Loading...
2008.12.16 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 16, 2008 INDEX Subdivision No. 17-2006 Theodore & Kathy Ann Rawson 1. EXTENSION Tax Map No. 300.-1-20.1 Site Plan No. 39-2008 Cellco Partnership 2. Tax Map No. 295.18-2-11 Site Plan No. 64-2007 Brian McCall 3. Tax Map No. 302.8-1-39, 38 Subdivision No. 13-2007 John Fedorowicz 3. Tax Map No. 265-1-19.11 Site Plan No. 38-2008 Robin Inwald 3. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16 Special Use Permit No. 30-2008 Mary Lee Gosline & John & Kim Polunci 4. Tax Map No. 289.15-1-1.1 DISCUSSION Colortyme Rentals 41. ZBA RECOMMENDATION ONLY Tax Map No. 296.13-1-18 Subdivision No. 5-2008 Dariusz Jackowski 43. PRELIMINARY & FINAL STG. Tax Map No. 265-1-73.2 Site Plan No. 50-2008 General Timber 46. Tax Map No. 265.-1-28 Subdivision No. 4-1990 Matthew/Samantha Ball 65. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 308.6-1-15, 15 DISCUSSION Sicard Subdivision 69. 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. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 16, 2008 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY DONALD SIPP THOMAS SEGULJIC STEPHEN TRAVER THOMAS FORD MEMBERS ABSENT TANYA BRUNO LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll call to order the December 16, 2008 meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. On the back table for members in the audience there is a copy of the agenda. Along with the agenda is a handout that references public hearing information. So if tonight is the first time that you’ve ever been to a Planning Board meeting, that will help you understand the process and the proceedings at hand. The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from October 21 and October 28, 2008. Would someone like to make a recommendation? APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 21, 2008 October 28, 2008 MOTION TO APPROVE THE PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATED OCTOBER 21 AND OCTOBER 28, 2008, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Ford ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MR. HUNSINGER-We will discuss nomination of officers later in the evening after we get through our regular schedule. The next item is Administrative Items. Three projects that are, actually four projects that are for further tabling. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS EXTENSION OF FINAL APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 17-2006 THEODORE & KATHY ANN RAWSON: SEE LETTER FROM ETHAN HALL RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE MR. HUNSINGER-And there was a letter passed out this evening. Is there any discussion? Are people comfortable with granting the requested extension? MRS. STEFFAN-It seems reasonable. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think so. MR. FORD-I don’t have a problem with it. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make a resolution to that effect? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO EXTEND FINAL APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 17-2006 THEODORE & KATHY ANN RAWSON, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: As set forth in the letter submitted by Ethan Hall. That’s going to be tabled to the thth February 24 meeting, with an application deadline of February 15. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Now there are three projects for further tabling consideration. We should address them one at a time. FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION: SP 39-08 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP MR. HUNSINGER-At the request of the applicant. Keith, I think you said they’ve requested a 90 day? MR. OBORNE-That is correct, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-So they would want to come before us in March? MR. OBORNE-That would be correct, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And the submission deadline would be? th MR. OBORNE-February 15. thth MR. HUNSINGER-February, well, the 15’s a Sunday. So the 16 on Monday. The thth meetings in March would the 17 and the 24. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 39-2008 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: thth Tabled to the March 17 meeting with an application deadline of February 15. th Duly adopted this 16 day of February, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno SP 64-07 B. MC CALL MR. HUNSINGER-Did they request a specific date or a specific time to submit information? MR. OBORNE-Yes. They’re looking for a February meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-A February meeting. th MR. OBORNE-With a submission date of January 15. thth MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So February 17 or 24. th MRS. STEFFAN-Well, didn’t you say the McCall’s wanted the 24? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MR. OBORNE-McCall? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. OBORNE-My understanding is that they want a February meeting. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 64-2007 BRIAN MC CALL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: thth Tabled to the February 17 meeting with an application deadline of January 15. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno SUB 13-07 J. FEDOROWICZ MR. HUNSINGER-And now a similar situation with John Fedorowicz. Are they requesting a specific date or month? MR. OBORNE-Again, February. MR. HUNSINGER-February? Okay. th MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we’ll do them on the 24. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2007 JOHN FEDOROWICZ, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: thth Tabled to the February 24 meeting with an application deadline of January 15. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MR. HUNSINGER-And just let the record show on all three projects the public hearing was tabled and will be tabled until the meeting date specified. SITE PLAN NO. 38-2008 SEQR TYPE II ROBIN INWALD AGENT(S) PARADOX DESIGNS OWNER(S) INWALD ENTERPRISES, LLC ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 38 GUNN LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES AN 863 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION WHICH WILL CONNECT THE GARAGE TO THE MAIN HOUSE AND A 400 SQ. FT. SCREENED PORCH ADDITION. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 68-08; SEASONAL RESIDENCE; [BP 92-378, 89-059, 6987, 6732, 6589] WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/8/08 APA/DEC/CEA LG CEA, APA LOT SIZE 0.66 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-16 SECTION 179-13-010, 179-9-020 MR. HUNSINGER-Before we get into the regular agenda, if there is anyone in the audience here for the Robin Inwald, Site Plan 38-2008, the applicant has requested that we table that. Do they specify a timeframe, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Sixty days. MR. HUNSINGER-Sixty days. MR. OBORNE-Yes. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MR. HUNSINGER-So they’d want to come back in February as well? MR. OBORNE-That’s what it’s looking like, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We might as well take care of that while we’re on the subject. MR. OBORNE-Excuse me, sir, that was 90 days. MR. HUNSINGER-Ninety days. MR. OBORNE-My apologies. MR. HUNSINGER-So it would be March. MR. OBORNE-Yes. thth MR. HUNSINGER-March 17 or 24. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 38-2008 ROBIN INWALD, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: th Tabled to the March 24 meeting. They will have an application deadline for materials of th February 15. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and then finally the recommendation for Colortyme Rentals. We will consider that after we get through our tabled and scheduled items. TABLED ITEMS: SPECIAL USE PERMIT 30-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MARY LEE GOSLINE OWNER(S) MARYLEE GOSLINE ZONING RR-3A, P O APPLICANT PROPOSES DOG PARK KENNEL SITUATED ON A 20.58 +/- ACRE PARCEL.. KENNELS IN AN RR ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 18-2005; AV 48-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING 8/13/08 APA/DEC/CEA DEC & NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 20.58 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.15-1-1.1 SECTION 179-10-060C MATT FULLER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes and if the applicant could come up to the table, whenever you’re ready. MR. OBORNE-Special Use Permit 30-2008, John and Kim Polunci and Marylee Gosline. The applicants propose to build a dog park and kennel on 20.58 acres. Site Plan Review required for Special Use permits. Location is 21 Blind Rock Road. Existing zoning is Rural Residential Three Acres. This is an Unlisted SEQRA, and the applicant has submitted a Short Form EAF review is required for this Unlisted action. Project Description. The applicants propose building a kennel and dog park on the 20.58 acres owned by one of the applicants. The kennel would be located in excess of 200 feet from any property line according to the plans submitted. The total square footage for the structure submitted will be 768 square feet. Vehicular access is achieved on a yet to be designated crushed stone road. Parking for 8 vehicles, including one handicap space is provided. The proposed kennel is located on the center of the parcel and upland. Concerning the Dog Park, the applicant proposes to use the park for day visits only. The proposed dog park location has changed and is now more centered on the property with a portion located on the steep slope, 150 feet from the kennel and will incorporate a 6 foot fence surrounding approximately a third (0.323) acres. Parking for five (5) spaces is proposed along with a path to one of the two double gates. There are DEC and NWI wetlands on the property. With the revisions to the original plan, the applicant’s must 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) apply for a Freshwater Wetland Permit as there is disturbance within 100 feet of a wetland. Specifically, the road cut designed to reduce the slope of the main access road and the parking lot grading for the dog park are both within 100 feet of the NWI wetlands designated on the attached Town Map, and what follows is Site Plan Review, which I assume the Board has reviewed. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. The floor is yours. MR. FULLER-Good evening. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Board, Matt Fuller from Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker Firth, for the applicants, Marylee Gosline and John and Kim Polunci. I have Tom Hutchins with me, and Larry Devivo is going to talk about the sound. We’ve obviously been retained to address the comments that have come up, the checklist of materials that the Planning Board wanted last time, and I think in the last couple of months we’ve asked for a couple of tablings to put all that information together, and I think that the application materials that we’ve submitted to you have accomplished that goal. Just to recap real quick, I know that they were here in September, and you certainly have a pretty good idea of the project that we’re talking about. Marylee’s, the owner of a 20 plus acre of land just down the road here off Blind Rock Road, upon which her, her daughter Kim and son-in-law John propose to construct a dog kennel. Previously the application has included variance requests, the goal of which was to bring the property closer to the Gosline and Polunci properties, but to not request variances they’ve gone back to the setbacks, and the maps show the setbacks. The plans include the fenced in area for the dogs to run. One of the suggestions was that it be double- gated and we’ve done that. As you’ll see also on the plans that we’ve submitted, there’s a structure, the actual kennel itself. It is going to be a steel outside structure, and working with Larry, they’ve designed some sound, not soundproofing, but sound reduction plans with different sheetrocks and things that Larry will talk about. Some of the comments were about water, utilities. There’s going to be an HVAC system, hot water. They’ve got plans for all of that. One of the questions that came up in the past was about what the interior make up of the kennel is going to look like. Some of them are fixed. Some of them are movable, your general kennels that one might envision if you had a dog, different sizes for different sized dogs, that they can move around and kind of accommodate as they need to. As for the property itself, the Planning Board is aware that it was, in the past, used by Schermerhorn Construction for the depositing of fill from projects in the area here. So that is a backfilled property if you will. As far as the compaction goes, that road that’s in there, the driveway that they’re proposing to use, I can’t count the amount of dump trucks that probably traveled over that over the years, full, full and empty, in and out, excavators and things like that. So we’re pretty confident with the compaction rates and things like that, and Tom can briefly touch on that. We were talking about the road. The driveway that they’re proposing to use was used by you know, dump trucks and things when Schermerhorn owned the property. So I think we’re reasonably comfortable that the compaction of that road is quite substantial, and I would even venture to guess probably better that some of the developments that I’ve been out to, as far as compaction goes and construction projects. Sometimes its unfortunate when projects like this get caught up in and tried in the press and the comments that get out there, and things like that. I think what the family has tried to do is put together a good application. We’re looking at 20 acres of land, ten acres is required, 200 foot setbacks are being applied here. Some of the arguments and things that we’ve seen, you know, the changes to the neighborhood in the last 20 years warrant this being denied, you know, somewhat interestingly, a lot of the comments are coming from two of the most dense developments in the area over there. So it’s difficult, on our side, to justify arguments that, you know, because we’ve built up the density, that now that’s changed and now we’re going to use that against you. I think that the buffer that’s there is going to remain. This is, I’d say, more of an open space kind of a use. It could be developed with residences. Certainly that’s one of the allowed uses, but, you know, arguments that we’ve seen, and that you’re going to hear again tonight, that the rights of the petitioning neighbors and things like that should outweigh the rights of one individual applicant, you know, I think we all agree that’s not why we’re here. In fact, that’s why we’re here is to protect against that, so that the views of the majority don’t out rule the rights of an applicant. The Board has never done that, and I don’t expect that we’ll get into that tonight. I think that the materials that you asked for came right out of your Special Use Permit criteria. I think we did a good job of taking a look at those comments and addressing particularly the noise issues. That seems to be the big one, and I think we’ve done a good job of that, and Larry’s going to give us some good information on that because he’s been out to a kennel and done actual field study. We didn’t take into account, intentionally, vegetation and things like that. We left it as a wide open study, to say if it was from here to here, with no interference in between, this is what you’re going to see. The vegetation and the wetlands and the things that are out there are only going to improve upon that. So that the numbers you’re going to see tonight are open 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) numbers, based on those distances. So I think we’ve addressed those concerns. One of the other things that’s come up is the Rural Residential area of the Town. If you take a look at the zoning, which I did, actually pulled all the charts down today, you actually can’t construct a kennel, as a special use, Site Plan Review or otherwise, in a commercial or industrial district. You can’t put one in a Mixed Use district in a residential zone. There’s two zones, RR-3, RR-5 and the Land Conservation zones, where you could put one of these, and interestingly, when I got thinking about the 10 acres and the setbacks, you know, I think that the10 acres and the 200 foot setbacks, some have argued that because of the changes they’re no longer relevant. I think it’s the opposite. I think they’re even more relevant now, and I’d argue that that’s foresight, not bad planning. I think this would be different if this project was surrounded on all four sides, immediately abutting it, with high density residential developments. It would be a different scenario. I think that’s the scenario when, if you’re just coming in with bare minimums, 10 acres, maybe even 9 acres looking for variances, you know, smaller setbacks, that the decision gets harder for the Board because there’s a lot more impact with all the immediate owners. Here we’ve got acres upon acres of forever wild. This is a 20 acre spot itself. Tom’s put together a map which we’re going to give you, an aerial photo, with the distances shown on it. I mean, we’re talking distances of 1,000 feet. The closest one we’ve looked at tonight from the fenced in area was about 875 feet. That’s to the closest structure. I’m hard pressed to find, you know, with distances and things like that, in the RR-3 or RR-5 zone, locations like that that are central, and that’s, I mean, you could be on the outskirts of Town, but, you know, the demand is for the services internally. So, you know, I think that argument that somehow the zoning’s gotten stale or it needs to be taken a look at, I mean, over the years Queensbury’s been through so many master plans and reviewing its ordinances, I just don’t think that’s the case. I think it’s as much relevant now as it was 20 years ago, and the 10 acre minimum which we’re meeting, doubling, and the 200 foot setbacks which we’re meeting and quadrupling and quintupaling, in some instances, I think protects the neighbors. The short of it is, like I said, you guys had come up with a specific list of information that you wanted to see, and I think we’ve provided it. We’ve got the plans there. They’re marked S-1 and S-2. They show the topography, the setbacks, the septic areas, wastewater designs, where the septic’s going to be for the building, the utility plans, parking plans, light fixture plans, elevation drawings of the kennel with photos. That is an existing structure that will be purchased and erected on the spot, at the site out there, the fenced in area for the dogs to run, the septic and waste plans, again, for the bathrooms. We have the doggie septic system that we provided in the original submission, the updated submission, since we submitted that and went to verify that everything was still true, that model was discontinued. So I have copies of the model that it replaced. Essentially the same idea. The waste goes into a composting type of a structure, and you add the enzymes and some water and it breaks down and, you know, percolates like a septic. One of the comments was, you know, where’s the leach field going to be for these types of systems. They don’t need them. It’s literally, you dig the hole, put the structure in, fill around it, and as long as you add the enzymes and the water, the material we have says that they work. We’ve provided, again, the photos with the interior layout showing the actual kennels, again, that can be moved around and adapted. I think one of the overlying concerns here is the dogs, you know, we want them to have a comfortable environment, and the interior proposal that we’re proposing provides that flexibility for the family to take care of the dogs. Another one of the comments that’s come up is the property values. I saw a letter that just got submitted here recently from a real estate broker alleging impacts to the property values. I have here a follow up to prior submissions, one, Tom Moore, who lives in the neighborhood, who is a licensed appraiser, not a broker, he’s a licensed appraiser, full competent and licensed to give opinions on value, has said absolutely not. It’s far too speculative to ever say that with these distances and the wetlands and things that are in between, the forever wild, the size of the 20 acre parcel, there’s not going to be an impact on the land. In addition, in the packet of stuff I’m going to hand out to you, we have a letter from Helen Otte, the prior Assessor for the Town, saying, again, you know, based on the size of the parcel, the setbacks that we’re talking about here, the distances, that there’s just absolutely no claim and no credible argument that there’s going to be a property, you know, a justifiable property impact on the value. So we’ve provided that to the Board. That brings us to the noise. One of the big concerns, as I mentioned, seems to be noise from the dogs, and looking back, I read the minutes, read them all, both from the ZBA and Planning Board meetings in September, saw the comments from the neighbors, read those, too, went to the Town, read all those comments. That seems to be one of the big issue. So we addressed it, you know, you can’t come in here and say that it’s not going to have a noise impact unless you talk to somebody who can say that and can show to you what the actual impact is. So we have Larry, and in our materials, you have that, he did the distances, went to the kennel down in Gansevoort and visited it, took the readings, and based on the distances and his field observations at the property, he’s been there, went there on a 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) weekend to get a good justification of exactly what the people are going to be dealing with on the weekends. I thought that was a good recommendation to do it on a Sunday, and, you know, he’s done something that nobody else has, which is provide you with an actual study with the figures. So I’ll turn it over to Larry here and we can go through that. LARRY DEVIVO MR. DEVIVO-Hi. My name’s Larry Devivo. I own Silvertone Mastering, Incorporated, an audio engineering and consulting firm. I was contacted by John Polunci back in September to come out to the proposed property for the dog kennels to try and determine the level of noise that the dogs would create, could create. We took measurements, that day, of what the static ambient noise was at 11 a.m. on a Sunday morning, and it was 54 decibels, which is slightly quieter than your average city noise level is around 65 decibels. So it was 54 decibels. We then took some readings, a couple of John’s dogs barking, at roughly 10 feet away. The dog barking was 72 decibels. I know me just saying these numbers are pie in the sky, but let me tell you, in the room tonight before the meeting started, average level here was 70 decibels in this room. So, the dog barking at 10 feet away, 75 decibels. The way sound works is that for every time the distances double, sound is attenuated by six decibels, it goes down six decibels. So that that one dog barking at 72 decibels, at 700 feet, by the time you do the calculations and measure out, that same dog barking is down to 50 decibels, in the ambient noise floor, basically. So that dog barking, yes, it can be heard, but it’s the same level as the wind and cars going by and trees and whatever else is the static ambient noise at the time. Much like a train in the distance can be heard, but John asked me to come out and to take readings to see if any of this noise level would constitute dangerous noise levels, and the noise levels themselves, what constitutes dangerous noise levels were set by the Occupation Safety and Health Administration, has published the specifications on that. The long and short of it is the dogs barking come nowhere near any of the dangerous noise levels. Ninety decibels, for instance, rather loud, large, say auditorium with a lot of noise going on. You would have to be in there for eight hours of that loud noise going on before any noise damage could start, and as the level increases, of course, the exposure time decreases. So, for instance, a small dog, which has the highest pitched barks, okay, only because of the size of the dog, of course, it’s a safety thing for the dog, would average somewhere around 100 to 105 decibels. Again, once you do the calculations, and I’m only talking from a foot or two away, okay. That dog would have to bark at that level for a constant one hour to institute what would be considered hazardous to one’s health or hearing. Again, once you calculate out the distance to the nearest house, no matter what, it drops into the ambient noise floor. So to further investigate, I went to Bailey’s Bed and Biscuit in Gansevoort and where I board my dog, and on a day that they happened to have around 15 dogs in the kennel or so, and took some readings from outside, slamming my car door, yelling to try to get the dogs to bark, all 15. Next to impossible to get 15 dogs to bark at once. So you’re dealing with several dogs barking at once. Even so, 10 feet away, over a good neighbor, six foot high good neighbor fence, the reading was 90 decibels. Again, doing the calculations out, at 640 feet, we’re down to 54 decibels. Again, well within the ambient noise floor. Can the dogs be heard? Yes. Health hazard? No. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else, or are you ready for questions? MR. FULLER-I think, what I thought we would do is just quickly go through Dan’s comments, Dan Ryan’s. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FULLER-And then Staff comments. Tom can address them. We’ll just go through Dan’s comments real quick. One of his comments was that to have a physical barrier along the access road. I didn’t speak with him, but my clients talked to Dan today, and he suggested rocks bouldered down near where the driveway crosses over the separation between the two ponds, and that would satisfy his concern. So we’ll certainly take that, I think that would be more aesthetically pleasing than some sort of guiderail or something like that. So Dan was comfortable with that. One of the questions he asked about easements, you know, do they need to have any easements back and forth between the two properties, and I would submit that they don’t. If it ever, they’ve said to you that they’re going to run it as long as they own their neighboring properties. If for some reason they ever didn’t own one of them, and they had to get the utilities directly from the main line at Blind Rock, we could do that, or, worst case scenario, we could give the easements across the property. So if that needed to be a condition or something, we certainly could deal with that. Gravel and compaction. Again, we talked about the prior 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) ingress and egress by the dump trucks and excavators and things like that. Tom, do you have any comments on the compaction or anything or the gravel? MR. HUTCHINS-No. The material we specified is primarily shoulder stone, and the compaction will be tested, but it’ll be tested after where we disturb after the work’s done. It’ll be rolled shoulder stone. MR. FULLER-One of the comments was water, the water supply, and in talking to John, the water’s going to come from his property. John correct me, just briefly comment, his capacity of his well has a backup system of 125 gallons? JOHN POLUNCI MR. POLUNCI-My well has 125 gallon buffer tank. I’ve got a mound drive. So pretty much what that means is I have 125 gallons recovery time before I even draw from my well. I have it for a filtration system I have, because I have high iron content in there. So water is not going to be an issue as far as supplying. I can supply basically 125 gallons before the pump comes on. MR. HUNSINGER-So is that the main reason why you wouldn’t look at a new water source for? MR. POLUNCI-One is the water quality. The water quality I have, actually I have $10,000 in water treatment, because if we drill a well, we’re in Glen Lake’s vein, and it’s high iron content, and you need many backwashing systems to correct that problem. I already have it, and I have the capacity to treat the water I need. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FULLER-Thanks, John. Turning to the Staff comments, the interior of the structure, I think I addressed that with showing the kennel, the interior kennels that are fixed and then the movable kennels. The percentage of side slope cuts and stormwater controls, I’ll let Tom address briefly. He’ll quickly flip through the plans for you. Water we just dealt with. The wall packs we will correct. I think it didn’t show that they were downcast, and we’ll certainly correct that on the plan, that’s the intent. The header scale, we’ll definitely correct that. There were, there was a cross up in the two scales noted on the map, and we’ll correct that. The floor space for each dog, we calculated, you know, after walls and the bathroom and the closet and the furnace area and the things that are on the inside of the structure that take up square footage, that took about 760 square feet. With the 20 dogs max that are proposed, that’s roughly 28.8 square feet per dog. That was the calculation that was asked for, and as far as the big dog’s septic system, I submitted the revised plans on that, and just as I was submitting that, Keith asked if I would get these into the record, the letters and things that I submitted with it. The one here is from Helen, and I can read that, if you want to have it in the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that the letter you just passed out? MR. FULLER-That’s right, I just handed out to you. I can just briefly read it to you. “ Re: Proposed dog kennel of Blind Rock Road Dear Chairman Hunsinger and Members of the Planning Board: My appraisal opinion has been solicited regarding a Project proposed for a tract of land off Blind Rock Rd Specifically, I was asked if the proposed Project would add to or detract from the property value of surrounding parcels. Based on more than thirty years appraisal experience I several counties, experience which most recently included eighteen years as the Queensbury Assessor, it is my opinion that the Project in question would not cause any decrease in the value of adjoining properties or of parcels at some distance from the Project: This opinion is based on the following facts: (1) the size of the parcel which allows for excellent setbacks from the parcel boundaries (2) the substantial buffer provided by the wooded acres of the subject property as well as of an 80 acre forever wild parcel contiguous on one boundary (3) the uneven topography of the subject which provides further barrier The final appraisal consideration is appropriateness of the Project to the neighborhood in which it is proposed. The size of the subject property, the excessive setbacks and the nature of the Project – carefully planned to be in compliance with the Town’s zoning – all contribute to my opinion of the effect of the Project on the market value of surrounding property. In my appraisal experience I can see no negative impact on real estate values in the area. Respectfully, Helen Otte, Queensbury Assessor, retired 277 South St. Glens Falls, NY 12801” And attached to that we have some letters from supporting neighbors, and I’ll just read them, the one letter here. “I am a homeowner in the Town of Queensbury residing at 7 Blackberry Lane. My home and the quality of my neighborhood are very 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) important to me. I have evaluated the above application and feel that the proposed use will not negatively impact either the pleasure I receive from my home or its value or the quality of my neighborhood. The Goslines and Poluncis are good neighbors and good stewards of their property. The proposed is us an allowed use for the area. In fact, it is a allowed use on 10 (ten) acres, much less land than 20 acres the applicants propose using. Further, it carries out the purpose of the Rural Residential Zone to “enhance the natural open space and rural character of the Town of Queensbury”. For all these reasons, I support the above application.” And that’s Dan Williams, Mr. Horgan, Rich DelSignore, Cheryl Williams, Lucille DelSignore and Linda DelSignore, and with that, we’ll open it up to questions from the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. TRAVER-Yes. I’d like to ask a couple of questions, again, regarding the sound and thank you for presenting us with that information. That does somewhat help an otherwise subjective issue. With regards to the sound, the static ambient noise at 54 decibels and a dog barking a 700 feet in your report is listed at 50, and you mention that in fact that is in the background sound floor. MR. DEVIVO-Right. It would be in the ambient noise floor at that point. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Now, since the 50 decibels is less than the background noise, and yet I thought in your statement you said that the dogs could still be heard. Could you elaborate a little bit more on that, since it’s a less volume than the? MR. DEVIVO-Sure. What we did was we took the level of the dog barking was from 10 feet away. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DEVIVO-So if you take, and it registered 72 decibels. MR. TRAVER-And you extrapolated that out to 700 feet. MR. DEVIVO-Exactly. What we did was, because sound drops six decibels every time it is doubled, that’s why when we calculated it out to the 700 feet, it was 50 decibels. So basically within the noise floor at that point, and crossed into the noise floor. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEVIVO-Okay. So again, the trees or the wind rustling by, that are closer, are going to be louder than that dog in the noise floor, still heard, but. MR. TRAVER-That’s what I was I guess trying to better understand myself. Since the 50 is less than the background 54, would the actual barking of the dog be detectable out of that sound floor, or because that’s less? MR. DEVIVO-Yes. You would still hear it. It’s much like I use the train in the distance, how you can hear it still. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEVIVO-No matter what, you’re going to hear it. MR. TRAVER-And likewise the group of dogs, 15 dogs that you measured, extrapolate out to 54 decibels at 640 feet, which is roughly equivalent, or is equivalent to what you recorded as the ambient noise at the location. Correct? MR. DEVIVO-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So, what is the difference, then, between the pack of dogs at 54 and the individual at 50? MR. DEVIVO-Again, it’s just the way sound works itself. Once the distance, the sound goes out to the distance, it may still be heard, okay, but keep in mind that 54 decibels that we measured was, what made that read at 54 was whatever the closest noise was at the time, which was probably the wind going by, while we were holding our breath, if you will, not talking. So the calculation, again, is just taken from the group of dogs using the same, which was the same, I’m sorry, I’m drawing a blank, using the same, I’m at a 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) loss for words here, calculations, I’m sorry, using the same calculation, exactly. It’s laws of physics. Every time length is doubled, it drops six decibels. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you basically measured the sound pressure at the source and at various levels. Did you do any analysis of the frequency of the sound? MR. DEVIVO-No, I didn’t. That would vary. Again, because when you’re taking outside measurements, the frequencies all combine, if you will. It’s not to say that everything’s the same frequency, obviously, of course, it’s not, but you couldn’t actually do that. It would be next to impossible to do that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEVIVO-Much like I was saying, you know, the bigger the dog, the lower the frequency in the bark. The smaller the dog, the higher, and that’s just strictly a nature doing that, so that that smaller dog can be heard. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Just one other question for now, and that is, the static ambient noise level you reported in your report at 54 decibels, can you comment as to whether or not you consider that typical in another location? Would you call that, was it a windy day? Would you say that that’s relatively high background noise or relatively low? MR. DEVIVO-No, that was relatively low. MR. TRAVER-Relatively low. MR. DEVIVO-And John had me come out on a Sunday morning purposely. He wanted it at the quietest time. If we were to go when the traffic was letting out, normal commute times, or something, it would probably be somewhere around 60 to 64 decibels. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEVIVO-Average city is about 65 decibels. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEVIVO-Average talking, 65 decibels. MR. TRAVER-So, hypothetically, then, if the day were windy, or there was an increase in traffic or it was raining or there was something contributing to that background noise, would that diminish the impact of the barking of the dogs? MR. DEVIVO-It can be picked up a few decibels, it can be increased or decreased by a few decibels, but not much more than that. MR. TRAVER-Just a few decibels. Okay. Good. That’s what I was wondering. Thank you very much. MR. DEVIVO-You’re welcome. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions on noise from members of the Board? MR. FORD-Yes. Is there a scientific parameter or requirement that you initiate yo8ur decibel level measurement at? You started at 10 feet? MR. DEVIVO-We just started at 10 feet, yes. MR. FORD-Is there a reason for starting it there? MR. DEVIVO-No, other than. MR. FORD-And then you’re doubling that and you decrease the db level and so forth. MR. DEVIVO-Exactly. Exactly. MR. FORD-But there isn’t a reason for starting at 10 feet? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MR. DEVIVO-No. It was simply the distance we were measuring the noise floor. Again, if we were to go right up to one feet away, it would be louder, okay, but then again, once you start doubling it back out at 10 feet, it would be that level. MR. FORD-So you can start anywhere and double that out and it does not impact the decibel level at 200 feet, for example. MR. DEVIVO-Exactly. Correct. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Just using that logic, if you go the other way, at five feet, what would you have, 180, 96, and at two and a half feet. MR. DEVIVO-You would add six decibels, then. If you were to take the 72 decibels at 10 feet and go five feet, you would now have 80 decibels. MR. SEGULJIC-No, if you went to five feet you’d have 96 decibels. At two and a half feet, you’d have 102 decibels. MR. DEVIVO-It’s a six decibel increase or decrease either way. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, but at one foot you’re going to have 108 decibels. MR. DEVIVO-And that would be about right. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. DEVIVO-That would be correct. MR. SEGULJIC-But one thing I would like to point out also is that it’s not about whether the noise is dangerous or not. MR. DEVIVO-That’s what I was originally contacted for. I was contacted originally because it was into question whether it was a health violation or a dangerous noise levels. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I actually had similar questions to that, because we’ve kind of, we’ve gone through this with other projects before, and as you probably know, the Town does not have a noise ordinance, and we had a project, a housing project that was close to the Northway, and one of the things we had asked them about was noise levels, and there really are no standards, either Town standards or State standards, but there are HUD standards for what they consider to be safe noise levels for residential use, and I don’t remember off the top of my head what the numbers are, but I had similar questions to what Tom was saying is, you know, I think you did a pretty good job of demonstrating that the noise levels would be safe, but my question is, at what level is the sound either a nuisance. You did say it would be discernable. MR. DEVIVO-That’s subjective, at what level of sound’s a nuisance. I mean, to one person who is sensitive, us talking in the room could be hurting them. MR. FORD-A dripping faucet could be a very low decibel level, but a great nuisance to an individual. MR. DEVIVO-Exactly, but you’re talking something totally subjective and that’s down to the individual. So I can’t really answer that. OSHA sets the standards that most, that we follow mostly, when it comes to exposure to noise, and what constitutes dangerous levels. MR. HUNSINGER-So just to kind of follow one step further, if the noise level is somewhere around 50 decibels, to the edge of the neighbor’s properties, what would the noise level then be typically within the house? I mean, how much of a further reduction is there by having windows closed? MR. DEVIVO-Again, it depends on the construction of the house, okay, you know, single wall construction, dual wall construction, and insulation, sheet rock, RC Channels, whatever. John has also asked me to give him information regarding, because he wants to attenuate the sound within the buildings. So I’ve given him information on products available that can do just that. It’s not uncommon for a standard house to have 40 or 50 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) decibels of attenuation from inside noise to outside noise, okay. That’s why when you’re inside your house you wouldn’t typically hear, necessarily, the static noise outside with all the windows and doors shut. Now if a car went by and beeped their horn or if a motorcycle went by, you might hear that, but you’re not going to just typically hear that static background noise. There’s all sorts of ways to treat interior sound. You can, you know, I have to do that with recording studios all the time. In fact, you have to make it so that the sound can’t be heard at all outside. MR. SIPP-Some years ago, I drew up a noise ordinance for the Town, which never passed, but in the process of doing this, I learned a lot about noise levels and so forth, and what it came out to be was that in a house with the windows closed, it was agreed that 45 decibels would be the sound of a TV playing in the room. MR. DEVIVO-That seems rather low, but. MR. SIPP-Well, that was one of them. The other thing was OSHA, not OSHA, but HUD, did have regulations for their housing, so that the noise level could only reach certain a point within their housing, that they were involved with. I think we ought to realize that when you have two sources of sound, be it the ambient sound that you have, and another noise, which may be a tractor, a dog, or a car, you don’t add the two together. They don’t work that way. MR. DEVIVO-No. MR. SIPP-So that in the case of having ambient noise, and some other noise, you don’t get a total, which is adding the two decibel values together, but you also have to take into account the amount of wind, the amount of shrubbery, trees, valleys and peaks, terrain. MR. DEVIVO-Exactly. In fact, Polunci’s is surrounded by, the land there is surrounded by the woods. So that would actually help to attenuate the sound somewhat. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. TRAVER-I’d like to ask a follow up question. A discussion was raised earlier with regards to the sound inside the house with the doors and windows closed, and of course, for many months of the year, your doors and windows are open and you’re outside as well as inside. However, you mentioned that the closed environment of the house would attenuate the background noise by a certain amount, depending upon the type of structure and so on, and the amount really doesn’t matter. My question is, the sound that’s attenuated by being in the closed house is across the board, or across the sound spectrum of the outside ambient noise. Correct? MR. DEVIVO-Correct. MR. TRAVER-By a hypothetical amount, depending on the structure and so on. MR. DEVIVO-Exactly. MR. TRAVER-If that’s the case, if the, let’s say you have a noise like a dog barking or a train in the distance, or whatever it is, that you can hear it outside, and then you go inside, the sound may be attenuated by the house, but you’re probably still going to be able to hear it. MR. DEVIVO-You’re still going to hear it, but it’s going to be much quieter, and that was the point I was trying to make. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. DEVIVO-And the static ambient noise is basically the noise floor. That’s giving us the noise floor where everything’s going to come down to, okay, and that’s what we have to go off of. Right now we have ambient noise going on in this room, even though it’s relatively quiet. Somebody speaking above that can be measured, but it’s being measured above what the static ambient noise floor is right now. MR. TRAVER-I understand. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-I have one question about, the original use for this was going to be 24 hour operation. Somewhere in the notes I was hearing, and introductions that it was going to be day visits only. Will there be overnight dog care here? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MR. FULLER-To stay in the kennels? I believe so. MRS. STEFFAN-Because that’s what it was originally intended. MR. FULLER-Inside, and that was the purpose of working with Larry on a structure based sound attenuation through the sheet rocks that they’re going to use, this sound reducing, not sound barrier, sound reducing, and then the other materials that Larry has suggested to cut down the noise that might emanate from the structure itself. That’s one of the comments we saw in past minutes was, well, the structure is going to generate noise, and so between, when we were here in September and the stuff we’ve prepared for the meeting, we changed the structure to attenuate that and reduce that noise level coming from even inside the structure, but it’ll be the dogs that can stay overnight in the kennel and during the day operation. It’s still limited to the 20. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m sure that if it was overnight that the dogs would be inside and that wouldn’t be as much of an issue as when the dogs were outside, and based on the introduction the last time the applicant was here, I mean, the dogs were going to be inside a large amount of the time and outside occasionally, but, you know, I’m still, and I appreciate all the work that you’ve done regarding gathering up the sound data. I wasn’t worried about the OSHA guidelines for, you know, dangerous sounds. The things that concerned me, when I talked about this the last time, was just the noise factor and the relationship with that, people’s quality of life. Definitely, you know, with the map that you provided, similar to the map that was provided the first time, is that we can see that there’s a significant distance between some of the properties. Unfortunately dog barking does carry, and there are quality of life issues here. So I’m still, you know, I’m still on the fence, and I just, and as we look at the Special Use Permit, I mean, some of the things are very specific in there about certain types of uses may be desirable or necessary in the Town. Their nature can cause certain difficulties and problems. Yes, the applicant, you know, you all and agents are trying to minimize those impacts to the area, you know, and I know that there’s been some discussion about the relationship of noise to property values, and that’s very hard to discern. I mean, you’ve got expert testimony, or, you know, expert submissions that say that that won’t affect. I don’t know whether that comes into play for the Planning Board. It’s impossible for me, you know, as a layperson, to decide whether it’s going to affect property values or not. The only thing that I do know is that, you know, as somebody who lives in the Town of Queensbury, I’m assuming like most of the folks in the room, you know, all these folks pay taxes and they love their homes. That’s why most people live where they live, and so I think most of the folks are just worried about the quality of life that they have and how it will be impacted by the noise generated by the dogs, and again, you know, we’re talking about an issue that’s very subjective, you know, for folks who have dogs and like dogs, it’s okay, but for those folks who don’t have dogs or don’t like dogs, or just don’t like noise, it’s not okay. So, you know, this is a very subjective issue, and I don’t know, it’s really hard to come to a cut and dried conclusion of whether it’s absolutely yes or absolutely no. You’ve provided scientific data, but I don’t think we’re talking about science specifically. We’re talking about subjectivity of likes and dislikes. It’s a tough one. MR. FULLER-I agree. I don’t envy the position that you’re in. Special Use permits are generally difficult projects to review, just by their very nature, and I agree. I looked through the zoning, too, and it’s a balance. It’s a balancing test. You’re right. The one part, because of the certain problems or difficulties, but then, you know, the very next sentence, the Town Board says exactly what you’ve got to do. They’re controlled by a Special Use Permit procedure which requires additional regulations, designed for each use, in order to mitigate such problems or difficulties and to minimize the impacts of these upon the zoning district and where they’re located. So it’s not that the Board says, or the Town Board said we put a Special Use Permit on this to attempt to deny a project. It’s more of a mitigation, and I think, you know, the minimum of 10 acres, again, you go back to that. It’s the minimum of 10 acres, a 200 foot setback, and we’ve doubled it, and I would agree with that. If there was a 10 acre surrounded on every border, right up to the borders by individual third of an acre lots, that some of these that we’re looking at, 1,000 feet away, then I might say differently, but given the balance of factors, and, you know, I think you have to weigh that out, and on the sound analysis that we had, you know, it’s a difficult spot for an applicant. Because when the Planning Board says we want X, Y, and Z, we want this data, you know, we can’t come back to you with subjective data. We’ll get beat up. You just wouldn’t survive that. So we have to go with what the sign says, and then at the end the expert gets to say, and here’s my opinion. The numbers say this, and now I’m giving you what my opinion is, and the same with an appraisal. You get an appraisal and the appraiser says, yes, the numbers say this, and, 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) you know what, in the end, here’s my opinion, and then, you know, you’re right. You’re in a spot of weighing that. MRS. STEFFAN-From my point of view, as a Planning Board member, I’m looking at the significant investment that these folks have made in this project so far. I mean, anybody who goes into a business venture like this, you know, these are their hopes, their dreams, their aspirations. They’re doing this because they want to, they have a love for it, and so, from one point of view, you’ve got folks who are investing a great deal of time and energy in wanting this project, and then you’ve got folks from the surrounding area who are, some are opposed and some are for it. Over the past week, because I knew this was on the agenda, I don’t know whether I was hypersensitive or not, but I live in a pretty rural area, and I don’t have a dog, but my neighbor, I have five acres, a little over five acres. My neighbor down the hill has got five acres. I have a two acre piece above me and there’s another five acre parcel. They have three dogs. I have a parcel across the street that’s 40 acres. People have their house in the middle of it and they have a dog, and so this weekend we had I guess what you could call a cacophony of dogs, you know, one barks, the other three bark, then this one’s barking, and my house was closed up. I’ve got the best windows you can buy, and I still heard all those dogs barking inside my house. So, you know, my awareness was heightened, but, you know, I’m trying to weigh and consider the merits of the Special Use Permit based on the criteria, and also experience, and so this is a really difficult decision for me to come to, and I’m weighing and considering all the information, because I know you just can’t make it on your opinion as a Planning Board member. You have to base it on the data that’s provided. MR. HUNSINGER-Has there been any consideration about sound attenuation on the outside? And I guess what I’m thinking of, you know, it’s not uncommon to see, you know, some sort of a wooden or even concrete barrier, fence along highways. How effective are those in breaking up noise? MR. DEVIVO-Again, you’d still be able to hear the dog in the long run. Again, you would still be able to hear a dog barking in the distance. Would it attenuate it a few decibels? Possibly, yes. Does it work as well as you would like? Probably not. MR. FULLER-Sometimes the highway type of structures are put in for psychological reasons, too, not necessarily the science. MR. DEVIVO-Yes, I was going to say that, so you don’t see the cars as you hear them. MR. SEGULJIC-Just a clarification. I’m looking at a DEC document, and it talks about that, the, when you double the distance it drops off by six decibels, but it says that starts at 50 feet. MR. DEVIVO-That’s any sound. From the point of source, as that sound is, these were all, this was done by Bell Laboratories way back when when they actually began trying to figure out how to measure levels and sound and frequencies and such. So the criteria is set in stone with the laws of physics, and from whatever the noise source is, again, every time that distance is doubled, it’s attenuated by six decibels. So you could take that noise reading at one foot away. MR. SEGULJIC-But then why would the DEC say at distances greater than 50 feet? MR. DEVIVO-DEC? MR. SEGULJIC-DEC. MR. DEVIVO-I don’t have the En Con. MR. SEGULJIC-Assessing and mitigating noise impacts. MR. DEVIVO-And what did they say? MR. SEGULJIC-At distances greater than 50 feet that occurs. MR. SIPP-Read the whole paragraph. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it just says that at distances greater than 50 feet from a sound source, every doubling of the distance produces a six decibel reduction in the sound. So where I’m coming from is you started at 10 feet with that assumption, and I’m just going to document, so my question is, and I guess. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MR. DEVIVO-Right, and I’m just saying that the DEC wrote that for whatever specifically they wrote it for. MR. SEGULJIC-And where I’m coming from, overall I’m okay with the concept, but we’re not dealing with ocean noises here. We’re dealing with nuisances noises, shall we say, and one of the things, under, with Special Use Permits, we have to look at noise, the detrimental impact to the public, health, and all of that from noise, and I’m not getting anything, you said it’s not going to cause a health impact. MR. DEVIVO-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s not the real question here, though. MR. DEVIVO-Again, noise, it’s subjective. As we stood on John’s land that day, we heard dogs barking in the distance. Are you going to force the people to get rid of their dogs? MR. SEGULJIC-The other question I have, did our engineer look at this? I mean, he cites it, but he didn’t make any comments on it. In his letter, I don’t know if he sidestepped it or ignored it. MR. OBORNE-I’m sure he didn’t ignore it, sir, but I do not have his comments, either. MR. SEGULJIC-Or did I miss something? MR. FULLER-Yes, he listed it. MR. SEGULJIC-He listed it, but he didn’t say anything about it. MR. FULLER-He didn’t have any specific comments about a lot of things. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s one way to look at it. MR. FULLER-The septic, or the doggie septic. I take that as a good thing. If we get into asking Dan to comment on everything we submit, I don’t know when he’s going to not work. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from Board members on noise? MR. SIPP-Well, this is nothing to do with noise. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I was trying to get us to move on to the next issue. Yes, go ahead. MR. SIPP-You, somebody stated last time that a substance called Recal or Rucal D Plus was used as a cleaning agent. R-o-c-c-a-l. MR. FULLER-I think that comment came from the public, if I remember reading the minutes. I’m almost sure it was. MR. SIPP-Well, what, then, is going to be used as a cleaning agent? Is it, how is it disposed of? Is it biodegradable? MR. HUTCHINS-Again, I believe you have the information right in front of you with all that. MR. SIPP-Well, I’ve got that, but I did pick up this other R-o-c-c-a-l-d, which I looked up, and that stuff is pretty powerful, and it’s not biodegradable. MR. FULLER-Mr. Sipp, I’m not entirely sure of what you’re referring to. I thought for sure that was a comment that came from the public. Because I remember the idea of it getting into the water, and I’m almost positive that was a comment from the public. I remember reading it earlier. Yes, it was by Mrs. Krenz at 70 Cedar Court. It’s on Page 42 of the 8/26/08 Planning Board minutes. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from members of the Board? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MR. TRAVER-We didn’t actually go through all of the individual Staff comments. However, is it your representation that you feel there are no issues raised in those comments that cannot be addressed? MR. FULLER-I thought we did. MR. TRAVER-Well, we didn’t go through them one by one, but if you feel confident that they all can be addressed? MR. FULLER-I think they, I addressed the Staff comments that didn’t say addressed after them. So they had inserted comments following up, and I, since they were addressed, I assumed they were all fine now. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. FULLER-And I just picked out the, I think there were five or six that still needed to be addressed, and that’s what I addressed, but, yes, the short answer is, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from Board members? Questions, comments? MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. How many people, by a show of hands, wish to address the Board? Okay. We should have had a sign up sheet. I apologize. I had mentioned earlier that there is a handout on the back table that talks about the purpose of the public hearing. Basically the purpose of the public hearing is for members of the public to address the Board. It’s really designed for members of the Planning Board to get additional information and additional insights on the projects that are being reviewed. It’s not intended to be a dialogue, and it’s certainly not intended to enter into a discussion with the applicant. Typically when there are a number of people that want to comment, we do ask that you limit your comments to three minutes. We do have a timer, and to the extent possible, if you could only raise issues that are new issues or haven’t already been raised by someone else commenting. Having said that, the purpose is not to limit discussion, but to just try to move along the comments so that we can get the full breadth and depth of the neighborhood concerns. And we do record all meeting minutes. They are published on the Town’s website. So I would ask anyone that wishes to address the Board to identify your name and where you live before you make any comments. So, having said that, who would like to be first? Sir, in the back. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MICHAEL O’CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-I’ve never said anything in three minutes. I’ll try and get right to it. I’m Michael O’Connor. I have property in the area. I also have a son who has property that’s almost immediately adjacent. His property is the triangular piece that faces on the Fitzgerald Road. I think you focused on a good part of the issue that the neighbors have objection to, and that’s the noise. I think that the study that was submitted to you is totally inadequate. Somebody referred to the DEC assessment of noise, and the manner in which the study noise, I think Tom addressed the assessing and mitigating noise impacts that’s been issued by DEC. This is not an industrial site. So I don’t think you’re looking at whether or not it meets OSHA standards or not. What you’re looking at is whether or not it is annoying. Under five decibel change, it’s unnoticed to tolerable. From Five to Ten it’s intrusive. From Ten to Fifteen it’s very noticeable. I’ve been involved in a couple of projects that have been noise sensitive, and I don’t understand what they did. It sounds like they went to the property and took an ambient reading of noise on the property, a snapshot at 11 a.m. on a date in November on a Sunday. Typically you take morning and evening ambient noises. Typically you have a map which locates where you took those ambient noise readings, and you take a reading from all expected receptors, and receptors, as defined by DEC, aren’t the six or seven hundred feet away that you see a house. They’re at your property line that adjoins that particular property. That’s the standard for doing it. That’s on Page 13 of the DEC study. So I think what you have before you is totally inadequate, as far as any scientific showing whether this will be impact or not impact upon the adjoining neighbors. I mean, there are ways of doing the study, but they haven’t been presented to you at this moment. The other questions I have, and I’ll jump away from that, is there’s two uses that you’re being asked to approve here, and a lot of what they’ve talked about has to do with the kennel. They’ve discussed the dog walk, dog park, in very oblique terms at best. How many dogs are going to be outdoors? They’ve got their own separate driveway. Their own separate parking area. It looks like it’s zoned separate business, and we 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) really haven’t got much information on that. The building can be built so that it attenuates the noise of the dogs when they’re inside the building. There is a picture, in some of the information that I saw, of some fairly decent sized cages which. MR. HUNSINGER-Sorry, if you could wrap it up. MR. O'CONNOR-The other question I have is, whether or not this dog park is actually a permitted use. If you look at the schedule, it defines what a kennel is, and it says kennels are a permitted use by Special Use. It doesn’t say dog parks, dog walks, and if you look in the Definitions, you will have difficulty putting a dog walk or a dog park into the definition of kennel. I will come back. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. May I ask one other question? The other thing, too, am I right in saying that this is one inch equals sixty feet? If that’s so, I think if they still are using that septic system, it’s within 200 feet of the pond that they show, and it’s up gradient of that pond. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-And the other thing is, I think from their referencing, they’re using 2004 topographical mapping. If it hasn’t been re-shot, they’ve worked on that property since 2004 on a constant basis with bulldozers and whatnot. The topographical information is not going to be really pertinent to what you have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. DIANA DAGGETT COTE MRS. COTE-Good evening. My name is Diana Daggett Cote. I live at 63 Cedar Court in the Woodlyns. The Town of Queensbury has spent approximately $130,000 of our taxpayer’s money and hundreds of man hours on the Comprehensive Plan last year to shape success by designing the future of Queensbury. As a taxpayer, I’m concerned that this money is being wasted at a time when every penny counts. The Gosline/Polunci proposal should fall into the following recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Recommendation A-12 states, the Planning Board should require detailed Good Neighbor plans for commercial projects. Currently the Planning Board may ask applicants to submit a Good Neighbor plan. This should be required of all commercial projects. The Ordinance should be reviewed to include a greater range of quality of life issues such as noise and light in the plan. The goal of this plan is to make sure that some seemingly incompatible uses can actually work together. However, the Planning Board and Town Staff needs to make sure that the plans are created and enforced. Make no mistake, the Gosline/Polunci project is a commercial venture for sure. The second recommendation, B-12, states that noise is an important quality of life issue that deserves the attention of the community. The Town should consider enacting a noise ordinance. In addition, the Planning Board should consider noise as a quality of life issue when reviewing applications. This should be one important criterion as applicants must face review under the Town’s Good Neighbor plan. I also point to the dog ordinance that was adopted in Queensbury on June 10, 1980. Section 73-1 states, the purpose of this Article is to protect the health, safety and well being of persons and property….close quote. Section 73-5A states, it shall be unlawful for any owner of any dog in the Town to permit such dog to engage in habitual loud howling, barking, crying, or whining, or conduct itself in such a manner so as to unreasonably and habitually disturb the comfort or repose of any person other than the owner of such dog. I am in opposition to the dog kennel that is proposed on Blind Rock Road in the center of our residential neighborhoods. Neither of the above recommendations or the dog ordinance appears to have been taken into account when the applicants proposed this dog kennel. It has been stated that their dogs won’t bark, and if they do that they’ll call the owners and have them pick them up. This is an irresponsible comment from someone who wants to board dogs when owners go away. This is just not the appropriate location for a dog kennel. The impact that it will surely have on our quality of life is very disturbing. Although the decibel level is in the 50’s, and Mr. Devivo states that it equates to a train in a distance, it’s a constant noise. It’s a nuisance noise. I hope that our Town of Queensbury Planning Board will protect us from this intrusion into our peaceful 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) neighborhoods and make the best use of our money by using the Good Neighbor plan when deciding on whether or not to issue a Special Use Permit for this residential area. Please listen to your constituents and do what is right for so many, many neighbors. Please consider the general standards for Special Use Permits, and, may I request that when you do vote on the proposal, that you state in detail why you are voting one way or another. We’ve spent a great deal of time researching and reaching out to you, and we ask for your consideration in this manner. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. COTE-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, ma’am. MICHELLE KILL MS. KILL-Good evening. My name is Michelle Kill, Fort Ann. Previous owner of the Howliday Inn, a boarding kennel, okay, in Fort Ann. I am going to address the noise issue. I had, at one time, in my kennel, for an April vacation, children’s vacation from school, 43 dogs. My kennel was 24 by 24. There was never a noise problem. I had a monitor in the building, and my house is 150 foot away from that building. So I could hear if there was any noise. I did not hear it. I had senior citizens, retired people, living 50 feet away from that kennel, and they never had an issue. There was, they did give me a piece of paper, and I think it was submitted to you, okay. They did offer to come tonight. I told them I didn’t feel as though it was necessary because they had already done that. So the noise issue, I know, seems to be a big problem. The dogs, when I boarded my dogs, I probably did more than most boarding kennels, but I usually got them out five or six times a day. These dogs, when they go out, you socialize them, they’ll go out and they’ll play. They don’t make a lot of noise when they’re playing. They’re not, dogs don’t do that. They’re not like kids yelling and screaming. If you go out and you play with them, yes, they will, they’ll bark, they run, they play, but if they’re by themselves, they’ll just play and do what they need to do. Like I said, I didn’t have an issue with a noise. I don’t feel as though there will be an issue with noise, but that’s my opinion. I know these people don’t own dogs. A lot of my clients live in that area, my ex- clients live in that area, and they all have dogs, as you would know, and they have more than one, and they all live in this area where this is. I know that they wanted to do something about this also but they felt as though they should back off and I agree with them. They would board their dogs with the Poluncis. They did tell me that, and their dogs, like I said, didn’t make a lot of noise either. You can hear many, many dogs barking from many miles away, miles and miles. I had coon hounds, used to hunt coon. I could hear them a mile off. If they got more than a mile, they got zapped by a gun that makes them come back. You can hear the coyotes at night. They must hear coyotes. You can hear it in the distance. It’s normal. That’s what they’re going to hear. It’s not going to be screaming, yelling like, I don’t know if you’ve ever heard a dog get beat or hurt. I mean, they scream, it sounds terrible. That’s not what they’re going to be doing. I know these people may think that, but that’s, it’s completely different. Most kennels will let their dogs out three or four times a day. Those dogs are out 15, 20 minutes, they want to come back in. They don’t want to be out there forever. That’s when you may hear them also. Excuse me, I know my three minutes are up. You may hear them bark when someone first goes in the kennel, but as soon as they realize what’s going on, they quiet down. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes, sir. MIKE WILD MR. WILD-Thank you. My name is Mike Wild. I live at 11 Blackberry Lane, and I’d like to say hello to members of the Board. You may know that I spent quite a bit of time, as well as others, investigating what the new master plan was supposed to be like, as well as what the new zoning was. So I have a little background in that nature. One thing that I think that the Board would be well served to do is to try to educate the public that that master plan was not a collection of individual thoughts, but it was a collection of guidelines that went together. So you can’t take one statement, one line, one paragraph by itself without taking the whole big picture of what that plan was all about. Some of the major aspects of the master plan included open space and protection of farming. So, in essence, this falls within those guidelines which were key attributes of what the master plan was trying to do. If I can also suggest that the public also consider unintended consequences to an action to stop some type of development or some type of activity through this process. Because you never know what some future developer might want 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) to do with this property, and eventually you’re going to get to the point where someone will say, I’ll find some way to take advantage of this property and not have to go through a Special Use Permit, and come up with a use that maybe no one likes, but no one can stop, and my last point has to do with sound, and I happen to be a fan of physics, although I’m not a physicist, and I want to do something, a little visualization for the Board, to talk about ambient noise, the background noise, and the components that that is built up from, and all of you may know what an oscilloscope looks like, right? There’s peaks and valleys, right? Well, when you put all those sounds together, it’s a collection of sound which takes that center line of the oscilloscope to a middle. So when you have a sound that is below or within that ambient, you can still pick out that sound, but it’s not obtrusive because it’s part of the background, and the experiment that I’d like you to do is close your eyes, during this meeting some time, and listen, and you’ll be able to pick out individual voices. You’ll be able to pick up individual things that are going on, but as a whole, it’s not obtrusive. It’s within that background. So, that’s the kind of point I wanted to make about sound and attenuation. It’s really a key thing. You will pick out those sounds, but they aren’t obtrusive. Nuisance, I can’t help you with that. Some people may not like to hear a dog, but in essence, you can pick out individual. I tried it tonight. I can pick out individual voices, individual conversations, but it’s not so much that it really stands out unless you really think and listen for it, and I’d like to thank the Board and also, I don’t envy you, again. Thanks again. MR. FORD-Mike, are you a dog owner? MR. WILD-Yes, I am. I have two dogs that are probably picked up in that background noise. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, sir. Good evening. ANDY ALLISON MR. ALLISON-Good evening. My name is Andy Allison. I actually live out on Queensbury Avenue. I don’t live in this neighborhood. However, I came to the meeting to offer a little insight. I live next door to the Queensbury veterinary clinic, which has recently expanded its use to allow kenneling, too, although I don’t think they actually got approval to do that, and my house is about 50 feet away from their kennel building that they have, which they soundproofed, and we can definitely hear dogs inside of our house. I can hear dogs over top of my lawnmower when I mow in the summer, and I just offer this up because I think it is something that’s very significant in this Town, that I hope the Board starts to address, that that noise is different. I think that the Board should also consider that the EPA and ISO standards have addressed this issue of noise nuisance, and what they recommend, when they advise planners who are dealing with this, is that you add factors to that, and the EPA factor for dog kennels and dog nuisance is that whatever your values measure, you increase that by 10 decibels to deal with the fact that it’s a nuisance, you know, and I think some people should consider that, and that, I think, is the real big issue here, is whether or not the noise is a nuisance at that house, or whether or not it’s just too loud, and I think there is a big difference. I think people will hear lawnmowers, but they kind of deal with that because they know that it’s going to come and go and stop. The problem when you have dogs barking is that you never know when the end is going to come, and it doesn’t stop. The dogs in this kennel bark 24 hours a day, seven days a week, no matter who’s there at the kennel, and they don’t stop. MR. FORD-Andy, do you own a dog? MR. ALLISON-I own two dogs. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. ALLISON-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, ma’am. Good evening. MARYBETH DELAROSE MRS. DELAROSE-Hello. My name is Marybeth Delarosa. I also live on Cedar Court in Queensbury. I am not a physicist, nor do I know anything about decibels, but I do know that what it appears the Planning Board is looking for is fact. I can’t offer you fact on 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) decibel, but I can offer you a couple of facts that I know. One, if any of you have read Jeff Inglee’s letter in the Post Star, I believe it was yesterday or maybe today, Jeff lives up on, I don’t know, I don’t remember where he lives, West Mountain Road. Jeff talked about the reality of the kennel near his home, and the reality is, when he’s eating dinner is when the dogs are being fed, and when he’s trying to enjoy an evening with his family on deck, listening to however many dogs are being fed, it’s a definite impact on his family way of life for him. That’s fact number one. Fact Number Two, prior to my moving to Queensbury, I lived in the Town of Chester. We had over 20 acres of land, and the argument that the trees and the surrounding topography will insulate or mitigate the noise factor, I will offer you this fact. I know that on a summer evening, when I sat on my deck, surrounded by 20 acres of forever wild land, the sound of coyotes barking or howling was magnified by the trees and the quiet, not mitigated. That did not mitigate the sound. So the argument that the buffering of the land is going to reduce that sound is not factual. The fact is it magnifies it. I don’t know if you can back that up with sound experimentation, but I can tell you from my experience, that’s the way it is. The third thing that I want to ask you is, when you vote on this, when you make your decision on this, would you vote on this as if this was your background, as if this kennel was going right where you live, that when you sit out on your deck, this is what you would deal with? As the gentleman who spoke before me talked about feeding, hearing the animals 24 hours a day and never knowing when it was going to come or when it was going to end, picture an enjoyable family afternoon and outside your home, and that enjoyable time being interrupted by this bordering you forever. It’s not just a temporary thing. So I would ask that when you make your decision, you consider, if this was you, how would you want you to vote on this? Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. FORD-Marybeth, you are a dog owner or not? MRS. DELAROSA-I am, kind of. My husband owns a dog. He lives in my house. RUTH FRANK MS. FRANK-My name is Ruth Frank and I live at Cedar Court also. Again, we don’t have a lawyer to represent us and we don’t have a sound engineer to represent us. When I heard the one gentleman say that they took measurements of one dog for an hour or two dogs, he didn’t factor in on the dog run. I’m picturing on a Sunday when maybe 30 or 40 families are coming to walk their dogs. Now this is all left out. They’re just concentrating on the 20 dogs in the kennels, and, Number Two, with the lady that has the dog kennel, did you notice how she said most all her neighbors are her clients and they all have dogs. That’s the point. They don’t mind because they all have dogs. They like that. We neighbors have a dog, if we have one or two, we control them, but we don’t live in an area where everybody’s got dogs in a dog kennel. So we don’t want to be in that position. So to coin an old phrase, as one other remarks, some of the applicants said that they were here first before we were. Let us say that we have been here long before their proposed dogs, and we pay the taxes, not the dogs. So the old saying is where do our rights begin and their rights end. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. FORD-Ma’am, are you a dog owner? MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. DOROTHY SEHLMEYER MS. SEHLMEYER-Good evening. My name is Dorothy Sehlmeyer and I live at Cedar Court, and I’m very highly emotionally about this. I have a letter prepared, and I have a few other comments. In March this year I invested my life savings and bought a home, which I knew to be in a long established, quiet neighborhood on Cedar Court. Three months later, I learned of a proposed dog kennel and park being proposed almost in my backyard. I was in disbelief. A homeowner, in September, at this very Board meeting fighting a cell phone tower, said zoning is one of the few protections a homeowner can count on to protect against projects that have the potential to diminish property values and quality of life issues. I couldn’t agree more, except that in my case at night the darkness will not block the noise of barking. I wonder, if in nice weather, I’ll ever be able to open a window for fresh air without being greeted by barking? I wonder how much barking will carry through the windows in winter and how long it will take the police to tire of answering calls for barking dogs? Please, protect me from this dog park and kennel, 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) threatening my peace, and, yes, my property value. Additionally, I’d like to comment that when the Glens Falls Country Club held a charity golf tournament this past June, that evening I could hear ever word the singer in the band was singing, most notably Desperado, among other songs. These dogs are a whole lot closer to me than the Glens Falls Country Club. Also, we, the kennel and proposed dog park are to the west of us on Cedar Court. That is where our prevailing wind comes from, and every single sound that is produced in that dog kennel is going to be blown right onto us, and I thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes, sir. Good evening. NICK CAIMANO MR. CAIMANO-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. I am Nick Caimano from Surrey Field Drive in Surrey Field, obviously. There were a couple of comments made earlier that fit into the two small points I want to make. One was by Mr. Fuller, that Rural, RR-3, is as relevant now as it was 20 years ago, and the other was a comment made about the master plan. First of all, I consider the master plan, and I always thought of it, as a living document. Secondly, it is not relevant anymore. Over the past years, this very Board, although maybe not the same members, has approved subdivisions and projects in this area, one of which was mine, that should make the special uses listed under RR-3 obsolete. Surrey Field, for example, has an RR-3 in this, and I think SFR-1 as the zoning, but of course we made a cluster subdivision, and it’s way beyond what the, the variances went way beyond what it was set up to be, but there are many, many, Cedar Court’s the same way. So there are many, many homes and apartments around there now which were not there 20 years ago. The second thing, however, is, I hope we don’t make another law or regulation that we can’t enforce. Supposing that you approve this and supposing that you’re wrong. Supposing the noise really is an irritant and a nuisance to people? I don’t believe, for one minute, that this applicant would do anything detrimental to our neighborhood on purpose. I believe they believe everything they say, and they’re going to try to do that, but suppose they’re wrong? Who do we go to then? Who do we see? We have no noise ordinance. We have no nuisance police in Town, but in spite of our civilization putting in place Planning Boards, Town Boards, Planning Departments, what will be forced onto the people here is just exactly what we don’t want to see, and that’s pitting neighbor against neighbor in a lawsuit. That would be the only out that they have. One thing I would ask you to think about, these things happen to you often, is that maybe, as you approve, because we have so little land left in Queensbury, maybe as you approve a project, you get together with the Planning Department and/or the Town Board and say, look, here’s what we’ve done in this particular area, and this is what it’s done to this whole area now, it has changed it. I would submit to you that RR-3 is probably obsolete in that area now. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes, ma’am. NANCY MURTHA MS. MURTHA-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MRS. MURTHA-My name is Nancy Murtha, and I live on Fitzgerald Road. I thought we were going to get four minutes, so I’m going to have to talk fast. In 1988, when the most recent zoning was done in Queensbury, the only dense population in this area is along the shores of Glen Lake and in the pocket of homes on Blackberry Lane. During the past 20 years, there has been a massive expansion in the Town of Queensbury which did not escape this area. When zoned Rural Residential in 1988, there were a handful of homes in this area. Today as this display depicts, there are nearly 200 families living in this vicinity with numerous building lots for sale. This number is likely to increase in the future. On this display I have shown the current homes in the neighborhood surrounding the property in question. I then applied X’s to those properties which did not exist in 1988. If you were to remove all those X’d properties and the homes which go along with them, it would become evident why a Special Use Permit for a kennel and a dog park is no longer viable in this now densely populated now undeniably residential not rural section of Queensbury. Although I know that zoning is what it is and cannot be arbitrarily changed, I also know that the six characteristics which must be considered in order to approve or deny a Special Use Permit. Those characteristics were put in place for just this type of situation. For instance, Characteristics A stipulates that the use is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan, without specific parameters upon which to base an educated opinion, I feel the proposed use of that property is not in harmony with the 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) Queensbury Comprehensive Plan. Characteristic B is extremely pertinent to this issue and states, overall compatibility of the use with the neighborhood, community character, including character of adjoining properties. From my point of view, this is quite clear. A dog kennel/dog park is in no way compatible with the character of this neighborhood. This is one of the major criteria characteristics which should be taken into consideration when deciding to either approve or deny this application. Characteristic C addresses the hazardous parking or traffic conditions. Increased traffic on an already well traveled road is yet another concern. It’s exit, entrance being on a rather questionable section of Blind Rock Road. Characteristic E deals with impacts on environmental and natural resources as well as noise detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. Welfare is the key word here, and brings characteristics into the realm of serious consideration. Characteristic F represents our concern about property devaluation with its negative effect on long term economic stability of surrounding properties such as property values. In summary, I feel five of the six characteristics covered in the general standards for Special Use Permits will have negative impacts on this residential community, providing ample, legitimate justification for the denial of this application. I feel it is your responsibility to utilize those characteristics which were so diligently thought out and put together by Queensbury’s citizens when developing the Queensbury Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of supervising this very type of occurrence. Let the existence of these characteristics serve their purpose. Put them into action. Thank you for this opportunity. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes, ma’am. LEIGH MERRITT MRS. MERRITT-Good evening. My name is Leigh Merritt. I live on Cedar Court in the Woodlyns, and I’m going to read so that I don’t leave anything out, and we are not, for the moment, going to talk about noise. The concern I have with the proposed application is the fence enclosure which surrounds the kennel building. In the supporting materials submitted by the applicants, I saw no data regarding the ground cover in that enclosure. So I’m assuming the applicants intend to leave it in its natural, vegetative state. Anything except an impermeable surface, as sealed concrete is, in this area, represents serious health considerations. Over the course of the year, hundreds of dogs will frequent this area while out of their kennel cages. They will defecate and urinate here. In spite of the efforts of the applicants, it seems certain that unless they install an impermeable surface, feces and urine will contaminate the ground. We all know what dogs do when they encounter another dog’s droppings or urine, they smell it or lick it. This is natural behavior. I have a list of illnesses that dog can contract from contact with the feces or urine of other dogs. What is of greater concern to me, and I think of the Board is well, is that illnesses can then be translated to human beings. Some can be fatal to humans, and one of these is the one leading cause of death in the world in individuals with compromised immune systems. I’m not going to read the list because I couldn’t pronounce half of the words on it. You may say to yourself that the chances of any of these diseases affecting people is remote. I would agree if the dogs that use this enclosure were the same animals day in and day out, but that’s not the case. Different dogs will occupy the enclosure every day, increasing the likelihood that disease will spread. I know you’re not the Board of Health nor the Better Business Bureau concerned about how people run their businesses, and that there are currently no licensing standards in New York State for kennel operators. Apparently there’s a bill in the State Assembly on just this issue, but you are the only government entity which will review the worthiness of the project. So you must consider matters of public health and welfare in your discernment process. The applicants are well intentioned people. They are animal lovers and no doubt care for their own pets, but do they possess the expertise to safely run a kennel? One has only to examine their original proposal to answer this question. They didn’t even see the need for running hot water. Their plans are undeniable improved, but do they have the skill to recognize a dog with one of these diseases on the list? Do they have the expertise and facilities to isolate such an animal to prevent the spread of disease to other dogs and to humans? Since one of the criterion for the issuance of a Special Use Permit is the protection of the public welfare, then you, the Planning Board, must consider the very possible negative health effects this project might produce. Thank you for all the work you’re doing for Queensbury. I have the list. I made it, and by the way, I do not currently own a dog, but I have owned dogs all my life, and my family owns thousands of them. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes, sir. BOB MURTHA 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MR. MURTHA-Hi. My name is Bob Murtha. I live on Fitzgerald Road. I’d like to address the effect the presence of a dog kennel/dog park can potentially have on real estate. Although there is no formula or scientific data to determine the decrease in value of any one piece of real estate in this event, it has to be acknowledge that the desirability of property will be adversely impacted. Once it occurs, the value of the property falls with a downward spiral. I submitted four letters from local realtors expressing their experienced opinions about the effect this would have on the desirability of the homes. They are in unanimous agreement that it will lower the number of potential purchasers, thus devaluing the properties surrounding the business. I’d like to read a letter from a neighbor who has personally experienced this situation. To the Town of Queensbury Planning Board: As a resident and owner on Mannis Road I am opposed to this kennel for many reasons. My wife and I sold a home we built and loved for 13 years. A kennel was installed close by and many unpleasant things came with it. The noise at different times of the day, the wildlife in the area was diminished and not seen as often. Our property value was decreased, and finally we sold our home to escape. The people who owned and ran the kennel were responsible, took good care of things, but it still had a major impact on the surrounding area. I urge you to consider the people who live here and be objective in your job. Respectfully Claude Troiano And finally, I would like to present to the Board the results of an informal opinion poll we conducted to test the waters on how the general population felt about this. These weren’t people in our neighborhood. We had these opinion forms filled out, and on the opinion form it says, if you were considering buying a home which had a dog kennel 200 feet from your property line, would that negatively impact your decision to purchase that piece of property? Out of 146 forms I’m holding in my hands, the response was 140 yes, and only six noes. Many of the people asked to complete this form were not aware of this proposed kennel or the debate about it at the time they responded to it. I will give these forms to the Mr. Oborne for the record. I would encourage you to read some of the comments on the forms. The favorite one I had is, is this a trick question? I feel this demonstrates my point, one which should be taken into account as you come to a decision on your final determination regarding the kennel proposal. Can you, the Board members, in good conscience, ignore the wishes of nearly 200 local residents, for the benefit of only four, and with the Board’s permission, would you allow me to ask all those in attendance who are opposed to this project to stand so that? MR. HUNSINGER-No, sir, that would not be appropriate. Thank you. MR. MURTHA-Okay. Well, thank you for your consideration and attention. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you. Ma’am? Good evening. JENNIFER KIM MRS. KIM-Good evening. My name is Jennifer Kim at 23 Fitzgerald Road, with my husband, Ron Kim who can’t be here tonight, but I wanted to say that we are new to this debate because we weren’t notified through the public notification process. So, one, I would like to say our names do not appear on any sort of petitions in opposition, but we would like to add our names, verbally, to any of those, but one of the questions actually comes from my husband, which was how was the determination made to complete the Short Form of the SEQRA application, and did, in fact, the applicant complete that form during the application process? So that would be something that we would be interested to know as you move forward in the process, but again, we would like to sort of join our neighbors in opposing this for all of the reasons that you’ve heard tonight, particularly the nuisance background and sort of diminished enjoyment of the property. MR. HUNSINGER-Just to answer your question, the Zoning Administrator will inform the applicant what type of SEQRA review is necessary, the Long or the Short Form. It’s also written into State law as well as the Town Code. MRS. KIM-So the Zoning Administrator actually made that determination? MR. HUNSINGER-Typically, yes, typically. If it’s not otherwise specified in State or Town Ordinance. MRS. KIM-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Anyone else? Yes, ma’am. ANNE GAGLIARDI 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MRS. GAGLIARDI-My name is Anne Gagliardi, and I live on Cedar Court. Now I’ve written a letter but a lot of these things have already been covered tonight, but I’ll try to pick out what I think is important. I’ve come again tonight to voice my object to the applicant’s proposal for a dog kennel and park. Mainly, first, because of the noise, and we’ve covered a lot of that already. I realize Mrs. Gosline doesn’t plan to have 20 dogs out at the same time, but even having two or three dogs running in the kennel area, they will bark at each other or at an animal outside of the fence. It’s just the nature of the beast to bark when they’re mad or when they’re happy. I’m sorry, but all the studies you do on noise levels do not alter the fact that dogs are going to bark, and unless those in the kennel are let out only one at a time I can imagine them naturally romping and barking at the pure pleasure of being “free” and outside. Secondly, I’m concerned that the presence of so many dogs, in the kennel and in the park, will be upsetting to other animal habitats. Ours is a quiet area with lots of woods where we see deer and foxes, and many small animals. Over time, I’m afraid we will have none of this to enjoy. Third, a serious concern is the resale value of my house if it’s known that a dog park and kennel are a short ways away. An opinion poll taken this fall showed overwhelmingly that this would be a deterrent to buying into the area. Consider, yourselves, whether you would be willing to buy a house here under these circumstances, and lastly, there’s so much free land in Queensbury, I question why it’s necessary to allow this type of facility in what is a very quiet, densely populated neighborhood. I can stand outside my house, close my eyes and almost believe I am alone in the middle of nowhere, it’s so quiet. In conclusion, in making your decision I respectfully ask that you consider whether you would buy a house near this proposal. Please remember, dogs will bark, and sound will travel. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes, sir. DONALD MILNE MR. MILNE-Donald Milne, 25 Fitzgerald Road, Queensbury. Thank you for the opportunity. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. MR. MILNE-There was someone here who owned a kennel and said they were surrounded by senior citizens that didn’t object. Well, I’m a senior citizen. I can’t hear very well, but my children can, and they are taking over the house. Nick Caimano made a very good point that this area has changed greatly over the years. Just emphasizing, th in 1980, the 16 hole of the Country Club crossed Blind Rock Road. You hit golf balls across to the green. They changed that. Numerous, kids were hunting in this area of this property. Maybe it was illegal for them to do so, but they were doing that in that era, and since then numerous homes that are considered upscale, very nice homes, who’s value exceeds, by a large amount, the average value of homes in Queensbury, it has become a very, very nice residential neighborhood. As a result, a Special Use Permit for this kind of use is really incongruous, and it is out of place. I know it’s not your job, as a Board, to change the Zoning Regulations, but as long as the Zoning Regulations say that you require a Special Use Permit, it is even more inappropriate for a special use in this particular area, and no one has mentioned so far the odor from these dogs. We had somebody keeping a small kennel of beagles not too far away from us, and the odor was overwhelming on certain damp days. So, with that, thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes, ma’am. KAY KRENZ MS. KRENZ-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MS. KRENZ-My name is Kay Krenz. I live on Cedar Court. I’m opposed to this dog kennel, a great deal because of the noise. I recently spent five weeks in New Mexico visiting my sister. The southwest, most backyards are surrounded by 10 to 12 foot high cement block walls. One dog behind her would start barking, and then every dog in the neighborhood would. There were five and they would carry on for hours. Even dogs who were in their homes inside would feed off this one, especially noisy dog. So it made the peace and quiet of sitting there watching the balloons take off from the south valley not nearly as nice as it could have been. The other question, the last meeting in September, I was under the assumption that this was just going to be a kennel, not a dog park, and now I understand that if they have a kennel, they can have the park. I don’t 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) know, are these dogs going to be brought there by their owners and be kept on leashes or free running? If they’re free running or even on leashes, if the dogs are not properly trained, they will bark. My son owns two dogs, takes them to a dog park, and says it’s very noisy because he has his dogs trained, but other owners don’t, and they may say, well, we’ll go make them leave, but how long will that take? There’s going to be one or two people operating this facility, and I just feel like that they can’t control what people who bring in their dogs to a dog park will do. I thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes, sir. ED BRODERICK MR. BRODERICK-Good evening. My name is Ed Broderick. I live at 73 Cedar Court in Queensbury. One of the other speakers, Marybeth Delarosa, just mentioned a letter to the editor which was in yesterday’s paper by a Jeff Inglee who has had experience with this, and he lives near a dog kennel. He owns 60 acres of land, and he said, regardless of whether it’s one dog, five dogs, six dogs, you will hear the dogs, no matter what they say, you will hear the dogs. That was his comment, and he said that anybody who wants to come up to his house and sit on his deck, they’ll know exactly what he’s talking about. My wife and I moved here from Glens Falls one year ago, and one of the things that we were so impressed with was how quiet and serene our neighborhood is. Dog kennels or dog parks or dog walking, they have their place, but not in a residential area, and especially in light of the opposition here tonight. I just hope that this Planning Board will support us in this effort to defeat this project. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes, sir. Good evening. FRANK HARDICK MR. HARDICK-My name’s Frank Hardick, Cedar Court. I never met a dog that didn’t bark. Anyway, I sent a letter to each one of you people, and I’d like to read it to the Planning Board members. This parcel of land is near a stream which runs into Halfway Brook, and Halfway Brook is classed as a trout stream. Has anyone checked the topography of the area where the dog runs and the dog park will be to see if the land slopes toward the stream? It is also important to know the soils in this area and determine if it is sand, clay, loam, gravel or a combination. These criteria are important to determine how much water, during a rain or spring thaw, will be surfaced or subsurfaced to the stream. Contamination of surface and groundwater can occur from waste from concentrated areas of animal habitation such as a dog run. An example of this is the e coli contamination at the Washington County Fairgrounds some years ago. I did a water table study in Surrey Fields 13 years ago because the construction affected the adjacent stream to Cedar Court. This is the same stream I mentioned in the paragraph above. A developer had to hire a contractor to protect and correct the problem. These contamination problems sometimes take years to show up in the groundwater or surface water such as streams. I believe that an Environmental Impact Statement would probably nullify this project. I also don’t believe that this fits in the neighborhood, and the undeveloped and wooded buffer zones really don’t diminish a lot of the sound because the dogs don’t bark at one octave. They’re different octaves and different levels and that is the objectionable part of dogs barking. Anyway, I appreciate this chance to address you people, and I don’t envy your position. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma’am. Good evening. BETTY MONAHAN MRS. MONAHAN-Good evening. Betty Monahan, Sunnyside. I’ve listened to a lot of suppositions and a lot of misstatement of facts here tonight. You can’t deal in suppositions. You have to deal with what’s true. We had a survey where somebody said would you want to have a kennel within 200 feet of your lot line. I don’t believe we have any lot lines within 200 feet of the kennel. The realtors that said it’s going to reduce property values, did they visit the Gosline’s site, and are we comparing apples and apples? And the same way when I hear about how some kennels are run. My husband was a roofer, and I would hate to think that he was compared to some of the other people that are out there in the field. So I think we have to look at who’s running it, and so on and so forth. As far as this use, this has been an allowed use through many re-zonings, and the last one was officially adopted in 2002 when the Town thought it was still a proper use in that area. I’ve been in some of these developments, when their lawn care companies have come in with a couple of three ride on lawn tractors, the other hand tools. Believe me, the noise volume is so intense we’ve had to move from one room to 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) another. I sat there listening, and I’m wondering if pretty soon people are going to want to zone out kids in this community, and it was interesting today, I heard a program on PBS, and they were talking about dogs that bark, and that this is not a natural habit. It’s due to lack of training and it’s due to lack of attention. We’ve all seen the dog tied up that nobody goes near for 24 hours that barks, barks, barks, barks, barks. So, you know, I think we have to look at this as an individual case, and I want to just look at the track record of these people involved here. Both families, if you look at the way their property is kept up, it’s fantastic. I’ve tried to get both of them to put their gardens on a garden tour that I have something to do with for a non profit. Bill Gosline doesn’t think his is good enough yet. I wish my yard looked like his. His daughter said yes, she would. Mary Lee has been involved in Hovey Pond Park for over 20 years. She takes one day a week from her business. She cuts her income, so that she can go and work in that park for the benefit of this community. This is the kind of people that we’re talking about. I have been around Kim and her dogs. Believe me, Kim does not permit her dogs to bark, and in fact she wouldn’t even let two of them off the leash at one time because they were bad influences on each other. I think you have to look at the character of the people running this. You have to look at this particular location, not what’s happened next door at some other kennels. In fact, I believe you have a letter there from Pat Jameson that lives next door to the Adirondack Hospital on Ridge Road that can tell you she has no problem at all with it and never has. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. Good evening. MICHAEL O’CONNOR, JR. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. I’m Michael O’Connor. I live at 74 Fitzgerald Road. My experience with the Goslines and their dogs has not been very positive. Personally, everybody’s complaining about the noise. I personally concern myself more about the safety. My dog’s already been attacked by their dog. Dogs are dogs. They do run. All of my neighbors will tell you that my dog is reasonably well behaved, but he does get off our property from time to time. In addition to the noise, I would be concerned about dogs that are coming to the park. It’s not going to be, no offense, some little old lady with a poodle that’s going to take their dog out to let it run. It’s probably going to be somebody that’s living in an apartment in Glens Falls. They’re going to probably come up with a big, whatever kind of Rottweiler or something that’s, you know, contained most of the day. They’re going to let it off their leash. They’re going to let it run. How can you guarantee that it’s going to stay where it’s supposed to stay and it’s going to act how it’s supposed to act? It’s not going to get loose and go after a deer as they’re going to their car, go after, you know, any one of the other animals that happen to be in the neighborhood. I can already hear the Gosline’s dog. I’m sure they can hear my dog. They bark back and forth. My dog sits up on top of a knoll. Their dog’s across a valley pretty much on a knoll. It’s not a problem as far as I know, to any of the neighbors. I’d like to say that safety should be considered. I know that they’re double-gating it and the people are supposed to get out of their car with the dogs on a leash, but people are people and they’re going to trust that their dog’s going to get out of the car with them and go to the fenced area and, you know, how are they going to know that there’s not a deer standing 15 feet into the woods that the deer will see, or the dog will see and they don’t see and the dog’s going to go after that, and then where’s it going to go after that? In conclusion, I’m opposed to it. I think it’s a safety issue. I have two young kids. I’m not really concerned about my personal safety, but I have a four year old and a six year old. My four year old witnessed their dog coming after our dog. They were responsible. They did pay for the damages, the four inch gash that their dog left in my dog. That’s the main reason I didn’t call the Animal Control Officer, and that’s it. I’m opposed to it. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. KENNETH MEASECK MR. MEASECK-Members of the Planning Board, my name is Kenneth Measeck. I live at Cedar Court, and I’m opposed to this project. We’ve lived in Cedar Court for 10 years. We moved into one of the facilities at the beginning. We’ve lived in Queensbury for 50 years. We moved to where we are in Cedar Court thinking that this was going to be our last move after retirement, into a quiet, peaceful neighborhood, and all I‘ve heard is noise, noise, noise. Wholly cow, what did I do? Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. LEO COTE 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MR. COTE-My name is Leo Cote. I live on Cedar Court also. I’ve waited until last so that I could try to summarize some of the points that other speakers have made tonight. I know you’re looking for legal justification for rejecting this application, not just feelings and subjective reasons. Below I’m going to read you a list of five different criteria that give you, any one of which would give you legal justification for rejecting this application. Your decision wouldn’t be arbitrary or capricious. It would be based on legal precedent. One is the contamination or damage to the freshwater pond through which the road passes. Two, the serious public health issues that have been raised because of the inexperienced operation of the kennel by these applicants. Three, the failure to comply with the Town of Queensbury’s Comprehensive Plan, while reviewing this project application. I refer to the two things my wife mentioned, Recommendation A-12 and B- 12 of the Comprehensive Plan, and the failure to satisfy several of the general standards for the Special Use Permit that’s found in Section 179-10-050 that have also been mentioned, Paragraph A of that, that the project is not in harmony with the health, safety and welfare of the residents, and Paragraph B, it is not compatible with the neighborhood community character of the adjoining properties, and Paragraph C, its negative impact on traffic conditions, and Paragraph E, the negative impact on the environment and natural resources and noise detrimental to the public welfare, and Paragraph F, the negative effect on the long-term economic stability, that is the property values of the surrounding properties, and Number Five, the creation of a situation which will in all likelihood result in the violation of the Town’s dog ordinance, that Section 73-1 and 73- 5A that prohibits constant noise from barking dogs. So I ask the Board to reject this application simply because, legally, it is unsuitable for the area in which it’s proposed, and I also thank you for all the work you do for the Town of Queensbury. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. CLAUDE TROIANO MR. TROIANO-Good evening. My name’s Claude Troiano. I live on Mannis Road. I’m last because I hate public speaking. My wife wanted me to come and read this letter that she wrote. She was taken ill so she’s home and she’s on antibiotics and I promised her that I would do this. So for right now my name is Kitty Troiano. I attended the Zoning th Board meeting August 20, 2008, and had written a letter dated August 26 where I expressed my opposition to a dog park kennel in our area. I had stated in the letter my personal experience living next door to such a kennel, and feel the need to tell it again to the Planning Board committee. Prior to moving to Queensbury, we lived in a Rural Residential area in Ulster County. My husband and I built our dream home on over three and a half acres, I’m her husband, with beautiful mountain views of the Catskills. After a year of living there, a kennel was put in and they were raising and boarding dogs. The residents who lived in the surrounding area complained about the noise, and went to the Zoning Board to put a stop to it, but it seemed to go on 24/7. They couldn’t do anything to close the kennel because there was a flaw in the Zoning Code at that time, for some reason. Our home was over 500 feet away from this kennel, but many residents lived much further. Some of the residents lived at least two miles from the kennel, and their lives were impacted from the disturbance. When we decided to sell our home, we had to disclose there was a kennel nearby. This certainly affected the amount of time it took to sell the home and our price. There’s also a definite impact on the wildlife. With the dogs barking all the time, the deer, the turkeys disappeared. Besides the impact of the resale from the disappearing wildfire, it also affects one health. We got stressed out many times because of the noise. We could be outside or we could be inside. We heard it quite a bit. We moved to the area because it’s so beautiful and tranquil. I’m not one to write letters or attend meetings, but when I heard, in August, there was a proposal for this dog park/kennel to be constructed, I felt I needed to voice my opinion. So again, I’m writing a letter and asking you please request for the sake of the people in our area. Thank you very much and thank you for your service. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Since there’s no one else, we will conclude the public hearing for this evening. MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, I do have some public comment. I was able to cull out that there are a few other public comments for and against. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. How many letters do you have? MR. OBORNE-A total of 18 signatures, nine. December 16, 2008, “Attention: Queensbury Planning Board: We are unable to attend the meeting tonight, but would like to let you know that we are in favor of the item before you regarding proposed dog daycare kennel on the Gosline/Polunci property. This issue speaks to property rights. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) The parcel is zoned for the use proposed. When we purchased our property, we were aware of the zoning and of what uses were allowed. Those in opposition should have been aware as well. This should not be an issue based on emotion or fear of the unknown. In addition, we feel the owners of the property have planned this endeavor well to address the concerns voiced by their opponents. Richard and Linda Delsignore” December 5, 2008, “To Whom It May Concern: I am real estate agent with over 20 years of experience working with buyers and sellers. The subject property, Tax Map No. 289.15-1-1.1, owners are proposing a fenced in area and kennels on the property. Surrounding property values will be affected in a negative way. We have fenced in dogs boarding our home. My experience has been a constant annoyance each time someone comes to our house. They also bark incessantly whenever we go in and out. We are putting our house on the market in January and plan to call our neighbors and ask them to bring their dogs in the house when we will have a showing. A proposed kennel is definitely a deterrent for a sale and would affect the value of boarding homes. A neighbor to this proposed kennel currently hears their two dogs barking. The proposed kennel is located in the center of upscale homes. This business should be out in the country away from residences. A commercial kennel would have a negative effect on the market value of neighboring homes. Respectfully, Mary Lou Munger, Licensed Real Estate Agent, Prudential Manor Homes” And as far as her standing, I see 699 Upper Glen Street as the address of the business. Levack Real Estate, Inc. This letter is in response or to Bob and Nancy Murtha, 28 Fitzgerald Road. “Dear Bob and Nancy: I am writing in response to your request for my opinion. You have reason to be concerned. The proposed dog kennel/park poses some serious impacts that could be detrimental to your home’s property value. Everyone at one point or another has had to endure the annoying neighborhood dog barking. If this business succeeds in locating behind your property and dogs are left out in the open, then I can only assume there will be barking….and probably a lot of it. if it is persistent, and impedes on your quiet enjoyment, then it is very reasonable to assume that any future potential purchaser of your home, and your neighbors’ homes, will, in all probability, not subject themselves to this nuisance. All things being equal, you will be at a competitive disadvantage when it comes time to sell your home. Good luck in defending your property value. Sincerely, R. Mark Levack President, Levack Real Estate, Inc.” These go pretty quickly after this, Mr. Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. OBORNE-“Members of the Town Planning Board: We are absolutely and vehemently opposed to the construction of a dog kennel in our neighborhood. Our concerns include the inevitable nuisance noise, the negative effect on wildlife caused by barking dogs, and the careless assault on the tranquility of our property. In our opinion, the proposed dog kennel and park could very well effect our ability to market our home and could significantly reduce the value of our home. Would members of the Board buy a home in a neighborhood which was also home to a kennel? Please help us by voting against this proposal. Respectfully, Dr. Douglas Petroski Debra Petroski” Queensbury Town Planning Board, dated December 12, 2008. “Dear Sir/Madam: We are writing this letter to inform you of our opposition to the dog park/kennel on Blind Rock Road proposed by Marilee Gosline. We have grave concerns about the environmental and aesthetic impact such a park will have on our neighborhood. We are concerned about nuisance noise that will certainly result if many dogs are gathered and left to bark, as well as the increase in traffic such a facility would warrant. We are concerned about wildlife being chased out of the area and frankly about the odors that may result on a warm summer day drifting our way with a breeze. We feel that the entire character of our neighborhood would change for the worse and hence property values would decline in the neighboring area. We are urging you to take our objections under serious consideration and to deny the construction of the dog park. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, David Jarvis Colleen Jarvis” “Proposed Dog kennel in the Blind Rock area. I would first like to point out that the approval of this kennel will not effect me or the peace and quiet that (I once enjoyed) here on the top of west mountain. I like most people have worked damn hard to have a nice home where I can go after a hard days work and relax (in peace and quiet). I am very fortunate to be able to live on sixty acre of this beautiful mountain and to have been able to pass most of my land off to my children. But I must say when your Planning Board gave permission to Dave and Chris Stewart on Clendon Brook Road to open a dog Kennel in our nice quiet neighborhood, I like most people in our area have been strongly effected by the noise in which naturally comes along with numbers of dogs that are put together in one area. If in fact there are any doubts to my words I welcome you all, as I did many years ago when I was voicing opposition to the Stewart’s kennel to come sit out on my front deck at dog feeding time, which happens to be the same time my family try to sit out on the deck and enjoy our dinner outside. The sounds of dogs barking from the kennel is sickening. The 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) Stewart’s are, in fact, nice folks, but the idea of some one’s profit in exchange for some one else’s discomfort, and in my case and in the Blind Rock Road case many folks discomfort, that does not set well with me. Every day of every month for the last few years especially at feeding time I am reminded what a terrible mistaken the Town Planning Board made by letting a dog kennel open in a nice quiet neighborhood. All of the promises of sound control (does not work) trust me on that one. Once again this approval or disapproval will not help my situation here on the mountain. I guess I have a hard time accepting the fact that this is even being considered again after the trouble we have had up here on the mountain. But ask yourselves before you vote yes on this project, would you want it in your back yard. Members of the Queensbury Planning Board , don’t make the same mistake twice. I know no one that lives in the area where this is being considered and I know nothing of the people that are for or against it. what I do know is what impact it has had on my peace and quiet here on the mountain to this day. Sincerely, Jeff Inglee, 104 Tuthill Road, Queensbury, N.Y. Concerned for the hard working folks on Blind Rock Road” Quickly. “Queensbury Town Planning Board Subject: Dog Kennel Proposal I oppose it. The dog kennel proposed off Blind Rock Road will devalue the surrounding properties. It is not like an animal farm out in the middle of nowhere; this is a residential area. It does not have a water supply or sewage disposal. Can you imagine the odor? And the noise? I live on plus miles from I-87 and can hear trucks change gears. This kennel is less than one-half mile from my property. Dog barking will be loud, especially if an animal intruder is smelled in the area. Property values are going down at this time. If trying to sell, barking dogs would cause my property value to decrease further I urge the Town Planning Board to reject this application. Raymond E. Erb Queensbury” “To Whom It May Concern: As residents at 17 Fitzgerald Road, we are steadfast against the idea of placing a dog kennel in a residential neighborhood due to the noise level it would create. It would virtually be in our back yard, and as it is, we have more than enough noise from the Northway and the Great Escape. We can hear the vehicle noise of Route 87, the roller-coaster, and the people screaming as they ride the roller coaster and if this kennel were allowed to happen we could look forward to dogs barking as well. Won’t that be grand! We would really appreciate it if this project were not approved. I’m sure there is a more suitable location in the Town of Queensbury for this particular project. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Kenneth M. Galloway Elizabeth Galloway” I have three more, sir. This is a long one. I’m going to paraphrase. Dear Planning Board Members: This correspondence is in response to the application for a dog kennel/park located at 21 Blind Rock Road. My wife and I strongly object to the opening of a dog kennel/park in this heavily residential neighborhood. We voiced our concerns on August 26, 2008, along with many other concerned area residents, who are directly impacted by this application. At that last meeting, concerned residents demonstrated how this proposed business would negatively impact area homeowners due to such issue as noise from barking dogs and adverse impact on property values. Moreover, the business does not conform to Section 170-10-050”, I’m assuming that’s 179, “of the Queensbury Code, as per paragraphs B, E, and F. specifically these provisions relate to “overall compatibility of the use within the neighborhood, and the positive and negative impacts on the community character”, “the positive and negative impacts on environmental and natural resources…..and impacts such as vibration or noise detrimental to public health, safety and welfare;” and “negative effects on the long-term economic stability and community character of the Town and surrounding properties.” At the August meeting, one board member understood that the dog kennel/park was not in the best interest of the surrounding neighborhood and said she would not approve it. as she noted in her comments, while this type of business falls into one of the categories of Rural/Residential zoning, it is not a given that it should be approved based on the afore mentioned provisions in Section 170-10-050 of the Queensbury Code. And, with over 120 residents having voiced opposition in both petitions and letters, it should not be approved by the Planning Board.” This goes on for another page, but I am going to say this is from William B. Longworth and Sandra Longworth 52 Surrey Field Drive Queensbury, NY 12804-8708. And they are vehemently opposed to this. Two more. “I live adjacent to (The Woodlyn’s at Cedar Court) the proposed dog kennel/park at 21 Blind Rock Road, and am strongly opposed to it. This is a commercial venture in an area that is surrounded completely by residential homes. I have many concerns including noise, pollution, and the care of these dogs, but I wish to address my concerns about another concern. That is the public access to the dog kennels. The access road to the kennel/park is directly off Blind Rock Road. It is located on a hill and curve with very little sight line, particularly for vehicles traveling west. This area was recently the location of a fatal accident and I fear people slowing down to enter or exit this area will result in further tragedies. I travel Blind Rock Road daily. The traffic is increasing day by day and will surely intensify if the dog kennel/park is permitted to operate. Sincerely, Julia F. Hendrickson” And last but not least, “To Whom It May Concern: I am definitely opposed 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) to the dog kennels on Blind Rock Road. Mrs. Eleanor Welez 65 Cedar Court Queensbury, NY 12804” And that’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Any additional questions, comments from members of the Board? Did you have anything to add? MR. FULLER-Just a couple of follow up on some comments. As far as the application goes, I did want to note that we included a letter from Dick Edmonds who lives in the Westwood Development on Glenwood Ave. near Doc O’Connor’s animal hospital over there and, you know, no real noise noticeable or objectionable, even as Doc O’Connor expands his facility and can accommodate more dogs, I do not feel the dogs barking will create any noise problem or concern. Another letter that we included, October 14, 2008, from George and Patricia Jameson. We’re writing regarding the application for a pet care facility application planned for an area of Blind Rock Road. We have lived within 100 feet of the Adirondack Animal Hospital for the past 30 years. In all those years, we have never had cause to complain of noise or traffic at the business. We do not have any pets ourselves. With wide open windows in the summer, our bedroom is exposed to that facility. We have never been annoyed by noisy animals, i.e. barking dogs, in the daytime or at night. Over the years, however, we have experienced occasional noise from other neighborhood dogs, much more than from the business next door. In any case, from either source, the distraction has not been excessive. We hope you will consider our experience when you, on the Board, decide on the applicant’s petition, and I should clarify. I actually thought about getting up and clarifying, because it seems comments even right out of the gate with Mike O’Connor, kind of confused what the application is. This isn’t a wide open dog park. You’re not going to be able to show up and let your dog run at will. Twenty dogs is twenty dogs. That’s the number. They’re going to, the fenced in area is for the dogs that are staying at the kennel. So this isn’t a wide open, 30 dogs on one day, everybody driving from Glens Falls to go walk their dog in the Town of Queensbury. That’s completely mischaracterization, and just misinformation. So I wanted to make that absolutely clear to the Board. Second, this isn’t an outdoor kennel. These dogs aren’t going to be outdoors in individual, fenced in kennels, surrounding the building, you know, outdoors all day, barking at feeding time when somebody comes in the little cage. They’re going to be inside. That’s an entirely different scenario than a lot of the kennels that are being complained about. Those are outdoor kennels. So that’s a significant distinction, and again, I think, you know, some misinformation and misclassification of what we’re talking about here. Mike kind of brought up about the noise and then, you know, whether or not the fenced in area is even permitted as part of this kennel. I mean, as far as having a fenced in area for the dogs to go out and come back in as part of a kennel, I think it’s a stretch to say, you know, kennel is just a building and you can’t have a fenced in area for a dog. It makes no sense to me, and as far as the noise study, whether it’s, you know, inadequate, I think some of the projects I think Mike would like to compare this to are mines. We’re not talking about a mine. We’re not talking about putting receptors out at people’s houses, at, you know, 1,000 feet away from a dog kennel. The Planning Board, and I think rightfully so, was specific with the information that it wanted, and we worked on that. We worked diligently on it. It’s not inadequate. It’s adequate. It’s actually what you wanted to see, and you wanted us to address. The topographic was re-shot, and I think Tom will say right here that the topo is adequate for all the opinions and data that he has supplied on that property. So that’s just not an issue. Another thing that we need to look at is this is an application for a Special Use Permit. If you look at the RR-3A zone, you talk about zoning and what’s allowed in your own district, you know, I live up Ridge Road, and I can hear the mines, you know, a mile away from my house every morning in the summer. So ambient noise is nothing new. You need to know what’s around. Here’s some of the things, just flipping through the RR-3A zone, that are allowed with Site Plan Review, certainly a much lower standard than a Special Use Permit. Agriculture uses. That property could be used for an agricultural use with Site Plan Review, and I think, as the Board is aware, the threshold to get over for a Site Plan Review project is certainly lower than a Special Use Permit. Others are a game preserve. You could have a game preserve out there on this property with just Site Plan Review. Site Plan approval you could put a game preserve. A group camp. A nursery, a riding academy, a veterinary clinic, and one that really stood out and actually almost shocked me, in the RR-3A zone, is you have a sportsman’s club or a firing range on that property with Site Plan Review. We’re talking a kennel with Special Use Permit. You can have a firing range with just a Site Plan Review, and, you know, you’d be hardpressed to deny a Site Plan Review project. I mean, it’s just a lower standard. I mean, everybody agrees that. So when we talk about context and the application that we’re looking at, there are some legitimate alternatives here that are, I’m not saying we’re going to go do every one of these, but I’m saying it’s, you know, when you’re talking about what are we comparing, apples and apples, those are allowed uses, and it seems, one of the things that struck me, is, you 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) know, in terms of, you know, whether or not this is a referendum on whether this project should be approved. Whether or not something is absolutely not a nuisance to some people is not the criteria. I agree, it’s a very subjective standard, and if you’re going to get into subjective standards on applications, you know, where do we stop? I think, like I said before, I really don’t envy you. I don’t envy the spot. I understand the balancing of interests that you have here, and, you know, you talk about data and information that we can supply, I think we have supplied it. This is, again, 20 acres, thousands of feet separation, 700 from, more than 700 from the closest property, and I think the short of it is we’re hard pressed to justify more information than on this spot. It’s 20 acres. We’ve doubled up, quadrupled, quintrupled, many of the setbacks that we need to maintain here, and on the SEQRA question, I don’t know if there’s any question with that. It is an Unlisted action. I double-check any application before I submit it as well, to make sure we comply with SEQRA. We supplied a Short EAF. I don’t think anything would warrant a different determination than it is an Unlisted action, and again, one of the big things that, a recurring thing I kept hearing is that, you know, the dogs left out and impact on the value, and in fact I think one of the letters that got read from one of the brokers was, you know, dogs left out in the open all day barking all day are going to have an impact on the value. Well, I don’t think anybody’s going to disagree with that, but that’s not the case we’re dealing with. This is an indoor facility. They’re going to be let out, supervised when they’re out, not just let out to run, not people just showing up from Glens Falls, dropping off their dog for a dog park and sitting in the car while it runs around with 10 other dogs. That’s not what we’re dealing with here. The family has specifically said they’ve capped it at 20. No more, and that’s the high. That’s no more, that’s not to say every day they will have them. The traffic, a couple of times a day, if they had 20 there during the day. I just don’t see that that would be a massive impact on that area. I don’t know, Tom, did you have anything else to add? MR. HUTCHINS-No, I don’t believe so. My role with this was working to attempt to improve the road from what is there and put together the utilities and the wastewater system, and that isn’t really the issue here. If you have any questions about it, I’d be happy to address them. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-I would like to get into the wastewater and the potential impact on wetlands, if you would, please. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. It’s a conventional, residential style wastewater system. It’s over 150 feet from the adjoining pond and wet area. I’m not sure what Mr. O’Connor’s reference was. I’m not sure what regulation would apply in this case. It’s designed to be more than 100, and that’s the way I laid it out. He referenced a down gradient distance regulation, which I believe he’s referring to a water well, but regardless, if it would make all happy, that could easily be flipped and be 200 feet from the pond. It’s a residential style septic system. The soils aren’t particularly great there. They’re very silty. It’s sized large. The flow rates are going to be relatively low. Typical residential septic system. MR. FORD-And potential impact on wetlands? MR. HUTCHINS-On don’t see any potential impact on wetland. We’re within the setback requirements for a wastewater system. MR. FORD-Does any other part of the operation have the potential of impacting wetlands, anything from driveway to structure to? MR. HUTCHINS-We are doing a small amount of re-grading on the access road that is within 100 feet of the ponds which are listed as NWI Wetlands, although that’s a listing on a map. It’s not necessarily field verified, but there’s no doubt in my mind that if you flag that, there’d be wetlands at the perimeter of those ponds. No, we’re improving an existing road. We’re going to re-surface it. We’re going to cut in one portion and fill in the other and apply standard erosion control techniques during construction and so, no, I don’t feel that there’s going to be any significant impact on the wetlands, as a result of that. MR. HUNSINGER-So that’s the need for the Freshwater Wetlands Permit? MR. HUTCHINS-That’s the use of the Freshwater Wetlands Permit, because we’re grading in the area of this pond, within 100 feet of the pond. Improvements I’ve shown on the entry road are primarily to get a gravel shoulder so that it’s a little more convenient to have two cars pass. I mean, it can be done now, but it’s a little tight. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MR. HUNSINGER-And has the Freshwater Wetlands Permit been filed? MR. HUTCHINS-The application is filed, yes. MR. OBORNE-Yes, it is tentatively on the January agenda. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And if I may, that’s a separate application. It wasn’t piggybacked with the Site Plan or the Special Use Permit. MR. HUTCHINS-We weren’t aware of the need for it, frankly, until Keith informed us. MR. HUNSINGER-Keith had commented to me before the meeting that the Zoning Administrator had provided his opinion that the Special Use Permit and Site Plan could be acted on prior to the Freshwater Wetlands Permit, but, I mean, that’s something that’s up to the Board to determine if we would feel comfortable with that or not. Apparently, at least the Zoning Administrator thinks that we legally could do that. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t foresee any problem with that. I see a problem getting over this noise issue, personally. Inside the kennel, I don’t see any, within the kennel, on your drawing, there’s no places for the pets to stay. It’s just going to be one big open room? Or is it going to be divided out? MR. FULLER-I think there should have been submitted with the application materials the actual photos, and that is going to be recreated within that. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. FULLER-It’s already in existence. That structure will be purchased and brought here. MR. SEGULJIC-So the dogs will be divided? They’re modular. Your drawing shows one big open area. MR. FULLER-Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe there are some fixed and then there are some that they can move, just to adapt to what they need. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Right, and then the septic system is really for the pet washing, if I understand it correctly. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, it’s for a sink, a bathroom, and a wash sink, but they’re not going to be in the business of bathing pets. MR. FORD-So this is for human use? MR. SEGULJIC-I guess on your wastewater design system it says 15 dog washes per day. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. Then there are dog washes per day. MR. SEGULJIC-I didn’t see any, I might be mistaken, I didn’t see any wastewater generation for human use. MR. HUTCHINS-There will be a bathroom. You’ve got a bathroom, a sink, and a wash sink. MR. FULLER-The 15, again, was the high number. MR. SEGULJIC-The dog shower is there, okay. MR. FULLER-And then right next door is the restroom. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. FULLER-I say right next to it, within the structure, right immediately adjacent to the shower area. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, where I am, Mr. Chairman, I’m having trouble getting over this noise issue, for a couple of reasons. When I look at the information submitted for the sound study, at 320 feet they say it’s reported that it’s 60 decibels. When I look at the sound chart, 60 decibels is comparable to an air conditioning unit at 20 feet away. If you go up to 70 decibels, it says telephone use, difficult and intrusive. I’m not seeing any information that gives me a comfort level here, and besides which, if I’m correct, correct me if I’m wrong, this, I guess the fact that at every doubling of distance the sound drops off by six decibels. MR. DEVIVO-Six decibels. MR. SEGULJIC-Wikipedia was used as the reference for that. MR. DEVIVO-That was simply, I was looking up just for Bell Labs quickly. Bell Labs is the one that came up with. MR. SEGULJIC-I have to make decisions, and I like real scientific information. MR. DEVIVO-Okay. So I should have referenced Bell Laboratories who actually came up with how you measure sound. MR. SEGULJIC-And then the fact, I don’t know if our engineer looked at this or not. MR. DEVIVO-The other thing, I should also say, when we measured that static, 54 decibels on Sunday morning, there were dogs barking in the distance, neighbors dogs barking in that 54 decibels. I couldn’t tell you exactly how much those two dogs barking in the distance made up of that. MR. SEGULJIC-And then the fact that allegedly there’s other information. I guess HUD was cited as having sound information for residential. I mean, you’re citing OSHA. OSHA has nothing to do with neighborhoods. MR. DEVIVO-I’m citing OSHA because OSHA is the one that determines hazardous health levels. They’re the easiest ones to follow. MR. SEGULJIC-But we’re not looking at hazardous. MR. DEVIVO-HUD would also be to housing, and is this for, you know, is it residential housing. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I would agree with you if you’re looking at workers on a housing site with their saws and everything, OSHA would have a say, but OSHA does not have a say in this situation. MR. DEVIVO-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Would you agree with that? You’re using it as a reference. What I’m saying is there’s probably other references out there that might be more appropriate. MR. DEVIVO-Okay. I simply used OSHA because they set the standards for hazardous health levels. They have a viable means of looking up hazardous health levels. MR. SEGULJIC-And as I see it, I have two choices here, because under Special Use Permits, we can give you a permanent temporary renewable. One thing is to say give you a one year renewable permit, to see how this all really works out. I don’t know if the applicant would want to go through that expense, or provide me more information I can hang my hat on. That’s how I see it. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels, but that’s. MR. FULLER-I guess, Tom, if you want us to just give you what the housing levels would be, I guess my question is, what are you going to compare it to? You’re still going to compare it back to the distances and figures that he provided, and we’re talking thousands of feet here. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s like air conditioning at 20 feet. MR. FULLER-Right, but we’re talking, not including whatever standard you want to apply, just looking at the noise calculations themselves. If we come back and say that the housing standard is, it should be no more than 45 decibels on a house. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MR. SEGULJIC-(lost words) the housing standard. That was just something I had heard. I’ve got to believe, out there, that there’s some studies that have been done. I’ve got to believe that. MR. FULLER-And I guess what I’m telling you is based on the calculations that he did, for the distances that we’re dealing with, even if we come back to you that says it’s 47, we’re talking thousands of feet here. MR. SEGULJIC-Let’s start with the numbers that were done. I’m looking at the DEC report that was done, and it says for distances greater than 50 feet you would take off six decibels when you double the distance. What happens when you have less? So you took from 10 to 20, so I don’t know if you started in the right spot or not. You made the assumption you can do that up to 50 feet. MR. DEVIVO-Okay. I’m saying the DEC did a report where they stated their figures from 50 feet. It still doesn’t change the laws of physics that sound drops six decibels for every time its distance. We can have a level of 120 decibel, a drum impact, that is a stick hitting a snare drum, okay. We all know what that sounds like. When you stand 100 feet back, I can guarantee you it’s not going to sound like the drummer here that’s sitting two feet away from him. It’s going to be substantially louder, and from you out in the audience, it’s going to be substantially less, and you’ll be able to talk to the person next to you, regardless. So, we’re talking physics here. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, correct, but I’m looking at a letter submitted that references Wikipedia. Wikipedia, to me, is not a scientific reference, Number One. MR. DEVIVO-I can reference Bell Labs. MR. SEGULJIC-Number Two, I’m looking at a reference from DEC, it says that when it doubles you drop by six decibels. It starts at 50 feet is the way I interpret it. I don’t have the information to hang my hat on. MR. DEVIVO-Okay. I’m saying that DEC said that. They’re saying that it starts at greater than 50 feet, for that particular study. MR. SEGULJIC-No, it’s saying at greater than 50 feet, when you double the distance, it drops by six decibels. MR. DEVIVO-Right. Okay. I could provide more. MR. HUNSINGER-Do other members still have concerns with the noise studies and the noise issues? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, you know, I’m really not tremendously unchanged from where I was at the last meeting. I’m not tremendously different in opinion than I was from the first time that the applicant came. Some of the things that were asked for, I voted no on the motion just because I didn’t know what we would be comparing it to. The issue, in my mind, comes down to noise, and in my mind, I don’t think that we should prolong this situation any longer. I would be compelled to make a motion to disapprove, and that’s where I am, as one Planning Board member. MR. HUNSINGER-Other members? MR. SIPP-I agree, somewhat, with Gretchen. I, in a lot of cases here, look at the worst case scenario, and the worst case scenario, to me, would be what happened last Friday and Saturday went out and you have no water, you have no heat, and the dog owners are in Florida, what do you do with the dog? MR. FULLER-I would say the same thing a vet’s office would do. I mean, this isn’t, we’re not changing things. I mean, I guess some of the question I’m hearing is what standard is going to apply? I mean, if that was the consideration for any project here, you could deny anything. I mean, I don’t know, you know. MR. SIPP-Well, I’m of the feeling that, in agreement with Gretchen that this is, probably the noise is not that bad, but it is always an irritant, and especially when you’ve made the effort to come to a meeting like this and say you’re not going to stand for the noise and reduce your property values. This is zoned Rural Residence Three Acres, and I think it should remain that. Also, in a Special Use Permit, is a renewable item, and who know 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) what will happen in the future. The owners here are in for quite a large investment as far as I can see in making this property suitable for what they want, and this could be denied in a year or two, when circumstances change. So, in my thoughts, I would not vote in favor of this. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Tom, Steve? MR. TRAVER-Well, I think we’ve talked a great deal about the sound issue, and I agree, that’s a serious matter. I’d like to go back and re-visit the impact of wastewater a bit, if we may. I know there was a comment from the audience that, and there was a concern by a member of the audience about the run, in terms of the floor, the cover or whatever, and I know from your plans that that’s intended to be a poured concrete surface, the run area. MR. HUTCHINS-The building is. MR. TRAVER-The run is not? MR. FORD-What about the fenced in run area? MR. FULLER-Grass. MR. TRAVER-I thought I saw that that was concrete. Okay, then I withdraw my question. MR. FORD-I value the free enterprise system, and I applaud the applicants for their efforts and their desires. I also am sensitive to the fact that different people have different sensitivities to noise, any noise, and I go back to the example that I cited earlier about a dripping faucet. Some people will never hear it. It’ll drive other people crazy. A single dog in a neighborhood will unduly agitate certain people and their sensitivity to noise, and I’m concerned about that, the nuisance factor and the potential for that impacting this neighborhood. I think it’s a quality of life issue. I don’t know the extent to which it is impacted, or impacts the dog ordinance, but I believe that it is not in harmony with the immediate community and I think that it is incompatible with the character of the neighborhood, based upon the varying sensitivities to neighbors in the area, and some might never hear the dogs, and others might be extremely agitated by it, by the sound. MR. HUNSINGER-Based on comments from Board members, I think there’s basically two options, either table this for more information, or if somebody wants to put forward a motion of denial, or we could table it and draft a motion for a later meeting. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess I’ll look to Gretchen for that. How does Gretchen feel? MRS. STEFFAN-I’ve drafted some things here. I also don’t think that we could easily get through SEQRA. That’s why I think that the motion to disapprove is in order. We’d have to close the public hearing first before we do a motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to try to do the motion this evening? MRS. STEFFAN-I can, if you want me to run it by you first, I can do that. MR. FORD-Could we ask the applicant, or the applicant’s representative, to, based upon what they have heard in the previous session, and again tonight, if there’s any way of addressing the issues, particularly of sound, and determine if that can, in some way, be mitigated, impacted in a positive way? MR. FULLER-I would say absolutely, but having heard the comments, I don’t know that there’s anything that we can do. I think they’ve gone to the great. MR. FORD-I just wanted to give you the opportunity. MR. FULLER-No, absolutely. If the Board has an idea of, I can’t really even think of, off the top of my head right now. MRS. STEFFAN-Unless the dogs are inside all the time, there’s no way that. MR. FULLER-Which they’re going to be, unless what you’re saying is you don’t ever want the dogs outside. I mean, even vet clinics don’t have that. You end up with vet clinics on less land than 10 acres, 20 acres. You can end up on one. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think the one suggestion that came up, along those lines, was putting a solid wall of some kind around the outdoor run, and I think the testimony of the sound engineer was that it really would have a minimum impact. MR. FORD-And vegetation, additional vegetation in addition to what’s already there. MR. DEVIVO-Again, a few decibels, but nothing of significant impact. MR. FULLER-I mean, I guess the last, kind of see the direction that it’s going, but the last comment that we would have is, you know, we’re getting beat by opinion, and that’s disheartening, that you can get outnumbered on a project, and I guess that’s, that would be our only parting complaint is that seems to be what’s happening. If you drum up enough support, you may be able to deny it. You’re right. It’s a subjective standard of who’s sensitive and who isn’t, but what I would put to you, Tom, is that’s the standard, you can deny anything. You can deny a Site Plan Review. I mean, it’s not a standard. It’s not an acceptable standard, because we can’t overcome it. You just, by asking the question, is there anything we can do to satisfy everybody? We can’t. We’re never going to be able to satisfy that test. MR. FORD-Ultimately you have to satisfy us. MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Well, and I don’t think it was entirely subjective. I think that the sound information submitted was significant, and I think that it does show that, in fact, in testimony, that the sound engineer does show that in fact the noise would be heard, even inside a closed house at these distances. So, you know, I mean, it’s certainly subjective in terms of how that impacts the person living in that house, but I think that is certainly something that’s concrete, and I think that the comment in his report regarding the OSHA standards and so on is perhaps that’s the, is because that may have been the only thing that was not subjective is that you could certainly, you could state with certainty that it was not a toxic threshold, but as to the rest of it, it is subjective, but it is useful information and it does document that, in fact, the noise does carry, and documents that, in fact, it does impact directly on the residential areas around the park. MR. DEVIVO-It doesn’t necessarily constitute a health risk because of the distances. KIM POLUNCI MRS. POLUNCI-Like Mr. Fuller said, this is a dog kennel. I don’t know if any of you board members have ever boarded your dog. They are not outside unattended, left there, tied up, just sitting there doing nothing. They go out for 10, 15 minutes. They come back in. They do not just sit outside and bark and bark and bark, and these dog runs are not runs that the dogs are just going to go out and four or five dogs are going to get on top of each other and bark and howl. It’s going to be one dog per one run area, and that’s not going to be all the time, and there’s not going to be 20 dogs outside this kennel at one time barking. You can’t put 20 dogs together. Not all dogs click. You might have three dogs out to go to the bathroom, play, 10, 15 minutes, come back in. Maybe then another half an hour another two dogs would go outside, play, come back in. If you people have dogs, and you work, which most people do, your dogs lay around the house for about 10 hours a day. What do they do? They sleep. At a kennel, that’s what they do. They are in their kennels. They go out, they go to the bathroom. They miss their parents. They play ball a little bit with whoever owns the kennel. They go back in. It’s not an SPCA. There is not going to be disease. All these people think there’s going to be disease everywhere. Dogs have to have their certain vaccinations. It’s not going to be dirty. The feces will be picked up. Things will be pressure washed. This is going to be a kennel, not an SPCA and not a free for all dog park, and I just want you to understand, I have dogs myself. I have six dogs. I don’t let them all run around and bark. It drives me crazy. If they start barking, they’re in the house, and they do occasionally, they like to play, and our neighbor’s dogs bark, and it’s because they like to play, but most people bring their dogs in when it is a nuisance, and I would never let a dog that I’m boarding bark and bark and bark. I’m going to be in the kennel working, taking care of all the other dogs. I’m not going to leave somebody who’s paying me, their dog unattended. That’s not the way it works, and I just want you to really consider that the sound thing is not going to be an issue. They’re not going to be unattended animals and 20 outside at a time. Thank you. MR. FORD-Thank you. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) JOHN POLUNCI MR. POLUNCI-As far as the sound goes, I guess the numbers that Larry has presented is pretty much what any noise would be. So if we were to build two houses back there, or one house, if someone’s mowing their lawn, there’s going to be a certain amount of noise back there regardless of what anybody does on that particular piece of land. Nuisance noise, if you’re weed whacking your yard, do I consider that nuisance noise, which that would be louder. We’re going to be putting things in precaution where it’s going to be at certain times. It’s pick up and delivery by set appointments, to keep the noise down, and it’s only going to be from dark, I mean, from when the sun comes up until it goes down. So it’s not going to be like it’s going to be eight o’clock at night where you can’t sleep. When the dogs are in the kennel, you’re not going to hear them. Larry can vouch for that. Once these dogs are in the kennel, you’re not going to hear them. You’re talking like a 60 or 70% drop in decibel ratings on the outside of that, and then you go 200 feet, you’re not going to hear them. We’re going to put monitors in them just so you can hear them from our house to see if there was a problem, but, I mean, the noise decibels we’re looking at, the average one is, what, 15 decibels. If I’m out there and I decide that I want to build a house back there and I’m mowing my lawn on a Saturday or Sunday morning, is that a nuisance noise? I mean, what’s considered a nuisance noise? I mean, it could be a weed whacker, a radio, it doesn’t necessarily have to be a dog. Just because it’s a dog it’s considered a nuisance noise? Anything we put back there is going to make some form of a noise. They think that this is their land and that they can do whatever they want with it. We purchased the land. We’re trying to do it without impacting the land as much as possible. We purchased the land to keep our property values up. My house is my biggest investment. I built it with my own two hands. The last thing I’d want to do is have an investment of $300,000 drop money, take it right out of my pocket because of a nuisance noise or irritants to other people, and the last thing I want to do, after working an 18 hour day in my own business, is come home and hear dog barking. I understand theirs concerns, but any noise that’s going to be out there is going to be a nuisance noise. You add distance to that, a dog barking, you’re looking at 50 decibels. I mean, I guess the question is, what’s a tolerable level of noise out there, and no one knows, because it’s different from each one of you people, each one of the Board members it’s different. So, I mean, I guess my thing is you’re asking is there anything I can do for noise. The only thing I can do is soundproof the kennels, set hours where it’s only when people are going to be up. If it’s in the middle of the day and the dogs are barking, it’s going to happen. It’s going to happen if I bring one of my dogs out there. I mean, we’re going to use the land if my dogs are out there just walking and barking, it’s irrelevant if it’s my dogs or I’m boarding the dogs. There’s still going to be, so the neighbors are going to consider that nuisance noise. I guess that’s my only concern is that no one’s specifying what that nuisance noise is. It’s just based on opinion. MR. FULLER-Thanks, John. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’ll add my comments to the noise issue, and, you know, I did ask the Board if there were additional information that we could ask, and I think we could ask for more information on noise in particular. One of the things that we have done, for example with The Great Escape, is they’re required to submit a noise study every year, and if the background noise coming from The Great Escape increases by five decibels then they have to take some sort of corrective action. There was a comment made by one of the members of the public that a five to ten decibel change is noticeable and, you know, may be considered to be intrusive. MR. DEVIVO-Three decibels or greater. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you can notice it. So I guess my thought was, if the rest of the Board is willing to ask for more information, you know, then we could ask for additional information on the noise concern. For example, taking, you know, additional background noise levels, to put it in perspective, but it’s really not our, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate to the Board that it’s not going to have a negative impact. I mean, we can only kind of guide you on what we think are the concerns and, you know, obviously the neighborhood concerns as well. So I can’t sit here and say, well, if you do this, then that is going to be acceptable to this Board. You might do this, and it might just lead to more questions, and that’s sometimes, you know, inherent in the activity of the Board, in, you know, the Site Plan Review process. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MR. SEGULJIC-If I could just jump in there for a second. For example, just a comment here, I mean, instead of taking the reading at 10 feet, and then, why didn’t you continue taking readings out (lost words)? MR. DEVIVO-We took a reading at 350 feet, and the dogs were, and it’s not in there. MR. SEGULJIC-Everything else is just based on something cited in Wikipedia, for example, and that’s where I’m coming from. I don’t have anything solid to hang on to. MR. DEVIVO-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-If you did that out further, then I’d feel more comfortable, but I don’t have that information now. MR. DEVIVO-The first reading I took from John was 350 feet away with one dog barking. At that point, the dog was into the noise floor. I could not even get a reading of what was the dog barking or what was the noise floor. So I said bring him closer. MR. SEGULJIC-All right, but that’s not here. MR. DEVIVO-Okay, but we’re also getting into, again, we’re into subjective, nuisance noise. Okay. To me children playing in the distance can be a nuisance, depending on the time of day, if I’m trying to concentrate or study. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I’m no expert on this, but I would say it’s different if it’s from a business than if it’s from general public activities. That is a big difference, there, I think. MR. DEVIVO-You’re talking dogs, the neighbors’ dogs barking when we’re standing in the field, and they’re in the ambient noise floor. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I’m not an expert on it, but that’s just. MR. DEVIVO-Okay, but I’m going to say, at that point, does John call the police and have the neighbors go and arrested because of their dogs being a nuisance? MR. SEGULJIC-That’s not, you haven’t provided me adequate information demonstrating there’s not a sound, not a noise issue. The first question I’ve got to answer, when we come to SEQRA, and that’s well aware of it, maybe it’s the second question. MRS. STEFFAN-The effects associated with the following. Noise levels are identified, and then when you get down to C2. Community or Neighborhood Character, that’s a problem, and when you get down to C4. Community’s Existing Plans or Goals as officially adopted. That’s going to be a problem. When we get down to C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified, and then we get into the home value question, which we didn’t think we could get into, but, you know, the information has been presented on both sides now. So that it does become an issue. MR. SEGULJIC-And then we get into the Special Use Permit. One of the things in the Special Use Permit, is there going to be any noise generated that’s going to be detrimental to the quality of the environment and public health. I don’t have information demonstrating to me that it’s not going to be. I’m not saying it is going to be a problem, but I’m saying I don’t have that information in front of me. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what’s the will of the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-I say we ask for more information. MR. FORD-That’s why I wanted to turn it back to the applicant and see what they want to do with it. You can see our concerns, and, you know, I voiced my concern before the public session. You heard them. If anything, I’ve just been able to amplify those, but I’m tossing the ball back in your court. MR. FULLER-I mean, if there’s an opportunity that we could, you know, further convince the Board of the positives of the project, obviously we would definitely take you up on that, but as you said, I also don’t want to send them down a path that’s, you know, just ripe with peril. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and also, you know, I said this at the first meeting, I certainly would never want to put false hope with an applicant and spend a lot of time, and I think we’ve done that in the past. We’ve had folks invest way too much of their resources in a plan that wasn’t going to get approved, and we don’t disapprove things very often, but I just don’t want to set somebody up. Even if, you know, a Special Use Permit with an expiration date, you know, you’re talking about all the work that would have to be done on putting the roads in, and then the infrastructure of the building, and that’s a ton of investment, and that’s unrealistic to ask people to do with a Special Use Permit that’s temporary that’s going to expire, and so I just, you know, I’m feeling like the right thing to do is to disapprove it, so that we don’t go farther than we should, with the same conclusion. MR. TRAVER-I agree, and I think asking for more detailed sound information, I mean, the, you know, we could have them do readings every foot out, but the data is the data is the data, and it’s not going to change, you know, adjusting, you know, the readings, and I think that the testimony with regards to the sound and decibel levels and the distances is what it is and it’s not going to change, regardless of asking them to invest more time of the engineer to do a different or more comprehensive analysis. It’s still going to come out that the dogs are going to be heard, and that’s, at least what I’m hearing is the concern of the Board, not necessarily what the decibels were. MR. FORD-You see what I was trying to get at is that’s a given in my book, what you’re describing, Steve. Is there any way of the applicant impacting that to lower those levels to whatever would be acceptable, and that’s why I was interested in tossing it to the applicant. MR. FULLER-Well, I guess two things on that. One, we don’t know what would be acceptable. We don’t know if we could satisfy that information if we came back, what the number would be, you know, that would be acceptable. If it was a, you get this down to 45, you’re fine, well then that says, okay, what types of structures can we construct to get it down to that number. I mean, that’s a bit of a test, and I guess, I’ve said it before, if the test is, you know, that from a dog kennel that the noise would not impact our neighbor, any neighbor, you are never going to be able to satisfy that. If there’s a neighbor within reach, of any dog kennel, anywhere in the Town of Queensbury, you’re not going to be able to reach that. That’s exactly why the Town Board set the 10 acres and the 200 feet. They’ve taken that into account. We’re not rezoning. We’re not changing the zoning to allow a commercial use in a residential area. It’s already an allowed use, and I guess that’s what I would argue to you is that the Town Board has taken that into account, and zoning could change, and the Town Board could take steps, but that’s not the venue tonight, you know, the neighbors could do that. They could go to the Town Board and say change the zoning. So I guess, from the applicant’s standpoint, that’s the difficulty with satisfying an application, is you would never be able to satisfy that test. MR. FORD-I understand that. MR. FULLER-And if that’s the case, then there’s a broader problem, not limited to this application is, you know, there’s an allowed use that the Planning Board says you can’t satisfy, and if we could, if there was some test, or if there was some number, that we had to get down to, then we could obviously go back and take a look at that and get back to you on that, and again, I’m not saying this to be argumentative. I completely appreciate the spot that you’re in, but on the other side, there’s a balance of property interests, and so on this side of the table we have to say, okay, there’s some right here, there’s some right allowed by the Town Board with this use. Creating a test that we can’t satisfy or asking us to supply information that I don’t know that we could ever satisfy, it’s kind of a burden that is insurmountable from the property owner’s standpoint. Zoning is a two way street. It’s a burden on property. It’s a derogation of your rights. It’s not to completely restrict the property owner’s ability to do that what the Town Board said you could do. So I guess, are we willing to supply information? Absolutely. If there’s something that we can do that you think that in the end we could show you the impacts of the project, we’d be willing to do it, but if, to use a term, that I can’t think of a better term for, if it’s an exercise in futility, no, we’re not going to do that, and I appreciate you saying that. If that’s where we’re heading. MR. SIPP-I think asking for more information is not going to change the physics of the whole situation. It’s going to come out the same, and there’s nothing, wind, the direction of the wind from the west may affect it slightly, but the basic physics are still there. So that kind of information is not going to be of any use. I think the perception of what this business is going to, what impact this business is going to have on this particular area is the thing that I look at the most, and I don’t know as you can change the impact. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, in the interest of time, do you have a resolution to offer? MOTION TO DISAPPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 30-2008 MARYLEE GOSLINE & JOHN & KIM POLUNCI, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes Dog Park Kennel situated on a 20.58+/- acre parcel. Kennels in an RR zone require Planning Board review and approval. 2)A public hearing was advertised and heard on 8/26/08, 10/21/08 & 12/16/08; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal does not comply with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code and criterias defined in Article 10, Special Use Permit; and 5)MOTION TO DISAPPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 30-2008 MARYLEE GOSLINE & JOHN & KIM POLUNCI, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: The Planning Board has determined that this proposal does not comply with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code and criterias defined in Article 10, Special Use Permit. Specifically that this project was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and the noise related to the proposed use and that use would have significant and adverse impacts on community character and dramatically impact quality of life for area property owners. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: MR. OBORNE-Did you close the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-I did not. We have a motion. Is there a second? MR. TRAVER-I’ll second. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Do we need to close the public hearing before we consider a declination motion? MR. OBORNE-I think for it to be clean, yes, absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. In that event, then, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. SEGULJIC-Well, one of my concerns, in the motion it says that there’ll be, what did you say about noise, if I may? Excessive noise I think you said. MRS. STEFFAN-That there was noise related to the proposed use, and that it would have an important and significant adverse impact on community character and dramatically impact the quality of life for area property owners. So noise. MR. SEGULJIC-See, I guess, where I’m coming from, I don’t have adequate information to go either way on that. So, given that, I don’t know, but. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other discussion? Call the vote, please. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan NOES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MR. HUNSINGER-Four to two. So the vote carried four to two. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MR. FULLER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you’re welcome. Two minute break. We’re going to hear the Colortyme Rentals recommendation next. RECOMMENDATION COLORTYME RENTALS: ZBA IS REQUESTING A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD THOMAS NYERT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready to summarize your Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-One moment, please. Well, I have no Staff Notes, per se. Again, the Zoning Board of Appeals has requested a recommendation from the Planning Board concerning what the original Mount Royal Plaza sign was supposed to represent, and see previous Planning Board meeting minutes, and whether both of the signs, Colortyme and OTB, are appropriate or if something could be reasonably done that would include all tenants in the mall. Again, I am referencing the resolution. This application for Sign Variance 56-2008, Colortyme Rentals, has to do with the placement of a sign on the current freestanding sign of Mount Royal Plaza, and again, the Zoning Board’s asking for a recommendation. The Zoning Administrator has stated that the OTB sign is a State entity and does not need to come before the Board, or even get a permit to place the sign on that freestanding sign the Mount Royal Plaza. I researched the permitting for this, for the OTB sign, and there is no record of a permit being issued for it, and at that point, if you have perused through the minutes, you see that the Mount Royal Plaza sign was part of the original subdivision, the original plan of turning that what, my understanding was once a travel motel, correct me if I’m wrong, into now a strip mall or a mall, and with that said, the Zoning Board of Appeals is looking for a recommendation as to the intent of that sign. In other words, can Mr. Glogowski put the sign up for Colortyme Rentals? Is that the intent of that freestanding sign? MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. GLOGOWSKI-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. NYERT-My name is Tom Nyert. This is my partner, Tom Glogowski. We own the Colortyme store, and after watching the last three hours, thank you for seeing us, and hopefully we won’t be near as tough as the last one. That was not an easy thing to watch you guys go through. The reason we want to put up a sign is we have no visibility where we’re at. Tom and I are small businessmen. I started out as a delivery driver making five dollars an hour and Tom started out as an account manager making a little bit more than me, but we’ve worked our way up until we could get into our own franchise Colortyme store. Colortyme rents TV’s, appliances, furniture, electronics. We also do retail of furniture, appliances, electronics. When we took over the location, when we signed the lease with the landlord, we took the largest space in the center. We took three locations in the center and combined them together. When we did that, we knew that we would have a visibility issue because we were tucked back into the corner of the center, and the trees came out, and inducing us to come into the center, he did agree to give us signage on the pylon sign out front. He did say that we would have to get the permit from the zoning commission. We asked him if there was anybody else that had a right to the sign. He said that his leases with every single other entity in there did not give them rights to the sign except for the OTB. So we would be the only ones on it. We compete against four major chains, four other stores. They have a lot of advertising ability for them driving in customers. They can spend thousands of dollars. One of them is based out of Wichita, Kansas. They have over 3,000 stores. Another one has over 1500 stores based out of Atlanta. The other one’s based out of Canada, and they have three or four hundred stores. They have a lot of advertising power behind them. We’re locally owned and operated. We count on people being able to find us and our good word of mouth. Right now we have a very difficult time with people being able to find our location. The proposal that we have, if you look at the picture of the sign that we have there, the entire sign is already existing. We’re not going to go out of the lines of it. We’re not going to increase the size of it. We’re not going to increase anything of the structure. We’re going to put a sign front on both sides that is between the existing two. We’re not going to be adding any to it. I understand that last meeting it was brought up about everyone have the ability to have their name up there. To begin with, as I said, 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) we’re the only people, outside of the Off Track Betting place, that has it in our lease that we’re supposed to have a sign up there. In addition, we’re a retail location. The majority of the businesses in there are financial institutions, gymnasiums, karate places, recruiting companies, people that aren’t driven by somebody driving by and realizing you can buy furniture there, on their way to the next place that they can go buy furniture, one of our competitors. So I believe that our interests are a little bit different than theirs, and again, because we took the largest location in the center and we’re considered the anchor of the center now, that’s the other reason that the landlord felt it was appropriate to put us outside on the signage. In addition, when you talk about approving people or large anchors of a center to have signage where others don’t, the Home Depot sign, which we’ve put a picture in our proposal there, which is not far down the road from us, they have only four venues for signage, three of them that are filled right now, and I’m sure that’s because of the size of the anchors that are in there. We don’t really have a lot of options when it comes to getting people in there, and we do our advertising, but again, we do our advertising, but again, we don’t have the advertising dollars of the national chain. So especially in this economy when it’s tough on a lot of businesses, a small business like this, without being able to attract attention, without being able to get traffic into our location, you know, we stand the risk of not being able to survive, and so for us this is very important. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-Did you indicate that this is a franchise? MR. NYERT-Yes, it’s a franchise. Colortyme is a franchise out of Texas. MR. FORD-And how many stores? MR. NYERT-There are 214 stores across the country. They do no national advertising whatsoever. It’s all based upon each individual owner doing advertising in their market. MR. HUNSINGER-I was a little surprised at the recommendation, because I don’t know if any of us can speak to the origin of the sign or its initial purpose since we weren’t on the Board. I mean, we’d just be reading the minutes. So I was a little thrown off by that, but looking at the picture, I mean, I personally don’t have a problem with what they’re trying to do. MR. TRAVER-No, I don’t, either. MRS. STEFFAN-I think it’s the right thing to do. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-And as far as the ZBA wanting to know whether we thought it was appropriate for other tenants to do something like that, certainly the owner of the mall could put an application in to modify their sign, to change their sign, and we would take a look at that, but that’s not in front of us. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. NYERT-And nobody else in the center has applied to have a sign, and they were all there before we got there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think at some point down the road if they wanted to do that, then they could come back with a different design. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. TRAVER-But for what this is, it seems fine to me. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s the right thing to do. You are located over in the corner when you’re going by. If you’re coming from Lake George to Glens Falls, you don’t even see it at all. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MR. NYERT-Right, nobody knows we’re there and they go, you guys are in that center, and by the way, I wrote down one of your lines earlier. This is our hopes, our dreams, our aspirations. This is our business, and by getting more business in there, you’re going to keep small businesses like us going, and we like, hopefully we’ll open up more stores. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a recommendation? MR. SIPP-My only thought is why do we need that little cubicle on top? I try to keep signs as close to the ground as possible. You’ve got the 25 feet there, and I’m not in favor of 25 foot signs, but you’re not the owner. MR. NYERT-No, that sign’s existing. We’re not going to modify the top of it. MR. SIPP-If nobody else wants to advertise, I think this type sign is what you’ve got to have in order to get people to see you. I’m not thrilled with the sign, but if the other, you know, I always point to what’s don the road at Sutton’s, and when Sutton’s was running at full blast there from the hamburger place to begin with and then the curtain place and then the toy place and then the furniture shop, each one had their own little sign, which seemed to be very tasteful, very well done, but if nobody else in this mall is going to do anything, I think you’re kind of stuck with what’s there, and I think you need to advertise. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Do you have a resolution? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. The way the Code reads, we just read the Zoning Code. So they’re only able to put this one sign here because they’ve got all the other stuff on the face of the building. So they wouldn’t be able to put a second one anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-So that question is really not relevant. So I guess the recommendation, this is a recommendation of the Planning Board. MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGARDING COLORTYME RENTALS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: That we’ve reviewed their sign material and we would be in favor of the addition of the Colortyme sign to the Mt. Royal Plaza sign. Further modifications of this sign should require an application from the landlord. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good luck. MR. NYERT-Thank you guys. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. MR. NYERT-We appreciate it. SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2008 PRELIMINARY/FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED DARIUSZ JACKOWSKI OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RR-3A LOCATION BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 6+ ACRE PARCEL INTO LOTS OF 3.0 ACRES EACH. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 14-06; SKETCH 8/26/08 APA, DEC, ACOE, OTHER APA, L G CEA LOT SIZE 6+ ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265-1-73.2 SECTION A-183 DARIUS JACKOWSKI, PRESENT 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks for your patience. Anytime you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, Keith. MR. OBORNE-I’ll summarize. As mentioned before, the applicant will be requesting a tabling, but for the record, I will read this in, too. Subdivision 5-2008, Preliminary and Final Stage. Applicant is Darius Jackowski. The requested action is the applicant proposes the subdivision of six acres into two lots of three acres each. Preliminary and Final Stage review is requested. The location, east side of Bay Road between Ellsworth Lane and Pickle Hill Road. The existing zoning is Rural Residential Three acres. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. The Planning Board must make a SEQRA determination. The applicant proposes the subdivision of six acres into two lots of three acres each. The two lots are to have one single family residence built in the near future on each of the lots. Each lot will be accessed by a shared driveway located directly in the center line of the new subdivision. What follows are Staff comments and Site Plan Review. However, the applicant has requested a tabling, and I now leave it to the Board to make a resolution to that effect. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. JACKOWSKI-Good evening. What my dad just handed out was we fixed the garage. It was 90 square feet too big. Those are the revised plans. We just got the Staff Notes on Friday. We went to our engineer yesterday. He fixed our old plans, but we don’t have them here in front of us today. Some of the things that were in the Staff Notes, like the eastern driveway, that was a driveway that was there already. We’re not planning on using it. It was there when we bought the lot. Some things I can’t explain because my engineer would be here with us, but the plans aren’t done. This, if you look at the back page of the plans, it says it’s a three bedroom house and it’s a 1,000 gallon septic system. So, that’s all set. The rest of the things the engineer is fixing. We only got this, like I said, Friday. So we didn’t have a lot of time to change everything and fix everything that we needed. From the first time that we came here three months ago, we changed everything, and now we’ve got some more things we need to change. MR. FORD-So would you like more time to react to the recommended changes and come back? MR. JACKOWSKI-I think that’s what we will need. MR. FORD-Let’s get to it. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. How long do you think it would take you to get the plans together? MR. JACKOWSKI-By the next meeting, as soon as possible, whenever we could see you again. th MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Because today’s the 16. So the application deadline is missed for January. MR. FORD-We’re looking at a February meeting. MR. JACKOWSKI-February meeting. MR. OBORNE-Looking at a February meeting. Yes, preferably the last week in February. MR. JACKOWSKI-There’s no way we can make the January meeting, right? It’s too late. MR. OBORNE-No. MR. FORD-You’ve missed the deadline for submission. th MR. TRAVER-So that’s the 24, is it? th MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, it’s the 24. MR. HUNSINGER-You do have more time to submit information, though. You do have th until January 15. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have one commenter. Good evening. KATHY BOZONY MS. BOZONY-Good evening. Kathy Bozony, Lake George Water Keeper. I figured since I’ve been waiting around, I might as well just share some of my comments, and if th there are going to be some changes in the application for the February 24 meeting, maybe these could be incorporated. One of the things we were looking at is, because of the proposed disturbance exceeding 15,000 square feet, for each of the lots, we’re requesting that a Major Stormwater plan, including the detailed stormwater calculations, are submitted. I’m not, I don’t think they’ve been submitted at this point. MRS. STEFFAN-The VISION Engineering comments did identify that it should, erosion and sediment control should be shown complying with Town Code 147. MS. BOZONY-Exactly, yes, thank you. Current design proposes a two foot cut in the area of the stormwater management basins, and stormwater management and stormwater treatment is greatly enhanced with use of existing undisturbed soils. So one of the thoughts is to possibly maintain the existing forested area undisturbed and let that be utilized as some of the natural stormwater management. Another recommendation would be to relocate the stormwater basin. I believe it’s Pond B on Lot 1B to the south away from the area immediately up gradient of the proposed subsurface wastewater treatment area. Stormwater basins could potentially saturate soils up gradient of the onsite wastewater treatment, potentially impacting the effectiveness of the treatment. Those are just some thoughts that would be good for the applicant to actually review, and I do have a letter that I’ll just submit to Keith. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. We will leave the public hearing open, since we anticipate a tabling resolution. Did you have any questions on the comments about the stormwater management plan? It was something that the Town Engineer. MR. JACKOWSKI-Our engineer’s, I spoke to him yesterday and he’s changing everything. He’s fixing it the way it should be. So that shouldn’t be a problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good. MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, when is that letter from the Lake George Water Keeper dated? MR. OBORNE-It’s her comments that she just stated. MR. FORD-The date. MR. OBORNE-The date. I’m sorry. December 12, 2008. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from members of the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2008 PRELIMINARY/FINAL STAGE DARIUSZ JACKOWSKI, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th That will be tabled to the February 24 meeting, with an application submission deadline th of January 15. The applicant will return with VISION Engineering comments satisfied and Staff comments satisfied. The applicant should also review the Lake George Water Keeper letter of December 12, 2008 for their recommendations and suggestions. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll see you in a couple of months. Good luck. MR. JACKOWSKI-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 50-2008 SEQR UNLISTED/TYPE I GENERAL TIMBER AGENT(S) KURT KOSKINEN OWNER(S) FRENCH MT. FOREST, LLC ZONING LC-10A LOCATION LAND LOCKED PROPERTY WEST OF FRENCH MOUNTAIN APPLICANT PROPOSES A TIMBER HARVESTING OF TREES 14” AND LARGER ON A 167.31 +/- ACRE VACANT PARCEL ON FRENCH MOUNTAIN. TIMBER HARVESTING IN THE LC-10 ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE N/A WARREN CO. PLANNING 12/10/08 APA, DEC, ACOE, OTHER APA LOT SIZE 167.31 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265.-1-28 SECTION 179-6-010C DENNIS PHILLIPS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, Keith. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 50-2008, applicant General Timber, LLC. Requested action: Site Plan Review for timber harvesting. Location is the landlocked property on the west slope of French Mountain. The existing zoning is Land Conservation 10 Acres or LC-10. This is a Type I SEQRA. The Planning Board must make a SEQRA determination concerning this application unless Lead Agency status was referred to another entity. The Planning Board may wish to accomplish a coordinated review with the Town of Lake George or Warren County as a result of this application. Parcel History is this is vacant land. Project Description: Applicant proposes to harvest timber 14 inches or greater in diameter at breast height off of a 168 plus or minus acre parcel on the west slope of French Mountain. No clear cutting is proposed. Staff comments. The applicant proposes to timber harvest approximately 138 plus or minus acres of the 168 plus or minus acre parcel. The remaining acreage is either inaccessible or the timber is near two Class A DEC streams. The applicant states in his application material that approximately 3,036 trees with a 14 inch diameter at breast height are to be harvested from this parcel. According to the applicant, this equates to 12% of all the standing trees six inches and above on the parcel. The project also includes 150 plus or minus acres on adjacent property in the Town of Lake George. Access to this parcel is from Bloody Pond Road in the Town of Lake George through other lands. The proposal calls for harvesting trees to be skidded to a landing in Lake George on old harvesting trees. The landing with have logging trucks and a log loader on site to facility removal of timber from the property. The soils on the parcel are varied. Bice (BdE) very bouldery fine sandy loam appears to be the predominant soil, comprising approximately 50 percent of the parcel soils. These soils are relatively stable with moderate permeability. However, the slopes associated with this parcel, 15 to 45 percent, may mitigate any permeability when high rainfall events occur and as such, erosion on any logging trails may be severe. The presence of Bice (BdC) very bouldery fine sandy loam account for approximately 35 percent of the soils present on the parcel. These soils are on slopes of 3 to 15 percent and are relatively stable with moderate permeability. However, these soils share the same characteristics with concern to erosion as the soil map unit mentioned above. The parcel also contains approximately 15 percent Woodstock-Rock (WoE) outrock complex. These soils, when present, have low permeability and high runoff potential. The erosion potential is small due to the presence of exposed rocks, specifically granites and gneiss. These soils are predominantly located at higher elevations. The applicant requests waivers from grading, stormwater management, and landscaping requirements. What follows is Site Plan Review with the assumption that the Planning Board has reviewed this application. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. PHILLIPS-Good evening. My name is Dennis Phillips. I’m a lawyer in Glens Falls, and I’m here representing the McPhillips family, the owner of this property, and General Timber. I think you have in your materials tonight a little background on the McPhillips family, and in those materials, I have pointed out that this property has been in the McPhillips ownership since 1937 for a period of 71 years. This property consists, altogether, in the two Towns of Lake George and Queensbury, of approximately 318 acres of land. The property has been enrolled in a program called Section 480, under 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) the Real Property Tax Law, as a timber property, meaning that it has been certified by the Department of Environmental Conservation as a timber property, and with that classification, what that means is that upon the harvesting of the timber, the family has to pay a severance tax at six percent of value of all timber harvested, and that severance tax is paid to the Town of Queensbury for the wood that is in the Town of Queensbury. So this has been in the timber incentive classification of Section 480 since approximately 1974. It has not been cut since prior to 1974, but this property has been owned by the family going back to 1937, as a timber property, and now the time has come for the harvest to take place. The harvest that is being proposed is what is known as a selective cut, and the, as indicated by the Staff, that means that only 12% of the mature trees will be cut on this property, which is known as a very light cut in the timber industry. I wear another hat, which I might put into the record, that I’ve been general counsel to the Empire State Forest Products Association for a period of almost 30 years, and they talk about different kinds of cuts in the forestry industry. They talk about whacking timber. They talk about high grading timber, but they like to talk about selective cutting of timber. They like to talk about sustainable timber, and that’s what this is, with only a 12% cut of the mature trees. Relative to this property, we look at this property as being in the Adirondack Park in terms of its location, and one of the underlying principles of the Adirondack Park Agency Act is that timber management and forestry is one of the primary compatible uses for property in all zones in the Park, and so this is under the Adirondack Park Agency Act, and you have an approved plan under the Adirondack Park Agency. So this becomes a primary compatible use in the Park, and we do have a letter of non-jurisdiction from the Adirondack Park Agency dated November 12, 2008. I think you have that in your record, and I think the significant aspect of that is that the Agency has said it’s non-jurisdictional as far as they’re concerned, which I think is an environmental blessing unto itself, and that’s the way it should be because it is a primary compatible use, but otherwise importantly on Page Three of that letter, there is the statement that the project will not involve or effect any wetland, which I think is important. It also says that this is not a clear cut as defined by the Adirondack Park Agency Act and regulations. So it’s nice to see that we have an official body recognizing the selective nature of this cut. As far as this area is concerned, you know, we live in an area where wood is very important. At the northern end of Lake George, we have the International Paper Company Mill at Ticonderoga. At the southern end, really, just down the street, we have the Finch Paper Mill, and both of these mills need wood to fuel their operations, and from this timber harvest, the low grade timber will go to those mills in the form of pulp. The high grade timber on the property will go into saw logs and probably will become furniture somewhere in the world, because this is an international market that we deal with, but the important thing is that a portion of this timber will be used to fuel the mills in this area and I think that that ultimately is good for the economy of this area. Looking at the engineering report, prepared by VISION Engineering, I do have a couple of comments to make. As far as the first comment where it’s recommended by the engineer that we move to a Long Form Environmental Assessment for this property, we would like to suggest that, considering that this is standard, a standard timber operation with a very, very selective cut, where we’re only going to be cutting 12% of the trees, we would say that, relative to timber harvesting, that would be the exception and not the rule, and that would be, because generally the rule in the Adirondacks, extending from here to Watertown, north, south, east, and west, is that timber harvesting, as a preferred industry, is exempt from the kind of regulation that would entail an EAF Long Form, and I would think that probably if we were to have that in this case, it would be the first time in this area that we’ve had such a requirement to me, and so I would say that, with a selective cut, where it’s only 12%, where we’re basically not going to be doing very much disturbance of the property, no construction activity other than ordinary skid roads, many of which are already in place anyway because they have been historically, I would say that that would be an additional burden that would be imposed on the land owner and on General Timber. As far as the threatened or endangered species are concerned, we spoke with Jed Hayden, a Wildlife Biologist at DEC. He has reported that there are no endangered species found in a screening of the area of the French Mountain Forest, and we have a signature to that effect that we’re going to present to the Board tonight, so that you have that for the record. As far as Number Three, on the harvesting of boundary lines, all of these lines have been painted. The red paint is still there. That was done in 1981 by Jim Farrar, who’s passed away, but was a well known forester in the area. So the boundary lines in this area have been very well maintained over the years. As far as other approvals are concerned, that’s fine with us. We do have a variance from the Town of Lake George relative to the establishment of a header. We will be going through Site Plan Review in Lake George for the Lake George portion of the property, and we certainly would share any approvals with this Board because this will be an integrated timber harvest, and nothing will begin unless both Boards have approved the harvest. In terms of the management plan, that has been prepared by a Society of American Forester Certified Forester, Kurt Koskinen, who is next to me, and in that 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) regard, we are going to be following the best management practices that are recommended by the Empire State Forest Products Association and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Watershed Agricultural Council Forestry Program, and we’re going to give you the guidelines that we are going to be following in that regard in this book, and you can hold us to these guidelines. So if you could give that to them, Kurt, I’d appreciate that. MR. HUNSINGER-On that topic, I’m sorry to interrupt, could you just comment how they may or may not equate to the comments from VISION Engineering. I see their letter. MR. PHILLIPS-We agree with all of those comments from VISION Engineering. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. PHILLIPS-And the only thing where we would like to vary the comments is that, as far as a schedule and duration of harvesting activities should be provided, we can do that, and we did want to discuss that, because the Staff Notes recommended solely a winter harvest, and we were looking at this property as a combination of a winter harvest and a dry season harvest, because there are really no wetlands on this property of any significant. There are a couple of streams, but there are no classical wetlands where any kind of equipment or machinery is going to get bogged down in any kind of activity. So, once things dry out, this is one of those properties that is made for a dry time harvest. So we would look to have both a winter harvest and a dry season harvest as far as the scheduling is concerned. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Again, sorry to interrupt. MR. PHILLIPS-Okay. Thank you. So going to the Staff comments, a couple of comments I wanted to make. As far as Staff Comment Number One is concerned, that’s fine with us, because that would be a standard, best management practice kind of activity, and so we would be complying with those best management practices that we just submitted to you. As far as Number Two is concerned, we’re fine with the 35 foot buffer. We originally thought that we were going to have 20, but we’re fine with the 35 foot buffer. That’s okay with us. As far as Number Three is concerned, it seems like we are in synch with the Warren County Soil and Water people, and we’re glad to see that Staff recognizes that that was appropriate to our particular program. As far as Number Four is concerned, water resources in the Town of Queensbury are very limited, but certainly we are going to respect any water resources in the Town of Lake George, where I think that that is probably more applicable. The Town of Queensbury has the high side of this property. The Town of Lake George has the low side of this property, and so we’re going to be respecting all of the water rights that any of the neighbors may have. As far as Number Five is concerned, we think that that would be an unreasonable thing to do. It would be very, very expensive. It would cost more than the timber harvest, and we think that that probably applies more to a land clearing, development kind of scenario, as opposed to a classic timber scenario, where we’re doing a very light harvest any selective cut, where, at the end of the harvest, we actually will have a healthier forest than we had at the beginning of the harvest, because we will have natural regeneration that just explodes from the forest floor once light reaches the forest floor where trees have been removed, and so, with this light cut that we have, we think that this would be an unreasonable and unduly expensive task, and it really would not be indicated as a standard timber harvest would require in the Adirondack Park. With respect to Number Six, even though we would like to do most of our timber harvesting in the winter, because the winter wood is actually better than the summer wood because it’s a drier wood, we might not be able to get it all done in a winter harvest. So we’d like to have the opportunity to do dry season harvesting as well. Relative to Number Seven, as far as Adirondack Timber Harvesting is concerned, reforestation is not the norm, because there’s such tremendous regeneration that springs from the forest floor. That’s more of a concept that you’d find out west. That might be more of a concept that you would find in a suburban area, but this property is still very much of a forested, wild kind of a property. So we would submit that, with this light cut, that natural regeneration will explode on that property, and actually will be better for carbon sequestration as well, because within a very short period of time, we’ll have more carbon being extracted from the air with a young forest, a younger forest, than we would with an older forest. As far as number, the SEQRA status is concerned, I mentioned that before, as an Unlisted action, a timber harvest, particularly a light one like this, would normally not require a Long Form SEQRA, particularly when we have a forester, an SAF Forester, who’s been hired, who is going to be bound by the best management practices. So we would think that this would be the ordinary Unlisted action, as opposed to anything else. Number Ten, I guess that takes care of Number Eight and Nine. Number Ten, we do have a Use 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) Variance for our header, and, well, the only reason we had to get a Use Variance is that, in 2003, Lake George changed its Zoning Ordinance. Up until 2003, timber harvesting on the 34 acres close to the road would have been as a matter of right, but in 2003 they changed their Zoning Ordinance, and so we, and basically turned the bottom of this property into a residential area, as opposed to a timber harvesting kind of area. So we did have to get a variance for that, and we did get that, and lastly, were these plans prepared by an SAF Forester? The answer is, yes. Kurt KOSKINEN is sitting right next to me. I’ve talked an awful lot, but he is the authority on forest management, and I would defer to him on any forestry questions. I think he’s laid out a very, very good plan for the McPhillips family. It’s important that we have a good plan. The McPhillips family has been in the forestry business for, they came to the U.S. in 1865. We can go back to the early part of the century and know that the family has been in forestry since that period of time. The family has always practiced sustainable forestry, and we want it to continue with this project. So, with that, I’ll defer to Kurt if he’d like to say anything or answer any questions. MR. FORD-Approximately how long do you anticipate the cut to require? KURT KOSKINEN MR. KOSKINEN-Well, we purchased the timber rights for three years. So there could be two or three months in the winter, and three, four, five months when there’s dry in the summertime to early fall, and if we could finish it in one year, that would be great. We’re working with the markets how they are, and as we all know, the housing’s crashed. So we’re working with that, and it’s a big property, and we have to do it right, because we don’t want to be in there when it’s raining and pouring and mud season could last an extra month or two in the spring. So you hold off and hold off, but we have three years to work it, but we don’t want it to go three years. The shorter the cut, the more we can make. MR. PHILLIPS-Could you just comment on what mud season is, so everybody understands? MR. KOSKINEN-Sure. Mud season is quite often, as you know, certain Town roads are shut off and closed off to heavy trucks, usually over six tons. The ground, just after a thaw, becomes laden with water, and you get six inches to six feet of mud through many properties, and it’s, the skidder tires just spin, spin, spin. With the price of fuel, thank God it’s come down a bit, but if the skidders are spinning in the mud, it’s not moving. So that’s why many loggers just pull out. MR. PHILLIPS-So, would you say you would shut this program down during mud season? MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. We wouldn’t do anything on the property, and when we do that, we make sure the water bars, the running dips, that type of thing that slows water down. The key thing on water is in, for erosion, is you want to slow the velocity of water. So if it’s in a running dip, it’s going slow to start with. Then it comes up to an actual water bar, and stops, and then it’s funneled into the woods. MR. FORD-It’s really advantageous, I can understand as Dennis was saying, about the winter cut and the dry timber. MR. KOSKINEN-Exactly. MR. FORD-However, those skidders are going to do a lot of digging there and leave a lot of running during the winter season, so I’m glad to hear the measures you’re going to take to prevent the runoff and erosion. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. We just want to do the right thing in the woods. Back in May, I hiked the entire property with Laurie Kerrigan of the Warren County Soil and Water District Office, and she gave us great recommendations, which they’re all perfectly fine, legitimate, as you probably read. We just want to do the right thing. MR. SEGULJIC-The one thing I’m disappointed to hear you haven’t said yet is you are in the Lake George basin. MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I haven’t heard you exercise any concerns towards that. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MR. PHILLIPS-Well, this property, as far as the streams on this property are concerned, the streams are not in our way, as far as the timber harvest is concerned. MR. SEGULJIC-But they do both run into Lake George, I believe. MR. PHILLIPS-And in that sense we’re fortunate, and maybe Kurt wants to talk about that, because he studied the streams there. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. There’s one stream, as you can see on one of these maps here, this stream right here. That’s in a canyon type area, and you can barely walk into it. So there’ll be no machinery down in that area, and that stream just runs through the canyon, down and off our property, then down towards the valley. MR. FORD-Will you be making any cut in that canyon? MR. KOSKINEN-No, and the other stream is in this far tiny corner up in here, right there, which is in Queensbury also and cuts across this tiny three acre, four acre corner, and we’re leaving about a 35 foot buffer, as prescribed. MR. SEGULJIC-But I trust you can appreciate, I don’t see that anywhere in here. I see no plans. Personally I’m very concerned about Lake George, and my other concern is you say you’re going to be doing winter harvesting. What happens during January thaw? MR. KOSKINEN-Well, if we have a thaw, and it’s mud conditions, that’s why we stop. If you have any kind of mud conditions where there’s a problem. MR. SEGULJIC-So does that mean you go back and you cover over the areas that could possibly cause sedimentation getting into the lake? MR. KOSKINEN-Well, that’s what we, in the skid roads and trails, the only truck road is going to be a tiny entrance off of Bloody Pond Road into a 30 odd acre no cut area, which is a huge buffer along the road down there, and then the trails through the woods, wherever we see, because I’ll be there three, four, five times every week. I live in Queensbury myself. So I love the area, and I hike the property all the time and the roads and trails, and you see a problem, you take care of it. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I don’t see any plans to prevent the problem, and then take care of it if there is a problem. MR. KOSKINEN-Well, the problem can only happen if mud season occurs. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, mud season will occur. That’s what I mean. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes, but when it does occur, we stop, and then we pull off the site, and render the running dips and the water bars to divert any water off. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess I’m just trying to make my position clear. You are in the Lake George basin. Okay. I’m not seeing any sensitivity towards that. I’m not seeing any. MR. FORD-Written as opposed to verbal. MR. PHILLIPS-Let me comment on that. We have the best management practices, and they are dynamic, in the sense that, you know, on the ground, the best management practice is something that is planned out, as far as the cutting of the trees are concerned, and it’s also a risk management kind of a program, so that it’s a dynamic thing. In this case, we, as far as the basin is concerned, you know, we’re staying away from streams which would be, you know, the major risk factor relative to Lake George. We have buffers and streams and we have areas where we’re not even going to be cutting timber, and then because of the buffer along Bloody Pond Road, we have what’s a 32 acre, 34 acre. MR. KOSKINEN-It’s 32 acres. MR. PHILLIPS-We basically have a strip along the Bloody Pond Road that acts as a further buffer before anything even comes down in that direction. So there’s going to be, in this property, there’s going to be a huge diffusion of any water issues over a large amount of acres, which I think makes this property actually a very good candidate for a 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) timber harvest. The other thing is that the timber harvesting is taking place in the Lake George basin all the time, and some of it’s good. Some of it’s not so good, but, you know, with a sustainable project like this, where we apply all of the best management practices, I think we’re looking at this as being a no risk project for the water quality in Lake George, and I’ll defer to Kurt on that. MR. KOSKINEN-Okay, and the one thing, too, is that when the ground freezes solid in the deep, dark, cold winter, even if you do have three, four, five days in late January or whatever where you may get a little warm spell, that ground will go anywhere from two to three or four feet deep of solid, frozen earth. MR. SEGULJIC-And then it rains. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. You can have some rain, sure. MR. SEGULJIC-But do you understand what I’m getting at? You’re saying you’re going to protect the streams. I’m not seeing that on any of your maps. They’re not denoting that. How are you going to do these buffers? MR. KOSKINEN-Well, the buffers are flagged, at 35 feet on both sides of the stream. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, but I don’t see that in here. I don’t see that in any of your plans at all. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes, we agreed. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s one thing, but how does one know what 35 feet is? Either way, I think it should be a little further. MR. KOSKINEN-Well, we have a tape measure. We measured from the side. MR. SEGULJIC-I think it should be a little further, also. You have two streams on your site that run directly into Lake George. MR. KOSKINEN-And one is not being touched. MR. SEGULJIC-From what I’ve seen, you have a pretty significant slope. Staff has noted you have soils that are suspect for erosion. MR. KOSKINEN-Suspect. That doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. MR. SEGULJIC-No, but we want to prevent it from happening. MR. KOSKINEN-Sure, and that’s why I’m there. That’s why we do this. MR. SEGULJIC-So I guess what I’m saying, I haven’t seen that yet. MR. PHILLIPS-Well, this is a publication of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, specifically related to timber harvesting for the benefit of water quality, and this was prepared by, as I mentioned, the Empire State Forest Products Association, DEC, and the Watershed Agricultural Council. This is kind of the bible for best management practices in the State of New York. This is fairly recent, in the sense I think this was prepared, this is a 2007. So this is an updated document, and, you know, certainly, we’re intending to comply with this, because sustainable forestry requires us to do it, and we’re in favor of you making an approval conditioned on this as well, because, as I said, this is the bible that we will comply with. As far as the buffer zone is concerned, I think that, with the one stream, we’re not going to be working with that stream at all, you know, because of that ravine, and that’s difficult terrain, and is the other stream a very small stream that you mentioned? MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. MR. PHILLIPS-Could you comment on that stream? MR. KOSKINEN-It’s actually, it’s very, very small. It actually, from the top of a hill where a stream starts, and then it flows, and it flows off the property into another property that has been thinned already in Queensbury, and then it moves down, and then cuts back into Lake George and then flows off. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MR. SEGULJIC-And what is one of the biggest problems we have with Lake George now? Sedimentation. MR. KOSKINEN-Well, that’s why we want to do things right, where others didn’t. MR. SEGULJIC-But you’re not showing me. MR. KOSKINEN-Well, we will do whatever you want us to do tonight, in terms of that. That’s fine. MR. PHILLIPS-Well, I think the best management practices are designed to prevent erosion, sedimentation and siltation. That’s the purpose of the best management practice, and so, you know, with a timber harvest on a large piece of land like this, you know, it’s not like a Site Plan for a one half acre house. It’s a huge amount of land, and these operations are spread over this property, and with this light cut that we have, a 12% cut, I mean, that is really a diminimus kind of thing as far as a timber harvest is concerned, because, as you’ll notice in the APA permit, there’s a general requirement under APA that after you complete a timber harvest, that you have to have 30 square feet of basal area left on the property, and that relates to the number of stems that you have left over. So there’s not going to be any ground movement, any erosion because you have so many stems in place. We’re going to have 44 square feet of basal area after this harvest, which means that we’re going to have the 30 plus almost another 50% on top of that. So this property, after this cut, you’re going to have a very stable soil situation, a very stable forest. In the summertime, you’re not going to have that much difference in the canopy. I mean, this is a very, very responsible timber harvest that’s being proposed here. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess my main concern is about the road you’re going to have to cut in there, and the January thaw. MR. KOSKINEN-Sure. Well, that’s why, way back in May, when I first worked on the project, I was told to go to the best source, by one of the Queensbury Code Enforcement, and I went to the, Laurie Kerrigan at the Warren County District Office, and we got together and hiked it and I said please tell me what would be the best thing to do here, and she did, and we just wanted to follow them and see that it meets your approval. MR. PHILLIPS-And she, theoretically, is an expert in this area. I mean, that’s her job. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes, and way back in May she sent a copy of this letter to David Hatin in Queensbury and Rob Hickey in Lake George. MR. SIPP-I, too, am concerned about what Tom has just said, but I also have some other concerns. When you say, when was this cut before, how many years ago? MR. KOSKINEN-Probably a little bit over 50 years. MR. SIPP-Over 50 years since this has been cut, but the skid route’s, you say the skid route’s already in there, skid roads. MR. KOSKINEN-There are some roads that were put in during the last harvest, yes. MR. SIPP-Fifty years ago? MR. KOSKINEN-Yes, between 50, 55 years ago. I don’t know the exact year. MR. SIPP-These haven’t become overgrown? MR. KOSKINEN-No, no. Some of them are open. Some are overgrown, yes, but some are there, and 50 plus years ago, they did find good spots, good locations ago. Some of them were actually horse logging. MR. SIPP-Obviously they were using track vehicles back then. MR. KOSKINEN-They probably had some in a few spots, but they were doing horse logging. There’s some horse logging trails, and they obviously found the good trails to use, and those are the ones we’ll use again. The ones that were placed by our forefathers, you know, they had a lot of time, back then, to find good trails, for the animals. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MR. SIPP-All right. Since this is Queensbury, we’re on the steepest part of this piece of property, right? MR. KOSKINEN-There’s one area that’s steep, but that’s part of that 30 odd acres that you can, the big canyon. There’s a canyon, there’s a drop off. There’s a rocky ledge area. You can hardly walk, and there’s 168 acres altogether and about 30 of them you could never even put a piece of equipment on. You could hardly walk it. That’s the steepest area. MR. SIPP-Well, are you willing to winch this timber, rather than drive the skidders up this steep slope? MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. There are some spots where you have to pull the cable 50, 60, 70 feet, in between the rocks and grab some and pull, yes. MR. SIPP-Right, but you talk about erosion, and you’ve got a 30% slope in some cases, and as you said in the beginning, you cut down on the amount of speed that you allow water to pick up, you cut down on the erosion. MR. KOSKINEN-Exactly. MR. SIPP-The rule of thumb is you double the speed, you increase the carrying capacity of the water by the square of the increase. MR. KOSKINEN-It’s pretty high. I know that for sure. That’s why I like running dips that go into a water bar, because a running dip automatically slows the water down, and then the water bar diverts it into the forest. MR. SIPP-Yes, but now when you say dry season, we’re obviously talking summer, and then when we get an inch and a half from the shower, that water has got to go some place. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. Well, it will go right down my running dip into a water bar. MR. SIPP-We hope. MR. KOSKINEN-Well, that’s my job to make sure that works. MR. SIPP-If they’re not skidding that day. MR. KOSKINEN-That’s why when I walk the woods, I carry a shovel and I’m going along, as you probably all know, one man with a shovel in the woods, you see a little tiny problem, you fix it here and there before the skidders get back to really put it back in shape. MR. SIPP-I think this is critical to our thoughts here. What Tom is saying and what I’m saying is we want to keep this erosion as little as possible. MR. KOSKINEN-Definitely. MR. SIPP-To prevent any runoff into the lake. MR. KOSKINEN-That’s exactly right. MR. SIPP-Now, I see that you have in one of these documents here tops will be cut down to four feet high. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. Four feet is the usual standard, but we have one crew that we’re thinking of using that has a chipper, and they would bring tops to the landing and chip them so that there’s almost no tops in the woods at all, but four feet and lower is the standard. MR. SIPP-Lower. I thought DEC was three feet, it had to be covered by snow. MR. KOSKINEN-Well, the DEC has a three inch top loping law, it’s on softwood. Not on hardwood, but softwood. MR. SIPP-Now what percentage of this is softwood? 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MR. KOSKINEN-It’s about 50/50. MR. SIPP-About 50/50? It doesn’t look like that from the road. MR. KOSKINEN-Well, the Queensbury property, you only can see about 30 or 40 acres of it. It’s up past the Lake George area, and then a big plateau, and then there’s a knob up to the top, northern part of the property, just before the canyon, and that’s about the only spot you can see from down below. MR. SIPP-Now was some of this timber damaged by gypsy moth over the years? MR. KOSKINEN-The biggest damage is it’s too old. When I was walking through the property there, I noted in, well, through the entire 300 acres, well, from the first 150 acres in Lake George, I saw probably 100 trees that are so old that they’re just not worth cutting, but they’re so big I put an X on them, and if they logger thinks he can get them out without hurting himself, fine, but it’s so old and mature, it’s become over mature, and instead of the tree being worth $100 to family, it’s now worth $5 or $6 as just pulp. So trees get old, just like human beings. A tree gets to a certain age, and it starts to go and they die, and the piece probably could have had two harvests in the last 50 years, but it just didn’t. MR. FORD-Speaking of that, when do you anticipate potentially, after this three year cut, the next cut would be? MR. KOSKINEN-I like to see 20 years in between harvests. Unless you’re in some special State program where they force you, there are State programs where they force you to cut, but I like 20 years in between. MR. SIPP-What’s the percentage of hardwoods, oak, basically? MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. It’s, the red oak specie is probably, yes, the red oak is probably 75% of the hardwood. MR. SIPP-Now this is, you’re cutting nothing smaller than 14 inches or 15 inches? MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. It’s 14. It’s the size of your steering wheel and bigger, and especially right now with the market, as you know, the housing’s crashed, and if no one’s building, then the prices go down, and the smaller the tree, the less people who want small logs, that kind of thing. MR. SIPP-Where’s the landing going to be? MR. KOSKINEN-It’s going to be just, if you know how Bloody Pond Road is, come down about, just about halfway down along the road front. MR. SIPP-Before you get to Sun Valley Road? MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. It’s way before Sun Valley Road, yes, and it’s on that section of Bloody Pond Road where both sides of the road are heavily forested, and the eastern side, where we are, for the first 500 feet going in, we can’t touch anything except for the landing and the trails going up the mountain. MR. SIPP-Is that a Lake George rule, buffer? MR. KOSKINEN-Well, what happened is that, four or five years ago, the Town of Lake George started a new program where they’ve been buffering roads and prohibiting timber harvesting. We can’t cut timber anymore without a variance and spectacular reasons why you’re doing it. MR. SIPP-Smart. I’ve seen too many slash and dash, and I don’t think that you’re the type, but it’s happened, and it happens way too often. MRS. STEFFAN-I also think the nature of this plan as it’s presented, I mean, there’s obviously sufficient documentation here that timber harvesting has been part of this family’s legacy and they’re obviously taking it seriously, and so, you know, they’ve done the right things by hiring a professional forester and also putting in some of the best management practices that were recommended by professionals, and so from those points of view I think that, you know, it’s a good plan. Certainly some of the things that 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) he’s talked about, I’ve had, my family has had an international paper land lease for 20 years, and so some of the things that you’ve talked about are consistent with what we’ve seen over the last 20 years, you know, how to manage a forest. Certainly the siltation is a very big issue which is one of the reasons why Lake George is not real keen on foresting, but at the same time, that’s what this property was obtained for, that it’s been in the family all those years to do that, and so we just need to resolve a couple of small issues, it seems, before we go forward. That’s the sense I’m getting. How does the rest of the Board feel? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I wouldn’t consider them small. I mean, for example, in this plan, Number Eight, at the conclusion of the harvesting, the forest will be inspected by myself and a logging crew to make sure all the best management practices were sufficiently implemented. Won’t it be too late? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we have Code Enforcement. I mean, that’s one of the notations I’ve got. MR. SEGULJIC-But we have nothing for Code Enforcement to go by. MRS. STEFFAN-You are asking for some additional information which we can probably get, and since it’s going through our Site Plan Review, then our Code Enforcement is going to be there, and our Code Enforcement person happens to have a background in forestry, and so, you know, we actually have a good pairing here. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Bruce Frank has helped me with this Site Plan, to be honest with you, a collaborative effort, and he has requested that, you know, there are particulars that get down in the Site Plan that he can check, and some of those are missing at this point, like details on the water bars, my very first one, any additional erosion controls. I mean, that’s what we’re looking for. We’re looking for it in black and white. We’re looking for it on paper. MR. HUNSINGER-Sir, are those details in this guide? MR. KOSKINEN-Yes, they’re in there, and we brought other documentation. We just got, like the letter from your Board just two days ago. So we’ve been feverishly running around trying to get the other answers for you. MR. PHILLIPS-In this guide, there’s erosion control tools and techniques. Figure 10 talks about water bars, talks about dips, all these things that I think you’re concerned about are the best management practices. MR. OBORNE-That’s fine, but they’re not part of the plan as submitted, and that’s what we’re looking for is these to be submitted as part of the plan. MR. PHILLIPS-And we’re submitting this as part of our plan, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I was just commenting. I said obviously that’s intended to be a field guide because of the size of it, not for paper pushers like us. MR. PHILLIPS-That is a VMP Field Guide. That’s what it says. We want to make sure they get that. You can hand that to them right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that published in any other format? I mean, is there a website where you can download the information? MR. PHILLIPS-I don’t know, there might be something on it, but DEC hands those things out, and it’s part of the logger training program in New York as well, where all of the logger, the people go through logging training basically, as I say, that’s the bible they have to adhere to all of the recommendations and guidance in that bible. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone that wanted to comment on this application? Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KATHY BOZONY 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MS. BOZONY-Kathy Bozony, Lake George Water Keeper. I just wanted to go on the record that the Water Keeper supports sustainable forestry, and when best management practices are followed, it’s just critical to make sure that that does happen, and if Bruce Frank is on this job, working with Kurt, I think that that’s a really good collaborative effort. I’m really pleased to hear that. A couple of comments I wanted to share. The Planning Board should be aware of the level of public concern expressed at the Town of Lake George Zoning Board of Appeals meeting where the applicants requested a Use Variance for timber harvesting. This Use Variance was because of the rezoning of the Town of Lake George, and basically along Bloody Pond Road was zoned for, I think, one acre residential, and that’s why they had to have a variance. The public concern was the fact that it’s very steep slope there, and there is flooding that already exists. It’s not necessarily indicative of the land, but the way Bloody Pond Road has been constructed and elevated and the waters have been channelized under the road into these what have been created as kettle ponds, basically. They’re flooding near people’s homes. So that was a great concern of the neighbors there. At that meeting, the Town of Lake George ZBA determined the public raised credible concerns and determined to restrict the timber harvesting on the acreage closest to Bloody Pond Road and allow that to be the landing site only. Basically, as I stated, it’s the steep slopes and the flooding that are the concern, and on the topo, I’m not sure where that canyon is actually located and maybe, you know, somebody could share. That’s what I was figuring, yes. I’m going to go through the rest of these and I have a couple of more comments. There has been significant damage produced by logging road constructed on the adjacent parcel to the south, and what we want to do is make sure that these practices don’t continue, whether it be Queensbury or the Town of Lake George. A couple of the questions are, will new hall roads and skid trails be installed or existing trails present. Kurt had mentioned that there are some trails present. Has a sketch plan been prepared to locate these roads and trails, and will the roads and trails be restored after construction? The width of those roads, as well, it’s very critical as far as the destruction to the forest. Some of the other concerns are the stream crossings, if there are any. I wasn’t sure. The one stream that’s down in that cavern, or the canyon, the other stream I don’t remember if he said it was going to be crossed or not, the very small stream. If so, DEC permitting is required for that. Buffers should be required by the Planning Board. If you, a 35 foot buffer is from the wall to that ceiling light, and in the scheme of a forest, and large trees, that’s not very much land. The Lake George Park Commission is creating new rules and regulations on stream corridor buffering and we are hoping that 35 feet is not what we settle on as a, you know, collective group. In certain instances, a lot of times buffering, 100 foot, 200, 250 is really where scientifically you get the best action. We wouldn’t expect that that would be required in this case, and, you know, we’ve known that, you know, Kurt’s done a lot of forestry in the Lake George region. So we are familiar with his work. One of my questions is, when the calculation of the 38% of the basal area or the 12% of all standing trees was done, I’m curious, it looks to me like we’re only calculating, for the Town of Queensbury, that 138 acres that are going to be harvested. That’s what, my calculations come out to that, not utilizing that calculation that was expanded for the whole 168 acres, and in reality, if we aren’t harvesting all of those acres, it would be more than the 12% or whatever we’re proposing. So I was just curious about that. Half of the land is very steep, not just that canyon area. The steepness is definitely in the Queensbury area, and again, everything flows down into Lake George, and whether we’re touching the stream bed in that canyon or not, you’re going to have effects that are running into the canyon. I’m wondering if there’s going to be some sort of a buffer on the ridge line of that canyon area, so that there’s a no touch zone close to that edge that goes down, and I think that’s it. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Any other comments from the public? Okay. MR. KOSKINEN-I did have one question, in terms of logging operations in the past, what kind of permits did they have to have? I’m just wondering. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I’ve been on the Planning Board for over eight years, and I believe, I can’t swear that it’s the only logging permit that I’ve reviewed, but I believe it is the only one that I’ve reviewed. MR. KOSKINEN-And the only reason why I ask that is that, back in May, I came to the Town. MR. PHILLIPS-We don’t have to go into that. I think we’re the first one, and we realize that, and we’ve looked at your regulations, and we see that, even though it’s not really stated well in your regulations, that you do have jurisdiction over timber harvesting when 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) it’s more than five acres. So even though it hasn’t been done before, we understand we’re the first. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it just hasn’t been done in recent memory. It might have been done 10 years ago. I don’t know. MR. PHILLIPS-I thought, why don’t you address those two things that were mentioned. I would say your calculations in terms of the overall timber harvest, and also deal with that issue of what we can do on that ridge line to prevent any high water velocity flow going down into that ravine area. MR. KOSKINEN-Sure. Well, first, on that ravine area, wherever we do any logging on a hillside that is facing that ravine area, we always do diagonal cuts. So we have a dozer put a little cut and little skid cuts with a dozer, then the skidder can just drive down those. We never go straight up and down. That’s just completely wild. You go at an angle, and with an angle, then you can put in your running dips, and you can put in your water bars, and then you slowly cut across and then you have a little turnaround, and then slowly come back and you methodically do that, and then it comes up looking good, and the water, any water that was there at all is slowed until it hits the water bar, and then we fix the site. Always at an angle. Nothing wild. No straight up and down like a staircase. Nothing like that, and the skidders can’t even drive straight up. They have to go at a side angle, that type of thing, and in terms of the numbers, this was all done on 138 acres of the site, from my analysis of the 138 acres, as you’ll see, I had almost 26,000 trees, six inches or greater in diameter. Fourteen and larger is approximately that three thousand trees, which is 12%, 25,000. MR. PHILLIPS-And would you say, I mean, you’ve calculated for Queensbury, but would you say that that is the level of the cut across the whole property, as opposed to just Queensbury? MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. MR. PHILLIPS-Okay. I think that was the question. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. It’s within a couple of percent of being the same with Lake George the area that we can cut in Lake George. MR. FORD-So that valley that you were referring to before is part of the total calculation, but there’s zero cutting in there. So the cut on the remainder would be greater than 12%. MR. KOSKINEN-Well, the actual valley, because I have a picture right here that shows, yes, right in here. This area, I don’t know if you can see it, but this pink area here is where I found to be steep and rocky and you just kind of walk on just about, and so anything in the stream is in the middle of the canyon there, and in that area there, it’s a situation where I didn’t even do any samples at all. I did no sampling in there whatsoever. That’s why all my numbers are based on the 138 acres that are outside of that pink shade. MR. FORD-So your 12% is on the 138 acres. MR. KOSKINEN-138. MR. FORD-Not on the 165 or whatever. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes, and then on that area, that 30 acres that we just really can’t get into, you know, that’ll be 100% of the trees. MR. FORD-It’s zero cut. MR. KOSKINEN-Exactly. MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you. That helps. MR. SIPP-Your cuts are based on basal area or dbh? MR. KOSKINEN-Dbh. MR. SIPP-Dbh. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MR. KOSKINEN-Yes, 14 and larger. MR. HUNSINGER-What other questions? MR. SEGULJIC-That’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Where are we? MR. SEGULJIC-I think we have to table it to get more information. MR. HUNSINGER-Question on one of the Staff comments regarding coordinated review. I don’t know if we’ve ever considered a coordinated review, I mean, we have, but the project’s never moved forward with an adjoining Town. If we wanted to pursue that, how would that work? We would have to request coordinated review with the Town of Lake George. MR. OBORNE-Correct. Staff would contact whoever, in their municipality, would be, you know, doing that coordinated review. In this case, I would probably contact Rob Hickey, in this case. MR. HUNSINGER-Who would, then, be the Lead Agent? How would that be determined? MR. OBORNE-Well, that would be decided amongst the agencies involved. My recommendation, although I know the applicants probably don’t want to hear this, that this probably should be a Warren County issue and not, you know, an inter municipal issue, but that’s not for me to decide. So the short answer to your question is first of all I’d talk to Craig about it and then we’d move forward from there, if you would direct us that way. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the reality of it is, if the Town of Lake George doesn’t approve it, they can’t harvest the property in Queensbury anyway, which you pointed out in your submission materials. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and my preference, although, this is, again, I’m not telling the Planning Board what to do, intuitive, to me at least, is that this project should be looked at in totality, not in segments, and in this case they’re applying for a Use Variance in Lake George, Site Plan Review in Lake George, and now Site Plan Review in the Town of Queensbury. Again, those are my thoughts. MR. HUNSINGER-But they already received their Use Variance. MR. OBORNE-But not to timber, just for the header. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. PHILLIPS-In Lake George, the timber is Site Plan Review as it is here. The Use Variance was for the area down near the road. So, you know, in the Moderate Intensity Use zone. My thinking on the subject is that, you know, I keep going back to the whole purpose of the Adirondack Park Agency Act, which favors timber harvesting, favors it for the Adirondack region, which we’re in, favors it for the economy of the Lake George basin in the sense that we have a mill in the north and a mill in the south, and because we have a primary compatible use of forestry in all zones, as we go through this process, unfortunately it turns into an expensive process as we bounce back and forth from governmental agency to governmental agency, and so we’ve been before the Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals in Lake George already, and fortunately we have the variance, not the one we wanted, but we have a variance for landing, which is essential to our operations, but because we will not be able to proceed in Lake George and even in Queensbury unless we have the Queensbury Site Plan Review, and in many respects the properties are a little bit different, because you’re on top, and Lake George is on the bottom and on the side. So you have a few different issues, but I would say that, for our convenience, because we’ve been at this for a long time, for our convenience, you know, maybe the issue of coordinated review, if it were not a time factor, you know, I wouldn’t even be making these comments, but because we’ve been at this for a long time, we have seen the timber market degenerate dramatically in that period of time, as has the housing market and the stock market and everything else, but it is a commodity that goes up and down, and, you know, we really are not looking to lose anymore market than what we’ve lost already. So it strikes me that we get to the same place without the coordinated review, and so that’s what I would be asking for, you know, premised on the 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) idea, the loss, as this is a primary compatible use, but I understand it’s your decision, your call. MR. OBORNE-I do want to add also that we are, as Staff, asking the Planning Board to make a decision as to what type of SEQRA action this is, and the criteria for this is 10 acres or above of disturbance, land disturbance, in order for it to be a Type I SEQRA. We have classified it as a Type I. That is not written in stone, and we have stated in our Staff Notes. So we request the Board to make a decision on that. If it is Type I, it automatically kicks in as a coordinated review. MR. SEGULJIC-Because if they disturb more than 10 acres. MR. HUNSINGER-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Which it would appear that they will be, but one of the problems is we don’t know if you’re going to cut any roads or anything, any skid roads. MR. KOSKINEN-Well, all we’ll have is the skid trails. The only road is going to be the road off Bloody Pond Road into the landing which is in Lake George. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I would consider a skid, wouldn’t you call it a skid trail would be a disturbance. MR. KOSKINEN-Well, I guess it depends what you consider the true definition of disturbance. We aren’t constructing. No foundation’s going in. We’re not building a pool, lake or anything. MR. FORD-Well, you’re putting a dozer on the diagonal across. MR. KOSKINEN-For a skid trail. MR. SEGULJIC-Which I would consider a disturbance. MR. PHILLIPS-But the likelihood is that that’s going to not be more than 10 acres. The other thing is that as I look at the 10 acres on the disturbance issue, I mean, this is, you know, this isn’t even a classic timber harvest. This is a light cut, best management practice, sustainable timber harvest. I mean, this is the kind of thing that has not been subject to SEQRA, generally speaking, not only here, but in the entire State of New York, and so, you know, to go into a SEQRA Long Form on this would be, I’m not going to say that it would be unprecedented, but it would be close, and, you know, it’s the kind of thing that hurts the industry by precedence of this nature. So, I would think that, when we look at the skid trails on 300 acres, in terms of how you calculate that out, my guess is that that’s going to be less than 10 acres of skid trail in a selective cut kind of situation, and so all I can say from my experience, from New York to Montreal and from Albany to Jamestown, is that a Long Form EAF for a light cut timber harvest like this would be very, very unusual. MR. SEGULJIC-But, I would like to point out, once again, you’re in the Lake George basin. MR. PHILLIPS-Well, and there are many sensitive areas of this State. There’s timber harvesting going on in the Finger Lakes area where there are the same sensitivities as there are in Lake George, and so I know that, for example, in the Finger Lakes area, that the timber harvesters have not had to go through a Long Form SEQRA process. So we understand that Lake George is a precious resource. This property, even though we do have some steep slopes, does have huge buffering because of the Bloody Pond Road itself, you know, which acts as a separator and basically the no cut zone that we have along that road, and so, you know, I’m asking for the typical Unlisted action because that’s what happens across the State, and as the first applicant in memory before this Board, you know, we’re looking for something that’s standard, as opposed to something that is unusual. MR. SEGULJIC-So, would it make sense for us to get an opinion from Bruce Frank, as to how much land would be disturbed? Would it make sense to get Bruce Frank’s opinion on the amount of land disturbance? MR. OBORNE-Well, I know what he would say. I think it’s on the applicant to prove to you what the amount of land disturbance there is. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MR. SEGULJIC-Right, because I don’t even have any, I have no idea what the roads are going to look like or anything. MR. KOSKINEN-You’re dealing with skid trails, which that’s all that would be in Queensbury. If you can imagine an average skid trail is 10 to 12 feet wide. MR. SEGULJIC-No, I can understand that, but where are they going to be, where are they going to be going? What I’m getting at is I’d like to see those on the plan. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. Okay. Well, I would have to reduce it, but this one here shows, the heavy black line is the existing road that was there going, trail, going back 50, 100 years, and then the golden or orange colored ones are the ones that we have either found or we want to put into the property. That makes sense, and in terms of acreage of a disturbed area by being a skid trail, if you’re 10 feet wide by a mile, that’s about one acre. Five thousand feet times ten is fifty thousand square feet, a little bit more than one acre. So if you had 10 miles of trails, that would be 10 acres. We’re not going to have 10 miles of trails. I know that. We’d lose money. MR. PHILLIPS-Would you be able to state for the record that as far as the, any road and skid trails are concerned, that it would be a disturbance of less than 10 acres? MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. It would be less than 10 acres on the Queensbury side for sure, and probably on the entire property, because that would be 10 miles of trails. MR. FORD-Our assumption is, however, that the only disturbance would be those trails, and would you allow us there will be additional disturbance on that property beyond those trails? MR. KOSKINEN-In Lake George, just where the landing is. MR. FORD-In Queensbury. MR. KOSKINEN-And in Queensbury, no, just trails because we have to get up the hill and then cut into Queensbury and then just trails, because it would cost us, I think we figured $800,000 to build a truck road into Queensbury. MR. OBORNE-And I’ll support what he says. The condition was that those roads be built to subdivision standards, for erosion control purposes, I believe. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes, and it would just be impossible to, I mean, have to give the property away. MR. OBORNE-I understand that. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s just my own opinion, but I think the applicant has made a very good case that if we were to ask for more than the Short Form, that that would be very unusual. I mean, just because we don’t see these kinds of projects all the time, that doesn’t mean that it’s an unusual event for a project in the State of New York, and certainly presenting the information that he’s presented from DEC and APA, I think he’s made a very compelling argument that anything more than what they’ve already submitted would be not really a hardship, but unusual. MR. OBORNE-And again, I’m here to advise. MR. HUNSINGER-Understood, which is why I asked the questions, you know, because when I read the Staff comments, you know, at home, and being the first time we’ve looked at, you know, 300 acres, that seems like a large project, but. MR. SEGULJIC-And I would agree with what you’re commenting on. I would not agree with the unusual status. The fact that it’s 10 acres is what counts. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So, I mean, he’s made a case that it’s not 10 acres. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, exactly. MR. SEGULJIC-But once again, I’d like to see that. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. Well, I can make a copy of that board showing where the trails are. MR. PHILLIPS-We’ll make that part of the record, so that you have that. MR. HUNSINGER-What other information do we need? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, to locate the skid roads, like they’re going to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think they had done that on the submission, though. MR. SEGULJIC-They did? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It was on one of the maps that was submitted. MR. OBORNE-Yes, they have a generalized location of the skid roads. MR. SIPP-We didn’t get that map. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s in the back. It’s in blue. MR. OBORNE-Albeit it’s not the clearest. MR. SEGULJIC-This. Okay. That blue road does not look like that yellow road. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, there are other things besides skid trails. MR. KOSKINEN-I tried to make them as accurate as I could. MR. SEGULJIC-As I go, from northwest to southeast, I see, one, two, three, four, five, six trails. I might not be reading it correctly. I’m looking at it in blue, I only see. MR. KOSKINEN-Well, like Lake George is over here. From here up is Queensbury. We have five, I’ve got five on this one I think. MR. PHILLIPS-Do those follow the best terrain for the purpose? If you could just comment on that. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. Basically, where I marked those there are where I found some existing older trails like horse logging or oxen logging in the past, or spots where I would want to actually create one of my dozer type trails, and just to access to the best possible means of getting into the stands of timber and the shortest route possible back to the main road. Because the more trails I build, the more it costs me, and the way the market and the economy is, we’re all like this now, you know. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, as far as tabling, I think they have to address the engineering letter and Staff comments, as well as submission of that depiction, because I don’t think they’re the same. There’s a lot more skid trails on that map. MR. SIPP-Yes. You always take the shortest distance back to the landing. MR. KOSKINEN-Well, they’re sketch maps. They’re not like surveyed through the forest, you know, I didn’t survey that type of thing, which would cost me an arm and a leg. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, but there’s a lot more trails on this map than the maps that are in our package. MR. KOSKINEN-You have the existing one there. This one right here, and this one here. MR. PHILLIPS-Do you have the same orientation on that? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. KOSKINEN-Then there’s this one, and then right in there I’ve got two right in there. There’s those two right there, because here’s the Town line, and there’s the Town line, 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) two, there’s two there, and then the one that loops around the back of the mountain, and then there’s two over in here. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I don’t have the two, for example, I don’t have the two that you’re referencing right next to the Town line there, on mine. Now maybe mine is not the same as yours. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I only have one there. Those two you just pointed to, I only show, mine only shows one. MR. TRAVER-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-See, you only show one there, and on that one you have two, and then this. So, see, I mean, even what you have is different than what I. MR. FORD-Can you show them the five on this map here? MR. KOSKINEN-Well, what I’ll do is, I’ll submit, whatever we need, I’ll submit. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Warren County Soil and Water has walked these, because they were th on site, and they’ve got a letter here from May 28. They were with you when they walked the site. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-And made recommendations which you have agreed to follow through on. What do we want to do, coordinated review? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think so. The only ones that commented were Tom and myself. MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t think we need coordinated review. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and they’ve also requested a whole number of waivers, too. Are we comfortable with the waivers requested? MR. SEGULJIC-They requested stormwater, I believe. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, they did. MR. HUNSINGER-But I think they’ve since added the best practice information, contains stormwater management practices. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. Technically we’re not constructing a building or a foundation or anything like that, and so we use bmp’s. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, what I’m saying, we won’t, in my opinion we should not grant a stormwater waiver because you’re going to be implementing stormwater practices. We’d like to see what those are. If we grant a waiver, that would mean you wouldn’t have to do stormwater graphics. MR. KOSKINEN-Well, they would be the same thing as the DEC book. MR. PHILLIPS-Maybe I could clarify that. Under our variance from the Town of Lake George, where our road goes off Bloody Pond Road, we have to construct that road with all stormwater features attached to it. As far as the stormwater here is concerned, maybe what we should be asking for, as opposed to a waiver, is that we implement the water quality standards of best management practices for a timber harvesting operation. So that becomes a substitute rather than a waiver. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. PHILLIPS-And we’re agreeable to that. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. We’d like to see something for stormwater. MR. FORD-Yes. So you would withdraw the request for the waiver. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, clarify. MR. PHILLIPS-Clarify it, or modify it. MR. SEGULJIC-Out of curiosity, how does the DEC stormwater construction permit fit into this? MR. OBORNE-Stream crossing maybe. MR. SEGULJIC-But that’s for any disturbance of soil more than anything. MR. PHILLIPS-Actually, under DEC, timber harvesting activities are essentially exempt. MR. SEGULJIC-So they wouldn’t fall under the construction permit, then. MR. PHILLIPS-So DEC would have jurisdiction over stream crossings in a case like this, and that’s where they protect their water quality. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else. MRS. STEFFAN-So we would grant waivers for grading and landscaping, but in replacement for stormwater management control, we would agree to use the best management practices according to the New York State DEC guidelines. th MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. February 17. MR. FORD-While he’s working on that, will you just reinforce again, please, that issue of the lopping of tops and how much will be left on site and how much will be chipped? MR. KOSKINEN-Well, we have an operator now who has a chipping operation, and he would bring the entire tree down to the landings, except for a few tiny one inch twigs that may fall off in the forest, and then the log comes off at the landing, and then the top of the tree goes into the chipper, and if for some reason that operator just could not work for us, the normal operation, under normal logging conditions that I’ve done for 30 years in New York, is you keep it under four feet, and then softwood you have to top log down to three inches, which mean you cut every branch off up to a three inch top and lay it down. So it’s basically for fire. MR. SIPP-So you’re skidding hardwoods with the branches on? MR. KOSKINEN-Only the branches that can actually make any sense come down to the landing. Most of the hardwood branches break off, and they’re small, or actually if it’s a large crown, they cut them off and leave the small ones in the woods and then bring down what is marketable to the landing. MR. SIPP-On red oak you can get some good sized branches coming out of that. MR. KOSKINEN-Sure. Yes, but they won’t drag down a tree with a 30 foot, you know, type crown. It’ll just look ridiculous and it’ll ruin the trail. MR. SIPP-You’re going to limb the whole tree? MR. KOSKINEN-Well, limb to where it makes sense to where it will fit down the trail. MR. SIPP-Yes, but those limbs sticking out make nice little valleys. MR. FORD-They’re going to put some real gouges in that soil. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. Well, that’s the reason why we’ve got to maintain our trails and keep our running dips going up to a water bar. MR. SIPP-Are these chips then sold? Is he selling the chips? MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. The chips can be sold for fuel or to clean chip plants that burn them. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MR. SIPP-That explains a lot. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. MR. FORD-But he’s not on payroll yet. You’re not sure you’re going to be able to get him. MR. KOSKINEN-No, we’re still trying to get permits done so we can purchase the timber, yes. MR. FORD-I understand that, but, you know, there may not be any chipping in this job. MR. KOSKINEN-It’s possible. MR. FORD-It’s possible. MR. KOSKINEN-If that operator doesn’t work for us, yes. We want to use him because then we can do a real nice crackerjack, you know, forest floor. MR. FORD-It’ll be a much cleaner operation. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. MR. SIPP-Is there mostly white pine? There’s no red pine in there, is there? MR. KOSKINEN-There’s virtually no red, there might be one or two red pine trees scattered somewhere. MR. SIPP-Any spruce? MR. KOSKINEN-I did not see any on the property. MR. SIPP-So it’ll be all white pine going to Ti? MR. KOSKINEN-Well, white pine pulp, yes, and the logs are shipped to the saw mills. MR. SIPP-When did Ti start taking white pine? I thought they dealt strictly with red? MR. KOSKINEN-No, people ship white pine up there quite a bit. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I think we have a resolution ready. MR. FORD-Great. Not a moment too soon. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. We’ll try this. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 50-2008 GENERAL TIMBER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th I would like to table this to the January 20 meeting, which is the first Planning Board th meeting in January, with an application deadline of December 26. So that the applicant can address: 1. VISION Engineering comments, 2. Staff comments, 3. Submit a revised drawing on the proposed skid trails, revised drawing or revised map, 4. The Planning Board will grant the waivers requested for grading and landscaping, 5. However, the request for a waiver on stormwater management will be substituted for our agreement for the applicant to use best management practices according to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation guidelines, and submit copies of said guidelines for the Planning Board. 6. That the Planning Board would review this as an Unlisted action, unless there’s new evidence suggested to bring us to a different decision. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MR. OBORNE-Could you add about this being an Unlisted action or a Type I action, so that we can classify it. That necessarily does not have to be part of this condition. Is it in the record? MRS. STEFFAN-You’re right, because that was the discussion item. MR. SEGULJIC-Wouldn’t it be better if we got that map and we could look at it first? MR. HUNSINGER-What do you mean? MRS. STEFFAN-That would change everything. If it was a Type I, it would change the applicant’s submission. They would have to submit a Long EAF. My feeling on that is that they’ve already had the APA look at it. They’ve already had Warren County Soil and Water look at it, and based on the inputs that we’ve gotten, I think my opinion is that an Unlisted action would suffice. MR. FORD-I agree. MR. HUNSINGER-So do I. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So I will add to the motion that the Planning Board would review this as an Unlisted action. MR. HUNSINGER-Unless there’s new evidence to suggest otherwise maybe. MRS. STEFFAN-Unless there’s new evidence suggested to bring us to a different decision. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MR. PHILLIPS-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. FORD-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-So you understand that we’ve altered the submission deadline so that th you will have to have everything to us by the 26? MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Usually, the deadline was actually yesterday. th MR. OBORNE-I will not be in the office on the 26. Somebody will be in the office to accept the submission. MR. PHILLIPS-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1990 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MATTHEW/SAMANTHA BALL OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SFR-1A LOCATION AMY LANE SHERMAN ACRES APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO THE SHERMAN ACRES SUBDIVISION FOR A PROPOSED CUL DE SAC ON AMY LANE TO ADD 50 FEET OF FRONTAGE TO EACH LOT, CREATING A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY. MODICATIONS TO APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS REQUIRE PLANNNG BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE N/A WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 2.05 & 3.96 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.6-1-15, 15 SECTION A-183 MATTHEW AND SAMANTHA BALL, PRESENT 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MR. HUNSINGER-I apologize for the late hour. Thank you for being so patient. I think we can dispense with Staff comments. If you just want to explain what it is you’re looking to do. MRS. BALL-Okay. I’m Samantha. This is my husband, Matt. So we just want to, we want to take the portion where Amy Lane, I gave you a Map A, which is the original survey that David Barris did for us about five years ago, well, no, maybe four years ago. I’m a little delirious right now, and what we plan to do now that we’ve, we haven’t officially acquired the land from the Town. That’ll be tomorrow or, Wednesday is tomorrow, Wednesday or Thursday, and what we plan to do with this, it’s 100 feet across, and it goes the length of this property’s down, and the cul de sac is actually, it was just added into the subdivision in 1990 when it was approved by the Town, but we had already owned, obviously, the cul de sac, and what we plan to do is just take, with the Map B, if you look at it, is split the property line, put the property line right down the middle. So now we have 50 feet of road frontage for each lot, so then I can apply for a driveway, because I need 40 foot of road frontage to build a home on each lot. So after we acquire that land, which the Town of Queensbury has approved to sell us, and we’ll have that finalized tomorrow or Thursday, we’d like to be able to re-map these property lines as shown on Map B. David Barris did a mock up of it for us, and now we’ll have the appropriate amount of road frontage to build a house on each lot. So that’s what we’re looking for, and we’re going to actually put in a private driveway. We’re going to share the driveway between the two lots, just to eliminate the amount of like trees to take down. Just keep it as private as possible. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions? My only comment is, in fact there was a simple subdivision, I’m not holding this against you, I’m just making a comment. There was a two lot subdivision that we approved a few years ago on the condition that they have a shared driveway. They never did build the shared driveway. I drove by the property the other day. They then came back to the Board, asked us to reconsider. We said no. I mean, they’re plowing, you know where I mean on West Mountain Road. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, they’re plowing the driveway that they said that they would abandon and create the shared driveway. So my only comment is, you know, we would condition this on the driveway being shared. So that would be the expectation. MRS. BALL-Okay. Yes, that’s no problem. I mean, technically, obviously they’d own, you know, each lot would own 25 feet, but, you know, given that, you know, we’re going to build our own house and live down there, and if we were to ever sell and move, obviously we could put in an agreement that the driveway, well, obviously the Town would have to do that, but we planned on, if we were ever to sell, and maybe even just, you know, build on the lot across from us, that we would just have sort of an agreement that it would be well maintained by the two, you know, the two homeowners. So I don’t see that. We just don’t want to have, we’d rather have people not driving up and down our road. So if we keep it private, then it’s just better for us, and also better for the two homes that are neighboring that entrance, and they seem to be, you know, fairly accommodating to what we’re doing. We’re not trying to, you know, make it look. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, well, and it’s an issue of safety, as much as anything, and aesthetics, too. Any other questions or comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-It says that we have to do, in the Staff Notes, we have to make a SEQRA determination? MR. OBORNE-This would be an Unlisted SEQRA, I believe. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s an Unlisted Short, I’m assuming. MR. OBORNE-Yes, ma’am. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. “Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 4-1990, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: MATTHEW/SAMANTHA BALL, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. 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. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1990 MODIFICATION MATTHEW/SAMANTHA BALL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes a modification to the Sherman Acres subdivision for a proposed cul-de-sac on Amy Lane to add 50 feet of road frontage to each lot, creating a private driveway. Modifications to approved subdivisions require Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing is not required for a subdivision modification; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) 5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 6. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and 7. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 8. NOT APPLICABLE - If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 9. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 10. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1990 MODIFICATION MATTHEW/SAMANTHA BALL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five, Negative Declaration. Paragraph Eight does not apply. This is approved with the condition that the applicant will construct a shared driveway between the lots. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MRS. BALL-All right. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. BALL-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you for waiting. DISCUSSION ITEM SICARD: APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE APPROXIMATELY 41 ACRES OF LAND INTO 22 RESIDENTIAL LOTS. DAN MANNIX, REPRESENTIING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Our last item is a subdivision discussion for the Sicard family, and I’ll let you introduce. MR. MANNIX-Good morning. My name is Dan Mannix. I’m an attorney in Glens Falls here, and I represent the Sicard family. I think you know Mr. Jarrett. This is Mary Sicard, the owner of the property that we’ll be discussing a little bit tonight. What I want to do is just, this is on for discussion. It’s a fairly complex plan, but I just wanted to give you a little bit of background. I know it’s a complex plan. I’ll give you a little bit of background about the property, and then maybe paint some broad strokes. I don’t think it’s anything you want us to keep you here for a couple of hours talking about tonight because it’s not a plan before you, but as I said, it is a complex plan. I think it’s been laid out very well by Mr. Jarrett, and I think we’d like to see and get some general feeling from the Board where we can go with this proposed plan. The property that we’re going to be discussing tonight, this morning, excuse me, has been in the Sicard family for 50 years. What 69 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) presently exists is a substantially nonconformity, the creation of which pre-exists any Code in the Town. What’s, do you have copies of this? MR. HUNSINGER-We do, yes. MR. MANNIX-Okay. Yes, I thought. There’s a lot of lines, a lot of colors, but I think if we went slowly through a little bit of it just to give you, like I said, some broad strokes so that it’ll be a little easier to digest. As I said before, it’s a difficult plan to comply with the Code, and I think it’s important for the Board to know that the Sicard family and Mr. Jarrett and our firm, we’ve been working together for many, many months to put this together, with many revisions, many meetings, many plans proposed going back and forth, what would work, what wouldn’t work, what relief we could potentially ask for that would be too much, and we considered them all, starting back eight or nine months ago to get to this stage, and having considered them all, what has been put together is a very complex plan, but it’s also the best option that we can put forth for the homeowner, for the Town, and still only ask for the least amount of relief possible, and I think as a general statement, before we get going too far, what we’re proposing is to make the property much more conforming with this plan than it is as it sits today, and I guess from this point I’m not sure if we want to go into what we’re talking about, but it’s. MR. FORD-Excuse me, but by way of background, can you just enumerate a few of the issues that make it so nonconforming now? MR. MANNIX-Sure. Where the present family compound is that you see on your plan is that’s in blue, those are existing structures. They all have separate tax id’s, but I don’t believe any of them are conforming. The cabins that are going along the front that you see in green and purple, as far as shorefront and setbacks that exist in today’s Code is nonconforming. I think, let’s see, what else. TOM JARRETT MR. JARRETT-If I can jump in here. Before, you’re looking on Drawing C-3, which is the one that’s got the shorefront with all the colors on it, the four buildings down on the lower right corner are separate lots, and the building just above that, which is labeled as Lot Number Five, is also a separate lot, but essentially everything else on that plan is on one parcel. All those buildings are one parcel. It’s a family compound that has not been divided up, and what we’re trying to do is divide it for distribution to the family members, and then there’s a few additional lots, probably three additional lots that would be available for sale outside the family, and essentially that’s what we’re trying to do is clean this thing up and convey it to the family members. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-And I see you’re proposing to remove the four purple structures? MR. JARRETT-If you look at this, you can confuse yourself in many different ways, and I’ve done it myself over the months. Essentially there’s 16, right now on that waterfront section, there’s 16 principal uses, either commercial or residential. There’s really one commercial. All the rest are residential, style. They’re rental cabins but they’re residential style. We’re proposing to reduce that down to 13. So there’s three of them coming away permanently. There are some phasing in here that gets a little confusing, and that’s why the color coding. We don’t want to remove all the structures initially. The family needs to maintain some family income until the lots are actually sold, but the net result at the end is three of these structures go away, and an additional number of structures are rebuilt to Code, and are new, energy compliant structures. MR. FORD-To replace those three? MR. JARRETT-No, there’s three disappearing altogether. There’s only going to be 13. MR. FORD-Not going to be replaced. MR. JARRETT-That’s correct, and of the 13 that remain, four of them would be brand new structures, brand new houses of some type, but brand new energy compliant and Code compliant structures. MR. FORD-So seven are going to disappear and four are going to reappear as new structures, compliant? 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MR. FORD-That’s a fair way to, yes, that’s right. That’s what my letter tried to explain, but even reading it myself afterward I got a little confused. I thought maybe it would be better to summarize. MR. FORD-I just wanted to make sure I was following you at this hour. MR. HUNSINGER-But there’s four purple structures that are labeled existing structure to be removed. MR. JARRETT-Those one in red, or purple, however you want to categorize, characterize the color, they get removed as soon as the subdivision is approved, if you choose to approve this, they would be removed immediately because they cannot remain. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So which are the three? MR. JARRETT-The three which? MR. MANNIX-That would stay? The three green. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-Well, the three green stay temporarily. MR. MANNIX-Temporarily. MR. JARRETT-Just until the new construction. Let’s focus on the blue and the gray. The blue is existing family compound that will stay essentially as is. The gray is what we propose permanently to be constructed, the gray houses. So the green and the red eventually go away. The red goes away immediately. The green goes away afterward, you know, after the lots are re-developed. MR. HUNSINGER-So, in terms of the blue houses in the wastewater reserve area, how is that being handled? Are you separating out the lots for the blue houses, or are they staying on one? MR. JARRETT-Well, the blue houses essentially have all their own systems right now. We’re just planning for the future, in case there’s a problem, we want to make sure there’s room to rebuild a system, and so we’re allowing for easements on those two parcels within the family compound to be able to replace systems. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So those would be easements? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-Yes. There’s no other way to do this and to have separation distances in compliances on the lots. We struggled with it, but actually the existing systems are working fine as far as we can tell, and there’s good soils in that area. We just planned for the contingency. The same with water supply. The water supplies right now are adequate for the existing houses. We’ve allowed for some room to re-drill wells if we need to. MR. FORD-How many wells, currently, are operating? MR. JARRETT-Two wells are in service for the family compound, and the blue houses would continue to be served by those, and we’ve allowed, we have a reserve area for new wells for the blue homes. The gray homes would all have individual new wells on those lots. MR. FORD-New wells and new septics. MR. JARRETT-And new septics, that’s correct. MR. TRAVER-And, Tom, did you mention two of the gray, the proposed new structures, would be for sale? 71 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MR. JARRETT-Actually Lots One, Two and Thirteen would definitely be offered for sale. Lot Three, the family may want to keep that, but we’ve developed it so that it’s compliant in most ways, and that could go either way. They could sell that or keep that. Right now they’re saying they want to keep that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-Our numbering system doesn’t match what the family’s old numbering system is. So we’ve got a further confusion that we have to deal with. So that Lot Three is kind of a swing lot, to go either way, but Lots One and Two, and what we labeled as Thirteen are definitely proposed for sale. MR. JARRETT-Okay. Maybe you could put the large waterfront plan up on the Board right now. MR. FORD-Your coloration of blue and gray may have significance, in terms of civil war, from a historical perspective. MR. JARRETT-That’s a depiction of the existing conditions, and you’ll see how the waterfront parcel is all really, all those homes are on one parcel, or most of them. Keep going through that set if you would. We have not focused on the west side of Glen Lake Road yet, and we don’t have to tonight if you wish not to. I know it’s very early in the morning, and I think that one’s pretty straightforward. MRS. STEFFAN-There’s nothing going on over there. MR. JARRETT-Not much. So we don’t need to focus on that tonight if you wish not to. If you go to the next drawing, there’s the one we’re dealing with right now which is complicated, and so the lots that would be offered for sale are that one, which we call Lot One, that one is Lot Two. This is Lot Three, and that could stay in the family or be sold, depending on how they wish to deal with it, and this is Lot 13, which would be sold. MR. FORD-What is that green reference to, right next to Number Two there? MR. JARRETT-That? That’s a garage. MR. FORD-And to the right of that? MR. JARRETT-That’s the existing cabin. That’s the existing cottage. MR. MANNIX-That’s the existing structure. MR. JARRETT-That green right there? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. JARRETT-That’s an existing cottage. That would be proposed to stay after the subdivision is formed until the lot is actually sold, and then a buyer could tear the cottage down and build a new house there. So the gray and the green would not exist simultaneously. MR. FORD-Maybe. MR. JARRETT-Getting more confusing. You would not permit the new house to be built until the old one is torn down. MR. MANNIX-That’s why if there was subdivision approval the maroon would be destroyed immediately to accommodate the Code. MR. FORD-Okay. Why doesn’t the green one get destroyed as well? MR. JARRETT-The family wants to maintain the green ones, there would be one principal cottage per lot. They want to maintain those for income purposes. Right now they have all these cottages they use, Mary uses for income, and if she does this subdivision, she loses a significant amount of income. She can’t afford to lose it all. The docks we plan to make compliant. We believe by removing these two extremity docks here that we will be compliant. That’s our goal. When we get into the details we can review that and see how that shakes out, but we think we’re compliant. One other note. There’s a driveway right now that comes off Glen Lake Road that would be removed 72 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) under this proposal. So we would have very limited access off Glen Lake Road. The existing George Street, which is a private road, would be essentially the only access on Glen Lake Road for this set of structures. So have we thoroughly confused you? MRS. STEFFAN-But the new houses, the new gray houses, would be coming off Nacy Road? MR. JARRETT-That’s correct. MR. MANNIX-Correct. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. JARRETT-This lot here, 13, would have a separate driveway. These two lots, Two and Three, would have common driveway, each with the proper frontage, but a common driveway. MR. TRAVER-Actually, once you understand the color code, it’s really quite helpful. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. JARRETT-We were hoping it would be. MR. MANNIX-It was Mary’s idea, but I think part of the plan that fits well with the area is also the size of the lots, as you look to the north and to the south to adjoining properties. I believe you’ll look, as we have with the tax map, up and down that side of the lake, you’ll find the lots we’re proposing, even though we’re looking for Area Variances, we’ll be asking for Area Variances, shorefront variances, they are more conforming than the lots that exist to the south. MR. FORD-They’re less nonconforming. MR. MANNIX-They’re less nonconforming. You’re correct. Make the record clear. MR. JARRETT-Just to illustrate what Dan’s talking about, the density here, to the north and to the south, is quite a bit higher than what the density we propose is here, which is even lower density than exists right now. So I think we’re improving that situation. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and you’re removing those four structures. MR. JARRETT-Net three, ultimately, but four would be rebuilt. So, yes, and the canopy, forest canopy on that parcel, we’re not proposing to cut trees. This is not part of the plan to cut trees. So we certainly would be maintaining that look and feel to the neighborhood. MR. FORD-Let me ask the obvious question that is asked frequently by this Board when you have something similar to this, although we haven’t had anything quite similar to this, but you have the opportunity to come into total conformity, do you not? And why was that option not selected? MR. MANNIX-Economics. It’s just not economically feasible for Mrs. Gardner family to come into total compliance. You’re cutting down the lots to such a number that it just doesn’t make sense. MR. FORD-Well, each lot then becomes more valuable, does it not? MR. MANNIX-Arguably, I guess, but with the numbers we investigated, we did look at that plan to come into total compliance, and it didn’t make economic sense. MR. JARRETT-As shocking as it sounds, we anticipated that question. MR. FORD-Yes. I’ll bet you did. MR. JARRETT-And frankly we looked at it in many different ways, and it didn’t make sense for the family. They said they would keep it the way it is and not propose anything if we had to do that. So we found this compromise, we felt this made sense from all 73 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) perspectives. If you disagree, that’s what we’d like to hear. If you agree with us, then we’ll move forward. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I think that there’s a tradeoff, you know, with different lot sizes, nonconforming structures, and what you’re proposing is putting in three new waterfront homes that are Code compliant, as far as brand new septics and those kinds of things. It certainly would be good for the lake and they would certainly be marketable. So you’re meeting a couple of needs at the same time. MR. FORD-It’ll certainly erode the impact of that question when asked in future applications, however. MRS. STEFFAN-There’s certainly a lot going on there. MR. MANNIX-I think if, well, I’ll leave it at that. It seems to me the more I looked at it, and the more we discussed it with the Sicard family, it just seemed that we’re taking a situation that, and making it much better, in our opinion, after looking at a number of plans, including what you said, Mr. Ford. There’s enough acreage to do what you suggest, but it just didn’t make economic sense, and this, putting forth this plan, seemed to really clean up the area, clean up the property, and make it economically viable, as well as helping the family. MR. HUNSINGER-And it looks like the other pages, the proposed lots would be compliant. MR. JARRETT-There’s one more section to the south of the basic waterfront that we’ve been discussing, and that’s down here, near Jay Road, and that’s 3.4 acres in net size. We plan to subdivide that into, would like to subdivide that into three lots. The northern most lot has two trailers on it, one of which would be moved, would be moved immediately. The other trailer would stay presumably indefinitely. It might be removed if a new house is built there, but the southern two lots would get new houses. They would be vacant and two new houses would be built there. MR. FORD-It’s interesting that we don’t have anyone from the Glen Lake Association here tonight. On projects that have had far less impact they’ve been here in force with recommendations. MR. MANNIX-They were here early and you tired them out. MR. JARRETT-And this is just a discussion item. They’ll obviously have a chance later on. Again, with the complexity of this project, we thought it would be fair to you to come initially and explain it to you. MR. SIPP-Is that new garage out on Glen Lake Road any part of this property? MR. JARRETT-The new garage out on Glen Lake Road. MR. SIPP-That new building. MR. JARRETT-A different owner apparently. MR. SIPP-A different owner. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? MR. FORD-I just have a question for the other Board to reflect upon. Is this going to establish the standard by which we will judge other nonconforming, going to less nonconforming structures and properties? Is this going to be our new goal? Is this going to be the standard again which we will measure future applications? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think so. MR. SEGULJIC-No, it’s application by application. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-We’ll see. 74 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/08) MRS. STEFFAN-My opinion it’s just that it’s not very often we have a family or a entity that owns this much property around the lake. MR. JARRETT-This is certainly unique on Glen Lake, and it’s unique in all the areas that I can think of. MR. FORD-No question about that. I’m looking at the principle of it. MR. JARRETT-I understand your concern, and if I were sitting in your shoes, I would ask exactly the same question. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or observations from the Board? I don’t think we gave you much feedback, but. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, you said we would talk about the docks at a future time. MR. JARRETT-I guess what we’d like to hear is if someone on the Board, and I think Mr. Ford has expressed some concern, but I don’t think we’re hearing that we should absolutely stop. I think, if I’m hearing correctly, we should jump into the process and submit a Sketch Plan and start reviewing the details. It doesn’t sound like we’ve heard major concerns on your part. Is that a fair assessment? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I would agree. MR. FORD-The closer you can get to compliance, the happier we’re all going to be. MR. JARRETT-And the easier our job will be. Yes. We understand. All right. Thanks for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Thank you for waiting. I appreciate your patience. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you for waiting. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone have an objection if we put off the Officer discussion and election until Thursday? Would someone like to make a motion for adjournment? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 2008, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 75