Loading...
2009.01.20 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 20, 2009 INDEX Subdivision No. 3-2008 Linda & Ronald Ball 1. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 295.10-1-31.1 Site Plan No. 47-2008 Nigro Companies 3. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-22 thru 26 Site Plan No. 12-2004 Aftab Bhatti 8. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 302.5-1-51, 52.12, 52.13 Site Plan No. 50-2008 General Timber 9. Tax Map No. 265.-1-28 Subdivision No. 10-2008 Larry Clute 35. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 309.6-1-20.2 Site Plan No. 2-2009 Howard Denison 36. Tax Map No. 302.8-2-14 Site Plan No. 1-2009 Cliff Nelson 43. Tax Map No. 297.8-1-24, 26 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 01/20/09 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 20, 2009 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS SEGULJIC DONALD SIPP THOMAS FORD STEPHEN TRAVER DONALD KREBS, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, our first regular meeting of January, Tuesday, January 20, 2009. For members of the audience, there are, on the back table, copies of the agenda, as well as copies of a handout for how to address the Board during a public hearing. Many of the items this evening we do have public hearings scheduled, and I would just bring to your attention those instructions and guidance for how the public hearings will be conducted. The first item thth on the agenda is approval of minutes from November 18 and 25 of 2008. Would anyone like to make a motion to accept them? APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 18, 2008 November 25, 2008 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF THTH NOVEMBER 18 AND NOVEMBER 25, 2008, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a couple of Administrative Items on the agenda before we get into the scheduled items. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS SUBDIVISION 3-2008 RONALD BALL: FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-The first one is a tabling consideration for Subdivision No. 3-2008 Ronald Ball. Any comments from Staff? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-My inclination is, has there been any contact with them since the deadline? MR. OBORNE-Yes, yes, sir, there has been. In fact, I got an e-mail last Friday, and I’ll read that into the record. It’s to Keith Oborne from Charles Scudder, dated January 16, 2009. The reason’s Preliminary and Final Stage, Ronald & Linda Ball Subdivision No. 3- 2008. “Pursuant to our telephone conversation today, I request that this matter be put th over and placed on the agenda of the Planning Board for the meeting of March 24.” So th the request is for a March 24 tabling. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 MRS. STEFFAN-What do our agendas look like for February and March? MR. OBORNE-Well, I took the liberty of putting an agenda in front of the Chairman’s area there. We have bumped nine from the February agenda. So to start off the March agenda, we have nine, out of twelve slots taken. So that leaves three left. MR. HUNSINGER-But that was considering you had this one for February, though. MR. OBORNE-True. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So we would still be at nine. MR. OBORNE-That’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-But we don’t have to table it to that March meeting. We can just table it until the next available meeting, can’t we? Because I don’t want to, we’ve gotten into this situation over the last couple of months, and in our meeting last week, organizational meeting, we talked a little bit about the problem that this causes, and so my recommendation would be, instead of tabling it to a specific date, the next available meeting. How does the rest of the Board feel? MR. TRAVER-How about the next available meeting, no earlier than the date they requested? I’m assuming they wanted to wait until that date. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, because they’d have to submit. We’ve already past the January th deadline. So they wouldn’t be able to submit until February 15, which would be a March meeting. MR. TRAVER-For March anyway. Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-But if the agenda’s already full, then they’ll get in when they get in. MR. TRAVER-Fair enough. MR. HUNSINGER-The only comment I would make on that, and I’ll ask it of Staff is in the past you’ve also requested that we table them to specific dates, because it’s easier to keep track of them. MR. OBORNE-Well, it appears to be a Catch-22 at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, sure. MR. OBORNE-I do understand madam Secretary’s concerns, and I would say that, as far as, for administrative purposes, a specific date would be preferable, and not to recant what we said during our workshop, but there seems to be some type of balance that needs to happen here. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the bigger issue is tabling them until the next month and setting a special deadline for submission of materials. MR. OBORNE-So there are three spots open for the March agendas at this point, and that’s about all I can leave it, I have to leave it to the Board to. MR. HUNSINGER-On the other hand, if they don’t submit the requested material. th MR. OBORNE-By February 15. MR. HUNSINGER-Come the March meeting we’re going to table them again. So, I’ll leave it up to the Board. Table it to March pending the submission of materials, and that way if they don’t submit the materials they’re in the hopper for whenever they get the material in. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. th MR. HUNSINGER-Table them until March with a February 15 deadline, and if they don’t th submit the materials by February 15, then they’re, you know, they’re back at risk, so to speak. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 MR. OBORNE-I think that’s fine. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2008 RONALD BALL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th This will be tabled to the March 24 Planning Board meeting, pending submission of th materials by February 16. If they miss the submission deadline, they’ll go to the next available Planning Board meeting. th Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SITE PLAN 47-2008 NIGRO COMPANIES: FOR SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION PER RESOLUTION DATED 11/18/08 MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Our second Administrative Item is Site Plan No. 47-2008 for Nigro Companies. I thought we had taken care of this at our last meeting? MRS. STEFFAN-I think we actually put a motion in place so that they could get their building permit pending submission of materials. MR. OBORNE-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. OBORNE-Now what they’re here for now is the signs that you had requested information on. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and didn’t submit the material. MR. OBORNE-They have. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry? MR. OBORNE-They have submitted the material. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. It just came in late. MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, because of the ice storm. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And what’s the preference of the Board? Is there anyone here from the applicant? Come on up. STEFANIE BITTER MS. BITTER-I wasn’t sure if you wanted me to speak or not. It’s administrative. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. Fumbling through this a little bit here. I’m sorry. MS. BITTER-Okay. That’s not a problem. Stefanie Bitter. I’m here for the Nigro Companies. We did, unfortunately, submit it past the deadline, and as our cover letter indicated, due to the electrical storm that occurred over the weekend, unfortunately our th sign company was out until December 16. So we weren’t able to submit them until th December 17, but as was discussed during the Planning Board meeting of the project, there are three panel signs that are three panel signs that are being proposed for Game 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 Stop, Super Cuts and Five Guys, as well as the monument sign. The monument sign stands nine feet in height, five feet in width, and ten feet in depth. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-So these are illuminated signs? There’s no, they’re not LED signs? MS. BITTER-Right. No, illuminated channel letters. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and the same thing applies to the front of the building? MS. BITTER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-You’ve got the monument sign and the one that’s on the building? MS. BITTER-That’s correct. MRS. STEFFAN-They’re certainly very vanilla looking. MS. BITTER-That’s correct, not very detailed. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the members of the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-How about some landscaping at the base? MS. BITTER-None has been proposed, other than what was already discussed at the last meeting. MR. SEGULJIC-So no landscaping? MS. BITTER-Not at this time. MRS. STEFFAN-I have to admit, we’re a bit handicapped there, but I think we did look at a landscaping plan when they were here the last time, because I don’t have it. MR. TRAVER-Could you tell us about the light fixtures that are used? This is an internally illuminated sign? MS. BITTER-That’s correct. That’s as it’s described on the submission. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Do you have any, I didn’t see any information regarding the wattage, the number of bulbs, the wattage and so on. MS. BITTER-I don’t have that with the submission. I can get it to the actual Planning Department, if you’d like me to do that. MR. SIPP-I think we discussed landscaping at the base here, at the base of this sign. MS. BITTER-With the original Site Plan. MR. SIPP-Yes. MS. BITTER-Right. MR. FORD-We’re so concerned with signage now, particularly those that are illuminated. I would like to get some sort of feel for how bright these signs are going to be. MS. BITTER-Like I said, I could provide that to the Planning Department. I don’t have any problem with that. Unfortunately with the submission that I have, I don’t have any specific information as to the wattage. MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, what we don’t have a copy of is the last resolution. I mean, we’ve got the resolution approving the Site Plan, but we’ve talked about this since that resolution was passed, and we made a recommendation to the Zoning Board. MR. OBORNE-You made a recommendation of clarification for their building permit. MS. BITTER-Right. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else have any recollection of that issue? MS. BITTER-Of the landscaping? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MS. BITTER-I have the minutes. MR. HUNSINGER-From December? MS. BITTER-From their November meeting. The December meeting, it was my understanding that was like I said just a clarification that we were able to get the building permit. MR. OBORNE-If you would like, I could read the resolution, and specifically the conditions of the resolution, if you’d like clarification on that. MR. FORD-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, yes. MR. OBORNE-Is that okay? Well, the main thing was that VISION Engineering comments be addressed, submission of store signs and monument signs and trees th added as agreed, and that information would be submitted by December 15 for our th January 20 meeting. That the parking lot will be re-striped in accordance with the existing plans by June 1, 2009, and that the plans for the additional door on the west side of the building will also be submitted. I will say that VISION Engineering comments have been addressed. The parking lot will be re-striped per the approval, by June 1, 2009, and that the plans for the additional door on the west side of the building has been submitted. So it is just the submission of store signs and monument signs and trees added as agreed. MS. BITTER-All right. I have information on the trees. From your minutes of November th 18, there was a discussion, let’s see here, Tom, Steve’s willing to add two more trees on either side of the sign so there’d be four across the front, if that would make you happy. Yes, that would be a lot better, so that you’d have four trees along the front. There are two now, we’ll add two in the middle. Trees are good, and then it says that they would be weeping cherry trees right next to the plaza. They don’t grow up real tall, very decorative, but are they salt tolerant enough, that’s the question, and then you just kind of decided on ornamental trees, four ornamental trees. MR. SEGULJIC-And that was it for landscaping then. MS. BITTER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-But there was a comment by Mr. Lapper saying this is a pre-existing sign and we would just drop it down and do some landscaping around it. That’s a condition. MS. BITTER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So I think there was some discussion about some kind of landscaping around the sign. That’s all the detail, though, that I could see. MS. BITTER-Right. There wasn’t a condition. MR. HUNSINGER-And then Tom said do you want them to come back with the sign to the Board, and Mr. Sipp said yes. MR. FORD-How do others feel about the illumination of the sign? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we certainly need to know what the wattage is so that we know that it’s compliant. MR. TRAVER-That was my concern. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 MRS. STEFFAN-Certainly I think the sign is okay. As I mentioned it’s plain. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think some bushes around the bottom of it, the base of the sign would really go a long way. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions on the sign or the landscaping around the sign? MR. SIPP-I think we need something about the base there, a couple of low growing Junipers, which will grow almost any place, and I would take away some of the base. Is this the color that it’s going to be, this bright yellow? MS. BITTER-Yes, I think it’s more of a neutral than more of a yellow, at least that’s the color that portrays on my depiction. MR. HUNSINGER-Is it ivory or is it yellow? MS. BITTER-It’s kind of a pale, like a pale tan. MR. FORD-You’re talking two on either side? MR. SIPP-Yes, at least. MS. BITTER-Okay. MR. SIPP-Now I think we ought to know the wattage, too. MS. BITTER-Right. I was thinking of a condition saying, as long as it’s compliant with the Building Department for their review. If there’s some issue, then obviously we’ll come back. MR. SIPP-Right. Yes. Because of these are going to be backlit, obviously, we’d need something to tell us what the wattage, how bright this is going to be. Is it going to be on all the time, night and day? MS. BITTER-I believe so, yes. MR. SIPP-How late does Five Guys stay open? MS. BITTER-I’m not really sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? So do we want to table it or make those a condition? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I think we should table it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. BITTER-My apologies. I thought this was going to be an Administrative Item. If so, I would have had the sign guy here as well. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s okay. Would anyone like to put forward a resolution, then? MS. BITTER-I know that they were eager to get their building permit, and obviously there’s been some miscommunication. So I apologize, but is there any way that we can make this somewhat compliant, that if we make a submission to the Planning Department? I know that the concerns are landscaping and wattage, and hours of operation. If we can provide that to Staff, to a certain content, that would be, I think there was a request for maybe two low shrubs in the front. If we’re willing to do that, if that’s acceptable. If that isn’t acceptable, then return to the Board. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I believe, now they haven’t gotten their permit yet? MS. BITTER-Well, there was an issue because the plans that were submitted didn’t have the necessary approval block for the Zoning Administrator to sign them. So there’s been a hold up as to the final plans being signed off on yet. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Because at that December meeting we said, we made a recommendation, based on Planning Board discussion, we provided a flawed approval. We resolve that Nigro Companies Site Plan will be able to receive a building permit without final approval of building signage. The applicant will appear at the January ’09 Planning Board meeting so that the Planning Board can review the building signage plans. So we thought that you could actually get your building permit. MS. BITTER-Right. Not yet. MR. HUNSINGER-But it’s because you didn’t submit. MS. BITTER-They submitted the plans in January, and then there was concerns with Staff as to the approval block, that it’s supposed to have a certain approval block, and then we had to discuss all the resolutions that had actually occurred in the approval block, and there’s still discussions happening with the engineer. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s never easy. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. OBORNE-If I may, it sounds like you’re going to table, and not to write your resolution for you, but having dealt with a lot of signs recently, absolutely we would like to know what the ballast and the wattage is of these signs. They are compliant signs, as far as size and their setbacks. There’s no issue there whatsoever, and typically we like to see how they are mounted, and that’s typically what is a sign company will do for you, Stefanie, and again, the ballast, wattage and mode of attachment, something along those lines. MR. SEGULJIC-Why the mode of attachment? MR. OBORNE-Well, there’s a certain thickness that a sign is allowed, and if it’s sticking out from the building too far, it could be out of compliance. So we’d like to see how it is attached to the building. MR. SEGULJIC-Attached to the building. Okay. MR. OBORNE-Not necessarily the nuts and bolts or the brackets, but where. MR. SEGULJIC-How far it’s going to stick out. MR. OBORNE-Exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-Down to the sign. MR. OBORNE-And obviously any landscaping you, as a Board, wish to have. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. That was really helpful. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Now this is the part that gets tricky. This is a Site Plan that’s already been approved. MR. OBORNE-Yes, ma’am. MRS. STEFFAN-And so it’s back here for recommendations on these things. So I can’t say that we are tabling the Site Plan because it’s already been approved. So how do I? MR. OBORNE-Well, I guess you could send them away and give them a date by which they need to come back with the plans that you would like to review. This has not been easy. MR. HUNSINGER-And once again, we are past the January deadline for submission for February. MR. OBORNE-We are. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 MR. HUNSINGER-So we’re into March. MS. BITTER-Right, and I’m just concerned because obviously you really can’t open a business without signs. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MS. BITTER-It’s hard to get people there, even though you could probably smell the hamburgers from down the street. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO MAKE A RESOLUTION ON OUR CONTINUED REVIEW OF SITE PLAN NO 47-2008 NIGRO COMPANIES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: th We would like to send the applicant away to come back on the March 17 Planning th Board meeting. They will have until February 16 to submit materials regarding the wattage and the ballast specifications on their signage, so that they will provide information on how the signs will be attached, or the mode of attachment of those signs for the building. The goal of these materials is so that the signage will be Code compliant, and that the last item that we would require is that the applicant submits a landscaping design around the signage. th Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MS. BITTER-Thank you very much. MR. OBORNE-And I believe that Counsel has a request for an applicant later on the docket. MS. BITTER-I don’t mean to be out of turn, but I had just put a submission in for Sam Bhatti, a request to table it, because Mr. Bhatti’s out of the country, and Staff Notes came out actually, after I wasn’t able to contact him, and a lot of those notes have to do with answers that he can provide me, because there’s not an engineer involved. So, I was just hoping that the Board could table it to a later meeting, if at all possible. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the feeling of the Board? I mean, just speaking for myself, I didn’t read the letter until this past weekend. So we haven’t really had a chance to talk about how the Board would feel about what meeting we would table it to. So I guess I’ll open it up for any discussion. MRS. STEFFAN-My feeling is that it should get submitted to a later date, because there were issues that were identified in the Staff Notes that have to be addressed, specifically the joining of the parcels. MS. BITTER-The Fire Marshal. MR. TRAVER-And the Fire Marshal’s. MRS. STEFFAN-Fire Marshal comments, paying the engineering fees, and I think there was a third one. Freestanding sign not located on the as built survey. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-And then there was another issue regarding using somebody else’s property, and so, you know, there’s a couple of outstanding items that tend to be, I think, big, and even if we tabled it until next week, we’d have to be tabled again. MS. BITTER-Right. No, and I understand, and that was before I actually saw the Staff comments. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 MRS. STEFFAN-So I think that we should table them to a March meeting, since we know we have room on the agenda. MS. BITTER-Okay. No, that’s fine. MRS. STEFFAN-So you can satisfy these comments. Because I know in this particular application, I was on the Board back then and, you know, to be very honest, this Site Plan was a mess, and it took a lot of meetings and there was a lot that needed to be done, and so we’re here a couple of years later, and there’s still a lot that has to be done before the Planning Board can be satisfied to approve any modifications. MS. BITTER-No, I understand. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So I would be in favor of tabling it to March. MR. HUNSINGER-Are people comfortable with that? That would give them time to address the Staff and engineering comments, as well as submit any additional materials. MR. FORD-Stefanie, do you have a comfort level with March? MS. BITTER-No, that’s fine. th MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I think my preference would be to table to the 24 meeting. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. TRAVER-We still have two left? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 12-2004 MODIFICATION NO. 3 AFTAB BHATTI, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th We will table this to the March 24 Planning Board meeting with a submission deadline th of February 16. So that the applicant can address and satisfy Staff comments and Fire Marshal comments, specifically paying attention to the requirement for as built drawings, parcel consolidation and payment of engineering fees. th Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MS. BITTER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 50-2008 SEQR UNLISTED 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 & KURT KOSKINEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-And whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes, Keith. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 50-2008, General Timber, Site Plan Review for timber harvesting. It’s location is landlocked property on the west slope of French Mountain. Existing zoning is LC-10 or Land Conservation 10 acres. SEQRA status is Unlisted, and 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 I’d like to state that the Planning Board must make a SEQRA determination concerning this application. This is vacant land. That is the history of this parcel. Project Description. Applicant proposes to harvest timber 14 inches and greater in diameter at breast height off of 168 plus or minus acre parcel on the west slope of French Mountain. No clear cutting is proposed, and I would like to state that this application was tabled to this date to address the following, VISION Engineering comments, Staff comments, submit a revised drawing of the proposed skid trails, revised drawing and revised map. The Planning Board will grant the waivers requested for grading and landscaping. 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, and the Planning Board would review this as an Unlisted action unless there’s new evidence suggesting to bring us to a different decision, and upon that, I will assume that the Planning Board has read Site Plan Review. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. PHILLIPS-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. My name is Dennis Phillips. I’m a lawyer with McPhillips, Fitzgerald and Cullum. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. I’m Kurt Koskinen, Forester, General Timber. MR. HUNSINGER-The floor is yours. MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. We were here last time, and we were asked to provide some written information in response to the Staff Notes and the engineering report, which we did by letter dated December 24, 2008, and I think that all should be in your packet, and we itemized what was in the record, in terms of the Adirondack Park Agency non- jurisdictional letter, letter from Warren County Soil and Conservation, and although we were here the last time with a small version of the best management practices, we found that they actually were on the DEC website, and so we printed them off so that everybody could read them without being in small print, and so I hope that turned out to be helpful. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. PHILLIPS-What I want to do, just briefly talk about tonight, in light of the additional VISION Engineering comments, was to look at what this project is, and I basically call this a sustainable timber project because it is proposed to be a sustainable timber harvest, whereby at the end of the day only 12% of the trees from this property have been harvested, and we’re talking about a property of 318 acres. So it’s a very, very large property. So, before this harvest takes place, we have a forest which has not been harvested for a long period of time, and after this harvest takes place, we have a forest that will continue to grow, and according to many people, that would constitute a healthy forest. So we have a forest before and we have a forest after, where, with this sustainable cut, we will be leaving enough trees to regenerate so that in the future there will be a healthy forest for the future. One of the advantages of putting the best management practices in big print was that I read the whole thing myself again, and I came to Page Six, and I knew this, but I’d never seen it in writing before, where on Page Six, it talks about forest management will continue to be a preferred land use in New York, and I think that the copyright of this publication was in the early 2000’s, but I thought I would mention that, since then, the State of New York, through the promotion of DEC, has enacted a right to practice forestry in New York State, and that’s a recognition of the importance of healthy forests in the State. It’s also a recognition that it’s important economically to the State, and I think that we can understand that we can understand that in our area, because we live in an area where the forest products industry is going strong still and providing a lot of jobs, and I think that the hallmarks of that are the International Paper company mill on the north end of Lake George and the Finch Paper Mill on the south end of Lake George, where those mills use the, what is called the low grade products from the forest, the dead, the decaying, the less economic species of wood that’s out there in the forest, and in order to have a healthy forest, it’s important to have low grade outlets. So we have that in this area. The larger trees that are mature, they’re called the saw timber trees. They go to the furniture industry, and what’s interesting today is that if a tree is turned from, it’s called timber on the stump, to lumber 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 once it’s cut, and then if it goes into a piece of furniture, there is a value these days to locking up that carbon which has been extracted from the air by that tree, locking it up into a piece of furniture which may last for 100, 150 years. So there’s recognized to be a value now to all levels of timber harvesting, as far as carbon sequestration is concerned. So, with this preferred industry that’s now protected by a right to practice forestry, I didn’t have this the last time, but I wanted to present it to you. I went to the DEC website on this, because we had discussions about stormwater, and I know that we are going to substitute the best management practices for our stormwater plan here, but I wanted to provide to the Board, the DEC information on stormwater where it refers to non-point silva cultural activities such as timber harvesting and goes on to say that these activities are exempt from stormwater permitting requirements, and then it goes on to say, with respect to harvesting operations, exempt activities include the felling, skidding, log preparation, loading, and initial transport of forest products from an active harvest site, and it goes on to say for purposes of this exemption, the active harvest site and associated exempt activities, including road construction and rehabilitation incorporates all of the initial property that the harvesting operations take place on, ending where forest roads or landings access onto public roads. I thought I would provide you with that tonight so that you have it for the record. I think it’s interesting how, yet again we have this timber harvesting and forest management in this preferred and protected industry in New York, because it’s important to the State. In the VISION Engineering report, dated th January 14, Mr. Ryan asked for basically a non-jurisdictional letter for this project, like we received from the APA, and I checked with DEC and the Empire State Forest Products Association on that today, and I am told that DEC does not give non- jurisdictional letters for timber harvesting operations, and so I think I knew that, but I never had been asked the question before. So, I believe that’s the correct answer to the question. MR. HUNSINGER-Can I just interrupt you for one second? May I ask you a question on that? Do they have anything in their regulations similar to what you just read about stormwater management related to overall timber operations? MR. PHILLIPS-I don’t think DEC, APA has a regulation that says that if a timber harvesting operation is going to result in a clear cut of greater than 25 acres, it will require a permit. If it’s going to result in greater than a clear cut of three acres in a wetland, it’s going to require a permit. Basically that addresses a forested wetland kind of situation. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. PHILLIPS-To my knowledge, DEC doesn’t have any threshold for jurisdiction at all like that. It’s just not been a regulated area for DEC. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. PHILLIPS-On the endangered species part, you have in the record our report, second hand, from Jed Hayden, the wildlife biologist in Warrensburg who has done a search and indicated that there are no known endangered species on this particular piece of land. MR. FORD-Do we have a record of that, a letter from him? MR. PHILLIPS-We don’t have a record on that. Well, we have evidence. We don’t have anything from DEC itself, but Kurt will testify as to that conversation, and on that, I think that where we are is that, you know, we’re not converting a use from one use to another here. We are starting with forestry before. We have a forested property after. So there’s no conversion of the land use here, and with that, I look at, I don’t even know whether DEC would give us a letter of that nature, for a forest products project, but what we do know is this, and I think that there’s some generally accepted endangered species points in the area. We know that, up in Hague in Warren County, we have bat habitat. We know that there’s no bat habitat here. We know that up in the Tongue Mountain area, we have rattlesnake habitat. We know there are no rattlesnakes in this area. We know from the APA letter, where APA has found no jurisdictional wetlands on the project, that we’re not going to have picture plants or something like that that would be endangered, and unlike the Fort Edward grasslands, you know, where we have a forested topography, we know that we’re not going to have any of the grass land birds in this area. So I think that, as we go through the Short Form for the SEQRA, you know, we look at this area, and we say, well, is there anything that jumps off the page as a matter of common knowledge? And I think with respect of this area, the answer is no. On the other hand, that doesn’t give us a free pass, because we know that, if we stumbled across some kind of 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 endangered species on this property, we would have an obligation to report, and we know that DEC would have jurisdiction to enforce any elements of the Endangered Species act. So I think that the difference here is that we’re not converting the property from one use to another. I mean, the famous case on this relates to rattlesnakes down in the Catskill area, where a developer was looking to transform a forested area into a mine and wanted to construct some kind of a concrete fence to prevent the rattlesnakes from coming over into this area, and the case went to the court of appeals, and it was held that this would modify an essential habitat, so that the rattlesnakes could not go to and fro their foraging areas, and that was enough to prevent the project from occurring. We don’t have any habitat modification here. What we have before we’ll have after. So I think in that sense, even though we don’t have a writing from DEC, we certainly are subject to any endangered species enforcement, and we know we have an obligation to report anything if we find it, and so we’re asking that you be satisfied with what we have, just because we’re trying to move along here, and I’ll have Kurt Koskinen talk about his conversation, so that you have it for the record. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me. Could I ask a question with regard, going back to your discussion of endangered species. You mentioned that, you said we know there are no rattlesnakes in this area. Was that in anything in the materials that you submitted? I don’t believe so. MR. PHILLIPS-Well, we say that because the rattlesnake is an endangered species. MR. TRAVER-I understand. MR. PHILLIPS-And because we’ve had conversations with DEC, and they tell us there are no endangered species in the area. MR. TRAVER-I see. All right. I bring that up because, as you probably know, not far away on the other side of the valley is rattlesnake cobble. They don’t call it that on many of the tourist maps, but that’s actually the name of the mountain. So, in a way, there kind of are rattlesnakes in the area. I mean, that’s not very far away. I’m not saying they’re found on this plot, but I think that’s something that we ought to keep in mind. MR. PHILLIPS-Or may have been at one time. MR. TRAVER-Correct. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. I purposely went up to the DEC office in Warrensburg and I met Jed Hayden, and I said to him, I need to know what endangered plants and animals are on this property, and he took some time to analyze it and then I met him again, and they said, Kurt, there are none here. So I said to him, can I have your card, and he gave me his card, and I submitted it, and I wrote on there exactly what he told me, and there are no endangered plants or animals on this property. MR. FORD-We frequently, in previous applications, have secured, or the applicant has secured letters to that effect from the person designating such. MR. PHILLIPS-My comment on that is that historically timber harvesting has not been regulated. It’s historically been a preferred land use. I think that one of the reasons why it hasn’t been regulated is because the economics of forestry are always on the edge, and also because once a harvest takes place, it may not take place again for a number of years. I would say that we would be, if we’ve been told that by DEC, I guess there’s no reason why we can’t get something from DEC, in order to verify that, so you have it for the record, and maybe I would suggest that we could make that a conditional, a condition of any approval that you give us, whereby we would have to provide that to you before we could undertake any activity on this property. We have no problem with that. MR. TRAVER-That has been our practice. I think one of the things that mitigates this, certainly with regard to any rattlesnakes that might be up there, is we’re talking about a winter harvest. They’re not going to be out and about typically to be disturbed, per se, but, yes, I think documentation of those findings, or those opinions by DEC would be appropriate. MR. KOSKINEN-Well, technically we’re harvesting in the frozen and dry periods of the year. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. Our proposal is to harvest in the wintertime and then in the dry portion of the summertime, avoiding the shoulder seasons where there may be water issues. MR. FORD-That’s not an issue, but there will be some modification in habitat, as a result of the harvest. MR. KOSKINEN-I would say, if there is a rattlesnake on that property, it’s going to be in the boulders in areas that are basically just about unacceptable, but the modification is such a small percentage of the trees being harvested. MR. FORD-Well, we’ve been concentrating on rattlesnakes, but there’s nothing to indicate that from DEC that there aren’t other issues that we ought to be concerned with and they’ve been very responsive in providing letters in the past, and I would think that they could do that again. MRS. STEFFAN-Actually I think the letters have come from, is it Roberts Environmental? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Often does like the Karner blue research. I don’t think the letter comes specifically from DEC, but it’s from an environmental consulting company. MR. FORD-Very possibly. MR. SEGULJIC-But also doesn’t DEC have a website you can go to and get an idea if there’s endangered species there or not? MR. KOSKINEN-Well, that’s why I purposely went right to the man who’s in charge, right in Warrensburg, and I said I need to know, please let me know, and he gave me his card, and he said, Kurt, there are no endangered plant or animals on that property. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think it’s pretty simple. I mean, you’ve offered to get a letter as a condition. I think that kind of satisfies everyone, right? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anything else that you wanted to summarize or report? MR. PHILLIPS-No, I think that that is everything we have, and otherwise I think that our letter indicates that we’re in agreement with the restrictions that were proposed in the first VISION Engineering report, and one last thing I would say is that, as far as the timber management plan is concerned, it’s my understanding that Kurt has provided you with the macro management plan, which really is the road system in terms of roads, where roads might be put on the ground. I do notice that in the best management practices, the indication is that a lot of discretion is left to the forester on the ground because those are on the ground decisions, as opposed to something that’s put out there, out front, on a map that, you know, may not be realistic, and the economics of doing that would be cost prohibitive. So I think that with the sustainable forestry cut that we have proposed, and the best management practices, the macro proposal that you have from Kurt on what this harvest is going to look like, we would ask for your blessing of this particular project. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I guess I’ll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board. MR. SIPP-I was interested in your description of harvesting these trees, to take the locked up carbon that had been there for years. That’s an interesting way of getting rid of carbon, but what happens to the trees, you’re now minus a tree that is constantly taking COout of the air. 2 MR. KOSKINEN-Well, one thing that is happening is we’re bringing more sunlight into the forest floor. Smaller trees are growing faster, which will pull the carbon dioxide out of the air faster. Trees, the trees grow faster. The forest is improved in overall quality, and there’ll be more and more trees growing because certain crops, certain seeds germinate faster when there is more sunlight hitting the soil. That increases just the fact that trees are growing faster, shows that they’re pulling out carbon dioxide and then putting more oxygen back into the. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 MR. SIPP-That’s a tough sell. You take out a 50 foot oak tree and you’re going to substitute a whole bunch of little seedlings as a substitute for that. MR. SEGULJIC-Carbon dioxide sequestration is not the issue here. I think it will be in the future, but that’s not. MR. SIPP-Well, what I’m saying is that it’s an interesting way to introduce a way of getting these trees harvested. In several cases here, once in the Staff Notes and once in the engineer’s notes, they want a widening of the area next to the streams. Thirty-five feet is recommended by the Community Development Department. Fifty feet is a recommendation by the engineer. Would you be willing to go to fifty foot width either side of any stream? MR. PHILLIPS-The question is what did we agree to in our letter? That’s what I want to look at. MR. KOSKINEN-There’s one stream that we basically can’t get to at all. It’s in that valley type of canyon, and the other one is a very, very small on the southeast corner of the property. There’s a tiny little tributary which actually turns into a classified stream, and then flows off and then goes down into Lake George actually, the Town of Lake George. I think we had 35 feet on both sides, which is actually a 70 foot wide swath, which is actually, you know, it’s not just 35 feet. It’s 70 feet of width. MR. SEGULJIC-We’re concerned on either side. MR. SIPP-Either side of the stream. MRS. STEFFAN-But the drawing identifies that the slopes are so severe that they’re inaccessible, the one on the top of the piece, and the one on the bottom piece is accessible, but according to the best management practices in the book, it’s up to the forester to protect that. We could put it as a condition, but how will Code Enforcement handle that? That’s one of the things, when you read these regulations, that this is one of these things where you’re having a good faith effort in the forester who’s managing the project, and I know we can put some conditions in place, but there are some things that we’re not going to be able to control and enforce. MR. OBORNE-And I agree with you. I think that, outside of the Town of Queensbury, it may very well be true that timber harvesting are not regulated, but in the Town of Queensbury they are. They’re subject to Site Plan Review. So there’s a certain amount of regulation involved with that. That is an issue as to where they’re going to put their water bars, and that, I believe, is a field issue. I’m not sure. I don’t know. That’s part of the problem. They have located the skid trails, which is a good start, but beyond that, yes, it’s very difficult for Code Enforcement, absolutely. MR. SEGULJIC-From my perspective, several times in here it’s noted it’s very erodible soils. Correct? And your skid roads are going up some steep slopes. Correct? MR. KOSKINEN-There are some, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And if you look at, and these are best management practices, and we had said we would waive the stormwater, Queensbury stormwater regulations and use the best management practices in their palace. Now, I think that there was a misinterpretation on your side, and what I was asking for is this is a best management practice. I want to see a plan from the best management practice, because in the best management practices, for example, it says to avoid skid roads on 15% slopes, I believe. MR. KOSKINEN-Well, it says to avoid, but where it’s unavoidable, to have the correct number of water bars every so many feet, like 40 feet, 50 feet. MR. SEGULJIC-Put that on a plan, put that in writing. MR. KOSKINEN-Well, that’s in. MR. SEGULJIC-No, this is best management practices. This is not enforceable. This is open to interpretation. What I was looking for you to do is take these best management practices, interpret them, and apply them to your site. Say, if a slope exceeds 15%, every 300 feet I think it is, say, we’ll install a water bar. Mainly because, once again, you’re in the Lake George basin, and, Number Two, it’s noted in here, in several places you have very erodible soils, and I’m all for a sustainable forest, but we also have to be 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 careful, and it also says, if you want to follow the best management practices, it says, on a map, you’re supposed to locate deer wintering yards. Are you saying there are none, or you didn’t acknowledge it? MR. KOSKINEN-Is that a Town law, ordinance? MR. SEGULJIC-No, this is right your the best management practice guide you gave to us. It says on the planning, identify on a map the following. You didn’t, these are best management practices. MR. KOSKINEN-Well, we are managing timber. We’re not managing animals. MR. SEGULJIC-This is the guide you sent us. Page Ten. It says to locate on a map deer wintering areas. MRS. STEFFAN-But how would they know that? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m just, they sent. MRS. STEFFAN-I know that, Tom, but I mean, realistically. Unless you had somebody who was there, and walked the property, like right now when there’s snow on the ground. MR. SEGULJIC-You got me. They espoused the great things about this guide before, and right here on Page 10 it says to do that. MR. PHILLIPS-Let me just comment on that if I could. Deer wintering yards normally are in swamp or wetland areas. They are not on hillsides, particularly hillsides that have some slope to them, and I do not know, particularly this being fairly close to a population area, that this particular area, in the vicinity, has ever been known as a deer wintering yard. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I’m just pointing it out as an example. Personally, I’m not concerned, too concerned about the deer wintering areas. The other thing is, in the best management guide, best management practice, it says your post harvest wrap up, are you aware of that? MR. KOSKINEN-That’s basically making sure that the water bars will last, and that’s the forester’s job on site is to make sure the water bars are left intact, and on the last day there, haying and seeding, that type of thing. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. It goes into, I believe, filling back in those areas and stabilizing them and seeding them. I’d like to see, I’m not asking for, I can understand you can’t go out and draw these on a plan, but you have to take this, it’s the best management practices, take this and come up with a plan, say for every, we won’t build any skid roads on areas over 15%. MR. KOSKINEN-Well, there is one thing about the roads and the trails. There’s a trail on the property now that starts down on Bloody Pond Road and traverses the entire property to the very, very back end of Queensbury. That has slopes over 15%, and that’s been there since, 100 years, probably. That will have to be maintained and kept so that it doesn’t increase any kind of water velocity and that type of thing. So there is a trail on site now which, it’s been there a long time and it’s in good shape. You can walk it freely and it’s held up beautiful, but we’ll improve that. Every so many feet on degreed slopes, you have to have so many water bars, and that would be improved. There’s some other trails on that property that, when they last harvested there, 50, 60, 70 years ago, trails were put in, but they’ve all overgrown. They’ve all filled in with trees and when it’s harvested again, 25, 30, 40 years from now, a lot of those trails that we’re putting in now will be overgrown, and that does happen. It’s a typical succession, a forest succession, and everything grows back. Acorns will keep falling down from the trees and grow. MR. SIPP-I’ll agree with you there, but it also gives a plan in here for seeding of these skid trails. Is that something you plan on doing? MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. The trails crisscross the property, and there are spots where the seeding would be recommended, yes. MR. SIPP-Yes, because you do have a very steep slopes and of a very erodible soil. So therefore I think you should have a plan that is put down on paper that you will do. I also 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 have seen a lot of landings where equipment is gassed in the morning, hydraulic fuel added, and a lot of spills occur, and I think you also should have a plan for cleaning up. You break a hydraulic hose up on top of the mountain, you’ve got an awful lot of oil spread over a reasonable area. There should be a plan that is set forth on how you plan on cleaning this up, taking care of this kind of thing. This is, to me, if it’s in the book, you can adapt it to your situation and give us a way of controlling what is happening on this piece of land. Otherwise, it’s in the book, but if you don’t do it, and we don’t have any enforcement, where are we? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I guess from my perspective it’s just taking the best management practices and saying what you’re going to do. Under hazardous materials, it talks about the proper storage. It just says maintain spill containment. Have some (lost words), that’s all. So take the best management practices. MR. PHILLIPS-Well, we do agree with everything in that book. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, the other thing is our engineer has told us you should flesh it out and Staff has told us that also. MR. FORD-I’d like to jump in on this. I appreciate your providing us with the best management practices. One of the things that this Board has to be aware of is enforcement, and there is a word that continues to appear throughout this BMP, and that is should. It doesn’t say will. It does not say shall. Should. It would be comparable to turning our, and we’ve got to turn this over to the Staff to enforce that, and I would liken it to our State law indicating that our speed limit should be 55 miles an hour. If wherever it says should in here, it said will or shall, basically where I’m going with this is make it site specific, rather than this generalized plan, and I’d have a much greater comfort level. MR. PHILLIPS-If I could respond to the spill aspect first. Of course DEC has very, very severe spill regulations, and DEC has a spill response team, you probably have seen it go up and down the Northway. We have an obligation to report spills. So if we have any spills on this property, it’s the obligation of our forester to report that spill to DEC, so DEC can come in and analyze that spill and look at some kind of a remediation plan. So we already are, we have to obey and comply with all laws, rules, regulations, ordinances. So we already have a spill standard that we have to comply with, I think, that on the specifics of the best management practices, and the thing that I keep coming back to, knowing this industry from north to south and east to west, because I’m involved in it all over the State, I think that the best management practices, this is not like a subdivision of land, and this is not like a, like building a house or building five houses or creating a subdivision where we’re creating a brand new road system. For the most part, we have 318 acres of land where there is a road on the land already. There are old skid trails that get re-worked. We know that, as far as the wrap up is concerned, we know that we have to protect the land. We have to make sure our water bars are functioning. We have to make sure our ditches are functioning, and then we go out and buy what is known as a conservation mix, which is a mix of various vegetation that we spread across all of these old roads and in a very short time they get very grassy and very green. So what happens after a timber harvest is that things green up very quickly. We certainly have no problem with a condition that says that we will apply a conservation mix to all of these roads, once we finish the project. I mean, that’s what we intend to do. MR. SIPP-I appreciate that. I think that’s what we need to be able to say that we will agree to this timber harvesting is something like that, in the case of areas that have been skidded on. Trees, damaged trees will be removed because you’re making turns. You’re going to, a load of logs behind the skidder is going to debark a good share of trees, or not a good share, but a good part of the bark off of that tree. Is that tree going to remain like that, or are you going to take it out when you’re finished? MR. KOSKINEN-Trees that have more than 30% circumference damage should be taken out. They won’t survive. MR. SIPP-Well, see, this is things we would like to know, you know. If you don’t do it, we can call you back and say, look, you didn’t take this tree out, it’s going to die. If you’re going to look at habitat If you’re going to overcut one area and undercut another, are you going to remove a habitat of the gray squirrel? I don’t know. We are somewhat novices at this, but I think we’ve had enough experience to see that there’s been an awful lot of forestry take place in Warren County that has not been according to the book, and DEC doesn’t seem to have a hell of a lot of influence in getting it done right. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 MR. PHILLIPS-I would agree with that, and another thing that I would like to say is that, as I’m at this table tonight, I’m representing the McPhillips family. So I’m representing the landowner of this property that will still own the property when this timber harvest is done, and in our contract, we have imposed upon this harvesting company the obligation to follow these best management practices. We have in our family Tom McPhillips, who is very knowledgeable about forestry and best management practices. So we have the same interest that this Board has in making sure that when this is all over, we have a better piece of property than we had before, in terms of long term. So we have a common interest in that sense. Going back to the road construction and water bars, you know, certainly what I would suggest on that, because we have the same interest that you have, is that, you know, perhaps as a condition of approval, we could ask Mr. Koskinen to actually take a look at the hot spots on this property, as far as slope is concerned, and actually put us something, a sketch, in writing, whereby he actually goes out on the ground and makes a proposal as to where the tentative water bars would be on this property, if that’s something he could do. MR. KOSKINEN-Sure. There’s several sites I can think of, on the existing road for sure, that’s there already, and the proposed other trails. I could put that together. How many water bars every so many feet, based on slope percentage. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, what I would, and I’m only speaking for myself, but what I would prefer to see, as I’m looking for the section now, where your stormwater plan would state that, and I can’t imagine this being that long and involved, and it’s not going to take that much of an effort to put together. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s 315 acres. I mean, that’s a huge chunk of land, Tom. MR. SEGULJIC-So your plan would say, you’re not going to build any skid roads on any slopes greater than 15%, but if you do, you’re going to install drainage, and just kind of a picture of what the drainage is going to look like for that, and grades greater than 15% shall not exceed greater than 300 feet in length. I mean, that’s what the best management practices say. I don’t see how the Town of Queensbury could enforce best management practices, because there’s judgment involved. MR. FORD-These are basically recommendations, are they not? They say, should, that’s a recommendation. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes, well, that’s why they say should. Timber harvesting and logging is, there’s an old word that’s taught in forestry school, and it’s called it all depends. It all depends, when you get to the site, what you see. MR. PHILLIPS-Well, and let me jump in here. I think it’s really important, you know, as we look at these best management practices, I mean, this is a collaborative effort of DEC, the Empire State Forest Products Association, the Watershed Agricultural Council. This has gone through a lot of peer review with people who know this industry and they know the variables in the industry, and they know that every piece of land is different, and the conditions on the ground are different from every piece of land. That’s why, and it would be cost prohibitive, particularly with the large acreages, to micromanage with surveys and detailed plans. It would put forestry out of business in the State of New York, and so that’s why we come up with these guidelines, so that you, the shoulds tell you what’s the right thing to do, and, you know, particularly when a professional forester is involved, they know how to put those shoulds in place, with discretion, on the ground. I mean, but to put all of this on a plan, up front, with a large acreage like this, would be very burdensome, and I would say, I don’t know whether it would be unprecedented, but it would be close, and so that’s my comment on that. Silvaculture is a specialty area, and it’s an industry, with loggers and owners and mills and a lot of people are involved. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you’re writing about, you’re talking about best management practices that were developed for the whole State. Right? MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-We’re asking you to take those best management practices and zero in on this one particular site. I don’t understand what’s so tough about it. They lay out some rules of thumb. Just put those down as your plan. That then our enforcement people can go out into the field and evaluate whether you’re complying with your plan or not. We have Staff comments that say this should be done. We have our own engineer saying this should be done, and you failed to address either VISION Engineering or Staff comments. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 MR. PHILLIPS-Well, we believe that when we gave you the booklet on best management practices, which is generally accepted throughout the State in most forestry applications. MR. SEGULJIC-VISION Engineering, in 5 E, says that the BMP manual has been included in the package. However, a site specific harvesting or management plan should be provided. That’s engineering comments. Staff comments the same thing. Staff comments say the same thing. To reiterate, no details on the sequence or location of the soil erosion controls and length and location, blah, blah, blah, have been provided. These should be provided. MRS. STEFFAN-But I still think that perspective is important here, that we don’t have a lot of experience with timber harvesting. I mean, I’ve been to one three hour seminar on it, for the Planning Board. I’ve been, I’ve watched harvesting operations. Some of the things that they’ve talked about are consistent. In every one of the disciplines, I mean, most of the folks who are here on this Board are professionals in their own disciplines. We all have code of ethics that we live by in our worlds, whether it’s engineering or teaching or human resources, and so sometimes we have to have some faith. The applicant has identified that this isn’t like a standard subdivision where we’re looking at somebody who’s going to go in and who’s going to cut paths and roads onto a piece of property, and they’re going to put houses and stormwater controls and all those things are important. I’m not saying that stormwater controls are not important, but in this particular piece, they’ve identified where the streams are. They’re staying away from one completely, and it would be unrealistic if you think about, if you’ve ever seen a skidder, it would be unrealistic to believe that they could get a skidder up on some slopes as steep as this. On the other part of the property, there is a stream that runs through, and it would be reasonable for us to ask for some stormwater controls on that stream crossing, because that may be the object of some sediment runoff if there is, you know, an event, as identified in the best management practices. If there’s going to be a severe rainstorm when there’s ice on the ground, yes, there’s going to be a lot of sheet runoff, and so that’s when putting extraordinary control methods in place to try to contain any stormwater runoff is appropriate, but that’s why you hire a professional forester to do that kind of thing, and there isn’t any amount of enforcement that we could inflict on them that would be able to make sure that they do it in a timely manner, because our Code Enforcement people are not managing every single project every single minute. So I think we have to have some realistic expectations for this project, for what they’re trying to do for our experience level, and I know that we’ve got a professional engineer who looked at this plan, but I also think that their perspective is, okay, let’s look at our Code and what fits. We do mostly Site Plan Review for subdivisions and those kinds of things. We don’t have a lot of experience in timber harvesting. Some of the things that they’ve suggested that they would do, I believe that we have to have some faith that they’re going to do them. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, one of the things, in Staff Notes, they talk about getting a DEC, you indicated they’re going to have to cross a stream. According to Staff Notes, they’d need a DEC stream crossing permit. I’ve seen nothing about that. MRS. STEFFAN-But they’re not going to across a stream. The stream’s here and the skid road is up here. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you said they were going to go across that. MR. HUNSINGER-Not with a skid road. MRS. STEFFAN-No, not with a skid road. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Well, I’m just following up with that. Staff Notes said they may need one. The other thing is, they talk about, I believe it was either the Staff Notes or engineering notes, they talk about, if the slope exceeds something, to winch the harvest. We don’t have that at all anywhere. There’s been a number of recommendations made, and what you say you’re going to follow as best management practices, I don’t see a plan. MR. KOSKINEN-There are some sites where a skidder can only stop at a certain point, and then the actual logger can pull a cable, 20, 30, 40 feet behind it, wrap it around the log, and pull it down. That would be the extent of that type of thing. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 MR. TRAVER-I think the issue, really, between the applicant, and I can appreciate your point of view, and I hope, and perhaps I can help the applicant. I think part of what’s going on with us is that this application deals with more subjective analysis than we’re used to. For example, there are best management practices for building a house, for putting in a foundation, that are very easily put into very concrete terms that we can look at and we can say there’s so many inches to this, and there’s so much diameter of a pipe to this. Forestry requires a combination of skills, some of which are virtually an art form, and as a result, going to a 300 some odd piece of land in the middle of a mountain requires a certain amount of subjectivity, and I know I’m not necessarily offering a solution here, but I think, for the benefit of the applicant, I think part of what we’re struggling with is the idea of this introduction of subjectivity into an application when we’re normally able to distill things down and have a very minimum, if any, subjectivity, in terms of exactly what is being done, in an application in front of us. I think that’s part of what’s going on here. We have the best management practices as Tom pointed out. These are, they’re very good, but they are designed for Statewide, just as I mentioned, the building a house foundation. There are best practices for that. Generally what we see happen is, we come up with a specific plan, how are these the best management practices for building a house foundation, applied to a particular application that we have in front of us, and what we’re struggling with is, you know, you’re saying, okay, here are these best management practices and when I get out there and I look around, I’m going to apply them, and that subjectivity is what we struggle with a bit, because it’s something that we try to avoid, and that’s kind of what, I think, in my mind, is going on. MR. HUNSINGER-And I guess the comment that I wanted to make kind of follow’s up from Gretchen’s and Steve’s comments, too, and in deference to Tom, and I’m not picking on you specifically, but when I read the best management practice field guide here, you had already told us that you would follow this guide. So when I read should, I was reading it as, oh, well, this is what they’re going to do, even though it says should, as you pointed out Tom, and Don, it says should. I’m reading that, well, this is what they said they were going to do. So, you know, on Page 18, where it says the following recommendations should be considered when planning the design of the road, I’m reading that as, okay, well, this is what you’re actually going to do, and similarly, on, you know, Page 52 and 53, which is the hazardous materials, for every bullet, it says should, and I read that as, okay, well, this is what you said you will do, not should do. Is that fair, or was I trying to? MR. KOSKINEN-No, no, it’s perfectly fair. MR. FORD-I was the one that threw out should, by the way. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KOSKINEN-No, no. Basically, like I said, it all depends when you get to the site and where you are. A topo map could show it being like say 16%. You get out there and you physically shoot it and it’s 12% or something or 10%. Sometimes topo maps, topo maps aren’t always perfectly correct. MR. HUNSINGER-We understand that. Yes. MR. KOSKINEN-One thing, too, I think would be a great benefit, and I know on Staff you have several people or so that have some forestry ability. I would be glad to meet them, Day One, Day 10, Day 20, and go for a hike. Here, this is what we did, this is what we should have done, and this is what we did do. This is what we should have done, and this is what we did do. MR. SEGULJIC-But, if you come across an area with a 15% slope, and you’re going to build a skid road up it, what would you do? MR. KOSKINEN-Well, there’s manuals, like BMP’s, that have so many water bars per every so many feet. MR. SEGULJIC-Say that. That’s all I’m looking for, and when you get to the erosion controls, there are several choices. In particular I think you said we’re going to follow the stormwater control outline on Page 54 through 61, and I think there’s four or five different types of stormwater control. Which one are you going to use? MR. KOSKINEN-Well, that’s the old saying, it all depends. When you get to the site, you just don’t know. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 MR. SEGULJIC-Depends on what, though? MR. KOSKINEN-Well, you may have a site that could require a totally different functioning system than one could be re-sited right there. MRS. STEFFAN-But you can also put water bars down on a road before you start to harvest, and then after you harvest, the way the sheet flow comes off of the slope will be different, and so you may have to course correct the water bars, but there’s no way that you can know that in advance of the harvesting of the trees. MR. SEGULJIC-Once again, you’ve hired a professional who’s done this, and they should know. They should be able to write it out on a plan beforehand. That’s all I’m asking. MRS. STEFFAN-I just don’t know if that’s possible, Tom. I don’t know. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, once again, our engineer and Staff has requested it. MR. FORD-Let me get back to the best management practices. As I read through, and I followed your lead. I read every page. Would it be site specific, or would it be impossible to use this and as I recommended before, use shall or will wherever should appears in it? If you’re going to employ this as the method for the harvest, wouldn’t that work? MR. PHILLIPS-I would agree with the Chairman that when we presented this that our intent was to mean that should meant will, that we would comply with the various recommendations, and in those cases where we had Choice A, Choice B or Choice C, we would choose one of those recommended pathways. Now, if we came to a situation where nothing applied, and we had to use some other technique, I think that that’s where we defer to the professionals and say, you know, what is the best methodology for this, but I think that for the most part we are looking to make these should shalls, because that’s why we have this manual to follow anyway, and so we’re looking for this to be our guide, and we’re not looking to depart from it, but going back to the subjectivity issue, it’s not the one acre lot. It’s not the 10 acre subdivision, you know, we have a huge amount of land here, and in actuality we’re not disturbing much of this land, and we’re not taking many of these trees, in the overall scheme of things. So, but we want to do what’s right, both for this timber harvest and for the future of this property, and certainly I am willing to make, as a condition, that for all of those areas that are the hot spots, that we actually turn those shoulds into shalls, relative to those hot spots. When it comes to road layout, I would go a step further, because somebody mentioned that you have a Staff member who is knowledgeable about forestry, and I would say that we could add the condition, because probably that’s where, if there’s any environmental concern, it relates to the roads. So I would say that in terms of the actual construction of the skid roads, or the layout of the skid roads, that when they go on the ground, that our forester invite your Staff member to the site, and say, this is where I intend and propose to put water bar one, water bar two, water bar three, so that you’re going to feel comfortable with that, so that we take that from the general to the specific as we get out on the ground on this property. MR. OBORNE-I’d like to respond to that and say that that is probably untenable, because you’re asking Staff, and in this case one individual, Bruce Frank, to go out every time you do a certain stretch of road and every time 10 water bars are in, or something along those lines, that’s taking up way too much of his time. I don’t think that that is, I don’t think it’s feasible, to be honest with you. In a perfect world, absolutely, I’d agree with you. To ask him to do that every week, every two weeks, that probably will not fly, for lack of a better term. Again, I think it would solve a lot of your issues, but I don’t think you can condition an approval based on that. MR. PHILLIPS-That being the case, I mean, we’re trusting our professional forester. MR. KOSKINEN-So you would have nobody saying, yes, no, or it’s right or wrong. MR. PHILLIPS-I was just looking at a check and balance to the person we trust, a professional forester. MR. OBORNE-I think, knowing Kurt as I do, which is not, you know, in great detail, but he is a forester. My concern are and is the erodible soils and the slopes that you’re dealing with here, and that is my Number One concern, as paid Staff. That’s what I’m paid to be concerned with. That’s what I’m paid to do, as far as the Site Plan Review. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 I’m not satisfied, for what it’s worth, that there won’t be soil erosion, and I know there’ll be soil erosion. You can’t get around that, but it’s, how are you mitigating this soil erosion. It is subjective. I have to say to the Board you have a very difficult job here. That’s all I can say. Soil erosion is the Number One concern. Period. MR. SIPP-I think, in my case here, I am concerned because maybe a little self-interest here. We’ve had one side of French Mountain brutalized. Let’s make sure that another side of it doesn’t get that way. I think you know what I’m referring to. MRS. STEFFAN-But you know in this application, they are looking to harvest timber very specifically, and it will maintain the same use that it’s always had. There’s a professional forester involved. There is the best management practices guide. As Steve identified, and I think you used a great word, there’s a lot of subjectivity here, and the Planning Board is, we’ve been burned enough times so that we don’t deal very well with subjective things. We want finite plans. We want to make sure Code Enforcement is involved, but we don’t have a lot of experience in timber harvesting. Just as an example, there’s no way that we can possibly enforce when a tree gets scraped or, you know, Mr. Koskinen, that if 30% of a tree is damaged they’ll take it down. I mean, I bough a piece of property that was lumbered before we bought it, and there were a lot of trees that were scuffed up, and I’ve had that property now for seven years and some of those trees continue to live on, but then the natural life of a forest is you’re going to lose some trees, but that’s, you know, the woodpeckers thrive on that, and so that’s kind of the circle of life. We can’t control everything, and this is a situation that’s kind of out of our experience, and so, you know, we can’t, I don’t think it’s realistic for us to expect that we will have everything that we usually have or ask for the things that we usually ask for in a subdivision, because this doesn’t fit that scenario. MR. KREBS-I guess the question I would have, and this is you, Keith. Do you have the Staff, even if we got them to give us a very specific plan, do you have Staff sufficient to go out there every couple of weeks? Because as they move through the forest, they’re going to continue to do work, and if you don’t have the Staff to go visit that site every two weeks or every week, how are we going to know whether or not it’s been enforced, even if we do have a very specific plan? MR. OBORNE-That’s a very good question. I think that you’re talking a three year harvest, two year harvest, hopefully. You’re talking a large amount of time, and maybe beginning, middle, end, beginning, three middles and an end. I don’t have that answer for you. MR. KREBS-Well, I was only saying that because I don’t think we should ask the applicant for this very specific plan if we have no way of enforcing that specific plan. That’s all. MR. PHILLIPS-Perhaps a suggestion would be that, you know, as a Building Inspector looks at the construction of a house, after certain things are accomplished, maybe because of the Staff issue, the forester could invite your Staff person to the site at various points in the timber harvest, so that your Staff member could take a look at it. MR. SIPP-I think, in the process here of doing this, I think it’s incumbent on the Town to hire a forester, after a certain point, to go in there and say, yes, they’re doing a good job or, no, they need to do this better or that better. Now, if we can hire experts to do other things, why can’t we hire a forester to do our inspection of this type of thing? MR. OBORNE-I don’t see any reason why you could not hire a forester. I think that there may be monetary issues if you’re talking about two years and having a forester on retainer. I don’t know. I’d have to see what that issue would be. MR. SIPP-Yes. It’s not, you know that a skidder operator is going to do the same job every day. He’s not going to do a good job one day because the inspector’s coming, and then go back to his old ways of doing things. So that it may not take more than one or two, and in this case, is not the cost of, can this not be put on the applicant? MR. OBORNE-I don’t have an answer for that, Don. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Phillips, did you have any thresholds in mind when you suggested that Staff or some other expert for the Town come out to review the site? MR. PHILLIPS-Well, if I started at the back end of this, certainly after the wrap up was complete with the final water bars in place, the seeding of all the road areas and skid 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 trails with the conservation mix, that would be certainly the final inspection, and then moving from there, I would think that I would, not being a forester, I would ask for Kurt to give us some logical times when it would be important for somebody else to look at it, and, you know, why don’t you, and to me, one of the big times would be when we have our road complete, basically the main road complete, before we get into the skid roads. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes, and then one other time would be when we’re shut down because of mud season. We have to control water flow velocity, and keep the water on the property, and that would be a good time for someone to come with me and I can show him what precautions I put in to slow water down, keep the water on the property. Start up again, when we start up again, they can show where we’re going next. When we shut down an area. When a 20 acre section is shut down, we can hike that together and say, what do you think. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, 20 acres might be too small. MR. SIPP-This is one of the things. I took a forestry course in college, and one of the things we did was visit a site which had been done properly and one that had been butchered, and you could immediately see the difference in what had happened, and it isn’t a three day operation to find out whether things are going the way they should. Either in the middle of the process or at the end or both. MR. HUNSINGER-I think, following up on this discussion, though, I think maybe this gives everyone a level of comfort. I mean, when there’s a new house going up, there’s an inspection schedule. Someone from the Town goes out and makes sure the framing’s right, and if the framing’s not right, you take it out or re-frame it, you know, you go out and you make sure the electrical is done correctly. If the electrical is not done correctly, it gets corrected. I don’t know why we can’t view this in the same way. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-You’ve got the guide. MR. KOSKINEN-Sure, that makes perfect sense. MR. HUNSINGER-And if we can, you know, go out at a set schedule and make sure that they’re doing, because I think the fear of the Board is there’s a, you know, a lot of damage could happen, you know, during any one sequence of time where, you know, maybe you pick the wrong option under the best practice or something. I mean, I personally didn’t see that, but just trying to follow along here. MR. SEGULJIC-Here’s the basic problem I have. The best management practices said for skid roads, I’m reading right out of the best management practices, it says grades greater than 15% should not exceed 300 feet in length. Correct? I look at your map, that I wasn’t aware of, that you sent out today so I didn’t get it until just now, you have roads exceeding 300 feet on slopes greater than 25%, in several areas on this site. MR. PHILLIPS-Well, there’s the main trail through the entire property, there’s many spots like that on that trail already, that’s been there for 100 years and the road’s in beautiful condition. It’s in beautiful shape. MR. SEGULJIC-These blue things are the main roads that are existing already, not the skid roads? MR. KOSKINEN-No, those are the ones that we want to create. MR. SEGULJIC-Those are the ones you want to create, and it’s on slopes greater than 25% and they exceed 300 feet. The best management guide says you’re not supposed to do that. MR. KOSKINEN-Well, what we’re doing is the actual skid trail is not going straight up, so to speak. They’re going along slopes. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I’m looking at this map. In red it says slopes exceed 25%. Well, the skid roads in those area exceed 300 feet. MR. OBORNE-If I may, that was made by George Hilton our GIS Administrator, and they were taken off of a hand drawing by Kurt Koskinen. So there is a heading that states that these are not to be the exact location of these trails. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I can agree with that, but that’s right in the middle of that red zone. There’s not even. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. There’s going to be trails in the red zone. MR. HUNSINGER-But that doesn’t mean that every inch of that is greater than 25%. MR. OBORNE-Right, it is a generalization. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a generalization. MR. SEGULJIC-And I have an indication that they will exceed 300 feet on greater than 15%. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, it’s a tool. It’s not an exact description. MR. SEGULJIC-But the guide says you can’t exceed 15% grade, and I have an indication you are. So I have no comfort level here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KOSKINEN-Well, that also comes out to the point of view of it all depends. We don’t want to get into a site to create a problem on ourselves. We don’t want to get somewhere where if we have a $100,000 machine it’s going to tip over and go flying down the mountain. I mean, you know, that kind of thing, you know, and we don’t want to hurt ourselves and we don’t want to get in trouble, in many ways. MR. SEGULJIC-And once again, the Warren County says the soils are highly erodible, and they go on from there, and they have a number of site recommendations that go beyond the best management practices. They’re citing a different guide, interestingly enough. I don’t know if you saw this letter. MR. TRAVER-I think, too, on those trails to the north, Tom, which I think are particularly the ones that you’re referring to, you’ll note, if you look at the contour, the chart with the contour intervals, for the most part those trails are parallel to the contour intervals. So, although the surrounding land is greater than 25%, the trails are not penetrating a 25% slope, except for an area on the western section there. I’m not sure what the length of that is, but it doesn’t appear to be greater than 300 feet. So I guess it’s how do you interpret the trails on a 25% slope again. They’re not going against the slope. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes, because, see, we definitely want the skid trails in a way so the machines are not killing themselves to go up and come back down. We don’t want to create a problem with our machinery or for the men, and we want the trails to be as close to under 10% on themselves so that, we just don’t want to cause problem to the soil, cause problem to the machinery, men getting hurt or something like that. MR. TRAVER-You don’t like surprises. MR. KOSKINEN-Exactly. MR. TRAVER-And that’s the same issue that we’re having with this is that we’re trying to, you know, come up with a solution to enable you to carry out this project without us, you know, our nightmare is that we drive up the Northway some day and we find that there’s some horrible problem there, and by that I’m not, I don’t mean to diminish your expertise or what you, certainly what you’ve clearly stated your intent is, but it gets back to that issue of subjectivity again. We just don’t like surprises, nor do you. So that’s, again, kind of what we’re dealing with here. We like to have, not should, but, you know, here’s exactly what we’re going to do. I think the applicant’s offer to identify perhaps the hot spots and to, you know, state for the record that the should will be will, is perhaps the most clarification we’re going to be able to get, short of having them map out an elaborate and detailed plan. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m not asking for an elaborate, detailed thing. I’m saying just take the best management practice. You’d be able to do this in a page, probably in a half an hour, I’ll bet you. Just make a plan. Say if a road exceeds 300, if a, no skid road shall be constructed longer than 300 feet on a grade that exceeds 15%. MR. KOSKINEN-Fifteen? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 MR. SEGULJIC-It says grades greater than 15% shall not exceed 300 feet. Just take this and turn it into site specific. I can’t imagine it’s that big a task. Say for every whatever feet we’ll have a water bar. MR. KOSKINEN-Well, it’s a big property. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s a big project. MRS. STEFFAN-So what happens if the applicant submits that and we say, well, this was done by you. This wasn’t done by a licensed professional engineer. Then what do we do? Is that going to be okay for you, though? MR. SEGULJIC-Sure. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, he’s a licensed forester and he’s telling you he’s going to abide by best management practices, and that’s not good enough. MR. SEGULJIC-Because best management practices are just guidelines. It’s not a plan. I mean, once again, we have letters from Staff and our engineer saying they should spell this out. We have a letter from the County saying they’re highly erodible. They pointed out other things. They’re saying, as a matter of fact, here, proper design and construction of log roads and skid roads can help in the control. Proper design. That implies to me beforehand, not on the site. That’s from the County. So I have three letters here saying that should be done. I know, I don’t understand why it’s such a large task. I’m not asking you to take on a drawing and draw it where they’re going to be. Just take the best management practices and turn it into a plan. MR. KOSKINEN-For the entire 300 acres? MR. SEGULJIC-Whatever’s appropriate. There’s rules that the best management practices allude to. They talk about the post harvest activities. They talk about having hazardous waste. All I’m saying is it says you should have absorbent materials and some pigs to absorb any spills. That’s all. Have the number for DEC spill response. That’s all. I don’t understand what the problem is. MR. PHILLIPS-And I would say that on the objectivity subjectivity scale, a lot of, we assume a lot of things because of the practice in the field over a long period of time, and, you know, I was looking at the hazardous materials checklist on Page 52, and, I mean, we could check all those boxes yes. I mean, we would do all of those things. To transform that into a plan and say, well, we’re going to have absorbent materials on site, I mean, that’s something that we don’t think about coming into this meeting for a Site Plan Review knowing that we’ve got an obligation there, and so that’s one thing. That’s a hazardous waste thing. I’m just thinking of the risk factors associated with timber harvesting, and the big risk factor always is water and the power of water and the erosion caused by water, and that all relates to road construction and slope, and that’s why I thought that if we could get into this kind of a building inspector mode on that issue, you know, maybe that gives this Board a little bit of comfort, but I would like Kurt to address the question of skid roads on contours versus skid roads straight up and down. Because before you say that, I’m thinking that all I’ve seen out in the forest is skid roads that take advantage of contours, so you do not have that up and down kind of situation, and the up and down normally is normally quite short, if there’s any slope issue at all, but maybe you could address that because up and down doesn’t work on any kind of slope at all. MR. KOSKINEN-That’s perfectly correct. As you’ve seen on French Mountain, you go down 87 and you look over there and it’s this super highway straight up the mountain. However that thing was built, who knows why that was approved. MRS. STEFFAN-It wasn’t. MR. FORD-Right. MR. KOSKINEN-Okay. I’m glad to hear that. MR. FORD-But that is part of the background that we all bring to this discussion. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that was one of our nasty surprises. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 MR. KOSKINEN-Trails that we like to put on side of hills, we always follow the contour. That’s why I tried to develop that schematic plan there. We want that for many reasons. One is that it makes the erosion of the site minimal. It slows water down. There’s the impact on the machinery, the $100,000 machine, the man operating the machine. Forest products can be harvested in a much more efficient way. You aren’t ripping up and down the mountain, like those crazy guys did on French Mountain, and, you know, we want to do it right. That’s all we want to do is do it right, and since we’re the first ones to have it ever done this way, we want to have a nice model made for you. You can use this model for the future. MR. PHILLIPS-So I think the important thing is we will do it, and I think that what I’m going to recommend, as a result of this dialogue, is ask for a condition where Mr. Koskinen has to provide, in writing, to the Planning Board, and I’m hoping it takes, it may take five hours, I don’t care, instead of one half hour, but I think that it would be very easy for him to put into writing a plan relative to skid road rehabilitation at the end of the project, a plan relative to water bars and slopes, so that the roads are not going up and down, but taking advantage of contours, and utilizing the proper water bars in terrain like that, and I think we can come up with something in writing that you have it as a part of the record that takes these general guidelines and we take them from the should into will, so that you have it as part of this application. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, because that’s much better than saying the whole document will have a will instead of a should. MR. FORD-There are many, many pages. There are entire sections that do not apply to this application. MR. PHILLIPS-Right. MR. FORD-And exclude those. At no point are we talking about, we’re talking skid trails, but we’re not talking about forest roads, correct? MR. PHILLIPS-That’s correct. MR. FORD-So there are many pages here pertaining to forest roads. You don’t even entertain that. MR. PHILLIPS-That’s right. MR. FORD-But there are several others here that, will there be a stream crossing? I believe you indicated earlier that there would not be. MR. KOSKINEN-The only potential spot would be in that little tiny southeast corner, and if it is, if it does happen, I have to bring the DEC in there and they show me where they would let me do that. MR. PHILLIPS-And they actually issue a permit for that. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. MR. PHILLIPS-That’s a permittable event. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. I cannot tell them where I want it. They show me two or three spots and say, Kurt, use this one, and then they tell me how to do it. MR. FORD-You’ve got a wonderful guide, and if we can just make it site specific, get rid of the extraneous that does not apply. I’m always looking for ways to say yes to an application, and that’s the direction I would seek. MR. SIPP-Yes. I think that you do have a stream crossing on the Lake George property, though, don’t you? Lake George Park Association, do you fall under that jurisdiction, because that stream does flow into the lake? They just put out, I think, some new regulations on. MR. TRAVER-You mean the Lake George Park Commission, Don? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. PHILLIPS-They have some proposed regulations. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 MR. SIPP-Proposed regulations. MR. PHILLIPS-They’re under review now. MR. SIPP-Which have to do with streams entering the lake. MR. PHILLIPS-And the timber industry has been very involved in that process. MR. SIPP-Well, I see, you know, my favorite quotation is conservation is a wise use of the earth and its resources, and the idea is to use them, let’s not lose them due to age or disease and so forth, but it should be done right, and I think you people will do it right. All we are asking is that you take in one or two sentences statements that you will take care of hazardous spills by the recommended methods of DEC. Fine, that takes care of all spills, all fuel dumps. You will remove the soil, if necessary, and bring in new soil. Have that old soil processed. You will take care of all the water bars at the finish of their operation. MR. PHILLIPS-I think that we can satisfy that requirement. MR. SIPP-And then if we do use our Staff forester or one could be hired to do that, he would have a list and he would say that you’ve done this, this, this and this, and you haven’t done that. MR. KOSKINEN-Sure, that’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Was there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? We do have one. I think you know the routine by now. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN KATHY BOZONY MS. BOZONY-I do, thank you. Kathy Bozony, Lake George Water Keeper. I do agree with the Board. I was surprised not to see anything in the application except for the BMP’s that were published. I think that this site being approximately 50%, we’re talking about the Queensbury parcel only. Fifty percent is very steep. I’m not sure if I’m calculating, but some of it looks to be 45, 50%, and that is why the concern of these BMP’s. I’ve been on sites that were harvest sites that followed the BMP’s, and, you know, they’re not a given, and I think that having some of these particulars in the approved application would be very beneficial. The latest map that I saw was there was one road that went into this 167 acre parcel. That’s all I saw. I don’t know, which seems, I don’t know where all the skid roads were. I didn’t really see that map, but I think that, you know, these logging roads haven’t been identified where they’re going to be, and I do trust that Kurt’s going to go onto the site and put them on the contours, but I think a better layout of some of these very steep sites, whether or not there’s going to be skid roads on them or not, should be identified. Some of the details that we’ve submitted before have not been answered, whether there was a sketch plan of these located roads and trails in this very steep section, and will the roads and trails be restored after construction, and I think that should be in the plan as well. I know we were talking about a mixed vegetation that’s appropriate. I’ve also been on sites, and it takes two to four years before there’s real greening in most of these forest sites. Your white pines, it takes them that long to generate. They’re your pioneer trees that come in, and also you have to keep in mind that after a harvest, I’ve seen hemlocks and other trees blow down because of all the change in the wind structure. So you have to take that into account. It does take a long time for that forest to regenerate. It does do it and it’s, a healthy sustainable forestry is very beneficial, but it does take a long time for it to green up. We’re also concerned about the protection of the existing streams and the wetland buffers, which were initially proposed at 20 feet by the Warren County Soil and Water have been increased to 35 feet, and although this mitigation is positive, a larger buffer with a minimum of 50 feet on either side would be more protective of the streams and minimize the impacts of timber harvesting on this property, and we are talking, I guess, only of the one stream on the southeast corner. The Lake George Park Commission new proposed stream corridor protection regulations require a 100 foot buffer on either side. This proposed distance has been based. MR. KREBS-Those are proposed regulations. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 MS. BOZONY-That’s what I said, proposed, and this proposed distance has been based on scientific data, and if you look at the data that went into that decision of what they publish which, again, it was all new to all of us, a lot of areas, including where I live, has a 300 foot buffer. So 100 foot is not that unusual. Again, this distance is beneficial for water quality within the watershed, but when steep slopes are added to the equation, additional distance should be applied, and some of the proposed timber harvesting, again, it looks to me like it’s on excess of 50%, but I’m not sure. I haven’t walked the land myself. I had mentioned this before, whether a buffer could be required on that ridgeline that dipped into that canyon area where the stream flows below on the northeast side, and although it was stated in the last meeting that no equipment would drive into the canyon area, the trees that are on those very steep hillsides and protecting ridges should remain untouched, and be part of that stream buffer because of the steep slopes. We would recommend a coordinated review between the Town of Lake George and Queensbury and this would include a coordinated effort to continuously inspect the operation to ensure that logging roads are sufficiently monitored for erosion and stormwater impacts, and that the proposed BMP’s are followed appropriately, and I would love to see Queensbury get involved in this, if we can make that happen. I really appreciate the Board spending all this time discussing this because this is not a normal harvesting site. This is a very steep mountain site that has a great impact on Lake George and the whole watershed, and although we very much support sustainable timber harvesting, a good portion of this Town of Queensbury, again, is very steep slopes, and the attention to the long term effects of removing vegetation on these slopes requires care. I guess that’s all I have. I know that about 20% of this very steep land is not going to be forested, not going to be touched, but we’re looking at about 50% of the property that may be in jeopardy of some real sustainable harvesting. So I hope that both the harvester looks at that and the Board addresses that as well. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MS. BOZONY-One more question. Can I just share, with the water bar issue, in that BMP is a road grade that’s 30%, which we may not really be having any. A water bar should be every 35 feet, which is, that’s pretty frequent. So those types of things really should be addressed as well. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks. Anyone else? Okay. I will leave the public hearing open for the time being. MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, if I may just ask one question of the applicant. What’s the status, in Lake George, of the remaining properties? MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to ask that question as well. Thank you. MR. OBORNE-Sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s okay. rd MR. PHILLIPS-We appeared before the Board in Lake George on February 3 and they were waiting for a stormwater plan relative to our landing, which is on the south side of Bloody Pond Road. So it took a while for the engineers to develop the stormwater plan. MR. OBORNE-Yes, that makes sense because the road is to be up to, for County standards for the road or some other standard? MR. PHILLIPS-Town standards. MR. OBORNE-Town standards. Okay. MR. PHILLIPS-Because the Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals wanted to make sure that there would be no stormwater issues or erosion coming out onto that road. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Okay. MR. PHILLIPS-One other comment I’d like to make. I heard the comment on the proposed regulations being 100 feet from the center of a stream, but it’s my understanding, as a result of my involvement with the timber industry, that that is not a no cut zone, as far as timber harvesting is concerned, within that 100 feet, and so that is a work in progress, but I do know that the proposal for timber harvesting as being this preferred industry that we talk about, that that 100 feet is maybe a development buffer, but not a timber harvesting buffer, but that remains to be seen. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? My guess is that we’re moving towards a motion to table this. I know when we were here in December there was discussion about trying to start the harvesting this winter. Is that still your preferred goal? MR. PHILLIPS-We were hoping to get the last approval from Lake George in February, which would give us the month of February, and as much of March as we could get, th knowing that, at the end of March, that’s when the break up begins, and by April 15 we’re out of business until things dry up, and so we would be able to harvest for a month and a half, perhaps, but I’ll talk to the forester on that. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. Normally, that is a County road there, so it’s open year round, but what Dennis just said is perfectly correct, six, seven weeks if we can start the second week of February, if we could. MR. HUNSINGER-What other information are we looking for, other than, for lack of a better word, the specific plan that’s been discussed? MR. SEGULJIC-The DEC endangered species letter was brought up before, and then the, my only other comment is there’s a number of Staff and engineering comments that haven’t been addressed. Do you want those addressed? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think most of the Staff and engineering comments refer to, I think what will be addressed in the specific plan, unless there was something that you wanted to comment on, Tom. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, yes, I would agree with that. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the other issues that were in the Staff Notes, it identified soils, which, you know, according to the Staff Notes on Page Two, it said that 50%, and I know we’ve had considerable discussion about the soil, it said 50% of the soils are relatively stable with moderate permeability, then it goes on to talk about the other 50%. So we had varied soils. I think that the plan that we’re asking for for skid roads and water bars will address the soil issue, and the erosion control issue talked about a riparian buffer. The Staff Notes also said no details on the sequence location of the soil erosion control. Staff Notes also talked about no details on water sources utilized by neighbors. Number Five, there were no details about the percentage of the existing canopy proposed to be removed. Item Six went to erosion control. Item Seven was no intention of reforesting. Staff was concerned about that, but we did talk about that on the road, the conservation mix that they put on the roads. The Long Environmental Assessment Form was an issue regarding the lands in Queensbury, the Bloody Pond header, which Lake George apparently will take care of. So those are the outstanding Staff Note issues, and then there are several issues on VISION Engineering. No cut zones, steep slopes, property boundaries, Dan Ryan was feeling that the painted property, because in the materials that the applicant presented it said that the boundaries are painted in red, but on Dan Ryan’s notes, it said that he recommended something more specific. So there are a lot of things that are outstanding that we haven’t addressed. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, as far as the no cut zones, that’s really not appropriate because, I’m not going to say the whole site you’re going to be cutting, but you’re going to be selectively cutting the majority of the site. So it’s really not a no cut zone. That’s inappropriate. MR. KOSKINEN-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. This is what I propose for a motion, that we table it for a letter from DEC regarding endangered species, that the applicant provide appropriate site specific details for the following, including but not limited to stream protection, erosion controls, harvesting times, skid road construction, hazardous materials, post harvest wrap up, log decks and landings, and stream crossings. If it’s not appropriate, you say no, address various issues. MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t, some of the things you’re asking for, I believe, are redundant because we’ve asked for information on skid roads. We’ve asked them to put together a plan on the skid roads and on the water bars, but those are the erosion control measures. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that’s what I’m saying, that’s the plan we’re asking for, that would include those things. So it’s just those two items, well, the endangered species, and then the plan that includes these elements. MR. FORD-Let’s not confine it to those. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. I say included but not limited to. So they have to do what’s appropriate. We’re not foresters. I’m running off of this guide more or less for the items. MR. HUNSINGER-My only concern is that that might not be specific enough, but I think there’s been enough discussion and dialogue and consideration shown that I think you have a good idea for what will make people feel comfortable. MRS. STEFFAN-My concern is if we give the applicant a special date without giving, and at this point, we move them to an expedited review and that we were putting them, and I know that that has a specific term, a specific meeting, but we had them come back in January so that we could try to expedite the process. Now we’re asking them to come back. Under normal schedules, they wouldn’t be able to get in until March. In order to get them in in a timely manner, so that they would be able to start their project before winter’s over, we would have to get them in in February. That would mean we’d have to give them an adjusted deadline. So I’m just really, I’m feeling for the applicant at this point. MR. SIPP-Yes, but they can start operations in Lake George. If Lake George approves them, they can start in Lake George in February. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s just a log landing. MR. SIPP-No, that’s a logging operation, too, on the acres in Lake George section. So they could start there, and if we don’t get to it until March they’ll have to wait until the dry season to start in Queensbury. MR. FORD-What’s a reasonable response date? MR. PHILLIPS-I’ve just been informed that it’s a package deal. It all goes together. We can’t separate it in terms of, we have to get all of the approvals before we do anything. MR. FORD-Can you give us an appropriate response date? MR. SIPP-I don’t see, who’s going to stop them? MR. PHILLIPS-I don’t know. I think that because we have a timber contract for the whole property, we have, on the business side, we have to have all of the approvals in place before we can do anything. So in terms of, when is your latest meeting in February? th MRS. STEFFAN-The 24. MR. OBORNE-It’s already spoken for. th MR. PHILLIPS-And what, ordinarily, is the submission time for the 24 meeting? th MR. HUNSINGER-January 15. th MRS. STEFFAN-January 15. MR. PHILLIPS-We’ve gone by that already. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-That’s why I was asking for your recommendation for an appropriate submittal date, a modification thereof. You’re saying that isn’t’ an option anyway, that last date in February? MR. OBORNE-In February the docket’s full. We’ve bumped nine applicants from February already. You have one slot left in March. MR. PHILLIPS-You talked about the number of Staff concerns. I guess that through our discussion the last time and our submittal in writing to you where we addressed each and every one of those items, I guess I was thinking that there was some kind of a 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 meeting of the minds in terms of the logic of many of those things, and that we’re going to be dealing with some new things tonight. Thinking that maybe we’re working on details which turned out not to be such details, but that’s why I was proposing it. It strikes me that what is being proposed is something that is not difficult for us to do, and that’s why I was thinking that if you made that a condition of approval, at least we could move ahead, knowing that we have a condition to satisfy before we can do anything in the Town of Queensbury, as opposed to probably losing the season, as far as any timber harvest is concerned. MR. TRAVER-Well, the problem is that we would be basically asking Staff to perform the function of the Planning Board, and if the whole, certainly one of our functions is to approve your plan. So what happens is if you take our discussion tonight and you go back and you develop your plan, that plan is going to need to be evaluated to see if you have come up with a plan that solves the problems that have been unmasked by our discussion, and that’s not really a responsibility that we can delegate. MR. PHILLIPS-I understand that. MR. TRAVER-Such a plan, I think in the minds of some of us, were what we were hoping we would be reviewing tonight. I know we’ve already talked about some of that, but that’s the quandary that we’re in. MR. PHILLIPS-So, going back to the question, if we were to try to, it looks like we can’t get on the February agenda. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, isn’t that the discretion of the, putting the Chairman on the spot, to increase it by one for February. MR. FORD-Or a third meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, we certainly have the power to add an item to the agenda. The question is, you know. MRS. STEFFAN-We’ve already been an hour and a half on this, an hour and forty minutes on this discussion. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. MRS. STEFFAN-And so we may go here again, and if we’ve already got a full agenda, then we’ll never get out of that meeting. MR. TRAVER-I guess I would ask the applicant, I mean, I understand your contractual relationship with your harvesters and so on, but you have certainly indicated tonight, and the last time you were before us, that you saw nothing in what we were asking for that you could not comply with, that I would think that you would have every confidence that at some point we’re going to come up with a plan that’s going to make everybody happy, and yet we can’t grant approval tonight, but I’m, again, I’m just suggesting is it possible for you to reevaluate the possibility of beginning some preliminary work in the Lake George area, if you get approval from them. That would solve some of the issues, not all of them. MR. PHILLIPS-We would have to negotiate with the gentleman who’s sitting in the first row behind me on that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I understand. MR. OBORNE-Maybe it’s not too late to put my plug in for a coordinated review with the Town of Lake George, where you would have a Lead Agency take care of the whole application. It may be a little bit too late in the process at this point for that, but I just thought I’d drop that seed. MR. HUNSINGER-Which community would be the most logical to be the Lead Agent would be the next question. MRS. STEFFAN-But I thought we discussed this the last time the applicant was here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, so did I. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 MRS. STEFFAN-And I thought we decided that we didn’t want to do a coordinated review. MR. OBORNE-You did. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Because most of the property was in the Town of Queensbury. MR. OBORNE-You did, ma’am, but it seems to be that the contractual language states that this is an all or nothing, or everything needs to be, they need to have everything done by a certain time. It just seems logical that that would be an approach. However, it may be pretty cumbersome at this point, as they’ve already gotten approval for a Use Variance down at the header, and it would be cumbersome. MR. SEGULJIC-And the other assumption we’re making here is that you’re going to get rd approval February 3. MR. PHILLIPS-We always make positive assumptions. MR. SEGULJIC-I can agree with that. I can agree with that. The way I look at this, if they come back with a plan, it’s going to be either up or down real quick, and I don’t foresee any problems with this. All I’m looking for is a plan, spell these things out, and I thought that’s what we were going to have tonight. I would say let’s have a seventh item in February. That’s just my view. MR. HUNSINGER-And what would be the deadline for submission? MR. FORD-I’d go back to the applicant’s agents in requesting what would be appropriate, what can you comply with? th MR. PHILLIPS-I would think that, if we could have until February 6, we could get everything accomplished by then. MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, how long would it take Dan Ryan to, what’s your cycle with Dan Ryan? th MR. OBORNE-Cycle with Dan Ryan would be, assuming we get that on the 6, it would be sent out that Friday. It really gums the works up. He wouldn’t be able to turn that around for a couple of weeks I would imagine, with his backlog going into February. Again, I cannot speak for Dan Ryan. Are you looking to try to get the applicant on in the February agenda? MRS. STEFFAN-That’s what it sounds like. MR. OBORNE-I would counsel against that. I think you have a spot in March that is tailor made at this point, as far as the smooth, smooth reviewing of other applicants is involved. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. That’s our answer, I guess. MR. OBORNE-However, the will of the Board will be followed by the Planning Department. MRS. STEFFAN-Are the projects large in February? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there’s McCall that’s been tabled four times. MR. OBORNE-That’s coming back in full force now. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Fedorowicz, which we’ve been putting off. MR. TRAVER-That’s enough. MR. HUNSINGER-Jackowski which was tabled from December. NPA II which was tabled from November. Jolley Associates modification. Adirondack Factory Outlet Center. Awnings welding supply company on the Boulevard. Single family dwelling on Fox Road, Angio Dynamics expansion, removing trees within 35 feet of a shoreline on Paradise Lake. Sketch Plan, and then several modifications. I mean, I don’t think 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 there’s anything huge. It’s pretty typical stuff, really. I mean, the only other thing is to have a third meeting in February, to try to clean up some of the backlog, which is always a possibility. MR. OBORNE-Third meeting in February? How about a third meeting in March or a Special Meeting in March in the first week of March? That certainly would help. MR. TRAVER-That would give Dan some time to analyze the report. MR. OBORNE-I really think the February turnaround, I think that’s a burden. MR. FORD-That’s going to be a problem. MR. OBORNE-Yes. rd MR. HUNSINGER-A Special Meeting on the 3 of March? th MR. OBORNE-That would be my recommendation, or plug them in on the 24. MR. SEGULJIC-I’d leave it up to you, Mr. Chairman. th MR. FORD-The 24 of? MR. OBORNE-March. MR. HUNSINGER-March. Okay. thth MR. OBORNE-The 24, is that right? No, that would be the 25. I’m sorry. No, it is the th 24. th MR. HUNSINGER-It is the 24. MR. FORD-I’d recommend early March meeting, if at all possible. rd MR. HUNSINGER-March 3. MR. TRAVER-That would also give us a safety valve for February. MR. FORD-Trying to help the applicant out here. rd MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if we table it to March 3, then we’re committing to three meetings in March. MR. OBORNE-Would you prefer to have that as a Special Meeting, or as a regular meeting to catch up on the nine bumps? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it would be a regular meeting to catch up on this plus the nine bumps, yes. MR. OBORNE-Okay. th MRS. STEFFAN-Can the applicant, the applicant gave us a date of Friday, February 6. th Is it possible to submit materials by the 30? That’s like 10 days from now. MR. PHILLIPS-My comment is that we’re probably in some new territory here, as far as what we have to do on our end. I’m thinking that Kurt’s going to have to go on the property with his snowshoes on and hike up into some of those steep slope areas and take an on the ground look before we can really satisfy what you’re looking at here, and so that was my concern. I know that we’re going to require some on the ground reconnaissance in order to prepare the necessary plan. So that’s why I was looking at the extra week. MR. HUNSINGER-And we’re just bumping it out a week, as a result, basically. What’s the likelihood the room’s available on a Tuesday night? What’s the likelihood that this room would be available on a Tuesday night? MR. OBORNE-I would have to check. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 MR. OBORNE-And that would be for? rd MR. HUNSINGER-March 3. MR. OBORNE-I would have to check for you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And I’d have to check. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-I don’t anticipate any problems, but I do not know their schedule. We’ve had Special Meetings before and it has not been a problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Usually if we stay with a Tuesday, we’re in good shape. MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think that would be my recommendation. MR. SEGULJIC-Let’s roll with it. MR. SEGULJIC-So what’s the submission of materials, by February, what was the date again? MR. PHILLIPS-Sixth we said. MRS. STEFFAN-Now one of the other issues in the Staff Notes is about a Long SEQRA. Staff recommends a Long Form SEQRA for the Planning Board determination on the Unlisted action. How does the Planning Board feel about that? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, let’s hash that out. I don’t want that to be an issue. MR. PHILLIPS-I actually thought that you had resolved, at our last meeting, that as an Unlisted action, that that would lead into the Short Form, and so when that popped up again on Dan Ryan’s do report, I think I was a little bit surprised, but I’m always surprised. So, but I thought that had been resolved. MR. OBORNE-Well, there’s no correlation between a Long Form and Unlisted. It is a guarantee that if you have a Type I it has to be the Long Form. You can go either way with the Unlisted. It’s at the Planning Board’s discretion. MR. PHILLIPS-And I had mentioned the last meeting, I think it’s in the record, that historically, and I deal a lot with history in this industry. Historically, as a preferred industry with timber harvesting, that the people involved in the business, particularly the professionals, where professional foresters have been involved, that has not been the requirement. That has not been the standard by which these things are judged. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone that has strong feelings the other way? MR. SEGULJIC-The other way as in? MR. HUNSINGER-As in wanting the Long Form? MR. SEGULJIC-Not at this point, no, I haven’t seen anything. MR. FORD-I think this is a concession, based upon the recommendation and the professionalism of those we’re dealing with. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I also went through the Long Form, and the only issues I came up with, which would be addressed with the plans that we are asking for, is in Item Five, will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity. There’s item eight, will the proposed action likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. That would certainly be addressed. It would be unlikely, but it’s a possibility, but I believe 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 that their plan will address that, and also Question Six, will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff, and Item Two, the proposed action may cause substantial erosion. If the water bars are put in place, then that’s a mitigating factor. So those are the only issues that jumped out on the Long Form. MR. FORD-Keep SEQRA in mind as you develop the plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Good recommendation. MRS. STEFFAN-So even if we did go with the Long Form, those, in my mind, would be the only two outstanding issues that would cause any discussion I think. MR. HUNSINGER-This certainly seems consensus from the Board the Short Form is sufficient. Mr. Seguljic, you had a tabling resolution, I think, to read off. MR. SEGULJIC-As a matter of fact, I do. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 50-2008 GENERAL TIMBER, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: For submission of the following information: A.A letter from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation regarding on site endangered species. B.Provide appropriate site specific details of the following, including but not limited to: a.stream protection b.erosion control c.harvesting schedules d.skid road construction e.hazardous materials f.post harvest wrap up g.log decks and landings h.stream crossings th Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show we did leave the public hearing open. MRS. STEFFAN-And we tabled it to what date? MR. SEGULJIC-I am sorry. rd MR. HUNSINGER-March 3. MOTION TO AMEND MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 50-2008 GENERAL TIMBER, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: rdth Tabled to March 3 with submission of materials by February 6. th Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. PHILLIPS-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you. MR. KOSKINEN-Thank you. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 MR. PHILLIPS-We’ll get back to work. SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2008 SKETCH PLAN SEQR TYPE NOT APPLICABLE LARRY CLUTE AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) GREG COLOMBE ZONING UR-10 LOCATION ALTA AVENUE & NATHAN LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 0.48 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 0.24 ACRES EACH. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AD SUB 5-2007 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.48 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.6-1-20.2 SECTION A-183 TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; LARRY CLUTE, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you’re ready, Keith, summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 10-2008, Sketch Plan. The applicant is Larry Clute. This is subdivision of land. Location is Alta Avenue and Nathan Lane. The existing zoning is UR-10, Urban Residential 10,000. SEQRA Status is Unlisted. The parcel history, it did have a previous two lot administrative residential subdivision back in 2007. Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 0.48 acre parcel into two lots of 0.24 acres each. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. I do want to make a note that the soils are Oakville loamy fine sand, which are not conducive to effluent filtering, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. CENTER-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Could you just summarize your project for us. MR. CENTER-Tom Center, Nace Engineering, with Larry Clute. This is a, as he explained, two lot subdivision proposing two new houses, one facing Alta Avenue, one facing Nathan Lane. Septic systems, to respond to the Staff comments I guess would probably be the easiest way to approach it, other than, you know, standard subdivision design, absorption systems. The first comment, to address, in regards to the lot to the north, it is owned by the same property owner. Mr. Colombe is here. What he is proposing to do is kind of connected to that. He hopes to sell these two lots so that he can finish the construction on that north lot where there is a foundation currently. So his plan is, you know, to sell these and finish the work that he’s doing on that lot. So that’s the gist of why we’re here to subdivide these two. The next question, in regards to the 50% expansion, what I have added to the drawing in response to that is for 100% replacement in the two septic systems. We feel that, you know, if there were any failure of the system, and it needed to be replaced, it would probably be from the soils that were modified, and they’d have to be taken out and rebuilt, rather than to put an expansion onto the system. It would probably be more of a soils issue, if anything, if there was any failure. So we have added notes detailing that the soils shall be removed to the limits that are shown, and replaced as per the modified soil detail. In regards to the Oakville loamy sands, a majority, as you know, a majority of Queensbury is built on the Oakville loamy sands. We have areas that do have percolation rates less than a minute. The Department of Health says you can still build on these lots. You have to modify the soil. They give you a standard detail to do that, where you have a perc rate that’s less than a minute. Modify soil is generally accepted throughout Queensbury. It’s been done in many different locations, and that’s their, it’s a typical detail right in their book. It’s not something that’s, quote unquote engineered specifically for the sites. It’s, you know, right out of their book, right out of their standards. In regards to the last comment, we have no problem putting a contingent that prior to issuance of the building permit, that either we go out, if it’s before the March through June date, go out with the Town Engineer to perform a test pit and ensure that we have adequate separation or go out and do an additional test pit during that timeframe and confirm the soils that are there. We’re pretty confident, knowing the area, that our soils information is correct. We looked for mottling and groundwater, got a pretty good read off of it. That’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-My concerns were addressed, because they were Staff comments, concerns. MR. HUNSINGER-I thought it looked pretty straightforward, personally. Especially since you addressed those concerns that were raised. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 MR. CENTER-Our hopes are to, since this is a fairly standard subdivision, is to go for Preliminary and Final the next time we’re up, if we have these, if we meet these Staff comments, if that’s at all possible, because it is a two lot subdivision. If there’s any problem with that, as long as we put these conditions on the drawing. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. CENTER-Submit for February so that we can meet the March deadline and do both Preliminary and Final in one meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Does anyone see a problem with that? It’s pretty straightforward. MRS. STEFFAN-No. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, that’s also assuming there’s no, you know, new issues that are brought out through the public hearing or, you know, through engineering comments. Other than that, anyone else, comments, questions? Great. Thank you. MR. CENTER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Thank you. MR. CENTER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 2-2009 SEQR TYPE II HOWARD DENISON OWNER(S) WARREN CO. ASSOC. OF REALTORS ZONING LI LOCATION 296 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 720 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING 832 SQUARE FOOT ONE STORY OFFICE BUILDING. EXPANSION OF OFFICE SPACE USES IN THE LI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 86-08, AV 10-07, BP 06-317, 02-204 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/14/09 LOT SIZE 0.3 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.8-2-14 SECTION 179-4-020, 179- 9-020 HOWARD DENISON & MARK BERGMANN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready. MR. FORD-Before we get started. Mr. Chairman, and fellow Board members, because I am a member of the Warren County Association of Realtors, I do not want any impropriety issue. So I will recuse myself from this application. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Ford. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 2-2009. Applicant, Howard Denison, Warren County Association of Realtors. Requested action, new office space, used as commercial addition. Location, 296 Bay Road. Existing Zoning is Light Industrial. It’s a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes a 720 square foot expansion of an existing 832 square foot one story office building. New office spaces in the Light Industrial zone requires Planning Board review and approval. No major issues as far as Site Plan Review. There are some issues, however. I do want to say that Area Variance 86-08 was approved, and that was for relief from minimum front and side yard setback th requirements, and I believe that was late last year on the 30 of December. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. If you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. DENISON-I’m Howard Denison. MR. BERGMANN-Mark Bergmann. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If you could just describe your project, or if there’s anything else you wanted to add. MR. DENISON-Sure. For something completely different, this is a very low impact project. In fact, I think in many ways it’s lower impact than many residential projects in the Town of Queensbury. It’s a 720 square foot single story addition, to be built on a crawl space. From a visual, from an exterior standpoint, the siding and the architecture will directly match the existing structure. We’ve asked for a waiver of a lighting plan because we intend to add no lighting to it. We’ve also sought waiver on stormwater 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 control. On our landscape plan, you will see that we plan to include river stone around the building. Our suggestion is that with gutters and proper downspouts, stormwater control on this property should be a rather simple process, using acceptable, customarily acceptable methods for draining the water down and allowing it to percolate. There’s no impact on traffic patterns. We have no intention of increasing the usage of the building, both in terms of visits or in terms of employment. We simply need to spread out. We’re just jammed in where we are now. So that’s why I characterized it as very low impact. We have support and approval of the neighbors. There was reference to Area Variance which was unanimously approved, because of support from the neighbors. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the members of the Board? MR. SIPP-The sign will remain the same? MR. DENISON-Yes. The sign will remain unchanged. MR. SIPP-And you will have a sign for handicapped parking? MR. DENISON-Yes, and referencing the comments from the engineering, there is a sign there for the handicap parking that went in at the time that we did a change in the building, which mandated the handicap ramp shown on the diagram. I think there’s also a notation that our map is missing a water line, but I see the water line on our map and can show it to anyone. MR. SIPP-You’ve got a 720 square foot expansion, and the roof runoff is going to be taken care of by. MR. DENISON-Gutters and downspouts going into loose stone catchment. MR. SIPP-Yes. How much? MR. BERGMANN-And the landscaping out front. MR. DENISON-And the landscaping out front. Correct. MR. SIPP-I mean, Homer Avenue is not the Sahara Desert. MR. DENISON-It is not. We know that, and that’s why we’re on a crawl space here, and, historically, we’ve had no problem dealing with the stormwater coming off of the roofline of the existing structure, but I think we’ve got a proven technique in place, I guess, is what I’m suggesting. MR. BERGMANN-There’s no grade elevations there. It’s pretty flat. There’s no reason for it to runoff. Anything around where the river stone would be would be grass, and the parking lot configuration that you have on your map is actually not the exact one that is there. It doesn’t show the handicap parking use, which is right in front of the rear stairs, with the handicap parking sign, and when the surveyors did that, they just did it from the map, and made their kind of lines on it, but they thought it was appropriate, without an actual visit site, because it was after the fact that they made the survey, that they were asked to come up with six or eight parking spaces. So, the parking spaces are pretty much pre-existing, in a little bit different configuration with handicap parking area there. So there’s no added parking that we’re doing. No need for it as far as the regs go, no need for it for what we’re trying to do in the building. MRS. STEFFAN-The VISION Engineering comments asked about a basement. Is there a basement? MR. DENISON-It’s on a crawl space. MR. BERGMANN-There is a basement under the existing building. It’s probably seven foot, the basement, and was probably done that way because groundwater is just about at basement level. We do have sump pumps there. They do run during the spring. That’s why we said that it’s, you know, not a good idea to put in a full basement there. So we’re doing it on a crawl space. MR. SIPP-I would be a little happier if on the west side of the addition you put in some trees to help soak up the water, because you’ve got a parking lot area which you’re going to pile up snow on, and frozen ground, you know, instead of all the landscaping being on the Bay Road side, I’d like to see some put in on the interior along the side of that. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 MR. DENISON-That would not be a problem, in looking at it, as I am looking at it now, it would appear to me that perhaps that was an oversight by the landscape engineers, or the landscaper. MR. SIPP-When you get a heavy rain in the Spring. MR. DENISON-Not an issue. MR. SEGULJIC-What kind of trees are you thinking of? MR. SIPP-Well, they could use some of the same, what you’ve got there, Junipers, Viburnum, Hydrangeas. I don’t know about, I never saw this magnolia. I don’t know if that’s, obviously it must grow here, but I don’t know as I’ve ever seen it. MR. DENISON-If the Board would like landscaping on the west side of the building, we would certainly be willing to do it and candidly, looking at it now, I’m not sure that it wouldn’t actually enhance the appearance anyway. That’s a non-issue. Feel free to add it to your resolution. MR. SIPP-That would be the east side. MR. BERGMANN-You’re referring to the back of the building, are you not? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, you said, well, you already have landscaping proposed for the west side, along Bay Road. MR. BERGMANN-I’m sorry. , along Bay Road. MR. BERGMANN-I’m sorry. You said the west. Did I just get my compass wrong? MR. KREBS-The west side is the front side. MR. DENISON-The west side is the front side. MR. BERGMANN-It is on the front side already. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. DENISON-We have landscaping on the front. You’re looking for something in the back? MR. HUNSINGER-He’s looking for something on the east side, right, Don? MR. SIPP-The east side. MR. BERGMANN-The rear of the building, closer to the parking lot you were saying, right? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. BERGMANN-Okay. I may have misspoken. MR. SIPP-You’ve got a space in there which I assume is grass. MR. DENISON-Yes. All of that would be grass except for where we propose doing the river stone. MR. SIPP-Put some trees in there that have root systems that are going to soak up more water. MR. BERGMANN-We have existing landscaping on the existing building now, on that side. So a continuation of that landscaping would not be an issue. MR. SIPP-It will help Meadowbrook down the road. MR. DENISON-That’s the back of the building. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 MR. BERGMANN-It doesn’t show a lot of the landscaping without the leaves on it, but what look like dead twigs there really are very good looking in the summertime. They’d better be based upon what we spent on it. MRS. STEFFAN-So, Don, you’re looking for trees at the back of it on the property line? MR. SIPP-No, along the west side, between the proposed addition and the parking lot. MR. BERGMANN-As you’re looking at this photo, for orientation purposes, to the right side of that photo is where the addition will be. So, adding some plantings there would be consistent with making it, giving it a nice balanced look anyway. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. So it’s the east side of the proposed addition. MR. BERGMANN-That’s not a problem. MR. KREBS-The west side of the parking lot. MR. OBORNE-The west side of the parking lot would work. MR. DENISON-Between the parking lot and the proposed addition in the back of the building would be planted with landscaping similar to the landscaping that is pre-existing at the site. MR. HUNSINGER-You sound like you’ve done this before. MR. BERGMANN-Or as I said to the ZBA, after all, we are realtors. We have a vested interest in setting a good example. MR. HUNSINGER-There you go. MR. BERGMANN-And we intend to do no logging. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the Staff comments was regarding lighting on the rear of the building. Is there any lights at all? MR. DENISON-Yes. To the left of the door. MR. BERGMANN-There’s two doors there. The left door is a pair of lights that go on when there’s any movement. They’re motion lights. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BERGMANN-They stay on for about 15 minutes and they go off. Two flood lights, they’ve been there, you know, for the parking lot itself. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there one on the handicapped ramp as well? MR. BERGMANN-No. MR. DENISON-Almost no use of the building after dark. If there’s one employee there after dark, it’s an exception. We don’t hold nighttime meetings there, and business hours are nine to five. Occasionally our Executive Officer might work as late as six. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? We do have a public hearing scheduled. No? Let the record show there was no one here to comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-So I will open and close the public hearing. It’s a Type II action. Everyone comfortable? Would anyone like to put forward a resolution? MRS. STEFFAN-So we’re going to grant them waivers for lighting and stormwater? What about the VISION Engineering and Staff comments? It appears they can be easily satisfied, as a condition of approval. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 MR. OBORNE-Ma’am, specifically what comments were you referring to? MRS. STEFFAN-That they have to add the water line that’s not on the survey, that they have to identify the handicap space, that directional signage needs to be identified. They did identify that they’re putting gutters that are going to drain in, but that has to be shown on the plan. The business sign location’s not on the survey. Lighting should be installed in the rear. They said that there is a light. Zoning information, this is a VISION Engineering, zoning information has to be identified on the Site Plan. They already received the variance. The permeability calculation should be corrected on the application. It should be verified that runoff from the proposed action will not discharge to the adjacent property, and the clarification on that crawl space. All they have to do is add that there’s a crawl space. So those were the items on the Staff Note and VISION Engineering. MR. OBORNE-That was very specific. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-And then the additional landscaping comments, too. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. That would have been a condition, but all I have is additional landscaping on the east side of the property, but we haven’t given them specifics on exactly what we want. MR. DENISON-We have a landscape plan. MR. SIPP-Similar to what’s on the other side. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. SIPP-I mean, that would take care of the runoff off the roof, to the snowmelt from the parking lot. MR. DENISON-I would only have one question on that, on the Staff suggestion for directional signs, whether an office that has about 10 or 12 visitors a day needs a stop sign on a little driveway. We’ll do it if you want us to, but it seems like overkill to put a big stop sign on a private driveway. MR. HUNSINGER-It seems like overkill to me. MR. KREBS-And I don’t think any of the other places along that area have any stop signs in the driveway either. MR. TRAVER-Is there anything in Code that requires it? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the handicap sign’s required. MR. HUNSINGER-The handicap’s required. MR. DENISON-And that’s there. MR. OBORNE-The handicap is required, along with the loading area for the handicap needs to be designated. That is a requirement. As far as the signs go, that would be, on a property this size, would be at the will of the Board. MR. BERGMANN-Could you switch back to the back view, because you should be able to see the handicap sign there. MR. OBORNE-Well, I know there’s a handicap sign, but that would be the wrong way to go. I’m concerned about the loading area. MR. DENISON-To be totally candid, it’s rare to see more than five or six cars in that entire parking lot. While I respect the reason for having loading zones, it’s been a non- issue for us, and quite frankly it’s such a friendly little office, if somebody pulled in and needed space, we’d be tripping over ourselves to move cars, but we can stripe it if you want it striped, and we haven’t striped the other spaces because it wasn’t necessary, and it’s aesthetically more pleasing without it. MR. TRAVER-So the loading zone is demarcated by striping the pavement area? 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 MR. OBORNE-Right, the same size as a parking space would be. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and the applicant, you have no problem doing that? MR. BERGMANN-No, no problem. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, usually that’s done in blue, which is less obtrusive than bright yellow. MR. BERGMANN-We could put a second handicap parking sign there, closer to the ramp, and designate the space in between, if that would suffice. That’s small stuff. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And the specific, if you’re getting into parking, you need a drive aisle 24 feet. I’m not overly concerned with that, but I am concerned with the handicap parking, it being striped. MR. DENISON-I don’t know why it wasn’t done before when we originally put the sign up and got the ramp and stuff. I wasn’t involved at that time. We’ll make it right for sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-And there is a light on the back of the building. So we don’t have to have that. MR. BERGMANN-There’s two floodlights and the motion sensors. MR. OBORNE-Yes, there’s the two floods and it would be noncompliant at this point, but they are existing. So, I’m not too concerned about it. MR. BERGMANN-And the sign was just re-erected back a couple, two years ago maybe now. MR. DENISON-Not even. It went through the permitting process. I don’t think it’s quite two years old. MR. BERGMANN-There was a sketch there where the sign was in relation to the building and stuff, but we could dig that out again. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 2-2009 HOWARD DENISON/WARREN COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1.WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 720 square foot expansion of existing 832 square foot one story office building. New office space uses in the LI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. 2.WHEREAS, A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/20/09 3.WHEREAS, This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4.WHEREAS, Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies/does not comply with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5.WHEREAS, this project is a Type II, 6.WHEREAS, Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, 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. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 7.WHEREAS, The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 8.NOT APPLICABLE - WHEREAS, If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 9.NOT APPLICABLE - WHEREAS, The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 10.NOW, THEREFORE BE IT, RESOLVED, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 2-2009 HOWARD DENISON/WARREN COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Five, it is a Type II action. Paragraph Eight does not apply and a. That the applicant will satisfy Staff and VISION Engineering comments. Specifically that they will add the house water line which is not currently present on the survey. b. That the applicant will provide one handicap parking space. c. That the applicant will provide directional signage such as the handicap sign and striping for the unloading zone. d. That the applicant will identify gutters that will be directed to gravel drains which will mitigate water ponding. e. That they will put the business sign location on their survey. f. That they will include zoning information and setbacks on the Site Plan along with bulk requirements for the zone. g. That they will correct the permeability calculation that is already on the application. h. They should also verify that the runoff from the proposed addition will not discharge onto the adjacent property to the north. i. The applicant should also clarify that the addition will be constructed with a crawl space. j. That the applicant will add additional landscaping on the east side of the property, similar to what was proposed for the front of the property. k. The Planning Board will grant waivers for lighting and stormwater controls. th Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 2009, by the following vote: MR. OBORNE-Ma’am, clarification on one point. You’re asking for an additional handicap space. There is one already there. Did you want two or? MRS. STEFFAN-It said handicap parking of one space must be provided, and so if they have that, then that satisfies Staff requirements. MR. OBORNE-Right, and then you had the unloading zone. MRS. STEFFAN-But it also has to be striped for the unloading zone. MR. OBORNE-I apologize for the interruption. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, that’s okay. Clarification is never an imposition. MR. KREBS-I have a clarification, too. You said that the water main has to be put on, and I can see this right here on the drawing, it’s there. MR. OBORNE-Is that a water valve or a water main? MR. KREBS-It just has a water line. MR. OBORNE-There is water line? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Well, then that’s an easy one to accomplish, then. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/20/09 MR. DENISON-I guess we got that one done. Before you go too much further, one quick clarification. The applicant is the Warren County Association of Realtors, and you referenced the applicant in your resolution as Howard Denison. Just to save you from re-voting. MRS. STEFFAN-No, that’s fine, because the resolution does just say Howard Denison, and I would like to amend the Site Plan 2-2009, it says Howard Denison, but I would like to add the Warren County Association of Realtors. Thank you. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. DENISON-Thank you. MR. BERGMANN-Thank you. SITE PLAN 1-2009 SEQR TYPE II CLIFF NELSON AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL, RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTS OWNER(S) AMERICAN PAINTBALL SUPPLY, LLC ZONING LI LOCATION 543 QUEENSBURY AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE ND ADDITION OF 2,032 SQUARE FEET TO THE EXISTING 2 FLOOR OFFICE SPACE TO AN EXISTING 19,980 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING. NEW OFFICE SPACE USES IN THE LI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 06-702, 06-582 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/14/09 LOT SIZE 2.82 & 2.64 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.8-1-24, 26 SECTION 179-4-020, 179-9-020 MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show on our next item, Cliff Nelson, Site Plan No. 1- 2009, the application was withdrawn by the agent. Any further information? Should we save the information? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-So if he’s going to re-submit, he would re-submit new plans. MR. OBORNE-He will re-submit, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-If there’s no further business, a motion to adjourn is always in order, unless there’s some further discussion. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 20, 2009, Introduced by Donald Sipp who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 43