Loading...
03-24-2015 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 24, 2015 INDEX Site Plan No. 75-2014 McDonald's USA, LLC 1. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-48, 49 Site Plan No. 12-2015 Just Beverages 2. Tax Map No. 294.-1-1 Subdivision No. 5-2015 Lynne Fish & Wendy Schmidt 48. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 279.17-1-1, 7 Subdivision No. 4-2015 Joann F. Miller 50. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 288.-1-86.2 FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 7-2015 Clute Enterprises 55. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 302.18-2-2.1 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 14-2015 27 Silver Circle, LLC 58. Site Plan Mod. 62-2013 Tax Map No. 309.17-1-17.2, 13.2, 15.2 Site Plan No. 15-2015 Action Sign Co., LLC 62. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-57 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 24, 2015 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN STEPHEN TRAVER DAVID DEEB GEORGE FERONE JAMIE WHITE, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT THOMAS FORD BRAD MAGOWAN ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'd like to call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, March 24, 2015. Members of the audience, welcome. There are copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also a handout for public hearing procedures. Several of the items on the agenda do have public hearings and we will talk about those when we get to the first public hearing. We have two items that were tabled to this evening. TABLED ITEM: SITE PLAN NO. 75-2014 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED MCDONALD'S USA, LLC AGENT(S) BOHLER ENGINEERING OWNER(S) MCDONALD'S CORP. -RENE REARDON; MICHAEL FREEBURN; JEAN FREEBERN, WILLIAM FREEBERN, ROBERT FREEBERN ZONING Cl LOCATION 819 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING 4,800 SQ. FT. BUILDING WITH DRIVE THRU AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 4,365 SQ. FT. MCDONALD'S BUILDING ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK, PARKING, LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FAST FOOD ESTABLISHMENT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 88-14, SP 16-93; BP 1101, BP 1535 WARREN CO. REFERRAL DECEMBER 2014 LOT SIZE 0.30 ACRES; 0.70 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-148, 49 SECTION 179-3-040 MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant is requesting a further tabling, and I would suggest the Planning Board table them to May 21St. The Zoning Board did table them at their last meeting, in reference to a variance for permeability and other setbacks. MR. HUNSINGER-So that would be the May 21St meeting? MRS. MOORE-Correct. That's a Thursday in May. MR. TRAVER-The resolution says May 20tH MRS. MOORE-That's a May 20th for the Zoning Board. MR. TRAVER-Right. You're right. I'm sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-Would you like to make that motion? RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 75-2014 MCDONALD'S USA, LLC The Planning Board tabled this application to March 24, 2015; On 3-18-2015 the Zoning Board tabled the application to May 20, 2015; 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 75-2014 MCDONALD'S USA, LLC, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Tabled to the May 21, 2015 Planning Board meeting, according to the draft resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 24th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan SITE PLAN NO. 12-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED JUST BEVERAGES AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) CITY OF GLENS FALLS ZONING LC-10A LOCATION EAST OF BUTLER POND ROAD ALONG EXISTING LOGGING ROAD WITHIN WATERSHED PROPERTY ZONING AMENDMENT: PLANNING BOARD TO REVIEW ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE USE OF WATER EXTRACTION. SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A CITY-OWNED WELL AND TRANSPORT WATER FROM THE WELL SITE TO THE COMPANY'S WATER BOTTLING FACILITY IN THE CITY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE WATER EXTRACTION IN THE LC-10 ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. PLANNING BOARD MAY ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS, COMPLETE SEAR FOR ZONING AMENDMENT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE TB RESOLUTIONS - 93 & - 94, 2015 WARREN CO. REFERRAL MARCH 2015 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS, STREAM OVERLAY LOT SIZE 686.41 +/-ACRES (PORTION) TAX MAP NO. 294.-1-1 SECTION 179-3-040 JIM SIPLON, TOM CENTER, MICHAEL BORGOS & KIRBY VAN VLEET, REP. APP., PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura, we had a request from someone in the audience if we could outline the steps that are required for this particular project. So if you could do that during your Staff Notes summary. MRS. MOORE-1 will. I'm going to start with the Project Description for SEAR purposes, which is our action this evening. In reference to the Zoning Ordinance, this is a Town Board zoning amendment referral to allow the land use Land Conservation to add Water Extraction. Under Site Plan, the applicant proposes to install, operate and maintain City-owned well and transport water from the well site to the company's water bottling facility in the City, and also the City of Glens Falls DEC permit. The City of Glens Falls must amend or revise their current DEC public water withdrawal permit for the addition of the extraction of the well which they're in the process of doing. Under Staff Comments, I have, the agencies that are consenting to Queensbury Planning Board being the Lead Agency. This includes the Queensbury Town Board, the New York State DEC, the New York State Department of Health, the Adirondack Park Agency, Warren County Planning Office and the City of Glens Falls. Under Zoning Ordinance, I'll go back. I'm going to highlight some items in each of these paragraphs. So the existing Land Conservation district now offers 20 allowable uses, 15 commercial and 3 residential, one cemetery and one place of worship. The current allowable commercial uses include saw mill, chipping or pallet mill, Sportsmen's club/firing range, and veterinarian clinic and boat storage facility. Under Site Plan Review, the applicant, Just Beverages, has presented a plan depicting the site improvements associated with extraction point and loading areas. The current contract between Just and the City would allow them to withdraw 25 million gallons of water on an annual basis. Using a 3,000 gallon truck and hauling seven days a week year round, the maximum trips per day would be 23. However, as outlined in the information provided by the applicant in the Long Form EAF, the applicant is proposing no more than 10 to 15 million gallons per year, which equates to between nine and thirteen trips. Given the 10 to 15 million gallons per year offered by the applicant, the review of action for SEAR should be based on this number. The City of Glens Falls DEC Permit. Again, the City of Glens Falls utilizes the subject property and several others as a watershed for the gathering, extraction and transmission of water for drinking water, fire protection and its commercial / industrial users. The SEAR performed by this Board is in part to consider the impacts of this additional extraction point. In reference to the Long Environmental Assessment Form identifies the request for zoning amendment to the allowed uses in the Land Conservation Zone. The project occurs on less than one acre. There are to be two temporary containers able to hold 3,000 to 6,000 gallons. The project includes modification to the DEC permit, there are no wastewater systems proposed for the project. Traffic to and from the site will be mitigated to not occur during school bus pick up or drop off 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) times. Downcast light fixtures are proposed to be installed for site security, and the project area is described as having an average depth to water table of 4 to 5 feet, and in reference to the Hydrogeologic Evaluation Study, the conclusion is that an aquifer was located at 122 feet below the surface; a spring/seep intersects at 105 ft. east of the well. I'll move further on. The proposed zoning ordinance language from the Town Board referred to the Planning Board outlines criteria for a site plan review. Some of these items, An application would need to demonstrate the project meets the requirements and to address or include the following: I'll start with some of them. It requires 200 contiguous acres in the Land Conservation Zone; A copy of the permit; the maximum daily quantity of water; hours of operation; Hours of operation; Projected traffic volumes; Projected noise level; Area lighting; and any other site conditions deemed necessary by the Planning Board; an independent report by a qualified professional for hydrogeological investigation; location of water bodies within 500 ft. And then site plan may be conditioned upon tender of appropriate financial security, and here I've highlighted, the Board may encourage the Town Board to include threshold levels for defining the financial value to be allocated. Number Twelve is water extraction points will be no closer than 1000 ft. The Board may consider adding specific language to ensure compliance; this may include defining the well site as the water extraction point. Thirteen, Site Plan review is required in the LC-10 and LC-42 zone for water extraction. Site Plan application materials, location of, this is the City of Glens Falls, proposes to modify the public water supply of a designated watershed property. The Arrangement - the area to be used includes about a 250 ft. driveway area and a 48 ft. x 55 ft. landing area. The landing area is to be used for access to loading the water into the transport vehicles. The project includes the placement of two temporary storage containers that will be utilized for storage of water from the well prior to transport. The extraction point is located further east from the containers and is accessed from the same point from Butler Pond Road. The extraction point is 238 ft. from the high water mean mark of the reservoir. The permeable access drive is to be approximately 125 ft. where the storage containers will be located for loading. Under Site design, I have indicated the applicant has indicated test wells on the watershed was completed to determine a viable well location for water extraction; Under Building, there are no permanent buildings or structures proposed at this time. However, in reference to the storage containers, the Board may provide guidance on color schemes that would screen the containers year-round. Under traffic, the applicant has indicated the traffic is limited by the arrangement with the city. The Board may consider traffic requirement limits or threshold volumes as I addressed earlier. Under Summary, the Planning Board may accept Lead Agency Status for conducting SEAR and may provide a recommendation to the Town Board after the environmental review is complete. That's all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things I did want to cover is the sequence of actions. We opened the public hearing two weeks ago on March 10th, and this evening what we're looking to accomplish is to accept the Lead Agency Status and continue the public hearing and then if we get through the SEAR review we would make a recommendation to the Town Board. In the Staff Notes it says Adirondack Park public hearing. Now since they sent us a letter, I assume that they will not be holding the public hearing. MRS. MOORE-Not that I'm aware of. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So there would be no public hearing for the Adirondack Park, and then the Town Board, of course, would hold a public hearing on re-zoning, and the soonest that that would be done would be April 20th, and then it would come back to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review. So currently all we're considering is the proposed zoning amendment and the SEAR. We did have extensive review of the project two weeks ago, from the applicant. There were extensive comments from the public. I think there were 32 pages of minutes alone from that meeting, including eight pages of comments from the public. So I would ask for, this evening, if we would just focus on anything that might be new or anything that might have changed since we were here two weeks ago. So with that I'll turn the floor over to the applicant. Good evening. MR. SIPLON-Good evening. Thank you, Chairman. Good evening to you all, I appreciate the opportunity to continue to expand on our application. What I'd like to do is just walk you through quickly how we propose to answer the questions that were raised before and try to go into detail on the topics that were brought up. We're going to do this in four stages. Kirby VanVleet's going to refer to all water related topics. He's the hydrogeologist that wrote the study that you have under the application. Mike Borgos will address the zoning topics that were raised. Tom Center will address the Site Plan topics, and after those are covered, I'll come through with the problem solving and proposal on mitigation steps that we talked about in the past. So, let me turn it over to Kirby. MR. VANVLEET-I'm Kirby VanVleet with Hansen VanVleet, LLC. I'm a hydrogeologist with over 25 years' experience. We were retained by Just Beverages to assist in locating a viable groundwater source over a year ago. It's been a long process. We looked at potential sources 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) throughout the extensive City of Glens Falls watershed properties in the Town of Queensbury. I just want to also note that I am a Queensbury resident and very familiar with the properties that we have looked at. I'm just going to go over the geology very briefly, so everybody has a little bit better understanding. The area from Glens Falls out to West Mountain Road is relatively flat, and that's underlain by a thick sequence of sand, and by a bedrock formation that's called Beekmantown Limestone. We looked at both of those areas, and basically the sand formation and the limestone don't really give us the potential water quality that's desirable in a bottled water source. They have harder water and higher Ph, higher total dissolved solids. So we looked at that superficially and then decided we needed to move on and look elsewhere. There's a major fault that runs up at, basically along West Mountain Road at the foot of the mountains, and that fault separates the limestone and sand plains from the more granitic Adirondack type rocks. So the Adirondack type bedrock offers a better potential, or offered a better potential for water quality that we were looking for for a bottled water source. It typically is softer, lower Ph, lower TDS, which is total dissolved solids. So basically we focused our efforts on the watershed properties that were west of West Mountain Road. I know there were some questions last week on why we hadn't looked elsewhere, but basically we were looking for a specific water quality that's a desirable bottled water source. So we performed what's called a fracture trace analysis, looking for Iinears on the surface and aerial photos that could possibly be water bearing fractures, because bedrock, the only source of water is in what they call secondary porosity, which is basically fracture related. So we performed a fracture trace analysis, and then looked at the potential sites. We had three criteria when we were looking at the sites. One was we needed to be located close to one of these potential fractures that we identified. It needed to be accessible with minimal environmental disturbance, and we also needed to meet any Department of Health or DEC setbacks and protection requirements. Based on that, we picked four initial test well locations. We drilled the four test locations. One of them really offered the desirable water quality and a potential yield that would be viable for the use. Basically we developed a well that had desirable water quality and a yield of 47 gallons a minute. Now to kind of put that 47 gallons a minute in better context, if the well was pumped 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, it would be equivalent to two to five days of water production from the Town of Queensbury. So it's a very small amount of water. We also performed an impact analysis to determine if using this well would have any impact on any other groundwater users. The nearest groundwater well to our location is over 1500 feet away. So we did a 72 hour pumping test. We put in a monitoring well that was 875 feet from our test well, and during that 72 hour pumping test we saw absolutely no measurable impacts on that monitoring well. Also of note is that the groundwater zone that we're producing from is at an elevation higher than the surface elevation at the nearest other water well. So basically there's no chance for a connection with the adjacent water users. We also, there was also some concerns about potential impacts to the Butler storage reservoir, but just note that the quantity of water that we're removing is such a small fraction of the amount that's moving through the reservoir system, the numbers are actually in the study that you have, but it's miniscule compared to what's actually moving through the reservoir system. So, basically we also measured water levels within the reservoir during that 72 hour pumping test, and again we saw no measurable influence at all, and our measurements were down to hundredths of a foot. So it's pretty detailed measurements. I discussed the potential for impacts on Butler storage reservoir with Mr. Steve Gurzler, who's the engineer for the City of Glens Falls, and actually discussed it with him today, and I'd like to read a quote from Mr. Gurzler. The water level in Butler storage reservoir is currently lowered as part of our normal operations. We've been maximizing the use of this reservoir system to supply water to the City to make the capacity available for snow melt and spring runoff. The condition of the reservoir is normal, and has not been impacted by the well. We're currently drawing close to 900 gallons a minute from this source, according to our, in accordance with our regular operations. Mr. Gurzler also noted that if they needed to, they could fill the reservoir today by opening up the connection with Butler Pond. So basically we found a groundwater source that meets the reservoir quality that's desired for a bottled water source, and have determined that there's no potential for impacts to other groundwater users or Butler storage reservoir. Does anybody have any questions? MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions from the Board? Did you receive a copy of the engineering comments from Chazen? MR. VANVLEET-Yes, I did, and we will address those. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you get any specific answers to their comments on the hydrological evaluation? MR. VANVLEET-Really we looked at them this afternoon briefly. I think the only comment that we need to do any type of number crunching is potential impacts to the reservoir during drought, and we have those numbers in our files, we review those calculations and address that. MS. WHITE-So that's in reference to Number Nine? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. VANVLEET-Number Nine, yes. MS. WHITE-Okay. MR. VANVLEET-Yes, most of the other comments were basically statements of what was accomplished. MR. SIPLON-There is one misperception I wanted to correct, or maybe it was just a misunderstanding, that the lack of discussion of Department of Health's role in the well development was simply because a hydrogeological report was not done for purposes of recording, but the Department of Health has been involved in every step of the process. They've been to the well site at least five times, the last of which was this past week, with no findings, and they continue to believe that and provide us with feedback that says that we have operated the well in accordance with their regulations and they proceed on their regulatory path. MR. TRAVER-1 had a question regarding the hydrogeological report. On Page 12, and there's a lot of data in here, and obviously you were very thorough in your analysis, but the summary at the bottom of Page 12, and you reported on this yourself, that the production well, PW-1 it's referred to in this report, is capable of long-term continuous yield of 47 gallons per minute. So that's without impacting the watershed that's running. MR. VANVLEET-That's without impacting the watershed and surrounding area, yes. MR. TRAVER-So an amount greater than that potentially could impact? MR. VANVLEET-Well, actually the well is incapable of an amount greater than that. That is basically what we have determined is the safe yield of the well. MR. TRAVER-The safe yield of the well. MR. VANVLEET-Or basically it is the yield of the well. It's based on, DEC and DOH have criteria for establishing a safe yield for a well, and during the pumping test. You do a 72 hour pumping test, and you have to establish a stabilized draw down, which means the water level has dropped, and then it will stabilize at a certain level, at a certain rate, and 47 gallons a minute is the rate. MR. TRAVER-Is the safe rate. MR. VANVLEET-Is the safe rate, yes. MR. TRAVER-Well, one of the reasons that I ask that is on the Long Form that was submitted with the application, on Page Five, the request is for 50 gallons per minute, which is obviously greater than the 47 that you outlined in this report. I wondered if you had any comment on that. MR. CENTER-At the time we hadn't completed the 72 hour pump test, and we knew that the well produced somewhere between 45 and 50 gallons a minute. We had not completed the 72 hour pump test to determine exactly, down to the number, but that number of 50 gallons came from me when I filled out the report, based on we knew we were between 45 and 50 gallons a minute. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Understood. So this needs to be amended, then. MR. CENTER-It can be, yes. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions on the hydrogeological report? MR. BORGOS-Michael Borgos of Borgos and Delsignore, counsel for the applicant. I wanted to focus your attention on what we really didn't talk about much last time. I touched on it briefly at the closing, but the proposed local law itself. Presumably the last two weeks you've had an opportunity to review that, and I thank Laura for her brief reference in the Staff Notes to it. I don't want to regurgitate the whole thing to you because I know it's in there, but we need to focus on that because that's part of your task tonight is to review that and determine what impacts there might be in part of your recommendation to the Town Board. So let us focus a little bit about why is this necessary. When we first approached the Town to propose this activity, we discovered that there was no definition within the Code for water extraction, and we looked for places that it might be and we concluded that it was best to really ventilate the issue, 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) address it in this fashion, and then this is the result. The evaluation has to encompass a little bit of an understanding of what the Land Conservation zone is and what it isn't. We all recognize that it is currently a forested, open space area that has historically developed as a result of the preservation of the land by the City as a steward of that property for the water extraction that they've been doing for over 125 years now. I had the occasion to review not only the deed history to these parcels which comprise approximately 3,000 acres within the Town, largest single property owner within the Town, and when I went back through the historical documents and I found some other sources that educated me on how the burgeoning needs of the City, of the village down by the river, the industry, where the population center first grew in this community. They had well sources, and those wells were insufficient to provide adequate supply for residential consumption, industrial uses and fire suppression needs. So some very forward thinking people developed what's probably the best water system in the country at the time, in the 1870's began work up on the mountains to do the gravity fed system that we have today. So what I'm saying is that this property that is now zoned LC has been preserved by the City's actions as a watershed. That's why it hasn't seen development of a source over the years for other uses that might have come about before the enactment of the current zoning code here in Queensbury, and I think that's all very relevant to our discussion here, because if we're going to be determining where is the best place to do water extraction in the Town, it seems to fit within the area that we have already designated for purposes very similar to it. The most striking similar purpose is timber harvesting. It's another sustainable natural resource, and that's activity that goes on to this day, throughout the watershed property, and is currently allowed as a use within the LC zone under the agricultural definition. It's classified as silivculture, and you'll see that in there. Other LC allowed uses that have a commercial nature to them, I look at my table of uses, I see the agricultural use with logging, timber harvest. The bed and breakfast is an allowed use. Boat storage facility, campground, group camp, kennel, nurseries, outdoor recreation place, riding academies, sportsman's club/firing range, sawmills, chipping or pallet mills. Now of those, some of those could be quite impactful upon not only the land itself, but also upon the neighborhood. I think about a nursery. They don't grow those trees in the forest. They have to clear the field. So there'd be an enormous amount of deforestation associated with that. Kennels have been a hot topic in Queensbury in past years. The Planning Board's reviewed some of those. The sawmill, chipping mill, pallet mill I think is the most industrial of the listed commercial uses that are already currently allowed here. So when we're evaluating what impacts this proposed use would, we've already talked about our site plan with some detail. We know that water extraction is going to be a rather minimal impact. In our site plan I would say it's probably less impactful than a single family home would be on that site. Because they're not clearing a large area. We're not putting down fertilizers. There's not going to be a swimming pool. It's really very contained to the existing clearing and road space that's there, and I think that's why it certainly doesn't seem to be inconsistent with what's there. It seems to be very consistent, but this project and this zoning classification is all about low impact, and I think that's a point that I want to make. The other part is in the Code that's been proposed, and as mentioned by Laura in the Staff Notes, there are a lot of very extensive restrictions and requirements for anybody who's proposing to do water extraction within the LC district. I'm not going to itemize all of them, but just the requirement to have 200 contiguous acres is quite a burden. The permitting from the DEC is required. The Department of Health requirements, getting the hydrogeological report that we've already talked about. All these things are substantial burdens for anyone looking to engage in water extraction activity within any LC zone within the Town. Mr. VanVleet's already itemized how this application has substantiated those requirements in this case, and anyone else looking to do the same would have to come to the Town and do the same thing going forward. So if there was a future applicant that came before this Board. With respect to Just's application here before you now, the application is going to be considered for Site Plan at the next meeting in April, and at that time if there are any permanent conditions to impose or limitations that are existing, those will be enforced by Staff or the Town going forward, and that Site Plan approval is going to be the permit that is then enforced. So the Town has the regulatory authority. We've outlined previously that the City has review authority under the water agreement that they have with the company, and the DEC and the DOH of course always have their regulatory authority review as well. Are there any questions for me on the zoning related issues? MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions? We also have the zoning officer with us this evening in case we had specific questions. MR. TRAVER-I guess I had a general question. I know we're not talking about going into SEAR just yet, but I'm getting that sort of odd feeling, I mean, we talked about segmentation with SEAR, and I'm almost feeling as though we're dealing with that in reverse with this applicant, because we're talking about three components here. We're talking about the zoning amended to allow for the extraction we're talking about, the DEC changes to the Glens Falls permit, and then we're talking about the Site Plan, and in terms of, in my own mind, for SEAR in terms of impact on the area, I'm not seeing the well, necessarily, as having a huge impact, on all of what they've been discussing thus far and on the 10th, nor necessarily the change to the DEC 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) permitting for the City of Glens Falls. Where I see the biggest impact, potentially environmentally, is the Site Plan, and when they're talking about, as opposed to having a pipeline down the mountain, for example, to West Mountain Road, they're talking about the trucking and that's where I see. So I guess my question is, and I know, Mr. Chairman, you outlined that our goal for tonight is to discuss the zoning amendment and SEAR as it relates to that, and not Site Plan. So my question is, I guess where I'm going with SEAR is, do we evaluate only the two out of the three elements and leave the Site Plan out of it? No. I'm hearing no. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, I think, I'm guessing you misunderstood something Chris said. What Chris said earlier is that this Board cannot, tonight, lawfully reach the Site Plan Review decision. He was not indicating that your SEAR review cannot take into account the Site Plan application. I'm pretty sure that that's where he was coming from. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I could have misunderstood. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. All he was saying was 100% correct, was that within the steps that you can lawfully take this evening, you cannot actually conduct Site Plan Review to its conclusion yet, because as we sit here this evening, the proposed use is not an allowed us at this location in the Town of Queensbury. However, you are responsibly looking at the SEAR review potential for all these related actions because, you mentioned the segmentation word. One of the principle doctrines of New York State Environmental Quality Review act review is that all components of an action, the potential impacts of all components of an overall action should be taken into account together. So the way you're proposing to conduct SEAR review of this entire group of activities is very appropriate, including the Site Plan application. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Understood. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-And I guess if I could follow up, if I may. What becomes interesting, I think, if we were only here for a zoning change without a potential project, my guess is we would not have a roomful of people that were concerned or interested about the zoning change, and the only thing that really draws attention to a zone change is when you have people that are going to be impacted or a specific project. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, when a zone change is not a generic one, but is in relation to a specific project. I agree 100%, and it can make for some complex SEAR review issues, because remember that you're looking at the entire set of steps associated with this proposed action, which include a number of very specific project, you know, there's an actual project on the table. Like Chris says, this is not just some hypothetical exercise with no specifically proposed project, but at the same time you're looking at a proposed zoning amendment that is obviously not project specific. MR. HUNSINGER-Which is actually the question that I have from Staff, and that is, outside of this project, how many other potential projects would there be if this zone were to be, zoning change were to be adopted? MR. BROWN-How many other properties could support this use? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. BROWN-So, I didn't do that analysis yet. Not many. I don't think there are many single property owners with 200 contiguous acres in this zoning district. So it would be a very short list. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, is there any outside of the City? MR. BROWN-1 don't know the answer to that. Yes, I don't think there's any 200 plus acre owners. There may be, but I'd be surprised. MR. SCHACHNER-You know, and in theory somebody could aggregate. There could be future purchases. I don't think any of us can responsibly say that there could never be another water extraction project in this zone if the zoning amendment is adopted, but I think what Staff is suggesting is that it's probably not going to be dozens and dozens, either. MR. BORGOS-And then I would just add to that the requirements in the proposed amendment for the hydrogeological assessment, it would take whatever is then existing into consideration. So if there's an aggregate effect that would have to be part of the impact review this Board conducts at that time. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board on the proposed change? Okay. MR. CENTER-I'll keep it brief. Again, in regards to the Site Plan, again, like it's been stated several times, this was designed based to minimize impact, to have a very small footprint, low impact development, keep the disturbance to already existing disturbed areas or the existing dirt access roads that were there for logging and what not and access to the watershed property. The entrance is an existing entrance along Butler Pond Road right there. We have proposed to come in from the entrance to the road to the area where we have a small turnaround, and the temporary unloading facilities on crushed stone. The actual unloading area and access area would be a permeable pavement, again, trying to use green infrastructure, trying to enhance the existing dirt road that's already there, that's already been used to access, to drive upon in and out of the facility. We propose to use permeable pavement, just as a green infrastructure practice, that would hold up to the traffic. The small area for the two temporary unloading stations would be a compacted crushed stone. Everything would be graded to drain with the land. The contours of the land and the road generally slope downwards towards the reservoir. We've graded them, in the new proposed access drive, and access to the well, everything to grade to the north along the existing dirt road, or the proposed crushed stone road, into a rock check dam, and t hen into a small sediment basin, again, trying to protect anything downstream, provide erosion and sediment control, something that's not there now, and also the crushed stone will allow not to have the runoff as a dirt road may have during extreme storms. So we've tried to, again, minimize the impact, keep our clearing to the minimum, keep our actual footprint to existing hard surfaces that were there prior to us doing anything that were existing and would drain off and go right down into the existing swale that kind of runs down into here and down towards the reservoir. Again, we've kept it to, really, a low impact design, and just tried to bring it up to standards with green infrastructure management. Are there any specific questions? I kind of wanted to keep it brief. If you have any particular questions. We did receive the engineering comments. There's nothing in there that I don't think that we can't sit down with the Town Engineer and mitigate any of his comments or concerns with him in a meeting where he can sit down and see where DOH. These have been submitted to DOH. They've reviewed them. They've been out to the site and we've worked with them also in their permitting process. So I think by getting everybody together, it's probably going to be easier than him just reviewing the drawings. So I already talked to Laura to try to schedule a meeting prior to when we come back for Site Plan. We can hash this out and come up with some solutions, if need be. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions or comments from the Board on the Site Plan? MS. WHITE-1 was just looking at Question Number Five, and it's in relationship to what you were just saying about the porous pavement, and it sounds like you are ready, could respond to that. MR. CENTER-Yes, it's a green infrastructure practice. Again, we're enhancing the existing hard surface. We're trying to use a green infrastructure practice. I would sit down with the Town Engineer and discuss that. There's other options. We can bring in DOH and between the three of us we can come up with a solution to that. I don't see anything there as a large issue. MR. DEEB-Tom, on Staff Notes, we've got the building, the Board may provide guidance on color schemes that would screen the containers year round. MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. DEEB-Which means they have to change? MR. CENTER-No, it would be that we would work together to come up with a color scheme, like we've shown before, that would kind of allow it to blend back in with the woods. Any comments that you have in regards to, we had the one picture for the Board that had the kind of camouflage, the brown and tans that would allow it to sit back. So it's not like a stark white that, this time of the year where there's no leaves and trees, with full foliage that you could see something. We want to keep it a dark color and keep it so that it blends into the woods. It does sit quite a ways off the road. So it would be difficult to see, but we're just looking for any input that folks may have, or you folks may have. MR. DEEB-Well, what about the winter, then, if you have the camouflage colors. MR. CENTER-In the wintertime it would be, again, a muted gray or tan that would blend in with the trees. MR. BORGOS-We're not proposing to change it. We're simply saying, if you like summer better than you like winter, we'd be happy to take your input before we paint it. MR. DEEB-Do we vote on it? Thank you. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. TRAVER-1 had, I guess, a more global sort of question regarding the whole specifics of the Site Plan, the water, or the pumping, the transfer of the water to the trucks. I know when you were here on the 10th, I think I made mention of the idea of, as opposed to driving up and down the mountain, having some type of piping that would go down to say the area around West Mountain Road, and doing the loading of your trucks down there. Have you given anymore thought to that? MR. SIPLON-Yes, I'm going to talk specifically about that in just a minute. So, I'll go through it in a fair amount of detail if you want to. I want to make sure any other questions get addressed first. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other Site Plan questions? Okay. MR. SIPLON-Well, as we get onto that, let me just backup for a second. Last time we met, there were several questions from the Planning Board, specifically to are you, as an entity, engaged in a process, dialoguing with anybody who has issues and are you willing to develop solutions as that has provided. I want to back up for just a second and cover exactly what has transpired and then what we propose to do. This is our 20th public meeting germane to this particular site, and in addition to the public forums, we have many larger, or sometimes they're larger, sometimes they're smaller, they're engagements with the public. We had several this week. Where we engage at a place of business, at our business, at a neutral third party site, but anywhere where people want to know about our business. I would say that if you put the informal segments together like we did yesterday, with the 20 plus formal ones that we've done, we're probably approaching 50 events where we have engaged the public. Every single time what we do is tell people a little bit about who we are, and then we listen to what it is that they share with us. Sometimes they're interested in our product. Sometimes they have questions about our method. Sometimes they're wondering about specific issues as you've addressed, Mr. Traver, but the point is that what we try to do first is gather what the input is, then we go off and we try to problem solve on that, and then we come back with what we hope are a series of either solutions or mitigations that help us continue that dialogue. That's exactly the case that's going on right now, and there are two particular areas where we receive a fair amount of feedback, both from you as a Board, as well as from the public at large. Let me talk specifically about maybe the most easy to address. Laura, I don't know if we sent you this picture, but there's a picture of our truck, and just so, you can't see it up there. Maybe you could just pass those down. I want to clear up any misconceptions about the truck. The truck exists. This truck is over on Main Street at our truck dealership. It's in the process of being modified for purpose, but what I'm trying to share with you is the fact that there's nothing undetermined about the length of the truck or any of the specific dimensions of the truck, including its gross weight. I see gross weights oftentimes discussed. Unfortunately they aren't necessarily related to what it actually is. It's 54,000 pounds fully loaded with that tank. By the way, this is not an accident. This truck developed as a result of the dialogue that we had with the people over the past year. One of the things they said to us is we're concerned about large scale vehicles. We're concerned about them both at your facility in Glens Falls as well as in the larger community, and we said, okay, we've got to evaluate alternatives. We started looking at what are forms that already exist that people are quite comfortable with. We looked at garbage trucks. We looked at fire trucks. We looked at school buses. In this particular case we attempted to mimic a fuel oil truck, because it's very close in form and function to what we're looking for. We then changed our entire business plan, looked at how would we adopt an operating tempo that would allow us to have fewer gallons in an individual delivery, and perhaps a larger tempo, but a smaller form factor, which was designed to reduce impact at every step of the process. So what you see here is not because we dreamed it up on a white board and said here's what we're going to do. This is the result of a year's worth of back and forth with people who in good faith sat down with us and said we like what you're doing, but we have concerns here, and we would like to figure out if there's a way for you to help us meet our concerns while still running your business. I think this is an example of how this works. These trucks, this is actually smaller by about a foot and a half than most fuel oil trucks, and it's lighter, but those fuel oil trucks, I don't believe, have drawn any resistance from anyone in either community. I don't know of any pending legislation that is limiting their access to any neighborhood. Now obviously there may be a discussion about tempo, which we will get on to, in terms of how many of them, but the first thing to start with is we started with a form factor that we hope is agreeable to people, and also a benchmark of how we want to operate. Okay. Let's move on to the tempo issue. Any application the SEAR that you have. MR. FERONE-Can I ask a question? MR. SIPLON-Yes. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. FERONE-Okay. So you talked about length quite a bit in the last meeting. I've been up and down that road a few times now. It probably meets Town guidelines, but it still seems to me to be a narrow road. This still seems to be a fairly large truck, and I don't think the issue is length as much as width, that truck going up that road with another vehicle coming down the other way. MR. SIPLON-That particular vehicle is about a foot and a half shorter than the semi tractors that are pulling the logging tractor trailers up and down that road. Essentially what you have when you engage a commercial truck like this is about three form factors in terms of width, the semi width, what I would call a mid-tier like this, and something that's akin to a pickup truck. We cannot get a pickup truck profile, which, by the way, is only about eight inches smaller in width, a full scale hemi pickup truck that would be a dual axel. If you look at the width with those dual wheels on the back, it's only about eight inches less than this. Those are really the only three choices that we have, and so essentially what we're trying to do is pick the smallest one we possibly can. Now to the extent that even that represents impacts, that's what we're here to talk about, but I want you to understand that we are clearly trying to figure out how do we reduce its impact, and we've already tried to demonstrate by our behavior that we're already spending money and effort to try and do those things based on the feedback that people have provided us. I wanted to get on to the tempo, because I think that that's the next piece of this, which is what people then start to articulate. If you've tried to do everything you can on the form factor, now how often is this going to occur? So in the SEAR review that you have in front of you, there are already a set of implied limitations on this, which we provided voluntarily, again, not because we're negotiating with ourselves, but because some of the people that were here in the room, as well as others who have talked with us over the past year, have expressed concerns. So, for instance, we realize that daylight, making a daylight delivery schedule, not overtly looking to do any work during the nighttime, made a lot of sense to a lot of people. We then altered our business plan to be able to accommodate that. So you'll see in the SEAR review that hours of operations that we propose are essentially mimic daylight. Okay. We hope that that's met with positivity from people that say, okay, that sounds like they're hearing us. The second thing is there's a discussion that has arisen about other potential conflicts on that route. The most specific of which was school buses. The very first time we heard this we said we would immediately mitigate for that, and you'll see it in your application, but to further that, we just met with the Superintendent of the Queensbury Schools, had him down to our facility, went through our entire operational tempo, asked him to provide us with the transportation schedule, also asked him to provide us with anything that he could think of in additional impacts to his school district or in any way the operation of his institution. One of the things that came up was the discussion about the use by the cross country team of the facility. I told him right there, as I will tell you today, if there is a schedule that's provided to us that in fact we contacted Coach O'Connell to share this with him as well, we will block that out. All we need is for somebody to tell us what the things are and we're getting that. So in your SEAR review we've taken all the ones that we've been able to hear thus far. If there are others we would certainly add them. The next thing we did was the question came up about how many times are the trucks going to come up and back. Okay, the first basis of that was to simply say, well, our current business plan is built around the tempo of up to 16 deliveries. It would take us many years to get to that point. We would have to more than double the production output of our current facility in order to be able to in any way approach that, but those are the limits that we have already agreed to in the City. So in the interest of not having a segmented review, what we've done is advanced to you is 16 trips is the maximum that our facility could ever support, which then allows you to evaluate the maximum impact. However, it doesn't change the fact that we then sit down with people and say if that number in some way represents a problem now let's try to problem solve around that, and what we're currently coming up with right now is the fact that I think some number less than 16 is maybe a better limit, and what you'll see proposed to you as a further addition to the documents that you have is after hearing from everyone, and really almost imploring people to provide us with their input, sometimes more successfully than others, we have received enough that suggests that maybe something like 12 makes a better sense for a cap, okay, but what we don't want to do is come here and say we already decided it. What we're trying to do is say, all of this is available for us to figure out what is the appropriate thing, but I believe that 12 may be a more agreeable number, based on the people who have chosen to engage with us and sit down and start to problem solve. The last thing I would just tell you is that there's this discussion of what would be an alternate method of coming down the hill. In good faith, I have sat down with Mayor Diamond and a number of the City staff to already begin the effort to figure out how would we do that. There are two primary ways that we could do that. The City's right of way from lower Butler Dam essentially follows the line from the Dam, there you go, there's the right of way right there, West Mountain Road. The pipeline obviously extends higher than that, but the point is that there is a potential pathway that could be used. Okay, at no point has anyone from the City been able to tell us exactly what the condition and extra capacity is which would require a fairly extensive engineering review, of which we would do jointly with them, but even if we were to be able to accomplish that, we have many other hurdles to cross. We don't have any land agreement with anybody that's a land holder at the 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) base of that. That's currently privately held property. We'd have to go secure a land agreement. The only other alternative would be to come down the City's right of way and then pipe the water down West Mountain Road to the City's property, which is approximately a quarter of a mile on the other side of the neighborhood that many of the residents may be here tonight, from Thunderbird and Easy Street and so on. Those are really the two viable paths which we are pursuing with all vigor. In fact, I have met with the Mayor several times on this topic alone, simply to figure out how would we go about getting our two teams together to begin to do this. However, that whole process, I mean, we've been spending a year trying to develop the one that we presented to you, and so what we think is appropriate is for us to continue the one that we have, and to offer to you that the appropriate mitigation would be, if at any point we move beyond the number that we settle on, and I'm suggesting that it be 12, that we, at that point, would have to go put in an alternate solution, which I believe is some combination of electrifying the fleet, or mitigating the trucks. Maybe we could get somebody to make us a smaller profile truck, or, putting in an alternate delivery station on West Mountain Road. We're willing to sign up to all of those things that are based on a threshold. The reason that we see the threshold that has been suggested to us by many members of the community, that they remember this process working with regards to the amusement and water park. That the pedestrian bridge there was triggered based on a certain visitor count, and once that visitor count was met, at that point the enforcement mechanism of the Planning Board was to say that the property owners are, it's now their responsibility to develop that part of the project. I think what we're trying to do is both come up with a solution and also match it to a model that you have already effectively used. Because what we're trying to be, in every step of the way, is not impactful. So if there's a way that you have already successfully dealt with a similar problem, we are suggesting that we put ours in that context. So the net of all this, and I have, by the way, a full list of mitigations which I will leave for you which we haven't talked about, but include many other things that are based on the feedback that people provided us, such as putting money in a road escrow fund that is directly accessible by the Town and make any augments or modifications to the road that our traffic creates. It's essentially, the monetary value of that is based on if we owned a very significant plot of land that we were paying property taxes, and what proportion of that would make its way through the proportionality of the Town's budget to the road department. So we're still working through that math, but it's a significant number, and we've offered to do that in good faith with the Town, simply because we heard people say we're concerned about what your trucks may do to a road that is not receiving that kind of traffic perhaps today. You'll see a full list of these, and what I want you to understand is that it's a partial list, because, if there are more, then this process continues, but for now, we believe that these are, well, we think, quite honestly, more than anybody that we've seen in the community that we've been here over the past year offer as a solution set. So I guess what I'm trying to do is at first I want to answer all your questions, but I want to make sure you understand our process. Our process is to continue to hear and problem solve. So if you bring us new factors tonight, we'll go away tomorrow and try to figure out how to accommodate those, but based on what we've heard right up until this meeting, we believe that the right number to propose to you would be 12 trips a day, daylight hours only, excluding school bus time, excluding any time that a cross country or running group wants to use the road, or anybody else who has a group that has a recreational access that would be in some way interfering with it, and a volume base to trigger us to an ultimate solution, including the pathway down the hill. Okay. Sorry, I can breathe now. Are there questions about this? MR. HUNSINGER-Questions from the Board? George? MR. FERONE-So you mentioned, you know, running during daylight hours. So, in the summer, it's a pretty long day. It could be daylight until 8, 8:30 at night. MR. SIPLON-We listed 6 p.m. as our cut off. MR. FERONE-Okay. All right. So, in starting time? MR. SIPLON-Well, the current application it says nine, but I think that that would be adjusted based on the feedback we get from the school district. If it turns out they would prefer that we run from 7 to 8 and stand down from 8 to 9, and then start again, we would. We need that many hours, we think, in order to be able to accomplish it. So it's currently listed as 9 to 6, and that's conditional upon the school district coming back and telling us what they'd like to carve out. MR. FERONE-How many trucks are you going to run? MR. SIPLON-Right now we have one. And the turnaround time on that truck is more than an hour. MR. FERONE-So that's between loading at the extraction site. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. SIPLON-Loading, unloading it and then bringing it back up would take more than an hour. MR. DEEB-How long does it take you to fill the truck up there? MR. SIPLON-We have a transfer pump that produces at 200 gallons a minute. It's a 4,000 gallon tank. So a little over 20 minutes. MR. FERONE-So with one truck eight hours a day, it's not going to be 12. It's going to be. MR. SIPLON-It's going to be three to five, which is what I've been telling people all along, but what I'm trying to do is make sure that at no point do we mislead people that the potential impact of our application is greater than that. We are bending over backwards to make sure that we, like you, do not fall into an area where somebody says we did not disclose or fully share what the total impact of our project would be. We're trying to be, almost, I think maybe to a fault, because I think sometimes we confuse people. The 25 million gallon number that we oftentimes use as a ceiling, I don't know how we would get to in our current facility, but it has always been what we listed as the absolute max that could ever address, and so we've kept it so that it's consistent with every SEAR that is done. MR. TRAVER-1 can appreciate, I believe, I've spent some time thinking about this, and I can understand after the effort and the planning you've put into this, that you're very, very anxious to get this project underway, and if we imagine our own, without getting into SEAR, separate some of the elements out a little bit, and we assume that somehow we are able to get your production well and we are able to get the DEC permit amended and we are just talking about Site Plan issues, I submit to you that there's a potential that by setting aside the trucking up and down the mountain and the potential environmental issues associated with that, and moving ahead with planning some alternative piping arrangement such as you potentially discussed, I understand that that's an additional expense, and additional time, but I think if you look at the cost of the road maintenance for a 99 year lease which you pledge, that's not an insignificant amount of money. We could probably figure out how much money that is. It may or may not pay for the pipeline. The same could be said for the fleet maintenance, going up and down, fuel economy, whatever, just for that one section of the road, potential limitations on the number of trips and so on, all of that, and the potential, and we haven't gotten into SEAR yet, but I think that the potential for more delay with pursuing this driving up and down through the Land Conservation zone may take longer than saying, you know what, we're going to sit down and work 24/7 and we're going to come up with this plan and we're going to come up with something on West Mountain Road, and all that's going to be up there is a well. MR. SIPLON-Well, let's address it one thing at a time. The first thing is that all we're doing is obviating the last mile. So a truck still has to make the bulk of the trip, and we still have to address every single issue that we've brought to you. We're simply changing the nexus for the site. So we are still in front of you talking about a potential zoning change. We're still in front of you talking about site plan issues for another site, and we're still, in fact, we don't even have the engineering details by which we could do that, and so this is not a lack of due diligence, by the way. We have been engaged in this now for nearly a year and a half, with great expense and an enormous amount of shared resource between us, the Town and the City engaged in the process. So I think what we're saying here is that we are quite happy to pursue a parallel path, but we also believe we're presenting to you a compelling package today. One where we have done a tremendous amount of work to mitigate our potential environmental impact, and by the way, one of which nobody has ever actually ever, even the most ardent proponent, or I mean, opponent, has ever been able to articulate any specific environmental harm or risk. We're talking about trucks that drive on a public road that exist today. The volume of which is less than, it's a single digit number of round trips. I mean, put it in context. In front of my factory in Glens Falls are more than 200 trucks that don't have anything to do with me, driving in front of me every day. The cars alone, that just from passive recreation, go up and down that road represent a far larger environmental impact, in terms of emissions, sound, site, all of it, than our trucks do. We're talking about a very small amount. What I'm happy to do is to continue to quantify that, problem solve to make that as small as possible, but I can tell you in good faith that I believe that we've presented you something that has virtually no environmental impact. MR. TRAVER-Well, let's talk about it. Let's talk about the application that we have for SEAR in front of us. We already discussed the 50 gallons per hour and your application is greater than the, I think they called it the safe yield of 47. 1 noticed on Page Six, and I believe there's a generator in a housing at the well site with lights and so on. Page Six, a little bit up from the bottom, does the proposed action include or will use on site one or more sources of air emissions, due to fuel, and you've checked no. I think you're going to have a generator on site. Right? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. SIPLON-It's a liquid natural gas generator, yes. Its emissions would be a fraction of what a household barbecue would be. MR. TRAVER-Understood, but this was a yes or no question. On Page 10, is the project site currently used by members of the community for public recreation, and you say no. MR. SIPLON-At the time that was true. When we filed the SEAR it was not open for passive recreation. I am happy to say that the Town and the City have since agreed on a process to begin to open it for passive recreation, which we think is a wonderful development, but, and we're very happy to amend our application, but at the time we proposed it to you, that was the truth. MR. TRAVER-Let's see, Page 12, there's a spot where you're asked to identify predominant wildlife species, and that's blank. MR. CENTER-If you look at the very back end, the wildlife species on the DEC generated form finds no endangered species. MR. TRAVER-Well, this wasn't about endangered. This was identify. MR. CENTER-Wildlife and endangered species. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's on, O & P below that, yes. On the same page there's a question about, is the area used for hunting and so on. I know that the area around the reservoir is posted, but I'd be surprised if there weren't some hunting going on on some of that. MR. CENTER-It's not allowed underneath the Department of Health standards that regulate the watershed property, because this is watershed property, the entire parcel is delineated. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Bottom line is this application, as it stands right now, as you've already offered, is inaccurate. It needs to be updated. MR. CENTER-There's very minor qualifications that we can make at this meeting with any questions you may have to whatever we've done in the past related to SEAR. MR. SIPLON-1 would tell you that we expect a continued amount of corrections as we try to problem solve with you. So my hope is that you would share with us constructive feedback that would allow us to make this an even better product. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. DEEB-So you're generating, at this time, one trip, because you have one truck, maybe two a day, whatever. MR. SIPLON-Two to three is likely the tempo for some time. MR. DEEB-Okay, and it takes, turnaround's an hour. So to start with you may be talking three hours. So with one truck, on a public road. So, I don't see the huge impact there, myself. I don't know what Steven's talking about. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? MR. SIPLON-Listen, here's the most important thing I want to hear, that I want you to understand, it's the same thing I tell everyone else. Our object is to make things better. It's to make things better with the product we produce. It's to make things better with the community that we engage with. It's to make things better with the process we engage in. These processes get, they get, you know, emotional for people. We understand that. We've been doing this for many years. I've done this all over the world. Here's the thing that matters most. When we developed the Fiji Water Foundation, in Fiji, when I was in Fiji, we put the rainforest under 99 years with the preservation. The models, many of which what we're doing here is based on, are still in place. I'm no longer there. The organization continues to preserve the rainforest and continues to honor all of the obligations that we set forth. They've now done 200 water projects with the funds that we generate from the sale of the water. We propose to make things better. I understand that there are legitimate concerns. I think you will find we will work overtime to figure out how to meet people more than halfway, and find a way to meet their concerns. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board? We should probably do the public hearing before we consider accepting Lead Agency Status. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. SCHACHNER-Before what? MR. HUNSINGER-Before we accept Lead Agency Status. MR. SCHACHNER-It doesn't matter. I don't think anybody from the public's going to quarrel about the Lead Agency designation, but it's up to you. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled on the project this evening. As I mentioned earlier, we did have a very extensive public hearing two weeks ago, and there was a lot of comment made. I think most of us took notes. We do have copies of those minutes now. They're available to the Planning Board, although they are not yet posted to the Town's website. If I could just get a show of hands, how many people came prepared to speak this evening? Okay. Two weeks ago I had asked for a signup sheet so we could do it in an orderly fashion, but seeing as there's not as many people that wish to speak, we could just do that one at a time. On the back table there is a handout for public hearing information. The purpose of the public hearing is for residents to present information to the Planning Board about how they feel the project impacts them. Oftentimes this is a subjective discussion. It is not an opportunity for members of the public to ask questions of the applicant, but you should address your questions or comments to the Board, and it's also not an opportunity to be critical of the applicant for the application. Just a couple of tips. When you present your comments, and again I'm reading off this sheet, that you should be specific, accurate and concise. You should avoid repeating comments that have already been made by others, and again, we've had extensive testimony on this project already. Avoid personal attacks and impolite language, and also please make sure you turn off your cellphones. I usually remember to do that when I walk in, but I don't always. I would ask anyone that wishes to address the Board to state their name for the record and to speak clearly into the microphone. The meeting is taped. The tape is used to transcribe the minutes, and then the tape is also available for members of the public to hear on the Town's website. So, without any further ado, who would like to be first? We did have a list. I'm sorry. And I apologize ahead of time if I mispronounce any names. The first name on the list is Paul Demboski, and then after that would be Ron Ball. Good evening PUBLIC HEARING OPEN PAUL DEMBOSKI MR. DEMBOSKI-Good evening. I'm Paul Demboski, resident of Queensbury, and I'd like to share a letter that I've signed along with more than 150 others, many of whom are here tonight. If you're supporters, would you please stand. MR. HUNSINGER-We don't need to do that. Address your comments to the Board. MR. DEMBOSKI-Okay. Dear Town of Queensbury Planning Board: As residents, neighbors and voting members of the community, we write this letter to express our support of JUST Beverages and their proposed plan to bring water to the facility in Glens Falls. We come from all parts of Queensbury, including the areas nearby the City's watershed property. We recognize that what they propose may require additional zoning language as well as some modest truck traffic in our community. We also understand the need for responsible business development in our area. We have taken the time to listen to JUST's leaders, including one of the company's founders, Queensbury's own Drew Fitzgerald, and company COO Jim Siplon. We have watched as they have made themselves welcome additions to our area over the past year. We have followed through many public hearings and forums. We have taken them up on their invitation to visit, ask questions, and solve problems together. Just is an exciting company that seeks to make things better for everyone, and we are glad they chose our community. JUST has made every effort to reduce its impact. They have chosen a smaller truck that is of the same size as fuel oil trucks, and they have safely navigated our communities for years. They've offered to reduce the trips or limit hours for their trucks. They have committed to pay in advance for any road repairs. They have publicly stated they will block out delivery times for school bus periods and cross country running club schedules. We believe they have more than met our concerns. We sign this letter and appear at Town meetings to make sure all Town leaders know the vast majority of our community stands behind Just. The well site is an area that has been used for water extraction for over 100 years. The road is a public road supported by our tax dollars. The company has demonstrated it is a worthy partner. As the normally silent majority, we urge the planning board to approve this project, endorse the modest inclusion of water extraction in the zone and move forward with JUST. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-1 assume those are the petitions. MR. DEMBOSKI-Yes. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Have you submitted those already? MR. DEMBOSKI-I have not, but I can. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could submit those to Mrs. Moore. Mr. Ball, and then after him is Jeff Lynch. So is each letter separate? MRS. MOORE-Some are not. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. RON BALL MR. BALL-Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me speak. Name Ron Ball. I hope everybody can hear me fine. The photo he showed up here, I want you to ask him. I know I can't ask him directly these questions so I'm going to ask you to ask him, but the photo he showed of the truck, it looked like a single axel. Maybe there was something blocking the rear wheel there. I would think it would probably be a bigger truck than what that picture is showing. Another question that I have, which I wish you would ask them, is they mentioned they did some site draw, and I'd like to know just how deep that pipe is in the ground up there that they're drawing water from now, how big of a casing it is, and when they did test holes, and I believe they said they experimented around the foot of the mountain there, and if they made those test holes the same depth as where they're actually drawing the water from, because I know that if you just go down a certain number of feet along that area, you get what they call a shallow well, and in order to get a deep well you have to go through what they call a hard pan, and maybe he did mention it. I thought a hard pan, he may have addressed it a different way, but I know the water tastes different from the surface water which would be above the hard pan, than the water below the hard pan, and I was just wondering if he did the test holes, if he actually did drive it down beyond the hard pan in order to see if he got a better grade of water. MR. TRAVER-1 can answer that. The entire report is on the Town website, and they did outline, in great detail, all the test holes, the depth, what they found, all of it in great detail, right there in the first 50 pages or so of the report. MR. BALL-So you didn't answer my question. How deep did he go with the well that's up there? MR. HUNSINGER-We have that information, but we'll let the applicant. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I don't have that in front of me. MR. BALL-Okay, but you can ask them correct? MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. BALL-Okay, and then he ought to be able to answer if the test holes were driven that deep, okay. Another thing, that road that leads up to Butler Pond where they want to extract the water. It's shaded. There's a lot of trees that grow close to the road, which makes a really nice place up in there, and I can't see, you know, them going up in there and taking more trees down to protect the road from ice buildup, and so I'm hoping that if you do approve this, that none of the trees are removed, and I was wondering if they're going to plan on still going up there in in climate weather. Would they, you know, relax it for a while until better conditions on the road are, and that's about it. I appreciate it. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Mr. Lynch. Jeff Lynch. After him is Ernie Martindale, and then Dr. Judkins. Good evening. ERNIE MARTINDALE MR. MARTINDALE-I'm Ernie Martindale. I live at 17 Aviation Road in Queensbury, and obviously I've gotten enlightened a little bit tonight because you have more facts that I obviously have access to, but I'd like to tell you that the proposed change in zoning law, I believe will have an adverse effect not only on the residents of Butler Pond Road, Aviation Road and West Mountain Road, but the entire Town because it will create a precedent for other commercial enterprises, and the residents to the area, I believe, will forever lose, will have their way of life changed, due to increases in noise, traffic, pollution and safety issues. My own home is approximately 30 feet from the edge of Aviation Road, and it's at the corner of West Mountain and Aviation Road, where the trucks will have to start and stop each trip. Mr. Siplon has said 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) that his maximum number of trips per day are 16, and that they will work around the school bus stops and the Queensbury cross country schedule. The school bus operates approximately from seven to nine a.m., two to five p.m. I would like to know exactly the number of trips per day and their exact hours of operation and how many days per week that they will operate those trucks, because it has an impact on the way of life. The road is narrow with blind corners that are not wide enough to accommodate a truck of 54,000 pounds and a car or a truck coming in the opposite direction. They said they're willing to put money into an escrow account for road repair. It would be good to know how much money and for how long they would do this because I am told by former Highway Superintendents that the road was not built to handle the kind of traffic and weight that a Just Beverage truck would generate. There are alternatives that have not been fully explored, bringing the water down the mountain, such as were brought up at the last meeting and tonight with the piping, and while I understand Just Beverages wanting to become operational as soon as possible and get their product to market, poor planning on their part does not create an emergency on the part of the Town or the local taxpaying residents who would be effected. The City of Glens Falls is profiting from taxes being collected and from the sale of water to Just Beverages. I can't see where the Town of Queensbury residents are profiting from any of the operations. I believe the Planning Board, the Zoning Board and the Town should take all the time that is needed to make what is the right and correct long term decision for its residents. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Dr. Judkins, and then after him would be Steve Gurzler. DAVID JUDKINS DR. JUDKINS-So, I've provided you with two stapled packets here. The first one is a what we have now and what's proposed chart. My name is Dr. David Judkins. I live on 286 Butler Pond Road. So what we have now is a municipal water collection, and I highlight those two, a watershed reservoirs and water supplied by gravity to the City of Glens Falls. What's proposed is a commercial water extraction, not collection, by a privately owned venture capital company for the purpose of making a profit. Drilled wells, and I should add, Mr. Traver, that in the SEAR it says Drilled Well Number One, indicating that there will be more. Pumping system with a generator, fueled by gas, diesel or propane, in ground pipes, which are already in place, two structures, daily onsite employees, in ground storage tanks, two daily trucking operation of, to start with, whatever number of trucks was decided on tonight and I don't know that that was the case, and different noise and emission levels. Now, to suggest that that's what's already happening now, between the City and the Town of Queensbury I think would be a hard case to make. This is a significant change to the proposed use. I don't think it warrants a simply amendment. I believe it should go to the Zoning Board for a variance. Commercial collection, commercial extraction, municipal collection. This is a significant change. It would be convenient to simply have us amend the current zoning, but it would deprive the actual process of requiring a variance. I can't understand why this would not require a variance based on that. So what I'd like to do is I would like to just take a step back for a second and ask a fundamental question. Why are we considering doing this? I understand there are people who want business in our communities. I agree with that 100%, but if we peel away the layers, what we have is a private equity company for the purpose of making a profit for its investors, a startup company which contracted with its business partner, which is the City of Glens Falls, for the purpose of commoditizing water for the sale on the open market. I'm not certain how that benefits the Town of Queensbury. They consummated this deal with a 99 year lease. On the second page of this handout I photocopied for you the pertinent part of that contract which I highlighted the last time we were here, which basically says that Just Bev, without any approval or consent from the City to Just its principals, affiliates, subsidiaries or principles or to any entity which acquires a substantial portion of Just, they can sell it to them without any input from this Town of Queensbury or the City of Glens Falls. If you look at the first page of the second handout I gave you, and I don't know if any of you had a chance to contact any of the people in Freiberg, Maine, this is exactly what happened to the people in Freiberg, Maine. On Page Two of this it gives you a partial timeline and the lawsuits that were brought against them. Those lawsuits go on today. It changed the exact, it changed the fundamental fabric of that community, and in this case, they actually signed the contract with the Nestle Company. In our case, we not only didn't have input into that contract, we are going to be held to that contract for four generations. I urge you, before you make any decisions, please someone on this Board contact someone in the town governments of Freiberg, Maine and ask for their input. They have been sued over and over and over again, by the Nestle Company. Every time they tried to say no to something they were sued, and this has been going on for 10 years. Now I'm not saying that that's what's going to happen with Just Bev, but let's be frank. They can sell it. They're a venture capital company in the business of making a profit. At least two of their major investors are from California. One is a former CEO of Fiji Water. Why do we not think that that can happen to the Town of Queensbury? And if they don't think it will, have them take it out. Why do we want to encumber the Town of Queensbury for 99 years with a contract we had nothing to do with? One of your own former Planning Board members testified here at the last hearing and said this 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) is not in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Queensbury. She knows because she helped write it. So when you peel away all the layers, why are we doing this? Was it the Town of Queensbury's responsibility to do due diligence before they applied an application in an area that it wasn't zoned for? They started this work back in the fall without any permissions or permits from anybody. Where is that allowed? And now they're asking us to amend the zoning law to fit their business plan. Why? Why are we doing it? Why would we encumber our children's children's children with a contract that will handcuff us for 99 years? As a minimum that part of that contract should come out. There's no question that they can sell this. Here's a perfect example, Freiberg, Maine, where it's happened. It's exactly what's going on here. Just Bev was obligated to research all aspects of State, County and Municipal laws before starting this. It is not the Town's responsibility. They said, well, we drilled here, we drilled there. We drilled there. We found the best place was right in your 10 acre Land Conservation zoning. Is that our problem? Why don't we just say no, go to your second, third, or fourth best place. Everybody says, well, we don't want them to not do business here. Do you think they don't have a backup plan honestly? I mean, does that make any business sense whatsoever? We are not obligated to alter the zoning regulations to meet their business plan. This is not in keeping with the Town's Comprehensive Plan, which specifically says make re- zoning rare. Zoning should be rare and only take place if it forwards the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Not only that, but 10 acre Land Conservation neighborhood zoning specifically defines, and I provided a copy for you, an area that adds to the Town's rural character and should be protected as such. So why are we doing it? That's the question. It doesn't matter if 150 people on my side say we don't want it to happen, and 150 people, I respect everybody. The question is, why? Why are we doing it? It's a venture capital company, a startup business company. You're right, one truck every three hours would not be a big impact That's not the issue. What's it going to be in10 years? What's it going to be for your grandchildren? Once it starts, it's not 25 million gallons. Read the contract. With permission from the City of Glens Falls, they can take out more, and if Just Bev says they won't, I believe them, but it doesn't mean they won't sell. It's happened. This isn't the mythical unicorn that Mr. Siplon was quoted as referring to in the newspaper. This is real facts. I wasn't going to go here, but it was brought up, so I think it's fair. I provided for you a copy of an article from the Post Star on 1/27/15 where Mr. Siplon was described as, he was speaking in the poetic storytelling style of a motivational speaker, and he himself described this whole process as searching for the mythical unicorn. This is not about whether or not, they're going to use green trucks, whether or not, what color pants you wear. None of that matters. What matters is, is this, it's simple. Is this in keeping with the zoning, the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Queensbury? If so, and you can justify that in your own heart of hearts, then let him do it, but you also have to ask yourself will it stand up against litigation? I find that hard to believe when you compare these side to side. Lastly, this issue about us as Queensbury being liable and at risk of this contract being sold. Mr. Siplon said when I was at Fiji, and explained a lot of things that happened. In that same article is Mr. Siplon's bio. I would just point out, for whatever it's worth, for me it gives me pause. In the last 19 years, he has held seven different positions in seven different companies according to that bio, and I hope every one of those was, each and every one of those was better than the one before that, but if history tends to repeat itself, who are we dealing with? That's the question you have to ask, and the number of trucks, it doesn't matter what they're going to start out with. It doesn't matter that it's one truck every three hours. What matters is what's the maximum possibility that this plan and this contract allows? That's what matters. Your children and your children's children, and is that what's in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan of this Town? I would respectfully suggest to you that it absolutely is not, and that you need to get a real legal opinion, and please, I'm begging you, one of you, call someone in Freiberg, Maine. I've done it. That person asked to remain anonymous for fear of litigation. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Steve Gurzler, and then after him is Bob Palmer. STEVE GURZLER MR. GURZLER-I am not a resident of the Town of Queensbury, but I do represent a large property owner from Queensbury, the City of Glens Falls. I just wanted to say for the record that the City has worked closely with the hydrogeologists and the engineers hired by Just Beverages, and that we are quite satisfied that their operation will not have any measurable impact or any adverse effect upon our water supply. The amount of water they're withdrawing is something, pick a number, 47, 50 gallons per minute. That doesn't really matter to me, but right now we're drawing about 900 gallons a minute out of the system. It's not unusual, and the amount of water they're using and the amount of land they're using and the proposed operation, we are quite content will be entirely consistent with our operation and will not have any adverse impact upon the water supply, and we're very happy to work with them. It's true we're hoping to get some revenue from that, and we hope to use that revenue to fix some of the leaks in our water systems, which do exceed the amount of water that we'd be drawing from the watershed. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) So, with that, I'd like to say once more the City does support this and we're very much hoping that this will go forward, and that it should be a good asset to the region. Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Dawn Judkins, and then after her is Paul Broccoli. BOB PALMER MR. PALM ER-I have to apologize. I thought that was a sign in sheet. My name is Bob Palmer. I live in a local neighborhood. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, yes, I went out of order. MR. PALMER-So I'm not prepared. I just got back into Town. I'm here to support my neighbor in this project against that. That's all I have to say right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. PALMER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Now Mrs. Judkins. DAWN JUDKINS MRS. JUDKINS-Thank you. Hi. I'm Dawn Judkins, and I'm a resident of Queensbury, and I live on Butler Pond Road, and I have to read because I'm not a public speaker. So I get a little nervous. So I want to say, yes, it's true that Mr. Siplon did meet with the communities surrounding the Butler Pond area. He came armed with all his posters and all the wonderful things that his company, Just Beverages, is going to do for the City of Glens Falls. I do think Mr. Siplon is trying to do the right thing meeting with as many people as possible, but I am, too, trying to do the right thing. The difference is Mr. Siplon's loyalties lay with the California investors and what we've heard through the grapevine a few local investors. My loyalties as a member of the Queensbury Land Conservation Coalition lay with the taxpayers of the Town of Queensbury. Mr. Siplon says he has invested in the area as he has lived here under two years. My husband and I, who grew up in the area, moved back here 26 years ago to raise our family. During that time I've seen huge amounts of construction, building new developments, senior housing developments, roads widened, a local bridge enhanced, stop signs changed to traffic lights, and an addition of a new school to accommodate the ever growing community we call the Town of Queensbury. Because of these expansions, we put together a committee to hash out land conservation territory that we could keep pristine to keep the Adirondack image as we all knew it, meaning, of course, those who grew up in the area. I can't believe for a minute we ask this committee to come up with staunch rules and regulations and accepted them into the plans for the Town, just to amend them in 10, 15, 20 years. Why is this not a NIMBY project? Because it will cause the taxpayers of the Town of Queensbury for the constant repairs that are going to be needed for the upkeep of this small winding rural road for 99 years. What amount of Queensbury tax dollars is it going to cost the Town to make it acceptable for the wear and tear of Just Beverages' 54,000 pound trucks with daily 16 roundtrips? And we have to go by 16 because that really is the ultimate number that they plan to use, and that number actually was, that came out of a settled lawsuit that Judge Bedbridge had with some business owners in Glens Falls, and that was the cap that they were given to put their trucks on Glens Falls roadway. So I'd like to know, has anyone done a cost analysis on this? Mr. Siplon said the last meeting they would set up a road fund. Well, I say show me the money. How much is Mr. Siplon going to put towards this fund? How do we know how much money will be needed to accommodate a commercial enterprise on a limited traffic rural road? A few towns over in Diamond Point, the town stopped truck traffic on Coolidge Hill Road. They prevented the use of trucks over 25,000 pounds because of their due diligence by finding out that trucks over the amount of 25,000 pounds could not safely downshift and stop to make the right turn onto Bolton Road. Butler Pond has less than one tenth of a mile more to make that same stop and turn onto West Mountain. Will a tenth of a mile accommodate 30,000 more pounds? We don't know. We have not done any impact study on that. Mr. Siplon stated in the last Town Planning Board meeting he was unaware of the Town of Queensbury Land Conservation LC-10 area when he started. I'll have to say this is probably the biggest malarkey I've heard so far. The Glens Falls lawyer for Mr. Siplon in Just Beverage is Mr. Mike Borgos. Mr. Borgos grew up on Butler Pond Road in the house that I now reside, and I have a hard time believing Mr. Borgos was not privy to the fact that Butler Pond is on a Land Conservation and did not know the limits of that road. What I do know is that if this goes through a Californian yuppie, a Gen X'r or Joe Public will go to a store and purchase a bottle of Adirondack Mountain water for less than two dollars a bottle. What I would like to know, as a taxpayer, what is the cost to the Adirondack community who reside in the Town of Queensbury. As I see it, Queensbury has all the burden and no benefit. Thank you. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Mr. Broccoli, and then after him is Sean Craine. PAUL BROCCOLI MR. BROCCOLI-My name is Paul Broccoli. I'm a Queensbury resident. Queensbury taxpayer. Queensbury voter. I grew up in this area. I grew up using that area for recreation, even though it's been posted all my life. I still, to this day, like to jog up there. I take my wife and my daughter hiking around Butler Pond. It's beautiful up there. I love it. I am fully in support of Just water. Everything that they've done they've bent over backwards. They've done their due diligence. It's going to be a small footprint. There's school buses on that road. There's garbage trucks on that road, and the most dangerous truck on that road is the logging trucks. Like I said, I run up there. I see them all the time. His trucks seem quite a bit smaller. He's trying to make modifications to his truck to make them even greener. I just, the fact that they're bending over backwards, and they've tried to accommodate everybody in the community that's had a question, a comment, a concern, and any problems, as he said, they're trying to problem solve. I think we have to look at the bigger picture here. It's hard enough to draw businesses into New York State, let alone the Glens Falls area. We have to look at the bigger picture for our area. To get a business like this in Downtown. Glens Falls is the Downtown for our whole community, for all of Warren County. It's a huge homerun for us. It's national recognition on the bottles of water. You're bringing jobs and revenue. The chip plant in Malta is getting over a billion dollars from the State to bring these jobs in, and it's been a huge homerun. He doesn't ask for anything. They don't want tax abatements. They don't want anything. They're going to pay over the commercial rate for water. Everything that they're trying to do they're doing the right way. They're trying to problem solve, and I just think it's a big mistake and will set a precedent in terms of bringing businesses into our area, the whole area. My biggest thing with them that I've heard that no one's mentioned tonight is they want to develop the area for recreation up there. They're plant seems very small to me. They're going to take up very little space, and it just seems like a homerun. That's the benefit we're going to get. As I said, as far as I can tell, most of that land is posted up there. I didn't think we were even supposed to use it. The cooperative atmosphere that seems to have developed between Glens Falls and Queensbury in recent years, I just think this would be a big blow to that if this project doesn't end up going through. So, in my business I deal with a lot of people. I talk to, this comes up a lot. The overwhelming majority of them support this. So I'm here to speak for most of them. So, please, take your time. Obviously you guys can't make hasty decisions, but make the right decision, please. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Mr. Craine? And then after him it's Matthew Web. SEAN CRAINE MR. CRAINE-Good evening. Sean Craine. A lot of what I wanted to say has already been said by David Judkins, but something I'd like to point out is I've got to hand it to Mr. Siplon that he's taking what is fundamentally a very dirty business and making it, branding it as something very clean and likeable. He's going out of his way to say it's green, that he's working with us, but let's look at the hypotheticals. We started out with four or five trucks. What's that going to turn into in the years to come when he sells the business, and there's more of the taps. What's this Planning Board going to look like in three years when his investors have invested even more money and they have a plant down the Northway and they want to increase the amount of trucks, and they start giving the City of Glens Falls even more money for the water? If I were in his shoes and I was trying to do the similar type of business, I'd probably just take the same tact, you know, paint myself as very community centered, friendly, etc., and cloak the core business, and I think we really need to look at the, like the individual before me said, look at the big picture, and I think that's the future. This isn't going to stay at four or five trucks. It hasn't anywhere else in any other community. If he plans on starting a business with four, five trucks roundtrip, what kind of business is that and is that a business we want to be, I mean, if he has investors, they're going to want to see growth year after year. If he thinks that he could have a viable business just with five trucks over 99 years, it's not going to happen. So I think it's something very important to point out. Secondly, the last time I was here I asked if anyone had contacted any of the Planning Board members in Freiberg, Maine. I asked you to contact some of the Planning Board members in Freiberg, Maine. I was wondering if anyone had. No? Okay. Thanks for the time. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Mr. Wells? MATT WELLS MR. WELLS-My disapproval has already been echoed. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-All right. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak this evening? Yes, ma'am. KATHLEEN ROWE MRS. ROWE-Good evening. My name is Kathleen Rowe. I'm a resident of Queensbury on Cardinale Court, and when I came here to this community over 30 years ago I was promised the private enjoyment of my property by the Town members, and as a member for a short time on the Planning Board, I fought for that quiet enjoyment of people's property so that other people would have the best of their lives. When the Reb Lobster came here to this community, I fought so that the neighbors behind the proposed Red Lobster on the Aviation Road across from Friendly's would have the quiet enjoyment of their properties. When Wal-Mart decided to come in, my property was adjacent to the Wal-Mart property. I was told and promised all kinds of promises by the Wal-Mart representatives that being that my property was behind the section of Wal-Mart where their automotive center went in, that it would not disturb my quiet enjoyment of my property. I was told when their tractor trailers would only be driving up behind their building and driving out again that it would not interfere with the quiet enjoyment of my property, and now I hear stories of how Just Beverages believes that them driving these trucks up and down Butler Pond Road and in through other parts of Queensbury will not interfere with the private enjoyment of other people's property again. There's so much going on these days. No one knows what will happen in our future. We were made promises by all kinds of companies. Ask yourselves what kind of promises were made by companies like Woodbury's and Grossman's, by companies like Ames and Zayres, by companies like Walden Books, Dalton Books, by Lauriat's Books. All of these companies promised that they would be here, and just recently T.J. Maxx announced they're leaving the Mall. Other companies have left this area like the Red Coach Grill and the Montcalm, and I can continue to go on quite extensively. Somehow we needed to have a Home Depot. We needed to have a Lowe's. We needed to have a lot of other businesses in this area, continued fast food and restaurant businesses, which I cannot deny people need to make a living, but this is a company that has no stake in this area. This is a company coming from California, which, as was stated, will probably be sold out within the next 10 years, and believe me when I say I'm not allowed to eat a Nestle product because my daughter does not condone Nestle and its products. Maybe I should say thank you to her. I'm not sure, but Nestle at this present time owns more than 67 water beverage companies throughout the world, and just because this startup company comes in here and makes you promises, like Wal-Mart did to me, oh, gee, we can't afford to put up a big fence across the property like down on 787 because that would interfere with our profits and we don't have that kind of money. Well, anyone who believed Wal-Mart didn't have the kind of money to put up that fence was wrong as well. There are a lot of promises being made in this room. I can tell you for a fact that this gentleman is saying, don't worry, we'll contribute to the funds that are going to be used to improve your roads. Well, I can't get not a representative from Queensbury or Glens Falls to make repairs to potholes, especially along Western Avenue in this Town because nobody claims any part of that road. Everyone says, no, that belongs to the City of Glens Falls, no that belongs to Queensbury. Well, it belongs to somebody and a tire repair of $127 had to be made to a tire because nobody would claim that it was their responsibility to fill a hole, and I'm not saying that that's the only road in Town that needs repairs. Where are these supposed highway people making repairs? I don't know. I know my road in the Town of Queensbury has not been paved in the 18 years we've lived there. So tell me who's working on these roads because this guy's going to drive his trucks up and down them and make all kinds of mess with his 50,000 pound trucks and whatever, and nobody's going to care, and I can tell you right now, not one of my relatives has ever said, gee, let me come up and visit you in the Town of Queensbury to see your bottling plant. They come here for the beauty and the recreation and the trees and the things that they don't have in the other parts of the country where they live. They come here to see Lake George and its private enjoyment. Granted I'm not saying that the horse track is the best thing, but they come to Saratoga for the horse track. They come to Glens Falls to walk through the area and see the quaint city and things. They're not coming here to see our Lowe's and Home Depot. Granted sometimes they're coming here to shop in our Factory Outlet stores. Which I don't understand, they have the same stores where they live, but okay. What I'm trying to say to you at this point in time is it is not imperative to put this water bottling plant up on this road. It is supposed to be a place of quiet beauty and enjoyment, and I thought at one point that was the Town's motto, not to bring in water bottling plants and more and more commercial business that the Town doesn't need and the traffic we don't need, and the nonsense that goes on, and you're supposed to be protecting our quiet enjoyment of this area, and I'm not seeing it here tonight. I'm seeing people say something about school buses and trucks and things going up and down Butler Pond Road, but does anybody actually have the facts about the number of school buses and logging trucks that go up and down that road? Because I believe Dr. Judkins, last week, said that there were none. Now I'd like to know the honest facts and truth about that, and I don't know if the Highway Department can determine that or not, and as far as somebody saying that we put an extra school building in, the Four Five building was added, yes, but do you still have the same enrollment in each of the 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) grade levels that we had almost 20 years ago when my son started school here? The grade level enrollment is almost exactly the same as it was 20 years ago. So somebody needs to be looking at who we're putting in all this stuff for, and if anybody asks you, the Town of Queensbury right now has some of the best water in the world, and you know where it's coming from? My tap. So maybe all of you need to come there and I'll let you fill up a bottle. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. STEPHEN ROWE MR. ROWE-My name's Stephen Rowe, and since I wife dragged me up here, I thought I may as well make a comment, too, and I don't want to rehash what's been said, but I have to admit, I agree with Dr. Judkins. Mr. Siplon, he's very articulate. I had the same feeling, almost like a motivational speaker. He's very good. Is Just Beverage sincere? Maybe. It certainly did sound very sincere. Most of these arguments for this company and this business have been the economic benefits, but I just don't see it. I don't see where this is going to be the impact that you would see from the AMD, from the chip plant or anything. I don't see where there's any great economic impact in the area from this. I don't know how many people they're going to employ. I didn't get a chance to research it, but I just don't see where this can bring such an impact that makes it worth it. I certainly don't see any benefit for the Town of Queensbury. I don't see where there's any benefit. What I do see is that the sale this company, if it's profitable, is inevitable. Mark my words. There's no question that if this company is able to develop and make a profit, the sale is inevitable. There's no question about that, and I said that tonight. The only thing I see is the quality of life for the people that live along that road, I don't see where they get a single benefit out of this. The only thing that's going to do is effect their quality of life. Now, granted development is part of everyday life. There's always development that goes on in every community, but at what point does the development reach a point where then it's going downhill? At what point is the point where you've reached that top of the mountain and now the development is detrimental to the community? As I say, I don't see a single benefit for those people that live along that road. I don't see a single benefit to the Town of Queensbury. How many people are going to be employed from Queensbury in that company? Five? I don't know, maybe that's an overestimate, maybe less, maybe more, but I just don't see where Queensbury gets anything out of it. I just see a detrimental impact for the Town of Queensbury. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Yes, sir. Again, I would ask if you could keep your comments directed at the project. RICH INSERRA MR. INSERRA-Hello. I'm Rich Inserra. I live off of Easy Street in Queensbury. Queensbury is a nice place to live because of our greenways. There's a tradeoff here. We can keep developing and keep developing and we'll be just like the City. It won't be such a nice place to live. The key is we still have with development, but it's sustained. It has to be sustainable development. Please respect our zoning laws. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? FRED VOGEL MR. VOGEL-Good evening. I'm Fred Vogel, Orchard Drive in Queensbury, and I see that your Board is sitting here trying to make a decision on a zoning amendment, and hearing what the usable uses for that property are, the amendment is minor. I think that somebody should make a proposal to make the amendment tonight. I wish that someone had the courage to do it and let this company move forward. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. Good evening. EMMA MAILLE MS. MAILLE-Good evening. My name is Emma Maille and I've lived here basically all my life, and I am against this. I believe that David Judkins and also Kathleen Rowe made excellent points and I believe that you should abide by those and hear them out. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes, sir. CHUCK BARTON 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. BARTON-Good evening. My name is Chuck Barton. I'm a resident in Queensbury. I am also the Chairman of the Warren County Economic Development Corp., and I wasn't going to speak this evening. I spoke two weeks ago, but hearing some of the comments, I am compelled to speak. The reason the EDC exists is to seek private investment in our County. That's why we exist, whether it be investment in existing businesses or investment in people as far away as California. Investment into our community is not bad. Investment into our community is good because it creates jobs. It creates tax revenues, and with those tax revenues we can keep our community healthy by investing in our schools, investing in our roads and infrastructure. I've heard some comments tonight that frankly I feel as if they're like scare tactics. I've gotten to know this company. This company has enormous integrity. I've gotten to know some of the investors. They have enormous integrity. We are fortunate, as a region, to have this company looking at our area to grow their business. You should embrace what they're doing, and by the way, at the last meeting they were talking about 16 trucks a day. They've reduced it to 12. That is a 25% reduction in production. Anybody that runs a business knows what that means on a unit cost basis. That is a huge compromise, and they've also said that they'll work to find a solution for a pipeline so then they can continue pumping more water and grow their business, and guess what, as they grow their business they add more jobs and more tax revenue. It's not bad that we have private investors. It's not bad that they want to grow, and perhaps they would take their big business and they find a few other wells and a few other trucks and a few other drivers and a few other jobs, and then the factory itself will expand. I went and toured the factory last week for the first time, and saw a very, as an engineer, very fascinating $2.5 million piece of equipment. Well, guess what, they can take that equipment and go somewhere else and take the jobs. We have the responsibility, as economic development, to try to facilitate, and as Planning Board members, to listen to all the concerns. Usually in applications you hear a vocal minority. You're actually hearing, also, a vocal majority. I ask you support this and move forward. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes, sir. NICHOLAS STOCKMAN MR. STOCKMAN-Hello. My name is Nicholas Stockman. I've lived here for seven years of my life. I'm 17 years old. I believe that bringing this company into Queensbury would be a major fault because it would take away from the beauty, even though it would provide jobs and tax revenues. It would take away from the beauty of the surrounding area. That is why we enjoy this area so much, and I'm sure that those jobs and other tax revenues would be going to other places. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Laura, I know we had a written comment. MRS. MOORE-The comment was sent in via e-mail. It was sent on Saturday, March 21St addressed to myself. "I believe that changing the zoning law to allow extraction of water from a well off of Butler Pond watershed will cause more harm than any good received. Do not change our zoning laws to benefit the few", and the comment is from Richard Inserra. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. We will conclude the public hearing for this evening. I don't know if the Board has any questions or comments for the applicant. Was there anything that you wanted to add? MR. SIPLON-Just a couple of things. I find the whole process, you know, that we've been involved with right here actually really wonderful. We get to meet a lot of people. I think there's a lot of people that have vested interest in this. We have great optimism that as we engage them, while we may not maybe see every single one of them as an advocate, we see an opportunity to learn and to listen from every single one of them. I'm particularly heartened that there are kids that are under even voting age, but are engaging in the process. It's really a wonderful community. It has all the elements of sustainability. We really want to add to that. The last thing I would tell you is I certainly don't want to be a victim, but it is hard, sometimes, to figure out how to defend yourself against the notion that what you might become when it isn't you. All I can tell you is that if you do look at the things that not only I, but the other people who engaged in this business have done over the term of their career, while it is true we have moved from place to place, we're quite proud of the fact that the enduring legacy of the places that we've been is the contributions that we've made. The rainforest in Fiji is under 99 years of protection because of the work of Grace Dion and me. I'm proud of that. It's verifiable. I'm no longer there, but those commitments ae being honored by the people that followed me and by the corporations that have moved into that relationship because of good planning, because of good governments, and because of integral commitments. Ultimately I'd only ask that we engage and judge based on what we do, and I hope that we continue to be able to be a positive problem solver with you and every other member of the community, including those who have voiced their concerns against us. I continue to invite all of them to come down and meet with 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) us, to tell us their concerns in person, and to figure out how we can make things better. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-There were a couple of specific questions, if I may. One was the truck. I assume it's a double axel. MR. SIPLON-I'm sorry. We were trying to give a picture that was in its current state. We have a better picture of it before the tank went on where it was very clear. MR. TRAVER-You can actually sort of tell by the picture. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? MR. DEEB-I'm just looking at Page Five, the literature that Dr. Judkins gave us. Number 21, this agreement may be sold, assigned or transferred by Just without any approval or consent of the City to Just's principles, affiliates, subsidiaries of its principle or any entity which acquires all or substantially all of Just's assets. Can you comment on that for me? MR. SIPLON-We carefully crafted this agreement with the City over many months. It's a balance between the needs of any corporation and its shareholders to protect their investment risk in the assets. Of course we have to be able to contemplate the fact that at some point the company may transfer. All companies, every company, GE, General Motors, every company has to contemplate that some or all of it ever may transfer. However, it is not our objective, okay, and the conditions that we've put into this agreement are such that they are very constraining on anyone that would inherit it. It was chosen that way, and it's done on a model that we've built in other places that we have been. The object here is to raise the bar for our entire industry. I can tell you that Nestle wants no part of what we are doing. We are re- casting their entire model. If they seek to buy us it will be to kill us. To the extent that we are ever procured by Nestle, I would offer to you it was because they were most threatened by the idea that we increased the value of water, we increased the bar, in terms of what corporate behavior for a water manufacturer should be, the connection between a community, its residents, and its protections. I would encourage you to look at the comparisons between us and any other bottled water maker. I believe that we will do just fine in comparison. We are the antithesis of what you see in those communities. Now I think even our opponents even acknowledged that. They simply fear the fact that at some point we might transfer into one of those. Ask yourself, Nestle has spent billions and billions of dollars investing in a plastic infrastructure and telling its consumers that that is the right answer. Why in the world would they buy a company whose entire focus is the fact that plastic is not the answer? That the value of water is seven to ten times higher than what they're paying? For them to endorse our business, for them to buy our business, would be an indictment of their entire business. It is possible that we will be acquired. I have to acknowledge that, simply because I cannot tell the future, but we structured this agreement so it would be enduring, delivering value to the greater community for as long as possible, with what I believe are protections that exist nowhere, and I welcome the comparison of it with anything that you can find, and in fact if you would like us to help you with that, we'd be happy to, or you can go about it independently, but I am certain that the protections that have been placed in this agreement are unlike anything you will find. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? MS. WHITE-There was a concern that you might be taking out trees. Would you address that? MR. SIPLON-My team actually will find this very, very funny. Because in the process of everything we do, I literally throw my body in front of any tree that may be impaired. My wife actually believes that I am the original tree hugger. I will not cut down a tree on my own property. She's very, very upset about the fact that we have a cherry tree that drops its flowers and its cherries on our driveway for many years and I will not cut it down. I simply tell you that I have an aversion to cutting down trees. What we did was specifically choose sites that were on roads and in clearings because of my bias to never let go of a tree. I can tell you that there will be trees. I am certain there will be a single digit number of trees that will be cleared before we are done. In the millions and millions of trees up there, I am one nanosecond of the logging activity that is going on there today, today. There are trucks going up and down today, harvesting logs, very large trucks, by the way, three times the size of our trucks, carrying logs, and I have no issue with them, no issue with them at all. I'm simply telling you I don't want to cut down any trees. AUDIENCE MEMBER-We call that sustainable forestry, by the way. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. DEEB-In the event that the business is sold, the operation has to sustain itself as it is written now. I mean, they would have to come, to change that operation they would have to come before this Board again? MR. SIPLON-They would have two, the first would be with the City, whether it's us or anyone else. For us to harvest more water than what we have brought forward in this application would mean that we would have to make application through the City. I've been through a grueling process in the City over the past year to secure that agreement. Us or anyone else would go through that same process. It is no rubber stamp. I can assure you. Having been many months through it. The second part is they would have to come before you to make any adjustments to either this site or any other site. I believe in your autonomy. I believe you guys do a great job. I think if you structure an agreement that is sound with us, it will apply to any future owner of us, if it were to ever transfer, although I would tell you, oftentimes I'm told in the industry we have an unsalable asset, okay. We're out there on our own trying to figure out how to re-invent the industry. So I think we're all spending a lot of time on a reality that is not the real issue. The real issue is whether or not we can help figure out how to harvest water in a place that has more water than it knows what to do with in a way that provides value to that community so it can fix its infrastructure. I agree by the way that we have to find ways to extend that value to Queensbury. I have offered many ways that we have already done it, but I think that dialogue could continue. Our expansion, as Mr. Barton said, is geared. I've already talked with many of the Town leaders and others about the fact that we need a warehouse facility near Exit 18, which, by the way, is in Queensbury. So our object here is to answer the sign that was put out by the State of New York that said New York is open for business. We came to the State, then met with the EDC here in Warren County who said not only is it open for business, but we're especially open for business and we would like you to come and talk to us, which we have done. We have embraced that, and what I hope we're doing in a way that you would find compelling and you would want other businesses to follow, not only the fact that we're here, but the way we do it. We hope we're laying down a model that you would say, you know what, I hope other people do it just that way. If we're not, you tell us, because that's what we want to be. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else from the Board? Anything from Staff? MRS. MOORE-1 have no other comments. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a couple of resolutions. The first one is the resolution to Acknowledge Lead Agency status. If anyone would like to put that forward. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS RE: SP 12-2015 JUST BEVERAGES An application has been made to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board & Town of Queensbury Town Board for: 1) Applicant proposes to install, operate and maintain a City- owned well and transport water from the well site to the company's water bottling facility in the City. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance Water Extraction in the LC-10 zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 2) The Town is considering amending the Town Zoning Code to define "Water Extraction" and provide for and regulate such land use within the Town of Queensbury; WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). WHEREAS, in connection with the project, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Community Development Office to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Town Board to conduct a coordinated SEAR review; WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agency; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT SITE PLAN NO. 12-2015 JUST BEVERAGES, LLC & THE CITY OF GLENS FALLS REVISED DEC WATER EXTRACT PERMIT, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb. Per the draft resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 24th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-The next resolution in our package is the SEAR resolution. Are members of the Board prepared to move forward with SEAR? There were a couple of questions that Mr. Traver had asked. I don't want to speak for the applicant, but I believe you were acceptable with making some minor corrections? MR. SIPLON-Yes. MR. CENTER-Yes, we can make the modifications that we discussed in regards to the generation, the fueling with LP gas and the 47 gallons a minute for the well. MR. SIPLON-And also the fact that the City watershed property now is open for passive recreation or at least is. MR. CENTER-Yes, it's anticipated. It's not currently. MR. SIPLON-We're not quite sure how to answer that question. MR. CENTER-Yes, this is an interesting, this was an interesting SEAR and a Site Plan to fill out to provide to you. Just Beverage is not the owner of the parcel. The City of Glens Falls is and will be, is always the owner of the parcel. So it was unique in that aspect that you had the Site Plan where one entity would be working on the site with the permission of the actual owner. So it was a very unique application that we went about this process, working with Staff and with the zoning amended on top of that. We also worked with Staff in the Town of Queensbury with the City of Glens Falls. So I apologize for any of the errors that were in the SEAR form, but that's the biggest thing to understand is this will run with the land, and the City will always be the owner, has to be the owner, in regards to the watershed property also. So there isn't, you know, Just Beverages isn't owning the land or even the entities that they're putting on the land. MR. SCHACHNER-So, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Just let's make sure we all put our best foot forward here. I'm hearing that Steve in particular but Planning Board members had some questions about the Part I of the Environmental Assessment Form and hearing some willingness from the applicant to make some minor modifications, what I would characterize as minor modifications, to some of the responses, but let's, there are only three or four of them. Let's make sure we have them MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. No I was going to go through them one at a time. Thank you. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I'm talking about in Part 1. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Great. MR. HUNSINGER-1 believe I highlighted three or four. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, I have four of them, but we'll see where we go. MR. HUNSINGER-On Page 5 of 13, you were agreeable to modify the well capacity for 47. MR. CENTER-Forty-seven gallons a minute, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And Page Six of Thirteen, Item F, where it talks about the onsite errant issues, including fuel combustion. MR. CENTER-Would be yes, and it would be a stationary source. It would be LP gas or electric generation. MR. SCHACHNER-Are you putting that in during construction or during operations? MR. CENTER-During operations. During operations is just going to be construction equipment. We're putting in the. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. SCHACHNER-During operations is going to be just construction equipment? MR. CENTER-No, no, no. During operations is just going to be LP gas. During construction will just be construction equipment. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. So we're looking at Item F, small one, small two, and small three. MR. CENTER-Right, mobile sources during project operations would be heavy equipment, and would be fleet or delivery vehicles I believe, if you want to use that, if you want to list that also there. Stationary sources during construction would be an occasional generator, you know, during construction, whether we needed to run a test well or install the station, the temporary lowering stations, anything that had to be done in the internal. Most of that work is being done outside, but it would be a small generator, construction generator. MRS. MOORE-And then in the small two I's. MR. CENTER-Yes, under two I's it would be small construction generator. MRS. MOORE-Okay, generator, heavy equipment, and. MR. SCHACHNER-No, little 1 was heavy equipment. MR. CENTER-Little 1 would be heavy equipment and fleet or delivery vehicles that would cover during construction and during operation. Small ii, would be construction generator. MR. DEEB-You also said equipment. MR. CENTER-1 think that would be under, it would be electric power under the generator. That's talking stationary sources. The mobile equipment would be on the one above, and then for three I would be LP gas for electric generation, and I think also we should list the possible future solar field that we've shown on the plan. Because we have identified that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The other correction is at the top of Page 10, and actually that I'm not sure needs to be corrected because this is where it asks about the site is presently used by members of the community for public recreation. MR. CENTER-It is not presently. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I went up there for site visits. It's not only posted, but it says if you see somebody here to call the police. MR. SCHACHNER-Let's be a little careful here. The question is not is the project presently zoned for public recreation. It's not is it presently endorsed for public recreation. The question is, is the project site presently used by members of the community for public recreation. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-It seems to me we've heard a number of people say they use it for public recreation. I will plead guilty to being somebody who uses it for public recreation. Our job here, as Lead Agency your job is to make sure that the questions are answered accurately in the most responsible fashion possible, and it's not any big, big, big secret that there may be some legal challenge no matter what you decide here. So my job is to make sure that all T's are crossed and all I's are dotted as accurately as possible. So my advice is to carefully consider the question, which is not, is the project zoned for public recreation, is the project endorsed for public recreation, is the project, I'm sorry, the project site, sponsored recreation. It's is the project site presently used by members of the community for public recreation, and I'm hearing it is. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that was my understanding. That's why I raised the question, I heard people talk about bicycling and hiking. MR. SCHACHNER-And then if you want, as a Board, as Lead Agency, if you want, you have to decide, if the correct answer is yes, you have to decide what to put in the second line if you have to explain it, and I don't think it's inappropriate to mention that it's not authorized. MR. CENTER-While not zoned for public recreation, recreation does occur within the area of the parcel. Passive recreation does occur within the area of the parcel. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. SIPLON-The only part I'm unsure about is how to deal with the public declaration of both the City and the Town that they're now working to develop it for passive recreation. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, the question, is the project site presently used, not may it be used in the future. MR. SIPLON-And it is. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, Mr. Traver had questions about the predominant wildlife species, but I believe that was answered, unless the interpretation was blank, top of Page 12. MR. SCHACHNER-1 see it as blank. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Letter M? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. So I'm sorry, how was it answered? MR. HUNSINGER-It was answered right. MR. TRAVER-Which is why I asked it. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, it's not answered. MR. CENTER-It would be predominantly, you know, small squirrels, deer, woodland animals that are common to the area, and there are no endangered species, but common, I don't know what term you. MR. VANVLEET-How about common northern woodland species. MR. CENTER-Common northern woodland species. MR. DEEB-Would that work? MR. TRAVER-Yes, and Mr. Chairman I see that I also noted, and I didn't bring it up earlier, but on Page 13, Number h, and I'm not certain if I'm correct in this, but it's asking if the project site is within five miles of any officially designated and publicly accessible federal, state or local scenic or aesthetic resource, and again, I think that this is, I mean, I don't know if the zoning covers this, but certainly I think everybody would agree that it is a public, both scenic and aesthetic resource. So I would say the answer to that would be yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Wait. What's the officially designated site? I'm sorry. I missed that. MR. TRAVER-No, it's zoned. MR. SCHACHNER-The question is is the project site within five miles of any officially designated and publicly accessible federal, state or local scenic or aesthetic resource. MR. TRAVER-It is zoned as a conservation district. MR. SCHACHNER-Does that make it a designated scenic or aesthetic resource? That's the question. AUDIENCE MEMBER-VanDusen Preserve. MR. TRAVER-Well, that's why I had that question, I neglected to bring it up earlier. That was something that 1, the answer was no and I questioned whether or not. MR. SCHACHNER-People seem to be looking towards me. VanDusen Preserve strikes me as an officially designated. MR. HUNSINGER-1 wasn't looking at you, Mark. I was looking at Staff actually. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. Well, we've conferred. I mean, VanDusen Preserve, which somebody from the audience mentioned, strikes us as, correct me if I'm wrong, Staff, strikes us 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) as an officially designated and publicly accessible local scenic or aesthetic resource within five miles. MR. HUNSINGER-Is West Mountain itself, though, I mean it's identified in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan as being something of scenic value, but it's not really a designation. MR. SCHACHNER-1 doubt it's officially designated, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And there is the Open Space Plan. Is there anything in the Open Space Plan that designates anything that we should be concerned about? MR. BROWN-No, I don't think there's any legal designations in that concept plan. MR. SCHACHNER-But VanDusen Preserve would seem to be officially designated. MR. DEEB-Are the snowmobile trails? MR. BROWN-1 don't think they're aesthetic resources, the snowmobile trails. MR. SCHACHNER-That's not how they're designated. MR. HUNSINGER-And the VanDusen Preserve is for passive recreation. MR. DEEB-So they'll change that to yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other questions in Part I? MR. SCHACHNER-Were you comfortable with Item Q on the previous page, the answer No? MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry, which page is that? MR. SCHACHNER-Twelve Q. MR. HUNSINGER-That was the question about hunting. MR. TRAVER-Yes. It's, I know that the area around the reservoir, and I've been up there as well, it is posted, but the general area covers area that is not posted as public land. So I'm assuming that hunting takes place. I'm not sure if the travel proposed by the site plan would have an impact on hunting, but. MR. SCHACHNER-We're not up to the impact part yet. Right now it's just the factual Part 1. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-And you're correct that it's not just the project site or adjoining area. I don't have the faintest idea what the answer is. I just want to make sure that Board's comfortable with the No answer or wants to change it to a yes answer. Whatever your comfort is. MR. HUNSINGER-It's really the applicant's. MR. CENTER-Yes, I think you can check yes, and give it a brief description that within five miles hunting and fishing could occur on privately owned parcels. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-And did you have a distance back to the, I think you still have a blank on Question h on Page 13, at the bottom. MR. HUNSINGER-The applicant had said less than two miles. MR. SCHACHNER-1 didn't hear that. MR. CENTER-Yes, I said less than two miles. MR. CENTER-And you do have two out of the three signators here. I can attest to that myself with Mr. Gurzler. Stu Baker was cited for the Town of Queensbury, but you do have two out of the three of us here that can attest to it. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) AUDIENCE MEMBER-It's not a public hearing question. It's a question about the SEAR specifically. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, then you're out of order, sir, I'm sorry. MR. FERONE-Could I ask a question about, on Page 7 you talk about hours of operation. In my mind it's Monday through Friday, but you mention Saturday, Sunday and holidays occasionally. MR. SIPLON-Occasionally, yes. So in order for us to start up the factory we will occasionally need to go on a Sunday so that we can have enough water to begin, if we don't already have water in our tanks. I can imagine that there will be times when we might have to run an occasional Saturday shift because we have extra production. I have no production schedule right now for that. I'm only simply saying that it could occur, and I want to denote that it could potentially occur. MR. CENTER-Do we also want to change the Monday through Friday to seven a.m. as we discussed earlier in regards to the bus traffic and that that, taking out the hour between eight and nine depending on the bus traffic. MR. SIPLON-Well, I think we're going to take out whatever hour they want, whatever period they tell us is better. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and you have that comment above. MR. CENTER-Okay, if you're comfortable with that. MR. SIPLON-1 think based on what they tell us it may be that we have to back ourselves up to whatever the earliest daylight hour is, which could potentially be as early as seven o'clock. MR. DEEB-Saturday and Sunday and holidays I think we have to address a little more specifically. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, this isn't site plan review. This is SEAR review. MR. DEEB-No, I understand that. MR. HUNSINGER-So, I think in terms of SEAR review, the maximum potential is really the best information we have on the SEAR form, because that's what we need to consider, what is the maximum potential. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-When we get to site plan we'll talk about limitations and things like that. MR. FERONE-1 guess you've got to change that to seven a.m. MR. CENTER-1 think it would be prudent here at this point, and then we can discuss it during site plan. MR. BROWN-So L2, during operations, you'll change from seven to six, seven a.m.? MR. CENTER-Seven, it will be from nine a.m. to seven a.m. Yes, seven a.m. to six p.m., the nine changes to a seven. MR. BROWN-They're all sevens. MR. SCHACHNER-Just the nine, or the Saturday, Sunday, holidays? MR. CENTER-Saturday, Sunday holidays I think we can go with the eight o'clock. MR. SIPLON-1 don't anticipate doing it, but to the extent we do it, it would be in the middle of the day. MR. BROWN-All right. So just the Monday, Friday is seven a.m., six p.m. MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. BROWN-Okay. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any other questions from the Board on Part I? Are there any general concerns, any general SEAR concerns that the Board may have we need to discuss? MR. TRAVER-Well, I had some concerns that were raised by, looking at the number of visits, the application talks about 43,000 gallons, that's 14 loads. So that's 28 trips up and down, and I'm wondering, there was a comment made about the highway design. I'm interested in knowing whether or not the road can accommodate that volume of trips with a truck of that weight. I'm concerned about noise effects. These trucks, I believe, have air brakes and I used to drive a fire truck when I was a volunteer and I know that they can be quite loud. So I'm wondering about sound impacts 28 times a day. I'm wondering about, there was a suggestion that one of the area towns has imposed regulations because of concerns over safety on steep hills. I'm wondering if that, we should be taking a look at that. Basically my concerns have to do with, is I spoke to earlier, really the methodology of the transportation of the water with the trucks, the impact of that, not so much the wells. MR. HUNSINGER-So maybe we should go through the Part 11. MR. TRAVER-Part 11. MR. HUNSINGER-Item by item, and we can address concerns that way. Does that make more sense to the Board? Does everyone have a copy of the, it wasn't actually with the current Staff Notes. Does everyone have a copy of Part 11? MR. TRAVER-Part 11 of the Full Environmental Assessment Form? MR. HUNSINGER-Full Environmental Assessment Form. MRS. MOORE-Do you have a copy of a blank one? MR. HUNSINGER-I do, yes. I just wanted to make sure everyone on the Board had one. Do you have extra copies, Laura, or do you want to put it up on the screen? So people have something to follow along. We had always talked about doing this, but never did. The hard part, though, is when you click on the links for the information is to get back to the form. I don't know how many people have tried to do this from a, the website was designed so that you could fill out the SEAR form. MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-But I always have a hard time getting back to the form. MR. BROWN-After you go to the maps, getting back? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if you go to the, you know. MR. CENTER-Well, there should be, if you type in PDF SEAR Long Form, you should be able to get one that has both Part 11 and Part 111. MR. HUNSINGER-This way the public can follow as well. So the first question is Impact on Land, and the question is, does the proposed, I'm going to read it as a question, even though it's not posed as a question. Does the proposed action on or physical alteration of the land surface of the proposed site? Yes or no. There's several examples of the types of impacts that might occur. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I would say, yes, small to moderate, and mitigated by the site plan. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Slow down. First of all there's no more small to moderate. That's not what of your choices. Your choices are now no, or small or Moderate to large. Okay. MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry, no or small. MR. SCHACHNER-And if you're saying yes, then you're going to need to look at Questions A through J, sub questions A through J that is. MR. TRAVER-1 have A through H. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. The form has a mistake in it. It's A through H. MR. HUNSINGER-So which impact would be no or small? 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. SCHACHNER-If any, or it's under H for other impact. MR. TRAVER-Well, I would say E, we may be looking at multiple phases of construction, but again, no or small impact, and that's going to be no or small impact because of the site plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Remember that the instructions say, I hope, if, see where it says if yes, answer questions A through J. So you just answered E, and that's nice, but you still have A, B, C, D, F, G and H because there is no J because the instructions have a mistake in them. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-You don't have, I mean, I don't care if E is the only one you even felt needed to be addressed, I don't care if the Board wants to say and all the rest are no or small impact, but we need to be precise here, and the instructions say, if yes, answer questions A through J. We're not going to be precise as to make up a question J, though. MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you. I would say then no or small impact on A, B, C, D, F, and G, and leave H blank. MR. HUNSINGER-Is everyone comfortable with that? MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Two, Impact on Geological Features. MR. TRAVER-1 would say no. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else want to chime in? MR. DEEB-I would say no. MR. HUNSINGER-Impacts on Surface Water Proposed action may affect one or more wetlands or other surface water bodies, streams, rivers, ponds or lakes. MR. TRAVER-1 would say no. MR. HUNSINGER-1 would say no also. Impact on groundwater. The proposed action may result in new or additional use of groundwater, or may have the potential to introduce contaminants to groundwater or an aquifer. MR. TRAVER-1 would say yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So it was pointed out before we need to answer each question A through H. MR. TRAVER-So, A, let's see. MR. HUNSINGER-Really the one that's impacted is E. The proposed action may result in the construction of wells, but we've heard from the hydrogeological studies. MR. TRAVER-That's contaminated. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, I think you're right. MR. TRAVER-That's going to be a no. MR. SCHACHNER-I wouldn't blow past A so quickly, would you? MR. TRAVER-That's what I'm looking at. MS. WHITE-A. MR. TRAVER-And again, going by the application in front of us, I would say that would be no or small impact. MS. WHITE-Based on the study. MR. HUNSINGER-Everyone comfortable with that? 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. DEEB-Yes, I am. MR. HUNSINGER-Is everyone comfortable with no or small impact on B through G? MR. TRAVER-Actually, no. On B, we have, well, they have amended, I guess with the plan that I have, again, this goes to the 50 gallons per minute versus the 47. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-On B, water supply demand from the proposed action may exceed safe and sustainable withdrawal capacity. That would be moderate to large impact. MR. CENTER-We changed that to 47. MR. DEEB-They changed that to 47. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So that would apply, even though that's not what we have in front of us? MR. SCHACHNER-No, you do, you now have, in effect, an amended Part I in which that number has been changed from 50 to 47. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Then that would be no. MR. HUNSINGER-So everyone's comfortable on small to moderate for B through G? MR. SCHACHNER-Not small to moderate. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, no to small. MR. DEEB-No to small. MR. HUNSINGER-Old habits die hard. MR. SCHACHNER-Sorry, it's what I do for a living. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Five, Impact on Flooding. The proposed action may result in development on lands subject to flooding. MR. TRAVER-I would say no. MR. DEEB-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Impact on air. Proposed action may include a state regulated air emission source. Is everyone comfortable with a no? MR. DEEB-Yes. MS. WHITE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Well, I have a question on that, actually. Because of the truck activity, I guess I'm not certain if truck emissions are a state regulated air emission source. I don't know the answer to that. I think there's a potential for a great deal of emissions. MR. CENTER-1 don't think that's anything that's state regulated as far as something that you'd be looking at. You'd need a permit to release. There's no permit for the vehicles to release any emissions. If you're looking at it truly in the permitted range of emissions, there's nothing in here that requires a permit, and most of these they have listed require some sort of permit from DEC for those emissions. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then I would change my answer to no. MR. HUNSINGER-Impacts on Plants and Animals. The proposed action may result in a loss of flora or fauna. MR. DEEB-I'd say no. MR. HUNSINGER-Is everyone comfortable with a no? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. FERONE-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-You had a No on 7, didn't you? MR. HUNSINGER-I asked if everyone was comfortable with 7. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, but I heard no. I thought, right? MR. TRAVER-Yes, I heard no as well. I'm just reading the rest of the questions. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm waiting for the Board to concur, 7. MR. DEEB-I thought we said no. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-You don't have to do A through H if you say no. MR. HUNSINGER-Good. Everyone's comfortable with no. Impact on Agricultural Resources. I would assume everyone's comfortable with a no here. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Impact on aesthetic resources. The land use of the proposed action are obviously different from, or are in sharp contrast to, current land use patterns between the proposed project and a scenic or aesthetic resource. And then there's A through F. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I would say the answer to that is yes, and under. MR. HUNSINGER-I don't think the action is going to change any use, though. MR. DEEB-I don't either. MR. CENTER-The only one you've identified was the VanDusen Preserve. MR. DEEB-Right, I would say no to that. MR. CENTER-And it's on a separate location. MS. WHITE-Three miles away. MR. TRAVER-Well, I'm looking at D, and I'm thinking that a moderate to large impact may occur regarding viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is: routine travel by residents, including travel to and from work. Recreation or tourism based activities. So you have a situation that we have heard a great deal of information on use, recreational use on that road by residents, and now we're introducing, we've also heard that they is already truck traffic on that road. We're now introducing 28 more trips per day. So I think that that could have a moderate to large impact. MR. DEEB-I'm thinking, would you read the question again, the top part, please. MR. HUNSINGER-The top part is, the land use of the proposed action are obviously different from, or are in sharp contrast to, current land use patterns between the proposed project and a scenic or aesthetic resource. MR. DEEB-We're talking about the site itself. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. DEEB-You can't see into the site. If I'm not mistaken, and they're going to have it camouflaged anyway. So my answer to that would be no. MR. HUNSINGER-I would agree with that. MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry, I didn't hear what you said. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. DEEB-We're talking about the site itself, and you can't really see the site if you're going up Butler Pond Road. MR. BROWN-Well, I think specifically it's the view from the aesthetic resource. I think that's what the question is. MR. TRAVER-And I'm talking about the activity associated with it. MR. BROWN-Right, but the view from the aesthetic resource, which is the VanDusen Preserve. MR. SCHACHNER-No, no. This question is not limited to officially designated scenic. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. TRAVER-No, I'm talking about people that are utilizing Butler Pond Road, and now you introduce this site plan which includes this vehicular traffic. MR. DEEB-That's not what it's asking. MR. TRAVER-It's going to have an impact, a moderate to large impact on viewing routine travel by residents to and from work. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm not buying a large. MR. DEEB-I'm not buying a large impact. I'm a little confused, Stephen. I really think that. MR. HUNSINGER-I'd be comfortable with a no or small impact, but I don't see. MR. TRAVER-Well, you might be right, but I would then argue that we need to investigate further. We don't know, we know that there are logging trucks. We don't know how many trips per day. MR. DEEB-Is that germane to this question? MR. SCHACHNER-1 don't know about the logging trucks. MR. HUNSINGER-It's talking about land use, though. MR. DEEB-We're talking about land use. We're not talking about. MR. TRAVER-Well, we're talking about a change in impact. We're looking at what's there now versus what the impact is going to be, or am I incorrect in that assumption? MR. SCHACHNER-No, that's generally correct. That's how you look at potential impacts. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we know, or we've heard the comment that there is a certain amount, an unquantified amount of school bus traffic, garbage trucks, logging trucks. We don't know what the number is. We know what this number is from this project, it's 28. So if we're, I submit that if there is a debate about whether or not the impact of adding this 28 is moderate to large, we need to know what the existing number is, and we don't know that. MR. SCHACHNER-If I could just back up a step and ask a question. What's the scenic or aesthetic resource that you're, that's in your mind when you're looking at the contrast to current land use patterns? MR. TRAVER-The conservation zone. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. I'm just asking. I just want to make sure I understand. Okay. MR. TRAVER-Sure. So you have this situation which is X. We don't know exactly what that is, but we know there is some traffic already, and now we're having, as a result of this project, 28, a quantifiable amount. We have the photographs and everything of the vehicle. It may be no or small or it may be moderate or it may be large. We don't know because we don't know, we don't have anything to compare it with. MR. HUNSINGER-How's the rest of the Board feel? MR. DEEB-I'm not quite sure. I really feel that, I thought we were talking about if you're looking into the Land Conservation zone that it's going to have an impact, and when you're looking into 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) it you're not going to have an impact. I don't know where the trucks come into play with this question. MS. WHITE-It's talking about views and it's talking about the site itself. So I guess when I read the question I interpreted it more as two small buildings that you're going to be able to see, and when I look at those two small buildings, they're set away from the road. MR. DEEB-They're camouflaged. You can't see them from the road. MS. WHITE-They're camouflaged. So I can't see that as an impact. MR. DEEB-So you don't see any impact. MR. TRAVER-If you're talking about the camouflaged buildings, I would agree, but don't we also have to consider the traffic as it's also part of the site plan? MR. SCHACHNER-Your principal traffic question is one you haven't gotten to yet about transportation impacts. MR. TRAVER-Understood. MR. HUNSINGER-This talks about land use patterns between the proposed project and a scenic or aesthetic resource. MR. TRAVER-So if you're walking down the road, and you have traffic going by, and that volume of traffic including a mixture of vehicle types and sizes. MR. HUNSINGER-But the question is asking about land use. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-And land use patterns. MR. TRAVER-It's talking about impact. Right? Are we on Number Nine? MR. HUNSINGER-Number Nine. MR. TRAVER-Impact on Aesthetic Resources. MR. HUNSINGER-The land use of the proposed action are obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current land use patterns between the proposed project and a scenic or aesthetic resource. So you're talking about the land use pattern of the project, and the land use patterns between an aesthetic resource, which we identified as VanDusen Preserve and the project. MR. TRAVER-And the project is using Butler Pond Road. Right? MR. HUNSINGER-But it's talking about land use. It's not talking about the road. It's talking about land use. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, what about, the Land Conservation zone allows other uses besides what's being proposed. So an agricultural use or a bed and breakfast or a boat storage facility or a group camp or a kennel. So I think you would be looking also at those land uses. Are those part of what's being allowed in this zone, along with this new use? MS. WHITE-This use is not substantially different from those potential uses? MR. SCHACHNER-Wait. I'm sorry. Staff and I have not had a chance to confer about this, but the question refers to current land use patterns. Are those things in existence or merely mentioned as allowable? MR. HUNSINGER-They're allowable. MR. DEEB-Allowable. MR. SCHACHNER-That's not a current land use pattern. A current land use pattern is what's in existence. MR. DEEB-And that's Butler Pond and Glens Falls water. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I have no problem with a no to small impact, but I guess in my opinion 24 trucks a day is not a moderate to large impact on an aesthetic resource. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So isn't that relevant to what's happening there? MR. HUNSINGER-So over the course of 12 hours to see 24 cars go by. MR. TRAVER-Twenty-eight trucks. MR. HUNSINGER-It's the time that the trucks are going to be going by. It's small compared to the overall. So I would consider that to be a no to small impact. MS. WHITE-1 guess I want to go back. Are we looking at traffic in this question? MR. HUNSINGER-No, land use. MS. WHITE-It's land use. Traffic is in a separate question. MR. TRAVER-The way I interpret it, I envision myself walking, going for a walk on Butler Pond Road and there's occasional traffic going by, and when that traffic goes by it impacts on what I'm seeing, and the reason for my being there is to perhaps enjoy the beauty of the conservation zone. Now you introduce 28 trucks. Is that going to have an impact? Well, if I have constant traffic, it may be a no or small impact because it would be hardly noticeable in view of the fact there's a lot of traffic there, but there isn't a lot of traffic, particularly if there aren't many trucks going by. As people have expressed concern about, it might be a large impact, and I don't know the answer to that because I don't know, other than some subjective comment, about how much traffic there is on it. So I don't really know how to answer it, but I'm concerned about answering it incorrectly. MR. DEEB-Well, we have to come up with something. So I'd suggest we come up with something. If we're going to answer it yes, I'd say it would be a no or small impact, if we're going to answer yes. MR. SCHACHNER-You're talking about on sub letter D, Dave? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, D's the only, so far, the only. MR. DEEB-Yes, that's the way I would deal with this. MS. WHITE-Answer yes and say no or small impact. MR. TRAVER-Well, you can also look at E. I think there are people, based on public comment that would say that there's an impact on public enjoyment and appreciation of the resource as well. MR. SCHACHNER-Now that one is the designated resource. MS. WHITE-So that's the VanDusen. MR. SCHACHNER-That's the only one I heard identified. MR. DEEB-So that would have no impact on that. MR. HUNSINGER-So is everyone comfortable with no to small on everything except for D? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I don't mind addressing traffic under the traffic section, but I just, I feel it's no or small. MR. DEEB-I feel it should be no or small. MR. HUNSINGER-George? MR. FERONE-1 agree. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. We've got four out of five. MRS. MOORE-So Number Nine they answered yes, and then. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and then no to small down the row. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Everyone comfortable with no? MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Impact on Open Space and Recreation. The proposed action may result in a loss of recreational opportunities or a reduction of an open space resource as designated in any adopted municipal open space plan. MR. DEEB-I'd say no because it's going to be just the opposite. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. DEEB-So I would answer that no. MR. TRAVER-Well, I would say, well, sorry, but I would say yes, and I'm looking at D, proposed action may result in the loss of an area now used informally by the community as an open space resource. We've heard a great deal of discussion about people using that area, that road for hiking, biking, birding, all these kinds of things. It could cause people to not do that, to not engage in that activity. It may result in a loss of that area. MR. DEEB-But we don't know that. Okay. So I would say, I would answer that no. MR. FERONE-If the open space resource is the road, then I don't think so. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, people can still use it. MR. DEEB-People still use it, and if the City of Glens Falls changes it, then it's going to be just the opposite. It's going to open it up. MR. HUNSINGER-It's going to be used more. MR. DEEB-So my answer is no. MR. HUNSINGER-George, Jamie. no? MS. WHITE-No. MR. FERONE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Impact on Critical Environmental Areas. MR. TRAVER-1 would say no. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Impact on Transportation. The proposed action may result in a change to existing transportation systems. And I think based on the discussions we'd say yes on this one. A, projected traffic increase may exceed capacity of existing road network. Is that no or small impact? MR. TRAVER-Well, again, I don't know the answer to that because we don't know, for example, we've heard some discussion that the highway, that road may not be designed to handle vehicles of that weight. It may be, but it may not be. MR. HUNSINGER-We also know that trucks heavier than that go down that road. MR. DEEB-Logging trucks go down that road. MR. CENTER-Plow trucks. MR. TRAVER-At what rate? MR. DEEB-Plow trucks, logging trucks. It's got to be able to handle it. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. CENTER-Maintenance vehicles for the City watershed. We did have discussions with the Highway Superintendent in regards to this, and he had no issues. AUDIENCE MEMBER-1 certainly ran a lot of concrete and tri axel trucks up and down there when I was rehabilitating the. MR. HUNSINGER-So, is everyone comfortable with no on Item A? MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-B, proposed action may result in the construction of paved parking area for 500 or more vehicles. I think that's going to be no or small. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Proposed action will degrade existing transit access. MR. TRAVER-1 would say no. MR. HUNSINGER-Proposed action will degrade existing pedestrian or bicycle accommodations. MR. TRAVER-1 would say yes. MR. DEEB-There aren't any bicycle accommodations there. It's not a bike path. There's no bike path. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. DEEB-So, I mean, I don't know how it's going to disturb something that's not there. MR. HUNSINGER-So what do people want to put for B? No or small or moderate to large? MR. DEEB-I'd go with no or small. MR. FERONE-That's a tough one. I mean, again, I rode up and down that road. There just doesn't seem to be a lot of room on either side there. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. FERONE-For a truck or car and somebody walking. I think it's more moderate to large. MR. HUNSINGER-Based on what measure, though? MR. DEEB-What do they do when a logging truck comes in? MR. FERONE-Get off the road. MR. DEEB-I don't know if that's going to change anymore with these trucks or not. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, I think it's okay if we say moderate to large impact may occur and then talk about it later, when we know what the mitigation measures are. MR. DEEB-That's fine. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. You'll have to address it in Part 111. MR. HUNSINGER-Proposed action may alter the present pattern of movement of people or goods. No or small or moderate to large? MR. DEEB-Again, we don't really know. MS. WHITE-We don't know what the present pattern is. MR. DEEB-I don't know what the present pattern is. My inclination is no or small. MR. FERONE-I'd go with that. MS. WHITE-1 agree. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. DEEB-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, what was the answer? MR. FERONE-No or small. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Impact on Energy. Proposed action may cause an increase in the use of any form of energy. MR. TRAVER-1 would say no. MR. DEEB-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. Impact on Noise, Odor, and Light. MR. TRAVER-1 would say no. MR. HUNSINGER-No. Impact on Human Health. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. Consistency with Community Plans Proposed action is not consistent with adopted land use plans. Yes or no. There's several items to consider. The proposed action's land use components may be different from, or in sharp contrast to, current surrounding land use pattern(s). Proposed action will cause the permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located to grow by more than 5%. The proposed action is inconsistent with local land use plans or zoning regulations. Well, that's kind of interesting. MR. SCHACHNER-You have to answer that question in the affirmative. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Right. MR. SCHACHNER-You legally have to answer that question in the affirmative as we sit here today, and remember that part of the proposed action is a zoning amendment. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-So is it no or small impact or moderate to large impact? That's the question. MR. TRAVER-Well, it's a large impact because it's 180 degrees, right now it's not used at all, and we are saying that. MS. WHITE-However, the accepted use is as a saw mill. So we're comparing this to the saw mill. MR. DEEB-There are accepted uses. I don't know how large that's going to be. MR. TRAVER-We're not comparing it to a saw mill. MS. WHITE-An accepted use already, not in existence, but an accepted potential use is a saw mill. Under the current law. MR. HUNSINGER-Chipping, pallet mill. MS. WHITE-So I'm thinking it's in comparison. MR. TRAVER-If you compare it to a saw mill, yes. I would agree with you, but that's not my understanding of what we're doing here. We're not comparing anything to a saw mill. MS. WHITE-Am I misunderstanding? MR. HUNSINGER-We can say moderate to large and talk about it later. I'm okay with that. Is everyone else okay with that? MR. DEEB-Yes. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-The proposed action is inconsistent with any County plans, or other regional land use plans. The County signed off on this. Right, Laura? Well, they signed off on the SEAR. MRS. MOORE-That's the SEAR, consented to Lead Agency. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm not aware of any County plan that this would impact. So no or small. The proposed action may cause a change in the density of development that is not supported by existing infrastructure or is distant from existing infrastructure. Everyone comfortable with no or small? MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Proposed action is located in an area characterized by low density development that will require new or expanded public infrastructure. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FERONE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Proposed action may induce secondary development impacts (e.g. residential or commercial development not included in the proposed action) MR. DEEB-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. Consistency with Community Character The proposed project is inconsistent with the existing community character. And then it has A through F. It's talking mostly about facilities and services that would have to be changed as a result. F is proposed action is inconsistent with the character of the existing natural landscape. There's really not much impact on the natural landscape. MR. TRAVER-Well, the landscape is the road. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So the only two items that I had where we checked moderate to large is 13D, which is transportation, and then 17C which is the zoning regulations, and in terms of the transportation impacts, the applicant has offered various mitigation measures, including altering the times of deliveries so they fit times that don't conflict with school buses and cross country team. They've also offered to accommodate any other conflicts that may occur. MR. DEEB-Chris, can I make a comment on the cross country team? MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. MR. DEEB-I spoke with one of the coaches and he explained that the cross country doesn't run there all year round. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. DEEB-Just certain times. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, the fall. MR. DEEB-So I just want to make sure that you know that it's not a major impact on this. MR. HUNSINGER-Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-I'm just asking a process question. Are you now starting your Part III evaluation? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Great. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments on that? On the proposed mitigation? And the proposed mitigation for the consistency with the zoning regulations is that the Town Board is considering an amendment to the zoning law. Do we need to say anything more than that? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, the reason I asked whether you were starting your Part III analysis is because there are seven bullet items that you're supposed to consider when you do your Part I II 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) analysis, and I only heard you referring to the third one, when you talked about the design elements or project changes and mitigation, and it's not really true that there are seven bullet items to consider. Several of them are just instructional, but at the very least in the first one you're supposed to identify the impact and describe its magnitude. In the second one you're supposed to assess the importance of the impact. You've already, I think, started to do the third one, take into consideration design elements or project changes, but those are really the steps you have to do, and then discuss, see this third to last bullet, provide the reason why the impact may or will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact. You need to have those discussions about each of the two things that you've identified as moderate to large. MR. HUNSINGER-Did everyone follow that? So the impact in transportation was the truck traffic, and the magnitude is the potential for up to 24 trucks a day, which is 12. MR. TRAVER-Twenty-eight, fourteen trucks. MR. SIPLON-We've offered 12. MR. DEEB-He's offered 12. We can make that part of the Site Plan, to make it 12 trips. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I think we need to know where we're at. So the applicant has represented, correct me if I'm wrong any representative of the applicant, that you're talking a maximum 12 truck trips per day. Is that correct? MR. SIPLON-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. So that stands, now, as a representation of the applicant as a modification of the application information. MR. HUNSINGER-So we've identified the impact, and the actual measurement, which is 24 trucks a day. MR. FERONE-Just correct me if that's the maximum you're talking about now? MR. SIPLON-What I have suggested is that is the maximum that we will ever send to the site, and to the extent that we ever go beyond that, that is where we would have to go supply the secondary transfer station or other mitigation steps that we need. MR. HUNSINGER-So then we're required to assess the importance of the impact. Importance relates to the geographic scope, duration, probability of the impact occurring, number of people affected by the impact and any additional environmental consequences if the impact were to occur. MR. TRAVER-Well, it's not a matter of if it's going to occur. We know that it's going to occur. The impact I don't think we can sit here can be been fully assessed. Again, thinking about the traffic side of it, we don't know what the current traffic is to put it in context. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-You know, if there's 100 trucks going through, an added 24 isn't going to necessarily, I mean, it's a 25% increase, but the impression definitely I'm getting is there's very, very few trucks, which would mean it would be a big impact. MR. HUNSINGER-Now the importance relates to the geographic scope. So, I mean, we know how far the distance is between the plant and the source. So that's the geographic scope, six miles. MR. TRAVER-Which is 100% of the application. That's all we're considering. MR. HUNSINGER-But that impact to that six miles definitely won't be the same throughout the six miles. It's really the last mile. MR. DEEB-It's the last mile. MR. HUNSINGER-The duration of the impact is daylight hours. The probability is, well it's the maximum. MR. TRAVER-100%. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it's not, they're starting with three to five, but that's their goal. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. TRAVER-That's their goal, so don't we have to consider maximum impact for SEAR? MR. SCHACHNER-You already have. Right now you're supposed to consider its probability. So it's not automatically the case that probability equals 100% of the maximum impact or they wouldn't ask you to consider it. MR. HUNSINGER-I don't know how to determine that. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SIPLON-1 guess that's your faith in us. MR. TRAVER-I'm not sure I get that. I mean, if they are successful in a very short time they're going to be at the maximum number of trips. MR. DEEB-Twelve trucks. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MS. WHITE-What's the probability of that? MR. TRAVER-1 mean, I'm sure they hope it's 100%, maybe 110%. 1 would if it were my business. MR. DEEB-Are we going to do probability and statistics here? I think we have to consider the 12 trips. MR. SCHACHNER-No one's looking for a number here in SEAR review either, I mean, in terms of probability. Likely, highly likely, you know, adjectives are fine. MR. HUNSINGER-It's most likely. MR. DEEB-Most likely. MR. SIPLON-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-So then the next one is the assessment should take into, do you think we deliberated enough on the second bullet? The assessment should take into consideration any design element or project changes. We've kind of already talked about that. The applicant has agreed to limit traffic outside of hours that might conflict with other uses such as school buses or local school sports teams. Are there any other discussion on that item? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I think that you have to conclude your discussion on that item by coming to some sort of consensus about the importance of this potential impact and then whether you think this impact will result, whether it's a significant adverse impact. Because you see how the third to last bullet says provide the reasons why the impact may, or will not, result in a significant adverse environmental impact. That's, SEAR review is far from a hard science, but that's where you have to end up, on each of the two that you've identified as potentially moderate to large. So before you move on to the second one, or unless you want to move on to the second one and then come back, but at some point you can't conclude your review of either of the impacts you identified as potentially moderate to large without assessing the importance and whether it will be a significant adverse environmental impact. MR. FERONE-Is that your only choice is significant adverse environmental impact? MR. SCHACHNER-The short answer is yes, and I'm glad you asked the question. Remember that this entire exercise, as difficult and cumbersome as it is, is all about whether you, as SEAR Lead Agency, feel that there are potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. Those are the magic words, because if you feel there are potentially significant adverse environmental impacts then you have to require an Environmental Impact Statement. If you feel there are not potentially, and that's a positive, that's what's called a SEAR Positive Declaration. You don't see it often but that's what that is, if you feel that there will not be significant adverse environmental impacts, then you're authorized to issue what's called a SEAR Negative Declaration which is SEAR lingo for we don't need to require an Environmental Impact Statement. So I'm glad you asked the question. The answer is yes, those are the magic words, significant adverse environmental impacts. MR. DEEB-I don't see a significant environmental impact. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-I don't, either, but how do you arrive at that conclusion? MR. DEEB-The number of trucks going down is what we're talking about, and I don't think that impacts the road system. I think it's just a small impact. That's how I would look at it. I don't know if anybody agrees with me. MS. WHITE-1 agree. MR. TRAVER-I don't know. I don't know the answer. I would need more information to answer that. MR. DEEB-I'm just going by number of trucks. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. DEEB-Total number of trucks is 12. MR. HUNSINGER-Another way to look at it, too, if I may, is just to look at maybe the number or houses that are on that road that would be impacted. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, that relates to, in the second bullet, see it says number of people affected by the impact. You didn't discuss that very much, but that's a very appropriate thing to discuss in a Part III consideration. MR. HUNSINGER-And, you know, I'm, in weighing a community impact, it's going to impact very few number of people. There's not many houses between, along the road, you know, when you consideration of the population of the Town and the impacts, very few households. MR. DEEB-But, I mean, I don't think it has an adverse effect. I think it's small. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they're asking us to try to measure the impact. So I'm just trying to think of what other measure, you know, the number of people that may use that spot for recreation. MR. DEEB-We don't know that, though, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-There are times when it's used greater, but, I mean, there certainly weren't hordes of people up there when I've gone up on site visits. You know, there might be a couple of cars with people walking up and down the road. MR. DEEB-I saw two cars when I went up. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-Two, and I was up there two or three hours. I saw two cars. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, so when you weigh that in terms of the impact on numbers, that's a relatively small number, I would argue. MR. FERONE-Based on that statement, I would say there's not a large impact. MR. HUNSINGER-So I know Steve said he wasn't comfortable, he needed more information, but is everyone else comfortable in, based on the discussion we've had with the importance of the impact, acknowledging that it's not a significant adverse environmental impact? MR. DEEB-Yes. MS. WHITE-Yes. MR. FERONE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The next item was 17C, which is the proposed action is deemed inconsistent with local land use plans or zoning regulations. We checked that one as moderate to large impact. So now we need to talk about the magnitude, the severity, size or the extent of an impact. Is this where we would talk about the other allowed uses that are currently allowed within the zone? MR. SCHACHNER-That would be appropriate. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-That are of a greater impact than what the proposed is. Would that be appropriate? MR. SCHACHNER-1 think it would be appropriate. MR. HUNSINGER-To reference saw mills and pallet mills or chipping mills. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Are we talking about allowed uses or actual uses? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we're talking about within the zoning regulations. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, this would be allowed. MR. TRAVER-Because we're talking about zoning, okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. Correct me if I'm wrong, the item we're talking about is 17C, am I correct? MR. HUNSINGER-17C. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. So that's the proposed action is inconsistent with local land use plans or zoning regulations. So that doesn't have to be existing uses. It's the plans and the regulations. Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Now we need to assess the importance of the impact, the geographic scope, duration, probability. Well, the geographic scope is limited to the. MR. TRAVER-The well site. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was going to say the zone, the Land Conservation zone. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, remember, I'm glad Chris said that. Remember you're not just talking about the particular Just Beverages project. You're talking about amendment of the Code for the entire zone. MR. DEEB-The LC-10 zone. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MRS. MOORE-The LC-10 and the LC-42. MR. HUNSINGER-Which is part why I had asked Staff if we knew how many other potential sites there may be. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-But it is limited to the LC-10 zone and LC-42 as well, yes. MR. TRAVER-1 would say it's not a major impact. MR. DEEB-I would agree. MR. HUNSINGER-No to small impact, then? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Is everyone in agreement? MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. FERONE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. Unless there's any other discussion, would anyone like to put forward a motion for SEAR? It's in our package, we have the SEAR declaration. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MRS. MOORE-Chris, can I just, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, can I just highlight some of those Part 3 items again? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MRS. MOORE-So under 13, you identified 13d, the proposed action, and this is under impact on transportation, the proposed action will degrade existing pedestrian or bicycle accommodations. Is that accurate? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-And on Part III you said the impact is truck traffic. The magnitude could be up to 24 trucks a day. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-The geographic area includes the Town of Queensbury and the Butler Pond Road. The duration I missed. MR. DEEB-Daylight hours. MR. HUNSINGER-Daylight hours. MS. WHITE-If it's the six miles, it also includes the City of Glens Falls, or do we care about that? MR. SCHACHNER-You're allowed to care about that. MRS. MOORE-So Glens Falls. MS. WHITE-The City of Glens Falls. MR. HUNSINGER-But the primary impact area is just the one mile stretch of Butler Pond Road. MR. DEEB-What about West Mountain? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that's what everyone said. MR. DEEB-I'm just saying. Okay. I'm in agreement with that. MRS. MOORE-And the probability of this impact is likely. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Okay. The number of people impacted would be few because there's few households on Butler Pond Road. And then you identified not a significant adverse environmental impact, but there were mitigation measures that were in play. So can I just, can we highlight those again? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Applicant has agreed to, well, it's probably better to put it in more, applicant will not have deliveries during school bus traffic, pick up and drop off of school children, and will work delivery schedules around recreational uses by local athletic teams. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I think that addresses that one, unless there's something else that I should come up with. MR. HUNSINGER-And then when we talked about 17C, after we discussed the item in greater detail, we agreed to change that impact to no to small. MR. SCHACHNER-I missed that. I apologize. You went back and changed 17C from moderate to large to no to small? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Based on the other allowed uses that occur in that zone. MRS. MOORE-So you don't have a 17C? For Part III. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. For Part III. MR. SCHACHNER-Your answer to 17C is now no to small, not moderate to large. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-That's it. Just the one item. So, unless there's further discussion, is a resolution in order? Jamie? RESOLUTION APPROVING NEGATIVE SEAR DECLARATION RE: SP 12-2015 JUST BEV PROJECT DESCRIPTION for SEAR purpose a) Zoning Ordinance: Town Board Zoning Amendment referral to amend the allowed uses for Land Conservation to add Water Extraction and review standards. b) Site Plan Review: Applicant proposes to install, operate and maintain City-owned well and transport water from the well site to the company's water bottling facility in the City. c) City of Glens Falls DEC permit: City of Glens Falls must amend/revise their current DEC Public Water Withdrawal permit for the addition of an extraction point, a new well. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Long EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT & SITE PLAN NO. 12-2015 & CITY OF GLENS FALLS REVISED DEC WATER EXTRACT PERMIT, Introduced by Jamie White who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: In accordance with the draft resolution prepared by Staff, with the following modifications: 1. Part 11 of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 24th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: MR. SCHACHNER-That's one of the proposed actions. The motion isn't to approve Site Plan. It's just taking that into account for SEAR purposes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. And just let the record show this is in accordance with the draft resolution prepared by Staff. MR. SCHACHNER-Which I'm going to suggest a number of modifications of. MS. WHITE-Do we need to re-read those modifications? MR. SCHACHNER-You need to either agree with them or not, but I'm going to make the suggestion as soon as the Chairman tells me to. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. SCHACHNER-Well, for starters, the proposed resolution says Part I of the Long EAF has been completed by the applicant. It then says Part 11 of the Long EAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board. I would suggest that you say has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-And then more importantly, right under that, I would add Part III of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. MS. WHITE-Do I need to read that next little paragraph in, Upon review of the information recorded? MR. SCHACHNER-1 mean, your motion was, I think, otherwise the resolution as prepared, right? MS. WHITE-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-You can read it or not. It doesn't matter. MR. DEEB-Say as stated. MS. WHITE-As stated. MR. SCHACHNER-And then it looks like in the, I'm sorry, I apologize. I just noticed this for the first time. It looks like in the line right before Motion to Approve, toward the bottom, it says therefore an Environmental Statement need not be prepared. It looks like it's missing the word impact. It would be an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. So I think for point of order, if the Board agrees with those proposed revisions, then whoever moved it should make their motion to include those proposed revisions, if you agree with them. MR. TRAVER-You should have Laura update the boilerplate. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-1 think she just did. MS. WHITE-So, if everyone is in agreement with those changes, I amend the motion. MR. DEEB-I second the amendment. MR. HUNSINGER-We have an amended motion. Is there any further discussion? Is everybody clear on what we would be voting on? It is the amended motion with changes suggested by counsel. MR. SCHACHNER-And just for my own clarification, that means that the bottom part where it says motion to approve, obviously we would be deleting the slash disapprove, correct? MR. HUNSINGER-Correct. MS. WHITE-Correct. . MR. SCHACHNER-Good. MR. HUNSINGER-Hearing no discussion, call the vote, please. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Traver ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan MR. HUNSINGER-And then the final resolution is a recommendation to the Town Board in connection with the proposed zoning amendment. Is there any discussion on the Zoning Amendment? We've read it now a couple of times. Are there any other comments, concerns that we haven't discussed or considered? MR. TRAVER-1 don't have any concerns with the Zoning Amendment. I think it's very well crafted. I just, I have issues with the site plan. I guess I would encourage the Town Board in 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) relations with the applicant to encourage them to develop alternate means of transporting the water. MR. HUNSINGER-Mark, did you have any comments? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I think on this one, if you get to the prepared motion, I think it's broader than it should be. I think that this would be a motion solely dealing with your recommendation on the Zoning Amendment. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-So whenever, if there comes a time when you feel it's appropriate, I have some suggested revisions to this one as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes, the only recommendation we're making to the Town Board is on the amendment. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and I think the draft resolution, both in its title and its text, goes a bit beyond that. So that's why whenever you like I'll make some suggested revisions. MR. TRAVER-So we should strike where it talks about the site plan review? MR. SCHACHNER-It sounds like you'd like now. So, yes. In the title I would cut it after proposed zoning amendment. You can keep in tax map, no, I'm sorry, you can cut it after zoning amendment. In project description, I would only keep Item A zoning ordinance. Take out B and C and then in the motion language, I would also cut that after zoning amendment. And it doesn't actually say, it says Motion to Make a Recommendation on behalf of the Planning Board to the Town Board in connection with the proposed Zoning Amendment, but it should say for or against adoption of the proposed zoning amendment, because that's really your charge. So if you want to replace in connection with to for or against adoption. Obviously you would pick one or the other. I guess it would be for or against adoption of the proposed zoning amendment, and take out site plan review and the other things listed after. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Do you want me to try it? MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. RESOLUTION RE: TOWN BOARD RECOMMENDATION RE: JUST BEVERAGES PROJECT DESCRIPTION A) Zoning Ordinance: Town Board zoning amendment referral to amend that allowed uses for Land Conservation to add water extraction and review standards MOTION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD; RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD FOR THE PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White: The Planning Board based on review has recommended for the zoning amendment. Duly adopted this 24th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: MR. SCHACHNER-The zoning amendment is not specific to a particular Tax Map ID. That's why I suggested striking that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any discussion? MR. SCHACHNER-1 have a question. Do you feel strongly about including the phrase based on a limited review? You've sat here longer than I have because you've done this over many nights. It's up to you. MR. DEEB-I would make that more assertive. MR. TRAVER-Well, okay. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's just the language on the draft. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-That's a good point. MS. WHITE-So what word would you suggest? MR. TRAVER-Well, if you just strike limited and just say based on our review. All right. So I'd like to amend that motion to revise Section A to say the Planning Board based on review has recommended for the amendment to the zoning. AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan MR. HUNSINGER-Just for the record, for members of the public, we did leave the public hearing open. If and when this project comes back before the Planning Board, after approval by the Town Board, there will be another public hearing on site plan, and as always public comments are welcome by e-mail or regular mail to the Town Community Development Department, and with that, you're all set. MR. SIPLON-1 have a question for Staff about a return date. Do we have a date to be back before the Planning Board for Site Plan? MR. BROWN-We don't have a date scheduled yet, but we've got to go through. MR. HUNSINGER-1 was going to say, we'd be back to the normal. MR. CENTER-April 21st? MR. BROWN-Probably the first April meeting, yes. That's the goal. MR. SIPLON-Thank you for your consideration. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2015 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW SEAR TYPE UNLISTED LYNNE FISH & WENDY SCHMIDT AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES; HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING RR-3A; WR LOCATION SUNNYSIDE ROAD NORTH, DREAM LAKE RD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 14.65 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE OF 4.5, 5.0 & 5.2 ACRES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER A-183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SUBDIVISION OF LAND IS SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND LOT SIZE 14.65 ACRES (12.6& 2.05) TAX MAP NO. 279.17-1-1, 7 SECTION A-183 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura, whenever you're ready. MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a three lot subdivision of a 14.65 acre parcel. The plans show the lot arrangement with lot 3 having a single access and lots 1 and 2 having a shared access. The homes are proposed to be located in the RR3A portion of each parcel. The plans show spot areas of slopes greater than 20%. The project may be subject to variances for the lot not having physical access to the road through their lot. This is a Sketch Plan Review. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. I'm Tom Hutchins, and with me is Andrew Steves, and we will promise to keep this very brief. This is a proposed three lot subdivision off Sunnyside Road North of a 14., 14 and a half acre parcel. What we're here for tonight is to just see if you folks see any problems or concerns. We've done as close to a compliant layout as we believe we can get. This three lots would require us to request variances for road frontage for two of the lots. This is in an RR-3 zone where the frontage requirement is 400 feet, and with, these are nominally four or five acre lots, 400 feet of road frontage can be a challenge. So as part of the application, as we proceed we will be requesting variances for road frontage for, right, this layout you're seeing would be road frontage for one lot, and a shared driveway for one lot. 1 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) believe, based upon some updated topography, that we can eliminate the shared driveway, access the westernmost lot directly from the road with a shorter driveway. However, it impacts the boundary line to the western, to the center lot. So if we lose a little road frontage to the center lot. MR. TRAVER-What about site view if you move that driveway? MR. HUTCHINS-If we relocate it, I will have to verify that. I'm basing what I just said based on recent topography, and I'm not sure, we'll have to verify that on site distance to make sure that it's reasonable. MR. TRAVER-There's a little bit of a curve there. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. There is a curve there. As you first get to the parcel there's a big kind of intimidating bank, and our initial intent was well we certainly don't want to cut through that. So that's where the shared driveway concept came from. In getting actual topography, this stretch here is longer than you might perceive when you're in the field. So that high bank is along here, but there is a space in here where that bank drops off, that we believe we can get a driveway direct to serve this lot, eliminating this shared, both the shared agreement process as well as the length of it is a lot shorter, and we didn't do it initially because you see the bank. We don't want to cut through that and do all that. I think we're going to be able to pull that one, or to modify that drive as I sketched in. Like I said, we will be requesting variances. We believe they're relatively straightforward, just the road frontage. Setbacks are compliant. Density's compliant, and I guess we're here looking for any thought, any suggestions. MR. HUNSINGER-1 was actually glad to drive up there. I hadn't been up there in years. It's a really neat park. I found a new place to go running. I forgot how nice it was. MR. TRAVER-Until they start the water trucks running. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The lots are plenty big enough. The only issue is the driveway. Even line of sight. I mean, that's, I can't imagine people trying to get up much speed on that road. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-And it's not very wide. MR. TRAVER-Are you going to be able to see? MR. HUTCHINS-Coming out of that? We'll check it. That's a good point. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from anyone else? Any other comments? MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. MS. WHITE-Yes, that was the biggest concern was that shared. MR. HUNSINGER-How about soil conditions? What are the soil conditions like? Have you started to look at those yet? MR. HUTCHINS-We haven't. It's been a tough winter to do soils work, but we're going to be in there. I'm anticipating it's granular. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it's either going to be all cobbly or all sand. MR. HUTCHINS-You're right. It's either going to be a uniform sand, or it's going to be softball, but we will be doing that shortly. MR. TRAVER-There's a lot of moraine in that area. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-1 didn't have anything else. I think we're good, then. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. We have three items under New Business. NEW BUSINESS: 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2015 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEAR TYPE UNLISTED JOANN F. MILLER AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING RR-5A LOCATION GURNEY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 14.07 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 6.19 & 7.88 ACRES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER A-183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SB 5-00, SB 8 & 9-01, AV 16-01 APA, CEA, OTHER STREAM OVERLAY LOT SIZE 14.07 ACRES (12.69) TAX MAP NO. 288.-1-86.2 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-Okay. The subdivision of a 14 acre parcel into 6.19 ac and the other to be 7.88 ac. The applicant proposes the subdivision of a 14 acre parcel. Both parcels will have access from Buckbee Road. The property was a part of a previous subdivision where the entire 14 acre lot was a 12 acre parcel detailing information for house, septic, and well location. The previous subdivision also showed the location of steep slopes. The new proposal shows location for the two dwelling units, and septic location. Parcel one also shows the location of an intermittent stream -the proposed house location is over 100 ft. to the stream. The preliminary plat and final plat depict information for the property lines, contours on the site, the existing street of the project area, proposed septic area, and setback lines. The applicant has requested a waiver from sketch. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. Tom Hutchins and Andrew Steves again. This is one that we're both actually filling in on. It's a two lot residential subdivision. We believe entirely compliant. The reason it's before this Board is that the properties have been part of prior subdivisions and so we're here with a two lot residential concept subdivision that the 14 acre, or, yes, the 14 acre piece we're talking about was a lot of a subdivision from 2001, and we're showing this being split essentially down the middle, creating a north/south line, and creating two parcels in lieu of one. Their building site and test pit information shown on it that's shown on Lot Two is essentially that which was shown on the prior subdivision. There's a little relocation of the house site, but essentially as it was approved with the prior subdivision. We are showing a conceptual building site, conceptual only, on Lot Number One. There is things to deal with, slopes. The road's reasonably steep. It's not crazy steep but it's reasonably steep, particularly in the lower section. There's a stream, waterway. It's very small, but we're trying to stay away from that, which was part of the reason for the way this driveway is shown, although looking at this in the field, I believe this driveway on Lot Two could be improved, as far as the location of that, but with that, we'll turn it over to the Board for questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? I mean, that was my big concern was where are you going to put the driveway. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it's pretty steep. MR. HUTCHINS-Where this is, there would be a considerable cup. I believe it can be moved up slope, and improved, and still not interfere with the stream. MR. HUNSINGER-What's that spring house on the property? You even had it on the map. MR. HUTCHINS-It is there. It's a big concrete. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-I'm not sure of the history of it. Frankly I'm not sure of the history of it. MR. HUNSINGER-1 was kind of surprised to see your driveway location. MR. HUTCHINS-And as I said, that's the location from the prior subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-1 believe that can be improved as well. I believe that driveway can be brought uphill from that spring house. It almost looks like there's a natural area that it could go. You do a similar thing. You'd go across the slope and switch back either once or twice, but I believe that can be improved by moving out the slopes. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? I mean, I don't have a problem with the subdivision, but I have concerns with the driveway, runoff and some other issues that are almost site plan issues. I mean, I think there's probably certainly room for two houses on that large lot. So I don't have a problem with the subdivision. MR. HUTCHINS-And that's the, whatever eventually happens with these, with construction on these lots, and frankly I'm not extremely familiar with what their intent is, but what we're trying to show is that we can do it and whoever's going to build on these lots, whenever that is, are going to have their own ideas, and really that's the best time to put together all those details. We can do it now on some of the other ones, but a lot of times it gets re-done. MR. HUNSINGER-And we've also heard in the past, you know, concerns about the streams in that general vicinity. I forget which project it was, the one across the street. I don't think you represented the applicant. We heard a lot of comments about how the stream used to be clean and now it's muddy. MR. TRAVER-Yes, there was some turbidity. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, some turbidity issues and runoff issues and stuff. So what kind of safeguards can we put into play? Can we request that they come back for site plan review? MRS. MOORE-Yes, you can. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that acceptable? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. We wouldn't have any problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or questions from the Board? We do have a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to comment on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show there were no comments. We'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Because it's a subdivision, it's the Long Form, right? We have a draft SEAR. MRS. MOORE-Your first resolution is in reference to the Sketch Plan approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. We do need to approve waiver from Sketch Plan. Is everyone comfortable with that? Could we have a motion? RESOLUTION APPROVING SKETCH PLAN WAIVER SUB #4-2015 JOANN MILLER The applicant proposes subdivision of a 14.07 acre parcel into two lots of 6.19 & 7.88 acres. Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance Subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval MOTION TO GRANT A WAIVER FROM SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 4- 2015 JOANN F. MILLER, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 24th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-SEAR. We do have the Long Form, since it's a subdivision. I think there are some small, no to small impact concerns, surface water, slopes, but that can be mitigated. Is that fair? If we say small we don't need to go to Part 111. MRS. MOORE-Correct. Are you going through the entire Long Form again? MR. HUNSINGER-No, I was only mentioning one concern I had. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Then I apologize. It was on the first one? MR. HUNSINGER-Item Three Impact on surface water. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And I guess H, where it talks about stormwater discharge, and E. MR. DEEB-So you want to answer that yes, and then go no to small all the way down. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other potential impacts? MRS. MOORE-So on Number Three I have E and H? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I'm sorry, what did you say, Laura? MRS. MOORE-1 have E, which is the proposed action may create turbidity. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-And then H, the proposed action may cause soil erosion? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-But don't we have to answer all of them? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I just said they're small to moderate. I'm only identifying those that, you know, instead of going through every item by item. MR. DEEB-Just answer three yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, you would answer Three yes and the rest would be, actually all of them would be no to small. MR. DEEB-All of them would be small. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-Let me, so. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm trying not to go too fast. MRS. MOORE-So for the SEAR form itself, if you're going to use the SEAR form, then you should probably go through the entire form. It's not required to use the form. If you're creating information, then you can identify it individually, but if you're answering Number Three as yes, and going through and answering it no, you might as well go through the entire SEAR. If you're going to pull out individual things, you're creating your own review, which is fine. I just want to make sure that you know, because I can quickly. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I just wanted to identify concerns. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-So that we could then decide whether or not to reach a Negative Declaration. MR. DEEB-But we'd have to go through the whole form, then. MRS. MOORE-Right. So you're identifying something similar to the impacts on surface water. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MRS. MOORE-Not necessarily Number Three, but impacts on surface water for this particular project. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-SO you're not answering yes or no to the format. You're answering yes or no to the impacts that are similar to H and E. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. DEEB-So we don't have to go through it. MRS. MOORE-You're not going through the entire SEAR form. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-Because you're identifying specific concerns. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Are there any other specific concerns that Board members have? Are there any concerns that anybody would have that would result in a moderate to large impact? So we wouldn't need to go through the whole form. RESOLUTION RE: SEAR RE: SUB #4-2015 JOANN MILLER The applicant proposes subdivision of a 14.07 acre parcel into two lots of 6.19 & 7.88 acres. Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance Subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Long EAF has been completed by the applicant; Part 2 of the Long EAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO APPROVE A SEAR RESOLUTION NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2015 JOANN F. MILLER, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: In accordance with the draft resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 24th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan MR. HUNSINGER-Next would be a motion for Preliminary subdivision. RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY STAGE SUB #4-2015 JOANN MILLER A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 14.07 acre parcel into two lots of 6.19 & 7.88 acres. Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance Subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) A public hearing was scheduled and held on 3-24-2015; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2015 JOANN F. MILLER, Introduce by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff. Waivers are granted. Duly adopted this 24th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MRS. MOORE-Are you identifying the need for site plan in this? MR. HUNSINGER-We'll do it at Final. And finally a motion for Final. This is where we would provide the condition that they would have to come back for site plan. MR. HUTCHINS-The condition that each individual lot, at the time somebody proposes to construct, each lot will come for site plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Correct. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STAGE SUB #4-2015 JOANN MILLER A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 14.07 acre parcel into two lots of 6.19 & 7.88 acres. Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance Subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 3-24-2015; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; SEAR Negative Declaration was approved on 3-24-2015; MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2015 JOANN F. MILLER, Introduce by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff conditioned upon the following: 1. That any construction or development be subject to site plan review. 2. Also a second condition: That the note regarding site plan review be included on the final plat. Duly adopted this 24th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Any discussion? MRS. MOORE-Yes, that information should appear on the final plat. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, yes, it should. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. TRAVER-Does that need to be in the motion? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-The resolution should be on the plat. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2015 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEAR TYPE UNLISTED CLUTE ENTERPRISES AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING NR LOCATION 243 UPPER SHERMAN AVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 1.10 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 0.55 ACRES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER A-183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SB/AV LOT SIZE 1.10 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.18-2-2.1 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a subdivision of a 1.10 acre parcel to create two parcels each at 0.55 acres. The plans show the two parcels with one having an existing home and the other lot with a proposed home. The site will need to be graded for placement of the new home. The applicant has requested a waiver from sketch plan review. The applicant has completed a preliminary and final application for a two lot subdivision. The long SEAR form has been completed for review as part of the preliminary stage application. The board may consider a waiver for the sketch plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center and Andrew Steves representing VanDusen and Steves. I'm filling in for Mr. Steves this evening, Mr. Steves, Sr. I'm sorry. This is a two lot subdivision, with one lot, Lot Two, that has an existing home, and lot to be a proposed raised ranch home on the lot with a septic system. This is Neighborhood Commercial, half acre lot. We meet all the setbacks and requirements. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions from the Board? MR. FERONE-When I drove by there, there was a construction one on the lot already? MR. CENTER-That would be over to the far right would be Lot One, where the house is going on Lot One. MR. HUNSINGER-No questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board on this project? No takers? Any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will open the public hearing and let the record show no comments were received. I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-They have requested a waiver from Sketch Plan review. RESOLUTION APPROVING WAIVER FOR SKETCH PLAN RE: SUB # 7-2015 CLUTE 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) The applicant proposes subdivision of a 1.10 acre parcel into two lots of 0.55 acres. Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. MOTION TO GRANT A WAIVER FROM SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 7- 2015 CLUTE ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Duly adopted this 24th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan MR. HUNSINGER-Again, it's the Long SEAR Form because it's a subdivision. Any environmental concerns with this project? MR. DEEB-I would say no. MR. FERONE-Yes, I don't think so, either. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to move a motion? The applicant proposes subdivision of a 1.10 acre parcel into two lots of 0.55 acres. Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Long EAF has been completed by the applicant; Part 2 of the Long EAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO APPROVE A SEAR RESOLUTION NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2015 CLUTE ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White: In accordance with the draft resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 24th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan MR. HUNSINGER-And finally a motion for subdivision. RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIM. STAGE SUB # 7-2015 CLUTE ENTERPRISES A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 1.10 acre parcel into two lots of 0.55 acres. Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) A public hearing was scheduled and held on 3-24-2015; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2015 CLUTE ENTERPRISES, Introduce by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 24th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan MR. HUNSINGER-Any conditions that we need to consider? MR. TRAVER-I don't believe so. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STG. SUB # 7-2015 CLUTE ENTERPRISES A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 1.10 acre parcel into two lots of 0.55 acres. Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 3-24-2015; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; SEAR Negative Declaration was approved on 3-24-2015; MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2015 CLUTE ENTERPRISES, Introduce by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 24th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. CENTER-Thank you. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) SITE PLAN NO. 14-2015 SITE PLAN MOD. 62-2013 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED 27 SILVER CIRCLE, LLC & 399 BIG BAY, LLC AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI LOCATION 27 SILVER CIR., 399 BIG BAY APPLICANT PROPOSES BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN 17.2 & 15.2; CONSTRUCTION OF 2 NEW BUILDINGS - ONE 2,800 SQ. FT. REPLACES EXISTING TRAILERS AND ONE 16,000 SQ. FT. EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL STORAGE BUILDING. PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES RELOCATING A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 16,000 SQ. FT. SHIFTING IT SOUTH. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE NEW LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 2-15, SP 62-13, SP 6-04, SP 18-09, SP 1-00, SP 44-97 WARREN CO. REFERRAL MARCH 2015 LOT SIZE 3.43, 5.50, 2.02 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-17.2, 13.2, 15.2 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM HUTCHINS & JOE GROSS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a boundary line adjustment between parcel 17.2 & 15.2; construction of 2 new buildings -one 2,800 sq. ft. replaces existing trailers and one 16,000 sq. ft. equipment / material storage building. This project also includes relocating a previously approved 16,000 sq. ft. building shifting it south. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Hi, Tom Hutchins and Joe Gross on behalf of 399 Big Bay, LLC and 27 Silver Circle. There's two parts to this. One is a boundary adjustment. This being 27 Silver Circle in its current configuration. This line is right here where it says existing lot line on the survey, and that house is Gross Electric, and 399 Big Bay, LLC is leased to Brookfield Power. Mr. Gross is the owner of both parcels, or the owner of both companies, and what's proposed for the boundary adjustment is simply to take this line and shift it 100 feet to the east to take this rectangle of land and transfer it from part of this parcel to part of this parcel. That's the boundary adjustment portion. The site plan portion consists of constructing a vehicle storage building in that location where the boundary adjustment has taken place. Right now there is some storage containers, right? A row of storage containers and Joe's trying to clean it up a little bit and get some more vehicles inside, and the other portion, and I didn't really mention, the prior site plan we were here a year ago, a year and a half ago. That site plan approved construction of this building, which is being built right now. We have SPDES coverage under that permit, or we have SPDES general permit coverage for that project. There was one building back here in this area that was approved under that site plan. The modification portion of this plan is, we've just shifted the location of that previously approved building, but we're proposing an additional one, an additional warehouse type storage building for the future that may be used for Gross Electric or it may be leased as storage space, industrial type storage space. What did I miss, Joe? MR. GROSS-You did a great job. I just want to clean up the stuff. I was allowed to build the one building and we got stuff out of the trailers into that building. I thought it was be nice and neat, and put that building across there and put trucks in there then asphalt and look really crisp and nice and build this in the back. MR. FERONE-1 was surprised at how far your property went in the back. Are you going to keep the driveway, is it just gravel? It's not going to be paved or anything? MR. GROSS-Right up to, I don't know how to describe. Just to where it shows pavement, right to that line where it kind of makes an odd shape. We're going to pave it to that point there. MR. HUTCHINS-Around the building that's under construction. That was in that prior site plan. MR. GROSS-We're just waiting for the weather to change on us, and honestly to get this approval, I'd rather get the construction done for that one building where the trailer's going to go. So once we put the asphalt down we're not cutting a patch, and make it look pretty sharp. MR. DEEB-The new building, you're going to store vehicles? MR. GROSS-That would be vehicle storage. MR. DEEB-Are you going to work on them in there? MR. GROSS-Not really work on them, no, we use the gentleman around the corner for that, but, you know, I'm kind of, I'm in the North Country, I like to have everything inside. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. DEEB-You don't have to clean them off. MR. GROSS-And it'll be all done to local Code specs and all that, and whatever we put in the building. MR. DEEB-Now you've got a 2800 square foot building that's under construction? MR. GROSS-No, the one under construction is 14,400 square feet. It's just under 15,000 square feet. MR. DEEB-The one in the rectangle? MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. This is Gross Electric office. This is an addition that was part of the prior site plan that's not under construction yet. This building was part of the prior site plan. It is under construction presently, and this building was part of the prior site plan is not under construction. MR. DEEB-Can you change that building to a smaller building, that last one? MR. GROSS-The one we just built? MR. DEEB-No, the one, that one there? MR. GROSS-We just shifted it a little bit. MR. HUTCHINS-We had shown it out here where this hatched line is. MR. GROSS-1 didn't like the angle, I didn't like the truck, the passage through here. So we just shifted it down a little bit. Just tried to give it a true representation of where we want to put it, and again, the blacktop end here, then it would just neaten this whole thing right up. The funny part, we moved the property line to the fence line, I put the fence line over already. MR. HUNSINGER-I was confused when I went there. MR. GROSS-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-It looks like it's already done because of the way the fence is. MR. GROSS-When I leased the property to Brookfield, I just, that's where they, I adjusted it so this is what you're getting from this line over. They're fine with it. They didn't need that extra space and I needed every nook and cranny I could get at the time. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it certainly makes sense to put that building up and remove the trailer. MR. GROSS-Yes, it's time, you know, it served a purpose, you know, growing pains as the company grows. I want to look good. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I guess the other thing, the one thing I want to add, I remember when you were here before and all the neighbors that were here and were concerned about what you were doing, and obviously you've been a good neighbor because I don't see anybody here. I don't know if there's any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-But obviously the neighbors must be satisfied with what you've done cleaning the place up. MR. GROSS-It's a big difference from the way it used to be. It was a glorified junkyard and now it's all cleaned up, and actually the neighbors, I've got an open door policy, they come over and I'll lay out the prints. I'll show them what I'm doing. They've been very supportive. MR. HUNSINGER-The only minor concern I have is you show these lights on the proposed new building, you know, the ones furthest in the back, near the neighbors. MR. GROSS-Yes, we should probably ditch that one that goes, I would guess that would be south I'm guessing. I'd probably get rid of that light. We wouldn't put that. MR. HUNSINGER-How often would those lights be on? 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. GROSS-This is just theoretical. I mean, you would put them on at night for security, so that you don't have any kids back there. MR. HUNSINGER-Isn't it all fenced in? MR. GROSS-It is, well, everything up front is. This is like a semi fence in back. I'd like to finish the fence. We'll put, you know, that is what we do, electrical work. We'll make sure we have the right proper cut offs they call it so the light doesn't, so it doesn't affect any neighbors. We're using, the new thing now is LED. It's just amazing. MR. HUTCHINS-That's what we've got are wall pack LED. MR. HUNSINGER-That was the only concern I had. I mean, well, I went down there and I was wondering if I, because I knew you had that big gate, and I was wondering if I could get in and get to the back, but I just drove right in. It was during the day. MR. GROSS-Yes. No problem. No, we shut up the gate at night. Our goal is to tighten the whole thing up, fence it in, you know, get back to, I like to keep, we've got some expensive equipment, and again, in the North Country, not everybody's fortunate enough to get things inside. If I can get everything inside, because it takes you two hours to clean the snow off the trailers. The more you can have it covered, time is money and labor. So it works out, and safety. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from Staff? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address the Board? Yes, sir. AUDIENCE MEMBER-He was my short order cook, he decided to do this stuff and go into this business. MR. GROSS-1 was 141 used to cook. MR. DEEB-A little different now, isn't it, Joe? MR. GROSS-1 wish I was cooking. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing and let the record show no comments were received. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-We first need to consider SEAR. Any SEAR issues? There's a Short Form. RESOLUTION APPROVING SEAR RE: SP # 14-2015 SP MOD # 62-2013 27 SILVER CIR. The applicant proposes boundary line adjustment between 17.2 & 15.2; construction of 2 new buildings -one 2,800 sq. ft. replaces existing trailers and one 16,000 sq. ft. equipment / material storage building. Project also includes relocating a previously approved 16,000 sq. ft. shifting it south. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance New light industrial buildings shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Part 2 of the Short EAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO APPROVE A SEAR RESOLUTION NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 14-2015 & SITE PLAN MODIFICATION NO. 62-2013 27 SILVER CIRCLE, LLC & 399 BIG BAY, LLC, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White: In accordance with the draft resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 24th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan MR. HUNSINGER-And if anyone would like to make an approval. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 14-2015 SP MOD # 62-2013 27 SILVER CIRCLE, LLC An application has been made to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board for Site Plan approval for boundary line adjustment between 17.2 & 15.2; construction of 2 new buildings-one 2,800 sq. ft. replaces existing trailers and one 16,000 sq. ft. equipment / material storage building. Project also includes relocating a previously approved 16,000 sq. ft. shifting it south. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance New light industrial buildings shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; received a recommendation of No County Impact dated 3-13-2015; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site Plan application on 3-24-2015 and continued the public hearing to 3-24-2015 when it was closed; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration - Determination of Non-Significance; The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 3-24-2015; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 179-9-080 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2015 & SITE PLAN MODIFICATION NO. 62-2013 27 SILVER CIRCLE, LLC & 399 BIG BAY, LLC, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White: According to the draft resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 24th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan MR. HUNSINGER-Well, good luck. You've done a good job cleaning up that neighborhood. MR. GROSS-Thank you. MR. DEEB-I'm sure we'll see you in another year or two, you're expanding. I know. You don't stop. MR. HUNSINGER-All I could think of when I drove into Silver Circle was that's what Carey park was supposed to look like. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. DEEB-It does look good. SITE PLAN NO. 15-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED ACTION SIGN CO., LLC OWNER(S) PRIMAX PROPERTIES, LLC ZONING MS LOCATION 61 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES THREE (3) WALL SIGNS - EACH SIGN IS TO BE 69 +/- SQ. FT., AND INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED. SIGNS TO BE LOCATED ON THE EAST, WEST AND SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. SITE PLAN: PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 140-7 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SIGNS IN THE MAIN STREET ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF FROM NUMBER OF SIGNS ALLOWED, ILLUMINATION AND PLACEMENT OF SIGNS IN THE MS ZONE. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE SV 9-15 SP 76-14, SUP 77-14 WARREN CO. PLANNING MARCH 2015 LOT SIZE 0.87 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-57 SECTION 140-7 WAYNE GENDRON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-The Zoning Board tabled this application after a previous meeting, and since that time the applicant has come up with a revision to those plans that were submitted and it has changed in a matter that I would ask for a re-referral from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board because it is significantly different. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. GENDRON-Good evening. Wayne Gendron representing Action Sign Company and Dollar General. After sitting here last week and hearing the concerns of the Board and then following with the Zoning Board the following day hearing from a member of the audience, I went back and kind of told them we need to come up with another plan. We need to figure out a way to appease everybody and hopefully come up with an agreement. Right now the original plan was for 207 square feet of signage. We've reduced that by roughly 60% down to a total of 84 square feet total, which would be less than a freestanding sign would be, considering that would be allowed to be 90. The signs are no longer internally illuminated. They're individual letters that will be mounted to the face of the wall. They're only two inches in depth, with exterior down lighting on gooseneck lamps. Because of the way the building sits on the parcel, I believe it's the east side of the building only has a setback of 15 feet. The west side has roughly 27.8 feet I believe, and the setback requirements for a freestanding sign is 15 feet. So we really do have a hardship in terms of the freestanding sign, but we do want visibility to both directions of the traffic as they approach the building so they know what's there. So I think by reducing the overall square footage by roughly 60% and not going with internally illuminated signs, hopefully I can get a little bit better recommendation from the Board for the next time I see the Zoning Board, and hopefully we can get this going and get the project underway. That's pretty much it. It's pretty self-explanatory. We've done a lot of modifications after I went back and sat with them and told them all the comments and concerns of everybody, and I know Main Street project was something that was in the making for a while and you're trying to keep the integrity of the project. I understand that. It allows for a freestanding sign and one wall sign, but I think reducing everything, going exterior lighting, and then coming in at only 84 square feet versus 207 should accommodate everybody, and I hope we can get a better recommendation today. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. FERONE-1 like it. MR. DEEB-I like it. It looks good. You did a nice job. I'm sure you're going to have a little more favor. I mean, 60% is a huge amount, and I like the way the sign looks on the building with the downcast lights. MR. GENDRON-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-The only question I had is on the lights themselves. There's e-mails that talk about it being, the bulbs being 75 watts. Again, in the specifications that were submitted it has, it's 39 is highlighted. Am I the only one that caught that? MR. GENDRON-That's not on my copy. I apologize. When I came here today they did want to go with a 75 watt bulb for that, and if you look at the gooseneck Iightings, they do project down but back towards the sign, so there will be no forward projection of the light, basically just coming back towards the building. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know what I'm talking about, Laura? 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MRS. MOORE-1 do. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right there. MRS. MOORE-It's right here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-So the Code, and I apologize, it's 75 foot wattage. We go by foot candles. So I was trying to convert it back and forth to foot candles, and I lost my note that had it on there. So I believe it is higher than our typical standard 75 watt bulb. That is something that could be discussed. MR. TRAVER-And there's six of them on each side. MR. HUNSINGER-That was my only concern. We have floodlights at our house, and I believe they're 75 watt. I mean, one 75 watt bulb would light most of my driveway. Then I saw it highlighted for 39 and I was like, okay, it's going to be 39. MR. GENDRON-The only thing, in terms of the signage, they told me they weren't married to the 75 watt, but losing the internal illumination, they were hoping to get something a little brighter on the sign, but the way the goosenecks project down on, to limit any less than six goosenecks would create shadows on the sign, make it more difficult to read. Perhaps we'd go down to a 60 watt or something like that. They're not, like I said, married to the idea of a 75 watt, but they would like to optimism at least what little bit that they can get. MR. DEEB-But in the e-mail it says you'd like 75 watts but the Town prefers you go down, you have some leeway. MR. GENDRON-Correct. MR. DEEB-And maybe that would convert it to the foot candles. We have to figure out what that is. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-I do have concerns that 75 would be too bright. MR. DEEB-Right. You are willing to come down on your wattage. MR. GENDRON-They did say that, yes. MR. DEEB-Okay, because I think you're going to have to do that. The lower wattage, you'd still be able to see the sign at 60. Lights on it, you should be able to see a lot. I don't think you need 75. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. GENDRON-I'm not here to argue that point. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, look, after where we came from and where we are now, to be, you know, working over the wattage of the bulb, that's pretty good. MR. DEEB-That's a long way. MR. HUNSINGER-So I'm not sure how we would lead that discussion. MRS. MOORE-You can, you received your revised information and you can provide a re- recommendation to the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board tabled it tit their May meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. GENDRON-Yes, it was too late to get on for April, so I've got to come back on the 20th, I believe, of May. 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MRS. MOORE-So I guess, again, it's the number of signs, the size of the signs, and then if you have an additional concern about the wattage that that's what you would be referring to. MR. GENDRON-The size of the sign shouldn't be, we're underneath, we're 28 square feet for every sign. So we're below 30 square feet for the signage now. So the size shouldn't be a concern at this point. MRS. MOORE-For the main one, but having three. MR. DEEB-Okay. Then should he work with you on foot candles? You already had it worked out, right? MRS. MOORE-1 did have it worked out. I don't know what it is. MR. DEEB-So you can touch base with Laura on that. MR. GENDRON-Absolutely. I mean, the wattage of the bulb isn't the huge concern. We just, we can't put in a monument sign. There's no room for it. MR. DEEB-Well, I'm just saying so when you go to the Zoning Board, you'll have everything there hopefully. MR. GENDRON-We're concerned about the number of signs. I'm just hoping that that's not a concern at this point, considering the total square footage of all three signs is less than what a monument sign would be, and we're just looking to have visibility from both directions of the traffic. So I'm hoping the Board doesn't address that concern in your recommendation. MR. DEEB-Well, no, I would rather see that than a freestanding sign. I'd like to see that rather than a freestanding sign. MS. WHITE-As long as they're not internally lit. MR. DEEB-They're not internally lit. I'm fine with it. MR. GENDRON-It's a much nicer product than what I presented before. They're individual letters, very low profile, only two inches off the building, versus a bigger box sign. Actually, to be honest, a box sign is a lot cheaper sign but it doesn't have the same appeal. It doesn't look as nice as individual, low profile letters do. MR. FERONE-Again, looking at it from Main Street, I think it adds to the aesthetics of the building, too. MR. GENDRON-Thank you. MR. FERONE-The other was very, you knew it was a commercial building. MR. GENDRON-We significantly reduced it to hopefully stay within the character of Main Street at this point. MR. DEEB-I still think it's visible from a distance. MR. GENDRON-1 agree. If the speed limit was higher, I would argue the point for bigger letters, but to be honest, 35 mile an hour zone, 18 inch high letters is more than sufficient for that I think. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-I'll open the public hearing and close the public hearing, and let the record show no comments were received. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MRS. MOORE-You could leave it open because you will receive, you will see the application again in May. MR. GENDRON-After the Zoning Board. MRS. MOORE-After the Zoning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. MR. GENDRON-I've got to come back one more time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FERONE-Do we need to do anything about the wattage thing? MR. HUNSINGER-Should we mention that in our resolution? MRS. MOORE-You can identify it. I know, you can identify that 75 watt may be a concern, and the applicant is working with Staff. MR. DEEB-That works. MR. HUNSINGER-So if anyone would like to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR SV# 9-2015 ACTION SIGN CO., LLC The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Proposal for three (3) wall signs - each sign is to be 69 +/- sq. ft., and internally illuminated. Signs will be located on the east, west and south side of building. Site Plan: Pursuant to Chapter 140-7 of the Zoning Ordinance Signs in the Main Street shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief from number of signs allowed, illumination and placement of signs in the MS zone. The Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A SECOND RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR SIGN VARIANCE NO. 9-2015 ACTION SIGN CO., LLC FOR DOLLAR GENERAL, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Based on the revised materials submitted to the Planning Board, the Planning Board, based on our review, has found the revised materials a positive improvement upon the sign as submitted by Action Sign Company. We have no concerns with the number of signs or their placement. Our one concern is the 75 watt size of the bulbs to illuminate the signs. Duly adopted this 24th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: MR. DEEB-We have a concern, but the applicant is willing to work with Staff on the wattage. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-I don't want it to sound like. MR. TRAVER-But that's going to happen before he gets to the Zoning Board. MR. GENDRON-Could you put any positive comments in there? MR. HUNSINGER-That's what I was going to say. MR. GENDRON-That it's aesthetically pleasing and that you guys like the application so it's not so vague. MR. HUNSINGER-1 was thinking the same thing. 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. DEEB-Yes, that you made tremendous strides. MR. HUNSINGER-Like something along the lines that we find that the size and the number of the signs to be acceptable. MR. DEEB-Yes, I think we should do that. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, if that's, I don't want to put words in everybody's mouth. MR. DEEB-No, I think we should do that. MR. FERONE-1 mean, we said that earlier. We just didn't put it in the motion. MR. DEEB-We didn't put it in. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Okay. Well, let me revise the motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you go to the Zoning Board meetings, Laura? MRS. MOORE-1 do. MR. HUNSINGER-Then you could just tell them that. MRS. MOORE-1 can relay that information. MR. HUNSINGER-We're going to work out the proper wattage. MRS. MOORE-Yes, I can do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. GENDRON-1 appreciate it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you're welcome. MR. DEEB-1 hope you get through this time. MR. GENDRON-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have anything else to come before the Board? MRS. MOORE-No, I have no other material. MR. HUNSINGER-We have regular meetings scheduled in April for the 21St and the 28tH MR. FERONE-Chris, there was a second resolution on that. We didn't need to do anything with the second resolution? MRS. MOORE-No, because you're not doing Site Plan Review. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FERONE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-They'll come back. MR. FERONE-They'll come back. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We haven't been this late in a long time. 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/24/2015) MR. DEEB-It's been a while. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make a motion? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 24, 2015, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 24th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 69