Loading...
2014-07-21 - Mtg 29 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 151 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG#29 JULY 21St, 2014 RES# 253-266 7:00 P.M. B.H. 24-26 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR JOHN STROUGH COUNCILMAN ANTHONY METIVIER COUNCILMAN BRIAN CLEMENTS COUNCILMAN DOUG IRISH COUNCILMAN WILLIAM VANNESS TOWN COUNSEL MARK SCHACHNER COUNTY OFFICIAL Doug Beaty, Supervisor-At-Large PRESS POST STAR, LOOK TV PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN VANNESS SUPERVISOR STROUGH called meeting to order... RESOLUTION ENTERING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 253, 2014 INTRDOUCED BY: Mr. Doug Irish WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session of the Town Board and moves into the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 21St day of July, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough NOES: None ABSENT: None QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PAUL DESLAURIER'S APPLICATION FOR SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE PUBLICATION DATE: JUNE 6, 2014 SUPERVISOR STROUGH-This variance was before us before and we had our engineering firm review this. I have a letter saying that there were a few changes and I will go over those changes with the public. Chazen has received the latest submission responding to technical comments offered by Chazen and based on our review; all technical comments offered have been addressed to our satisfaction. So the changes that were made by the applicant's engineer, they did revise the plan, they did relocate the system slightly to the west and the sand system has been increased. The distance from the absorption field to the wetland is now ninety-four point eight (94.8) feet; one hundred (100) feet is required so they are asking for about five point two (5.2) feet of relief. They've adjusted the specifications to the systems fill percolation so that it's between three (3) and eight (8) minutes per inch. Additional percolation tests were done, additional test pits were performed and the whole design has been adjusted slightly to be more effective, more efficient, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 152 more protective of the wetland and the seasonal high ground water that may occur there. Also, the Department of Health has reviewed the Presby Environmental System. What they call the Presby Advanced Enviro-Septic System or AES. Also classified as a gravelless geotextile sand filter and they say that your product was afforded a compliance determination in review and was found in accordance with the Department of Health and it's laws, specifically appendix 75-A. We do have the new plans of the new outfit and so with that as an introduction, with the applicant and the applicant's agent wish to come to the board to address the board? TOWN CLERK CAROLINE BARBER-This is a continuation of public hearing, correct? SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Yes, this is a continuation of a public hearing. There will be an opportunity for the public to speak. Thank you, Caroline. So is there anything I missed in my review that I should have mentioned? TOM HUTCHINS, AGENT FOR APPLICANT-I believe you covered it very well. You touched on the minor changes we made. We feel they are improvements and we did work with your engineer and had a few discussions with him and I believe he's satisfied with the design and we're satisfied with the design and I think it's a little bit of an improvement. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Board members, any questions for the applicant or the applicant's agent? COUNCILMAN IRISH-I have a question for the applicant and I have a question for Mark. You indicated I think at the original opening of the public hearing that your intention was to live in the residence once it's built. Is that correct? MR. PAUL DESLAURIERS-Yes, absolutely. COUNCILMAN IRISH-And my question for Mark is, do we have the authority to condition approval on the current owner occupying that space for any length of time as part of the approval process? TOWN COUNSEL MARK SCHACHNER-Literally, the current owner? COUNCILMAN IRISH-Yea. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-The individual owner, no. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Okay, that's the only question I had. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Any other? COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS-I have one. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Yes, Brian. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS-I was just looking on the map here, it says, ninety-three point two (93.2) feet to the wetlands separation and in the revised resolution it says ninety-four point eight (94.8). MR. HUTCHINS-Yea there was, there was in conversation with your engineer, we had discussed a very minor additional grading adjustment after he had written his letter. It was actually something that he didn't mention in his letter but we had discussed it. I made that grading adjustment so really it should be that we're requesting ninety-three (93) feet. I can make it work at ninety-four (94) but we would like it to be ninety-three (93) feet instead of ninety-four (94) and the adjustment that we made, we shifted the system a foot and a half to the north to ease the grading toward the property to the south. The application should read ninety-three (93) feet, with seven (7) feet of relief. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-There's two (2) places on the application where we need to change that Caroline. One (1) is on the first whereas, the third line down, change ninety-four point eight (94.8) REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 153 to ninety-three (93) and on the last resolved, it has ninety-four point eight (94.8), please change that to ninety-three (93). Very good Mr. Clements. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS-I was a math person, you were a social studies person. SUPERISOR STROUGH-Any other questions? COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS-I'm fine. SUPERISOR STROUGH-Tony? COUNCILMAN METIVIER-I'm fine, thank you. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Okay. Any members of the public wish to speak to this application, this septic variance? Yes, there are. Please state your name for the record. CHRISTOPHER LYNCH-My name is Christopher Lynch, this is Maureen Lynch, we live contiguous to the wetlands in question. Distinctly, I believe this application is defective, it's lacking key facts, I mean fatal flaws and should be voted down. First, at a previous meeting, you stated that this still experimental system was found to be safe. This is half true as the technology has not existed long enough to know for sure but if you only read the Presby material, this system is actually a gift from God and will certainly save the world and all who inhabit in it. Thinking men who read further, as wetlands actually grow and shrink along with their check zones, this proposed septic system is wholly located in the wetlands as their check zones are denoted on current DEC maps. You're putting the damn septic system in the middle of the wetland. Again, he must have waited ten years to get the right conditions so that a couple of things didn't grow and then call out the DEC and redraw the wetlands. Yes, a variance for six (6) or eight (8) or ten (10) or twenty (20) feet is just darn foolery. You might as well plant the thing in the middle of the wetland and be done with it and stop this farce. Moreover, professionals in this field have indeed found this system to be lacking especially when marginal applications noting early failures, pipe collapses, shoddy installations, stench from the mandatory high differential vending, or poopies less pipes, leakage and more with many of these failures attributed to poor siting. The key to good operation is that the systems have to be in soil of excellent permeability and this site is clay and has standing water many days after a good rain. I am not saying that this system is unsafe. What I am saying is that no one in this room could possibly know for sure and we don't want you guys gambling with our water and our wetlands. Most importantly this application is lacking even the most basic information. One needs a percolation test; the suggested standard is one inch in two minutes. This site is more like one inch per day. You can go there three or four days after a rainstorm and there's still puddles. MAUREEN LYNCH-It depends on where you dig the holes. I know you mentioned some results that had been done but I believe they were done on a rather dry day, if it was the truck that we saw parked in that area over one weekend. There were no perk tests done when it was at high water and that's the bench mark that you have to start from. MR. LYNCH-Presby installations standards demand installation at least two (2) feet above mean water level which has not even been measured by anybody in Queensbury government. In addition, more tuned communities, even states forbid any setback whatsoever from protected wetlands and forbid this system for new building, only allowing it to replace failed systems which is fine. This is sage advice. In addition, this system should not be allowed by applying Presby's own installation standards as published specifically in their New York State installation guide. We actually got the installation guide and we went over it page by page by page. It's amazing; you should all read it before you vote on this. Presby, on page 31 states systems should not be located where long irrigation, roof drains or natural flows increase water loading to the soils around the system. A good rainstorm, half of them wouldn't .... drains through that property. What are you guys thinking? Additionally, page 35, it states quote `required depth to restrictive features, minimum separation distance between the advanced environmental system and the highest restrictive feature in the soil is twenty-four ( 24) inches from seasonal high water table'. Which again, nobody in this town has bothered to measure. `Or forty-eight (48) inches from ledge, bedrock or impermeable soils'. You know it can't go forty-eight (48) inches, impermeable soils are right on the top. Note, proposed installation is on top of impermeable soils. No one on this board even knows the perc rate REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 154 or the MHWT, mean high water table but I guarantee it is not four (4) feet above ground, or below ground level. No, anyone with any spatial reasoning knows that when this system goes in, after measuring a ... beneath, depth to system itself with top fill, the chances are excellent that sewage will be leaching into the groundwater. Additionally, Presby says, PEI, Presby Environmental, yea, highly recommends that all individuals involved in the approval permitting, or inspection process also complete a certification course. Before you approve the permit, show a hands, how many people have taken the Presby certification course? See, even Presby doesn't want you to pass this system. Come on, read the book. Yea, I mean before a vote, it's a really good thing to happen. Page 41, forbids installation when the soils wet. Soils almost always wet. Determining site suitability, on page 41, determining site suitability, in order to decide if a particular site is suitable for advanced environmental septic system, measure the distance down from the existing grade to the highest level of the mean water table, ledge, bedrock or impermeable soil and the soil rises, this is Presby. In a proposed system, in a fifty (50) foot perimeter, there must be a minimum of eight (8) inches when saturated soil in order to install an advanced environmental system or the distance required by New York regulations. In other words, this system might simply float on a bowl of water. There are more questions without answers. If anybody has them, you know, ... filter, you going to have them? You going to require them? How about the fifty (50) percent upgrade in the system for a garbage disposal. Are you going to send cops every month to make sure they don't put in a garbage disposal or are they already upgrading this thing fifty (50) percent? I don't think they are which is required by Presby if you even put in a garbage disposal system, you know. As per Presby standards, we should prevent any purifiers or softeners. That will screw up the system, or has the system been increased before ... lot for them. Will he use interceptive drains? Do you know what interceptive drains are? How about Presby's own statement, their system must, must adhere to all environmental setback requirements and they're not talking about eight (8), ten (10), twelve (12), fourteen (14) feet, they are talking about all. They must. These things fail. MS. LYNCH-Which would include the hundred (100) foot setback off the designated perimeter of the wetlands right now, this falls within the hundred (100) feet. MR. LYNCH-Setbacks are the same under the laws as wetlands, but then, you know that of course. You know, we're almost to the end. Even they don't want you to pass this resolution and I could go on but my point is, this is a marginal, actually a poor application to Presby technology. There's an incredible amount that could go bad in building this system and using it in the future. You should see some of the .... for these installations, wow. Using common sense and Presby's own research, there are .... that forbid this system for going forward. For these reasons alone, the board cannot pass this resolution. To dial down previous rhetoric, it's been suggested that Wincoma Lane residents don't really want a new neighbor. Personally, I could care less, I'm on the other side of the wetland. That's not really what's happening here, they do want to protect their drinking water and they do want to protect the wetland. I want to protect my wetland. I've been living next to it since what, 85? I sort of like that place, it's in the wildlife and all the other stuff that it spawns, it's pretty damn unique. Okay. This situation has been undeniably one hundred (100) percent caused by the petitioner and there are alternate proven systems, easy technology that are out there. Why would you have to go with this experimental thing when you have perfectly good holding tank systems that are in use all around? Why, why in God's name would you even think of screwing with our wetland? Why? There's just an easy way out, everybody would be happy. Hey, welcome to the neighborhood. God Bless, build away, do whatever you want. All the neighbors will welcome a chance to walk the property with anyone of you if in fact we are sitting here and listening in good faith. If this is one of these let's just go through the motions and pass it, whatever the hell. You know, give us a break. Tell us, let us just, you know, we've got better things to do with our time. I've seen too many of these Queensbury meetings where it's just all the law, all the logic, all the, and then, the vote goes the other way. In summary, it will be wrong under policy and regulations to short sight any standard septic system to any Queensbury wetlands in a new construction and it will set a hard precedent. You might as well be saying a sign out, that you'll let anybody chew away at our wetland, anytime, any reason. Hey, safe some money, there we go. You know, anytime. To short sight a marginal, at best an experimental system to a wetland in my opinion would be an absolute dereliction of your duty. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Chris, every time you pound on the table. MR. LYNCH-Oops. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 155 SUPERVISOR STROUGH-It sounds like a huge boom going over TV, Look TV. MR. LYNCH-Do you mind? Yea, okay, no more pounding on the table, I will just wave my finger. But your timing is excellent. Respectfully submitted, Christopher and Maureen Lynch. Thank you. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Okay, thank you. MS. LYNCH-We appreciate the time and we would like to think that everybody is working in good faith and following the law but at times we feel like our voices and everybody else's are not being heard. Except for the applicant and those hired consultants to try to get the project, I have yet to hear a single individual in the area or elsewhere who has been in favor of this and there are reasons. But we are beginning to feel like are voices are not being heard and it isn't a question, a sentiment or an opinion, we have spent a lot of time, that we needed for other projects right now or making a living, going into researching all of this and no one is footing the bill for us to do this. I would like to think that it's being given equal consideration especially if we have gone by the same standards that the board is using. Thank you. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Thank you. Anybody else like to speak to the Board? JOAN REID-Hello, my name is Joan Reid and I have some major concerns about the fact that Paul DesLauriers and his wife are applying for three (3)variances to build a septic system closer to our wetlands then required. The DEC Natural Heritage Protection Agency classifies the whole area around Ridge Road and the airport and into the field where I live because I live on Ridge Road right where this,just across the field from where this house is going to be built, the DEC classifies this as a G2G3 S 1 and there are less than a hundred (100) globally and they are only three (3) of these in New York State. These are special wetlands called Marl Fen. We have the Karner Blue Butterflies, Lupines, different types of plants, Indiana bat, bog turtles and the fen in the surrounding wetlands and swamp lands, not to mention all of the delicate plant life and frogs and all of that. It's just an absolute treasure that we have. We have to safe the wetlands and protect our water. Now I've lived on this, the edge of this field for fifty-one (5 1) years, either on one end or the other and I played in the field when I was growing up and I've watched the changes. That field is wet from one end across Ridge Road, near the airport, under the Ridge Road, through the middle of where my house is and where they want to build, all the way to the back of Rolling Ridge. There's a little waterfall that we used to put, you know let sticks go down. Its flowing water, it's not standing water, it comes up from the springs and it goes into Halfway Brook. So, in a sense, Bond Creek is connected to Halfway Brook through this wetland area. When, like I said, I've lived in the area for, around this field for fifty-one (5 1) years. I live next to the wetlands. My father owned this land and started Rolling Ridge being very aware of the wetlands. They were precious to the environment and he knew this so in the original surveys and I have some of those maps, the original surveys of Rolling Ridge were very careful to stay away from the wetlands so people would not build there. There are also rules in Rolling Ridge deeds that state houses have to be built within a year of property purchase and there are restrictions about building too close to the edges of the lots. In the early 1800, or 1980's, my father received a letter from the Town saying that they were designating many of his acres of land to be town wetland including right next to Paul's lot, to have sufficient designated wetland area for our Town. I guess there's a certain number acreage that's supposed to be designated wetland area and this was at the time of the Earltown proposition and all of the different things that were going on around the airport with Laakso, McCree and Eastwood and they wanted to develop that area so they needed more wetlands so they took some of my dad's land. Well, they sent a letter saying he couldn't do anything with it so he gave it to the Town. So, in light of this and my father giving it to the Town, it was with the understanding that this was indeed designated wetland area for our Town. The Town laws were created to help protect wetland boundaries, water tables, natural drainage and wells. DEC has been involved and has drawn boundaries to ensure our water safety making requirements for property wetlands, building and well setbacks. Changing these laws is not for our health and wellbeing. The Lynches has already talked about the Presby Enviro System so I won't say much more about that except for if the land has to be filled a lot, the weight that is put onto that is going to press the water into other areas. Water comes down Ridge Road and goes into that wetland area and it is flowing water and it fills and it recedes and it is constantly moving. It dries out some parts of the summer but what happens when it's really wet? And what happens if the Enviro system, the septic system does malfunction? And I did a lot of research also online and found some states like it and many do not for particular reasons. Anyway, so I would rather have, I don't want to say that Paul and his wife can't build a house there, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 156 I just would like to have it within, you know, the requirements of you know, the deeds, the requirements of the DEC, the requirements that help protect our wetlands. Maybe put in a septic, or a holding tank instead of septic system and that would help, that's what they do around the lakes in many areas. Okay, I told you how we used to ice skate through the field and play in the field and the stream flows so I have a well and I am concerned about how all of this will affect my drinking water. When I first moved into my house in 75, when I built it, the well water was top grade. Now, there are many houses around and the water table is changing and there are water levels now, I get some water in my basement from people who built up the hill from me. Now, I live a little bit lower. I live right, really on the edge of the wetland area. So, I don't understand why Paul needs to build such a big house and use and get three (3) variances for this lot. So, again, I live on the edge of the wetlands and I have for many years and I want to make sure that we stop all these extra variances for things when we could actually help him build a house that will help protect our wetlands cause this kind of shows a disturbing trend. We do, there are many of us that feel like we haven't been heard and once these echo systems are destroyed or compromised, it's really hard to put them back. It takes thousands of years to reconstruct a Marl Fen or wetlands like this. Thank you very much and thank you for considering what I've said. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Okay, thank you Joan. Anybody else in the public? BONNIE MACLEAN, Sheraton Lane-Good evening. Bonnie MacLean, Sheraton Lane, Rolling Ridge. Someone said that if somebody wants a lifelong hobby, they should build a house on a wetland, keep you busy forever. We emphasize that this variance is based on erroneous assumptions and information. Necessary for the reasonable use of lands, wetlands are protected lands. We don't use them; they are not used by us. Wetlands are protected because they are necessary for species survival. A third of the extinct species live in the wetlands. We need it for flood control. Wetlands act like a large sponge, taking the excess water into themselves so that they don't flood houses and basements. The water source that we have is an aquifer that runs under Rolling Ridge. That's going to be compromised if a large amount of fill is pressed into that wetland. We're setting a dangerous precedent in this Town. We're spending our principal which is the land. Once that principal is spent, you'll never get it back, it's just like your bank account. Anybody with a hammer and a bucket of nails can destroy the wetlands and nature to construct a house. You do it here for one, you're going to have to do it for a lot of other people. Here is no hardship in this case. He bought the land eight 8 years ago, 2006 which would knock him out of the box as far as the restrictions of construction in Rolling Ridge. My husband and I know this personally because we dealt with Dr. Reid, put money down on a lot and then did not build within a year and had to forfeit that money and that was fine with us, we understood that. But he's owned this lot for eight (8)years. I guess we're just going to be the ones who pay and he doesn't it. He did not research the why of the cattails, the standing water, the mud. Whose fault is that? If a realtor was involved in selling him this, there had to be a disclosure of property. If that wasn't disclosed, he could get is sixty-seven thousand (67,000) dollars back because then the realtor didn't do due diligence. What did the property disclosure reveal? After purchasing, he put the property on the market for years. That property was on the market for at least seven (7) years. He tried to pass it off on somebody else except his price was too high, higher then what he paid. No one bought it. They were all wise to the problems and because we live right across from the wetlands, the construction people and the other people that came to look at the property would talk to us. They said we wouldn't touch this with a ten (10) foot pole, its wetlands. It's federally protected wetlands. You can't build a successful house in wetlands. Who here is signing their name to the permission slip for disaster? Who here is considered the expert in public health? There is no thought to the property owners who already have made a long term investment in the area and paid our taxes. The Board is positioning themselves for litigation when this property creates problems for existing homeowners. You cannot press fill into a wetland and not have consequences all around it. The sub pumps in his basement will have to run twenty-four seven (24/7), three hundred and sixty-five (365) days a year and they'll be committing a felony because they'll be discharging basement wastewater into the wetlands, it's got no other place to go. If the septic fails to function fully, our aquifer supplying our wells may become polluted. In addition, the address on the existing permit for the variance as well as other papers that have come by here, the address says thirty-three (33) Wincoma Lane. That is not that man's property. That property is on the other side of Wincoma Lane and it's owned by another family. So how much attention to detail has this variance gotten when we can't even get the address on the variance on the website correct? We are not just unhappy neighbors, we are concerned with the environmental impact and litigation will take place if our properties are compromised in any way. Thank you. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 157 SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Thank you. Anybody else from the public like to speak to this application? TRAVIS WHITEHEAD, Brookshire Trace-Travis Whitehead, Brookshire Trace. Short statement and I'll submit it. While I have seen variances granted for septic systems in the past, and while I generally concur with the issuance subject to the conditions imposed with the granting of those variances, I find this particular application to warrant further scrutiny. I became aware of the issue at an earlier meeting and have had occasion to speak with some of the opponents who have strong feelings for the potential harm to the wetlands that border and intrude on that property. They can speak better than I regarding that point but I would like to make several others. First, we are talking about a potential for contamination of surface waters on adjoining properties, largely undeveloped and without representation. As you know, as opposed to groundwater contamination, surface water contamination can spread at a much faster rate. My concern as a resident of the Town is first, since we're talking about a virgin building lot here, there is no hardship based on the potential loss of other real property as there would be in the most common requests you get to mitigate septic issues that arise over time on an already developed lot. The lot in question was considered unbuildable by many and the price paid by the applicant reflected that opinion. It is not the purview of the Town to accommodate any feigning of hardship based on poor decisions. Furthermore, if said variance is granted, it could be construed by a later owner that the Town has approved the septic plan, which in fact is what you intend to do today, and if the system fails, the Town could be named in any lawsuit that might arise. The chances of such a suit succeeding if filed by the applicant would probably be very small. However, we do not know for sure if the applicant intends to live on that lot or merely flip the property. If for some reason you are inclined to grant this variance, I implore you to impose a condition that the applicant not transfer title to the property for a period of as many years as might be reasonable for any defects in the septic system to manifest themselves. I believe this would protect the Town as that owner, the applicant would need to disclose any defects in the said system prior to a second sale. You would thus be protecting the Town as well as the next buyer if this system fails to perform correctly. Thank you. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Thank you Travis. Anybody else like to speak to the Board about this application? MS. REID-My name is Joan Reid, I live at 627 Ridge Road. I have a question, I just want some clarification. You said that the new dimension, or you said something about ninety-three (93) feet or ninety-four (94) feet from the designated wetland border. I have the Rolling Ridge maps and the DEC, where I see on the DEC, if you draw a line straight from where the leach field was down to the wetland, it's like fifteen (15) or twenty (20) feet. The newer line that was just drawn in April and I don't know why they redid it in April, that line said eighty (80) something feet. Now, that's drawn at a diagonal and I used to be good in Math in High School but I know that a straight line is better, I mean, that's the way you measure it. You don't draw in diagonal. So, I am just curious if you can tell me why they changed and put a diagonal line over to some area that they say now is the only strip of wetland in that area? SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Well what I can tell you is that, we checked it, not once, three (3) times. MS. REID-Okay. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-I mean this Board has really tried to do their due diligence in this case and people have said, why don't you give this one extra scrutiny? We did. MS. REID-Okay, thank you. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Very rarely do you see this Board go through the hoops that we made this applicant and their engineer go through for this application. Our engineers made them go through hoops. So, you know, when you're talking about filtration and depth from water table, those have all been answered and questioned and I will get more information to you. But three (3) times we checked the distance from this to the wetland as delineated by the DEC. And again today I understand it was checked again so it's ninety-three (93) feet, so they're asking for seven (7) feet of relief. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 158 MS. REID-From? There's standing water there. There's standing water where they say they want to put the leach field, I mean you can see it from the road. I don't understand. It's part of the wetlands. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-The wetlands delineated, this filtration system is ninety-three (93) from it, ninety-three (93) feet. MS. REID-Thank you for your consideration. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Anybody else like to speak to the Board? You have to come up to the mic, it's all recorded. State your name again, please Chris. MR. LYNCH-I promise not to hit the table. When you say ninety-three (93) feet, we're talking apples and oranges here. The ninety-three (93) feet is from the Army Corp of Engineer designated wetland where they've already given approval to fill it in. What we're talking about is the DEC wetland which again, everybody admits swells and recedes, swells and recedes. You can have a couple of dry years and it goes down like it is now. And you can have a couple of wet years and it goes up. Our point, as far as I understand New York DEC law, the check zone is under the same SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Chris, when I asked downstairs, I said, make sure you check and double check how far it is from the wetlands, Army Corp of Engineers and DEC, either or. MR. LYNCH-Which wetlands? SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Either or. MR. LYNCH-There are two (2). Well, ninety-three (93) feet from which wetland? SUPERVISOR STROUGH-From any. MR. LYNCH-DEC? SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Any wetland. MR. LYNCH-But it isn't. The ninety-three (93) feet, if you measure it, is to Army Corp of Engineer Wetland. Am I right or am I wrong? SUPERVISOR STROUGH-I am not sure. MR. LYNCH-I am sure, it's ninety-three (93) feet to the Army Corp of Engineers. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Our people reviewed this, its ninety-three (93) feet from any delineated wetland. MR. LYNCH-If you reviewed it, why aren't you sure? SUPERVISOR STROUGH-I had our town engineer review it, Chris. MR. LYNCH-So, maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, you're not sure. Okay, questioned answered. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Okay, yes. KATHLEEN SONNABEND, 55 Cedar Court-I have not looked at this closely but if they are describing accurately that there's standing water on top of clay in the area where they want to put this septic system, think about Surrey Fields, that's basically what happened there. We were talking about a lot of clay and it failed. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-It's not. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 159 MS. SONNABEND-Okay, I just wanted to make sure the Town isn't ending up with another problem that. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-We had this thoroughly reviewed, it's not. I'll have the applicant and the engineer come up and explain some of these things for you in a minute. Anybody else like to speak to the Board? Okay, seeing none, would the applicant and the applicant's agent please return to the table? Alright, I've got some notes and you probably have some notes. MR. HUTCHINS-I do. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Let's talk about the system itself first. What can you tell me about the Presby system? MR. HUTCHINS-The Presby is accepted by New York State DOH and you have a letter documenting that so thereby it's not an experimental system. It's a very good system. It's an enhanced treatment process. It treats beyond a conventional; it treats beyond the levels of a conventional wastewater system. We, actually Paul picked this system out and that's what he wanted to use and I thought it was a great fit for the site. I would have probably chosen the same system but Paul had researched it beforehand. It is accepted. We've done a number of them successfully so I think it's a great choice of a system, I don't agree with the SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Well, and if you're in a situation where you're a little bit, it might be a little bit iffy to use a traditional system, this is more efficient, this is more effective. This is actually what you want to use near a wet area or a wetland. MR. HUTCHINS-This is what we want to use near, where we, in the general area of a critical environmental area, yea, this is the system we want to use. There's a few of them out there we would like to use, this is one of them. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Now John, would you also review that this is going to be on top of a filtration system that meets certain standards. MR. HUTCHINS-There's, in addition to what they call the system sand, which is the actual sand filter sand which is actually a very course concrete sand that provides filtration as well as biological treatment prior to discharge from that sand, we go into another layer of filtration sand which will be two and a half(2 '/2)to three (3) feet above existing grade. So, we'll have the Presby filtration sand as well as fill material that's placed to bring the system up to grade. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-So in another words, what's being designed under the system is more effective than just plain sand that we see in other parts of the Town. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Because some people think a fast perc rate is the best. It's not always the best, there's an ideal range and so you've designed this system to be within that ideal range. What height is it above the water table? MR. HUTCHINS-It is three and a half(3 '/2)to four (4) feet. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Okay and not only did we do the original test pits and the perc tests, we did additional. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes we did. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-And they all came out, you know the same? MR. HUTCHINS-The groundwater held relatively the same elevation, yea. There were difference, there was some difference in between the two (2) pits but the pits were at different elevations. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 160 SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Okay so we made you do the extra work and the extra test pits and everything there. The wetland and distance from the wetland. It is ninety-three (93) feet from any Army Corp of Engineer or DEC or whatever it is wetland, correct? MR. HUTCHINS-Right. The dimension that shows the ninety-three (93) feet is actually to the Army Corp wetland. The DEC wetland is not in the area, according to Jed Hayden from DEC who has been on this site twice and located it. It essentially parallels the rear property line which is over one hundred and fifty (150) feet from the system. The DEC wetland is not an issue according to the delineation from DEC. What there is, is there's a little finger and that's the stakes with the red flags on them, there's a little finger of wetland that comes up into the property but is an Army Corp wetland which is a different criteria then a DEC wetland. It is to that wetland that is the ninety- three (93) feet. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-So the furthest wetland towards the road is the one we're measuring from. MR. HUTCHINS-Correct. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Also, garbage disposals, if MR. HUTCHINS-Nope. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-But the thing about it is, I'd like to announce if anybody has a septic system and you're using a garbage disposal, you're asking for trouble and I don't care if it's a conventional, a Presby or one of the half a dozen others that are popular. If you're using a garbage disposal system and you have a filtration system, a septic system, you are doing it damage, regardless of whether it's this or any other system. So, garbage disposals are a no-no. Now people said the voices weren't being heard. We did hear them. We did our engineer review and they gave a very hard look at this application and you know, this Board is very concerned about the quality of the wetlands and everything else but let's keep in mind, this is an approved subdivision. This was a lot that was approved and it exists and the indicators are, it's developable. Do we have to be careful because of its proximity to the wetland? Yes, I believe we do have to be careful and we should be careful but a lot of people sharing their thoughts are not quite accurate. In any event, is there anything else that you would like to add? MR. HUTCHINS-No. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Anything from, on behalf of the Town Board? COUNCILMAN IRISH-Is there, and I am sure there is but what would be the reason that we can't do something with the design of this to come up with no variance from the wetland? I mean, you're at seven (7) feet now, what would you have to do to eliminate that variance? MR. HUTCHINS-I would have to get a variance from the front setback? COUNCILMAN IRISH-To the road? MR. HUTCHINS-Where the overall length of trenches is, is small as we can go. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay so it would have to go into front setback and that would start to impose grading issues, depending on how far in we went. COUNCILMAN IRISH-But you would be encroaching on the road and not the wetland at that point. MR. HUTCHINS-Yea, and a number of trees in that area as well. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 161 COUNCILMAN VANNESS-I feel better about the encroachment on the road then I do on the wetland. I would rather sit here and talk about a variance, moving it farther away from the wetlands towards the road then I would rather talk about a variance of keeping it near the wetlands. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-What's the difference between the northern end and the property line? MR. HUTCHINS-Ten (10) feet. It's at the ten (10) foot setback if I am understanding your question correctly. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-It's western, it's not northern. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-It's ten (10) feet now between here and here. COUNCILMAN IRISH-So if we gave them a variance for seven (7) feet, or for three (3) feet, well seven (7) feet to the property line, I would feel more comfortable doing that then giving them a variance for the wetland. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Is that something you can do? MR. HUTCHINS-I'd have to plot it but by the looks of it, we'd have to go right essentially at the property line, take the ten (10) feet because we're measuring diagonally. So if I move it ten (10) feet, I am not going to gain ten (10) feet of wetland separation. But it looks as though we ... SUPERVISOR STROUGH-So you could do it if we give you a zero (0) setback from your westerly property line? MR. HUTCHINS-If you gave us a zero (0) setback from the property line, I strongly believe we can make it work. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Alright, how's the Board feel? COUNCILMAN VANNESS-And that will pull it seven (7) feet further away from the wetlands and that variance, it basically wouldn't even be a variance issue. MR. HUTCHINS-Well it will be a variance from the property line. COUNCILMAN VANNESS-From the property line to the road though, not from the wetland. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Are you willing to do that? COUNCILMAN VANNESS-I'd like to see that. That's what I'd like to see. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Doug? COUNCILMAN IRISH-Yea. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Tony? COUNCILMAN METIVIER-Yea. I can't help but notice, Dennis is in the back of the room. Dennis, do you have any comments on the Presby system? Have you used it in the past? I know I am putting you on the spot but SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Certainly, no. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-What's that? I mean, if anybody knows, you do. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-I know, but he's not a town engineer. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-So, do I have to strike the question? SUPERVISOR STROUGH-No. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 162 COUNCILMAN METIVIER-I mean, I am putting him on the spot but I mean I am staring right at him and he seems to have some comment so I am just curious. You don't want to comment? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-If he's going to comment, you need him up here. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-I'll call you. How's that? UNKNOWN FROM AUDIENCE-Did you hear what he said? He said his only experience was not a good one. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-I did not hear that, no. UNKNOWN FROM AUDIENCE-Well that's what he just said. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-I'm sorry, I did not hear him. I apologize, I did not hear that. I will call him. I did not hear it, I answered your question. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Any other questions? Alright, from what I am hearing from the Board, we're going to revise the application and counsel can you help me out here? We're going to strike the variance from the US Army Corp of Engineer wetland and we're not going to grant a variance from that hundred (100) foot. We will grant a variance of, I guess ten (10) feet of relief from the ten (10) foot setback required from the western property line, that the applicant will move the system towards the western property line in according with what the Board had said and according with what the engineer agreed to do, therefore requiring no variance from the wetland. Is that something? MR. HUTCHINS-We can make that work. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Okay. Alright, Mr. Schachner, can you tell us what you have? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-I think you would be changing the third line of the first whereas, by crossing out everything up to the word instead and replacing it with zero (0) feet from the westerly property line and then you would pick up with the instead of the required, and you would change hundred (100) feet to ten (10) foot. And then, I don't think, I don't know if the Board has discussed this but the Town Clerk and I think that the property is not necessarily located at thirty-three (33) Wincoma Lane and if it's SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Well, we should probably use the tax map number instead of TOWN CLERK BARBER-The tax map number is correct, thirty-three (33)Wincoma Lane is not. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Okay, we'll substitute the tax map number in there. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-And then you would also, if you want to go forward in this direction in the resolved paragraph, the last resolved paragraph, in second line you would take out the number ninety-four point eight (94.8) feet, you would replace that with zero (0) feet, you would pick up with from and then delete federally jurisdictional USACOE wetlands and replace those words with the western property line, picking up with, instead of the required and you would change one hundred (100) feet to ten (10) feet and you would again, instead of thirty-three (33) Wincoma Lane use the tax map number. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Okay, thank you Mr. Schachner. Alright COUNCILMAN IRISH-Mark, could you read that first whereas for me again? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Alright let's make sure I didn't mess it up. What I'm showing is it would be, whereas Paul DesLauriers filed an application for a variance from provisions of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, Chapter 136 to install a leaching field zero (0) feet from the westerly property line instead of the required ten(10) foot setback on property located at, whatever the tax map number is, Wincoma Lane in Rolling Ridge Estates, Queensbury. Is that REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 163 what the Board has? COUNCILMAN IRISH-It is now. COUNCILMAN VANNESS-Yup, thank you. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Do you want me to read the last resolved or no? COUNCILMAN IRISH-No, I didn't get the first one, that's all. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Okay, does everybody understand? Any further questions? Is there a motion to approve? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Did you close the public hearing? SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Oh, I am sorry, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING PAUL DESLAURIER'S APPLICATION FOR SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO.: BOH 24,2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Brian Clements WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr.William VanNess WHEREAS, Paul DesLauriers filed an application for a variance from provisions of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, Chapter 136 to install a leaching field 0' from the westerly property line instead of the required 10' setback on property located at Wincoma Lane in Rolling Ridge Estates, Queensbury and bearing Tax Map No.: 297.10-1-45, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk's Office published the Notice of Public Hearing in the Town's official newspaper and the Local Board of Health conducted public hearings concerning the variance request on Monday, June 16t1i 2014 and Monday, July 21St, 2014, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk's Office has advised that it duly notified all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that 1. due to the nature of the variance, the Local Board of Health determines that the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes and objectives of this Ordinance or other adjoining properties nor otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of any Town plan or policy; and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 164 2. the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and is the minimum variance which would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health to affect the applicant; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health hereby approves the application of Paul DesLauriers for a variance from the Sewage Disposal Ordinance to install a leaching field 0' from the westerly property line instead of the required 10' setback on property located at Wincoma Lane in Rolling Ridge Estates, Town of Queensbury and bearing Tax Map No.: 297.10-1-45. Duly adopted this 21St day of July, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough NOES Mr. Metivier ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING ON SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE FOR VINCENT AND ANNETTE O'NEILL PUBLICATION DATE: JULY 11, 2014 SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Okay, the agent and the applicant for this variance, please introduce yourself and give us a quick overview. DENNIS MACELROY-Thank you John. I am Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design representing the owners and applicants, Vince and Annie O'Neill for this property at 85 Pilot Knob Road. This is a lakefront property. The O'Neills are relatively new owners, I think they closed in January of 2014 and one of the first things that they wanted to turn their attention to as far as improvements was to just secure the wastewater system for that site. There is an old septic tank cesspool type device that serves the property and when we looked at that situation and considered various options, there really were two options. A holding tank situation or perhaps an advanced treatment system like I've been to you before and in consideration of those options, the O'Neills are looking at really from a use and cost basis this holding tank situation. Forty-five hundred (4500) gallon capacity system would serve that usage as per the Town Ordinance. And again, why we're here is the Town Ordinance requires a variance for the use of a holding tank at any of these properties, Chapter 136-11 and therefore we're seeking that variance for the use of the holding tank. It may be as much an economic issue as, you know the cost of a system that may or may not be feasible. I want to qualify certainly by that, saying that a pure flow system for instance that I have been here before with, maybe has some potential there. I wouldn't rule it out but it would have a certain impact on the property that if you went to the property, the driveway in, there's a line of trees that basically would get wiped out. Those would have to come out to be able to serve as a disbursal area. So, between the use that they expect of the property, it's an intermittent use property for the O'Neills that a holding tank seemed to be the best solution for them. I would note that if they choose in the future, if they find their use is appropriate and that they could use those same three (3)tanks as the basis of an advanced treatment system in the future. So there's nothing goes to waste there. It's, you know, two (2)tanks would service the septic tank capacity and one (1)tank could serve as a pump tank but for now this is the best move for the O'Neills and that's what we're here to request the variance for. SUPERISOR STROUGH-Now I am reading the specs Dennis and I, we were over for a site visit, very nice location. MR. VINCENT O'NEILL-Thank you. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 165 SUPERVISOR STROUGH-And the applicant assured me that the tops were designed to be able to take vehicle parking above them, I forget what MR. MACELROY-Yea, definitely. It's a H-20 loading, heavy duty precast concrete septic tanks. The H-20 loading is the traffic bearing loading rating that is required for that type of application because they would be under an area that there would be car parking, it's a driveway parking area. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Is that spec in here? MR. MACELROY-Yes, it is. Well both, on the second sheet, the details for the holding tank, fifteen hundred (15 00) gallon, heavy duty H-20 loading septic tank and then there's, it's also in the notes. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Oh, okay, I read that and I didn't read it. MR. MACELROY-And those, on that second sheet of the plans, that's directly out of the Town Code, all those specifications and requirements. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Yes. COUNCILMAN VANNESS-I just want to say that I applaud you for going this route and making an attempt to that holding tank work. I mean it's something that, I mean this current Board has been working harder and harder at along the lakes and around the water areas, is to go with holding tanks and I applaud you for giving it a shot and trying this to see if it's going to work for you. I thank you for doing that. MR. MACELROY-Yea, I would note that there isn't any documented failure or anything with the existing system but I think it's a recognition of, that's the first thing that they wanted to get secured. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Well I like holding tanks, I know where it is and I know where it's not. MR. MACELROY-Right. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS-It's my understanding that if there was a leach field there, you wouldn't be able to have parking over that too, is that correct? MR. MACELROY-Correct. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Any other questions from the Town Board? Anybody from the public wish to speak to this septic variance application? Yes we do, we have one person so if you will please have a seat for a minute and we'll call you back in a minute. Thank you. Please identify yourself for the record. JACK CELESTE-Good evening, I am Jack Celeste and I own the property that's right next to 85 Pilot Knob and actually provide the driveway that, we own the driveway and they are able to use that right-of-way, only to get to their property. We have not seen or heard anything, I just got a little flyer in the mail and I thought we might want to come down here and see, because my best friend owned that property before this and we knew that he had some significant issues with septic. Every Monday at 10 o'clock the septic guy pulled up and pumped it out, like clockwork, Monday mornings. So, I mean I can see that they may need to do something but we need to understand what they want to do, when they want to do it and it's right in front of our house. So the plans that you've been provided, are we supposed to get a copy of that or do we have to have a lawyer to request those things? SUPERVISOR STROUGH-No. Do you want my copy? I'll give it to you, you can go look at it quick and if you have any questions, come back in a minute. MR. CELESTE-Right. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-A very simple system, its three (3) holding tanks. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 166 SUPERVISOR STROUGH-You couldn't get a more reliable system then this where they are COUNCILMAN METIVIER-Yea, they're not leaching anything into the ground with these things. MR. CELESTE-Timing is a consideration for us as well. COUCILMAN METIVIER-As far as summer, fall? MR. CELESTE-I really don't want to SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Okay, well here you go. (referred to applicant's plans) Here's the house. There's that concrete walkway. Holding tanks, not going to go anywhere, not going to adversely affect the lake, it's the best possible thing and it's in that parking area right here. MR. CELESTE-This is the first we've seen this, right so we definitely needed to see this. Can I get a copy of this? SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Sure, you can have that. MR. CELESTE-I can have this? SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Yea. MR. CELESTE-Okay, great. Just one last question, what's the timing on it? As, you know, we get six weeks of utilization out of that residence and SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Jack, I don't know but I will ask the applicant when they come back up. MR. CELESTE-Okay. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Anything else? MR. CELESTE-Nope. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Okay, thank you. Any other member of the public wish to speak to this septic variance application? Seeing none, would the applicant and the applicant's agent, please return to the table. Do you know what the timing is going to be here? MR. MACELROY-Certainly that's a reasonable question and I've discussed that with the applicant and they don't want to be disturbed either during the season and what not. The logistics of getting equipment in and out of there and not disturbing people, it's been done in late September or October. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Okay. MR. MACELROY-Or November for that matter. COUNCILMAN VANNESS-Is this something that you'd be willing to work with, with your neighbors on? MR. O'NEILL-Absolutely. COUNCILMAN VANNESS-Great. You can't ask for anything more than that. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Are you suggesting a condition that it not be done in August or are you just going to COUNCILMAN VANNESS-No, I mean, I'd like to see him discuss it with his neighbor. I think they both look like, you know, like they can discuss it. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 167 SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Where's Jack? Where did Jack go? Jack? Doing it in October, or November, December? MR. CELESTE—NOT AUDIBLE-STAYED IN BACK OF ROOM. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Alright, all I needed was a yes or a no. Okay, thank you. Okay so your neighbor is happy with you doing it fall or late fall and that's okay with you so we are all right. Any other comments, thoughts by the Town Board? COUNCILMAN IRISH-My only comment would be to just add a condition not to begin, for construction not to begin before October 1St SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Is that okay with the applicant? MR. O'NEILL-Yes. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Alright, while counsel is working on that, I am closing the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER recommended the following addition to the proposed resolution: Be it further resolved, that system installation shall not commence until after October 1St, 2014. RESOLUTION APPROVING SANITARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE FOR VINCENT AND ANNETTE O'NEILL RESOLUTION NO.: BOH 25,2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr.William VanNess WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Doug Irish WHEREAS, Vincent and Annette O'Neill filed an application to the Local Board of Health for a variance from provisions of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance Chapter 136, to allow installation of a 4,500 gallon holding tank system to replace the current wastewater system on property located at 85 Pilot Knob Road in the Town of Queensbury, New York, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk's Office published the Notice of Public Hearing in the Town's official newspaper and the Local Board of Health conducted a public hearing concerning the variance request on Monday, July 21St, 2014, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk's Office has advised that it duly notified all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 168 RESOLVED, that 1. due to the nature of the variance, it is felt that the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes and objectives of this Ordinance or other adjoining properties nor otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of any Town plan or policy; and 2. the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and is the minimum variance which would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health to affect the applicants; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health hereby approves the application of Vincent and Annette O'Neill for a variance from the Sewage Disposal Ordinance to allow installation of a 4,500 gallon holding tank system to replace the current wastewater system on property located at 85 Pilot Knob Road in the Town of Queensbury, New York and bearing Tax Map No.: 227.18-1-13 and, BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that system installation shall not commence until after October 1St, 2014. Duly adopted this 21St day of July, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: BOH 26,2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Doug Irish WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr.William VanNess RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourn and enter Regular Session of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 21St day of July, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 169 NOES: None ABSENT: None CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ENACTING LOCAL LAW TO DELETE QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 105 "LAND USE PROCEDURES"AND AMEND CHAPTER 179 "ZONING"AND TOWN ZONING MAP PUBLICATION DATE: JUNE 6,2014 SUPERVISOR STROUGH-We do have a letter from the Adirondack Park Agency. It says, Dear Supervisor Strough, I am pleased to enclose a copy of Resolution 2014-1 adopted by the Adirondack Park Agency at its July 10, 2014 meeting. The resolution unanimously approved the proposed July 2014 amendments to the portions of the Town of Queensbury's Agency approved local law land use program involving its Zoning Law and Zoning District Map. Please be advised that the Town must provide the Agency with a clerk-certified copy of the amendments upon enactment by the Town and filing of the amended local law with the NYS Department of State. And I do have the letter from Fort Miller as promised by this Board and it is from Fort Miller and it says, after listening to the meeting dialogue we wish to inform the Town Board that we will, upon approval and commencement of extraction at the aforementioned parcels, construct a new road to provide ingress and egress to our operation via New York State Route 149. This new road will eliminate the use of Dream Lake Road to access our operation as discussed in our workshop session. At the public hearing, there are many approvals that will be required and so forth. So this is another thing that the public wished, we carried that out. So, again, we're looking at deleting Chapter 105 which is land use procedures which expired in 91. It still exists. We want to get rid of it. It has no reason to exist. We are proposing to amend our language in 179-2-10, "amusement center" "outdoor recreation", "recreation active", "recreation passive" and deleting"recreational facilities", "commercial" and"recreational facilities private". We reviewed many considerations. This Board has decided to keep the changes as they've been proposed. On 179-5-060, measurement of docks. There has been, where do you measure from? From the Fence? From the roof eaves? From the decking? What have you. We propose to measure this from the fencing that protects the area. 179-5-060, "site plan review for boathouses on all water bodies regulated by the Town". 179-8-040, "acceptable tree and plant species". We did change a typo to grown that was grow and misused as grow. We're not going to be numbering these lists and basically the other changes, we're going to keep as proposed. 179-14-040, Zoning Administrator's appeal will be filed in the Town Clerk's Office so we are not offering any change, we're keeping the code as it is, to be filed, all Zoning Administration determinations have to be filed in the Town Clerk's Office. 179-16-120, it's a redundancy; we're just going to delete that redundancy dealing with the notice of public hearing. Table 2, summary of allowed uses in Residential Zones, we're going to eliminate the use of commercial sand and gravel, because it's not defined and we're going to use the term that is defined in our code as sand, gravel and topsoil extraction, commercial and we're going to place the use as an allowed use in the RR zone. We're adding the footnote, also for the public because this is what they wanted, that this sand, gravel, topsoil extraction, commercial will be only allowed in parcels of 25 acres or greater and only upon receiving a letter of commitment from Fort Miller that they will commit to the creation of the 149 access road and they did as I just indicated and read to you. 179-4-090, Table 5, "parking requirements", we are correcting some errors. 179-2- 010, "office zone", we're removing the 300' residential use restriction on West Mountain Road. 179- 8-060 buffer requirements between the adjacent uses, we're correcting some errors in it. 179-10-070, "veterinary clinics", we're putting this so that it's more in accord with the code and so we're making those changes just so that it's in accord with other sections of the code. Zoning Map changes, the parcel identified as tax map 28-1-18 is being changed from rural residential to land conservation 10 acres. Three parcels, and this is off of 149, three parcels identified as tax map numbers 266.3-1-79, 266.3-1-80 and 266.3-1-81 are being changed from moderate density residential to neighborhood commercial and that is the area on the intersection of Ridge Road and 149. It's to bring down what is currently that zone, it's to bring it down so it includes the restaurant there that as a restaurant is a non-conforming use. It hasn't been used for a while so if anybody wants to use, it's a non- conforming use. This just stretches the zone down on the northern side of 149 to include those two lots, the bottom one being that blue restaurant sitting vacant right now. And the last item, three parcels being identified as tax map 296.13-1-16 and 296.13-1-1 and 296.13-1-83 are being changed from moderate density residential to commercial moderate. This is the area of Sweet Road, near the intersection with Route 9. All of this is commercial moderate. All of this side down to Kendrick Road is, or yea, whatever road. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 170 COUNCILMAN VANNESS-Montray. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-No, that little one and so this includes bringing down to what was the This& That Shop which has been commercial for twenty(20)years. This will make it Commercial Moderate to match the opposite side of the road because somebody wants to go in there with a very like enterprise which was there, can't do it because it's non-conforming. So they asked us to consider rezoning that parcel so that they could use it as it's been used for the last three(3) or so decades. So we said we would consider that. So those are the considerations by this Town Board and the public hearing is still open. Is there anybody from the public that would like to come to the Board and talk about any of the zoning code or zoning map changes I just mentioned? I know this has been a long haul. John. MR. JOHN SALVADOR-Good evening, for your record my name is John Salvador. Have any written comments other then what you read Mr. Strough been submitted? SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Since when? MR. SALVADOR-Since the last public hearing. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-No, nothing since the last public hearing. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. The next to the last whereas clause states that the Adirondack Park Agency approved the proposed revised Zoning Code and Zoning Map July IOth subject to certain minor revisions. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-Where are those revisions. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-At the last meeting, I went through those revisions and we made the revisions to be in accord with what the Adirondack Park was asking such as some of the language I've mentioned to you. But I have the details and at last meeting I went through that. MR. SALVADOR-Well they should be in the resolution, in your approval resolution. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Well they are and at the last meeting I mentioned we made those changes and that's what's on the town website. MR. SALVADOR-Briefly, what are they specifically? SUPERVISOR STROUGH-I've got those in my office John, I didn't think to bring them. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Do any of the APA suggested minor revisions affect the town zoning map? SUPERVISOR STROUGH-No. MR. SALVADOR-None? Okay. With respect to the last resolved clause on page 3, why? The last resolved clause on page 3 reads, all applications requiring the review and approval of the Town of Queensbury's Director of Planning, Zoning and Code Compliance which are received and deemed complete prior to the effective date of this Local Law shall be reviewed under the zoning regulations applicable at the time of such applications and all applications, etcetera. Of course. This resolved clause appears here for the first time. It has not been in your, in this resolution prior. I'm just wondering why this is put in here? And it's self-evident. This is a self-evident thing, I don't think and it's probably why it didn't appear until now. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-So you don't have a problem with it. Is that what you're saying? MR. SALVADOR-No, I have a problem understanding. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Is there a question there? REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 171 TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-I didn't hear one. COUNCILMAN IRISH-I do. I have a question because that's the first time I realized that as well but why was that put in there? Because to my mind it, it now lends some credibility to a lawsuit that's going on across the street here. If we're going to change the zone on Bay Road and there's a lawsuit across the street, about area variances or whatever it happens to be and we pass this resolution with that resolve in it, it doesn't prohibit any of those projects that are already approved from going forward with, you know, a fifty foot setback on Bay Road for residential use. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-I don't, I am not sure I understand your concern Councilman Irish but the resolve deals with things that are, that new applications come in between now and the effective date of the amendments. It wouldn't deal with things that have been approved with already and it wouldn't deal with things that are submitted after the effective date. It would only be during the interim period between adoption of the zoning amendments and the effective date of the zoning amendments. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Okay so nothing, nothing that's already in the pipeline. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Correct. COUNCILMAN IRISH-Okay, thank you. MR. SALVADOR-With respect to certain zoning district designations, if only those zoning districts listed are changed then the town zoning map remains in error as have all town zoning maps ever published which do not reflect the most recent 1858 State Statute defining the municipal boundaries of the State. Over fourteen(14) years ago I addressed a letter to the Chairman of the Warren County Board of Supervisors, Mr. Tessier at the time, confirming my presentation to the county's real property tax services committee. My presentation dealt with the fact that the Lake George Basin Town map sections, that is the tax maps have never been correct. They have never conformed to the New York State Real Property Tax Law Section 503. Specifically those Warren County Towns having a Town boundary defined since 1858, in part as the shore of Lake George or even along the shore of Lake George, were improperly designated. Following that Warren County Real Property Tax Service, following that, the Real Property, the Warren County Real Property Tax Service Department in concert with the County Attorney caused the tax maps to be corrected to show that the waters of Lake George being foreign to the Town of Queensbury. What this did was to dispel the thought that the boundary between SUPERVISOR STROUGH-John, I just want everybody in the audience and out there in TV 8 listening that what you're talking about has nothing to do with this resolution. MR. SALVADOR-It has a lot to do with this resolution. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Not this resolution. MR. SALVADOR-You are modifying the tax, the zoning map. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Not in the area that you are talking about. MR. SALVADOR-Exactly, and you should. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Well we can deal with that at another time but John that topic is not this resolution. Now, when it comes to privilege of the floor, you can go on and on and on COUNCILMAN METIVIER-For four(4) minutes. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-About where North Queensbury's boundary is or isn't. MR. SALVADOR-Okay, for the record of this hearing, I would like to submit this copy of the Warren County GIS department's definition of the Town boundaries on Lake George. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 172 SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Okay. MR. SALVAODR-Okay and I would like to also submit this copy of the Town of Queensbury's corrected Town boundaries. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Okay. Just again, we want the public to know that the Northern boundary of the Town of Queensbury is not part of this resolution, where it is or where it's not. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Yea, thank you. Is there any members of the public that would like to speak to the amended, the proposed changes of the zoning and the zoning map? Yes, come forward please. CLAUDIA BRAYMER-Good evening, my name is Claudia Braymer, attorney with Caffry and Flower representing Lake George RV Park and we have some comments on the proposed changes related to the recreation definitions and we did speak at the last public hearing so we'll try to keep our comments from repeating those comments. I would just like to note for the record and just review that, originally the changes proposed were at the request of the zip line applicant and later this Board indicated that it was looking to change and correct a problem that was highlighted by the zip line application. However, with all due respect to this Board, the proposal does not correct the problem that was created by the zip line proposal or highlighted by that proposal. The problem was related to the lack of a tourist attraction in the use table. Whether or not that was on purpose by the drafters of the code is unclear to me but that is the problem that the zip line applicant ran into and this proposal does not address that. You're not proposing anywhere to include tourist attractions in the use tables. Short of correcting that problem, it is our position, the Lake George RV Park and numerous residents position that the changes that are proposed should be changed should reflect the proposal that we presented to you several weeks ago. Because the current version is not consistent with the other uses that are allowed in the residential zones. We have a petition with the three(3)pages, sixteen(16) signatures of residents of the Town of Queensbury who are supporting the proposal that we presented to you several weeks ago and I would like to file that tonight. To show you, demonstrate the inconsistency, the definitions that we're talking about tonight of recreation, specifically"outdoor recreation" and"recreation active" apply only to the residential zones in this Town and in the residential zones as you might think, the only permitted uses are residential uses and fruit stands, if you would believe that. Those are the only types of permitted uses in those zones, in the residential zones. And what have you tonight is permitting basically golf courses and ski centers in the residential zones, the way that you are setting up the language with the"outdoor recreation" including motorized transportation and facilitation. However, ski centers and golf courses are not permitted anywhere in residential zones so you're creating more problems by changing the code the way you're currently proposing it. Another example of inconsistency is that, the Town Code right now does not allow even playgrounds to be permitted in some of the residential zones but this would create a loophole allowing motorized recreational uses and unspecified number and type of motorized recreational uses, even though you can't have playgrounds currently. The attorney for the zip line proposal has stated that the zip line is consistent with the definition because"outdoor recreation" allows for a landowner to charge a fee to the public. But I would suggest to you that a commercial, an amusement ride with expensive ticket prices is much different than using a baseball field and having a group pay a small fee, a rental fee for that type of use. Those are two (2) different things. By catering to this particular applicant, you're opening the door to numerous other motorized uses in residential zones and you're making the Town Code more inconsistent with itself and it's going to be inconsistent with the Town Comprehensive Plan as I stated in my comments at the last public hearing. The Town Board should adopt the proposed language for the definitions of"recreation" and"outdoor recreation"that we included in our submittal to you previously and also that's out, the language that's outlined in the petition and the residents are asking you to reign in the current proposal to at least exclude amusement rides that are going to be regulated by the Department of Labor. These are not uses that should be allowed in residential zones and we ask that you adopt the language that we had proposed again. Thank you. MR. DAVE KING-Dave King, president of the Lake George RV Park. In communicating with residents of French Mountain, I spent, since the public hearing was opened, I spent a great deal of time talking to the residents and of course the first shock is they're not really aware of how this language affects their property zones. It came to mind in the discussions, when we looked at use REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 173 tables, a lot of questions came up as to why the use tables were not more complete with examples of what would be permitted in the LC I OA zone under the new language. A lot of people asked me why doesn't it list zip line if that's what it's trying to include and what other kind of activities could be included in the use table if this language is changed. And as we examined it, it became quite evident that in addition to perhaps the zip line is proposed, activity such as alpine slides, similar to the Bromley slide in Vermont, rollercoasters that are gravity fed similar to the ones at Okemo would all be permitted uses in this zone. And when we had those conversations, it was quite shocking to these people in these residential zones, these land conservation zones that these potentially would be permitted uses that would not require variances. So I caution this Board in approving the proposed language as discussed prior because I don't believe without a more complete discussion on the use table, that we're being responsible in passing this new language which is currently just being proposed to serve one applicant. It really needs to serve the needs of all the residents and businesses in this Town and I don't believe the consideration has been given to all those. The petitions, this petition and the names there on, obviously show that there's a concern in this community about these changes and more discussion needs to be had. The fact that they are not more consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use plan is the concern. The concern is they live in a land conservation district, these are the properties they own, they never considered that these uses would be permitted uses and it seems as though they will be if you adopt this language tonight. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Okay, thank you very much. Now, I think it's a good moment for me to share with the public what we're talking about here. We currently have"amusement center" and it reads like this and I will point out the changes that we're proposing, "amusement center", an indoor or outdoor facility which may include structures and buildings where there are various devices for entertainment including rides and booths for the conduct of games and buildings for shows and entertainment. This includes amusements such as, we added such as but not limited to, miniature golf, go-karts or riding areas for dirt bikes or ATVs or"snowmobiles". We added"snowmobiles", skating facilities, arcades and batting cages. Okay, that was what we're changing in"amusement center". We're basically adding snowmobiles. "Outdoor recreation", we're just modifying this slightly in that we're adding land uses which offer"passive" or"active", and that's what we added, "passive" or"active recreation" activities primarily outdoors that are operated for members or on a commercial basis for, and we changed, we scratched members and we put "general public". So, that's what we did there, "outdoor recreation", we added"passive" or"active", we took out members and we put in"general public" as opposed to members of the public. Okay, that's what we're changing there. "Active", "recreation active", this is what we currently have and I will highlight the things that we're changing, proposing to change I should say. Nonmotorized leisure activities usually organized and performed with other persons, often requiring equipment and taking place at prescribed and non- natural places, sites, or fields. Examples include, but not limited to, baseball, we added"softball", soccer, basketball, track, we added the word"and", or tennis "and"track and field. We scratched "golf' and"skiing" because we added, elsewhere. Now here's the sentence we added to"recreation active". Also included are activities which are principally nonmotorized, but in which motorized equipment may facilitate setup or transportation within the activity area such as golf or downhill skiing. So what we added to this is just that last sentence basically. Also included are activities which are principally nonmotorized, but in which motorized equipment may facilitate setup or transportation within the activity area such as golf or downhill skiing. Next and last is "recreation passive". We changed very little here and I will point out what we are proposing to change. But here is the language as it is currently is stated in the code. Nonmotorized leisure activities which are not active recreation and usually can take place in areas with minimal disturbance to the natural landscape. Examples include, but are not limited to, hiking, walking, boating,jogging, we added"cross country skiing", biking plant activity, picnicking, kite flying, frisbee throwing, bird watching, nature photography, swimming, nature classes, model boating, wheelchair racing, fishing, dog walking, feeding of water fowl and sunbathing. The only thing we added was"cross country skiing". Okay, we delineated or we deleted"recreational facilities commercial" and"recreational facilities private" because they weren't appropriate to the code. Alright so that's what we're talking about here. Alright,just so that everyone's on the same page. Okay, anybody else from the public who would like to come to the Board? Mr. Montesi. RON MONTESI-Ron Montesi, past Board Member. John and the Board, I just, Ledgeview was something that started under my administration and I just wondered, are those changes for Ledgeview in the present changes that were approved by APA? SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Yes. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 174 MR. MONTESI-Okay, thank you. MICHAEL O'CONNOR-For the purpose of your record, I am Mike O'Connor. I support the changes that you are making to the definitions to"outdoor recreation", "active recreation" and "passive recreation". The modifications really are not changes, I think they are clarifications. To say that they are changes is a mischaracterization of them. Basically, when we started our, and I represent the applicant for the zip line, the zip line which has been approved by the eleven(11) member board unanimously of the Adirondack Park Agency which was approved as a permitted use by your Zoning Administrator whose interpretation was approved unanimously by your Zoning Board of Appeals and whose Use Site Plan was approved unanimously by your Planning Board, all as being appropriate for the zone in which is located. You didn't have a definition as to where"active recreation" or"passive recreation" actually was permitted or not permitted within the zone. You had to make assumptions. We got into this argument, the opponents to the particular project that I speak on behalf of, tried to make a use of tourist attraction which is not also defined within your ordinance, or wasn't defined within your ordinance and simply by saying it was not defined in a particular zone therefore it was prohibited from that zone. But throughout all their arguments they have, always ignored the fact that "outdoor recreation" is a permitted use within the LC-10 zone which is a residential zone. And in the present definition, even without your change, in the definition of"outdoor recreation", the term commercial appears. It is permitted to use, or to run an outdoor recreation on a commercial basis and it's as simple as that. I think before it was for members of the public and your saying instead of saying for members of the public, you're saying for the"general public"which may be all more inclusive or more of, with clarification of it. So, you're not changing what is permitted, you're just clarifying it. The second change that you make in"active recreation" simply also clarifies that in some outdoor recreation activities, you have some element of mechanism. Not necessarily, and there's no definition really of motorized. When I looked at that, probably three(3)years ago when we started this project in 2011, I thought of motorized being some type of activity where the participant would operate a car, whether it be a short track or something of that nature, or trail thing where they would operate the car. There didn't appear to be a definition, I don't think there is a definition within our ordinance. The opponents to the particular project that I have are saying that anything that's mechanical is then motorized, if the mechanical part of it is operated by a motor, even if it's not a principal part of the activity. In the particular project that I have, there are no motors within the Town of Queensbury. All of the motors are located within the Town of Lake George. What will be located in the Town of Queensbury will be a static line, attached to a pole. People will ride that line by gravity. It is an"outdoor recreation". So I appreciate the fact that you've tried to clarify this and hopefully it will simplify things. I don't know of any other proposed activities that people would put out there. I don't have a lot of faith in door to door petitions. Very seldom and I do a lot of zoning work, I very seldom present them because somebody standing on a doorstep saying, would you sign my petition, sometimes it's signed more to get rid of the person than it is to support the position that they take. I thank you for your time. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Alright but I also want to point out too and I think I speak for most of the Board if not everybody, Mr. King, his legal counsel, Ms. Braymer and Mr. Macchio and his legal counsel, Mr. O'Connor. Yes, the zip line issue did bring to our attention that there were some things that weren't fitting right in our town code that were in error. For example, the way it was written, it was brought to our attention, didn't include golf or downhill skiing. We said, gee, you're right. Never thought of that, the issue never came up so now we've included golf and downhill skiing in our definition and wording to accommodate that. So, you know, both sides come up here and say this and that and the other thing, we're changing the zoning to accommodate I think basically what we have. Am I pretty accurate? Anybody else of the public like to speak to the Board about any of the proposed code or the code map changes we're proposing to make? Hearing none, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO.: 2 OF 2014 TO DELETE QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 105 "LAND USE PROCEDURES" AND AMEND CHAPTER 179 "ZONING" AND TOWN ZONING MAP REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 175 RESOLUTION NO.: 254, 2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr.William VanNess WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr.Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: 2 of 2014 to delete Queensbury Town Code Chapter 105, entitled "Land Use Procedures," and amend Chapter 179, entitled "Zoning" to amend language and requirements in various locations, and to make revisions to the Town Zoning Map, and WHEREAS, before the Town Board may amend its Zoning Law and Map, it must hold a Public Hearing in accordance with provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and the Town of Queensbury Zoning Law, and WHEREAS, in accordance with General Municipal Law §239-m, the Town must first refer the proposed Zoning Law amendments and obtain a recommendation from the Warren County Planning Department before enacting the legislation, and WHEREAS, the Town must also obtain approval of the Adirondack Park Agency for the proposed amendments to the Town's Zoning Law and Zoning Map prior to adoption, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury amendments comply with and are a furtherance of approval standards contained in §807 of the Adirondack Park Agency Act and 9 NYCRR Part 582 of Agency regulations, and WHEREAS, the proposed changes to the Town Zoning Law and Town Zoning Map constitute a Type I action under SEQRA and the Town Board therefore prepared Part 1 of a Full Environmental Assessment Form(EAF) for use in the SEQRA environmental review, and WHEREAS, in accordance with the State's SEQRA regulations, on May 19t1i 2014 by Resolution No.: 183, 2014 the Town Board declared its intent to be the Lead Agency for the required SEQRA environmental review for the proposed zoning revisions and map changes, and WHEREAS, the Town Board previously notified the only other Involved Agency, the Adirondack Park Agency, of the Town Board's intent to be Lead Agency for the SEQRA review of the proposed zoning revisions, and WHEREAS, by letter dated May 30t1i 2014 the Adirondack Park Agency consented to the Town Board serving as Lead Agency, and the Town Board accepted the role of Lead Agency for the required SEQRA review, and REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 176 WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 241, 2014 adopted by the Town Board on July 7th 2014, the Town Board considered the proposed Local Law, reviewed Part 1 of the EAF to analyze potential environmental impacts, completed Part 2 of the EAF and found that the proposed changes to the Town Code and the Town Zoning Map would not result in any large or important detrimental impacts and would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and therefore declared a Negative Declaration under SEQRA and authorized the filing of a SEQRA Negative Declaration -Notice of Determination of Non-Significance for this action, and WHEREAS, Municipal Home Rule Law §20 requires the Town Board to hold a Public Hearing prior to the adoption of any Local Law and the Town Board duly held Public Hearings on Monday, June 16th and Monday, July 21St, 2014 concerning proposed Local Law No.:2 of 2014 and heard all interested persons, and WHEREAS, in accordance with General Municipal Law §239-m, the Town duly referred the proposed revised Zoning Code and Zoning Map to the Warren County Planning Board, which issued a recommendation of"No County Impact"with regard to them, and WHEREAS, on July 10th 2014, the Adirondack Park Agency approved the proposed revised Zoning Code and Zoning Map subject to certain minor revisions, which have been incorporated, and WHEREAS, the proposed Local Law is in a form approved by Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby enacts proposed Local Law No.: 2 of 2014 to delete Queensbury Town Code Chapter 105, entitled "Land Use Procedures," and amend Chapter 179, entitled "Zoning" to amend language and requirements in various locations, and to make revisions to the Town Zoning Map, 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 as provided by law, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that all applications requiring the review and approval of the Town of Queensbury's Director of Planning, Zoning and Code Compliance which are received and deemed REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 177 complete prior to the effective date of this Local Law shall be reviewed under the zoning regulations applicable at the time of such applications, and all applications requiring the review and approval of the Director of Planning, Zoning and Code Compliance received after the effective date of this new Local Law No.: 2 of 2014 shall be reviewed according to the zoning requirements established by this Local Law, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Town Clerk, Senior Planner, Director of Planning, Zoning and Code Compliance and/or Town Counsel to execute any required documents and take any and all actions necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 21St day of July, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess NOES None ABSENT: None DURING VOTE -Supervisor Strough disclosed that his brother-in-law previously owned the property on Sweet Road which is being proposed to a zone change from MDR to Commercial Moderate, then voted yes. LOCAL LAW NO.: 2 OF 2014 A LOCAL LAW TO DELETE CHAPTER 105 AND AMEND CHAPTER 179 "ZONING" OF QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE AND REVISE ZONING MAP BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS FOLLOWS. Section 1. Intent; Authority — The Town Board recognizes the potential benefit of a current and accurate zoning ordinance. This Local Law is adopted pursuant to New York Municipal Home Rule Law. Section 2. Chapter 105 of the Queensbury Town Code, entitled "Land Use Procedures", was specifically intended to expire, has not been reenacted and is hereby deleted in its entirety. Section 3. Amendment of Zoning Law — Chapter 179 of the Queensbury Town Code, entitled "Zoning" and known as the "Town of Queensbury Zoning Law" is hereby amended as follows: A. The following definitions included in §179-2-010, entitled "Definitions and word usage", are amended to read as follows: REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 178 AMUSEMENT CENTER An indoor or outdoor facility, which may include structures and buildings, where there are various devices for entertainment, including rides and booths for the conduct of games and buildings for shows and entertainment. The definition This includes amusement uses, such as but is not limited to, miniature golf, go-karts (of riding areas for dirt bikes, of ATVs or snoivurobiles), skating facilities, arcades and batting cages. OUTDOOR RECREATION Land uses which offer passh,e or acth,e recreation activities primarily outdoors that are operated for members or on a commercial basis for fnembefs e the general public RECREATION, ACTIVE Nonmotorized leisure activities, usually organized and performed with other persons, often requiring equipment and taking place at prescribed and nonnatural places, sites, or fields. Examples include, but are not limited to, baseball, softball, soccer, basketball, tennis and track and field golf g-. Also included are activities which are principally non-motorized, but in which motorized equipment may facilitate set-up or transportation ivithin the actii,ity area such as golf or downhill skiing. RECREATION, PASSIVE Nonmotorized leisure activities, which are not active recreation and usually can take place in areas with minimal disturbance to the natural landscape. Examples include, but are not limited to, hiking, walking, boating, jogging, cross country skiing, biking, plant study, picnicking, kite flying, Frisbee throwing, bird watching, nature photography, swimming, nature classes, model boating, wheelchair racing, fishing, dog walking, feeding of water fowl and sun bathing. B. The following definitions included in §179-2-010, entitled "Definitions and word usage", are deleted in their entirety: RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, COMMERCIAL Reefeational f eili es open to the genefal publ e f r p ate . RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, PRINATE and guests, ex,.l,,,a;,,g e „hieh is open tee publ e f ., ehafge. C. Section 179-3-040, entitled "Establishment of zoning districts", is amended as follows: (1) Subparagraph A(1)(b)[6], relating to Land Conservation zoning districts, is amended to read as follows: [6] Lot width: 400 feet. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 179 (2) Subparagraph B(2)(a)[1] relating to Office zoning districts, is amended to read as follows: [1] No residential uses shall be allowed within 300 feet of Bay Road and West Mountain Read. D. The parking requirements for adult use establishments and food service as shown in Table 5 of§ 179-4-090, entitled "Parking and loading requirements", are amended to read as follows: Table 5: Parking Requirements Use Minimum Number of Spaces Adult use Same as festaidFant I per 4 seats,plus I per 2 establishment employees, or if a nightclub is present, the requirement shall be the greater of the hvo uses Food service 1 per 4 seats, plus 1 per 2 employees, .,,i,iehevef is ,.feat°r; or if a nightclub is present, the requirement shall be the greater of the two uses E. Section 179-5-060, entitled "Docks, boathouses and moorings", is amended as follows: (1) Subparagraph A(6) is amended to read as follows: (6) The maximum surface area of any flat superstructure built upon and/or above any dock shall be 700 square feet. The measurement for this area is to include all areas bounded by the sundeck railing. For a peaked roof, the maximum surface area is limited to 1,000 square feet and is measured from eave-to-eave. (2) The following new subparagraph A(16) is added: (16) In all Waterfront Residential zones, boathouses may be constructed, subject to Site Plan Review, on all ivater bodies that may be regulated by the Toivn of Queensbury. F. Section 179-8-030, entitled "Tree list" and relating to general landscaping and buffering standards, is amended to read as follows: Plant species shall generally be selected from the following list of species. Substitutions may be made at the discretion of the Planning Board. A. Suggested Deciduous Shade Trees Red Maple (Acer rubrum) Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) Green Ash (seedless only) (Ffaxinus pennsylvaniea) White Ash (seedless only) (Ffaxinus Afnefieana) Ginkgo/Maidenhair (Ginkgo biloba) American Plane (Platanus occidentalis) REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 180 Red Oak (Quercus rubra) White Oak (Quercus alba) Pin Oak (Quercus palustris) Little Leaf Linden (Tilia cordata) B. Suggested Evergreen Shade Trees Spruce varieties (Picea (varieties)) Cedar/Juniper varieties (Juniperus (varieties)) Pine varieties (Pinus (varieties)) Yew varieties (Taxus (varieties)) Arborvitae varieties (Thuja (varieties)) Hemlock varieties (Thuja (varieties) G. Paragraph C. of §179-8-040, entitled "Acceptable tree and plant species" and relating to shoreline buffers, is amended as follows: (1) The bracketed numbers before the names of specific plants are deleted throughout paragraph C. (2) Two items on the list in Subparagraph C(1)(a), entitled "Larger trees (canopy)", are amended to read as follows: Eastef n Northern White Cedar/Arborvitae (Thuja occidentalis). Eastern or American Larch (Larix laricina). (3) The following item on the list in Subparagraph C(1)(a), entitled "Larger trees (canopy)", is deleted: (4) Three items on the list in Subparagraph C(1)(b), entitled ""Smaller trees and large shrubs (understory)", are amended to read as follows: Mountain Holly (Nemepant us muefena* Ilex ntueronata). Red Twig Osier Dogwood (Cornus sericea). Winterberry Holly (L4ex Ilex verticillata). (5) The following item on the list in Subparagraph C(3)(a), entitled "Larger trees (canopy)", is deleted: White Ash (Ffaxinus Afnefieana)-. (6) Two items on the list in Subparagraph C(3)(b), entitled "Smaller trees and large shrubs (understory)", are amended to read as follows: Eastern HopHornbeam (Ostrya virginiana). Shadbush/ Serviceberry, Juneberry Ber+y (Amelanchier canadensis). REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 181 (7) Subparagraph D, entitled "Invasive plant that are not acceptable", is amended as follows: (a) The following is added following the title of the subparagraph: As noted on the NYS DEC Invasive Plant Species List to include, but not be limited to the following: (b) Two items are amended to read as follows: Japanese Knotweed (Pely.,,,,uf ,.,pilot„ Fallopia japonica). Black Swallow-wort (Vineetexieum nignd Cyanchum louiseae). (c) The following four items are added: Yellow Iris (Iris pseudacorus) Winter Creeper (Euonymous fortunei) Burning Bush (Euonymous alatus) Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) H. The list included in subparagraph (2) of paragraph B. of §179-8-050, entitled "Multifamily and nonresidential landscaping requirements", is amended by deleting the following: Euenymous Euenymous feftunei I. The table included at the end of §179-8-060, entitled "Buffer Requirements Between Adjacent Uses", is amended to read as follows: Buffer Requirements Between Adjacent Uses Single-Family Multifamily Commerciall Commereil Land Uses Residential Residential Office Retail Recreation Industrial Single-family None B A B C C C residential Multifamily B None A A B C residential Office A A None A B C Commercial/ B-C A A None B C Retail Cemmefeialr C B B B None B C Recreation Industrial C C C C B C None NOTE: Any use not specified above is considered a commercial use, unless otherwise determined by the Planning Board. J. The first sentence of paragraph E of Section 179-9-070, entitled "Public hearing requirement" and relating to Site Plan Review procedures, is amended to read as follows: The Planning Board shall hold a public hearing on a new application and provide notice consistent with section 179-16-120. K. Paragraph Z of§179-10-070, entitled "Veterinary clinics" and relating to specific standards for issuance of Special Use Permits, is amended to read as follows: REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 182 Z. Veterinary clinics. Veterinary clinics in the R,,,-.,1 Residential Zoning Dist ^+� shall be located on parcels of at least 20 acres. All dog runs or other areas in which dogs are kept must be located at least 300 feet from any property line. L. Paragraph B of §179-16-120, entitled "Notice of public hearing" and relating generally to notices of public hearing under the Zoning Law, is deleted in its entirety. above B. in the ease of a subdivision, the applioant shall notify all ownefs identified a shall show e f o f s„� fi fie u ti t ar* nvfi fie u tior in th-c ref site plan Fe thef appeals to the Zoning and e M. Table 2, which is included at the end of Chapter 179, is amended by adding Sand, Gravel and Topsoil Extraction, Commercial as an allowed use in the Rural Residential Zones with a Special Use Permit required and adding a footnote limiting such allowed use to parcel sites of 25 acres or greater. N. Table 3, which is included at the end of Chapter 179, is amended by adding the following footnote to the SPR requirement for Apartment House/Condos, Apartment House/Condos above first floor, Multi-family house/condos and Single Family Dwelling uses in Office (0) zoning districts: (2) No residential uses shall be allowed within 300 feet of Bay Roall. See §179-3-040, B. (2). O. Certain zoning district designations shown on the Town Zoning Map of the Town of Queensbury are amended as follows and the official Town Zoning Map is modified accordingly: (1) The parcel identified as Tax Map No. 278-1-18 is changed from Rural Residential (RR)to Land Conservation— 10 Acres (LC l0A). (2) The three parcels identified as Tax Map Nos. 266.3-1-79, 266.3-1-80 and 266.3-1- 81 are changed from Moderate Density Residential (MDR) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC). (3) The three parcels identified as Tax Map Nos. 296.13-1-16, 296.13-1-1 and 296.13-1-83 are changed from Moderate Density Residential (MDR) to Commercial Moderate (CM). Section 4. 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. Section 5. 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. In particular, this Local Law is specifically intended to supersede the amended provisions of the current Town of Queensbury Zoning Law. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 183 Section 6. 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. PUBLIC HEARING ENACTING LOCAL LAW PROHIBITING PARKING ON PORTION OF ALEXY LANE IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PUBLICATION DATE: JULY 11,2014 SUPERVISOR STROUGH-This Board is being asked to consider prohibiting parking on the east and or west side of a portion of Alexy Lane in the Town of Queensbury beginning at the intersection with New York State Route 9L and then going in a southerly direction a distance of five hundred(500) plus or minus feet. Okay, that's the topic. Board wish to say anything before I call the public up? COUNCILMAN VANNESS-I took a ride up there, I mean, I know where it was, I patrolled that area for years but I took a ride up there just to look at it and I like the addition of both sides, east and west side. That lane, that road is a one lane road, very narrow. Mr. Salvador has claimed that they use tractor trailers to go up there and deliver stuff or turn around. I think we just take the east and west side, from what I saw and what I gathered up there, it's very narrow. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Okay, that's an early on thought. Doug, did you want to share your thoughts? COUNCILMAN IRISH-Yea, John, Brian and I had the opportunity today after a site visit for another variance to go up and look at the property up there. The concern that I have is, where is the right-of- way up there? When we look at some of the signs that are, state signs, they appear to be, you know, four(4) or five(5) feet up on the grass. So, I would like to know where the public right-of-way is, what the Town owns before we pass any resolution to put no parking signs up. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Okay then and in your behalf and let me tell the rest of the Board that we do not have to act on this tonight. If there's more information that you think is important for you to make your decision, we can wait on this and wait until you get that information. Anything on this side that you want to speak to now? COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS-I agree with Doug, I think we should have a map to look at. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Okay, alright. The public hearing is open, any members of the public wish to speak to this proposal? Yes, please come forward, state your name. RICH GORDON-Good evening. Rich Gordon, I am the Operations and Facilities Manager of the Dunham's Bay Resort. I'd like to thank the Board for taking the time to address this issue. It's really kind of a commonsense issue for us. The east side is of more of our concern, that's our property. On weekends, Saturdays and Sundays the east side of Alexy Lane and our lawn adjacent to that east side is filled with cars. And because of the, no, it's not an intentional thing, people trying to be destructive to our property, I understand that. This year has been especially difficult because of all the rain, it's soft but people are parking not just one tire, two tires, all four wheels are off Alexy Lane on our property, creating ruts, causing problems, causing damage which we have to repair on a weekly basis. I know there's been a discussion about extending this to the west side; I have no problem with that at all. If the Board decides that you want to extend it to the west side also, we're all in on that, that's great. Our main concern is just basically, once again our lawn and the damage that's done to it on a weekly basis. That's the long and the short of it. Thank you. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Thank you Mr. Gordon. Anybody else from the public like to speak to the Board on this topic? Yes sir, come forward, state your name please. JIM SULLIVAN-My name is Jim Sullivan, I rent a dock along Route 9L and there's very limited public parking spaces there and if you make Alexy Lane a no parking zone, at least on both sides of the street, we would, a lot of people would not be able to enjoy the lake. We would not have enough parking for the tenants at the marina and their guests. That's about it, and then usually on a busy weekend, I will see twenty(20), twenty-five(25) cars parked there. That's all I have to say. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Okay, thank you Mr. Sullivan. Anybody else from the public like to REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 184 speak to the Board on this topic? Yes sir, come forward and state your name please. FRANK GALLE SR.-My name is Frank Galle, Sr., have been a resident of the Town of Queensbury since 1972 and although this parking issue is one of the less important issues brought before this Board, it's important enough that I speak on this issue tonight. To restrict parking on the east side of the road would only inconvenience visiting Lake George boaters and their guests who support the lake's marinas and other businesses located on our lake. As a life member of North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company and in the interest of public safety, I can understand the prohibiting of parking on the west side of the road. First, there are the mailboxes which under federal regulations cannot be blocked by parked vehicles. Second, there are no shoulders;therefore vehicles will be completely parked on the pavement narrowing the road. Third, the shoulder drops off and doesn't support solid footing for exiting passengers, promoting the chance of injuries occurring. Fourth, emergency responding vehicles as well as delivery trucks would find it hard to negotiate the hard left curve at the top of Alexy Lane. I would like to advise this Board that I pass through this intersection or park in this intersection at least twice daily and only on occasions during the week do I see cars parked there. However until today. Today, two (2)pickup trucks blocked the mailboxes on the west side of the road while two (2) autos were parked on the corner, on the east corner. Now whether this, these vehicles were parked there purposely to influence this meeting tonight or it may be just a couple of displaced fishermen or workers who had no place to park today because of the work done by the County on Bay Road. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Mr. ... MR. GALLE-Galle. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-First of all, how is it spelled? MR. GALLE-G A L L E. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Where are the mailboxes you're talking about? MR. GALLE-The mailboxes are on the west side of the road when you come around from 9L, if you're coming west on 9L, you take a left hand turn on Alexy Lane. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-You're on Alexy Lane? MR. GALLE-There's a driveway there and then there's a number of mailboxes for everybody that lives on Alexy Lane. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Okay. COUNCILMAN IRISH-I didn't see those today. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-I missed them. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS-They are on 9L though aren't they? Those mailboxes are on MR. GALLE-Those mailboxes are on Alexy Lane. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Oh Alexy Lane, okay. COUNCILMAN IRISH-I didn't see them either. MR. GALLE-John Salvador is here, you can ask him. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Alright. MR. GALLE-His mailbox is there. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-They were maybe blocked by the pickup truck. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 185 COUNCILMAN IRISH-I think you parked in front of them John, I didn't see them. MR. GALLE-Oh he had to get out of his car to get his mail today because I was watching him. COUNCILMAN METIVIER-But what I am saying, maybe they didn't see them because they were blocked by pickup trucks. MR. GALLE-Well like I say, maybe this wasn't done purposely, maybe it was but I have never in all the time I go up there saw those mailboxes blocked before, not even during the snows. Okay, in closing what I would like to suggest to this Board is that no parking signs be placed on the west side of Alexy Lane, okay. On the east side of the lane, hearing the complaint here tonight from the lodge's management, I do have a slight change of mind but I do consider those people who travel forty(40) or 50 (50) miles to come up on a weekend to either take their boats out or be guests or they maybe even residents of the Town of Queensbury who have their boats moored there at that marina, okay. John allows one parking space for one slip and that's not going to do it as you know, especially if you have guests. So I would like to see on the east side of the road, first of all, a sign put down at the bottom of the road, right, going at least twenty-five(25), thirty(3 0) feet, no parking from here to corner. Okay, you have the lodge's driveway there and there will be no parking about thirty(30) feet back from there. Okay, and then on the rest of the road just put no parking signs Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays and this way here, those folks that come up, no one comes up in the rain to go boating and I know what the ground is there. Okay, and I don't want to get into why that ground is wet sometimes tonight because that's not my business, alright, that's your business and it's the other people in this building, their business. But at any rate, in order to accommodate everybody, I think this is a fair solution, okay. To disallow parking there Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays and on Friday afternoons when people come in early to take their boats out, they can go or those people that come up on Sundays and they have an island rented, a spot on one of the islands, they don't have to worry about getting back Sunday night, they can stay over until Monday and get back on a Monday and leave. But other than the weekends, I see no problems there except that east, that west side, no parking there because you cannot get a fire truck or anything else that has to get in there in an emergency. Okay, you just can't do it and that's all I have to say. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Alright, thanks Mr. Galle. Anybody else from the public like to speak to the Board on this topic? John. MR. SALVADOR-Good evening gentlemen, for your record my name is John Salvador, I am a Town resident living at number 37 Alexy Lane, the same Town road being considered for parking restrictions. You'll recall that two (2)weeks ago when you set the public hearing my first reaction was to layout the road. Once the road is laid out, you will find that the concerns, the representative from the resort have, are unfounded. No one is parking on their property. Okay, that's a full deeded fifty(50) foot right-of-way; it's the only one in North Queensbury. The asphalt paving is probably only twenty(20) feet wide. There's a lot of land there. But in any case, you intend to lay it out and that's a good idea. As I read the subject resolution of the enactment, this Town Board wishes to consider at this time a local law which would prohibit parking on along five hundred(500) feet of either the east side or the west side or even five hundred(500) feet along both sides of Alexy Lane, a Town road in North Queensbury. Why only five hundred(500) feet measured in the southerly direction from Alexy Lane's intersection with State Route 9L? At the time this Board resolved two (2)weeks ago to hold the public hearing, I specifically requested that the proposed no parking zone be laid out. Of particular concern is the exact location of Alexy Lane and its point of intersection with State Route 9L. From that point of intersection, the five hundred(500) foot zone is easily determined. The right-of-ways of both State Route 9L and Alexy Lane are deeded pieces of land intersection at only one(1)point which has little relationship with each of the paved roadways. There's no evidence that the traffic division of the Town's Highway Department has undertaken such a layout, at least in the last two (2)weeks. The Town's enactment resolution being considered tonight does not appear to be predicated on any reasoning as to why this Board has suddenly decided to consider for the first time an action causing the restriction of parking on east side and or west side of this fifty(50) year old Town road. A Town road having a full deeded right-of-way as defined in book of deeds 416 at page 424 dated Christmas Eve of 1962. The record should show that for the fifty(50) year life of this deeded right-of-way, only the east side of Alexy Lane has ever been used for vehicular parking. This use of the eastern most portion of Alexy Lane right-of-way matured over the years simply because several of the Towns Highway Superintendents since 1962 have all failed to complete construction of the western side of Alexy Lane roadway within the bounds of the Town's deeded right-of-way. The REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 186 property owners abutting the west side of Alexy Lane have over the years slowly improved the right- of-way in order to gain access to their lands. Currently approximately three hundred(300) feet of the proposed five hundred(500) foot zone on the west side of Alexy Lane is not used for parking all because vehicle operators do not generally park where they would be obstructing one(1), a line of sight up and down State Route 9L, the highway having a forty-five mile an hour suggested speed limit or where they would obstruct access to residential and commercial operations or to obstruct access to mailboxes used by the US Postal Service for six(6) day of mail service to both residential and commercial recipients or in the vicinity of guide utility poles or even where road shoulders are non- existent. There can be no question that the right-of-way on the east side of Alexy Lane has been used for unrestricted parking on a less than regular basis. Parking occurs on holiday weekends, during spring, summer and autumn seasons. Sporadically on weekends during the summer months and seldom on week days at any other time. Regardless of the extent to which vehicular parking along Alexy Lane will be restricted by this Town Board this evening, any restriction of parking will surely inconvenience those who have become accustomed to parking along the east side of Alexy Lane. First and foremost to be inconvenienced are those owners of each of the ten lots making up the Alexy subdivision. These owners were granted deeded access to the waters of Lake George for the sole purposes of swimming. This deeded access does not include any parking privileges north of State Route 9L. Consequently these families and their extended families use the east side of Alexy Lane for parking. It should be noted that three(3) of the ten(10) lots in the Alexy subdivision are currently owned by the same property that abuts the east side of Alexy Lane, for at least the five hundred(500) foot being proposed. Secondly, the Dunham's Bay Boat and Beach Club has forever restricted parking on the north side of Route 9L to one(1)parking permit per membership. All others, including extended family members and guests are required to park offsite, usually along the east side of Alexy Lane. Thirdly, club members involved in trailering boats to and from their winter storage location, frequently park vehicle and trailers along the east side of Alexy Lane, either before or after launching or retrieving their boats on the first come, first serve basis. Fourthly, now that the operators of the former Dunham's Bay Lodge have received an approved site plan to accommodate some four hundred(400) patrons for banquet parties including political rallies, volunteer service banquets and wedding receptions, the east side of Alexy Lane is frequently used for overflow parking in conjunction with a shuttle service. This beats parking on lawn areas or in a snowbank. Fifth, because of limited onsite parking at each of the class A marinas at the base of Dunham Bay, marina patrons, that is those shopping to purchase boats and boating supplies and equipment, those patrons renting boats, those patrons engaged in fishing charters and those taking sailing lessons as well as those seeking to purchase the Lake George Park Commission boat registrations, frequently use the east side of Alexy Lane for parking. This is not to mention the congestion caused by visitors seeking directions to Edward Eggleston's Owl's Nest or Buck Mountain. Alexy Lane has even been used as a rendezvous point for guests attending a large summer garden party somewhere on the east side, from there the invitees were shuttled to the party and later returned. Frequently we see a resort van parked on the east side of Alexy Lane sort of advertising the property. Snowmobilers and ATV operators use Alexy Lane in the winter time to park. You know, it is difficult to access Lake George by snowmobile or ATV by coming down the wetland and going under the bridge, okay. The water is usually, the ice is usually very thin, the water flows fast under the bridge and so snowmobilers have to really get a good start if they're going to go under there and it's dangerous. We even had a death there a few years ago if you recall, an ATV operator. We allow them to use our bathing beach to access the lake and they park on Alexy Lane. There's no parking on Route 9L. There's no parking maintained in the wintertime on Bay Road and Alexy Lane is a place they can park. Ice fisherman use Alexy Lane in the same manner, to access the lake. We have had fireworks displays on the bay and the equipment and everything that goes with that has parked on Alexy Lane. We've had environmental work done, the madding of milfoil, investigation of invasive species, this equipment is brought to the area, launched across our beach, the people park along Alexy Lane. Notice the single predominate characteristics of those accustomed to parking along the east side of Alexy Lane is that of one recreating rather than one attending an outdoor amusement. It includes those who generally pay sales tax on goods and services they purchase while enjoying free parking along Alexy Lane. Some may even pay an additional four(4)percent occupancy tax. There should be little need to restrict parking on the east side or the west side of Alexy Lane. I have heard of no complaints from the County vehicle and traffic control officers. Our Highway Superintendent has not been heard on this. The Lake George Park Commission allows a parking in this manner from the three(3) class A marinas because it's considered suitable offsite parking. If this Board is to include, is inclined to restrict in any way the parking along five hundred(500) feet of Alexy Lane, then let it be known that it is by the order of this Board alone of the Town of Queensbury that so many are forced to be inconvenienced by so few for a no good apparent reason. What's next, parking meters? Anyway, I REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 187 think you find when you layout the road that there's, should be little concern from those who are concerned. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Okay, thank you John. Anybody else from the public like to speak to parking or no parking east side, west side of Alexy Lane? Alright, seeing none, I'll leave the public hearing open for now. From what I'm hearing from the Board is, they need more information so I believe I speak for the Board saying we're not going to act on this resolution tonight. Is that accurate? Okay. PUBLIC HEARING LEFT OPEN Councilman Irish read statement into the record regarding the Warren County Airport Expansion Project Proposal and the treatment of taxpayers by Warren County Officials. Supervisor Strough agreed that there needs to be a civil discourse on this matter with all parties present and noted that the airport issue is a County issue. Councilman Clements noted that the airport is in his ward and feels the taxpayers and residents deserve straight answers from their questions. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR JIM MACKEY, Ward I, Queensbury-Noted that he read a letter two weeks ago to the Board regarding the Warren County Airport Expansion Project and that he would like the Board's opinion on the issue. Stated that the taxpayers must be listened to and recommended that Supervisor Strough being a pilot should turn the leadership on this issue over to one of the other councilman. TRAVIS WHITEHEAD, Queensbury-Referred to the County Airport Expansion, questioned specifics relating to the runways and noted that he has yet to get answers from the county officials. Stated that he feels the airport expansion should be a Queensbury Town issue. KATHLEEN SONNABEND, 55 Cedar Court read the following letter into the record: Dear Town Board Members: My comments tonight relate to Warren County business, but it affects Queensbury taxpayers and since our Town Supervisor is one of our representatives on the County Board of Supervisors, it is appropriate to comment at this forum. For years I have been dismayed by the many poor financial decisions made by the County Board of Supervisors and by their lack of accountability to County taxpayers. I experienced this first hand in 2007 when Doug Auer, Linc Cathers and I tried to get the County to understand that the Siemens cogeneration facility at the County nursing home was actually losing money on an operating basis, let alone the millions of dollars in capital costs paid to Siemens. At that time, the County Board of Supervisors lead by then County Attorney Paul Dusek stonewalled us. Seven years later, the Siemens is in under investigation by our County Sheriff Department, the FBI and the NYS Attorney General, and the County is poised to sell the nursing home for a fraction of what it would have brought without the cogeneration fiasco. The County is stonewalling again, this time over the airport runway expansion. And they are attacking a good honest citizen who simply has been trying to bring important relevant facts to the Board of Supervisors before they vote on major expenditures. The County is not only stonewalling Travis Whitehead, but the Airport Manager Ross Dubarry threatened him with an unfounded harassment charge when Travis persisted in seeking information that had been promised to him and to the Board of Supervisors. Clearly the Airport Manager did not want to provide that information. Instead, the Board of Supervisors voted based on the wrong information —they were manipulated. Thankfully our County Sherriff Department knows what is and isn't harassment. Travis does not deserve to have his reputation besmirched. He is a highly intelligent and skilled engineer and an honest citizen seeking good government. Early in his career, he worked for REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 188 NASA, so literally he is a rocket scientist. The countless volunteer hours he has devoted to researching and understanding the issues surrounding the airport are a valuable resource to the County. Instead, he is vilified. Travis is owed an apology from the County and the appreciation of Queensbury for his efforts. Sincerely, Kathleen Sonnabend 55 Cedar Court Queensbury, NY 12804 518-761-0931 JOHN SALVADOR-Referred to the airport and noted that the airport does not pay a fire tax. South Queensbury Fire Company is obligated to participate in mutual aid drills with the airport and they don't pay a fire tax and they're getting a service, a district service. Referred to budget items and questioned the status of the one million dollar bond issued for significant upgrades, repairs to the forced main delivering sewage from the pump station of Meadowbrook Road to the City, noting that they were supposed to break ground this spring but yet nothing has been done. Noted that monies were allocated in the budget for the paving of the town parking lot and questioned the status of that project. Spoke regarding a document from New York State Department of Taxation and Finance Office of Real Property Tax Services announcing the property tax freeze effective this year and questioned what the Town was doing in preparation of this. SUPERVISOR STROUGH noted that the Town is aware and working on it. MR. SALVADOR-Asked Supervisor Strough for an update on the North Queensbury or Dunham Bay Wastewater initiative. GEORGE WINTERS, 4 John Clendon Road-Thanked Doug and noted that he agrees with Doug, we're not getting the answers. Thanked John for attending all the meetings, noting that he deserves credit for that and requested that he listen to the public. DOUG BEATY, 7 Saint Andrews Drive-Referred to the Warren County Airport Expansion project and stated that he met several residents through his campaigning, close to a thousand (1,000) and ninety (90) percent of those were against the proposal because it didn't make any sense economically. Agreed that both sides need to meet and make an informed decision. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-I would like to note that I had ninety (90) percent in favor of the airport expansion. MR. GALLE-Noted that he has been a resident of North Queensbury since 1972, has seen over time the County Board of Supervisor's make millions of dollars of mistakes and would like a guarantee this proposal will bring money in to the Town. MR. MACKEY-Recommended a well-advertised meeting and have both sides present, listen to everybody and then decide what to do. MR. WHITEHEAD-Spoke regarding the original project proposed by Mr. Macri in the Town of Queensbury which would have been a huge economic boost for the Town and reviewed the pending eminent domain procedure by the County of Mr. Macri's property for the purposes of extending a runway. SUPERVISOR STROUGH-Noted that this is a County matter and agreed to personally meet with Mr. Whitehead to further discuss the airport project issue. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF COMPENSATION CONSULTING SERVICES, INC. TO REVIEW WORKERS' COMPENSATION PREMIUMS REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 189 RESOLUTION NO.: 255, 2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Doug Irish WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr.Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, by Resolution Nos.: 74, 2009 and 370, 2010, the Queensbury Town Board authorized engagement of Compensation Consulting Services, Inc., (Compensation Consulting) to review the Town of Queensbury's past Workers' Compensation Premiums, which could provide a possible refund of overcharges to the Town, and WHEREAS, Compensation Consulting has advised that there may be additional monies that the Town can now reclaim since several years have passed since the Town first engaged Compensation Consulting, and WHEREAS, Compensation Consulting's fee to the Town for such services is thirty-percent (30%) of actual refunded premiums or credits the Town receives as a result of Compensation Consulting's services, and if there is no such recovery, there is no fee for the services, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize engagement of Compensation Consulting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes engagement of Compensation Consulting Services, Inc., to review the Town of Queensbury's past Workers' Compensation Premiums as more fully set forth in Compensation Consulting Services, Inc.'s June 1611i 2014 Letter of Agreement presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that Compensation Consulting Services, Inc., must sign a Confidentiality Agreement providing that the information obtained will be used for Audit purposes only and that no information, including but not limited to medical information, will be provided to or shared with any third party, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to sign any needed agreement or documentation and the Town Supervisor and/or Budget Officer to take any other actions needed to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 190 Duly adopted this 21St day of July, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING COMMENCEMENT OF SUPREME COURT ACTION TO ENFORCE CODE AGAINST NON-COMPLIANT PROPERTY RESOLUTION NO.: 256,2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Doug Irish WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr.William VanNess WHEREAS, Andrew Ratto is believed to be the owner of property located at 894 Ridge Road and a parcel contiguous thereto which have been operating as Ridge Road Car Care, and WHEREAS, a fire occurred at one or both of these properties on or about July 31, 2013, and WHEREAS, since that time, one or both properties have been the site of debris piles, burned and inoperable automobiles, a dilapidated structure and other remnants of the fire, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury's Director of Building and Codes Enforcement (Director) reports that despite the passage of almost one year from the fire and despite his numerous attempts to compel the owner to bring the properties into compliance, they remain in violation of the Queensbury Town Code, including Chapters 60 and 102, and WHEREAS, the properties remain in an unsafe and unsecured condition, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes commencement of a Supreme Court Action to temporarily and permanently compel compliance with any and all applicable Town Code and State Code provisions together with a request for costs and expenses associated with litigation, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Supreme Court Action may be commenced against any and all persons having any legal interest in the properties and have any legal obligation to keep the property REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 191 in a safe and lawful condition including, but not necessarily limited to Andrew Ratto, as well as any party believed by Town Counsel to be necessary for full resolution of this matter, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town's Budget Officer to arrange for payment of any Court and/or litigation costs related to this matter from the account(s) deemed to be appropriate by the Budget Officer, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs Town Counsel to file any necessary documentation to commence such Court action and the Town Supervisor, Town Counsel, Director of Building and Codes Enforcement and/or Town Budget Officer to take any and all action necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 21St day of July, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier NOES None AB SENT : None RESOLUTION ACCEPTING RETIREMENT OF CURRENT WATER SUPERINTENDENT BRUCE OSTRANDER AND APPOINTING CHRIS HARRINGTON AS WATER SUPERINTENDENT RESOLUTION NO.: 257, 2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Doug Irish WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Brian Clements WHEREAS, Bruce Ostrander, the Town of Queensbury's Water Superintendent, has worked for the Town of Queensbury for over 31 years and has consistently performed in such capacity in a professional and exemplary manner that has reflected positively on the Town, and WHEREAS, Mr. Ostrander has submitted his resignation effective July 24t1i 2014, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to acknowledge Mr. Ostrander's dedicated years of service to the Town of Queensbury and accept his retirement, and WHEREAS, the Town Board also wishes to appoint Chris Harrington, the Town's Civil REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 192 Engineer and Wastewater Director, as Water Superintendent on a provisional basis until such time as Mr. Harrington successfully completes the Water Superintendent's Civil Service Exam, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby appoints Chris Harrington as Water Superintendent, (in addition to his titles and duties of Civil Engineer and Wastewater Director) a Grade IOM overtime exempt position in the Town's Non-Union Position/Grade Schedule, effective as of July 25t1i 2014, on a provisional basis until such time as Mr. Harrington successfully completes the Water Superintendent's Civil Service Exam and meets any other Civil Service requirements for the position, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further sets Mr. Harrington's annual salary at $81,400, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Civil Engineer/Wastewater Director, Water Superintendent and/or Budget Officer to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 21St day of July, 2014 by the following vote: AYES Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPROVING RE-PURCHASE OF CEMETERY LOT IN PINE VIEW CEMETERY FROM DOUGLAS AND JOAN LAMKINS RESOLUTION NO.: 258,2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Brian Clements WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Cemetery Commission previously sold a cemetery lot in the Pine View Cemetery to Douglas and Joan Lamkins —Plot No.: 58-F, Algonquin Section, and WHEREAS, by letter dated July 1, 2014, Mr. and Mrs. Lamkins have requested that the REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 193 Town's Cemetery Commission buy back such lot, and WHEREAS, the Cemetery Commission and Cemetery Superintendent have recommended re-purchase of such lot and approval of the re-purchase by the Town Board, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the Cemetery Commission's re-purchase of a lot in the Pine View Cemetery from Douglas and Joan Lamkins — Plot No.: 58-F, Algonquin Section, for the amount of$183.33, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Cemetery Superintendent to arrange for the payment of such amount to Mr. and Mrs. Lamkins and properly account for the sales in the Town's books and records. Duly adopted this 21St day of July, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT WITH STORED TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, LLC FOR PROFESSIONAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES RESOLUTION NO.: 259,2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Doug Irish WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Brian Clements WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously entered into an Agreement dated June 16t1i 2014 with Stored Technology Solutions, LLC (Stored Tech) for the provision of professional information technology services, and WHEREAS, the Town and Stored Tech have negotiated terms for a 60 day extension of such Agreement and a proposed Amendment Agreement dated July 15, 2014 is presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 194 RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the Amendment—60 Day Extension Agreement between the Town of Queensbury and Stored Technology Solutions, Inc., dated July 15, 2014 substantially in the form presented at this meeting and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute such Agreement, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Town Counsel, and/or Town Budget Officer to take such other and further actions as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 21St day of July, 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 THE CHAPMAN MUSEUM RESOLUTION NO.: 260,2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Brian Clements 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 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 Chapman Museum in the amount of $12,000 with occupancy tax revenues received from Warren County and accordingly enter into an agreement with the Chapman Museum for the year 2014 for the promotion of performances and events to Town residents, and WHEREAS, a proposed Agreement has been presented at this meeting, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 195 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Agreement between the Town and the Chapman Historical Museum 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$12,000 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 the Town Budget Officer confirming that the Town has unallocated occupancy tax funds available from Warren County. Duly adopted this 21St day of July, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough NOES None AB SENT : None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND HYDE COLLECTION RESOLUTION NO.: 261,2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Anthony Metivier WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr.William VanNess 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 WHEREAS, the Agreement provides that specific expenditure of the funds provided under the Agreement are subject to further Resolution of the Town Board, and WHEREAS, the Hyde Collection helps to promote the cultural development of the community, attracts many persons to the Queensbury area and provides an economic boon to the community, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to provide funding to the Hyde Collection in the amount of $10,000 with occupancy tax revenues received from Warren County and accordingly REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 196 enter into an agreement with the Hyde Collection for the year 2014 for the promotion of events to Town residents, 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 Hyde Collection 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$10,000 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 the Town Budget Officer confirming that the Town has unallocated occupancy tax funds available from Warren County. Duly adopted this 21St day of July, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2014 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 262,2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr.William VanNess WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr.Anthony Metivier WHEREAS, the following Budget Amendment Requests have been duly initiated and justified and are deemed compliant with Town operating procedures and accounting practices by the Town Budget Officer, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town's Accounting Office to take all action necessary to amend the 2014 Town Budget as follows: From To Code Appropriation Code Appropriation S REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 197 002-0000-0909 Unreserved Fund Bal 002-8810-2020 Vehicles 1,500 004-5130-4110 Equipment Repairs 004-5130-2020 Vehicles 800 Duly adopted 21St day of July, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements NOES None AB SENT : None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ESTABLISHMENT OF INCODE COMPUTER SOFTWARE PROJECT - CAPITAL PROJECT FUND #204 AND ENGAGEMENT OF SERVICES OF TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND STORED TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, LLC RESOLUTION NO.: 263, 2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Doug Irish WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Brian Clements WHEREAS, as a result of ongoing issues related to the Town of Queensbury Water Department's utility billing software and in an attempt to integrate multiple Town Departments into one software solution, the Town of Queensbury wishes to replace its current software package with one that will allow the Town Water Department to work more accurately and save the Town in annual software maintenance costs, and WHEREAS, after reviewing available vendors, Tyler Technologies, Inc., with its complete Incode software implementation (a sister product of MUNIS, the Town's current financial suite software) has proven the most adept in terms of product functionality and price, and WHEREAS, Incode will allow for the integration of the Town's Water Department utility billing, Tax Receiver's Office and Community Development Department, with the Town's Financial Suite being on a sister company product, thereby allowing for partial integration until Incode can provide full integration in the near future, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize the engagement of Tyler Technologies, Inc., for such Incode software upgrade and Project Implementation Services for an amount not to exceed $208,690 in accordance with Tyler Technologies, Inc.'s July 15, 2014 proposal presented at this meeting, along with the purchase of hardware needs and Project Management Services from the Town's current internet technology provider, Stored Technology Solutions, REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 198 LLC, for an amount not to exceed $15,200 in accordance with Stored Tech's July 16, 2014 proposal presented at this meeting, (collectively referred to as the "Project") and accordingly establish a Capital Project Fund for the Project, and WHEREAS, the Town Board also wishes to authorize a up to a 15% contingency for the Project as well as equipment purchases in the amount of$25,000, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the establishment of the Incode Computer Software Capital Project and the establishment of a Capital Project Fund to be known as the Incode Computer Software Capital Project Fund #204 which Fund will establish funding for expenses associated with this Project, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes the purchase of the Incode software and the provision of Project Implementation services by Tyler Technologies, Inc. for the amount not to exceed $208,690 in accordance with Tyler Technologies, Inc.'s July 15, 2014 proposal presented at this meeting as well as the purchase of hardware needs and Project Management Services from Stored Technology Solutions, LLC for an amount not to exceed $15,200 in accordance with Stored Tech's July 16, 2014 proposal presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes up to a 15% contingency for the Project as well as equipment purchases in the amount of$25,000, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs that funding for such Capital Project shall be by transfers from 1) Capital Reserve Fund #64 in the amount of $127,200 and 2) Water Fund Balance in the amount of$198,700 (totaling $325,900) to transfer to Software in InCode Capital Project Fund #204, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to take all action necessary to establish the following accounts for such appropriations and revenues as necessary: REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 199 • Revenue Acct No. —204-0000-55031 (Interfund Revenue) $325,900; • Expense Acct No. —204-1680-2032 (Computer Software) $325,900; • Increase Appr 001-9950-9030-0064 Transfer to Cap Project $127,200; • Increase Appr 040-9950-9030Transfer to Cap Project $198,700; • Increase Use of Unappr. Fund Balance 040-0000-0909 $198,700; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Budget Officer to amend the 2014 Town Budget, make any adjustments, budget amendments, transfers or prepare any documentation necessary to establish such appropriations and estimated revenues, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to sign any necessary Agreements or documentation associated with such purchase and the Town Supervisor and/or Town Budget Officer take any and all action necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this Resolution is subject to a permissive referendum in accordance with the provisions of Town Law Article 7 and the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to publish and post such notices and take such other actions as may be required by law. Duly adopted this 21St day of July, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish NOES None AB SENT : None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SETTLEMENT OF PENDING ARTICLE 7 REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CASES COMMENCED BY ROBERTS GARDENS NORTH, LLC RESOLUTION NO.: 264,2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Doug Irish REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 200 WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr.William VanNess WHEREAS, Roberts Gardens North, LLC, previously commenced Article 7 Real Property Assessment Review cases for 2012 and 2013 against the Town of Queensbury concerning certain property located off Weeks Road, developed with apartment buildings and identified as Tax Map Number 296.17-1-41, with an assessment for each year of $7,700,000, and WHEREAS, the Town Assessor has reviewed the cases with Town Counsel and the Assessor has recommended a settlement proposal to the Town Board, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Union Free School District has approved the proposed settlement terms, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the settlement of the pending Article 7 cases against the Town brought by Roberts Gardens North, LLC for 2012 and 2013 concerning the property identified as Tax Map Number 296.17-1-41, in accordance with the following: 1) For the 2014 Assessment Roll, the assessed value of the parcel shall be $7,100,000 (Seven Million One Hundred Thousand Dollars), 2) For the 2015, 2016 and 2017 Assessment Rolls, the assessment shall be based upon a full market value of$8,600,000 (Eight Million Six Hundred Thousand Dollars). 3) For the 2012 and 2013 Assessment Rolls, the assessed value of the property shall be reduced from $7,700,000 to $7,100,000 but no refunds shall be paid as long the assessments on the parcel on the Assessment Rolls for 2014 through 2017 are set as provided for in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above. 4) The property owner shall discontinue all pending cases. and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Town Assessor, Town Budget Officer and/or Town Counsel to execute settlement documents on behalf of the Town and take any additional steps necessary to effectuate the proposed settlement in accordance with the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 21St day of July, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 201 NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS- WARRANT OF JULY 22ND, 2014 RESOLUTION NO.: 265,2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr.William VanNess WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Doug Irish WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve an audit of bills presented as a Warrant with a run date of July 17th, 2014 and a payment date of July 22"a 2014, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Warrant with a run date of July 17th, 2014 and a payment date of July 22"d 2014 totaling $538,077.47, 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. Duly adopted this 21St day of July, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Metivier, Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough NOES None ABSENT: None CORRESPONDENCE—NONE TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS COUNCILMAN METIVIER—WARD I • Announced there will be a B 17 World War II Bomber flying around in Queensbury this week. The plane is one(1) of ten(10)that are still flying of the original twelve thousand, two hundred thirty-eight (12, 238)built. It will be at the airport for the week hosting tours and flights. COUNCILMAN CLEMENTS —WARD II Nothing to report but will be looking for the Bomber as well. REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING, MTG#29, 07-21-2014 202 COUNCILMAN IRISH-WARD III • Announced that they will be changing over the construction points this week for the Aviation Road/Dixon Road/Farr Lane Intersection and Farr Lane and Dixon Road will remain closed. Request that the Sheriff s department patrol Dixon Road and area for speeders, noting there was someone going 66 MPH on Aviation Road in a 35 MPH speed limit zone and construction zone. • Thanked John for allowing discussions on the Airport Expansion, appreciates his leadership and hard work. COUNCILMAN VANNESS—WARD IV • Announced that he fried his cell phone so it will be out of commission for a week but if anyone from the public needs to contact him, please call his residence. SUPERVISOR STROUGH • Announced that the septic management district initiative in the Dunham's Bay area which we are calling North Q District Ihas been well received and is moving forward. Today I received from Dave Decker who is the Director of the Lake George Watershed Coalition a draft of potential bylaws which we will be reviewing Thursday morning at 9 a.m. and then presenting it to the public here Thursday night at 7 p.m. • Received thank you letter regarding the placement of flags on the Veterans gravesites. • Read memo from Mike Palmer, Queensbury's Fire Marshal and Safety Officer. SUPERVISOR STROUGH thanked LOOK TV and sponsors. RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO.: 266,2014 INTRODUCED BY: Mr.William VanNess WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Doug Irish RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Regular Town Board Meeting. Duly adopted this 21St day of July, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Irish, Mr. VanNess, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier NOES: None ABSENT: None RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, CAROLINE H. BARBER TOWN CLERK TOWN OF QUEENSBURY