Loading...
06-23-2015 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 23, 2015 INDEX Site Plan No. 35-2015 Mark Ryan 1. FWW 2-2015 Tax Map No. 227.13-2-58 Site Plan No. 36-2015 Tabassum "Toby" Sheikh 2. Tax Map No. 266.3-1-78, 79 Site Plan 38-2015 Ed & Ed T. Enterprises, LLC 5. Tax Map No. 288.12-1-17, 19 Site Plan No. 39-2015 Concord Pools, Inc. & United Parcel Service 9. Tax Map No. 309.17-1-24, 309.14-1-1 309.17-1-23.21 Site Plan No. 17-2015 Kimberlee Polunci 11. Special Use Permit No. 18-2015 Tax Map No. 289.15-1-1.1 DISCUSSION ITEM Friends Realty Associates, LLC 62. Tax Map No. 302.8-1-47 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 06/23/2015) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 23, 2015 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN PAUL SCHONEWOLF, SECRETARY THOMAS FORD STEPHEN TRAVER BRAD MAGOWAN DAVID DEEB GEORGE FERONE 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, June 23, 2015. Members of the audience, welcome. There are copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also a copy for public hearing procedures, and when we get into the first public hearing I will talk about the policies and procedures. Since I assume most of the people are here for the Polunci project, it's been suggested that we put that later on the agenda and move forward on some of the quick items. So they don't have to sit through a lengthy public hearing. Is that okay with the rest of the Board? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So we'll move into Old Business, Item Two. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 35-2015 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-2015 SEAR TYPE TYPE II MARK RYAN OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 28 ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSING TO MAINTAIN 90 FOOT SHED AND 24 SQ. FT. TRASH UNIT ON SITE IN EXISTING LOCATION. SHED IS WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE WETLAND. SITE PLAN: PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FRESHWATER WETLANDS: DISTURBANCE/DEVELOPMENT ON LAND WITHIN 100 FEET OF A WETLAND. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 30-15, AV 47-01, SP 30-99 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JUNE 2015 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA, APA& NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.52 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.13-2-58 SECTION 179-6-050 MR. HUNSINGER-And that is going to be tabled. MRS. MOORE-Correct. This application was being heard at the Zoning Board of Appeals. The application was tabled at the Zoning Board of Appeals to see if the applicant could come up with alternatives for the location of a shed and a trash unit, and Staff is working with that applicant now and I would suggest that you table the application to August 25tH MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anyone here in the audience that's here to hear, to speak to the Board on that project? AUDIENCE MEMBER-What project? MR. HUNSINGER-Mark Ryan. Mark Ryan. We will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-We will leave the public hearing open. If anyone would like to make a motion to table that. RESOLUTION TABLING SP #35-2015 FWW#2-2015 MARK RYAN 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Site Plan: Applicant proposes to maintain 90 foot shed and 24 sq. ft. trash unit on site in existing location. Shed is within 50 feet of the wetland. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance Hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater Wetlands: Disturbance/development on land within 100 feet of a wetland. On 6-17-2015 the ZBA tabled the application to 8-19-2015; MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 35-2015 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-2015 MARK RYAN, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled to the August 25, 2015 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 23rd day of June 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 36-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED TABASSUM "TOBY" SHEIKH AGENT(S) ZACH MONROE - WINCHIP ENGINEERING OWNER(S) ASAD PETROLEUM, INC. ZONING NC LOCATION 985 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH A 261 SQ. FT. EXISTING BUILDING W/GAS FACILITY TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 6,120 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE WITH TWO GAS/DIESEL CANOPIES. ALTERATIONS TO SITE INCLUDE CURB CUT ADJUSTMENTS, LANDSCAPING, NEW LIGHTING FOR POLE LIGHTS AND WALL PACKS AND NEW SIGNAGE. PURSUANT TO SECTION 179-3-040 RETAIL USE IN A NC ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 29-15 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JUNE 2015 LOT SIZE 2.66 ACRES, 0.98 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-78, 79 SECTION 179-3-040 ZACH MONROE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; TOBY SHEIKH, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes to demo the 261 sq. ft. existing building with gas facility to construct a new 6,120 sq. ft. convenience store with gas and diesel canopies. Alterations to the site include curb cut adjustment, new landscaping, lighting and new signage. The applicant did receive the variance for the gas canopy on 149, and all information is available. I do have all the maps to display during your discussion. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MONROE-Good evening. Zach Monroe, Winchip Engineering, and we were here with you two weeks ago. MR. HUNSINGER-Last week. MR. MONROE-Was it last week? Okay. And we have since, the next night, went to the Zoning Board and got the variance for the setback to the property line the gas canopy. We have also received comments from the Town Engineer and are starting to go through and address all of those. Most of them are straightforward. MR. FORD-No issue with any of those engineering items? MR. MONROE-No. They're basically all the engineer's comments had to do with just missing bits of information that need to go to the DEC to submit the Notice of Intent for the Stormwater. It was all stuff we knew that needed to be in the plans. We were just rushing to get everything in for the submission deadline for the last meeting. Like I said, we just kind of missed getting all that stuff together, but we have it all and we are getting it together for the Town Engineer. We will be submitting something in a couple of days. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions from the Board? Thank you for the larger lighting plan. I'd asked last week about colors. Do you have any idea? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) MR. SHEIKH-It will be off white on the walls and blue roof and gray columns. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And the blue will be SUNOCO blue. MR. SHEIKH-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Any other questions or comments? Staff? MR. FORD-1 just have one. I want to go back to that liquid propane gas tank you said, 1,000 gallon, and I want a comparison between that and the size of the current tank that is there. MR. SHEIKH-The size would most probably be the same size, because currently I have a 1,000 gallon above ground tank. MR. FORD-Above ground, and this one is going to be buried? MR. SHEIKH-It will be buried. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't see any takers. Were there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-What's the feeling of the Board? Do we need more information? MR. FORD-Get engineer's signoff. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show no comments were received. This is an Unlisted SEAR, and there was a SEAR resolution in our packet. Were there any concerns with any environmental issues that we haven't already discussed? Anything that would cause a Board member to think that there might be a potentially large impact? MR. TRAVER-Nothing that's not being handled by the applicant. The only potential concern I had was the soils, and those are being handled by the applicant. MR. FERONE-1 guess I would just ask the question. I mean, there's not going to be any car repair? This is just strictly a gasoline station and convenience store? MR. SHEIKH-That is correct. MR. FERONE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion? RESOLUTION GRANTING NEG DECLARATION SP 36-2015 TABASSUM "TOBY" SHEIKH The applicant proposes Applicant proposes to demolish a 261 sq. ft. existing building w/gas facility to construct a new 6,120 sq. ft. convenience store with two gas/diesel canopies. Alterations to site include curb cut adjustment, landscaping, new lighting for pole lights and wall packs and new signage. Pursuant to Section 179-3-040 Retail use in a NC zone requires 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; 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short 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 GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 36-2015 TABASSUM "TOBY" SHEIKH, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: As per the draft resolution prepared by Staff. Part Two has been reviewed. Duly adopted this 23rd day of June, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other special conditions that we need to discuss? There was reference to additional plantings at the corner of 149 and Ridge that weren't shown on the plan. MR. MONROE-I think it was kind of a discussion thing, it wasn't shown on the plan. That corner is still kind of, the exact layout of the retention area that I show there on the stormwater plan is going to be changed a little bit when we're dealing with the Town Engineer comments. I actually have a meeting, a call in to DEC to have a meeting with them to discuss the options for the stormwater like the dimensions, the engineer's comments about how to deal with runoff and the infiltration on that. So I assume some of that corner is going to get rearranged. If any plantings of any kind were to be put in there, we definitely will. My guess is we might have some sort of rain garden out there type situation. So it'll actually be some landscaping and plantings out there. MR. HUNSINGER-Is the Board comfortable with that? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Usually we see it on the plan. Any other additions on there beyond the engineer's signoff? Would anyone like to make a motion? RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 36-2015 TABASSUM "TOBY" SHEIKH The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to demolish a 261 sq. ft. existing building w/gas facility to construct a new 6,120 sq. ft. convenience store with two gas/diesel canopies. Alterations to site include curb cut adjustment, landscaping, new lighting for pole lights and wall packs and new signage. Pursuant to Section 179-3-040 Retail use in a NC zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; On 6-16-2015 the Planning Board provided a recommendation to the Zoning Board; on 6-17- 2015 the Zoning Board approved the variance requests; 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 opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 6-23-2015 and continued the public hearing to 6-23-2015 when it was closed, 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) 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 6-23-2015; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 36-2015 TABASSUM "TOBY' SHEIKH, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1. The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff 2. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman. 3. The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and 4. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: a) The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; and b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 5. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution Duly adopted this 23rd day of June, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. MONROE-Thank you very much. MR. SHEIKH-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 38-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED ED & ED T. ENTERPRISES, LLC AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT & 1468 STATE ROUTE 9, LLC ZONING CI LOCATION 1476 STATE ROUTE 9, 1468 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES PARKING EXPANSION OF 71 SPACES TO THE EXISTING LOG JAM OUTLET CENTER. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 33-15 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JUNE 2015 LOT SIZE 4.56 ACRES, 11.27 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-17, 19 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant is proposing expansion of the Log Jam Outlet Center for 71 additional parking spaces. This is the installation of a 22,310 sq. ft. area. It consists of nine light poles, additional drywells. I have eight on here. I believe there's nine, and the back of the building will include three new light wall packs, and the project does include a 30 foot wide interconnect with the property south of it. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering, on behalf of Ed & Ed T. Again, we were here last week. This project is about parking and creating a small amount, more parking. It is a big issue in the entire area, most particularly the Log Jam Center. We have a proposal that shows the addition of 71 additional parking spaces to the rear, predominantly for employee parking. We were here, as I said, requesting recommendation for a variance which the Zoning Board did support us with a variance for permeability. So with that, I'll turn it over to the Board for comments, questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-We covered most of them last week. MR. TRAVER-It appears that the Zoning Board did a SEAR as well? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I noticed that on the other project as well. MRS. MOORE-Independent. You can do that. It's an independent SEAR. They're two different types of projects that we're looking at. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. No comments, no concerns? MR. FORD-We got it all out last week. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a public hearing scheduled for this project. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAVID KENNY MR. KENNY-Good evening. David Kenny. I own the property next door to this piece of property. I don't see any problem with it. I'm in favor of it, mostly. The only issue I have, and they're correcting most of the stormwater issues, but on the bottom, I can show you on the plan where the overflow pipe goes. The overflow pipe goes to this rock area, and then it shows it going this way, which it does, but there's marsh down there and it's pretty swampy from just the water sitting there stagnant. So I spoke to Tom. The only thing I would like to see is this rock continued to this culvert under the road. So if they made this rock embankment go right to the culvert so it gets to all that overgrowth and all that, the water would run a lot easier rather than sit there and mottle. So the water runs, and if you go down in there, it's all wet and there's mosquitoes and the tall grass. If they continued that riprap right along so the water could flow without sitting there and settling. That's the only concern I can really think of. I think it would enhance their water flow. Because the one issue I have is we're dump, we're not dumping, the State is dumping a lot of water back here that runs down. George has complained. Talked to the State highway. It's the Northway. We don't dump any water back there at all. So I'd just like to make sure that it's cleaned up a little bit, because it is a mosquito. With everything else, the improvements he's making, I think that would be a positive asset. Other than that, I have no issues at all. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Were there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If there are no other comments, we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Did you want to respond? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I did just meet with Dave, and my apologies. I probably should have mentioned that in my opening letter, but, yes, we will address that. It's a conveyance channel that actually runs to the north, and it does need to be serviced and maintained, and we're certainly agreeable to do that, and we will work on getting cooperation with the owner to the west, to the east, pardon me, such that we can make that happen, and we're fine with that. MR. HUNSINGER-So is there a lot of time when there's standing water there? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) MR. HUTCHINS-Well, right now there's basically a storm sewer that runs along the south side of the Log Jam Outlet that picks up with five or six plain old catch basins, a small structure with a pipe going out of it, and it gets all the roof water from the southern half of the Log Jam Center as well as the drive in between and it goes back and hits a direct pipe discharge. So, yes, we're taking that pipe. We're incorporating that into our system of drywells, in addition to the new parking area. So the volume of runoff is going to be significantly reduced, and so right now, yesterday or this morning it was probably wet down there, yes, where that pipe discharges. I'm sure it was. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Eventually it goes across the road, right? MR. HUTCHINS-It goes, yes, it goes under the road and goes back down toward the bike path, underneath the bike path, ultimately to the pond. So, but we have no problem addressing that. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? This is an Unlisted SEAR, and a draft SEAR resolution has been submitted. Has anyone identified any potentially large to moderate impacts? Other than those discussed? Okay. If you want to make a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING NEG DECLARATION SP # 38-2015 ED & ED T. ENTERPRISES The applicant proposes Applicant proposes parking expansion of 71 spaces to the existing Log Jam Outlet Center. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance modification to an existing approved site plan 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; 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 GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 38-2015 ED & ED T. ENTERPRISES, LLC, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 23rd day of June, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. FORD-1 actually just want to raise the issue that I raised last week because we just discussed this culvert and the runoff and so forth. Would that be impacted in any way if you were utilizing permeable surface as opposed to impermeable? MR. HUTCHINS-Well, of course things would be different. What we're able to do with this is treat that existing flow with the system that we've presented. If we used strictly permeable asphalt then we certainly wouldn't be able to treat what's coming out of that existing pipe with a system of permeable asphalt. So there'd probably something of a different scale in combination with the permeable asphalt that would, because we need to deal with this pipe. This pipe is a much bigger discharge point than what we're going to create from this new parking area. So 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) with the system of drywells we're infiltrating both our area, we're treating and infiltrating both our area as well as what's coming out of that pipe. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments? Are you ready? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 38-2015 ED & ED T. ENTERPRISES, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes parking expansion of 71 spaces to the existing Log Jam Outlet Center. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance modification to an existing approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; On 6-16-2015 the Planning Board provided a recommendation to the Zoning Board; on 6-17- 2015 the Zoning Board approved the variance request; 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 opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 6-23-2015 and continued the public hearing to 6-23-2015 when it was closed, 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 6-23-2015; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 38-2015 ED & ED T. ENTERPRISES, LLC, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Approved as presented per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following: 1. Applicant will address the conveyance channel just north of the discharge channel. 2. Applicant will address engineering comments. 3. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution Duly adopted this 23rd day of June, 2015, by the following vote: MR. DEEB-They're going to incorporate the revision. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. We should probably put in the resolution, the rip rap at the entrance to the pipe. MR. DEEB-Yes, we should put in the resolution. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, we could address the conveyance channel just north of the discharge channel. That's not a problem. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-And of course we're also going to address engineering comments. I did have a conversation with Sean today. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's in the draft resolution. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) MR. HUTCHINS-And we're on the same page, concept wise. We just need to iron out some details. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 39-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED CONCORD POOLS, INC. & UNITED PARCEL SERVICE AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) CONCORD POOLS, INC., BT-NEWYO, LLC, 60 BIG BOOM, LLC, GIAVANONE REAL ESTATE PARTNERS ZONING CLI LOCATION 60 BIG BOOM ROAD, 52 BIG BOOM RD., 74 BIG BOOM RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REUSE AN EXISTING 2,400 SQ. FT. BUILDING TO OPERATE A POOL DISPLAY, SALES AND STORAGE FACILITY. DISPLAY SPACE IS +/-25,000 SQ. FT IN THREE AREAS - NORTH, SOUTH AND ALONG PROPERTY AT NORTHWAY. PROJECT INCLUDES FRONT OF BUILDING POOL INSTALLATION. SITE WILL BE FENCED IN ON ALL THREE SIDES WITH A FENCE AT PARKING AREA. PROJECT INCLUDES GRADING ON UPS PARCEL, PROPERTY SOUTH ALSO INCLUDED FOR SHARED DRIVEWAY. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 NEW RETAIL USE - POOL AND SALES DISPLAY IN A CLI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 28-15, SP 69-11 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JUNE 2015 LOT SIZE 1.93 ACRES, 2.43 ACRES, 2.53 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-24, 309.14-1-1, 309.17-1-23.21 SECTION 179-3-040 MIKE GIAVANONE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes a re-use of an existing building. This is a 2,400 sq. ft. building. This is to operate a pool display, sales and storage facility. Display space is 25,000 sq. ft. and this includes three areas, north, south, and along the property at the Northway. Project includes front of the building pool installation, and the site will be fenced in on all three sides. The applicant did receive variances for the front setback, location of the pool, and the shared driveway. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. GIAVANONE-Mr. Nace was unable to attend this evening, and we have, propose a common driveway, as we spoke last time, through Boat N RV and Concord Pools, front yard installation of a display pool and approximately a foot and a half front yard setback variance to allow the display lot to be built. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What's your name, for the record. MR. GIAVANONE-Michael Giavanone from Concord Pools. I'm sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you were just here last week. We asked you a lot of questions. I guess I'll ask the Board if there's any remaining issues or concerns. MR. FERONE-I think it was all addressed last week. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and you got through the Zoning Board. MR. MAGOWAN-We covered it all last week. I'm glad you got your variances. I think it will look nice over there, dress that area up. It will look good from the Northway, too. MR. TRAVER-One consideration from Staff is the idea of putting some plantings along the Northway side for screening. MR. GIAVANONE-Along the fence? MR. TRAVER-The Northway side. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) MR. GIAVANONE-Well, one of the reasons we purchased the property was the exposure to the Northway. There's extensive landscaping growing in along the, what would be the northwest line between UPS and our site, in the back corner. The whole property will be landscaped, the pool store, because that's a part of our whole package, and including the frontage on Big Boom. MR. TRAVER-But essentially you're saying you want the exposure to the Northway. MR. GIAVANONE-Yes. The exposure helps sell our products. It lets people see what's out there. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. GIAVANONE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions? If there's no other questions 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? Any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show no comments were received. We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted action. The applicant has submitted a SEAR Short Form. Are there any environmental concerns identified by the Board which may be potentially moderate to large impact? MR. FORD-1 don't believe so. MR. TRAVER-No. RESOLUTION APPROVING NEG DECLARATION SP # 39-2015 CONCORD POOLS & UPS The applicant proposes to reuse an existing 2,400 sq. ft. building to operate a pool display, sales and storage facility. Display space is +/- 25,000 sq. ft. in three areas - north, south and along property at Northway. Project includes front of building pool installation. Site will be fenced in on all three sides with a fence at parking area. Project includes grading on UPS parcel, property south also included for shared driveway. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 new retail use - Pool and sales display in a CLI zone requires 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; 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 GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 39-2015 CONCORD POOLS, INC. & UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part 11 of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) Duly adopted this 23rd day of June, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Any final comments, questions from the Board? Would anyone like to make a motion for approval? RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 39-2015 CONCORD POOLS, INC. & UPS The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to reuse an existing 2,400 sq. ft. building to operate a pool display, sales and storage facility. Display space is +/- 25,000 sq. ft. in three areas- north, south and along property at Northway. Project includes front of building pool installation. Site will be fenced in on all three sides with a fence at parking area. Project includes grading on UPS parcel, property south also included for shared driveway. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 new retail use - Pool and sales display in a CLI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; On 6-16-2015 the Planning Board provided a recommendation to the Zoning Board; on 6-17- 2015 the Zoning Board approved the variance requests; 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 opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 6-23-2015 and continued the public hearing to 6-23-2015 when it was closed; 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 6-23-2015; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 39-2015 CONCORD POOLS, INC. & UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following: 1) Waivers request granted: stormwater report; 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. Duly adopted this 23rd day of June, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. So we'll now return to the first item on the agenda, which is a tabled item. SITE PLAN NO. 17-2015 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 18-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED KIMBERLEE POLUNCI AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 21 BLIND ROCK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 40 X 100 SQ. FT. BUILDING WITH AN INTERNAL SPACE 40 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) X 40 PLAY TRAINING ROOM, 40 X 60 FOR SPCA SPACE AND ATTACHED 20 X 28 SQ. FT. GARAGE WITH AN INTERNAL PLAY AREA. PROJECT INCLUDES 15 X 30 EXPANSION FOR INDOOR KENNELS ON EXISTING 25 X 80 BUILDING. ALSO INCLUDED IS A 25 X 26 SCREENED ROOM ATTACHED TO EXISTING 24 X 24 BUILDING. SITE ALTERATIONS INCLUDE GRADING, NEW PARKING, LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND NEW TANK TO BE PUMPED TO EXISTING FIELD. APPLICANT PROPOSES THE NUMBER OF DOGS TO BE 40 FOR KENNEL AND SPCA TO BE 15. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-10-070 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE KENNEL IN AN RR ZONE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR ALL USES THAT REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 14-15, SUP 15-09, AV 48-08, SUP 30-08 WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2015 APA, CEA, OTHER DEC & NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 20.13 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.15-1-1.1 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-10-070 JON LAPPER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; KIM POLUNCI MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes to construct a 40 by 100 foot building with internal space of 40 by 40 training room; 40 by 60 SPCA space and attached 20 by 28 garage with internal play area. The project also includes a 15 by 80 sq. ft. expansion for indoor kennels to the existing 25 by 80 kennel building. Also include 23 by 26 sq. ft. screened room attached to the existing 24 by 24 building. Site alterations include grading, new parking, lighting and landscaping, stormwater management, and new septic tank to be pumped to existing field. The applicant proposes the number of dogs to be 40 for the kennel and the SPCA to be 15. This is for Special Use Permit and Site Plan Review. MR. HUNSINGER-So before I introduce the applicant, was there a signup sheet going around? MRS. MOORE-There is a signup sheet in the back. MR. HUNSINGER-As long as the audience knows, if you do intend to speak during the public hearing on this project this evening, there is a signup sheet. I would ask that you please put your name on the signup sheet so that we can gauge how many people might want to speak and that way we can proceed with the public hearing in a more orderly fashion. Sorry about that. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-No, not at all. Good evening everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Kim and John Polunci, the applicants; Jim Fitzgerald who is the President of the SPCA; Tom Hutchins the project engineer who's probably outside with the last applicant. He'll be right in. This project was last presented to the Planning Board in April for a recommendation for the Zoning Board of Appeals, and subsequent to that meeting we appeared at the ZBA, presented the variance application for the side setback relief and after listening to the ZBA, it was very well received in front of the ZBA, but after listening to the ZBA and members of the public and the comments from this Board at the initial meeting, we went back to the drawing board and said okay, well, maybe it's possible that this can be re-designed to eliminate the need for a variance. So what we did was we were able to, they were trying to avoid some grading, but it's certainly possible to do what we presented now, which is to avoid the need for the variance, to provide the 200 foot buffer from all properties, and also to eliminate all outdoor runs, which they had proposed, which wasn't part of the original Special Use Permit, but at the modification, the four year modification, they proposed outdoor runs, but after listening to all the Board members and the public, that's been eliminated. So everything that's proposed now is entirely indoors, including to the extent that when an SPCA officer comes to the site with a stray or abandoned animal, it was previously proposed that there would be a fenced in area so that you would drive the car in, close the gate behind you, so the animal couldn't escape and then bring the animal into the SPCA facility, but instead that's now going to be garage, so even that will happen indoors. There will be no activities happening outdoors at all, and we thought that that was a better project for everyone that we listened to. So that's what we're here to present. Since we made this application, that revised application, Mike O'Connor had appealed a number of aspects of the project to the Zoning Board, and last week we were at the Zoning Board to hear that Appeal. Essentially what that was about was questioning whether the SPCA use was a kennel use or whether it required a Use Variance, whether it should be characterized as some other use, and whether Kim's other activities on the site besides boarding, training and grooming, specifically were permitted uses and also her animal rescue service were permitted uses, and the Zoning Board determined that all that were within the definition of a kennel which includes all that boarding and training, and if she's boarding animals for a fee, or if she's boarding animals that have been rescued, that those were all the boarding, all kennel use. So we went through all that at the Zoning Board last week and the Zoning Board ruled in our favor, 6-0, which is why we were able to get back before you, but just before I turn it over to Tom 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) Hutchins to go through the Site Plan, this is just one of those projects that for whatever reason has raised some level of emotions, you know, I think on both sides, and when this project was first presented four years ago, four and a half years ago, before it was constructed, the neighbors were very concerned. There was a loud outcry what this was going to be. Since that time, everything's been extremely quiet, as has the facility. I personally take my dog there and because of the limitation on the hours, you get there at 4 o'clock to pick up your dog on Saturday or Sunday, and you're the only one there and it's absolutely quiet. So, I mean, just in terms of the way the facility operates, all the activity happens inside, and there's no noise and there's really no cars, I mean, anytime I've been there, which is a lot. So, I know that there are going to be people that are going to speak tonight that use Kim's facilities and there are people here who will speak tonight who don't, but just in terms of this facility, on a 20 acre parcel in the zone that allows this use, that requires a 10 acre piece of property, it's really kind of an ideal location for this use, because it's so well buffered where it is. The neighbors that have concerns are 800 feet away, 1200 feet away, 1,000 feet away, and just in terms of this area, because you've got Cedar Court, Surrey Field, Glen Lake area, Blackberry, there's probably 100 dogs that encircle this facility. They're limited to 30 dogs now, and we're proposing to raise that number to 40, but with an expansion of the kennel, so of course that'll all be inside, and then 15 for SPCA, and that SPCA use is very compatible because there's some economy of scale because Kim's Tails Wag Inn employees can help care for those animals in the SPCA building and it'll be detached but still can have the same employees care for them. So they'll just be more efficient and less people using the property, but again, just because everything's indoors, we don't see that this is going to create any additional burden on the neighborhood. It's a centrally located facility. It's popular as a boarding facility and Kim has this other business, Friends of Phoebe, a not for profit business, where, as she explained to me, if, you know, one example that I mentioned to the Zoning Board, you know, unfortunate example of if a resident passes away and they have a dog and someone has to care for that dog who has no master and potentially put it up for adoption, they have a network of foster family that she would bring that dog to her facility to start with, but then farm it out to a foster family to care for until it gets adopted. So those are the kind of activities that take place here, and all of that is considered boarding. She knows there's the 30 dog limit, and that's part of, it's a service that helps all of us as residents of the Town, and with the SPCA use it'll help the residents of the Town even more. So with that as an introduction, I want to hand it over to Tom to show you the changes that have been made on the Site Plan, and then we can move forward. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. Tom Hutchins. What we've done with this revision is, as you recall we were here some time ago proposing two separate buildings. One was a completely separate building for the SPCA use which was located north of the existing. That was, as laid out, did require an Area Variance for setback. We reconsidered, we reconfigured the proposed buildings, those two buildings into one new building with a partition separation and it's completely compliant, in terms of setbacks. The 200 foot, you'll recall there's a 200 foot property line setback for kennel uses, and this proposal as presented is in compliance with that. We've also expanded the parking. We've shown it being expanded a little bit to the south. Wastewater system, we've added a septic tank for the one bathroom that will be in the new building. You will recall there were, or those of you that were here will recall there was a fair amount of discussion about a septic system design when we were here the first time, and we did a fair amount of research on it. It was designed in accordance with a consensus code for wastewater systems for on-site treatment systems for kennel facilities without x-ray equipment, and that consensus code was published by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Protection, and why North Carolina? Because that was the only one we could find. New York does not have one, and that was the consensus code we found. We designed in accordance with it. We added capacity for future expansion, and we found that the system functions well. It's serviced every year. It's pumped every year. Beyond that I'll turn it over for questions. Unless there's anything else to add. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else you want to add? MR. LAPPER-Not at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions from the Board? MR. TRAVER-1 would like to start, if we could, you know, at the beginning when we were looking at this project in 2009. We started from the standpoint that there was no way we could really make this work, and the applicant offered at that time that they wanted to propose a plan that they felt strongly would work, provided there were reasonable limitations on it, and that we had this Special Use Permit for a certain period of time to gather data on what that use would be like in this environment, and I think before we consider expanding the facility we should thoroughly evaluate what the record shows as far as the existing Special Use Permit and the existing operation, and the information that I've seen submitted to the Town and I suspect we will hear this evening is that that Special Use Permit has been imperfectly, I would say, executed, that 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) there is advertising of more than 30 dogs available, that there's advertising for significant and substantial outdoor activity. I've heard anecdotal evidence and perhaps you can answer if there are animals on the property other than domestic dogs and cats, hogs, for example. These are reasons for concern. It does not mean that, my feeling is that it doesn't mean that the project can't be made successful, but I think that we need to take a look at areas where the compliance with the Special Use Permit has been a challenge and figure out how to bring that into compliance, then you have another period of time and see what the impact is on the community and then take a look at expanding it. That's sort of where I kind of sit as you begin discussion tonight. MR. LAPPER-Okay. So to react to that, Steve, for whatever reason, before this went in the ground there were neighbors that were very concerned, and the way to settle that last time was. MR. TRAVER-Well, Jon, it's not for whatever reason. I mean, they had legitimate reasons. It was represented by the applicant they were legitimate reasons and we were going to deal with those reasons by having these restrictions, having the Special Use Permit time limited. MR. LAPPER-I'm only saying that because the Town's determined that a dog facility is appropriate in an RR-5 zone, under the Zoning Code, and an RR-5 zone is going to have residents in the area. If you wanted it in a commercial zone, that would be different. So those conditions were made to appease everybody, and I think that those conditions were more than substantially followed. For example, I've read everything you've read. I've read all the public comment, and so one example is when they talked about 33 rescue dogs available for adoption. That doesn't mean that they're kept at this facility. What I mentioned in my opening remarks, they have foster homes where these dogs are kept. So Friends of Phoebe, you know, may have 33 dogs that are available to be adopted, but that doesn't mean they can be at this facility, because they can't. That's one of the reasons why they'd like to go to 40, you know. So that was somewhat misleading.in the information, but it doesn't, you know, they've got all sorts of families that assist with this big volunteer effort for people who are dog lovers. So that's just one example. MR. TRAVER-Is that still in operation? MR. LAPP ER-Absolutely. So that's just one example. They're aware that they have concerned neighbors, that they're under a microscope. They try to be very careful. I didn't understand, because I wasn't here the first time around five years ago. When I asked my wife when can we pick up Cocoa, how come it has to be at four o'clock? Until I got involved this time I didn't understand that that was a limitation on the Town. It just never dawned on me, even though I do this every week. So, you know, that's how it operates, and you arrive back in Town from vacation at one. You have to wait until four to pick up your dog. MR. TRAVER-But do you agree with the underlying premise that originally when we approved conditionally this project, the idea was to have a period of time to take a look at the impact, not Townwide or kennels or whatever, but specifically in this context in this project, and take a look how successful it could be, and then take a look at the data that's been accumulated over the years. MR. LAPPER-And I agree with that, and that's why they agreed to those conditions. They could prove themselves. It's about credibility. Here's what happened. For the last four years, everything's been absolutely quiet with no complaints, and all of a sudden they apply, and the same people that were complaining last time, you know, in the last six weeks all of a sudden it's gone crazy, you know, with anecdotal stories, but for the last three and a half years, it's been absolutely quiet. So there's some people that don't want this here, but it's not because there's been a problem. MR. TRAVER-It's possible, I submit that it's possible that if everything was working fine, and, under the existing conditions, and now all of a sudden there's this significant expansion, nearly doubling the number of animals and so on, that raises the alarm and I submit that if you were merely saying we've been successful, we want to continue this operation, perhaps there would not be the outcry that we're hearing and if you found a satellite location for an expanded facility, which I think is what I had suggested the first time this Board discussed this project, that would more likely be a more reasonable accommodation to the area. MR. LAPPER-When they came in last time in April, they had proposed outdoor runs because they didn't think that would be a problem on a 20 acre site, but because of what we heard with the neighbors, from some of your comments, that's all been eliminated. So I think in terms of people being concerned, if you were going from an indoor facility to something with an outdoor, you know, that's legitimate that people could be concerned. So that's all off the table and everything's going to be indoors, and that's why when you pull up in the parking lot now it's quiet 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) because everything's indoors. I mean, sure, there's a period when a dog comes from a car to go in the front door, but it's generally very quiet. MR. TRAVER-Well, I can appreciate that that's been your experience, but my understanding is that we're going to hear from a significant number of people this evening that it's not quiet. So, you know, we'll find out. MR. MAGOWAN-Is there anything on record that says that it hasn't been quiet, or, I mean, do we have any registered complaints? MR. LAPPER-Until a few weeks ago, absolutely, there were no complaints. MR. MAGOWAN-Because the closest one that is really to the kennel would be Hunterbrook, which, you know, I work for Schermerhorn and I have asked, you know, the office if there was any complaints that we've had of any noise, and I work over there. You never hear anything. MR. LAPPER-That's exactly my point. MR. HUNSINGER-I had not heard of the Friends of Phoebe until I started reviewing this application material. So how does that work? Like how long would you board a dog before you send it out for someone to hold it until it's found a permanent home? MRS. POLUNCI-Friends of Phoebe is a lot of abused, abandoned animals that have been neglected, starved. So we bring them in, get them medical attention, or someone that has passed away. If the dog needs to have training, it stays with us and we take care of it. We get weight on it and get it so it can be adopted out. If it's a dog that could go to somebody that said I would love to have that dog in my home until you find it a forever home, they take it. They take care of the dog, and then we advertise the dog and people go and look at it and we find it a forever home. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, because I am familiar with some other programs where people take dogs temporarily, but I wasn't sure how long. So it really varies by the animal how long it would be at your facility. MRS. POLUNCI-Correct. Yes. I do have a few that probably will never leave the facility, but most of them, some of them are there for one day, some of them maybe a week, and then we find them foster homes. MR. DEEB-When you get dogs from Friends of Phoebe into your facility, is that number included in the total 30? MRS. POLUNCI-Yes, it is. MR. DEEB-So if you have 30 dogs, you can take no more Friends of Phoebe dogs. MRS. POLUNCI-Correct. Yes. I'll find it a foster home right away. MR. DEEB-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-So why do you need to increase the number to 40? MRS. POLUNCI-The number of dogs, for the business? MR. TRAVER-If it's so easy, if you can find a foster home right away, and you're representing that there's no noise problem, you know, if it works don't fix it. Why not just keep things the way they are? MRS. POLUNCI-I had a demand for boarding customers that like to board with me and I would like to expand my business a little. MR. TRAVER-I can understand that certainly. MRS. POLUNCI-That's why I would like to raise it up 10 more dogs. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I can understand that. I think that the issue is, as you represent, that you've been successful operating under these restrictive conditions in this residential area, and improving and expanded your business, which is great, but I think that it's more appropriate to, it seems to me that it makes more sense, there's plenty of property available, plenty of places that 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) you can expand to that you would not run into the issues that you're running into in this neighborhood. So why not do that? MRS. POLUNCI-Because this is a business that I cannot, one person I cannot be in two places, and I'm taking care of people's babies and I'm going to make sure they're taken care of, and I want to be there for them, and I can't be in two different places at once. MR. TRAVER-Okay, but I mean if you're expanding your business, I mean, you can't, obviously you're a management person. You can clearly get staffing and you can provide that oversight and some comfort level, and think about it this way. You, in an expanded facility, beyond the 40 that you're trying to get through this evening, you can provide assistance to many, many more animals and perhaps animals of other types with more accommodating situations. You can provide employment opportunities, other people in the community. You can help the community at large in a more effective way if you have this concept, it's been very successful in its current format. Why not take that and instead of trying to bottleneck something into this neighborhood, take the leap and expand it to a bigger facility. There's plenty of places available, and then you can really do something significant. MR. LAPPER-1 guess one of the answers is that we have a 20 acre parcel here. This is, you know, yes, there's residents around, but it's also convenient for people that live here that have dogs that want to board, like me, but a 20 acre parcel is pretty nice in an RR zone, and in Queensbury it's pretty restrictive where you can have a kennel. It's not that easy to find a spot. So, I mean, we want to get done with hits process and have, you know, most of you comfortable that this has been well run. It'll be well run. Because it's indoors, a few more dogs isn't going to make a difference. We certainly understand your position, Steve. MR. TRAVER-Sure, thank you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Two questions. When you were here before, I asked for a summary of complaints, and actually there was only one complaint, and it was the same person that complained when this started. So that didn't seem to be a big issue, but I want to follow up. You said you need to expand, you need more room for more dogs. What happens if somebody brings a dog and there's no room for them? Where do you take them? MRS. POLUNCI-Are you talking about reservation dogs? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'm talking about the dogs that Jim brings in. MRS. POLUNCI-That Jim brings in? Then we call somebody and they go into their home, or they stay at the Glens Falls Animal Hospital. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. That's what I thought. MR. FORD-The previous approval there was a stipulation agreed to that there would be a certification by the Pet Care Services Association. Was that acquired? MR. LAPPER-So what happened there was that the kennel was designed in accordance with that organization's regulations or standards, but that organization ceased operating, and the way that that approval read, it said or similar organization, and so Kim has now been certified by a higher level organization to accomplish that. So that has been taken care of. MR. FORD-Which organization is that? JIM FITZGERALD MR. FITZGERALD-National Animal Control and Care Association. She's also a trained with New Jersey Docs. She's a trained peace officer for Warren County New York State. She's putting in over 147 hours nights and weekends for the past four weeks for her training. MR. FORD-So that assets of that Pet Care Association, that was acquired by the outstanding pet care learning centers. MR. LAPPER-Separate organizations. MR. FORD-Their assets were acquired through that bankruptcy. Could we get an analysis of what personal pets you have on site? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) MR. LAPPER-Well, Kim and John, you don't get into this business without being dog lovers. So they have some 14 to 17 dogs of their own, which have nothing to do with this business. Because that's who they are. They've always had that. MR. FORD-Any other animals? MR. LAPPER-And a pot belly pig. They have 14 dogs and a pot belly pig now. MRS. POLUNCI-Rabbits. MR. FORD-How many rabbits, as of last count? MRS. POLUNCI-Three. MR. FORD-Three? MRS. POLUNCI-Yes. MR. LAPPER-But not at this facility. MRS. POLUNCI-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board? MR. FERONE-I'm just trying to wrap my head around the arithmetic. So there's the boarding, and then there's the rescue. Okay, and then there's a charitable thing there. MR. LAPPER-That's the rescue. MR. FERONE-That's the rescue. Is it 30? MR. LAPPER-Thirty is the total number boarded on site. MR. FERONE-And then we're talking about SPCA. MR. LAPPER-Well, we're asking to change the Special Use Permit to allow a separate building that can have up to 15 dogs for SPCA. MR. FERONE-Over and above/ MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. FORD-What's the approximate size of that pig? MRS. POLUNCI-Excuse me? MR. FORD-What's the approximate size of that pig? That's a good sized animal. MRS. POLUNCI-It's about 200 pounds. MR. FORD-Two hundred? MR. TRAVER-Two hundred pounds? MRS. POLUNCI-Yes. Did you want to take him home? MR. DEEB-Kim, how many of your personal dogs are on the property? MRS. POLUNCI-At 21 Blind Rock Road? MR. DEEB-Yes. MRS. POLUNCI-Some of them go to work with me during the day, but they don't reside there. MR. DEEB-So, but they're on the property at certain times? MRS. POLUNCI-Yes, they're allowed to be. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) MR. DEEB-Yes, I'm not questioning that. I'm just saying do you know how many you, and of course they're allowed to run. MRS. POLUNCI-Yes. MR. LAPPER-That was specifically in the approval last time that her pets were separate. MR. DEEB-Yes, okay, and so you bring a few with you when you go to work. MRS. POLUNCI-Not every day, but occasionally. Yes. MR. DEEB-I did meet one of them. The big one. MRS. POLUNCI-That's not mine. That would be his. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? Do we have the signup list, Laura? MRS. MOORE-1 do. MR. HUNSINGER-We also have received copies of all of the, I think it's all of the written letters that have been submitted, including the form letters with the names of all the signatures. MRS. MOORE-1 have 27 people that wish to speak, according to the list. There's also some of them that have submitted letters that are part of the packets that you have received, being the Planning Board members. So if those members would like to read their letter into the record, you can take that out of the mix that I generally read them into the record. There's obviously more than what I typically read into the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Well, that's why you gave us copies of them. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, if there's no other questions or comments from the members of the Board, we will open up the public hearing. As I mentioned earlier in the back of the room there's a handout for public hearing information. The purpose of a public hearing is for members of the public to provide comment to the Planning Board. I would ask anyone who wishes to address the Board, please state your name for the record and speak clearly into the microphone. The meeting is taped. The tape is available on the Town's website. The tape is also used to transcribe the minutes. I would ask that you direct any questions or comments to the Board. If you have specific questions, it would be up to the applicant, then, to address those questions when they come back to the table. Since there are so many people who wish to comment, I would ask that you keep your comments to new information and keep your comments within three minutes. There is a timer that will go off. So when you hear the timer, it will be time to wrap up your comments and allow the next person the opportunity to speak. Do you have the list, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes. Do you want me to just read them off? MR. HUNSINGER-You can read them off, sure. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I have, the first individual is Kathleen Kelly. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KATHLEEN KELLY MS. KELLY-Good evening. My name is Kathleen Kelly. I am a resident of Glens Falls, New York, and I am speaking on behalf of Kim and Friends of Phoebe. I have been going there since 2011. 1 volunteer my time pretty regularly whenever I can, both my time and monetary donations if I can, donate dog food, dog beds. They recently had a fundraiser and I donated items to sell, and basically, I'm not very good at public speaking, so forgive me. This is just something I'm very passionate about. These dogs are amazing. I go in and I visit with them personally one on one with each dog. I take pictures of them and post on my social media page. I've found probably a good dozen homes for some of these animals based on some of the pictures that I have posted, and as well as just me speaking on behalf of this organization. It is very clean. These dogs are well treated. They come from horrible situations, some of 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) them. I've personally seen some that were too scared to get out of the cage, and now are able to come out, be comfortable, be good with other dogs, be friendly with kids, be friendly with myself. I've taken them off site to play with my dog. I've taken pictures of them playing with other dogs which, unbeknownst to me, I wasn't supposed to, but they were friendly dogs. They were best friends. I posted pictures. Because of that picture, one was adopted, has found a forever home, and is in a loving, caring environment with another dog, and basically I'm just here to support a great cause, hoping that they can expand this and/or at least just keep what they have. It's unfortunate that some of my pictures, I believe, have been used in a negative manner and not with the intent with which I posted them, but I just, you know, it's a great cause. I love the dogs. I volunteer my time, and if I could give more I would, and if I could create a bigger environment in a great condition I would. That's all I have to say. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me. Could I ask just a quick question? MS. KELLY-Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-It does sound like you're very devoted to this program, the way you've described it it's extremely valuable. I'm just wondering, would the value of the program be diminished if it were in a different location, or is it only, do you feel the way you do about the program because of where it's located, or if it were in another location could it still provide the service that you're describing? MS. KELLY-1 don't know if I can completely answer that question. I can only know that I bring my dogs there and they know it. You drive up that road and they just know where it is and they're excited and they're happy, and it's conveniently located for myself, and I have a ton of friends that live in that area, that it's less than a mile away from where they live. I do live a little bit farther away from that, but it's convenient for me. It's right by my work at times. So, it's easy access for me if I work up on Aviation, or, I mean, not Aviation Road, Route 9 by the Stewarts in the drive in. I can just go right down Blind Rock Road and there they are. So for me it would be extremely convenient to have it there, and again, my dogs are comfortable there. They know what it is. They know when they're going there and they're excited. When they turn that corner, or actually by ACC, they're out the window and whining and ready to go and excited. So, thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You can call a couple at a time, Laura. MRS. MOORE-Okay. So I have next is Dorothy Sehlmeyer, Nancy Murtha, and Bob Murtha. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. DOROTHY SEHLMEYER MRS. SEHLMEYER-Good evening. My name is Dorothy Sehlmeyer and I live at 71 Cedar Court. The kennel is in my backyard, not across town, and I would like to express my concern about the relationship between Queensbury Animal Control Officer Jim Fitzgerald and Kim Polunci, the owner of Tails Wag Inn. Since the kennel's inception I have heard dogs barking periodically from the site and until last fall never called until I felt someone in Town Hall should know about it. It was a late fall afternoon, the house windows shut, and I was reading a book when the sound of barking dogs distracted me enough to lay my book down and investigate. No neighbor dogs were in the street and I opened my backdoor onto my deck and determined the barking was coming from directly due west of me, which is where the kennel is. When I called the Queensbury ACO phone number, I was told that Jim was away until the next Monday and would call when he returned, which he did. He was very nice, but tried to talk me out of where I heard the barking coming from and said I would have to sign a complaint and go to court. I didn't want to make trouble, just wanted to get it on the record that barking could be heard enough to be a distraction since conditions of their Special Use Permit were supposed to include no outside kennel activity and inspections of the kennel. I did not know at the time he had a direct conflict of interest. It is my understanding that there's a very close relationship between Jim and Kim. She has been the official ACO back up for Jim, so it would have been her job to respond to my complaint when he was away. It is also my understanding that Kim is the VP of the Warren County SPCA where Jim is President, and Jim turns over SPCA dogs to Kim to rehab and sell through her business. Kim is now proposing a new building at Tails Wag Inn to be leased by this SPCA, and Jim is actively campaigning with Queensbury Planning Staff of this project. At the April 21, 2015 Planning Board meeting, Jim declared that there had been no complaints against Tails Wag. I was astounded. It seems Jim only counts signed complaints by residents willing to go to court, not my call or emails such as from Nancy Murtha and Diana Cote, or letters such as from the Williams family read as correspondence the following night at a 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, April 21St, 2015. 1 continue to hear the dogs barking at intervals and I am concerned about the proposed increase dog capacity and both ACO's having a clear conflict of interest. I question how any noise or problems with loose dogs, which have occurred in the past, could possibly be fairly resolved, thereby destroying my quiet and peaceful neighborhood. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Nancy and Bob. NANCY MURTHA MRS. MURTHA-May I request that I be left toward the end? I have, my speech kind of summarizes some things. Is that all right? MRS. MOORE-You're signed up. MRS. MURTHA-Well, we didn't realize that it was going to be taken in order. We thought maybe we'd just be able to stand up when we were ready. So, is there a problem? MR. HUNSINGER-You can wait until the end, ma'am. MRS. MURTHA-All right. Not the very end, just toward the end. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Okay. BOB MURTHA MR. MURTHA-Good evening. My name's Bob Murtha. I live at 28 Fitzgerald Road. I know the Polunci's do a great job of taking care of the animals, but we've heard the dogs barking from almost Day One. Please try and make them abide by the original agreement and deny the new expansion and try and keep the dogs inside. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Who's next, Laura? MRS. MOORE-1 have Amy and Anthony Mignot, Sue Baden, and Sara Merry. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MRS. MIGNOT-My name is Amy Mignot and we bring our dog to Kim's for daycare. We started going there probably about a year ago. We just have a very nervous dog, and she's done great there with our dog. I can honestly say that she's very strict about the hours that she takes the dogs and the hours that we pick up. We were out of town for a basketball game and actually had to spend the night because the game was until seven and we were still a couple of hours away from home and pick up is very strictly enforced. So she, what we've seen is that she's abided by, at least we know for sure, the pickup and drop off times. I will agree with the last speaker that our dog also does know immediately when we hit ACC. His tail is wagging and he's excited until we get there, and he can't wait to get there. I've been there many times. Sometimes I drive in just to pick up my bill throughout different parts of the day, and I've never really heard a lot of ruckus. I was there this morning and it was perfectly quiet. So I'm not saying that dogs don't make noise, because that's inevitable at some points they make noise, but if you live in Glens Falls, I hear more dogs barking than I've ever probably heard there on our street. So I guess I'm just saying that we've had great success with her, and our dog loves to be there and I think she does a great job, and. ANTHONY MIGNOT MR. MIGNOT-We wouldn't go anywhere else. MRS. MIGNOT-Yes, we really wouldn't. So when we found her, we found a home, and, yes, it's been great for our family, and the grounds that she's on, it's very nice. It seems secluded. If you're in there you kind of go into, you know, when you're in that driveway and you go in, you go in quite a distance, you know, from the road. So I actually didn't even, you can't see a home anywhere near the building. So I didn't even really know that there were residents around. I mean, I know in the far distance there are, but you can't even see residents in that area. Again, it's been very quiet most of the times that I've been in, and I've been there multiple times throughout the day. So I don't just come at one time. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Did you have anything to say, sir? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) MR. MIGNOT-My name is Anthony Mignot. I live in Glens Falls. I just think it's a great facility. They do wonderful work with not only my dog but all the other dogs that are there. I feel good that at least twice a week there's a place where my dog can go and not be in the house all day log and is well taken care of, and I just think it's an awesome thing, and I hope that you guys would approve their expansion. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. MIGNOT-1 just wanted to clarify that there's a play yard indoors, and we need socialization for our dogs, and that's what he means by that, because our dog needs to be with other dogs because we only have one, and every time that we're there, they're in the indoor play yard inside the facility. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-1 have Sue Badera. SUE BADERA MS. BADERA-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MS. BADERA-My name is Sue Badera. My dog has gone to Tails Wag for the past four years. He currently goes every day because I've changed jobs and I can't be home during the day, and I know he gets excellent care there. I go in to pick him up and I don't hear a lot of barking. I'm wondering if anybody has ever measured the decibels of sounds coming out of the building. When I come back to pick him up I have to come down Blind Rock Road. I roll my window down. I turn my radio off. I do not hear any barking from the road. He's very well cared for. I applaud her for her passion for taking care of homeless animals. My dog is a rescue animal, and I actually adopted him from the SPCA. So I really applaud what she's trying to do. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Ma'am, could I ask just a quick question? Do you live in the neighborhood immediately around Tails Wag Inn? MS. BADERA-No, I do not. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Who was next, Laura? MRS. MOORE-1 have Sara Merry. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. SARA MERRY MS. MERRY-Good evening. My name is Sarah Merry. I live on Blackberry Lane which is in the vicinity of the Tails Wag Inn. I'm a recent property owner. My fiance and I just bought the property about two and a half, three months ago. I was not aware that the Tails Wag Inn was located where it was when we bought the property, which is not a problem, but I would like to state that since we've moved in, we do hear dogs barking. It is somewhat disruptive. I'm not here to question Ms. Polunci's love or passion for what she does or for animals. I'm a big animal lover, as is my fiance, but it's concerning to us, as new property owners, that if this operation is allowed to expand our future property value may go down because of the noise. So I just wanted to state that it is loud when the dogs are let out. Just from my recollection it appears that they must be let out early afternoon and early evening because we can hear them barking inside our house and outside our house. So I just wanted to address the Board with my concerns as a property owner, and, again, I'm on Blackberry Lane. So I'm a little bit removed from where her location is. That's all I have. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I have Diana Cote and Leo Cote. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) DIANA COTE MRS. COTE-1 think I have frequent flyer miles from four years ago, and we're on the same plane. First of all, I have to say that we have no problem with the applicant who runs a top notch kennel. This is not a personal. However, four years ago we were told that if things didn't work out with the temporary Special Use Permit for this applicant you would pull their permit. Well, I'm here to tell you it's not working out. We were also advised to hold all complaints until the temporary Special Use Permit came due in October. This early request from the applicant took us all by surprise. We had no idea until one of the neighbors was looking at the Town Planning Board's agenda and found it on the agenda. The applicant currently has six commercial ventures residing at 21 Blind Rock Road. Her request for a Special Use Permit four years ago was for one venture, that of a kennel for daycare services and temporary boarding. That was it. We were against it then, but we agreed to a temporary trial of four years to see if it would work out. It has not. The following testimony is taken directly from the websites for Tails Wag Inn and the applicant's ancillary commercial businesses at 21 Blind Rock Road. You will see that they have not complied with the conditions of the temporary Special Use Permit that the Planning Board imposed upon them four years ago, and they blatantly throw it in your face and ours as well. Regarding dogs outside the building, according to the mandate from the Planning Board four years ago, the criteria that was set up by the Town of Queensbury Planning Board and approved by the applicants and neighbors was that no animal would be allowed outside the walls of the totally enclosed kennel. This is the first point I bring up to show that they're doing as they please at 21 Blind Rock Road, regardless of the mandates and criteria that your Board prescribed for them. From the main Tails Wag Inn website their testimony stated by one client regarding Tails Wag Inn, quote, play time and walks very clean. From the main Tails Wag Inn website, June newsletter with dogs romping in a kiddie pool outside the kennel building, quote, Jacque is a fun loving social French bulldog who is eight years old. It's possible he enjoys the water a little too much. From TLC Dog Spa and Groom on October 5, 2014, quote, come to Tails Wag Inn in Queensbury Sunday from 12 to 2 for foster fun day and help exercise our fosters. Our foster dogs and cats love nothing more than meeting new people and getting in a good walk. On the PetFinder website, pictures of dogs being taken outside, some on leashes. On Friends of Phoebe website, pictures of the dogs being taken outside of the building. From the main Tails Wag Inn website, June newsletter, pictures of, quote, foster of the month being taken outside of the building. Dogs are outside this building all the time. They get walked outside the building all the time. We hear barking day and night up there. Regarding animals to be dropped off during specific hours, according to the mandate from the Planning Board four years ago, quote, the arrival or departure of animals is not permitted on a 24 hour basis and shall be permitted only between the hours of seven and nine a.m. and five to seven p.m. Monday through Friday. From the main Tails Wag Inn website, drop off and pick up times seven to nine thirty a.m. and four to six. Saturday and Sunday, eight to ten and three to five. These hours have all been changed and now they request more hours for drop off and pick up. That means more traffic, more dogs, more barking as they enter and exit the kennel. From the main Tails Wag Inn website testimonials, quote, pick up and drop off times are very flexible. From the main Tails Wag Inn website newsletters, quote, foster fun days Sunday twelve to two. From the main Tails Wag Inn website newsletter, quote, obedience training Monday, classes Monday six p.m. From Friends of Phoebe website, quote, stop by the facility from twelve to two and hang out with one or many foster dogs. From the main Tails Wag Inn website, quote, stop in Saturday, we'll be hanging out from ten to two. From TLC Dog Spa and Groom, October 5, 2014, quote, come to Tails Wag Inn in Queensbury from twelve to two for foster fun days and help exercise our fosters. Regarding the number of animals allowed, according to the mandate from the Planning Board four years ago, the criteria was set up by the Town of Queensbury Planning Board and approved by the applicants and neighbors that there were to be no more than 30 dogs total would be allowed at the 21 Blind Rock Road address at any one time. Over and over again they disregard this in their website postings and advertisings. Although rescuing dogs is admirable and none of us are complaining about this or questioning that. The application for a Special Use Permit was based on a daycare boarding kennel, not a rescue kennel. This and the fact that she has over a dozen dogs of her own, adds considerably to the number of dogs that are housed at 29 Blind Rock Road, whether they're housed in the kennel or whether they're, she's taking them to work. Friends of Phoebe website, quote, at any given time we can accommodate one to two dozen animals, and their needs are extensive. From the main Tails Wag Inn website, quote, Tails Wag Inn supports and works alongside Friends of Phoebe animal rescue to find homes for the local homeless animals. Regarding the mandate from the Planning Board four years ago that the applicant affiliate the kennel with Pet Care Services, the applicant requests the removal of the requirement that Tails Wag Inn be affiliated with the Pet Care Services stating, quote, the organization no longer exists and there are no other comparable associations. This is totally and completely untrue. According to the outstanding pet care learning center, and the Pet Care Service Association, quote, in May 2012, Outstanding Pet Care purchased the Pet Care Services Association assets from a Colorado bankruptcy court. We did this because Superior Pet Care is a hallmark of quality for pet care services, and 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) education is essential. Outstanding Pet Care Learning Center shares the same core values as the Pet Care Services Association formerly called the American Boarding Kennel Association. We are fully committed to providing resources specifically designed for the pet care industry while upholding the highest standards. The ultimate goal is to provide the best possible pet care. It's obvious that the applicants never even made an attempt to belong to an association, that this was a very important piece of the last approval process. It shows their lack of compliance in yet another area. Regarding the requests for SPCA and further additions, housing SPCA in this area is totally inappropriate. Most of the animals that are brought into a facility like SPCA have an unknown history. SPCA is not a boarding kennel where you bring your little dog to play or stay for a short period of time with the understanding that the owner will return to claim the animal. This is a place where feral cats and wild transient dogs are taken. The applicants are trying to make us believe that they are one in the same. They are not. Housing Friends of Phoebe Animal Rescue also falls under the same category. They, too, are bringing strays into our residential area. Strays without a history. According to their website in discussing the animals that the keep, they state, quote, we retrieve stray, abandoned, neglected and oftentimes abused animals for unsavory home environments, local medical facilities, kill shelters and surrendering owners, in an effort to eventually find permanent loving homes for them, regardless of how long it takes, sometimes weeks, sometimes years. From the main Tails Wag Inn website, quote, Tails Wag Inn supports and works alongside Friends of Phoebe Animal Rescue to find homes for local homeless animals. Right in your Staff Notes tonight under business operations the applicant states that the SPCA will provide for, quote, ceased animals including sick animals. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, ma'am, your time is up. MRS. COTE-Can I finish? I have one paragraph. MR. HUNSINGER-We also have an extensive written letter from both you and your husband. MRS. COTE-May I just finish my paragraph? MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, your time's up. Who's next, Laura? MRS. MOORE-I have Leo Cote. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn't hear the bell go off. MRS. MOORE-It went off. MRS. COTE-These are all from their websites. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. LEO COTE MR. COTE-Good evening. My name is Leo Cote. I live at 63 Cedar Court. Finishing my wife's statement and I have my own. Gentlemen, this is totally out of control. The applicant wants more and more and won't stop until she gets it. The fact that she owns her property does not give her the right to invade the rights of scores of other Town of Queensbury residents. The fact that it is the responsibility of this Board to protect the majority from this intrusion, even if the property is zoned for a kennel. This is not working out, gentlemen. We respectfully request that the permit be revoked and further Special Use Permits in any form be denied. Please show the majority of the constituents that there is fair government in Queensbury. Please show us that one person's right won't override the majority's rights just because of who she is. My statement. I hope you had a chance to review the letter that I sent to you earlier last week. I'm not going to re-hash the whole thing, but I would like to emphasize and summarize the main points I made. The central issue here is property rights. I believe that granting the Special Use Permit four years ago was a mistake. The owners wanted to start a kennel at 21 Blind Rock Road, primarily because the property was already owned by the family. It was a matter of convenience for them to own the business there. There would have been no need for variances or Special Use Permits and there would have been no public outcry if they had wanted to run the business as an industrial park or some other appropriate zone. What does the property rights balance sheet look like today? Both the applicant and the neighbors have property rights to develop their own property. That's their right. The neighbor's property rights to quality of life on property they own. I would say that neither the applicant's nor the neighbor's rights supersede the other. They all have the same quality of property rights. They are one entity with property rights. There are over 100 entities each with property rights from the neighbors. Obviously the same issues concern the neighbors today in 2015 as they did in 2011, or else there would not be this continued outpouring of opposition to the Special Use Permit. They 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) required a Special Use Permit to use their land. The neighbors automatically had approved use of their land. Owning a residence is an approved use. They had to go for a Special Use. Residences are what this zone was designed for. It's Rural Residential for a reason. Finally, the kennel came into existence in 2011. Our neighbors were here first. I'm not saying that the applicant and her family are not longstanding inhabitants in the neighborhood. They are, but Tails Wag Inn is not. The neighbors built, sought and moved there primarily because there was no Tails Wag Inn type activity there. The neighbors continue to demand that right. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, sir. Who's next, Laura? MRS. MOORE-I have Evelyn Kelsey. EVELYN KELSEY MRS. KELSEY-Evelyn Kelsey at 81 Cedar Court. I did write a letter in, but I'm going to summarize what I had written with a few other things here. So I'm paraphrasing what I wrote. I applaud the Polunci's for their efforts in providing the services they offer, especially the adoption and fostering of neglected and abandoned dogs. What I have an issue with is that it is in a residential area and that the original conditions that were agreed upon have also been abandoned. I will touch on only three of these violations. First there's been regular outside activity at Tails Wag Inn. All outside activity was prohibited in the 2009 agreement. Proof of this violation is found on their ad for Friends of Phoebe animal rescue website for Foster Fun Days help outside on Sundays from noon to two. People are encouraged to come to help exercise, walk, run, play fetch, play with the dogs. The ad also shows pictures of those activities. There are also dogs that are up for adoption shown in outside runs on their property. Second, there are now a number of businesses at this location, including boarding, daycare, training, grooming, fostering of dogs and adoption services. Now there is another business that they would like added to the mix. That is the SPCA housing and care of even more severely neglected, abandoned or lost dogs. On their website in January they state they have 33 dogs for adoption. Even if some of them were fostered outside the property, the number of dogs on the property for other services most certainly would exceed 30 dogs agreed upon in 2009. In February their posting stated that they were at maximum capacity for dogs up for adoption and appealed for more foster homes. Beyond that, there are other dogs on the property that are exempt from the 30 dog limit. At the last meeting in April that we had with them, personally, there were 17 dogs that the Polunci's had. That number more than doubled what they had in 2009. Third, the Polunci's also agreed to very limited hours for traffic coming and going into their business. Those hours were for boarding. With their growth from daycare boarding facilities, there's also grooming, fostering, training and adoption facility, traffic is no longer coming in and out at just those designated times. Their need to accommodate more animals is not going to stop with the current proposal. They need to find a non-residential area for their business. They told us there'll be no outside activity. We can hear them. I heard them several times this weekend. They continue to tell you there will be no outside activity. They said that in 2009, and there is significant outside activity now. How can we expect this expansion to be any different? They told us that the limit would be 30 dogs. They told us there'd be very limited hours of traffic to and from their business. They are not able to keep these promises either. Please do not approve this Site Plan and Special Use Permit. They just do not belong in the residential areas. With these violations of the current permit, their operation should be in jeopardy, not rewarded with an expansion. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Sarah Hussa. SARAH HUSSA MRS. HUSSA-Hi. I'm Sarah Hussa. I live at 16 Cedar Court. I wrote a letter to the paper. The Polunci's are to be commended for their dedication to animals and it's a shame there's such polarization, but it's not the right place. It probably wasn't the right place for the first expansion, and it's certainly not for further expansion. Mrs. Polunci stated at one point we're in the middle of no place, and when the family bought that land, that was the middle of no place. They went over to Glen Lake off the back road. It was a different day and time. Now there's an extensive residential community, ever growing, in that area, and you talk about 20 acres, but given the acoustics of what the sound will be, you have a barrier of the ridge of the hill that goes over to Glen Lake behind them, acting like an amphitheater, and then you have a pond in front of it, and sound carries over water. So that where the dogs are the sound is all directed towards what is now residential. This polarization is unfortunate, but it's the Planning Board's responsibility to protect residents, and this expansion is not in the best interest of many, many residents in that area. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me, ma'am, could I ask you a question? You mention in your statement about the topography and the sound and so on. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) MRS. HUSSA-Right. MR. TRAVER-Is it your statement that you're hearing barking and other noise? MRS. HUSSA-1 don't live as close as many of the neighbors do. So I don't hear it as much. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. HUSSA-When I walk around there, yes, I hear it, and I guess the other thing I would say is, it makes it very difficult, one of the other very early speakers said something about making a complaint. The people who live there have 17 pets. So if you make a complaint, how, you can't prove it's a dog that's there for a kennel. MR. TRAVER-No, I understand. I appreciate what you're saying. My question was just about topography. MRS. HUSSA-Right. No, no, I don't hear it as much because I'm a little further, but I have heard it, and if I'm down in that section I hear it. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Charles Abbate. CHARLES ABBATE MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, thank you so much for allocating time. My name is Charles Abbate. My wife and I are here to present a case, and we are residents of Queensbury. This evening I appear before you vigorously to support Ms. Kim Polunci as well as the Tails Wag Inn. My wife and I have known Ms. Polunci for approximately five years and have utilized her services at Tails Wag Inn during that period of time. We have found Ms. Polunci to be an extraordinary person, highly devoted to the care and welfare of all animals. It should be noted that the exterior of Tails Wag Inn as well as the interior is well maintained, and without exception over the last five years, when approaching Tails Wag Inn, the environment is tranquil. My wife and I are firm in our belief that any additional building on the premises will adhere to the same outstanding guidelines currently in use by Ms. Polunci. Additionally, a new facility will, one, better serve the growing demands to provide shelter and care to the abandoned, abused and neglected animals in Queensbury, two, save the County money by euthanizing fewer animals, adopting out more healthy animals, three, assist in caring for animals involving cruelty and hoarding cases, four, attract more residents to the facility resulting in more adoptions, five, improve the shelter's ability to control disease outbreak, resulting in euthanizing fewer animals, and finally keeping residents from seeking newer, more attractive animal shelters in other jurisdictions. Gentlemen, thank you very much. MR. TRAVER-Sir, could I ask you a couple of quick questions. One is, are you a consumer of their services? MR. ABBATE-Yes, I am, five years. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Do you live in the neighborhood? MR. ABBATE-No, I do not. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. That's all. MR. ABBATE-I'm not sure I know the relevance of that question. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Yes. What is the neighborhood defined? What do you mean by neighborhood? Pardon my interjection, because he may not understand what your comment is. MR. ABBATE-Yes, I don't follow you. AUDIENCE MEMBER-1 think he said he was a Queensbury resident. I heard him say he was a Queensbury resident. MR. HUNSINGER-Sir, you'll get your chance. MR. ABBATE-So what is the relevance of your question, Mr. Traver? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) MR. TRAVER-1 just wondered if you were, you know, the frequency of time that you spend in the immediate area of the kennel. I'm trying to get a sense of any sound or whatever from the kennel. You said it seemed very tranquil. MR. ABBATE-That's correct. MR. TRAVER-But I'm understanding that you're only there as you deliver and pick up your animal. Is that correct? MR. ABBATE-No, it's not correct. There are many times I stay there. I might have a cigar or two. MR. TRAVER-Okay. That does answer my question. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-The next person is Richard Carlson. RICHARD CARLSON MR. CARLSON-If I go over a minute or two, let me know because I've got a lot to say on her behalf. Hi, guys. I apologize for my outburst earlier. I didn't know he was talking. I'm a resident of Queensbury, 164 Pitcher Road. I like the Town. I like the way you run the show here, but I find it ironic. MR. DEEB-Sir, can you give us your name, first. MR. CARLSON-My name is Richard Carlson, and first of all I want to add I find it ironic that I came in here and listened to all the presentations, New York supposedly being a green state and a no kill state, which is why we get all these animals from the south, that you approve plans that kill trees and foliage, but you're disapproving a lady who's humanitarian purposes just so pure. I'm here. I've never been to a council meeting ever before, but when I heard one was being held on her and for her behalf tonight, I made sure I came here. In answer to you, I've been to the facility, Tails Wag Inn. It is fenced. The animals are controlled, whether they're inside or out. The Staff is very professional. I have never seen any pigs. I've seen dogs and I've seen cats. I've always been a dog owner and I'd rather have a dog than many people back here. To some of you that don't want Tails Wag Inn, to all of you that don't want Tails Wag Inn, maybe we'll give you some young kids next door to you with a 500 watt amp playing at 11 o'clock at night and see if you like that over a dog barking. I've never seen a pig, but cats and dogs. I've been up there. I have yet to see a house. You look all around and I don't see any houses. So I don't know if these people are seeing Elvis or something. Taking a trip on a UFO, but I mean, you know, and even when it is, it's not that loud. She does do training. I mean, she is a very roundabout person. She does training. She does animal care. She does boarding, and like Obama doesn't tell you the truth. I'm going to tell you a secret you don't know. SPCA will not take older animals. They will only accept puppies. So if you're sick, indigent, or can't afford them anymore, a lot of people dump them on the street. Kim her wants to try to at least alleviate that, and to add to that, I want you to look at the reviews on SPCA. They're terrible. Nobody wants, I got one dog from there. It was dead in less than two years, from a concealed heart problem, and they knew about it because they revoked the medical thing on it when I had it, and as far as the vet's, it's been brought to my attention that after a certain amount of time, they kill them. They kill them, whether they're good temperamental things or nasty young, old, whatever, they kill them. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, sir. MRS. MOORE-Okay. The next one is Broderick, and I apologize I didn't catch the name. It looks like it starts with L. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. ED BRODERICK MR. BRODERICK-Hi. My name is Ed Broderick, and I'm at 73 Cedar Court, and I was here four years ago, and my opinion of the situation hasn't changed. I have no problem with what this couple is doing. I'm sure they do a fantastic job as has been attested by many people here tonight. That's not my problem. We had an agreement four years ago, and it wasn't what we wanted, but we thought we could work it out, but it appears it's not working, and I think what I feel most strongly about is I know there's compassion for animals and all of that, but it's a business, and it's a business that wants to expand. It's a commercial business. That's what it is, and I just feel strongly that it's in the wrong neighborhood. I thought that way four years ago, and I feel very strongly about it now, and what I ask this Board to consider, primarily, is our 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) quality of life, and that's what we're trying to maintain here and that's what we're very concerned about. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. CHERYL WOLFE MS. WOLFE-I'm Cheryl Wolfe. I live at 49 Cedar Court, and I just wanted to say that I do hear the dogs barking quite frequently, and actually this Sunday afternoon I was working in my yard and dogs were barking coming in that direction. That's all. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MRS. MOORE-The next one is Rita Discenza. RITA DISCENZA MRS. DISCENZA-Hi. Good evening. My name is Rita Discenza. I live at 26 Cedar Court, and I guess I'm just hear to say I support everything else that's been said in our neighborhood. We do enjoy quiet quality of life. That's why we moved there. Most of us are senior citizens, and I would hope that this Board will not approve this. I understand that these things are important. I just don't think it belongs in our backyard, or in any residential section. It just needs to be some place further out. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-The next person is Joanne Carruthers. She did mention that she'd be stepping out. So she did want to express that she was in support of Kim's project. The next one is Rob Simon. ROB SIMON MR. SIMON-Rob Simon. I'm a customer of Tails Wag Inn. As to the noise, it's true. The biggest moments when you hear noise there is when you bring a dog into the facility, but when the dogs are closed, I mean, if you're inside the building it's really loud, but outside the building you hear a muffled noise. I can't believe that muffled noise carries that far. I think the Tails Wag Inn provides a vital service to your community. It's certainly one of the best run facilities we've ever dealt with, and I also noted that your property is zoned for a kennel. So it's a permitted use in the area. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. RENE DAVIS MS. DAVIS-Rene Davis. I'm a resident of Glens Falls but I take my pet to the Tails Wag Inn for daycare. They do a great job there. My dog is more social, and I have taken Kim's classes for her on occasion. I have one right now, as a matter of fact. As the gentleman said before, yes, we do pick up an animal. There is a little bit of a barking frenzy, but especially, like you say, when they're inside. I've been outside the facility before when other people have picked up their animals, and have not noticed a huge amount of noise coming, and I've been right there outside. You hear some barking, but I can't imagine it being so offensive that people a mile and a half down the road would find that terrible, terribly offensive to them. That's all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Frank Hardick. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. FRANK HARDICK MR. HARDICK-Good evening. My name is Frank C. Hardick and I'm a professional engineer. I'm retired, and I have visited the site and looked at their drawings. Their office includes housing cats. Now Mr. Lapper mentioned they have two or three cats there. I heard from the Zoning Board meeting he said the same amount of cats were there. I was in what they call the cat house or the office, and I counted 23 cats. I don't know. He must have been there at the wrong time. Now, there are no details on their septic system like perc tests when kennel spills are flushed down the toilet and sterilization chemicals that they're using, the dosage and when they do flushing on the pens for the dogs and other areas, the volume per day from the cat 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) waste or the dog waste that was not mentioned. Their system eventually seeps into the groundwater to two ponds and eventually to Halfway Brook, less than two miles away downstream. Halfway Brook is a trout stream. Now I received a call from DEC this morning because I had asked what the status is on this sort of a situation, and he assured me, and his name is Mr. Duffany, he assured me that they're going to proceed with this check, see what kind of chemicals they're going to use. Now that's the DEC. Nothing was ever covered by the applicant, that I know of, otherwise they would have issued information on it. So this'll be taken up by the DEC and you'll probably get a copy of it for your file. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Alyssa Iantosca. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. ALYSSAIANTOSCA MS. IANTOSCA-Good evening. I'm Alyssa Iantosca. I do not live in the area, Mr. Traver, but I have been to Tails Wag Inn for several hours at a time volunteering my time or dropping off donations. I do live in a small cul de sac of 10 houses off of West Mountain Road, and in my neighborhood there are seven to eight dogs that live right in my neighborhood. The houses are pretty close together. I call it a quiet neighborhood. It's generally quiet, even with those seven to eight dogs. Unless I'm out on my back deck or my dogs are outside and my neighbor's dogs outside in their backyard which are joined, you know, just by a small fence, you know, I can't hear any dogs barking unless we're basically right there, and again, my house is closer to those houses than it would be at the kennel. I am an owner of three rescue dogs, two of which I think the lady called them wild and transient. One was from the SPCA and one was from Friends of Phoebe. They're healthy, friendly. They were well cared for when I took them in, and they continue to be. Again, I can't comment on the noise all the time because I don't live in the area, but when I have been on the property I've noticed that it's been extremely quiet. A friend and I volunteer our time taking photos of the foster dogs and the rescue dogs and we've both commented on how quiet it is. As some of the other people have said, when that door opens and when that door opens to the kennel where all the dogs are, yes, you can hear barking. As soon as that door is closed, it is very muffled and extremely quiet compared to what you would think you would hear on the property, and I've seen on Facebook that they advertise for fosters for the dogs. So if they're at capacity, I know that they're doing that and they're looking for fosters. They also advertise for obedience classes and my dog took one of those obedience classes and it wasn't held on the property of the kennel. It was actually held at Sutherlands Pet Works, and I guess my questions are, you know, the Polunci's have their dogs, 14 dogs, potbelly pig, whatever else, they have their dogs and then there's the kennel. So they're two separate entities. I mean, I don't think people are thinking of it that way, which it needs to be thought of that way because one's a business and one's a personal home, and my question is, you know, in my area I don't know which house a dog's barking in, unless I happen to know the dog's bark, and so I'm wondering how people know that these sounds are coming from the actual kennel, not someone's property or someone's home. Extremely devoted staff, like I said. If I have any questions, I can call, you know, whether it be an obedience question, anything, you know, and I can't say enough about the time that Kim puts in to the kennel and all of the work that she does. That's it. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-The next one is Kathy Sonnabend. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. KATHLEEN SONNABEND MRS. SONNABEND-Hi. Kathleen Sonnabend, 55 Cedar Court. I hope you all had a chance to read the e-mail that I sent and look at the attachments, because I know one of the previous speakers said that her pictures, photos had been used by us, and actually we were very careful. Every single photo that we picked up on we made sure related to Tails Wag Inn. So for example, when I said that there was evidence that there were Phoebe dogs, rescue dogs, in the outside area, this photo and this photo, you can clearly identify it. I was over there at their invitation for a tour and while I was there I noticed a very large outdoor run connected the whole length of the existing kennel, and inside it there were some Little Tykes dollhouses and slides and I asked John what's that for, and he said, that's for our dogs, you know, they're exempt from the condition, and I said well how many dogs do you have, because it was a kind of large area, lot of toys in there, and they said we have 17. Now maybe that's changed since then, but this was in April. So I'm looking around some more and I noticed that there was an outdoor dog 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) kennel. It's like the kind that you would keep a dog inside when you're training them, but it was outside, a little bit larger. There was also a kiddie pool, and then there was a skeleton structure for an outdoor pavilion. It didn't have the canopy on it, and I said what's that for, and he said, well, the swimming pool is for our pets and the pavilion is for children's parties that we have, which was the first time I'd heard that that was apparently another business that they have going on there. So my point is that we were told in 2009 that there would be no outside kennel activity, and obviously there has been significant outside kennel activity, and when I heard, a year ago, some very extended barking between two dogs off from that direction, I remembered making a mental note, this must be what my neighbors were concerned about. I didn't complain because it was Sunday afternoon, I had no idea how to go about making a complaint on a Sunday, and I was concerned that even if I did, how was I going to prove, you know, where I heard the dogs and whose dogs they were. Maybe they'd be considered their pets. So it's a real problem for us as neighbors. We don't want to cause problems. We've been living with it, but now this expansion means that it could start becoming a real problem for us, and we don't know how to complain because of the conflict of interest with the current Animal Control Officer that other people have addressed. Their e-mails, their phone calls have not been considered complaints because they didn't fill out the official complaint form on the Town website willing to go to court. So I guess we know now what we have to do for the future, but I'm very worried that if this becomes a permanent permit we're basically going to have no recourse at all. Well, I'm sorry there were a lot of misstatements that were made earlier that I wish I could address. MR. HUNSINGER-1 have a question for you. There were several references in the material that was submitted about we didn't want to complain because of the Animal Control Officer. I just wonder if anyone complained to the Code Enforcement Officer? MRS. SONNABEND-Was Keith Oborne a Code Enforcement Officer at one time here? MR. HUNSINGER-No. Maybe Dave Hatin or his office? If I could just finish my thought first, because these are site plan conditions. So that would be the normal, you know, if somebody does something on their site that's not allowed, or somebody does something on the property that's out of compliance with planning and zoning, that's where the complaint would go. MRS. SONNABEND-1 thought noise complaints were not a site plan issue? See the problem is, I know you guys think I know a lot, but I'm really very much a novice at this and I don't really know how the Town works and all these issues. So maybe we need instruction. If we have problems going forward, what would you advise us to do? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I just wanted to ask that question. I'm not sure if that would be the right answer or not. MRS. SONNABEND-1 don't think any of my neighbors knew what they were supposed to do. I know that several of them actually e-mailed, called and e-mailed Keith Oborne or possibly others of the Town with their concerns, and nothing ever happened and they weren't considered official complaints, apparently, by Jim. So we're kind of between a rock and a hard place. We have no concern about the quality of the operation. We just think it shouldn't be there. First of all, we've been there a lot longer and we're not RR-3. We're MDR. Kennels were not allowed there. MRS. MOORE-Nancy Murtha. NANCY MURTHA MRS. MURTHA-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MRS. MURTHA-My name is Nancy Murtha. I live at 28 Fitzgerald Road in Queensbury. Our property borders the western end of the Tails Wag Inn kennel property. I read the transcript from the minutes of the April 21St Planning Board meeting, at which time the Poluncis claimed there had been no complaints regarding the kennel. You have before you paperwork I submitted for public comment which will verify endless concerns I have had about the dogs and the kennel since it opened in 2009. Most of it is dated material which will verify that this covers all the years since the permit was approved. It is too extensive to even attempt to present in this venue here tonight, and there's lots that I could even include. You will find an e-mail in which Kim confirms in writing that she walks customer's dogs on the trails and in the kennel. Another passage relates to a telephone conversation in which Kim not only confirms the dog walking, but even went so far as to admit that she's not supposed to be doing it because the neighbors don't like it. There's a more recent conversation with one of Kim's customers, a friend, who was so impressed that Kim now has an outdoor pen for the dogs to play in, and even 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) has a pool that the dogs can play in the water. Add to that the kennel employee who knocked on our door asking if we had seen a small dog which got loose from each leash while she was walking it on the property behind our house. In an e-mail to Keith Oborne describing what had been occurring at the kennel, I wrote, how do we protect ourselves from letting the situation escalate if we don't make a point of expecting 100% compliance now? What will be next if no one is policing the activities at their kennel? If we let it go for now, what validity will we have to complain if it should get even more out of control as time passes? Will the Town be inclined to disregard our concerns without documented objections? How can we justify complaining further down the road? I added, I just want to get this information and my concern on record for now. That was in an e-mail I sent to him. Although there have been no formal complaints for Queensbury Animal Control Officer Jim Fitzgerald, many concerns have been addressed through phone calls and e-mails. Anyhow, tonight you have heard the arguments, the evidence and the facts. You have public comment documents at your fingertips. You have seen the pictures. These points of contention are not conjecture, imagination or emotion. They have been substantiated. They are accurate and they are indisputable. The owners of the Tails Wag Inn kennel are the people responsible for the existence of the agreed conditions of approval. It was their brainstorm. Those are their words. It was their compromise, and in the end it was their responsibility to comply with the Town of Queensbury's conditions of approval. They have not done so. Therefore they have not earned the right or the privilege to expect the renewal of the Special Use Permit, much less approval of expansion of a business which has violated every aspect of an agreement they conceived. Considering the fact that the agreed conditions of approval has not been honored by the very entity who fashioned the conditions to suit their own needs and wants, it is obvious to anyone who has listened to and comprehended the extent of violations presented during this meeting that neither the renewal of the Special Use Permit nor the application for the expansion of the Tails Wag Inn should be approved by this Board. All these concerned Queensbury citizens here tonight, and many who weren't able to attend this meeting are relying on you to deny both the renewal and the expansion. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Mike O'Connor. MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. I'm Mike O'Connor from the firm of Little & O'Connor. I represent Michael J. O'Connor the Second, Heather O'Connor, Robert Murtha and Nancy Murtha. Their request that you not renew the approval of the Special Use Permit and they certainly object to any expansion of the proposed use. This application has had its ups and downs since probably 2008 when there was an application for a Special Use Permit before this Board. Some members, I think, were here, and at that time they had a noise study. I'm surprised that with the expansion they haven't offered a noise study to take into account the additional activities that are going to take place, or are proposed to take place on this site. At that time, the Planning Board denied the application saying it wasn't compatible with the neighborhood and that it would affect the quality of life for those that lived in the neighborhood. I look at your Staff Notes, and I'm jumping here trying to keep within your time limits. The questions that were asked and the test that you're looking for, is it in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. To simply say kennels are allowed therefore it's in harmony really has no meaning. You could have permission to have an airport, but you might not have permission to land 747 airplanes on it, and the same thing applies to this. You could have a mom and pop kennel, which is the way it was proposed back in 2009, and now you've got a plaza. They have all kinds of different activities going on. They are a kennel of nature, but they are actually by separate business entities, and I don't know the relationship between the different businesses. Do they actually lease space in there or do they simply pay a commission or what? They have a grooming business that's run, I think, by PLC Dog Spa and Groom. They have an obedience training that's run by K-9 Connection. They have the rescue and adoption that's run by Friends of Phoebe, and now they're proposing this SPCA pound. It's an awful lot to put into the five pound bag, and that's the reason that you've got so many people here concerned. They hear the dogs. I mean, noise is a subjective thing as to how it affects you, but they live in the neighborhood and they hear the dogs and it disturbs them. They shouldn't have to put up with that. I mean, they tried, in 2009, where both sides could live with, and it just hasn't been kept up on the end by Mr. and Mrs. Polunci. This is not personal. I think they probably do a wonderful job with dogs. I've not heard anybody who's a customer that had any complaints about how their dogs were treated, and this has nothing really to do with it. The question is does it fit within that neighborhood? Is it a fair impact on the quality of life of their neighbors? And it's our position that it's not. I represent four people. Do I get four shots at time? MR. DEEB-Nice try, Mike. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) MR. O'CONNOR-Let me finish. AUDIENCE MEMBERS-Time's up. MR. HUNSINGER-Excuse me. Will you let me run the meeting, please, people. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Yes, you're doing a good job of it. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm trying to be fair to everybody. AUDIENCE MEMBER-But you're not. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. MR. O'CONNOR-Practically speaking, I understand it would be a heavy lift for this Board to simply say we're going to deny your permit. My suggestion would be that you do a temporary renewal of it. Let me see if they can clean up their act. See if they can come into compliance with the 2009 agreement, and maybe everybody will go home somewhat happy, although both sides usually in a compromise are not fully happy, but as it is now, I don't think there's grounds for allowing the expansion. A pound is completely different from a kennel. It's a 24 hour operation. Nobody's talked about that. Thank you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think some of the people are confused. We're not talking about the renewal of the permit. Tonight. We're talking about what you just mentioned, the expansion. MR. O'CONNOR-The application is for renewal and expansion. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, but what we were focused on, coming out of here, is whether they can put another building down there and do that. They're going to have to renew the permit anyhow, but not until, what, October? MR. O'CONNOR-1 think you have an application before you for renewal at this time. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That may very well be, but I think they had until October to renew it. MR. TRAVER-I think the application, and Mr. Chairman can respond. He's running the meeting, but I think that the application for the permit is a proposal to expand the permit, rather than wait until the renewal of the existing permit in October, which includes this expanded facility. So it is both, but it's not, it's not the old permit, it's replacing that. It's a proposed replacement of that with a new permit. MR. HUNSINGER-Well said. Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-The other Mike O'Connor. MICHAEL O'CONNOR, JR. MR. O'CONNOR, JR.-I'm Mike O'Connor. I live at 74 Fitzgerald Road. I've been opposed to the kennel since its inception. I'm vehemently opposed to the expansion of their current businesses, and, you know, as far as Jim Fitzgerald saying that there's no problems, I'm going to re-play a phone message from him, 12/30/14, before I was aware of any expansion plans. Hi, Mr. O'Connor, Jim Fitzgerald returning your call. I'll try and give you a call back shortly. I'll head over to your area. I'm not sure what the complaint is, but I'll call you back. So I'll start heading to your area and I'll try to call you again on your cell phone. The complaint was that my daughter, 12 year old little girl, was out playing in the woods with her little brother, 10 and two babysitters, 17 and 18 year old girls we hired to babysit the kids, and out of nowhere a 130 or 140 pound bloodhound came charging out and attacked her and bit her arm. Luckily she was wearing two coats. It was 12/30/14, and, you know, she didn't sustain any injuries. She was terrified. Fell to the ground crying and screaming, and, you know, his response was, well, I don't know what the problem is, but I'll come over and check it out, and, you know, I didn't know at that point their business relationship that they obviously have. They're sitting there applying for this application together, and, you know, I would think that's a clear and obvious, you know, just wrong, and leave it at that. His response is, well, I guess he told somebody that I asked him to come in and sign a complaint and clearly not the case. I'm here to say that I was not asked to come in and sign any kind of a complaint. Town Code, he's hired to take complaints by phone, 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) by mail or in person. I phoned it in. I got a response. Kim said, yes, that's my dog. He was loose. We're looking for him. No apology as to that. No investigation, is your daughter okay. If she had been injured, which thankfully she wasn't, you know, and we brought her to any kind of a hospital situation, she would have, they automatically file a report. Apparently if you call the Animal Control Officer, that's not what happens. I only knew that this wasn't a filed complaint June 15t" when I went up to see if there were any other complaints about this particular dog or other dogs in the neighborhood associated with those two addresses. Another meeting, Dan Williams also complained, no report. It was handled by the Warren County Sheriff, followed up by Animal Control Officer Polunci. John Polunci came and collected his dog and went home. Nothing else was done. They're not doing what they said they were going to do. I don't care whose dog it was. MR. HUNSINGER-Who's next, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. I have Karl and Ruth Frank. RUTH FRANK MRS. FRANK-My name is Ruth Frank, Cedar Court. I'm wondering today, is it the new norm that nobody pays any attention to contracts anymore? We have a signed contract and they've all been ignored. In fact the neighbors have been ignored. We're looked upon as second rate citizens, and the business is looked upon first. So somewhere we got the impression from some Board member that no matter how many neighbors complain, property owners have rights, but what I say they only have rights when they don't circumvent all the rules of a contract, which they have. In my day, anything broken on a contract was null and void. You were out of business. By the fact that they don't even present a Pet Service Association certificate, which we heard two or three months ago they didn't have one because it was bankrupt, I found one. I have a copy of it. Unless tonight they can produce a registered number, the Town Planning Board says right here they have to file a copy application. In four years we've never known it. So are they operating without this, that the Town Board says they have to have? And I'm not very computer savvy, but I'm sure with all their smart phones, they can get on them right now, I'd like to know the registered number of the Pet Association they belong to. They have been ploying us with this all along, the same way with the transfer of property right. That's legal, they can for one dollar sell the property. Our names are on this contract. We should have been notified. It should have been a courtesy to let us know. Would they own a company with everybody's name on the company and not inform them when they sold it? No, I don't think so. They have looked down upon us and as the gentleman over here said the great work that they do, and they all gave examples. If that were true, and all these services that they're doing now, why didn't they tell us that four years ago so we could consider that? They have been adding these things every single month that we know nothing about it, and if we had gone on to find out, we'd have been arrested for trespassing. So we don't have the hatred, they do. In fact, at last week's meeting when the owner, Kim, left the table, she used a four letter word at one of our neighbors. We don't have that hatred, but they look upon us as we have no rights, and that's what we're, none of these contractual things are looked upon as, they don't even pay attention to a contract. They just do everything they want. What good is a contract? Is this the new norm that people just don't pay attention to contracts anymore? So there's no courtesy. We don't want to be tied into this anymore. They've pulled the wool over our eyes, all the while we've been nice to them. It was through us that they lost the first time. When they applied for this they were rejected by the Board, and then they came across with an appeal and they put all these words in the contract and asked us to accept it. So we thought, yes, that looks pretty good to us, as long as they abide by it. They haven't abided by a thing. They could sell their property now. They want to do all this expansion. I can't believe they're asking for an expansion before this contract has even run out when they're supposed to stick 30 dogs inside a soundproof building, and they've got a multitude of business going on that we know nothing about. MR. HUNSINGER-Ma'am, your time's up. Thank you. KARL FRANK MR. FRANK-My name is Karl Frank. I live at 66 Cedar Court. I know it's improper to ask the Board questions, but I have two. One, when a use permit is given as temporary with provisions like my wife just mentioned who is responsible for follow up to see if those provisions are followed up on? And secondly, does the Town of Queensbury have a pet limitation? What I mean by that is if I want to, I own a dog. Suppose I want to own five dogs? Does the Town of Queensbury have a limit as to how many, whether I can have one, two, three or four? What I hear there's all kinds of numbers being tossed around. When the 30 number that the permit allows, they become pets, and the pets go up to 17 or thereabouts, and so that's, you know, that's my point, and like one gentleman just mentioned here a few minutes ago, about renewing 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) the Special Use Permit, with the provisions that are already in there. Not unless there's some provision that if they're not abided by there's some penalty involved. Right now it's my thought that this kennel has been operating for the last at least three years with the violations of the agreements. Agreements, that's a loose word, but when you violate any regulation, automatically you lose. This didn't. It kept right on going, and it got bigger, in fact. That's my point. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-I will address your question before you leave the table. So when we approve a site plan, it's up to the property owner to comply with the conditions of that site plan, and if they don't, then it becomes a Code Enforcement issue, which is part of the reason why I asked if anyone had contacted the Code Enforcement Officer. So the Town does have an enforcement arm through the Code Enforcement Office. MR. FRANK-But how does the Board know whether the people are abiding by it or not? Like they didn't make a report about the Pet Association, or about the sale of the property, whether it was token money or not, it's still a sale, and numerous other things I can't think off the top of my head right now, but you get the point what I'm saying. If the Board decides to take and renew this permit, Special Use Permit when it comes up again, it's going to be vehemently disputed or opposed because unless there's a, like I just stated before, there's a statement in there, a penalty for violation of the conditions. Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Who's next, Laura? MRS. MOORE-I have Marylee who is the last one that's on this list. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MARYLEE GOSLINE MRS. GOSLINE-Good evening. Marylee Gosline, 25 Blind Rock Road. I live right next to the kennel. I do not hear dogs constantly. Once and a while I'll hear a dog, and one time I walked over to see where the dogs were. The door was open. The dogs that were barking were from Cedar Court. I laughed and went home. As far as Cedar Court, when I moved here in '87, it was a wood lot. There were no homes there at all. They talk about provisions. The provision for their development was when the sewer goes by their development, they were to hook up. The last I heard they didn't enforce it because they said it would be a financial hardship on the people who live there. Their septic system now, it overflows and goes into our pond. I have it tested frequently. She keeps talking about pollution. They're polluting our property all the time. At one time they thought we were going to pollute them by the water going upstream to their house. I don't know how that would happen. My dogs, I have three dogs, three rat terriers, Katie, Maggie and Levi, and they do love chasing squirrels and running around trees and they do it in a group effort, and probably that's what Cedar Court hears is Katie, Maggie and Levi. As far as the pig goes on the property, my daughter was duped with that one. It was sold to her as a micro pot belly pig, which grew to be 200 pounds. So, they're kind of stuck with a 200 pound pig. His name is Chester. I don't hear him. I don't see him. At least I don't get around Chester. I don't disagree with the people coming here and speaking. I just wish they'd state the facts. Saying that they can hear barking all the time. People, we live, there's noise all the time. I hear more lawnmowers and blowers around my neighborhood. I hear dogs. I hear, not in the kennel. I can hear my neighbor's. I know Mike Wild's dog barks all the time. My dogs bark, but I tell them to stop. I've always agreed with development but I want it done in a respectful way to the neighbors, and I try to teach my daughter to do that respectfully. I guess we're all here because of me tonight, because she is my daughter and I did produce her, and I hope I instilled in her the values of doing a good job, loving her community and our family has been here for eight generations. Yes, we do, we've been here a long time, and we have done a lot of different businesses. Anything that she does over there, she does just to improve the community. I don't think kids playing with dogs on a Sunday afternoon, taking them for a walk, is a terrible thing, kids who cannot have dogs because they live in an apartment house and they're not allowed to have dogs. So they come to the kennel and walk a dog and they're happy and they go home and their parents don't have to listen to them about having a dog. I guess that's all. I just wish the people, I had a lawyer tell me once that people don't like change, and they just fight change, and he said that he, you know, he understood about people getting upset about changes. So thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Is there anyone else, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are two others. I apologize. Chris Povie. CHRIS POVIE 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) MR. POVIE-Hello, Board. My name is Chris Povie, P like in Peter, o-v-i-e. Up until about two months ago my wife and my family with two sons were neighbors of Kim. We lived at 9 Blackberry Lane, which was right, it's right at the top of Blackberry Lane. In fact a woman name Sarah who spoke earlier, she and her fiance bought our house. We are dog lovers. When we first moved onto the street, it was hard to miss Kim out with her pack of dogs, her own personal dogs that she keeps at her residence. We brought our pets to the kennel. I'm not sure if any of you gentlemen or anyone who is kind of making this decision have visited the kennel, but if you go into the kennel building, we've heard a lot of accusation of more dogs than are allowed and too many dogs and the 30 dog limit. If you walk into the kennel, which is immaculate, by the way, there can't be more dogs there because there are 30 crated areas for each dog. There's a finite number there, and as far as any accusations of dogs being on a run outside or her kenneling dogs outside or, you know, all these dogs piling up, there are 30 kennels inside the kennel with doors that open and close. When those kennels are full, there's no possible way for Kim to have more animals on the property. As far as barking, I cannot stand the sound of a dog barking. We had two dogs. Now we have one dog. I go crazy if he barks. I do not like the sound of dog barking, and I think like Marylee mentioned, I've heard more barking from other neighbors immediately around the house than I have ever coming from the kennel. If you drive into Kim's long, winding driveway onto her property, and you get out of the car and you look at 20 acres of land surrounded by a large buffer of trees, and like other people have mentioned, no visible homes, and you look at where those dogs are kept, inside this building, you can't help but make the realization that even if every one of those dogs were barking at once, I wouldn't hear anything at all out in this parking lot. So I think what people are, may be mistaking is the fact that Kim has a large number of dogs that are residents. I don't think there's any law against it and I know that she keeps very good care of it. Her house is unbelievably immaculate. I don't know how the heck she does it, but whenever I've heard dogs barking, when we lived for those 12 years at Blackberry Lane, they were Kim's dogs, and I don't think we're here tonight to discuss whether Kim can have her dogs or not. We're talking about the expansion of a business. A gentleman told a heartbreaking story about an attack resulting no harm to his daughter, but that wasn't a dog that was kenneled at the facility we're talking about tonight. That was a private resident having a problem with a private resident's dog, and I apologize if that wasn't, that didn't sound like it was handled properly, but the only thing I wanted to mention quickly is there's been talk about a conflict of interest between Kim Polunci and Jim Fitzgerald. I'd like you to ask yourself to put yourself in his shoes, being someone who has to, you know, find a place to put these dogs quickly if he comes upon them, without bringing them to a kill facility, and who comes to mind but the woman who has the kennel on 20 acres who loves dogs and has devoted her life to taking care of animals. Thanks. BETH POVIE MRS. POVIE-May I say just a few things? MR. HUNSINGER-Would you identify yourself. MRS. POVIE-Sure. I'm Beth Povie. I'm a past resident of 9 Blackberry Lane for many years during the kennel's operation. Never heard any dogs from the kennel. We have dogs up and down Blackberry Lane. Every home is a dog home, including Dan Williams who's made a complaint. His dog runs free. Mike Wild who lives next door to me runs free and barks all the time. Jim McLaughlin has a dog. We have a dog. There's dogs everywhere. So I don't know if Cedar Court is hearing our dogs. I just don't understand because I think I live closer than Cedar Court is to the kennel and I never heard any dogs. So I can't imagine it has any impact to the quality of life, which seems to be their talking point is their quality of life. I can't, I don't understand it because I never hear any dogs from the kennels. I hear my neighbor's dogs. That's all. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Is there anyone else? MRS. MOORE-Yes, there's Summer Steves. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. SUMMER STEVES MS. STEVES-Good evening. Summer Steves. I just wanted to clear up some discrepancies regarding Friends of Phoebe as I'm responsible for doing the online verbiage. I don't write that with the Special Use Permit restrictions in front of me. I do try to appeal to volunteers and adopters. So when I say come and hang out with our animals, I don't mean come and hang outside, I mean come and spend time with them. We do have, you know, take them outside, we do have volunteers that come, professional photographers, that do take our fosters pictures outside. Those fosters are typically taken off site where they're dressed up, put cute bows on 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) them and photos taken and then returned to the site. There is a pool for dogs inside. Photos of dogs in pools are usually ones inside. The ones of dogs taken outside are, or at least so far, have been of the Polunci's personal dogs. Again, we don't keep all fosters on site. When we say we can accommodate a certain number of fosters, we refer to the available foster homes that we can calculate at that time, in addition to the available kennel space inside. We honor capacity restrictions which was an issue, and I'm not sure that that was fully addressed. We do turn away fosters. Veterinaries will call and say we have this dog who might be euthanized. Do you have room? If we don't have available foster homes lined up, or we may call some people if we can't accommodate and kennel space is taken up, and TLC Dog Spa does rent space. K-9 Pet Connection is unaffiliated and only comes on site for indoor obedience classes. So if there were some concerns about other businesses being run, those are separate entities, and I can speak for barking, though I did mention it in the letter that I submitted. I find it curious that people that can't hear a timer overhead can hear dogs barking from 800 feet away and pinpoint its exact location, and also as far as being in a different location, I'm not right in their backyard, though my husband's in the surveying industry and he'll be curious, confused but thrilled to find out that our backyard now extends 1200 feet, as well as these people's, but in the time that it would take the Polunci's to purchase a new property in a proper zone, plan for it, construct it and then make enough money to afford to rescue animals, because it's an expensive business, you know, hundreds of lives would be lost in the process, animal lives would be lost in the process. If Kim were in this business of animal rescue to make money, she's terrible at it because from what I know from Friends of Phoebe, they just hemorrhage money on it, but barking being an issue, again, as other people have stated, it's muffled. You walk in and the dogs get riled up. As soon as someone walks out, no additional movement or intrigue sparks them. They quiet down. We recently were just outside all day long for an event outside, and people forgot that there were even dogs inside unless someone walked in to see one of the foster animals that were on site that day, but that's all I have to say. Were there any questions? Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-That completes all the people that were identified on these lists. I don't know if there's anybody else that wishes to speak. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone else that didn't speak this evening that wanted to address the Board? Okay. If you want to come back to the table. We'll conclude the public hearing for this evening. We do have the written comments. We have copies of everything in front of us. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if there's any questions or comments that the Board has for the applicant from the public comment. Specific questions? MR. DEEB-Kim, do you live on premises? MRS. POLUNCI-No, I live at 5 Blackberry Lane, which is out back of the kennel. MR. LAPPER-So it's right next door but a separate piece of property. I think that's a really good question. We're not disputing that the neighbors in Cedar Court hear dogs barking. The question is are they listening to dogs barking from this indoor facility. There's 100 dogs on the perimeter of this property, in all these neighborhoods. Any of us can go there and listen, but there's a lot of dogs barking that have nothing to do with Kim. This is an indoor facility. They've been really careful to stick with the conditions, and I think that the last few speakers really covered the issues that, you know, if there are photos that are taken because they have a professional photographer and they're taken off site. They do the volunteer day, the foster day on Sunday and they take dogs off site, and they're trying to do everything right to take care of dogs. That's what they're all about. They're not trying to trash their neighbor's rights. Everything's indoors and that's why they came back with the revised application that only talks about indoors. We took out anything outdoor to appease the neighbors. So they care most about dogs, but they care about the neighbors, too. I guess I'd like to get on the record, Liz Carbone is here from the SPCA just to talk about what the protocol for dangerous dog is, but just to indicate that Jim has never done anything wrong. All he's trying to do is the few times he got a call, like with Mike O'Connor, Jr., is to get people file a report so that there is documentation. So, Liz, if you could just explain that on the record. ELIZABETH CARBONE MS. CARBONE-Hi. Thank you. My name is Elizabeth Carbone. I'm Vice President of the SPCA, and I also own a business called Dog Logic. What I do is I travel all over the country teaching other dog professionals how to do their business and how to work with animals. As far 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) as the Dangerous Dog law, I am studied extensively, including at Brooklyn Law. So I have a very good background in that. I have been briefed on the cases that have been brought to my attention, and all protocol has been followed. When a bite takes place, under Dangerous Dog Law, a formal complaint needs to be filed. It was my understanding that no evidence at the time of the bite, when it was asked to be presented, was done. So although the child may have been wearing two coats, in December, completely understandable, and it was on the arm. The jacket was not seen, and no, from what I understand, the child was not taken to the doctors for any medical exam afterwards. So once that complaint it filed. It will go to public health, at which point the Town hands that over and then follow up is done. So by law, by law that has to be done with any complaint, so that there is a paper trail of evidence should it go to court. Is that helpful? MR. LAPPER-1 just wanted that on the record because of Jim, but that has nothing to do with why we're here tonight because this is Kim's big bloodhound which is her pet, and, you know, unfortunately, the dog got away, but it has nothing to do with running this facility, but I just thought it was important for Jim's sake, for his reputation, to get that on the record. Yes, Kim has a lot of pets, but so does everybody in the neighborhood. I think that what you heard tonight from a variety of different people that aren't happy about having this facility here all said that it's immaculate and that they do a good job, and the services that they do with the strays and the rescue pets, and this is something that's important to all of us as residents in Town, and I'll just get back to where we started that to have the SPCA facility on the same site. It's going to be indoors. People aren't going to be bothered by it, but just, on a 20 acre site, centrally located. It's a good place to put it so that the same employees can take care of the rescue dogs and also take care of the boarding dogs, and we'd like you to approve the permit extension and the expansion because we feel it's an important facility. MR. HUNSINGER-When you were here before for the recommendation to the Zoning Board, you talked about the protocols when a dog is picked up and taken to the SPCA. Would you go through that process again? Because there were questions brought up during the public hearing. MR. FITZGERALD-Sure. Do you mean a rescue dog, or do you mean when an officer goes out and picks up a stray? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, when you pick up a stray. MR. FITZGERALD-When astray comes in, we'll go in. We have a wand. We check fora chip. That dog, by New York State law, has five days. The Town has to pay for that five days for that dog. In that five days we have to advertise, ask around, call municipalities, try to find the owner of that dog. If it is not found in that five days, that dog can be legally euthanized anywhere in New York State. So what we do, and what we started up, it's seven different rescues in our area. We have a way to save these dogs, and I also believe that Councilman Irish was big on this, on making sure that I find a place for these dogs after that fifth day. That was a huge part of our contract this year before we passed it with Glens Falls Animal Hospital, and I've been trying to live up to that. MR. HUNSINGER-1 guess I wasn't clear on the question, though. When a dog is picked up, regardless of what time of the day or night, what's the process to take it to this facility? MR. FITZGERALD-It'll come in to the facility. It'll get put into a cage, and like I say, we have to go through identifying, trying to identify the dog. Does it have a tag? If it has a tag, if it has a rabies tag, we can run the rabies tags through animal hospitals to try to find the owners that way. In Queensbury what we like to do for our residents is if it has a Queensbury tag on it, then we try to get it right back to the owner, but stray animals, they get five days. If we do not have enough room, they will be euthanized. End of story, but we have set up a really great network through Kim to get these dogs to foster homes and to reputable 501 C's in the area. MR. FORD-Are there any other facilities other than Tails Wag Inn, this facility? MR. FITZGERALD-Not anything locally. That's why we're working with all foster families right now. We work with Hope Rescue, Eleventh Hour, Out of the Pits, Empire Rottie Rescue. I can go on and on. They're located up and down, from Albany to Saratoga, but none of these, you know, I believe Eleventh Hour has a facility in New Jersey. MR. FORD-So this is the only place you bring? MR. FITZGERALD-Now if you live in Saratoga, Saratoga County actually funds a $5 million facility and I believe their budget's $500,000 a year. Our County pays $20,000 a year. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) MR. SCHONEWOLF-How many people do they have doing that job in Saratoga County? MR. FITZGERALD-They have a full staff. They have a director. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, I meant people that go out and pick up the dogs? MR. FITZGERALD-They have 22 Animal Control Officers in Saratoga County. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And we have? MR. FITZGERALD-One. MR. FORD-In Warren County? MR. FITZGERALD-In Warren County, yes. We have, well, we have part-time Animal Control Officers, but I'm the only full time Animal Control Officer. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But you pick up more than dogs, when you can find them. MR. FITZGERALD-I'll get called out, but honestly I do get hammered on going on these wildlife calls, but I'll be honest with you, we do it for public safety. The wildlife go to an incinerator. Usually an officer comes out and shoots them. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So they don't go to Kim's facility. MR. FITZGERALD-They can't. There's no way, I could not bring those into a, you don't bring wild animals into a kennel. You just don't do it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What if you get one like you had the other day that was rabid? Is that your responsibility, too? MR. FITZGERALD-No, that's not. That's not my responsibility. That animal belongs to the state. My responsibility is to check out public safety. I was five minutes from that lady and she actually needed first aid on the scene that I applied to her. I called the DEC then I called Pat Auer, the head of Public Health, to let her know what kind of animal it was then we could do research on what kind of rabies and health effects that animal. What I did after that was knock on as many doors as I could in that immediate area and then we checked the area and then I updated a lieutenant up in Raybrook. MR. MAGOWAN-Do you ever get home? AUDIENCE MEMBER-No. MR. FITZGERALD-That's my wife. AUDIENCE MEMBER-He's the hardest working man in Queensbury. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions for the applicant? MR. FERONE-Jonathan, could you just go through, there was comment by a number of people about, you know, there's so many different businesses operating out of there. Just what is going on. MR. LAPPER-This is what we went through last week with the ZBA. Under the definition, you know, which I submitted to the ZBA, right from the Queensbury Code, boarding, training, grooming, they're all things that you do in a kennel. They're not ancillary. They're primary uses in a kennel. So Kim has a groomer that can, you know, you have your pet being boarded, you can have your pet groomed, and she has the 501-C3 is the not for profit that does the Friends of Phoebe, because she gets donations, and people want to donate for rescuing animals. So that's listed with the same address, but it's all considered boarding. So it's all considered part of the same 30 animals and now hopefully 40, but that's, you know, these are just separate entities, but it's all under that definition of what's a kennel. MR. DEEB-Is the grooming business separate? MRS. POLUNCI-Yes. Tessa actually has her own business, and she grooms the dogs that are staying at the facility that need to be groomed. MR. DEEB-Do you lease her the space? 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) MRS. POLUNCI-Do I lease her the space? Yes. MR. LAPPER-That's totally appropriate because that's just what you do at a kennel. MR. DEEB-I'm just trying to get the number of businesses. MR. LAPPER-Yes, that's sort of a red herring issue. All of those are permitted uses. K-9 Connection is the doggie obedience which they often do off site at different locations. MR. DEEB-If you do it on site you do it inside for K-9 Connection? MRS. POLUNCI-Inside the playroom. MR. DEEB-So that's four businesses, from what I can see. MRS. POLUNCI-We have obedience classes maybe three times a year, for an hour once a week for six weeks, to better train animals in the area to make them well behaved dogs for people. MR. DEEB-I have a question for you. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. DEEB-The special use plan of 15-09, can you tell me what the conditions are, do you have that? MRS. MOORE-1 do. MR. DEEB-I wasn't here at the time. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it's on the plan. MR. DEEB-It is? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it's stated right on the plan. MR. DEEB-Well, I saw the plan. MR. HUNSINGER-It's on the left hand corner. MR. DEEB-I guess, never mind, Laura, I'll find it. Which one on the site plan? MR. HUNSINGER-The site plan modification, the overall site plan. MR. DEEB-The one we just got? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it's dated 2/26 and then it was modified on 5/15. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Do you do specialized training for seeing-eye dogs, police dogs and that kind of thing? Can you do that training, too? MRS. POLUNCI-I can do that kind of training. I go to Elizabeth Carbone's facility for that, and I actually do have four K-9 Good Citizen dogs of my own and two therapy dogs. MS. CARBONE-We started a program called the Foster and Training Program with their family dogs. They come in for a month of training for families, so that they're educated. We take a lot of her dogs from that facility for that program. MR. TRAVER-I have a question, I guess it's Kim. I understand, you know, you have this 17 dogs, which is amazing. I don't know how you can do that. Someone else said, too, that's incredible, and you're certainly entitled to do so, but I'm wondering maybe, if only from a, sort of a marketing community relations standpoint, did it occur to you that having so many dogs that are exempt from the restrictions of the indoors and various other types of things, did you consider that that would impact on how your kennel would be perceived under the Special Use Permit, that fact that you had so many? I mean, I think you would agree that 17 is an unusual number for a private individual to have as a number of dogs. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) MRS. POLUNCI-Most of the dogs that I do have would have been euthanized if they were with anybody else. I have no tolerance for anybody not getting along in my home, and they all get along very, very well, and as far as the noise, I cannot stand when my dogs bark and they're not allowed. If they play for a little bit, but I do not allow my dogs just to go out and bark unconditionally. It does not happen. MR. TRAVER-Well, I understand and appreciate that. I don't like the idea of dogs or any other animals, whatever, being euthanized either, but, I mean, you could have put them into your kennel system as opposed to taking them on as pets. MRS. POLUNCI-I couldn't have put them into the kennel situation. They would have been euthanized. Nobody else can handle them or take care of them the way that I do. JOHN POLUNCI MR. POLUNCI-I looked into that, though. I actually live that every day. I'm a heating contractor. I married into the dog passion, and I've become passionate. So I live it and I understand it. When I'm working 18 hours, I get home, I don't want to hear dogs. I don't want to have to worry about dog poop. I don't want to have to worry about any of that stuff, but as they say it happens. With that being said these animals that are housed, that were there, have been there before the kennel was there. So to say that we'd get rid of them because of what the neighbor's think is actually it's appalling to me. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and I wasn't even thinking of it in that context. I've heard a lot of comment about barking and various things. MR. POLUNCI-And the barking was there before. I'm saying that the dogs were there before. All those dogs were there. We have one dog that's like 13. He's been around forever. What I'm saying is these dogs have been there before the kennel project even arose or came up. MR. TRAVER-1 understand and I appreciate what you're doing and what you're saying. I guess maybe I'm not making myself clear. If I were putting myself in your position and doing this business and I wanted to expand it or whatever, I would be very, very, understanding I have this soundproof kennel room, various other things to try to be in compliance to get my permit extended or whatever, it would be always on my mind how many dogs I choose to have and how they interact with the woods and the neighbors and, you know, whatever barking, and I understand that people have dogs in every neighborhood and there is barking and so on, but I mean, 17 dogs, I hope you would agree, is a bit unusual for one household to have, and granted you're entitled to do that and, again, maybe I'm not making myself clear. MR. LAPPER-No, you're making a really good point, and somebody said you're trying to get around this by just every time there's a dog that needs a home, you adopt it, and I know that's not what you're saying, but it's the chronology that's most important here. That Kim had these dogs before she had the idea of doing the kennel because she's just a passionate dog person. So they're part of her family. MR. FORD-For the record, in response to a question I had, you had 14 personal dogs, not 17. Is that correct? MRS. POLUNCI-That's correct. MR. FORD-1 just want to get that clarified. MR. LAPPER-It's only 14. MR. TRAVER-It's still amazing. MRS. POLUNCI-And Chester. MR. LAPPER-1 think this does paint a good picture of who Kim and John are, which is an important part of this process. MR. HUNSINGER-Any outstanding questions or issues that the Board has that still need to be addressed? Is there more information? MR. TRAVER-No, I don't think so. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if there's no additional questions or no additional information, what's the feeling of the Board? 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) MR. DEEB-There's a few comments I'd like to make. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MR. DEEB-All right. First of all, you really do, all your work has been praised by everybody, and there's no disputing that you have, the animal's condition comes first in your mind, and I don't think you're doing it as a business to make a lot of money. I think it's your love of the animals that you do, that you have for them. What about when you exercise dogs, you don't take them out. I've been to your facility. Inside, do you have exercise? MRS. POLUNCI-We actually have an enclosed, inside the kennel area is an inside play area. MR. DEEB-I saw that. It's a pretty big area. MRS. POLUNCI-And that's where they play. MR. DEEB-That's where they play. Do you ever have any feelings about not being able to take the dogs outside? MRS. POLUNCI-No. They love it in there. They're very used to being in there. MR. DEEB-All right. I think what we have to consider here, there's a huge balancing that we've got to figure out here. I think that's going to be the hardest thing for all of us to do, and somebody did mention environmental concern, which I think has to be looked at one way or the other, and as far as the businesses, they're all kennel like activities that you said were allowed, but it gets a little gray area, of course, when you bring your dogs onto the property, and it gets tough for the neighbors. Now, as far as dog barking, barking dogs, and we've heard it from almost everybody tonight, it's going to be tough to distinguish where the barking is coming from, and I know that's tough, and there's dogs all over, but, this is a business, and you do bring dogs in, and the, I did, when I visited the property, as soon as I pulled in, I got out of the car, you can hear the dogs from inside. I mean, it was a pretty good sounding of noise. I don't know how far it carries. I have no idea, because I wasn't on the neighbor's property to hear that, and then as far as enforcement, I mean, that's another issue that has to be addressed also if there is a complaint or somebody thinking that their rights are being trampled on or the dogs are being, or you're violating the conditions of your site plan MR. LAPPER-David, not to cut you off, but there was a memo in the file from Bruce Frank, the Enforcement Officer. MR. DEEB-I saw that memo, but there was a lot of confusion as to how to do the complaints. MR. LAPPER-They may be listening to dogs from elsewhere. MR. DEEB-And I agree with that. I guess the thing I'm trying to say is we're going to have a real tough time balancing this tonight. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You've got to remember one thing. This Town, unlike most towns, doesn't have a noise ordinance. MR. DEEB-I know that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you could go out and measure it and it wouldn't mean anything. MR. TRAVER-And I guess we don't have a limit on pets either. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, we don't. MR. TRAVER-I know some towns do, right? They say you can only have X number of cats or X number of dogs? MR. FITZGERALD-The City of Glens Falls has a maximum of two. MR. DEEB-I guess I'm just trying to figure out how we're going to get this done, I guess. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that's kind of what I was asking the Board. MR. MAGOWAN-I look at the barking dog noise. I mean, it's tough, like you said, to determine, given that it's a facility that's muffled and that and dogs, I mean, where I live I hear dogs all 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) around me, and, you know, even my little yapper, you know, which I don't like him to bark, either, but he's going to, you know, bark at the post lady and the garbage truck, which I don't understand that one because he's so small, but, I mean, knowing that Hunterbrook there is also a pet friendly rental apartment. I know there's dogs over there, you know, like was said, there's barking dogs all over, and to pinpoint and say the barking dog is coming from, you know, that area right there, that's hard to determine. I have never, and like I said, I do travel that road. I live up off of Birdsall there, you know, I listen to all sorts of noise, and I know there's a dog that lives behind me on Birdsall that constantly barks and it drives me crazy, but that's part of, you know, that's just living in the area. I mean, but overall, you know, I've been up to the facility, and I just, I haven't heard anything that is above and beyond the noises of, you know, any natural dog barking in a neighborhood, you know, at something that's going by or something like that, and like I said, I work right there in Hunterbrook, and I purposely sit there and, you know, I do sit there and work around there quite a bit, and I listen, you know, because I knew that was going to be a big thing. Overall, I look at the, joining the identities and all the hard work that Kim has put in and 1, how hard Jim's worked to pull this all together, being centrally located, and I sympathize with the people that, you know, don't want it, but I also listen to the people that do want it. So I agree with David. It's kind of a tough situation, but overall a joint effort in joining it with the surrounding areas, you know, I have to say I don't have any questions on it. MR. TRAVER-Well, my take from the applicant's presentation and public comment, you know, there's a lot of various information that may or may not have merit, but there were some key points that I think are definitely valid. One was I didn't hear anyone dispute the quality of the services that are being offered in the existing facility. Everybody commented on how it was clean. There were a number of customers that recently were in favor of the project but they also said that their experience was a positive one on their pet and so on and so on. So I think in terms of the operation model as it currently exists, it seems to be fine, and what was represented to us, it would seem, when the original Special Use Permit was there. On the other hand, and somebody talked about being polarized. There are people that say they should hugely expand and other people saying they shouldn't even get their permit renewed. So those are kind of the extremes of polarization. It seems to me that whatever, and we've had discussion about the owner's dogs and dog noises generally and so on. It does seem as though there's some indication that there is some noise and several of the people that were in favor of the project did indicate there is some noise generated by the facility, whatever amount that is and that's very subjective as we know, but it does sound to me, my general impression is that if you take all these sort of outliers, the people that have extreme views, and discount those and people that are overwhelmingly in favor and you discount those, it seems as though the operation as it currently exists is very near the threshold of what we were hoping that we would find when we did that initial Special Use Permit. It's a successful operation. There are some problems, but they're minor problems. One of the issues I think was that the people in the community clearly, a number of people said, I don't understand how to communicate when I have a problem with the business. Now it's been my experience on the Planning Board with other businesses that when they do have good communication with the neighborhood, one example is The Great Escape. They try to take advantage of that feedback and they respond, because they want to be part of that community, they want to support that community. This applicant has not had that opportunity because there were people that had issues, they were unable to, in the cases that I've heard, effectively communicate, for a variety of reasons, and therefore that's a double-edged sword. The resident feels frustrated because they feel as though they're not being heard, but on the other hand the operators of the kennel don't have an opportunity to talk to that person and find out, it sounds like, I suspect, as has been our experience with other businesses, it's often a relatively minor issue or something that can be addressed and the problem goes away, but instead, you know, there's resentment, miscommunication adding up. My feeling is that the initial, our initial goal, and the applicants at the time of the Special Use Permit, really haven't been fulfilled for a variety of reasons, and I know that they very much want to expand this business, but I think that, my own feeling is they're clearly operating at capacity or at the threshold for this particular community as it exists right now, and I think that rather than having the two extremes of vastly expanding it or denying it and shutting it down, a reasonable meeting of the minds in the middle would be to say let's extend their current operation, gather more information, make sure that people know how to communicate and re-evaluate after we've had this clear period. There's clearly some people that have issues with what they feel are violations of that permit. We can clarify that, perhaps. I just think if we have more communication we can gather more valid information, give people an opportunity to feel more involved, give the operator an opportunity to respond to the neighborhood. So that's where I'm at. I think, you know, to continue to operate, I don't see any reason to deny them, but I don't see any, I'm not feeling I have information now that says there's an overwhelming need to expand the facility, and of course we've always heard that if you don't add more capacity there are dogs that are going to be euthanized, but we could make it, we could have 100 dogs at this facility and that would still be the case. So that to me is not, I mean, it's a heartfelt argument, but it's not relevant in this particular case, to me. I mean, there's always going to be a limited capacity. I still think they should expand in a different area, 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) but that's not up to me. So I don't know if that's, maybe I'm confusing people, but that's basically my position is, let's let them continue to operate, but not expand at this point and try to re-assess, maybe a short extension and get more information and come back and re-visit. MR. LAPPER-We did only ask for 10 more dogs at this facility and then the 15 at SPCA, which is a different. MR. TRAVER-That's nearly a doubling, though. MR. LAPPER-Yes, but 30 is a pretty small number on 20 acres. MR. TRAVER-Well, a lot of people that were here tonight didn't think it was a small number. MR. LAPPER-They might have been listening to the other neighbors' dogs rather than these guys. MR. TRAVER-That very well may be. MR. POLUNCI-And no formal complaints. MRS. POLUNCI-No formal complaints. MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments from the Board? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Tom? MR. FORD-There's no question in my mind that the care being provided to the animals, whether it be like Tails Wag Inn or the SPCA is admirable, and I really, I applaud that. My concern is, as I look at what we approved initially, there's some real question in my mind as to whether or not there has been full compliance with that. I would like to see that occur before I entertain the possibility of expansion. MR. LAPPER-We think there has been full compliance. MR. FORD-You feel there has. MR. LAPPER-Yes, because the dogs that are walking outside are Kim's dogs. There was another red herring issue where somebody talked about they didn't notify the neighbors that they were going to convey the property. That said the permitee was going to convey the property, and the permitee was Kim and John. So it was her mom's property and then a year later she bought it and that wasn't something that was a condition. It wasn't when Kim was going to buy it from her mom. It was if the permitee was going to sell it to some outsider. So that's, and the Zoning Board agreed with that. So that's not what they were doing. So that's not an issue. MR. TRAVER-1 think, you know, part of this sort of gray area, maybe it's confusion which there shouldn't be, but back when we were first discussing this, understanding we were talking about, these are private dogs and they're excluded from the limitations put on the Special Use Permit, but I think that the spirit of what we were trying to do is think about this enterprise being a source of kennel stuffs, whatever you want to call that, whether there's noise or we went through the septic issues and, you know, all these kinds of issues. So, in my mind I wasn't saying, well, these however many personal dogs that were here are not generating what the neighbors are sensing in this one spot. I was trying to get to this earlier. So you're correct that by the letter of the agreement we can have 30 dogs and then maybe another 30 dogs that are my pets, that aren't counted in that, but I think the spirit of what we were trying to do was look at the impact of adding this facility to a residential neighborhood and trying to, by adjusting these requirements, try to make something that would work, but would also be sort of under the threshold where it would really be an issue for the neighborhood, and I think we're just bumping into that threshold right now, based on what I heard. There's a lot of support for the value of the services, but there's also a lot of concern in the neighborhood about, you know, geez, you know, I hear all this noise. Sometimes it's okay, sometimes it isn't, and I think that's what we would expect if we were running at or maybe a little above capacity, which is what they're doing, and that's why I'm in favor of not denying the permit, but I think to double the size of the operation or to increase it so that we know we're going to be going over that threshold is a no win scenario for everybody. MR. LAPPER-1 know that you had real concerns when this thing started two months ago, and I appreciate, Steve, your being very reasonable and listening to everybody, and I do appreciate 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) that. I think that the issue with Kim's dogs was when she said, okay, I'm going to agree to these conditions five years ago it was, but I own 20 acres, or I'm about to own 20 acres. So I don't want to have to say that I'm not going to be able to walk my dogs on my property. That's different than the business, and that's all it was. It's not somebody trying to get away with something, and it was clearly in the conditions that she can walk her dogs, and that's all it is. MR. TRAVER-That's right, I understand that. MR. LAPPER-And that should be separate from the business. MR. TRAVER-It is. The way it's written it's very clearly that way. I'm talking about the business, you know, as a Board we deal with the exact meaning of words, you know, as you do, but we also deal with, you know, we use different terms to describe community impact, character of the neighborhood and all these kinds of things. So again I think, and I guess I'm only speaking for myself, I suspect there are others that were going through the same process back in those days. We were seeing this as a package deal, and it doesn't matter, you know, how many. We said a number of 30, but we weren't really necessarily knowing that, if it was 25 or 35, what that variance was. We just had to come up with a number, try and get something going so you could get off the ground and get this operating. In my mind it was a package deal, that there is this thing that's landing in this neighborhood that has all these various things going on, what is the impact going to be, and in my mind, that included everything that went on, the lighting, the septic, the road traffic, any potential noise from the dogs. That has had the impact, and I didn't know how many pets the owner had or whatever. It doesn't really matter, as you point out, but nevertheless, that's all part of the impact. That's all part of the package, if you will. MR. LAPPER-1 think there's a lot of people that are walking their dogs on the trails and Cedar Court has land in the back. There's a lot of people with dogs in this area and that's just happening, but there's also an opportunity here. The SPCA needs a place. It's a service for everybody and it makes sense to put it with Kim's service because the same people could work it. So I'm hoping that, this has been a really good discussion, but I'm hoping that there's a majority that are willing to allow anotherl5 dogs in a separate building with a garage door for SPCA and that they can expand it to allow 10 more. That's what we're asking for. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Let's talk about that for a minute, because that's the one thing I can't get over. I mean, I think this Board was right when they approved that plan. There's nothing wrong with the location, and I think the comments about noise were just that. So I have no problem with renewing the Special Use Permit, and I have no problem with making it, it's 30 now and if it was 40, you wouldn't notice the difference in the way it's being run. Kim can do what she wants with her dogs. That's not in dispute, okay. That's not part of the plan. The thing that is being requested and is new and is part of the game, what Jim wants, is to do the SPCA building, and that concerns me, because we badly need it. I mean, I've come from other communities and we're so far behind here, but I don't know that that's the right site for it. That's my problem. Where I've lived before in other places we've had these facilities, but we always had them on town property, or something of that nature, commercial property, let me put it that way. MR. LAPPER-This area has got an apartment complex, the College, Town Hall, a dentist's office, a chiropractor's office, a bank. So if it was built here on Town property, it wouldn't be any different. It would just be a few thousand feet away. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right, but when we approved that we said we were going to stay reasonably to that size. That's what we said. MR. LAPPER-That's what made everybody comfortable, and I do understand all that, but this is still a 20 acre site where it's buffered from everybody, and if it's indoors, it's indoors. MR. FORD-But there was a lot of compromising, as I recall, to come up with this original plan that got approved on a temporary basis, and to look at all of those compromises, now to set those aside and say, let's now expand upon that, I've got concerns about it. MR. LAPPER-Until we made this application a few months ago, there wasn't a peep from anybody, I mean from the neighbors. MR. TRAVER-No, but I think that reinforces my suggestion that the operation as originally proposed is successful. Some people say I don't like it. I think you should, but generally speaking it's sort of within that box that we had hoped to create that would be a workable solution. Some people think it's, you know, no problem, I want to see it, you know, the two extremes that we're seeing. So, yes, I agree with that, but to vastly expand it I think is, on this 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) site, and I understand you have the need and there's, I believe there are sites in Town that could be utilized. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You can go anywhere from the water treatment plant to right back here or to something else, or out to the landfill. I know it wouldn't be as convenient for you, or for him. You'd like to keep it close to Town Hall. I understand. MR. LAPPER-But you can't have a kennel in most of those zones. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's another problem, but some of them you can. Town property you can put a lot of things you can't put other places. MR. DEEB-The balance I feel, I was looking for balance, pretty much the rest of the Board is trying to come up with it also, and, I mean, I'd be amenable, if you want to expand the operation, I'd say 35. 1 don't know if I'd go 40, but I don't think that's a great site for the SPCA building and to keep the, to renew the previous plan as long as everything is enforced, with what the conditions were of the previous plan. I know that's not what you're looking for, but I think it is somewhat of a compromise, and I would hope that we could reach an agreement somewhere. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I look at it as, if you want to look at it as a business in a savings aspect. Having the two identities together with the limited budget that the Town has assessed for, you know, this particular building, and Kim being able to be right there and, Jim, you know, so the County, you know, to pool all together, which, you know, becomes a savings for everyone. My idea is to keep it all together. You separate them, you know, where's the savings in that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There isn't any. MR. MAGOWAN-Right, but this. MR. TRAVER-Well, we don't know because it hasn't been explored. There might be structures that might be more cheaply acquired than building a new structure. MR. FORD-Let me ask the applicant a question. What if the SPCA were to come in and do their operation and we did not expand the numbers, we maintained the numbers that were originally in the approval? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'm not sure they'd have a business. MRS. POLUNCI-I wouldn't be able to run my business. I wouldn't be able to pay my mortgage. MR. POLUNCI-Where am I going to put my dog? MRS. POLUNCI-And I think everybody is not, just because we want 15 kennels in the SPCA building does not mean there's going to be 15 dogs there all the time. They are maybe there overnight. If your dog runs and you call the next morning and say did you happen to get my little dog, you can come and, during hours that we are going to have, come and get your dog and bring it back home. Yes, we may have a couple of strays that are there, but they are there for five days. If no one picks them up then they go out to an animal rescue and find a forever home. So there's not going to be 15 dogs in that SPCA building at all times. MR. HUNSINGER-That's helpful. MRS. POLUNCI-There's not going to be more. Right now at Glens Falls Animal Hospital we have four, and they have been there only for a couple of days and five days they're gone. They're gone. MR. FITZGERALD-Northshore Animal League, I've set up a very good relationship with them, and they really are behind us on this to make sure, when they come, they send a bus right to Glens Falls Animal Hospital and whatever is there they bring right up to Long Island and they have warehouses. Howard and Beth Stern just donated another warehouse. We have four animals total right now. That's it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, if the turnover's that good. MR. FORD-And the need for this expanded facility is what? MR. FITZGERALD-Because Glens Falls Animal Hospital does not want to do it anymore. They've asked us and they support us in this building. They do not want to do the impound 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) anymore. They want to get back to being an Animal Hospital and that's why they added those surgery rooms over there last year. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So the average is four right now but they want to get out of the game. MR. FITZGERALD-There's no average. Right now this is our busy season, and right now we have four animals. Like I say, we're doing pretty good. We have seven feral cat sites. We've produced no kittens this year. That's because we did a spay and neuter program with the feral cats. These programs are starting to take off, that we started, and we're starting to see that. You guys won't hear about feral cats and all that. You're going to hear about sewer systems and all that. I'm telling you, it works, what we're doing, and plus, because we pay a for profit business, Glens Falls Animal Hospital, the Town of Queensbury, if they choose to, looks to save at least $2 a day on any impounded animal which gets given right back to the Town reserves. MR. FORD-So if all of those dogs that are currently at the Glens Falls Animal Hospital. MR. FITZGERALD-Correct, sir. MR. FORD-How many are there now? MR. FITZGERALD-Four, and we should hopefully find their owners rather quickly, but I'll probably by tomorrow get another three. Two will go. MR. FORD-You don't have any at the Inn? MR. FITZGERALD-No. I don't have any at the Inn. MR. MAGOWAN-It cost a little bit more than $2 to keep them at the Inn. MR. FITZGERALD-The Inn's a little over my budget. MR. FORD-Tails Wag Inn. MR. HUNSINGER-Don't the owners reimburse the Town, though? MR. FITZGERALD-Yes. The owners have to pay. They have to pay the Town first. They have to come get a release. They have to show a rabies shot, and then they actually pay a fine to the Town as well on top of that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think that was a helpful comment because I've been thinking in my mind, as I'm sure everyone else has, too, that there's going to be 15 dogs at the SPCA kennel, most of the time, not at all times, but most of the time. Thanks. MR. FITZGERALD-They only get five days by State law. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's all in and out. MR. DEEB-Who's paying for the building? MR. FITZGERALD-SPCA. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So we make money and we don't have to put anything into it. MR. FITZGERALD-You're not putting any money into it. MR. FORD-Who funds the SPCA? MR. LAPPER-It's a nonprofit. MR. FITZGERALD-It's a not for profit. We're all donations, and currently right now, like I said, I consolidated animal control, and when we do animal control for a certain town, we take it to their impound facility. That's how it works. Each town has to pick an impound. So I've been able to generate income for the SPCA, which was tanked as of January 1St when I took it over, and in five months I've got four municipal contracts already. The Village of Lake George, the Town of Lake George, Lake Luzerne and Warren County. Warren County for cats. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's a lot of territory. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) MR. FITZGERALD-I have five officers. Trained officers. They went through the Animal Control Academy this year, and three other officers, myself, Liz Carbone and Kim Polunci are all peace officers for New York State. Because we have to do animal cruelty, and if you're going to do animal cruelty, you have to be a peace officer because at times you do have to make an arrest. MR. FORD-Based on the history, and bringing us up to this point, how long do you anticipate it would be before you would be back before us looking for another expansion? MR. FITZGERALD-Are you offering me Town land for nothing? MR. FORD-Just answer the question. MR. FITZGERALD-I don't know, Mr. Ford. MR. LAPPER-1 think what he's asking is will this facility suffice for a long time? MR. FITZGERALD-This is the, yes, this is exactly what we need, a concrete bunker. MR. SCHONEWOLF-For a Town this size. MR. FITZGERALD-Yes. MR. LAPPER-So we're not going to be back in two years asking for another expansion. MR. FITZGERALD-No, sir. MR. TRAVER-On the other hand, it's clearly not a long term solution. You're going to need a bigger facility. MR. FITZGERALD-I'm not anticipating a bigger facility because of the processes that we've put in with the rescues. I think we're at this point right now because Glens Falls Animal Hospital said no. We're not doing it anymore. MR. TRAVER-No, I understand that, but my point is. MR. FITZGERALD-I know what you're saying, if it gets bigger. MR. TRAVER-If you invest all of this investment in this very small facility, knowing that in a short time you're going to need something bigger and we're still going to be right back to my suggestion which is to build a more appropriate larger facility in a more appropriate location. We're still going to be right back there anyway. MR. FITZGERALD-I'm not speculating at all. This is the facility that I plan, and this is exactly where I need it. That's why I think this is perfect. I don't foresee an influx of 20,000 dogs coming into Queensbury any time soon, and I mean it. I understand what you're saying, sir, but I'm pretty good. I understand the numbers that are going on around here and I think that's a very, very reasonable number, and that's up to me to make sure, that's my responsibility to make sure. MR. TRAVER-But understand from our standpoint, we heard that same thing in 2009. MR. FITZGERALD-Okay, but you didn't hear it from me. Mr. Traver, I mean that with all due respect. I'm representing the SPCA, not Tails Wag Inn. MR. DEEB-So you're operating now with Glens Falls Animal Hospital? MR. FITZGERALD-Correct. MR. DEEB-And you use them as facilitators for what you're doing? MR. FITZGERALD-Yes. MR. DEEB-Is there a chance that you could use Tails Wag Inn without an expansion? MR. FITZGERALD-No, I won't. MR. DEEB-Why not? 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) MR. FITZGERALD-Because the animals that I'm bringing in, I'm not sure if they're vaccinated or not. So I've got to vaccinate them. I've got to bring a vet into the facility. They have to be separate. I don't know the history, so what we're going to do is we isolate them and we bring a vet in to evaluate them, and then we look for their owners. I mean, we're going to have a vet in, just to come in to the facility. The same thing. We're not leaving Glens Falls Animal Hospital high and dry. They've been fantastic, and they really did start this back in the 1950's, but like I said, things have changed, and I think 15 is an absolutely reasonable number, and I wouldn't be a heck of a President if I couldn't keep things moving. MR. FORD-Have you explored the possibility of utilizing other facilities other than Glens Falls Animal Hospital? MR. FITZGERALD-With the cost, the last building I looked at that was in a commercial, they wanted $700,000 for the building. MR. FORD-We're talking about another Animal Hospital. MR. FITZGERALD-There is no other, no other Animal Hospital will, Mr. Ford, I can, there is no other Animal Hospital that will offer what Glens Falls Animal Hospital. MR. HUNSINGER-What's going on with the old SPCA building out by the airport? MS. CARBONE-It's a specialties hospital now. A team a vets came in so they do orthopedic. MR. LAPPER-They bought it out of foreclosure. MR. FITZGERALD-They do cancer, special knee replacements, all the stuff that you'd have to go to Cornell is now right out of Queensbury Ave. Dr. Keller put up a brand new million dollar facility. Well, he re-fabbed that building, and it's an amazing service. MR. FORD-There isn't room there to accommodate some of the dogs? MR. FITZGERALD-That's a surgery facility. MS. CARBONE-And they don't do overnights. MR. FORD-They don't do overnight but they do surgeries? MS. CARBONE-They do surgeries, but they're day surgeries. MR. FORD-It's all day surgery? MS. CARBONE-Correct. MR. POLUNCI-But one thing, too, the reason why there's such a good marriage between the two businesses is that the amount of time that's donated between myself and my wife that own it, the building is being built at a fraction of the cost because I'm building it, and you can't compete with anyone else to go out and build a building, the same type of building that we're going to build and after it's built, you have Tails Wag Inn that's going to be basically donating their time to run both facilities. My wife is right around the corner. She's there 24/7. He's never going to find a facility that's going to be a marriage like this. It's just not going to happen, as far as dollars and cents. When you go out and build a big facility like was over there, it goes in bankruptcy, and the whole point of this is for us to save as many animals and human relationships as possible and be an asset to the community, and that's why it works, with Jim and Kim working together on that property. It's just, we already have the infrastructure to do it. I mean, as far as the cost of construction, you can't get a used building and refurbish it for the cost of what I'm building this building. I mean, I'm a heating contractor. I've got state of the art air conditioning stuff. It's just air cleaners. We're actually going to be the first in New York State to have this type of treatment that's being donated to field controls. It's just going to be a state of the art facility at a fraction of the cost for small favors, for I love the animals and help the community with as many animals as possible, joining it together as a team, everybody working together. You see what we already do with Friends of Phoebe. We make no money from that. I could have retired a long time ago with my heating business, but we donate everything to help all these animals. It's a passion. It's a love. You're not going to have the facility, the staff anywhere that's going to work together in this area for Queensbury. It's just not going to happen. MR. TRAVER-I think we have to be, I mean, all this is great, and we've made some suggestions, but I think we have to be careful not to own this project, and not to help them run their business. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) MR. LAPPER-That's really the whole story. That's who they are. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm still trying to figure out where the will of the Board is. MR. FERONE-Mr. Chairman, the resolution is two parts, right? There's a Site Plan, Special Use Permit and on the Special Use Permit, I mean, is there a term? I'm trying to read this. I don't see anything. The last one was, what, five years? MR. HUNSINGER-Four yes. MR. FERONE-Four. MRS. MOORE-In this case the applicant is asking for a permanent. There's also additional consideration at the previous conditions the applicant has asked for amendments to those. So on my last page of my Staff Notes, just above the summary, it identifies a term of validity. The applicant is asking for permanent. It's up to you to determine if you're going to move forward with permanent or come up with a shorter term. MR. DEEB-So if the SPCA building goes up, and you don't get the expansion on your kennel, is that going to prohibit you from doing it? MR. POLUNCI-Are you talking about the Tails Wag Inn? MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. POLUNCI-No. We're just asking for more so that it helps us save more animals lives with that 10. Ten spots that are available for rescues that we can find homes for. That's all. It just helps more animals. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you'd have to live with the 30 in the permit, and the 10 with which you'd use about half. MR. LAPPER-If they have 40 they can have a mix of, between boarding dogs and rescue dogs, a total of 40. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's a separate operation though, right? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Separate building, I mean. MR. POLUNCI-Yes, SPCA building. MR. LAPPER-But the 40 is Tails Wag Inn, and SPCA is 15 maximum. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's 25. MR. LAPPER-Yes. At max. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's what I said, if you didn't increase the Tails Wag Inn. MR. LAPPER-It would be 15. MR. FORD-This is a tough balancing act. We've heard from a lot of people who have appreciated and utilized the current level of service, and we've heard a lot of people complaining about noncompliance and noise and so forth. To expand upon the facility is a real challenge for me to accept because I don't, I could see the value of the services being provided, but an expansion of that is only going to, I anticipate, expand the negativism in the community toward the facility. MR. LAPPER-It's indoors. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And most of the negativism is in one block, two blocks. MR. TRAVER-Mr. Ford, that's why I had suggested that if we continue the operation as is, knowing that there were some issues communicating with the Town and the applicant with regard to what were perceived to be issues, real or imagined, we would be able to get a more 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) realistic image, I think, than we got from public comment tonight, because there was a lot of complaints about not being able to communicate and. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. TRAVER-You know the applicant wasn't afforded an opportunity to respond to that either until, as they said, the last couple of weeks. MR. FORD-And that's really not, the onus isn't on the applicant to provide an outlet for complaints. MR. TRAVER-True, true, but it's been the experience of this Board that an applicant usually will make an effort to try to respond because it's in their best interest. So I suspect that would happen if there were more communication, you know, all around. MR. LAPPER-This certainly isn't your typical applicant that's just trying to make a buck. I know everybody knows that. MR. DEEB-That's what makes it so difficult. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, the other thing that we need to start to focus in on is the requirements for a Special Use Permit that are spelled out in the Code and, you know, one, and they're all listed in Staff Notes, one through six, and specific criteria of the Town, and we've heard the applicant say a number of times, you know, they have 20 acres. The requirement is that they have at least 10, and they have 20. The other requirement is that the buildings be at least 200 feet from a property line. Now I happen to live in a neighborhood where there's two large dogs that are outside pretty much 24/7. 1 mean, they're almost never inside, and they're probably, if I had to guess, within 50 feet. They're at least 400 feet away, but it's a direct line of site, and there's a valley in between us and we're on a hill. So it's a direct line of sight. So when they bark I hear them. I mean, but to me it's not loud enough to really be a nuisance. MR. LAPPER-And we're mostly 800 feet from Cedar Court. Twelve hundred feet from Fitzgerald Road. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the level, the sound level, I mean, I don't know what the decibel would be, but, you know, it's a dog barking, but it's so far away it's really no louder than we're talking now. It certainly is not discernable over traffic noise, but, you know, that's, I mean, that's my perspective, you know, my personal perspective, for what it's worth, and we did hear a number of people say, well, we were told to hold our complaints until October and I guess I'm not really sure who would have told them that. It certainly wouldn't have been anyone on this Board. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I can't believe with all the people that got up and spoke and some of the intelligence of these people, too, that they didn't know to use the Code Enforcement here in the Town of Queensbury. Personally, I mean, Mr. O'Connor knowing the legal system could have, you know, I'm just amazed at how this all came out with an application. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, we had to bring Code Enforcement in for an action in our neighborhood, and the only reason why it was ever done was because the Town's Supervisor got wind of it and made a complaint, but unless somebody wanted to file a formal complaint and file it with the Code Enforcement Officer they're not going to act on it, and, you know, nobody wants to do it. MR. TRAVER-We heard from multiple people that at best it's confusing. MR. HUNSINGER-So I can appreciate that. I guess I'm just saying it's not that surprising to me that people wouldn't know, you know, what the procedure or policy should be, and I think that's something, as a Town, we need to work on, and irrespective of this applicant, but, and you've heard me say it before, Laura, but it's a Town Board issue. It's not a staffing issue. It's not a Planning Board issue. It's a Town Board issue. I mean, the only real specific concern that we've heard is noise. Barking dogs. I mean, other Special Use Permit criteria that we have to look at, you know, site conditions, traffic, signage, circulation and parking. MR. TRAVER-We reviewed all that. Yes, we looked at all of that extensively with the existing operation. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-Yes, what I heard was basically, to paraphrase, I heard people saying, you know, I have some issues, but I'm really worried about an expansion, and that's why, you know, where 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) I'm at is, okay, let's try to get better information on the current operation, but let's not, you know, it's clearly right at the threshold of being successful. MR. HUNSINGER-But we haven't heard any comment about traffic. I mean, I drive by the driveway at least three times a day. I don't see cars come in or out. So I don't think traffic is an issue. MR. TRAVER-And that's partially based on the number of dogs. MR. MAGOWAN-And also the times that you're allowed to drop off and pick up. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that's when I happen to drive by, 5:15 at night, 8:30 in the morning. MR. TRAVER-And we had, I mean, I can remember we had long discussions about all those issues when we came up with this number and this conditions of this Special Use Permit. We really tried to make something that would work. MR. HUNSINGER-And there were over 20 pages of minutes at the last meeting. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I'd say we did. MR. LAPPER-These guys are trying to make something really good for SPCA, the Town, and I don't think that 55 dogs is going to exceed anything, is going to hurt anybody. It's all indoors and I hope you just listen to these guys because they're the experts. MR. DEEB-We can grant a temporary permit to extend the original Site Plan, Special Use Permit and then maybe later consider a short term, a year. MR. FERONE-Well, I was going to ask a question of Mr. Fitzgerald. There's going to be an investment on the part of the SPCA in this building. MR. FITZGERALD-Yes, sir. MR. FERONE-So if we put a term on this, you know, you're going to need at least, what, five years? MR. FITZGERALD-Four to five years for what I'm, yes, that's an excellent number that you just came up with. MR. DEEB-It would give us some time, and, you know, if we had to expand the operation, I don't know if I'd go to 40, but I'd maybe consider 35, and then we could look at this again, see how he's doing with his fundraising, at a future day. MR. FERONE-In addition to the 15 for the SPCA. MR. DEEB-Right, the SPCA is going to need 15 anyway, but hopefully that would never get up to 15, and it would be in and out, in and out, but, you know, I tend to agree with Stephen a little bit on this one, that it has to be looked at. MR. TRAVER-I mean, the facility was sized when it was originally constructed. So if we don't give them any expansion capability and we just bump up the number, that's another problem. MR. LAPPER-That's why they want to expand. MR. TRAVER-Right. Exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any SEAR concerns that anyone has identified? MR. TRAVER-Well, there's some incomplete engineering data, but again, that's based on the concept of the expansion. I mean, I guess it depends on where we're at in terms of considering what's before us. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think it's going to be a Negative Dec. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any comments on engineering, Tom? MR. HUTCHINS-I've been through them. I can get through them. Obviously we just got them fairly recently, but, yes, I've been through them and I don't see where. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-There was a SWPPP filed four years ago, right? MR. HUTCHINS-There was a SWPPP filed four years ago. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you receive letters for endangered species and archeological resources? MR. HUTCHINS-1 don't believe they were received at the time. MR. HUNSINGER-1 know the SWPPP process changed. MR. HUTCHINS-The SWPPP process changed. MR. HUNSINGER-1 just couldn't remember if it happened prior to that. MR. HUTCHINS-In that that was specifically added to the permit since then, and at the time it wasn't specifically requested unless it came up during SEAR review and there was a concern by a reviewing Board, then specific requests were made. MR. LAPPER-That would no longer be an issue because that area is developed. MR. HUTCHINS-But the requests have been made now, but we're awaiting that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and that site is all fill. MR. LAPPER-It is all fill. MR. HUTCHINS-That site was a lot of fill, yes. MR. LAPP ER-Unbelievable amount of fill. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-So we have no problem with the engineering comments. MR. DEEB-If we just extend the Special Use Permit we still don't need to do SEAR. MR. HUNSINGER-Would we, Laura? We'd have to affirm the prior finding. MR. TRAVER-With the status quo extension you mean? MR. HUNSINGER-That's a good question. MRS. MOORE-You're asking me a lot of questions at once. I would suggest that you do your SEAR again because it's a new project. You could reaffirm it, but you could also do this new SEAR, which you have in front of you. You have new SEAR for this new project. You asked about, Steve, can you repeat, in general you asked me about whether it's expansion or not expansion? I'm sorry. MR. TRAVER-1 was talking about the SEAR question. If, hypothetically, if we were to, if the facility were to maintain their status quo, so no expansion in numbers of buildings or whatever, but we were going to extend their Special Use Permit for a special period for whatever reason, gathering data, allowing them to continue to operate, so on, the SEAR question, then, would be a simple reaffirmation of the original SEAR that we did back when we first looked at the project, is what I'm thinking. Then we wouldn't need to do this process, but this is driven by the expansion application. MRS. MOORE-Right. The applicant is not asking to renew their current one. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. MOORE-They're asking for something new. So it's a new Special Use Permit, new Site Plan. MR. FORD-And that's not what they're applying for, a continuation of status quo. MRS. MOORE-Correct. So I mean if the applicant or the Board, it sounds like there's a tabling coming, and I don't quite know whether that's true or not, but you, as the Board, what would you be tabling it for, or that's the information I would be looking for, to give guidance. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, if we didn't table them and we just did a Negative SEAR. MR. HUNSINGER-1 was actually trying to find a way to move things along. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Why can't we do that? MRS. MOORE-You can. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-1 guess there's a division of the Board. I guess there may not be a full consensus. MR. HUNSINGER-No, there isn't. MRS. MOORE-Okay. So the Board, as a whole, could move forward on SEAR, go through that process and look at what they would be doing at the, if there were any conditions. You may want to talk about those conditions as part of the SEAR, only because some of that is related to some of the questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Deeb had made a suggestion and I was going to say, do you want to make that in the form of a resolution, but we're not at that point yet. We've got to get through SEAR. MR. TRAVER-So we need to be clear exactly what we're doing SEAR on. Is it the current permit or is it the expanded proposal? MR. FORD-What's before us is the expansion. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, you've got to do them both. That was my point before when the attorney was speaking that they were talking about both at the same time. It was confusing, but if you were just reaffirming the present permit. MR. FORD-That isn't what they're applying for. MR. HUNSINGER-That's right. MR. FORD-That isn't what they're asking for. MR. HUNSINGER-That's right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They're asking for both. MR. TRAVER-So we have to act on the expansion first, yes or no on the expansion, and with that the SEAR in that context, and then if and when we get through that process, then we can address whether or not. MR. HUNSINGER-We'll do a straw poll, because we still have the, the public hearing hasn't been closed yet. It would just be a straw poll, but if I could just hear from every member yes or no, in terms of the proposal, and what you had suggested is sort of a compromise, but I guess we can sort of flesh that out. MR. DEEB-So the proposal as it sits now with the expansion and. MR. HUNSINGER-The proposal before us is to expand the Tails Wag Inn to up to 40 dogs, and to create a new building for the SPCA operations for up to 15 dogs. So that's what I'd be asking for a straw poll on, yes or no. MR. TRAVER-And also a Special Use Permit that's permanent. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we'll deal with that later. We can talk about the term later. MR. MAGOWAN-So I'll start with a yes. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. We've got one and one. George? MR. FERONE-You all talk, I agree with what everybody said. I would say yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Two yeses, two no's. Steve? 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) MR. TRAVER-On the expansion? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-On the proposal before us, not the term, but the breadth of construction. MR. TRAVER-Right. I'm not comfortable with it at this point. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'll say yes because I want you to get us out of this mess. MR. HUNSINGER-You want me to? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-1 was going to say yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. Then there's your straw poll. Four to three. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. Would anyone like to make a motion to close the public hearing? RESOLUTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING SP # 17-2015 & SUP # 18-2015 POLUNCI MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SITE PLAN NO. 17-2015 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 18-2015 KIMBERLEE POLUNCI, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 23rd day of June, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-The next step would be a SEAR resolution. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Negative Dec. MRS. MOORE-Do you wish to go through it individually or use the draft motion? MR. HUNSINGER-We have a draft motion prepared by Staff. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. FORD-I'd recommend we go through it. MR. HUNSINGER-Individually? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Would you like me to read through each question? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, you can read it if you want. MRS. MOORE-Okay. This is Part 11, the Impact Assessment. Number One, Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning regulations? And the check boxes are no or small impact may occur or Moderate to Large impact may occur. MR. FORD-Read the first part of that again. MRS. MOORE-1 will. Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning regulations? I guess if you look at the Special Use Permit, the criteria for 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) that, the first comment is harmony with the Comprehensive Plan, and in the Staff Notes I suggested something. The Board may have other. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it's an allowed use. So I would say that either no to small impact. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. MRS. MOORE-The Board consensus is no? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FERONE-No. MR. FORD-Correct. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Number Two, will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the answers are no or small or moderate to large. MR. MAGOWAN-No to small. MR. HUNSINGER-It's a 20 acre site. So by definition, almost by definition it would be a no to small impact. We're not saying there's no impact, you know, we're saying small. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Number Three, will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community? MR. HUNSINGER-We have at least one person that says no or small. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, look how many acres you've got. You're just not touching very much of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. FORD-Character or quality of the existing community. MRS. MOORE-And it's a no or small? MR. HUNSINGER-No or small. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Number Four. MR. FORD-Well, let's concentrate on that for a moment. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. FORD-From what we heard tonight, an expansion of that, can we actually say it's going to be no to small? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No or small, yes, because look at the size of the project and you're just horsing around with a little piece of it. Bad terminology. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-So would you classify it as the no or small? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Number Four, will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area (CEA)? MR. HUNSINGER-That's no. MR. FORD-No. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) MRS. MOORE-Number Five, will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MRS. MOORE-Number Six, Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. MOORE-Number Seven, will the proposed action impact existing: a. public/private water supplies b. public/private wastewater treatment utilities? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MRS. MOORE-Number Eight, will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic, archaeological, architectural or aesthetic resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. MOORE-Number Nine, will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources (e.g., wetlands, waterbodies, groundwater, air quality, flora and fauna? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. MOORE-Number Ten, will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion, flooding or drainage problems? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. DEEB-No. MRS. MOORE-Number Eleven, will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Now you can make your motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING NEGATIVE SEAR DEC SP # 17-2015 SUP # 18-2015 POLUNCI The applicant proposes to construct a 40 x 100 sq. ft. building with an internal space 40 x 40 play training room, 40 x 60 for SPCA space and attached 20 x 28 sq. ft. garage with an internal play area. Project includes 15 x 30 expansion for indoor kennels on existing 25 x 80 building. Also included is a 25 x 26 screened room attached to existing 24 x 24 building. Site alterations include grading, new parking, lighting and landscaping, stormwater management and new tank to be pumped to existing field. Applicant proposes the number of dogs to be 40 for kennel and SPCA to be 15. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-10-070 of the Zoning Ordinance Kennel in an RR zone and Site Plan review is required for all uses that require a special use permit 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; 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) Part 1 of the Short 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 GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 17-2015 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 18-2015 KIMBERLEE POLUNCI, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 23rd day of June, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-So, based on the straw poll, the other item we do need to talk about is the term of validity. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The term of validity has not been decided. MR. HUNSINGER-That's right. We haven't talked about that. Does anyone want to make a comment? MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean, we're kind of in a tough spot because we're now allowing them to make a huge expansion to this thing and invest a lot of money and resources into it, and I really don't think it's fair to the applicant, if that's what they want to do, to say, yes, you can do it, but you can only do it for a year or something. That just doesn't make any sense. I don't think that the comment, the next time this comes up, from the neighborhood is going to be any less with a doubling of the facility. So, you know, I don't know, I guess I don't really, other than that I don't have any real feeling either way. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What did we talk about, five, for the limit? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, clearly one of the things that the applicant has heard is the concerns of the neighborhood, and if the term of validity is for five years, you know, you're going to come back here. So you know you're going to have to be better neighbors to them and figure out better ways of communication and cooperation to avoid this. I mean, who knows who's going to be sitting here at the Planning Board. Who knows what kind of regulation we might have. I mean, there's a lot of things that could change between now and the future. MR. LAPPER-They hear you, and by limiting it, they're going to have to be really careful to be good neighbors and communicate better than they did. I guess I'd ask you to consider. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They have to maintain a positive environment. MR. LAPPER-I'd ask you to consider six years, only because they're making a bigger investment in the buildings, but either way they've got to come back and deal with this again. MR. DEEB-Well, when would the SPCA building be built? It depends on when you get your funds? MR. FITZGERALD-The funds are available. We're ready to go. MR. DEEB-You're ready to go. MR. FORD-How long will it take? MR. POLUNCI-Probably a month or two. We have to get the building permit. MR. FORD-How long will it take to complete the construction? MR. LAPPER-Site work and everything, parking. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) MR. POLUNCI-It all depends on when we get the contractors lined up. We've got them lined up, but we've been on hold. So, I mean, as soon as we can. MR. LAPPER-So before winter. MR. POLUNCI-Yes. Before winter. MR. MAGOWAN-You're looking at two and a half months. MR. POLUNCI-Right. MR. FITZGERALD-Correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, that would be the best. MR. MAGOWAN-And that's if you have all your ducks lined up. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, my initial thought was the last one was for four years. Why don't we have this one be four? MR. POLUNCI-What about four years from when we get our CO, the way we have it now? Because that's what the other one was, once we get our CO. I'm okay with that. MR. HUNSINGER-What does the Board think? That was my thought, and you had suggested five. MR. LAPPER-We'd like five because of the expansion, the money that's going in. MR. DEEB-I agree with you, Chris, four years. MR. FORD-Four. MR. FERONE-From an investment perspective, five years works better than four. MR. FORD-I'm recommending four. You talk about investment, five would be better, you've already got the money for the expansion. It's not a question of investment and protecting investment. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is that okay, Steve, four? MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's fine. MR. HUNSINGER-And then the only other condition I don't see in the draft resolution is compliance with engineering. MR. LAPPER-That should be a condition. MRS. MOORE-So one of the conditions is hours of operation possibly, the limit of, the number of dogs, limiting it to 40 for the boarding facility and 15 for the SPCA, and then one other item that may not be clear is that the applicant has indicated that the building will be constructed in the soundproof material that the current building is, and you may want to add that as part of your conditions. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, no change in materials. MRS. MOORE-It could be advanced technology and I don't know, there may be additional. MR. POLUNCI-It's going to be concrete. Three sides of it are in the bank. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And the same hours of operation we've got now? MRS. MOORE-No, the applicant asked for different hours of operation. MR. LAPPER-Just a little more flexible. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, interestingly enough, in the previous terms, and of course I had it earlier. MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to read it? I have it right here. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I have it right here, I just have to open it up. The previous terms state that arrival and departure of animals is not permitted on a 24 hour basis and shall be permitted only between the hours of seven to nine and five to seven each day, provided however that this shall not prohibit reasonable accommodations for the occasional pickup and delivery of animals at other times between the hours of seven p.m. and seven a.m. MR. SCHONEWOLF-How about four to six? MR. HUNSINGER-So it was never strictly prohibited. MR. LAPPER-Mostly that's what happens. MR. HUNSINGER-And obviously the SPCA building. MR. LAPPER-Would be different, but they'll be driving into a garage and closing the door. MRS. MOORE-So are you proposing to maintain that language with the new hours as part of your condition of approval, or do you wish to maintain the language that Chris just read with the new hours? MR. LAPPER-Except for SPCA. MRS. MOORE-Except for SPCA. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Okay. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Is the public hearing still open? MR. HUNSINGER-No, ma'am, we closed that. I'm sorry. MR. SCHONEWOLF-All right? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 17-2015 SUP # 18-2015 KIMBERLEE POLUNCI The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to construct a 40 x 100 sq. ft. building with an internal space 40 x 40 play training room, 40 x 60 for SPCA space and attached 20 x 28 sq. ft. garage with an internal play area. Project includes 15 x 30 expansion for indoor kennels on existing 25 x 80 building. Also included is a 25 x 26 screened room attached to existing 24 x 24 building. Site alterations include grading, new parking, lighting and landscaping, stormwater management and new tank to be pumped to existing field. Applicant proposes the number of dogs to be 40 for kennel and SPCA to be 15. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040, 179-10-070 of the Zoning Ordinance Kennel in an RR zone and Site Plan review is required for all uses that require a special use permit 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; 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 opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 4-28-2015 and continued the public hearing to 6-23-2015 when it was closed; 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 6-23-2015; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval; 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 17-2015 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 18-2015 KIMBERLEE POLUNCI, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: As per the draft resolution prepared by Staff conditioned upon the following: 1. Term of validity of: Four Years (from the date of issuance of the associated Certificate of Occupancy). 2. The following is the prior approval with an update to the number of dogs and hours of operation as noted below: The Special Use Permit (Permit) of which these Agreed Conditions are a part shall be a renewable Special Use Permit valid for a period of four (4) years from the date of issuance of the associated Certificate of Occupancy. Prior to the expiration of the Permit, the Permittee may apply for a renewal of the Permit. The application to renew must be filed prior to the expiration date of the Permit and shall be made in accordance with provisions, if any, of the Town 's Zoning Code which apply at the time of the renewal application to Special Use Permits for kennels, or, if there are no such specific requirements, with the general requirements for Special Use Permits as set forth in the Town Code at the time of renewal application. The renewal application must also comply with any special renewal conditions set forth in the Permit. The Planning Board will, after a Public Hearing, act on an application for renewal. Permittee agrees to provide the owners of neighboring properties with a minimum of thirty (30) days prior written notice of intent to sell the property which is the subject of this Permit. Neighboring properties shall include, at a minimum, the following tax map parcels: 289.15-1-19.2 (Current owners: Leo & Diana Cote, 63 Cedar Court, Queensbury, New York 12804), 289.18-1-28 (Current owners: Robert & Nancy Murtha, 28 Fitzgerald Road, Queensbury, New York 12804), 289.14-1-30..1 (Current owners: Michael & Heather O'Connor, 74 Fitzgerald Road, Queensbury, New York 12804) 289.15-1-17.3 (Current owners: Dorothy Sehlmeyer, 71 Cedar Court, Queensbury, New York 12804), 289.15-2-28.1 (Current owners: Karl & Ruth Frank, 66 Cedar Court, Queensbury, New York 12804). Written notice of intent to sell shall be mailed by Permittee to the above-listed owners or, if applicable, to the successor-owners of the subject parcels. All kennel activities, except for arrival and departure, will be conducted within the building to be constructed. No external kennel activities shall be permitted on the property, including, but not limited to dog runs and dog walks, except for arrival or departure of animals. This does not prohibit the use of the property by the owners for their own personal use [including the walking of their own pet dogs]. No expansion of facilities will be permitted without a further Special Use Permit or modification of this permit. Permittee will design, construct and operate the kennel in accordance with the standards of the Pet Care Services Association, or a like organization with like or higher standards. Permittee shall provide a copy of said standards to the Town Planning Board. The ongoing and continued operation of this kennel shall be in accordance with such standards, as such standards may be revised from time to time, including ongoing operation after any renewal of the Special Use Permit. Permittee shall file with the Town Planning Board a copy of its application for certification from said Pet Care Services Association, or like organization. Permit tee shall file with the Town Planning Board copies of any inspection reports by the Pet Care Services Association , or like organization, within thirty (30) days of receipt. Such filings shall be an ongoing requirement and condition of the Permit. The arrival or departure of animals is not permitted on a 24-hour basis and shall be permitted only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 pm each day, provided, however, that this shall not prohibit reasonable accommodations for the occasional pickup or delivery of animals at other times between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. The Permit shall be subject to applicant satisfying Engineering and Town Staff comments issued in connection with the related Site Plan Review application for applicant's proposed kennel facility. The Permit shall be conditioned upon the applicant obtaining Site Plan Approval. The number of dogs is limited to 40 boarding and 15 for the SPCA. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) These Agreed Conditions of Approval shall be placed in their entirety on the final approved site plan. 3. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. Duly adopted this 23rd day of June, 2015, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-1 guess what I would like to see added is, and maybe this would capture the language from the prior one, is to say that the other terms and conditions of the prior approval shall remain in effect except as noted. Because the only thing we're really changing is the limit on the dogs and the change in hour by one. That's all we're really changing. MR. FORD-There also was that stipulation about certification by a non-existing. MR. LAPPER-That language was flexible enough with what she's done now. We're comfortable with that language. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess is the applicant saying that they can provide some information that says that they are compliant with that? MR. LAPPER-Yes, with a different certification. MRS. MOORE-With a different certification MR. FORD-There will be certification, but it won't be by the non-existent. MR. POLUNCI-It's higher than that. MRS. POLUNCI-It's higher than that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That's good to know. Okay. MRS. MOORE-And I just want to confirm, in the motion that was made, it didn't include the word CO, but in the previous conditions, I believe it does say the word CO in it. So I just want to make sure that that. MR. LAPPER-Four years from CO. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Just a clarification again, that it's changing the number of dogs to 40 for the boarding and you're adding that the SPCA has 15. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-Okay. AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver MR. HUNSINGER-So it carried four to three. MR. LAPPER-We're going to work really hard to make you all happy with the project. MRS. POLUNCI-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Excuse me. We still have a meeting going on. Could we clear the room, please? Are we waiting for Mr. Lapper to indulge us? Mr. Salvador has asked for our time for five minutes, if we can get order. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. This deals with the application that you approved at your Special Meeting on June 2nd, I believe it was, dealing with the Jet Ski tour company up on Dunham's Bay. Shortly after that approval we received a members of the Dunham's Bay Association e- mail advising us that, signed by Mr. Parillo, "Dear Neighbor: Recently there was an application submitted to the Lake George Park Commission and to the Town of Queensbury that named Dunham's Bay Marina as a potential lake access point for the jet ski guided tours. The 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) application was presented to us as a low profile tour with state of the art equipment that would be unobtrusive to Dunham's Bay Marina and our neighbors. On June 2nd the Town of Queensbury Planning Board voted unanimously to approve the Jet Ski guided tour plan with the two year trial period. A representative of the Dunham's Bay Marina was in attendance at that meetings who heard clearly your comments, concerns and all 16 letters read at the meeting. On June 4t the Lake George Park Commission determined the proposal for the Jet Ski guided tours would require Dunham's Bay Marina to modify its current marina permit. Prior to going into that meeting on June 2nd the Park Commission had issued a summary of their requirements as they saw the application and said please provide a copy of the Town's written approval or notice of non-jurisdiction. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Which they never pay any attention to, as you and I know. MR. SALVADOR-You essentially approved a site plan for that project. That's the process you go through. You approve a site plan to issue a Special Use Permit. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SALVADOR-The Park Commission required these, this kind of information on that plan that you just completely overlooked in your approval. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, no, John, we didn't overlook it. They told us, remember we asked them when they were meeting with the Park Commission. They had already met with them, but they were going to meet with them for a final approval. Do you remember that? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And what did they say, the applicant? MR. SALVADOR-They, their meeting with the Park Commission was a presentation. It wasn't a project review. Their application had not been accepted yet. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right, it hadn't been accepted, but they were going to have a meeting with them for final acceptance on June twenty something. I think it was the 23rd. I don't know, I don't remember. It was the last week of June. I don't know if they've held that and I don't know what the results are. MR. SALVADOR-Well, in any case, this is what the Commission told them on May the 19th, prior to your meeting for approval. The facility plan requires additional detail. A scale facility plan. If they produced a scale facility plan, it would be the first time in the life of this project, this Marina, that they ever put on the table a scaled plan, okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Why do you say that? Do you have something to do with? MR. SALVADOR-Finely delineating all existing and proposed buildings, individual boat trailer parking spaces, individual vehicle parking spaces, quick launch spaces, the boat cleaning area noted in the application, berthing spaces on the docks for customers boats and motorized rentals, location of non-motorized rentals, any visual buffers, garbage facilities, utilities, wastewater systems, water wells, stormwater control measures and land cover types. Of course this wasn't prepared and it's not going to be. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's not going to be prepared and they're going to approve the permit or they're going to be going elsewhere with their boat launching program. MR. SALVADOR-Now the confusion here is confusing an operation what we call quick launch as something we call a guided tour. They were mixing and matching those two things, okay, and what the application showed was that where the facility currently has a permit for 25 quick launch, which they don't use, okay, they don't use at all, but they got a permit for it, they were going to implant on this area the parking for the tour guide. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But it's not in the Town of Queensbury. So it's not our province. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, it is in the Town of Queensbury. In any case, I've written a letter that I'm going to leave with you tonight to Mr. Craig Brown, and I really take exception to this process that the Town engages in of approving a site plan, approving a site plan as a substitute for granting a use variance. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't know if it was a substitute. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) MR. SALVADOR-This is what you do. The Commission said they needed a use variance. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, but they didn't tell them when. MR. HUNSINGER-That's not what our Zoning Administrator required. MR. SCHONEWOLF-He didn't say that. MR. HUNSINGER-Just so you understand, you know, when an application gets filed, Zoning Administrator determines what it needs. MR. SALVADOR-It goes on frequently. It goes on frequently. A use variance is required for these special uses. Our Town Code doesn't allow a tour boat. There's no place in the Town Code that you allow a tour boat. All of a sudden you're granting it as a site plan approval. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The Park Commission is beyond belief. We had a hiker that was trapped at the top of a mountain and it took us six hours to go up and get her down and get her to the hospital. A week later, last Friday night, last Saturday night we had another hiker up there. They told us not to come. Can't go up there, the Park Commission said you can't go up there unless you're the head of the Park Commission, I mean, unless you're an employee of the Park Commission or you're a forest ranger. I said, good, the next time there's a fire, make sure they put it out. There was another person trapped at the top of a mountain. This time the call went to the Park Commission, and they didn't pass it on. They're going crazy. MR. SALVADOR-In any case, the point in this letter is that a tour boat operation, okay, is not an allowable use anywhere in this Town, in any zoning district, Waterfront, I don't care where. You can't allow it then without a Special Use Permit, and you were doing it with a Site Plan approval, and that's wrong. MR. FORD-Thank you, John. MR. SALVADOR-1 think I mentioned, I tried to mention that at your hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. SALVADOR-The other thing that we're going to have to come to grips with. I mentioned the navigation law, Section 39. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you think that'll ever get resolved? MR. SALVADOR-Sure. On the tail end of that, there's another section of the law. This is even more important. I mentioned to you that this whole land acquisition program of the DEC came about through a bond act. Prior to the bond act being approved, the legislature put this section into law. It's titled restriction on alienation of wetlands. Now mind you when they put this in they had not acquired the wetlands yet. It was their plan to do this. MR. SCHONEWOLF-When was the date of that? MR. SALVADOR-This was put in in 1972. It was part of the legislation authorizing the bond act. Okay. Any wetlands acquired or restored, in part or in whole, with State monies, bond act monies are State monies, pursuant to this title shall not be sold, leased or otherwise disposed of or used for any purpose inconsistent with the character or value of such wetlands. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Does that include putting boat numbers on docks? MR. SALVADOR-This is in the law. This is part of the Environmental Conservation Law. Now the same people who are stewards of that Environmental Conservation Law have allowed the macrophytes to be dredged off that estuary three times. No structure shall be placed thereon except water level regulation works necessary to preserve, restore or maintain the biologic productivity thereof. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Who are you going to send that to? MR. SALVADOR-I'm starting with you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I know you are. MR. SALVADOR-I'll leave this with you. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) MR. SALVADOR-Believe me, this is causing serious environmental damage. You see it going on all around you, okay, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to try to alleviate it. I'll leave this with you. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'm not going to vote for the next dock. MR. SALVADOR-You're not going to vote for the next dock? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'm not going to vote for approval of the next dock because it's not in the Town of Queensbury. MR. HUNSINGER-So Jon came back so we could talk about the discussion item. DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION ITEM FRIENDS REALTY ASSOCIATES, LLC AGENT BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES LOCATION 216 QUAKER ROAD TO ADDRESS TOWN'S ACCESS MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS-REGARDING CVS AND HANNAFORD SITE. JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. LAPPER-1 got to my driveway. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you really? MR. LAPPER-1 really did. This will only take a minute. So my client is the new owner of what we all know of as the CVS Plaza. When Hannaford went in for their modification it would have been a really great time to bring this up, but my guys were in the process of buying it and somehow with the notification to the old owner, it got by them. So the way it was proposed by Hannaford was to put the connection in a place that nobody cares about or that they use over by Convenient Medical Care, right by Bay Road. So you're pretty much at the Bay Road entrance and it doesn't help anybody. There's obviously a problem. I'm at Hannford three times a week. There's obviously a problem because every time they put up a fence, to me, as a site plan guy, when I saw the tires and you could see the metal conduit that was dug up with the car, it's like nobody even cares that they might be electrocuting somebody. They're just driving over. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's worse in the winter. MR. LAPPER-But that got fixed. They put a fence in, but it was there for two years. MR. MAGOWAN-Actually it was a water line, it was a sprinkler system. I tripped over it a couple of times when I parked in Hannaford and walking over. MR. LAPPER-And that's the point, because everybody wants to use both. So we have these regulations for interconnection of commercial facilities and Hannaford, I think they're not crazy about making it easier to get to another pharmacy. I don't know, but I do plazas all the time where you have a Price Chopper and a Rite Aid and stuff just happens, but here it's just a matter of safety, that you don't want cars to have to drive out onto Quaker Road or onto Bay Road, and the CVS Plaza owners would really like to have access to the traffic light so people making a left turn can head west on Quaker, they can use that light. So legally the site plan is over and you got a letter after they saw the agenda item saying, you know, how dare you not invite us to the meeting, but what actually happened was I sent Craig a letter four or five months ago saying could you try and get us a dialogue with Hannaford, and they, and he wrote them a letter and they came back and said, what part of we already have site plan don't you understand. So I'm asking you, after I talked to Craig, to pass a resolution or just send a letter to Hannaford, ask them to come and see if we could have an informal meeting, because maybe if we all talk about it as a, you know, community minded company, they might do the right thing if we all talk about it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They were the ones that were going to go over and talk to CVS about putting that, make it left turn, you know, as you're going out, making a left turn and coming into CVS's parking lot, and they never did it, and they said they were going to do that when we gave them permission to build the drive in. MR. LAPPER-Well, they want to do it by Convenient Medical Care by Bay in the back of Hannaford, where the dumpsters are. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) MR. DEEB-Yes, where there's no room. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and it doesn't make any sense. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It doesn't make any sense back there. MR. HUNSINGER-What really makes sense is for both plazas to use the red light. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Close off the ingress and egress that CVS has on Quaker. MR. LAPPER-And CVS would agree to that. They would gladly. We'd lose a curb cut that was too close to the main intersection anyway. MR. FORD-Let's re-open the dialogue. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm like you, Jon. We shop exclusively at Hannaford. I spend thousands of dollars. I love Hannaford. I love the new store. MR. LAPPER-So we want to just have a dialogue and maybe they'll do the right thing because it's better for the community, and that traffic, their entrance is too close to the big intersection at Quaker and Bay. MR. TRAVER-And you think a resolution from us is a mechanism? MR. LAPPER-Whether it's a resolution or just a request to tell Craig that the Planning Board has asked them to come in for a workshop, you know, they'll come in. They might not agree, but at least they'll listen just, and talk about it. MR. HUNSINGER-Does someone want to make that motion? MR. SCHONEWOLF-So moved. MRS. MOORE-The motion is to request Craig to communicate with the other property owner to come in for a workshop session? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. FORD-Both property owners with us. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Thank you. RESOLUTION RE: HANNAFORD & CVS DISCUSSION MOTION TO REQUEST CRAIG BROWN TO COMMUNICATE WITH HANNAFORD AND CVS TO COME IN FOR A WORKSHOP SESSION WITH THE PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 23rd day of June, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You know, we did ask them when they were here to get the drive-in for the pharmacy. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I knew they weren't going to do anything about it because they didn't like the idea. MR. HUNSINGER-It just didn't go far and we didn't have any real leverage. MR. LAPPER-Well, because the other guy should have been here arguing. They called me after it happened. 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I said I'd try to keep you up to date on the Jefferson Project. There's an open house Thursday from 10 to 2 at the Darren Freshwater Institute, and they are going to have exhibits. I think there's five or six projects that are going on on the lake that they're going to show you where they stand on them, but if you're interested in that project, I find it very exciting. It's science instead of all that BS we do. MR. LAPPER-Good night, everyone. MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks, Jon. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's open to the public. So just walk in. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you want to address the Board before we adjourn? FRANK HARDICK MR. HARDICK-What I'd like to do is just impose on the Board for just a minute. Because I just mentioned about the chemicals and the septic system. Too much information is missing on the drawings and I notified the DEC and the DEC is going to come in because they're interested in it from four years ago, and they said what they want to do is they want to check what chemicals that they're using because it does impact the groundwater and if they're not a danger, that's fine, but it does go into a trout stream. So I'd suggest that if the State guy comes down here, Mike Duffany, he'll probably notify the Town to get up there to check on the site, and you ought to get a copy of whatever he finds. The Town doesn't have anything to do with it because this is a State thing. I just thought I'd help you. MR. HUNSINGER-But just so you know, when they did their project approval four years ago, there was extensive testimony and documentation that they provided to the Town about how they clean up and the septic system design and all of that. It should all be on record. MR. HARDICK-But the Town has no authority to do anything about it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HARDICK-Because normally, unless there's chemicals involved, the State gets involved even if there's three ounces of chemicals that are involved. Normally you get 1,000 gallons a day, and that's okay, as for septic. You guys on the Board, I'll tell you, you're getting an education because I used to help Boards like yourself and I'd get an education helping you, but the other thing I wanted to mention, I did fill in one time for a municipality as a building inspector and code enforcement officer. That was the worst job I ever volunteered for, and I'll tell you why. Boards like yourself, and every Board has done this. They pass all these conditions, penalties, you know, this and that and the other thing on conditions. I challenge any town to go and check their past 10 years to see if all these things that everybody passed is being adhered to. I spent the first two hours a day, and that's all I was allowed to do it, two hours a day asking the clerk to go back and check things and give me a list and what I could do, and then I spent time at night, on my own time, I didn't bill the town, go back and I'd see how many of these things were delinquent. It was terrible. It was terrible. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, they don't always give them the right information. MR. HARDICK-Yes, because, listen, I sympathize with you guys on this Board because you've got to believe every night, just like Lapper here, and I mention his name, he said two or three cats. I get in the place up there and I was invited up to look at it, I counted 23 cats, and I couldn't see in some of the cabinets because they'd changed. That's what I mean. I wish that everybody that comes before you is honest and straightforward and helps you. KATHY SONNABEND MRS. SONNABEND-One thing I want to correct is Cedar Court never polluted this pond. That was a failure of Schermerhorn's leach field which is behind his apartments. Our leach field is all the way up closer to Bay Road. MR. HARDICK=We're not even in the same area. MRS. SONNABEND-It's not us. There's never been a mandate for us to connect to sewer, as much as I would like to. 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/23/2015) MR. SCHONEWOLF-DEC always used to ask to call them up and you have a spill, and then say how much, four and a half gallons, that's what I tell them all the time, and that's what every fire chief tells them, and then they don't show up. MR. HARDICK-Anyway, I appreciate this extra time with you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Can I just, there is a process when an application is approved. There is a specific process that applicants come back through our office through, submitting final plans. We do have a Code Enforcement Officer that checks those plans, goes out, says, if you planted the red tree versus the blue tree, you need to explain why you did that and you need to come talk about it. Sometimes this information comes back to the Board for modification. So it is being checked. There is a true process that's occurring. MR. DEEB-What about years later? Are you talking about years later? MRS. MOORE-No, I mean, we're on top of that now. That's why the Town hired. MRS. SONNABEND-Why did they never join a pet services organization? MRS. MOORE-They did apply for that. I do have information in the file. I mean, I don't quite know where that came from that they didn't, but they did. That information is in the file. MRS. SONNABEND-There's others out there they could have chosen. This was years ago. MR. HARDICK-Well, we can't keep you guys after midnight. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make a motion? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 23, 2015, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 23rd day of June, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Ford, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 67