we all know that there's a problem with this combined sewer. But, our Planning Board continues to turn a blind eye to the fact that this project as well as all of the other projects, all the other extensions, will have an adverse effect on surface water. They don't answer yes, they answer no, and that allows them to neg. dec. the project. Now the answer to that question will there be an adverse effect on surface water, and by the way, the new SEQRA form asks specifically surface water, they answer no. In fact, it was the Chairman of the Planning Board who offered the no answer. Criminal, this is criminal. Thank you. COUNCILMAN IRISH- Thanks John. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Thank you. All right anybody else wish to speak to the sewer extension as proposed?Do we have a motion? TOWN CLERK, BARBER- Are you going to close the public hearing? SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Yes, I'll close the public hearing, thank you Caroline. Is there a motion? COUNCILMAN VANNESS-I'll move it. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Motion made by Councilman VanNess. Is there a second to that motion? COUNCILMAN METIVIER-I'll second it. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Seconded by Councilman Metivier. ORDER APPROVING PROPOSED EXTENSION TO ROUTE 9 SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT TO SERVE PROPOSED SWEET ROAD CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION NO.: 75,2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr.William VanNess WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr.Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury wishes to extend the Route 9 Sanitary Sewer District to serve the proposed 29-lot Sweet Road Conservation Subdivision (Subdivision) in accordance with New York Town Law Article 12-A, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-24-2014 MTG 47 789 WHEREAS, a Map, Plan and Report (Map, Plan and Report) has been prepared by VISION Engineering, LLC, concerning the proposed sewer district extension to connect the proposed Subdivision to the existing Route 9 Sanitary Sewer District sanitary sewer main along Sweet Road, as more specifically set forth and described in the Map, Plan and Report, and WHEREAS, the Map, Plan and Report has been filed in the Queensbury Town Clerk's Office and is available for public inspection, and WHEREAS, the Map, Plan and Report delineates the boundaries of the proposed Sewer District extension, a general plan of the proposed system, a report of the proposed method of operation, all outlets and the terminus and course of each proposed main sewer or drain together with the location and a general description of all sewage disposal plants, pumping stations and other public works, if any, and is consistent with, so far as possible, any comprehensive plan for sewers developed and maintained pursuant to General Municipal Law §99-f, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Planning Board, as the Lead Agency, performed the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review for the Subdivision which included the proposed sewer district extension and issued a Negative Declaration, and WHEREAS, the estimated annual cost to the "typical property" has been filed with the Town Clerk and is made a part of the Map, Plan and Report, and WHEREAS, on February 10, 2014, subsequent to the filing of the Map, Plan and Report with the Town Clerk, the Town Board adopted an Order (Public Hearing Order) reciting (a) the boundaries of the proposed Sewer District; (b) the proposed improvements; (c) the maximum amount proposed to be expended for the improvements; (d) the estimated cost of hook-up fees (if any) and the cost of the Sewer 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 improvements is on file in the Town Clerk's Office; and (g)the time and place of a public hearing on the proposed Sewer District, and WHEREAS, copies of the Public Hearing Order were duly published and posted and were filed with the Office of the State Comptroller, all as required by law, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-24-2014 MTG 47 790 WHEREAS, prior to publication of the Public Hearing Order, a detailed explanation of how the estimated cost of hook-up fees (if any) and the cost of the Sewer District to the typical property and typical one or two family home (if not the typical property) were computed was filed with the Town Clerk for public inspection as part of the Map, Plan and Report, and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed Sewer District was duly held on February 24, 2014 and the Town Board has considered the evidence given together with other information, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to establish the proposed Route 9 Sanitary Sewer District Extension No. 2 as detailed in the Map, Plan and Report in accordance with Town Law Article 12-A, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby determines that: 1. Notice of Public Hearing was published and posted as required by law and is otherwise sufficient; 2. All property and property owners within the Route 9 Sanitary Sewer District Extension No. 2 are benefited thereby; 3. All property and property owners benefited are included within the limits of the Route 9 Sanitary Sewer District Extension No. 2; 4. It is in the public interest to establish, authorize, and approve the Route 9 Sanitary Sewer District Extension No. 2 as described in the Map, Plan and Report on file with the Queensbury Town Clerk with the boundaries and benefited properties of the Sewer District Extension to be as described in the Map, Plan and Report; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby approves, authorizes and establishes the Route 9 Sanitary Sewer District Extension No. 2 in accordance with the boundaries and descriptions set REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-24-2014 MTG 47 791 forth above and in the previously described Map, Plan and Report, and construction of the improvements may proceed and service provided subject to the following: 1. The obtaining of any necessary permits or approvals from the New York State Department of Health; 2. The obtaining of any necessary permits or approvals from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; 3. The Town being satisfied that construction of all improvements has occurred in accordance with the Plan; 4. Permissive referendum in the manner provided in New York State Town Law Article 7; and 5. The adoption of a Final Order by the Queensbury Town Board; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this Resolution is subject to permissive referendum in accordance with the provisions of New York State Town Law Articles 7 and 12-A and shall not take effect until such time as provided therein, 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 and to cause to be prepared and have available for distribution proper forms for the petition and shall distribute a supply to any person requesting such petition and if no such petition is filed within 30 days to file a certificate to that effect in the Office of the County Clerk and with the State Department of Audit and Control. Duly adopted this 24th day of February, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements NOES Mr. Irish ABSENT: None 3.0 PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR(LIMIT 4 MINUTES) JOHN SALVADOR- Asked that during town board discussion board members give a short report on the status of the issue of the town boundaries. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-24-2014 MTG 47 792 SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Explained that he does not have anything new to report on that, but will be speaking to Town Counsel, Mark Schachner in the very near future. He will be prepared to share his learnings on the boundary and boundary question at our next workshop so they are aware of the issues. Invited Mr. Salvador to come and speak to it there as well. 4.0 RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION APPROVING YEAR 2013 SERVICE AWARD PROGRAM RECORDS FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL SQUADS RESOLUTION NO.: 76,2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Doug Irish WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr.Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously authorized engagement of PENFLEX, Inc., to provide the 2013 Standard Year End Administration Services for the Town's Volunteer Fire Companies and Volunteer Ambulance Workers Service Award Programs, and WHEREAS, as part of the Service Award Program(s), it is necessary that the Town Board approve the Fire Companies' and Emergency Squads' Year 2013 Service Award Program Records, and WHEREAS, the Town Supervisor's Office has received and reviewed the records from each of the Town's three(3)Emergency Squads and found them to be complete, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to approve these records, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the 2013 Volunteer Ambulance Worker Service Award Program Records for each of the Town's three (3) Emergency Squads, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-24-2014 MTG 47 793 BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Executive Assistant and/or Town Budget Officer to take all action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 24th day of February, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish NOES None ABSENT: None *DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE* COUNCILMAN VANNESS-John, I'd just like to say and make it clear that I am a volunteer fireman with West Glens Falls, I will be voting on this, but when it comes to service award for the Fire Department I'll abstain. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- All right, well this is in general, this deals with all of them and it doesn't deal with you specifically, so I think its fair ground for you to vote on it. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-Well, this is the EMS squads. COUNCILMAN VANNESS-Right, with EMS I will vote on but fire I won't. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-I'm sorry, I stand corrected. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND THE FEEDER CANAL ALLIANCE RESOLUTION NO.: 77,2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Doug Irish WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 484,2007, the Queensbury Town Board provided for the Town's receipt of occupancy tax revenues from Warren County in accordance with the Local Tourism Promotion and Convention Development Agreement (Agreement) entered into between the Town and Warren County, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-24-2014 MTG 47 794 WHEREAS, the Agreement provides that specific expenditure of the funds provided under the Agreement are subject to further Resolution of the Queensbury Town Board, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to provide funding to the Feeder Canal Alliance in the amount of$3,000 with occupancy tax revenues received from Warren County and accordingly enter into an agreement with the Feeder Canal Alliance for the year 2014 for the preservation and promotion of the Feeder Canal and the historic towpath trail, and WHEREAS, a proposed agreement has been presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Agreement between the Town and the Feeder Canal Alliance substantially in the form presented at this meeting and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Agreement, with funding for the Agreement not exceeding the sum of $3,000 and to be provided by occupancy tax revenues the Town receives from Warren County, to be paid for from Account No.: 050-6410-4412, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that such Agreement is expressly contingent upon confirmation by the Town that unallocated occupancy tax funds are available from Warren County. Duly adopted this 24th day of February, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND NCOURT FOR PROVISION OF ONLINE AND BY PHONE CREDIT AND DEBIT CARD PAYMENT SERVICES AT QUEENSBURY TOWN JUSTICE COURT REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-24-2014 MTG 47 795 RESOLUTION NO.: 78,2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr.William VanNess WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr.Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Justice Court has recommended that the Town of Queensbury enter into an agreement with nCourt to provide for online or by phone credit and debit card payment services so that Defendants may pay Town Justice Court, Court fines, surcharges and fees owed to the Town, and WHEREAS, nCourt will provide such services at no cost to the Town of Queensbury and payments will be automatically integrated into the Courtroom software program, and WHEREAS, such services will enable the Court to further expand its ability to receive outstanding monies owed to the Town Court and allow for payment 24/7, and WHEREAS, the Town Board believes it to be in the public interest to authorize such an agreement, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves and authorizes an Agreement between the Town of Queensbury and nCourt to provide for online or by phone credit and debit card payment services so that Defendants may pay Court fines, surcharges and fees owed to the Town of Queensbury at no cost to the Town, with such Agreement to be in form acceptable to the Town Supervisor, Town Justices, Town Court Clerks, Town Budget Officer and/or Town Counsel, and BE IT FURTHER REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-24-2014 MTG 47 796 RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute such Agreement and any other necessary documentation and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Town Justices, Town Court Clerks, Town Budget Officer and/or Town Counsel to take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 24th day of February, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS— WARRANT OF FEBRUARY 25TH,2014 RESOLUTION NO.: 79,2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Doug Irish WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr.William VanNess WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve an audit of bills presented as a Warrant with a run date of February 201h 2014 and a payment date of February 25th, 2014, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Warrant with a run date of February 20th 2014 and a payment date of February 25th, 2014 totaling $768,017.32, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Budget Officer to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-24-2014 MTG 47 797 Duly adopted this 24th day of February, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND PRIMELINK, INC. RESOLUTION NO.: 80, 2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Doug Irish WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Brian Clements WHEREAS, the Town of Quensbury has installed conduit along Corinth Road/Main Street/Broad Street in the Town of Queensbury to foster development of needed telecommunication and other utilities, and WHEREAS, PrimeLink, Inc., has proposed using a portion of such conduit to provide improved fiberoptic connections in this area of Town, and WHEREAS, the Town has prepared a proposed Agreement concerning PrimeLink, Inc.'s proposed use of such conduit and such Agreement has been presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the Agreement between the Town of Queensbury and PrimeLink, Inc., described in the preambles of this Resolution and substantially in the form presented at this meeting, subject to comments of Barton& Loguidice, P.C., and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-24-2014 MTG 47 798 BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute such Agreement and the Town Supervisor and/or Town Counsel to take any other action necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 24th day of February, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements NOES None AB SENT : None *DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE* TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- There have been some comments that were provided by Barton & Loguidice, our engineers. We drafted the resolution to be subjected to their comments. We got their comments and we worked out arrangements with Primelink agreeing to Barton& Loguidice's comments. So, we have a later version, the resolution says substantially in the form subject to Barton& Loguidice comments and we have made those changes, and there may be a few more. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- Yes, I've reviewed those, they are mostly engineering notes and things like that that they agreed to do. I'm going to give you an overview and bring you up to date on the basic agreements in our discussions. Let me lead with that to see if you have any further items you wish to discuss. I'm very glad to see Primelink, it was very nice and very good working with Primelink. I'll tell you a little bit about them. This board had the proactivity and the wish to promote Main Street and Corinth Road in a way that will ensure economic productivity and ensure that Main Street and Corinth Road remain state of the art. So we put in, when we rebuilt Main Street and the eastern end of Corinth Road, we put in conduit, a quad conduit. It has four sections. Four users can use it. Now we did this because we knew fiber optic and maybe other things was forthcoming, and rather than dig everything up because all of the utilities are buried along Main Street we put this conduit in. Low and behold, we did the right thing for the most part. We put the pipe in, but what we didn't put in were enough hand poles, which I'll explain in a minute, and they're going to install those. Primelink is going to install fiber optics along the corridor from where Media Drive comes in to about where Stewart's is and then they're going to feed out from there, for example, Hudson Headwaters. But, they've got to go above ground, so they'll go underground for this service area and they're hoping to maybe catch other entities on Media Drive. So they're the first in the area, like I said this is very much in line with attracting upscale development along this corridor. Primelink is a fully integrated, full service telecommunications company, it provides residential and commercial services like telephone, broadband, web hosting and other services. This agreement has been reviewed by me, it's been reviewed by Town Counsel, and I had Barton& Loguidice who are the people that originally helped us design Main Street and design this system for us, this quad conduit system. I had them review it so that anything that Primelinks does is in the best interest of the town, which is a good thing because they caught a few things that make it...and I have to say, it was very good working with Primelink. But, it's also been reviewed by the County so it's had multitude of REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-24-2014 MTG 47 799 reviews, and I made sure that because I know you expect the best. So, what it includes is it leases a quadrant in our quad conduit. The conduits allow four users, they're going to be one of them, they are going to be the first. They are going to rent the space at one dollar a linear foot, which we had Barton& Loguidice review that to make sure it's fair market value, and they assured us it is at least fair market value. So, it actually is a pretty good deal. They're going to lease about 2,375 feet, this includes the linear and the risers. They'll pay that annually beginning in year four and starting year four and thereafter, well starting after year four will be a two percent increase per year. Primelink is going to install seven pole boxes and any necessary accompanying quad risers. We've agreed to supply quad piping, we have about 1,000 linear foot sitting with the Highway Department left over from the project, so plenty for all the risers, and if they need anything else they're going to have to come up with it on their own. We'll supply the surplus materials that we have for that. The quads conduit alterations will be constructed to town standards as reviewed by Barton& Loguidice and the County by the way. When they are all done with their pole boxes all of that is town property, so that we can rent it out to three other users in the section that they're using. Of course, we have the rest of the conduit that is open and has capability of four users. The construction of those pole boxes and the other improvements will be $19, 536, the town will make no payments to Primelink, it's entirely Primelinks cost. The pole boxes when they're done and installed and done to our approval, because we have to accept them, become town property, so that we can rent them out to others and make money on them. So the town agreed to waive as part of this cost, its skin in the game if you will, the first three years of rent. That will cover some of the costs, it certainly doesn't come anywhere near 19,000. The term of the agreement is 40 years, we do have language in there that Bob put in there that if either party wants to withdraw from this contract there's a formula for doing that. That's like the overview of it, without all the details. Does anybody have any questions or discussion things? COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- I just had a comment. I thought that I had read in there that not only, we have four quadrants, but you could rent one quadrant to more than one service provider if there's room in there for other cables, is that correct? TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- I did draft it that way. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- You did? TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- Because we had discussion with Don Fletcher from Barton& Loguidice to see the technology keeps getting smaller, and he said that there is likely to be room. We did put that in. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- They're renting the lower left quadrant. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- Correct. SUPERVISOR STROUGH- And they can do anything they want, they can put as many lines as they can in there, as long as it doesn't encumber any of the other users. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- But another user could also put lines in there. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- Correct, that would be the last thing we do, we'd fill the other three quadrants first. We specifically put that language in there. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- Good. I think that's good. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- To deal with changing technology, things keep getting smaller. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS- Sure. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- And as long as we don't interfere with their use, they're first. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-24-2014 MTG 47 800 SUPERVISOR STROUGH- So it was a lengthy process and a process that Primelink wants to get going on because they want to start this construction at the end of March. They want to get going and start providing fiber optic services to that area, which I think is great. So, like I said, Primelink was very good to work with so I look forward seeing them come into the town and get to action. Any other questions on behalf of the board? Okay, can we have a vote 5.0 CORRESPONDENCE- None 6.0 TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS COUNCILMAN VANNESS (WARD IV)- • There will be a public forum, question and answer session regarding the Main Street Corridor on March 20th at 7:00pm at the West Glens Falls Fire House Station#1. Anyone interested in speaking on this subject is welcome to attend. • Received several calls over the weekend concerning water issues. The Highway Department has been out working on the problems, thanked them for their hard work. • Mr. Davidson attended the last board meeting and voiced his concerns on the Harris property. The board spoke to Town Counsel who advised they have no control over this issue. A letter will be sent to Mr. Davidson stating that. COUNCILMAN IRISH (WARD III)-Nothing to report. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS (WARD II)- Submitted the following letter to the Clerk to be included in the minutes: Brian M. Clements Councilman Ward 2 Town of Queensbury Mr. Kevin Geraghty, Chairman Warren County Board of Supervisors Warren County Municipal Center 1340 State Route 9 Lake George, NY 12845 February 22, 2014 Dear Chairman Geraghty: Until Mr. Paul Kilmartin came before the Queensbury Town Board during the privilege of the floor at our January 27, 2014 meeting, I had no idea of the devastation that had occurred around his property on the airport side of Queensbury Avenue. Mr. Kilmartin and his wife Tara are residents of my ward (Queensbury Ward 2). As a Queensbury Councilman and representative for all residents of Ward 2, I stand up in support of the Kilmartin's concerns. I respectfully ask that you personally visit the area around their property (247 Queensbury Avenue) to see the extent of the "clear-cutting" (not the "selective removal" technique) that has occurred in direct violation of the Supplemental NEPA Environmental Assessment FINAL directive (copy attached) by the company contracted by Warren County. You will also note that Mr. Dubarry in his email to the Kilmartins dated 03/05/2013 (copy attached) also recognized that a buffer of trees was to remain along Queensbury Avenue to comply with the Environmental Assessment. The contractor is continuing to forge ahead with no regard to the directive in the Environmental Assessment and further without anyone (it seems)from the county overseeing the project! Although Supervisor Strough noted that he was told by Airport Manager Ross Dubarry on the day of our January 27th Town Board Meeting that a more recent environmental assessment was available, we had not seen it. I later observed that Mr. Dubarry stated that the environmental assessment is neither complete nor available (see attached page 11 of the minutes of the 1/30/14 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-24-2014 MTG 47 801 County Facilities Meeting), and it actually appears to have nothing to do with the area of our concern but rather the Runway 30 project or Runway 1 extension project, not the present Runway 1 obstruction removal project which used the 2006 Environmental Assessment for DEC approvals. For your review, please find enclosed the section of the Environmental Assessment relevant to this case and the Landowner Notification Letter from Mr. Dubarry to the Kilmartins. I have also enclosed the communications between Paul and Tara Kilmartin, NYS Licensed Real Estate Broker Ms. Melissa Devine, Airport Manager Mr. Ross Dubarry, Superintendent of Public Works Mr. Jeffery Tennyson, County Attorney Mr. Martin Auffredou, Legal Assistant Ms. Shelly Van Nostrand and Mr. Christopher Bruback of C&S Engineers. Also attached is a copy of the working map that clearly indicates that both the back portion of the "triangle to the south" of the Kilmartin property as well as a tree line immediately to the north is clearly marked was to be "selectively cleared". The adjoining map section shows "selective" cutting zone to extend to the south along Queensbury Avenue to the limit of the construction project affording a buffer for several additional homes on the east side of the road. As you review this material I believe you will agree that the Kilmartin's understanding was correct in that a buffer of trees would be left standing; that the vegetation would be "selectively removed" not "clear-cut" and not that a new buffer at a later date would be planted, as now seems to be the plan being put forth. Mr. Geraghty, I would respectfully ask for a written response to be sent to me "and more importantly the Kilmartins) that answer the following questions and concerns: 1- Who from the County is directly responsible for overseeing the work of the contractors removing the trees and vegetation from around the Kilmartin's property? 2- What specifically will be done to redress the damages that have been done to the living conditions and quality of life of the Kilmartins? 3- Will Warren County hold the contractor responsible for work done in direct violation of the conditions set forth in the Environmental Assessment Review and if so, to what extent? Please share this communication with all the other Warren County Supervisors at your earliest convenience. Yours in Responsible Government, Brian Clements, Councilman Queensbury Ward 2 CC: Mr. Paul and Ms. Tara Kilmartin Ms. Rachel Seeber, Queensbury Supervisor-at-large Mr. Mark Westcott, Queensbury Supervisor-at-large Mr. Douglas Beaty, Queensbury Supervisor-at-large Mr. Matthew Sokol, Queensbury Supervisor-at-large Mr. John Strough, Supervisor Town of Queensbury Mr. Daniel Girard, Warren County Facilities Committee Chairman & Glens Falls Ward 1 Supervisor Mr. Jeffery Tennyson, Superintendent of Warren County Department of Public Works Mr. Martin Auffredou, County Attorney Mr. Ross Dubarry, Airport Manager Mr. Anthony Metivier, Councilman Queensbury Ward 1 Mr. Douglas Irish, Councilman Queensbury Ward 3 Mr. William VanNess, Councilman Queensbury Ward 4 Please see attachments (on file in the Town Clerk's Office) COUNCILMAN METIVIER(WARD 1)-Nothing to report REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING 02-24-2014 MTG 47 802 SUPERVISOR STROUGH- • Attended the ribbon cutting at McDonalds. The renovations turned out really nice. The owner extended his thanks to the Town Board, Planning and Zoning Boards, as well as our Planning and Zoning Departments. Everyone has been very helpful. • Received phone call and emails asking that the board start looking at our ward system and boundaries. In terms of registered voters ward 1: 3,600, ward 2: 3,500, ward 3: 3,900, and ward 4: 6,619. We have 17,716 registered voters and if you divided that by four each ward should be approximately 4,429 voters. George Hilton will work on gathering information and census numbers. • Received emails regarding the Rush Pond Trail. People love the trail but would like to see additional parking. Explained that due to deed restrictions there is limited parking. RESOLUTION ADJOURNING QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO.: 81, 2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Doug Irish WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Brian Clements RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Regular Town Board Meeting. Duly adopted this 24th day of February, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish NOES: None ABSENT: None Respectfully Submitted, Caroline H. Barber Town Clerk Town of Queensbury