Loading...
2009.04.21(Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 21, 2009 INDEX Site Plan No. 13-2008 Site Plan No. 50-2008 Lake George Campsites Tax Map No. 295.12-1-6 General Timber Tax Map No. 265.-1-28 1. 2. Site Plan No. 7-2007 MODIFICATION Site Plan No. 22-2007 MODIFICATION Site Plan No. 12-2009 Site Plan No. 21-2009 Site Plan No. 13-2009 Subdivision No. 10-2008 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE Special Use Permit No. 15-2009 Freshwater Wetlands 1-2009 Jolley Associates c/o Sean Crumb Tax Map No. 302.5-1-98 Jolley Associates Tax Map No. 288.16-1-3 Laura Feathers [Family Footwear] Tax Map No. 288.12-1-15 SWANK Tax Map No. 288.12-1-22 Lehigh Northeast Cement Co. Tax Map No. 310.7-1-1 Larry Clute Tax Map No. 309.6-1-20.2 John & Kim Polunci Tax Map No. 289.15-1-1.1 15. 19. 25. 27. 29. 30. 38. 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 04/21/09) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 21, 2009 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS SEGULJIC DONALD KREBS THOMAS FORD DONALD SIPP STEPHEN TRAVER LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-MIKE HILL STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'd like to welcome everyone to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. This is Meeting Number Nine, 2009, Tuesday, April 21, 2009. For those members of the audience, there is, on the back table, copies of the agenda, and if anyone is interested in speaking during any of the public hearings scheduled this evening, there is an outline there that talks about the public hearing process, the expectations of members of the audience making public comments, and some logistical discussion also. First item on the agenda is approval of minutes from February 17t" and 19t". APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 17, 2009 February 19, 2009 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 17 AND FEBRUARY 19, 2009, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Duly adopted this 21St day of April, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Ford ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SP 13-2008: LAKE GEORGE CAMPSITES [ACKNOWLEDGE WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION & INFORM INVOLVED AGENCIES RELATIVE TO SEAR REVIEW] MR. HUNSINGER-The Lake George Campsites has withdrawn their application and would like our acknowledgement for purposes of the SEQRA review. There is a sample resolution in your package. Would anyone like to move that? MRS. STEFFAN-I'll make a motion. MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE WITHDRAWAL OF SITE PLAN NO. 13-2008 FOR THE LAKE GEORGE CAMPSITES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: This is per a letter dated March 3, 2009 from Lemery Greisler, and this notifies any involved agencies that were contacted for SEQRA review. Duly adopted this 21St day of April, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-If it please the Board, I would like to adjust the regular items slightly. I'd like to move General Timber to first on the agenda, unless there's any discussion? Okay. So our first item on the agenda is General Timber. SITE PLAN NO. 50-2008 SEAR 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-Keith, whenever you're ready, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-One moment, please. I apologize for this delay. I think the Board is well aware of what the issues are with General Timber. There is a 168 acre parcel in the Town of Queensbury that has a proposed timber harvest on it. The applicant was directed to supply a Long Form EAF, which the applicant has done and has satisfied that requirement. There is a response to the Long Form and to the cover letter with the Long Form, and that is before you. With that, I think I'd feel more comfortable to turn it over to the Board at this point. I think we're all aware of the issues of this, and for the sake of clarity, for lack of a better term, I don't want to go through the whole Site Plan all over again. If the Chairman wishes me to do so, I shall. MR. HUNSINGER-No, that's okay. MR. OBORNE-And with that, I'd feel comfortable turning it over to the Board. What we're here for tonight, the Town of Lake George has issued a Type I SEQRA, by resolution, and is seeking Lead Agency status for this. At this point, the protocol for the Planning Board is to, for, again, clarity purposes, rescind the previous Unlisted action due to the, due to new information that has come about, and to either Seek Lead Agency or Acknowledge Lead Agency for this project, and with that, I'll turn it over to you. MR. HUNSINGER-I just had a quick question before we go any further. Did we get anything from the Lake George Planning Board requesting Lead Agency status? MR. OBORNE-We have, and we have looked over all the material, and it is a proper issuance. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And with that said, they have supplied us with the Long Form EAF that was supplied to them, and correspondence wishing to seek Lead Agency status and further documentation as required by SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have anything else that you wanted to add? If you could identify yourself, first, for the record. MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. My name is Dennis Phillips. I'm here on behalf of the applicant, and on the classification of this project, I know that, early on in the application process, this Board had classified the project as an Unlisted project, and early on the thought was that this Board would be undertaking an uncoordinated review because of the location of the property in Queensbury compared to the location of the property in Lake George. That, of course, has changed in the process of joint applications to Queensbury and Lake George, and at our last meeting in front of the Lake George Planning Board, there was a classification of this as a Type I, and that classification was basically over our objections, based on the letter of March 25t", that we sent to both Boards, but that's the way it is right now. So we accept this as a Class I, and we have provided both Boards with the Long Form Environmental Assessment form. Just as a matter of updating this Board, we do have an on site meeting tomorrow, with Mr. Hickey of the Lake George Planning Board, and Mr. Carr, a member of the Lake George Planning Board, relative to 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) an inspection of where the proposed landing is going to be constructed, on the Lake George side. That inspection is at one o'clock at the site, and certainly if anybody from this Board or Mr. Oborne would like to join us, we would invite you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. PHILLIPS-So with that, I think that we have nothing new to add at this point, other than what the Board will be deciding. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. I mean, I certainly appreciate all the additional information that was submitted. So does everyone understand what we're doing this evening? The only action that we can take is whether or not we want to acknowledge the Town of Lake George Planning Board as the Lead Agent or seek Lead Agency status ourselves. Before we can do either of those, we will have to rescind our previous determination that it was an Unlisted action. MR. TRAVER-Mr. Chairman, on another matter, I noted in the Staff Notes that there was some discussion of Lake George having retained a certified forester, and that we might want to consider doing the same. Might that be something that we want to initiate tonight, if we were to do that, so that that process could move forward jointly? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I don't know if there would be a need for us to retain them if we're not the Lead Agent. I mean, certainly there might be Site Plan issues that we might need the forester for, but my assumption is that primarily the forester would be used for SEQRA issues. Is that a fair assessment, Keith? MR. OBORNE-I think the forester would be used for Site Plan Review issues. Certainly. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And they're as a retained professional at the behest of the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Whoever is the Lead Agent. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What's the protocol for us to initiate that? MR. OBORNE-I think that if you were to seek Lead Agency status and retain or have acknowledged Lead Agency status from Lake George, you would then move to retain that forester, under the auspices of Queensbury. As it stands Lake George has retained that forester, and as such is using that forester in their Site Plan Review. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. PHILLIPS-Could I clarify that, Mr. Chairman? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MR. PHILLIPS-As I understand it, Lake George has retained Mr. Jarrett as an engineer on the project, and as I understand it, Mr. Jarrett has retained the engineer as falling under his review of the project. I don't know that Lake George directly has retained a forester. As I understand it, Mr. Jarrett has retained the forester to assist him in his analysis of the stormwater plan that has been presented to the Lake George Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess if Counsel could play this out for me. So Lake George has sought Lead Agency. MR. HILL-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-So if we decide to rescind our Unlisted action, then we have a choice of either seeking Lead Agency or acknowledging Lake George. MR. HILL-That's correct. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) MR. SEGULJIC-What happens if we, how does it play out if we acknowledge Lake George? MR. HILL-Then they are, they will assume the Lead Agency responsibilities for purposes of the environmental review, and your Board will have an opportunity to participate in the environmental review by offering any comments or suggestions that you might wish to provide to the Board and also you'll receive any submissions that go to the Lake George Planning Board and you'll be able to respond to those and offer your input. You can participate, obviously, in the public hearing if you wish to do that. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess the majority of those would be written, I assume, unless we go to their meeting. MR. HILL-We think that would probably be the case. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now, if we seek Lead Agency, then what happens? MR. HILL-If you seek Lead Agency status and they agree to that then you, of course, would have all the responsibilities for the SEQRA review. MR. SEGULJIC-And the third option is what if we don't, if we seek Lead Agency, they seek Lead Agency, then what happens? They have a coordinated review I assume? MR. HILL-Well, no, the review is coordinated in any case. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HILL-The review is coordinated where you have a Lead Agency and you have involved agencies. I think what you're thinking about is what happens if both Boards seek to be Lead Agency for the SEQRA review. There can be only one Lead Agency, and so there would have to be an agreement reached between the Boards, as to who would be Lead Agency or if there is no agreement between the Boards, then the question would be put to the Department of Environmental Conservation and they would choose a Lead Agency for purposes of the SEQRA review. The coordination and decision about who would be Lead Agency, which Board would be Lead Agency, that needs to be determined within a 30 day period. There's a 30 day period provided for that discussion to go on between the Boards, and for the Boards to come to a mutual agreement, and after that, if there is no mutual agreement, it would go to DEC. MR. HUNSINGER-And that 30 days started when Lake George sought Lead Agency status. Right? MR. HILL-I think the 30 day period effectively started upon this Board's receipt of a letter or e-mail yesterday from Lake George. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-My opinion is, given the fact that the majority of the land is in Queensbury, and given the fact that the majority of their concerns are visual impacts, they're going to occur in Queensbury also, I think we should seek Lead Agency. MR. HUNSINGER-How do other members feel? MR. FORD-Could we get a breakdown on that? Refresh my memory on the acreage, please. MR. OBORNE-Sure. The acreage in the Town of Queensbury is 138 acres, of which 168 acres of which 130 are to be harvested, and I believe that there are close to. MR. HUNSINGER-According to Staff Notes, 150. MR. OBORNE-One hundred and fifty in Lake George? MR. HUNSINGER-In Lake George. MR. OBORNE-Of which I believe that is, part of that is culled off because of the landing. They were not allowed to harvest along Bloody Pond Road. They were going to use that as the landing. So, if you want to balance the issues as to who should be Lead Agent, I 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) think that it really is something that you'd want to discuss amongst yourselves. We have highly erodible soils due to slopes. They have much more engineering involved in their aspect of it. I think there is arguments on both sides for Lead Agency status. These are issues, again, that you're really going to have to review. So as far as the acreage, 130 to be timbered in Queensbury, and, Kurt, if I may ask you, what is the total in? MR. KOSKINEN-There's 150 acres total in Lake George and approximately 120 will be harvested. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-But at the same time a lot of the roads, the water bars, the silt fences and all those things are in the Town of Lake George, according to the plan that was submitted this week. MR. OBORNE-Well, there are certainly many in Queensbury. MR. SEGULJIC-But that plan only dealt with Lake George, I believe. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-The plan that was submitted only deals with Lake George. The stormwater plan that was submitted? That only deals with Lake George, from what I saw. Is that correct? MR. PHILLIPS-Yes, that's correct. MR. SEGULJIC-That only deals with Lake George. I mean, within Queensbury, remember, they're going to have to cut, correct me if I'm wrong, and I might not be getting the terminology correct, but you're going to use some of the existing roads, but you're going to have to cut some new skid roads, I believe? MR. KOSKINEN-Yes, whatever we had on our map there. MR. PHILLIPS-We have some skid roads that will be in Queensbury that follow the contour of the terrain, and we've done some arithmetic on this, and I think that we have shown that we will have cut two plus some odd acres of new skid trails in the Town of Queensbury. Another number that I think the Board should be aware of is that, and this came up in the conversation that we had with Lake George, on the issue of vegetative removal, and in a timber harvest, the question is, how do you measure the acreage of vegetated removal, and the answer is, as given to me by the forester, is that a formula applies to that, and the formula takes the double, takes the diameter of the tree and squares it so as to, the diameter of the tree in inches, squares it to come up with the square of that diameter and then a factor of 0.005454 is applied to that in order to transform that into square feet, and so we figured that if we took an average diameter of a tree of 20 inches and we squared that, it would be 400 square inches, and if we applied the factor of 0.005454 to that, it turns out to be approximately 2.18 square feet, and then when you divide that into an acre of 43,560 square feet, that equates to 19,000 plus trees at an average of 20 inches of diameter per tree. We are only proposing, as part of this timber harvest, in Queensbury, we're only proposing to harvest somewhere between 3500 and 4,000 trees. So we don't even come close. We come in at vegetative removal itself at about 20% of an acre. So, as you're looking at this issue, we thought that you should know that mathematical calculation in terms of what you're looking at here. MR. SIPP-Can you go back to number of, you're not saying (lost word) feet. You're saying strictly a mathematical equation. MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. In terms of timber harvesting and clear cutting, the measure is basal area, and it's the base of the residual stump, that's what it is. So that's the area that we're calculating when we talk about vegetative removal. MR. SIPP-But with basal area, you're taking anything over six inches or ten or what? MR. PHILLIPS-Well, this proposal is for nothing below 14 inches. So everything under 14 inches stays as a growing tree. MR. SIPP-So roughly what is the number for Lake George, the area in Lake George and the area in Queensbury? Did anybody figure that out? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) MR. PHILLIPS-You figured that out. MR. KOSKINEN-Yes. There's approximately 3,200 trees to be harvested in Lake George, and 3,000 times roughly two square feet of basal area per tree is six thousand square feet, which is about one seventh of an acre. MR. SEGULJIC-That's in Lake George. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you said there was this comment about there's 18,000 trees that are being harvested? MR. PHILLIPS-Based on that model calculation that I went through, in order for there to be an acre of vegetation, vegetative removal, that would put the number of trees up into the 19,000 plus category. MR. SEGULJIC-All right, but my concern isn't so much the tree getting removed. It's what it's going to take to remove the tree. It's the equipment going there and the potential for erosion, and as Staff pointed out the highly erodible soils on the steep slopes and the fact that, you know, you're only removing the, let's say two square feet of the tree, but how much of the canopy are you removing? So a lot of the canopy that's there is going to be gone, and I can understand that over time the smaller trees will be allowed to grow up, but what's going to happen in the interim with these highly erodible soils on these steep slopes, and the Lake George basin, with two streams running across the site? MR. KOSKINEN-The stump and the roots are all being left, and the sun gets, you know, in a patch work, comes down to the forest floor, creates regeneration faster. Things sprout up faster. We have our water bars every so many feet you're supposed to have them at, and just good burp's practices. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Well, I can understand it'll all work, but those are my concerns. MR. KOSKINEN-Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I'm just concerned about a lot of visual impacts in Queensbury, and as Staff pointed out, the soils. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, there might be visual impacts, but, you know, that is the purpose of this property. I mean, this property is not going to be developed long term. This is property that needs to be logged, and so I think that the applicant has provided a great deal of information to educate us on this timbering process, and I'm pretty comfortable with the amount of material that they've provided and that they're doing their best efforts to make sure that they're mitigating any potential erosion and things like that. I mean, they are following the best logging practices, and so I don't, I'm willing to give the Lead Agency status to Lake George, or concede it. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else want to comment on that? MR. KREBS-I'd just like to ask the attorney a question, and that is, in the Staff Notes, you're referencing the Zoning Ordinance, 179-2-010, where you're saying that's where you're getting the definition of timber cutting. It says it's not part of the regulation, though. MR. OBORNE-It is part of the regulation. It's underneath definitions for timber harvests. MR. KREBS-As I read it, I read it differently than you. Not regulated, okay. Because you start, well, it then goes on to reference 179-060, which is clear cutting. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. KREBS-This is not a clear cutting process. MR. OBORNE-No, I understand that. Well, you have to drill down a little bit farther, and it mentions timber harvesting, and as such, if you timber harvest, I believe, in the LC-10 zone, over five acres, it requires Site Plan Review. MR. KREBS-Okay. Maybe I didn't read far enough. Okay. I'm just confused because in one place, you know, under the definitions, timber harvesting is talking about it not being regulated. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) MR. OBORNE-I think it's not regulated in the sense that it requires, I want to choose my words carefully here, it's not regulated in the sense that there is a chapter in the Zoning Code, in 179, which is from the Town of Queensbury, that specifically points to how to regulate timber harvesting. It certainly does talk about how, if you exceed certain thresholds, Site Plan Review kicks it over, kicks in. MR. KREBS-The thresholds are under clear cutting. MR. OBORNE-But if you drill down, again, farther, it states timber harvesting. MR. KREBS-Okay. I'm just reading it again. It says the cutting of trees for commercial gain, except for clearing of lots and land, that is not subject to regulation, pursuant to this Chapter. So if it's not pursuant to this Chapter, how can we reference this Chapter? Okay, and then when you go to 06, it's talking about clear cutting, which to me is different than harvesting. MR. PHILLIPS-Is it clear cutting or land clearing? MR. KREBS-No, Section 179-6-010, is clear cutting and grading. Okay, and then it talks about acreage, but it says below, any person proposing to clear cut for grade. MR. OBORNE-Okay, and I'm not trying to come off as argumentative at all, again, if you drill down a little farther in the timber harvesting, timber harvesting in excess of the acreage listed in 179-6-010 is subject to Site Plan approval. It does state, and I'll read the whole thing, timber harvesting, the cutting of trees for commercial gain, except for clearing of lots and land that is not subject to regulation pursuant to this Chapter. The clearing of lots and land is not what they're doing. They're timber harvesting. So what it's saying is if you're taking timber out in order to build a lot out, that's not pursuant to this Chapter. It is timber harvesting that actually is pursuant to this Chapter. That's my interpretation. That's Craig Brown's interpretation, and then that leads you down the path to 179-10 which is Site Plan Review. MR. KREBS-Okay, but 179-6 is a Chapter on clear cutting and grading, and you're using that as a reference point for the size of the acreage that has to come under regulation, and what they're doing, in my opinion, is not clear cutting anything. They're harvesting only trees that are 14 inches and above in size. So that's why I wanted a clarification. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Okay. MR. HILL-Just for the record, I think that the reference can come from anywhere in the Code. The reference doesn't necessarily have to be from the same section. The reference can come, as far as thresholds and so forth, can come from outside the particular section in question, and as Keith pointed out, that has been the zoning officer's determination, and his interpretation is that the project is subject to Site Plan Review. MR. OBORNE-And, Don, I agree with you that it is not clear cut in the Zoning Code, and I think that it is open to interpretation. I can't disagree with you on that. MR. KREBS-Because I'm just reading, it just says application within a five year time period, clear cutting and grading. Again, it's referencing clear cutting. MR. OBORNE-Right, that's one section. MR. KREBS-Which is where you're setting up the acreage. MR. OBORNE-I mean, that's one section, and then down in C, it says this requirement applies to timber harvesting involving tree removal from lands greater than specified above, and again, it's interpretation. MR. KREBS-Okay. You've got more experience interpreting than I have, but. MR. OBORNE-Well, Craig does especially. MR. TRAVER-Mr. Chairman, if I could go back to the issue of Lead Agency. I think the concern, obviously, for the Town, is our concerns that we may have regarding SEQRA and other issues going to be resolved, regardless of who is Lead Agency, and my understanding of the process is that this Board will have plenty of opportunity to comment and participate, even though we may or may not be, we may not be Lead 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) Agency. So I guess my feeling is I am not opposed to having Lake George assume Lead Agency status. I feel confident that we would have an opportunity to participate fully. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else want to comment on the Lead Agency issue? MR. FORD-I felt very comfortable with our accepting that role, but I agree that there is, we're going to have, I believe, well, we can assure that we're going to have ample input on those lands that are in Queensbury. MR. HUNSINGER-I did speak with Keith about this issue this afternoon. I mean, this is kind of new territory. I mean, I've been on the Board for nine years, and we've never deferred to another Lead Agent, unless it was DEC, in the past. So I wasn't really sure what would happen and what our involvement would be, and that's why counsel's here tonight to talk, help us work through this issue, and I think we all have that same concern, is, if we're not the Lead Agent, you know, how much input do we really get in the SEQRA issues, and if we identify something that we feel strongly about, what assurance do we have that it will be part of the record and taken seriously, and I think those are really the questions that we need some comfort on, and I guess I'd direct that question to Counsel, because, again, we've never gone through this process before. MR. HILL-Well, if you provide comment to the Board, written comment, or attend Lake George Planning Board meetings and provide verbal comment to them about a particular issue that is of concern to this Board, then that becomes part of the record, as far as the SEQRA review and SEQRA decision making process is concerned. So, you will have an opportunity to, you know, make your concerns known and to have a voice in the process. You obviously won't have the kind of close control over the SEQRA review process that you would if you were the Lead Agency, but they will have the input from you, and they will need to take a count of whatever your comments are as far as the review process is concerned. MR. SEGULJIC-So would it be similar to a public comment or stronger than a public comment? MR. HILL-No. You are an involved agency. So the, I guess the degree of deference that the Board would show to you and to your comments, I certainly don't want to minimize the importance of public comment, but you are an involved agency here. You have decision making authority with respect to Site Plan Review here in the Town of Queensbury, and that makes you an involved Agency, and the Board has to accord you the respect that it would accord a partner in the SEQRA review process, and I think that's probably the best way to characterize it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-We will complete our own Site Plan Review, then? MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. Yes. MR. FORD-All right. That's what I wanted to verify. MR. SEGULJIC-Once again, my concerns are that the concerns are different between, because our concerns, Queensbury has the steeper slopes, and I think that's really what's got (lost words). MR. HILL-Mr. Chairman, just, if I could, just to clarify for a moment to Mr. Ford's question about whether this Board would have the opportunity to do it's own Site Plan Review, and that is absolutely correct. The SEQRA process would have to be concluded, and let's assume for the sake of discussion that the Board agrees to having the Lake George Planning Board be the Lead Agency. The SEQRA review process has to be concluded before either Board, either Lake George or Queensbury, can render a decision with respect to Site Plan or any other type of decision, but after the SEQRA decision is made, you have the authority, with respect to Site Plan Review in the Town of Queensbury, and they have authority with respect to Site Plan, or whatever additional review they're doing, up in the Town of Lake George. So that comes back to you for Site Plan Review. That's here at this Board. MR. FORD-Very helpful. Thank you. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) MR. HUNSINGER-So if we were to acquiesce to the Town of Lake George Lead Agency status, when would we need to give them our comments and concerns? We'd really need to do that almost immediately. MR. HILL-I think that's right. I think as soon as possible. You want to be in the process as early on as possible, and in notifying them of your agreement, again, for the sake of discussion, if you agree to them being Lead Agency, when you provide that notification, it would probably be best if, at the same time, you notify them of your concerns, or any potential concerns that the Board has with respect to potential environmental impacts, and at least in outline form, or bullet point form, so that they know the areas that you're concerned about. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I don't know if this is proper to say, but also keep in mind that we had to more or less instruct them as to what they needed to do. MR. HUNSINGER-Lake George, you mean? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And that's one of my concerns also. MR. FORD-I don't believe that they were unanimous, as a Board, either, in their desire to accept that status. Is that accurate? MR. OBORNE-That would be five, one. MR. SEGULJIC-No, it was four to two. MR. OBORNE-It was four, two for the Type I, and it was, I believe, five, one for seeking Lead Agency. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So I assume, then the dissenter didn't feel there was a need to go through that process. MR. OBORNE-I can't speak to that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HILL-Again, if I may. One of the very first things that either Lead Agency would have to do with respect to SEQRA is to analyze the Part I of the Environmental Assessment Form and make a determination of significance. So if you are of a mind to agree to the Lake George Planning Board being the Lead Agency, in addition to notifying them of that and providing any input with respect to any concerns you have, you may also want to provide your input as to whether you think, with respect to the determination of significance, whether they should be, or what they should be considering as potential environmental impacts, and whether or not, in your view, those impacts, particularly, of course, in Queensbury, are significant adverse environmental impacts and whether or not there should be a finding of a positive declaration or a negative declaration, whichever this Board seems appropriate from this Board's perspective. MR. HUNSINGER-Of course if we don't take any action within 30 days, they can assume Lead Agency status, right? MR. HILL-If this Board doesn't indicate either its acquiescence or its desire to be Lead Agency, then the presumption would be that they would be the Lead Agency, yes, by default. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-I understand we can have impact at an appropriate time, but I am feeling a sense of awkwardness at not having that control of Lead Agency, because there's going to be an awkwardness, I feel, and I may be wrong, about the issues that we're going to take up, separate and apart from them, and then convey those concerns to that Board, 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) how and when and in what format will we be taking up those issues and conveying it, and along what timeline? MR. TRAVER-I guess I would have a question, then, for counsel, and/or Staff. If we were to say, you know, we would just as soon be Lead Agency, presumably, and I don't like to assume anything, but I'm assuming that it would then go back before them, and they would vote again, as to whether they would acquiesce to us being Lead Agency, or whether they would come back again and say, no, no, we really want to be Lead Agency, in effect. MR. HILL-And I think that's right. I think that if you were to notify them that this Board would prefer to be Lead Agency, I think then that they would need to take that up and have a discussion amongst themselves there to see if they want to allow this Board to do that, and if they don't, and if there's a disagreement as to who would be Lead Agency, then at that point it would go to the Department of Environmental Conservation which would select one of the Boards to be the Lead Agency for the project. MR. FORD-Let's go that route. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I guess in that context, Mr. Chairman, I would say, we certainly have, we certainly know that we can respond to the responsibility of being Lead Agency. We do have a lot of concerns in our area. So why don't we offer that, to accept that responsibility, and see what their reaction is. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Is that what everyone wants to do? MR. HILL-Mr. Chairman, if I may, if that's ultimately what the Board decides to do, I think that your use of the word "offer" would seem to be an appropriate way to approach it. I would just suggest that it be couched that way, and you obviously, this Board has a lot of experience with SEQRA review on complex projects, and you could respectfully point out to the Board, to the Lake George Planning Board, the depth of your experience, the support that you have, from professional staff, and various other assets that you would bring to the SEQRA review process and just respectfully point all those out, and ask them if they would consider allowing your Board to be the Lead Agency for purposes of SEQRA review. I think that would be a good way to lay it out as an offer to them. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and then if they, you know, we'll see what their. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HILL-If that's what you decide to do. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, but isn't that sort of, we haven't taken an action within 30 days? If they just sit on it, within 30 days, they have Lead Agency then. MR. HILL-No. If you inform them of your desire to be Lead Agency. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. I missed that. You used the word "offer". I apologize. MR. HILL-Well, just in terms of, inform them that you would like to be Lead Agency and you're offering to be and respond to them so that they have that to consider at their next meeting, so that you're acting within the 30 days. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Because we have to act within 30 days. MR. OBORNE-And as an addendum to that, Mike, correct me if I'm wrong, if after the 30 days, which started yesterday, a Lead Agency is not agreed upon, then it gets kicked to the DEC Commissioner. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Would that clock not be reset, effective tonight, if we were to? No? MR. OBORNE-I don't think so. MR. HILL-I don't think so. They would take it up, presumably, at their next meeting, and by that time, there would be, I guess it would be clear as to whether or not they're 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) agreeable to letting you be Lead Agency. You've indicated that you would prefer to be Lead Agency. So if they don't agree, then at that point it would be up to the Commissioner to decide. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we know when their next meeting is? MR. HILL-Their next meeting, let's see, they had a meeting on April 7tn MR. PHILLIPS-I think it was May 5t". I think. MR. HUNSINGER-May Stn MR. HILL-Early on in May. So it would be within the 30 day period that they would be meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, if it's the first Tuesday, that would be May 5t". Okay. MR. FORD-A lot of work we're taking on, but we do have that experience, and it gets rid of that issue that I addressed before about the awkwardness of our impact and the importance of our job. I think that's the route we ought to pursue. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward that resolution? MR. OBORNE-If I may, you're going to need to rescind that first Unlisted. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-And then it should be spelled out, as far as what we've developed for you as a resolution by Staff. MRS. STEFFAN-You didn't provide one. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there wasn't a resolution. MRS. STEFFAN-There was nothing provided, although I think one sentence will do the job on the Unlisted action. MR. HUNSINGER-Unless you have something there, Keith. MR. OBORNE-I'm looking. MR. HUNSINGER-We could work from. MR. OBORNE-No, sir, I don't. MR. HUNSINGER-How did you phrase that, Steve? MR. TRAVER-I was afraid you were going to ask me that. MR. HUNSINGER-You said what if we offer. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean, essentially, and I appreciate what Counsel has suggested with regards to commenting on our experience. I'm concerned, however, that we, if we put it in those terms, that we're maybe not acknowledging, they also have experience as Lead Agency. I'm wondering if maybe we could just address the concerns of slopes and I know there's concerns about potential endangered species. More of the wild part of the property certainly is within the Town of Queensbury, and I don't know, at this point, that we need to be terribly detailed. We can just say that we feel that we too have a vested interest, and we would like to, and we feel that we can assume that responsibility and we'd like to offer to take on that responsibility of Lead Agency. Not helpful. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. I've got a couple of things drafted, and if you don't like it, we can start over. MR. HUNSINGER-Or take a break and draft a resolution. MRS. STEFFAN-Exactly. Okay. First motion. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) MOTION TO RESCIND THE PLANNING BOARD'S PREVIOUS SEQRA UNLISTED DETERMINATION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 50-2008 FOR GENERAL TIMBER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 21St day of April, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. This is what I drafted based on some of the discussion. I would like to put forth a resolution regarding Site Plan 50-2008, for General Timber. The Queensbury Planning Board acknowledges the desire of the Town of Lake George as Lead Agent for the SEQRA review on this project. However, we feel that we would rather remain Lead Agent. The Queensbury Planning Board feels that we have sufficient experience and resources to provide a comprehensive review of this project. MR. TRAVER-The only comment I would have is to maybe remove the word "remain" because there is no Lead Agency. So we're not remaining. MR. HUNSINGER-So we would offer. I like your word to offer. Does that just fit in there, that we would? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I don't like the word "offer" because we allow them to reject it. That's not what we're saying. At least that's not what I'm saying. I mean, we're not here to make friends. We want to be Lead Agent. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-I mean, the effect is the same. If we say offeror remain. MR. FORD-If you want to be Lead Agent, and the way to offer is to offer them the opportunity for participation and input. MR. TRAVER-Right. I mean, if we say offer or we demand, the result is the same. They need to vote on whether or not they will accept that. MR. HUNSINGER-Why don't we take a recess, Steve, Tom, and Gretchen, if you could. Do you mind? Okay. We'll take a recess. I thank everyone for their patience, I appreciate it. MRS. STEFFAN-I'd like to make a resolution. MOTION REGARDING SITE PLAN NO. 50-2008 GENERAL TIMBER, THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD ACKNOWLEDGE'S RECEIPT OF NOTIFICATION THAT THE LAKE GEORGE PLANNING BOARD WANTS TO BE LEAD AGENT. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THEIR REQUEST AND RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT THEY AGREE THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD BE LEAD AGENCY FOR PURPOSES OF SEQRA REVIEW ON THIS PROJECT., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Duly adopted this 21St day of April, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MRS. STEFFAN-Now do we have to table this application because it's on the agenda? MR. HUNSINGER-We don't need to table it. Should we table the application to a specific date? MR. TRAVER-Well, Mr. Chairman, I was just going to elaborate a little bit on our resolution and suggest that perhaps, because I know we had a lot of discussion before this resolution regarding our understanding of the sensitivity of the issues involved and Lake George's clear desire to be Lead Agency, and that perhaps, and in deference to 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) their expertise, and yet acknowledging also our expertise in these issues, a letter, perhaps over your signature, go to their Chairman, explaining how we feel confident that we can work together, however we feel that the majority of the issues are in our Town, and that we have extensive experience in this area, and we hope that they accept our offer to assume this responsibility. MR. FORD-And we welcome their input. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and we look forward to working with them. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'd be happy to do that. Okay. We should probably put this on a May agenda, the project. Because I'm sure that there will be some discussion in Lake George and it'll bounce back to us. I believe the May 19t" meeting is full, though, if I'm not mistaken. MR. OBORNE-Well, they're both full. In fact we have six on, seven on the bump. MR. TRAVER-Special Meeting? MR. OBORNE-I'm not espousing that. MR. TRAVER-I'm not either, although it sounds as though they're, regardless of how this goes, there are going to be a number of SEQRA issues that we may want to outline. So it might be worth. MR. OBORNE-Would you state a Special Meeting specifically for General Timber, or would you? Again, I'm throwing that out there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, I think if we're going to have a Special Meeting, we might as well, I didn't want to say load it up, but at least clean up the backlog. MR. OBORNE-Well, we certainly want to move this along as quickly as possible, and it's stated in the statutes, and to table them to a specific meeting I believe would be wise. With that said, what does the Board wish to do? Do you want to spend time discussing this as one item? Which I think there are benefits to that. Again, I'm not trying to sway the Board either way. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-The agendas are not set. MR. TRAVER-Right, and you mentioned that, in addition to the, the two meetings in May are currently, the agendas are full, and then there are how many items on backlog? MR. OBORNE-I believe seven. MR. TRAVER-Seven. Well, I mean, if we spent, hypothetically, if we spent say two hours discussing further issues surrounding this application, at a Special Meeting, we could maybe handle a couple of applications and at least take a few chips at it. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Could you check on room availability and we could decide at next Tuesday's meeting? MR. OBORNE-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-I think we'll have to convey that back to you through Staff, though, what night we'll re-hear your project, but it will be an evening in May. MR. TRAVER-Probably a Thursday. Is that usually how it's ended up? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I was going to say, maybe we could get earlier in the month. The regular meetings in May are the 19t" and the 28tH MR. OBORNE-26t". No, you're right, the 28t" because of Grievance Day. MR. HUNSINGER-Because of Grievance Day. So if maybe the seventh or the fourteenth were available. MR. OBORNE-Of May? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Of May. MR. OBORNE-I think at the very least you have to let the clock run for 30 days on the seeking of Lead Agency status. MR. TRAVER-And their meeting is the 7t", did I hear? MR. HUNSINGER-The fifth. MR. TRAVER-The fifth. MR. OBORNE-I don't see the benefit of a meeting earlier in the month of May. I don't think you'll have enough information back on that from the Town of Lake George. MRS. STEFFAN-So the first meeting in June? MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-Let them meet, and then we'll meet. MR. HUNSINGER-We probably can't wait that long, though, can we? Until June? MR. OBORNE-That's true, too. The 21St? That seems a lot, or 14tH MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-The longer this process takes, the more incumbent it becomes upon the forester to revise the number of trees being cut. There probably will be a greater number. They are growing, even as we speak. MR. PHILLIPS-They're dying at the same rate. MR. HUNSINGER-Why don't we shoot for May 14t". May 14tn~ MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-What if the room's not available? MRS. STEFFAN-The Supervisor's Conference Room or something? MR. OBORNE-I will apprise you of that situation, and I will. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, deal with it accordingly. MR. OBORNE-Well, how about if we take it to, let me go for the 14t" for the first date and on the 12t" for the second date. I think the exercise is to have Lake George have their meeting, and anytime after that should be fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-I'm not convinced, although I do have a level of comfort, that it is on the 5t". Let's just hope that, we have to schedule a meeting after that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Okay. So I'll shoot for the 14t", and then move to the 12t" if necessary. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 50-2008 GENERAL TIMBER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled to a Special Planning Board meeting on May 14, 2009, which is a Thursday. Duly adopted this 21St day of April, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And we'll let the record show that the public hearing is also tabled to the 14t" of May. MR. PHILLIPS-Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to say one thing. I don't know where the idea of Lead Agency came from, relative to this application. Other than the fact that the application straddles two towns. I can say that, at the outset, both Boards were looking at this, I believe, as uncoordinated review, and as I've listened to this Board, and as I've listened to the Lake George Board, it seems like each Board has different issues relative to the project, and so rather than become, as, on behalf of the applicant, it seems as though this Lead Agency thing has taken on a life of its own. I know particularly in light of two ordinances that have no standards whatsoever relative to timber harvesting, you know, as pointed out by one of your Board members, and as I pointed out in Lake George. That being the case, I would only ask that this Board and its Staff keep open the idea of possible uncoordinated review in both venues, because that may solve a lot of administrative problems, give each Board the opportunity to look at its own environmental issues, without it being clouded by more remote environmental issues, and I know where we are so far, and I understand that, but all I'm suggesting is that it might be the kind of thing where, instead of going from month to month, where only a record that is really unknown gets presented, from one Board to the other, it might be the kind of thing where a joint meeting, sooner as opposed to later, would be valuable, with perhaps the Chairman of the Boards, with the Staffs, with attorneys, so as to sort through some of these very complicated Lead Agency issues, because I think that, as you mentioned, other than a DEC situation, this would be the exception and not the rule. So I offer that as a way to try to punch through a lot of difficulty, administrative difficulty. So I make that comment for the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. We'll take that into consideration. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 7-2007 MODIFICATION SEAR TYPE UNLISTED JOLLEY ASSOCIATES c/o SEAN CRUMB AGENT(S) BOHLER ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC INTENSIVE LOCATION 474 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO THEIR APPROVED SITE PLAN; SPECIFICALLY A CHANGE IN LIGHTING TYPE AND LOCATION. SITE PLAN MODIFICATIONS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 08-358, 446, 447, 499, 521, 601, 602; SV 2-09 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/14/07 LOT SIZE 2.5 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-98 SECTION 179-4-020 SEAN CRUMB, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you're ready to summarize Staff Notes, Keith. MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir. I believe we want to do this concurrently, the two Jolleys. We'll take this one at a time. Starting with Site Plan 7-2007, Jolley Associates. This is a Site Plan Review modification for change in approved lighting. Location is 474 Aviation Road. The existing zoning is HC Intensive. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. The Project Description. Applicant proposes a modification to an approved Site Plan in order to illuminate an existing Jolley wall sign located on the front of the building with three 150 watt spotlights. The applicant has, however, submitted materials that include cut sheets for proposed lighting and an updated photometric plan. The new plan does call for two downcast, goose neck lighting style lights attached to the eaves of the structure that are directed to illuminate the Jolley brand sign. The existing spotlights have been removed from the plan. I do, if you look under plan review, there are certain conditions that you may wish to do, and one of those would be to direct the applicant to physically remove the three existing lights on the Aviation Road parcel. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. OBORNE-That was the one. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. CRUMB-Good evening. That pretty much sums it up. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. CRUMB-I'm Sean Crumb. I represent Jolley Associates. Regarding the existing three spots, we do plan to remove those. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CRUMB-And basically I'm just looking to have you approve two lights to illuminate our Jolley sign. It was an oversight on our part when we initially came through the Site Plan Review that we didn't illuminate those. So very simple process. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? And I guess we'll focus first on the Aviation Road site. MR. TRAVER-Well, the main issue seems to be the brightness, in terms of the foot candles, and I'm assuming, with these fixtures, that they can be, that you can adjust that to reduce that? MR. CRUMB-Well, the specific fixtures that we've proposed have no adjustment for the density of light. So if you wanted us to tone that down, so to speak, we would have to come up with another fixture. MR. TRAVER-You couldn't put a different bulb or something? MR. FORD-For wattage isn't possible? MR. CRUMB-Well, I did inquire on that, and those are metal halide, 50 watt. Certainly it's possible to change those, but exactly what we would go to, I'm sure that we can come up with a very similar goose neck type light. It's just a matter of what the wattage is. MR. TRAVER-Yes, because the appearance of the fixture itself seems fine. It's really it's just that it's four times the. MR. CRUMB-And I have no problem with reducing those, and, you know, if that's the path that we're going to take, I don't have any problem with that, but I would ask you that if we're going to do that, could we do the, come back administratively, provided we're meeting whatever recommendation you're asking for, so as to give you folks some time to talk about other things. So, if that's the request, we can certainly look at that. The lighting plan, as you see it, is the lighting plan that you had approved back through the Site Plan process. So I would hope that there's not any issue with that overall lighting plan, and that we're just dealing with these two spot lights. MR. HUNSINGER-Does anyone want to comment on that? And I think it is just the lights that illuminate the sign. Yes, okay. MR. FORD-If you can bring that into compliance with Town Code, that would address any concern I had. MR. CRUMB-I'm happy to work with you on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Is everyone comfortable with the design of the fixture? Because it matches the rest, I thought it was a nice choice. MR. FORD-Very nice. MRS. STEFFAN-So how would we word that? The new fixture. MR. HUNSINGER-You just said that you thought it was a 50 watt? MR. CRUMB-That's, I believe so, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Because I thought it said here 70 watt, on the spec sheet. MR. CRUMB-I'm sorry. The exterior building lights area 50 watt metal halide, and, you're correct, they are 70 watt. So, again, I don't see any issue that, you know, we can come up with an appropriate wattage to substitute for that. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-So how do we word it? I don't know what the calculations and the uniformity ratio will be with the 50 watt fixture versus the 70 watt fixture. MR. FORD-I don't think we should be concerned with the wattage. We should be concerned with the foot candles, as called for in 179-6-030. MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, could you elaborate on the Staff comment, the 4.2 foot candles? Did you just look at where it showed on the map? MR. OBORNE-Correct. That's the clouded area. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. CRUMB-Well, I'm not sure that that 4.2 actually is specific to those immediate lights. If you look across the front of the building on the right side we start at 4.0, and moving left 5.9, 4.7, 5.4, 4.2, 6.6. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I kind of took that to be that was the light levels at the entrance. MR. CRUMB-Yes, the average light in that area. MR. HUNSINGER-Not underneath the sign. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I thought they would be pointed directly at the building and so I didn't think there'd be too much spill. MR. CRUMB-There really shouldn't be. MRS. STEFFAN-Because they're tilted right into the wall. MR. CRUMB-Yes, they are, and they're downcast, and what spillage is going to run down the wall is actually going to hit the roof. MRS. STEFFAN-Exactly. It's not even going to go out in the parking lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if your other lights are 50 watt, I wouldn't think you'd want to go any brighter. MR. CRUMB-Again, I'm open to adjusting those, and if a 50 watt is suitable to you, we'll certainly reduce it to a 50 watt. MR. TRAVER-Yes. That drops it from 5,000 to 3500, according to the schedule. MR. OBORNE-I do want to state that the lights are goose neck style, going right into the wall. So there's very little spill, and that was one of the points in the review, also, is that you may want to just allow this. If you're not comfortable with the foot candles, then you may want to have him reduce it to 50, but it's at 75 now. It's going right into the wall, lighting up the Jolley sign. MR. FORD-I can live with that, too. I just want it reduced. MR. CRUMB-I think that that would be reasonable. If you're agreeable to that, we would just reduce that to the 50 watt and call it a day. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-And seeing as how there are no takers, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Everyone comfortable with going to two 50 watt? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) MR. FORD-Yes. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-It's a good solution. MRS. STEFFAN-This is just a modification on light. So we don't need to reconsider SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-I don't think so. Well, by asking the question, we've reconsidered it, actually, for purposes of the resolution. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2007 JOLLEY ASSOCIATES c/o SEAN CRUMB, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1) A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a modification to their approved site plan; specifically a change in lighting type and location. Site Plan Modifications require Planning Board review and approval. 2) A public hearing was advertised and held on 2/17/09 & 4/21/09; and 3) This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2007 JOLLEY ASSOCIATES c/o SEAN CRUMB, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B regarding SEQRA, this application is a modification, and the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the proposed modification does not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and therefore no further SEQRA review is necessary. Paragraph Four E does not apply. Paragraph Four F does not apply. a) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b) This application is a modification and the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and c) 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. d) 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 e) NOT APPLICABLE: If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and f) NOT APPLICABLE: The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) g) All previous conditions of approvals still apply; and h) This is approved with the following two conditions: 1. That the applicant will remove the three existing spotlights underneath the signage. 2. The applicant will reduce the wattage on the proposed lighting fixtures to 50 watts. Duly adopted this 21St day of April, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. CRUMB-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. SITE PLAN NO. 22-2007 MODIFICATION SEAR TYPE UNLISTED JOLLEY ASSOCIATES AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC- INT. LOCATION 1412 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO THEIR APPROVED SITE PLAN. THE MODIFICATION IS TO ADD TWO BUILDING MOUNTED SITE LIGHTS AND THREE FLOOD LIGHTS ILLUMINATING THE JOLLEY NAME ON THE BUILDING FRONT. MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRE REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SV 46-08 LOT SIZE 1.5 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.16-1-3 SECTION 179-4-020 SEAN CRUMB, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-I don't know if we need to review Staff Notes, Keith. Unless there's anything else you wanted to add? MR. OBORNE-Yes, there is. MR. HUNSINGER-There were a couple of other things on this site than the other site. MR. CRUMB-There were two additional lights on that. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 22-2007, Jolley Associates. Site Plan Review for modification to an approved Site Plan. Location 1412 State Route 9, Highway Commercial Intensive is the zone. Project Description. Applicant proposes a modification to their approved Site Plan. The modification is to add two building mounted site lights to the front wall and three low wattage flood lights illuminating the Jolley name above the front entrance. Modifications to approved Site Plans require review and approval by the Planning Board. I do want to state that this site is, for lack of a better term, hot. It does have quite a bit of spill onto Route 9 and adjoining properties, which is a concern, and I do want to also put the caveat that you are back here for Site Plan modification. That does open up review for any other deficiencies that the Planning Board may wish to discuss, and with that said, the plan review, I think, speaks for itself. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CRUMB-Just one note of clarification. We're only proposing two goose neck lights, again, not three. MR. OBORNE-Did I say three? MR. CRUMB-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Yes. I didn't read that in there. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else you wanted to add? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) MR. CRUMB-Nothing, other than the fact that I understand that you folks feel that it's bright there. Again, I just refer back to the fact that we did go through Site Plan approval and we reviewed all the lighting at that time, and at that time, it did meet the Code. I think that, you know, there's certainly some potential that part of the spillage is streetlights. I agree that, you know, according to the photometric report, there's very minimal spillage off of there, if you read the photometric report. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-The two sites are remarkably different. If you go to Exit 19, the site is much darker than when you go to 20. MR. CRUMB-I think it's because the building is setback somewhat, a bit further. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, there's also four gas stations, and so the canopy's a little bit larger, but it's certainly a much brighter site than the other one. MR. HUNSINGER-I had similar comments. I didn't know if maybe the wrong fixtures were installed, you know, higher wattages or something. MR. CRUMB-Not that I'm aware of. I know that your Code Enforcement Officer did review all of the lighting at the time that we had installed it, and there was a discrepancy on our part. In fact, the two lights that we're proposing on the front of the building had been mounted. They were not on the photometric report. They wound up on the electrical plan. So consequently they did get installed. We were asked to not use them, which we have kept them turned off, and seeing that they are there. We're requesting the use of them. MRS. STEFFAN-Could one of the differences be that the windows in the front of that building on Exit 20 are, aren't they floor to ceiling? MR. CRUMB-They are both very, pretty much, pretty similar. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and there's a lot of spill coming out of the convenience store. Where on Exit 19, they're half windows and it's not as much spillage. I'm assuming that that's some of what's adding to it. MR. CRUMB-That's part of it. I think the other portion is the Exit 19 building is deeper as well. The dimensions are somewhat different. MR. HUNSINGER-I drive by the Exit 19 store a lot, and in my mind it looks so much better than the old store, because the setback is more consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. I think it really ended up coming out nice. It was a nice project. MR. CRUMB-We were very proud of that site. We like it very much. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You should be. Well, what's the wishes of the Board here? MR. SEGULJIC-And this photometric that we have does not take into account the lighting from the store, coming through the windows? MR. CRUMB-No, it never did. MR. SEGULJIC-So what we're, the numbers we're seeing here only go higher, in front of the store. MR. CRUMB-Theoretically, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I mean, it is, I approved this and I'm ashamed. I was part of it. I don't know, looking at these numbers now. MR. FORD-Do you have a suggestion of a way to address the concern, the reality of the situation is somewhat different than what we anticipated. MR. CRUMB-Well, I don't at this point in time. I can, I know that it would be expensive to re-lit the whole site, and I'd rather not do that. I understand your concern. I also understand that we reviewed this originally, and you approved it, and that's the basis that I'm coming back to you with, that it had been pre-approved. Again, we're looking for the two lights to illuminate the Jolley sign. If push comes to shove, you want to leave those 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) two other building lights unlit, I can live with that. Aside from that, I really would not look to adjust all of our lighting on site. MR. HUNSINGER-What's the typical life of, I guess in, you know, I can only speak for myself, obviously, but to me the area that is more over lit is really the canopy. The canopy at the Exit 19 store, I think, is, you know, you don't have to squint or stretch to be able to see well. I think it's appropriately lit. This one's a lot brighter. MR. CRUMB-I think part of that has to do with the store, and I think there's an effect there, you know, maybe the thing to do is look at both stores, the properties with the building lights off and see how it looks from that. MR. HUNSINGER-But I guess the question I was going to ask is do you have a sense for what the light span is of these light fixtures, the bulbs themselves? MR. CRUMB-I honestly do not. MR. HUNSINGER-Because maybe there's a way to, you know, tone them down just through. MR. CRUMB-Attrition. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you know, put in a smaller bulb. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, as they age, they'll dim. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they dim, too. MR. SEGULJIC-But you're saying it's expensive to re-light this? MR. CRUMB-Of course it is, very expensive. It's not just light bulbs, it's ballasts as well. It's very expensive. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It's almost like a new fixture. MRS. STEFFAN-But don't those ballasts, don't they have the opportunity, Chris, one of the questions you're asking is about switching them out, and I think that they can be switched out like between the 100 watt, 150 watt. MR. CRUMB-I'm sure that there's a scenario there that certain ones can be, but I'm not going to comment when I don't know. MRS. STEFFAN-I think in the initial write up from Bruce Frank, the Code Enforcement guy, he did talk about that. I'm trying to remember. I know there was some kind of write up that was done. MR. FORD-How would you feel about an adjustment to the interior light? If we're talking about additional spillage out from that, look at that. MR. CRUMB-To be honest with you, I'm not prepared to answer on that at the moment. I would prefer to discuss that with store management, to see what their opinion is of that, and understand what they're using and why they're using it, before I commit to something that I shouldn't have. MR. FORD-We can fully appreciate that. MRS. STEFFAN-I also believe that there's different lights. I think that the lights at Exit 19 are drop down and these are recessed at Exit 20. MR. CRUMB-Well, we can take a look. On the canopy? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. CRUMB-Is that where you're referring to? The canopy lights at Exit 20 are 100 watt metal halide. Well, the ones at 19 are also 100 watt. I don't have a description. They are flush at 19. I can't answer. MR. SEGULJIC-I believe on 20 they come down a little bit. If I recall, they'd have to be recessed, that's my limited recollection. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) MR. CRUMB-I would have to look at the, I didn't bring that other information with me. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess, if you reduce the lighting, you'll save some money. I guess if you go back and see what you can do for us. MR. CRUMB-Spend some money to save some money. Again, I do know that, you know, we had proposed the lighting plan, and the Code Enforcement Officer did review the lighting at the time that we installed, and I know they're very strict about that. MR. SEGULJIC-But you're here for a modification, though. MR. CRUMB-I understand that, and if I withdraw my application, that closes back up. Am I right? MR. SEGULJIC-Then that's true. MRS. STEFFAN-You can't, just because of the sign that didn't, the sign you have to be here. On the Aviation Road site, those lights are 8500 lumens. They're 100 watt canopy lights. The ones that are at Route 9 are 9500 lumens, 110 watts. MR. CRUMB-You're correct. There's your difference. They are two different fixtures. MRS. STEFFAN-So that's why there's a difference and they're a lot brighter, and you have a lot more of them at Exit 20. So that would be why you could read a newspaper under there. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, in the photometric there's not much of a difference, you know, 11.7 vs. 10.7. MR. CRUMB-Well, and there's two less dispensers at Aviation Road than there is at Exit 20. So the canopy is that much larger. So it is going to give that appearance. MRS. STEFFAN-How does the Board feel? MR. HUNSINGER-Personally I don't really have a problem in you putting the two lights to light up your sign. To me the bigger issue is the lighting underneath the canopy, and if there's a way to, you know, maybe reduce that a little bit or at least through time. MR. CRUMB-Well, I'm not at all adverse, if you're agreeable to do it with attrition, as they burn out. In this economy, I would rather not have to go back in and replace, sixteen lights. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, sixteen lights. MR. CRUMB-So, you know, over time I'd be happy to accommodate that and we could potentially bring the lumens down to match what's over at 19 to the 8500, if you're agreeable to that. MR. FORD-Through attrition. MR. CRUMB-Through attrition, yes. MR. FORD-I can live with that, and the two. MR. SEGULJIC-My problem is how would you ever track something like that? MR. FORD-You can't. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-That's a Code Enforcement nightmare. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. CRUMB-Well, I think that we've proven ourselves to you, over time, and we've done things that you've asked. We've made adjustments, and, you know, we're looking to continue on that same path. I'm a man of my word. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) MR. HUNSINGER-I guess, to me, the bottom line is the two lights proposed now aren't going to add really. Well, we do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing then, and if there are no takers, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-Sean, do you know what kind of fixtures you're using on the Glen Street? MR. CRUMB-I'm sorry, what was the question? MRS. STEFFAN-Do you know what kind of fixtures you're using on the Glen Street location that is going to be re-developed? MR. CRUMB-We have actually, we're not going to be doing that project anytime soon because of the economy. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. CRUMB-But we had proposed, when we propose projects, we try to be consistent with our fixtures. The building lights and yard lights would be the same. I'm not sure why we wound up with two different fixtures for the canopy, but they would be obviously one or the other. Again, we try to be consistent so we're not having to inventory any more parts and pieces than are absolutely necessary. MR. FORD-Obviously we would prefer one over the other. MR. CRUMB-I think the 8500 would be preferred. Am I right? MR. HUNSINGER-It's funny, because when you look at the photometric chart, there's not much of a difference. The eye definitely tells a significant difference. MRS. STEFFAN-Sean, how long do they last? MR. CRUMB-I honestly don't know. That's a 24 hour station. So they're going to be burning more hours than say Exit 20 would be. So they will burn out sooner than later. MRS. STEFFAN-So you closed the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-I did. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 22-2009 JOLLEY ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 1) A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a modification to their approved site plan. The modification is to add two building mounted site lights and three flood lights illuminating the Jolley name on the building front. Modifications to approved site plans require review and approval by the Planning Board 2) A public hearing was advertised and held on 2/17/09 & 4/21/09; and 3) This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 22-2009 JOLLEY ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, this application is a modification, and the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the proposed modification 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) does not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and therefore no further SEQRA review is necessary. Paragraph Four E does not apply. Paragraph Four F does not apply. a) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b) The application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and c) 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. d) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and e) NOT APPLICABLE, If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and f) NOT APPLICABLE, The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and g) All previous conditions of approvals still apply; and h) This is approved with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant will remove the three existing spotlights. 2. That the applicant will reduce the wattage on the proposed lighting to 50 watts. 3. The applicant will reduce lighting fixtures under the gas canopy to 8500 lumens per fixture when the current lights burn out. Duly adopted this 21St day of April, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Thank you. MR. CRUMB-Thank you. MR. SIPP-Before you go, on an unrelated topic, but one dear to my heart, what kind of sign did you end up with at Exit 19? MR. CRUMB-We ended up with the sign that we proposed to you. MR. SIPP-Which is what height? MR. CRUMB-I believe it was to not exceed 10 feet, if I'm not mistaken, and I think that the base is 18 inches if I'm not. I don't have the information in front of me. So I'm going from memory here, but I can recall that the sign that we installed was exactly to the specification that we had proposed, unless there was a construction mishap on the base, that I'm not aware of. MR. SIPP-But this is a pylon type sign? MR. CRUMB-It was a monument sign, yes. MR. SIPP-Monument. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) MR. CRUMB-We're talking about Exit 19 or 20? MR. OBORNE-Nineteen. MR. SIPP-Yes, 19. MR. CRUMB-Yes. You had specifically requested a monument sign. MR. SIPP-All right, but then this was, got involved in the fact that it wasn't up to standard. MR. CRUMB-Well, my recollection from that meeting is, we, you had asked for specifics on that sign. We presented those, and after the fact, Keith and Craig informed me that that exceeded the overall square footage. However, my reasoning behind that, and my argument with the Zoning Board, was the fact that you had limited me, or taken away the ability of me to put signage on my canopy, similar to what I've used at Exit 20. I came away believing that if you can take away, you can grant, and so, but that sign is exactly what we proposed to the Board, with the dimensions. If you go back to your file, I think that you'll find that. MR. SIPP-The thing that caught my eye was 102 square feet. MR. CRUMB-Again, I refer you back to your file of what I proposed at the last meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SIPP-Well, I think we're going to have to get a little tighter on what we propose because, I mean. MR. CRUMB-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 12-2009 SEAR TYPE II LAURA FEATHERS [FAMILY FOOTWEAR] OWNER(S) L G ASSOCIATES ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 1500 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TENT SALE FROM AUGUST 1 TO AUGUST 31, 2009. TENT SALES LONGER THAN 12 DAYS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 11-08; 26-07, SP 7-05; 22-04; [SV 23-93, 1395, 1371, 23-93, 90-96], SSE 2-05, 3-05 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/11/09 NO COUNTY IMPACT LOT SIZE 1.61 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-15 SECTION CHAPTER 161, 179-9 LAURA FEATHERS, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 12-2009, Laura Feathers, tent sales longer than 12 days require Planning Board review and approval. Location 1500 State Route 9, Highway Commercial Intensive is the zoning. This is a Type II, no further SEQRA action required. The Project Description: The applicant proposes a seasonal sales tent event with merchandise being displayed underneath the tent in front of the Family Footwear on Route 9 during the month of August 2009. Staff comments. The following should be listed as a condition of approval, and I go on and list three comments. Those are typical to previous approvals. The applicant has been before you, and I believe that you are quite familiar with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I always know it's Spring when we see the tent before the Planning Board. If you could identify yourself for the record. MS. FEATHERS-My name is Laura Feathers, and I own the Family Footwear Center. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add? MS. FEATHERS-No, I mean, that sums it up very quickly. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any comments, concerns, discussion of the Board? MR. FORD-Question. Laura, last year you had a tent sale. What was the duration of that? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) MS. FEATHERS-It was for a month, all of August, just like I'm requesting the same exact tent sale, same exact timeframe. MR. FORD-Because I know we discussed last year reducing to 21 days, three weeks from four weeks, on some tent sales, and I'm just trying to be consistent. MS. FEATHER-No, I think that Swank only wants three weeks. That's the one you're referring to, the next one, I believe. They only want a three week timeframe. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it's the next one. MS. FEATHERS-They don't want a month because it's too hot in the tent for them, because they have an enclosed tent, where I have an open air tent. It's a 20 by 20 top tent. It's got no electricity in it. It's very basic. It just draws consumers in for the clearance items that we sell, and it really helps. It makes a huge difference in the month of August, which is our busiest time of the year. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled for this project. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing, and seeing that there are no takers, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Any additional discussion, comments, concerns? Would anyone like to put forward a motion? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 12-2009 LAURA FEATHERS [FAMILY FOOTWEARI, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: 1) A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes Tent Sale from August 1 to August 31, 2009. Tent Sales longer than 12 days require Planning Board review and approval. 2) A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/21/09; and 3) This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 12-2009 LAURA FEATHERS [FAMILY FOOTWEARI, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, this is a Type II action. Paragraph Four E does not apply. Paragraph Four F does not apply. We will be granting waivers for grading, lighting, stormwater management and landscaping. a) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b) This is a Type II SEAR action-no further review is required; and c) 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. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) d) 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 e) NOT APPLICABLE, If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and f) NOT APPLICABLE, The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and g) Grant waiver requests for grading, lighting, stormwater management and landscaping plans; and Duly adopted this 21St day of April, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MS. FEATHERS-Well, thank you very much. I really appreciate it. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. MS. FEATHER-It makes a big difference. SITE PLAN NO. 21-2009 SEAR TYPE II SWANK AGENT(S) KATHY HILL OWNER(S) DAVID KENNY ZONING HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION 1444 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A TENT SALE FROM JULY 2 THROUGH JULY 22. TENT SALES LONGER THAN 12 DAYS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 8-08, SP 28-07, SP 10-06, SP 22-05 WARREN CO. PLANNING 4/8/09 LOT SIZE 7.0 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-22 SECTION CHAPTER 161, 179-9 KATHY HILL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 21-2009, Kathy Hill for Swank. Tent sales longer than 12 days require Planning Board review and approval. Location, 1444 State Route 9, Highway Commercial Intensive is the existing zoning. Applicant, Project Description, applicant proposes a tent sale from July 2nd through July 22nd. Staff comments are the same as the previous application. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MS. HILL-Hello there. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add? MS. HILL-Actually I really don't. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If you could identify yourself for the record, too. MS. HILL-Kathy Hill, Manager of Swank. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MS. HILL-Going on 22 years there. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-I think this is consistent with what we've seen. MS. HILL-Yes. We've been doing the 21 for the last few years. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing and if there are no takers, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 21-2009 SWANK, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1) A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a Tent Sale from July 2 through July 22. Tent Sales longer than 12 days require Planning Board review and approval. 2) A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/21/09; and 3) This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 21-2009 SWANK, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, this is a Type II action. Paragraph Four E does not apply. Paragraph Four F does not apply. On Four G, we are granting waivers for the submission of grading, lighting, stormwater management and landscaping plans. a) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b) This is a Type II SEAR action-no further review is needed; and c) 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. d) 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 e) NOT APPLICABLE, If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and f) NOT APPLICABLE, The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and g) Grant waiver requests for submission of grading, lighting, stormwater management and landscaping plans. Duly adopted this 21St day of April, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. You're all set. Thank you. MS. HILL-Thank you very much. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) SITE PLAN NO. 13-2009 SEAR TYPE II LEHIGH NORTHEAST CEMENT CO. OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HI-3A LOCATION 313 LOWER WARREN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING 430 SQUARE FOOT ELECTRICAL BUILDING AND REPLACE WITH A 797 SQUARE FOOT MODULAR ELECTRICAL BUILDING, 254 SQUARE FOOT STEEL DECK WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK AT THE MAIN ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION TO HOUSE NEW ELECTRICAL SWITCHGEAR. CHANGES TO INDUSTRIAL SITE PLANS IN HI ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 12-09, SP 51-07, AV 17-06, SP 7-06, SP 10-89, AV 6-89, BP 07-663 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/11/09 NO COUNTY IMPACT APA, CEA, DEC, ACOE, OTHER NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 46.97 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 310.7-1-1 SECTION 179-9 EDWARD KOKOSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 13-2009, Lehigh Northeast Cement Company. Requested Action is changes to industrial site plans require review and approval, 313 Lower Warren Street is the location, existing zoning is Heavy Industrial Three Acres. This is a Type II SEQRA, no further action required. Project Description: Applicant proposes to remove existing 430 square foot electrical building and replace with a 797 square foot modular electrical building. Two hundred and fifty four square foot steel deck with associated site work at the main electrical substation to house new electrical switchgear. What follows is Site Plan Review and I assume that the Board has reviewed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. KOKOSKI-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. KOKOSKI-Ed Kokoski. I'm the Plant Engineer for Lehigh Northeast. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add? MR. KOKOSKI-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Then I will open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board. MRS. STEFFAN-The only note that's in the Staff Notes, the Planning Board may wish to direct the applicant to install downcast fixtures as a condition of approval. Based on the, and I know that that is part of the Code, but based on the location of the facility, up against the woods, and then the Hudson River and it's in the back of the facility, it slopes down. I don't think that that is terribly significant on this particular site. MR. OBORNE-Ma'am, I cannot disagree with you on that. MR. FORD-Good observation. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Anything else? MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing, and if there are no takers, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 13-2009 LEHIGH NORTHEAST CEMENT CO., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) 1) A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to remove existing 430 square foot electrical building and replace with a 797 square foot modular electrical building, 254 square foot steel deck with associated site work at the main electrical substation to house new electrical switchgear. Changes to industrial site plans in HI zone require Site Plan Review and approval. 2) A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/21/09; and 3) This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 13-2009 LEHIGH NORTHEAST CEMENT CO., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, it's a Type II action. Paragraph Four E does not apply. Paragraph Four F does not apply. We are granting waivers for the submission of lighting, landscaping, grading, and stormwater management plans, and no conditions on the approval. a) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b) This is a Type II action-no further review required; and c) 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. d) 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 e) NOT APPLICABLE, If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit; and f) NOT APPLICABLE, The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and Duly adopted this 21St day of April, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. You're all set. Thank you. SUBDIVISION 10-2008 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEAR TYPE UNLISTED LARRY CLUTE AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) GREG COLUMBE ZONING SFR-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; SKETCH PLAN 1/20/09 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.48 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.6-1-20.2 SECTION A-183 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; LARRY CLUTE, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 10-2008, Preliminary and Final Stage, Larry Clute is the applicant. Requested Action, subdivision of land, location Alta and Nathan Lane. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) Existing zoning Urban Residential 10,000 square feet. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. SEQRA review is required. Parcel History, two lot administrative 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 add, as a note, that driving by there today, I noticed that the house was already erected on the property, and I did have an issue with the 50% expansion of the septic field, and one can only hope that that isn't an issue at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace of Nace Engineering and Larry Clute. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have anything else to add? MR. NACE-Not really. MR. KREBS-The house that was erected is erected in a different location than on the drawings. MR. NACE-Yes. We weren't aware of that when the drawing was prepared. We have looked at it and with the septic system that was approved by the Building Department, there is room on the lot for a replacement system. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there room on both lots for a replacement? MR. NACE-That's correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The other question that I had was, when we went there for site visits on Saturday, we didn't see the subdivision sign. It looked like it might have been laying out in the lot. MR. NACE-I know Tom Center put it up a week and a half ago. MR. CLUTE-It may have gone, it was in the trees. It was wired up into the trees. MRS. STEFFAN-We just saw something white like in the backyard somewhere, but there was no sign. We were kind of surprised to go and find a house there, I have to admit. MR. HUNSINGER-Actually it was the other way around for me. I was surprised to see the plans and not see the house identified on the plans. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, where it was, but still, and there is a foundation on the property next door. Correct? MR. CLUTE-The adjacent lot, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, the adjacent lot, but you don't own it. MR. CLUTE-No. MR. KREBS-Which has been there for quite some time in the same status it is right now. MR. CLUTE-It has. The owner is actually here, and he owns the lots that we're discussing now, and the sale of the lots that we're discussing is the construction of his new home. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. That makes sense. MR. FORD-Thank you for that clarification. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it looks pretty straightforward, but we can't do Preliminary and Final because we didn't see the sign posted. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, then of course the other issue is the plan itself. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) MRS. STEFFAN-The plan itself, it needs to be revised. MR. NACE-With the house location? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. NACE-We can certainly revise that. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Any other concerns, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Now we didn't get engineering comments on this one. MR. HUNSINGER-We did not. MR. OBORNE-A two lot subdivision wouldn't be sent to VISION. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. NACE-Just for clarification, the sign was definitely posted. MR. CLUTE-It's a three wide, two high white sign, and it was posted right in the birches right behind, I mean literally mounted, wired. MR. HUNSINGER-I see some neighbors nodding their heads. MR. CLUTE-Yes, it was there. MR. HUNSINGER-We did see it laying in the yard. Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-We saw something laying there, but it wasn't posted. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board, before I open up the public hearing? Okay. I will open the public hearing. Did you want to come up and comment? If you could identify yourself for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GREG COLOMBE MR. COLOMBE-My name is Greg Colombe, the owner of the property. I just want to vouch that the sign was there. I live right across the street from where the building is being done, and just like Larry mentioned, that I'm trying to sell the lots and take that money and get my house framed and finished. So that's where I'm at, but that sign was there, and we've had some wind in there and it was down next to the tree at one day, but then we came over, we put it back up. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Good evening. ALEXIS FLEWELLING MRS. FLEWELLING-Good evening. My name is Alexis Flewelling, and we are hopefully going to be buying the new house that has already been erected, and I do also want to vouch for the fact that the sign was up in the tree. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. FLEWELLING-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? MR. OBORNE-If I may state for the future, this is a corner lot and you would need two signs, just in the future, you need one on each road frontage. That might have been a. MR. NACE-It's a regulation? MR. OBORNE-Yes, it is. Just next time. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) MR. NACE-I've never been faced with that. I've never seen that before. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Since there are no other commenters, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-I think we could probably get through Preliminary, but you will have to modify the Site Plan in order to get Final. MR. CLUTE-Can I ask? How does that affect the timeframes? I mean, what would be the process at that point? If, the survey's already done on the new unit. So, I mean, I'm sure it's an easy matter. I actually know the survey's already done. Needed it to get the CO on the building. Just waiting for the subdivision. So if we get Preliminary tonight, where does that put Final, date wise? MRS. STEFFAN-June. MR. HUNSINGER-May or June, yes. MR. OBORNE-If I may offer a solution would be to, and again, this is a possible solution, is go ahead and approve this, and as a condition of approval that upon submittal of the Final subdivision itself, for my review before I kick it over to Craig, that it does have the updated and compliant location of the house to ensure that it does actually have 50% expansion. I think that's the only issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, is it, though? I mean, what's the size of the house that was erected? Is it significantly different than what's shown here? MR. CLUTE-Well, it's a two bedroom ranch. The same, it should be 26 by 36. MR. HUNSINGER-So it's the same footprint, just turned? MR. CLUTE-It is. Yes, we oriented it, Nathan vs. Alta. We faced it towards Nathan. MR. HUNSINGER-Because I mean obviously the house was put up before the subdivision was drawn. MR. CLUTE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So the question in my mind immediately was, well, are you going to be able to meet setback requirements. MR. CLUTE-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CLUTE-I went to Craig, prior to submitting for the permit on this home, knowing that the subdivision was in place, and asked, you know, can I construct, and I constructed, assuming the subdivision is approved. So it means all setbacks, if the subdivision is approved. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, personally I don't have a problem that you did that. I mean, it didn't bother me that the house was there before you got the subdivision because you had an approved building lot. MR. CLUTE-Exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-But what did bother me was to look at this map and not see the map reflect what was done. MR. CLUTE-The reason it ended up oriented as is is with the options that Alexis and Mike had chosen. The garage, initially I was just doing simple ranches there. So with the garage and a bilco it couldn't meet setback, facing Alta. It had to go to Nathan, and hence the dilemma. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and again, for the record, there is sufficient area on both lots for septic replacement? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) MR. CLUTE-Absolutely. MR. NACE-Larry has used a, and gotten approval with the Building Department, a leach pit, or I don't want to say a leach pit, a seepage pit type septic system which doesn't take up as much room, and there is room for 100% replacement, still meeting the setbacks. MR. CLUTE-The drywell took up less space than the leach field. So actually, expansion or correct is more easily accomplished. MR. FORD-What's the normal procedure for reorientation of a house on a lot? MR. OBORNE-I can't answer that. I mean, if the Zoning Administrator's going to sign off on it and the Building and Code's Director is going to sign off on it, I don't think there really is one. It is a buildable lot. As long as they meet their setbacks, their fine. Their requirement is that you do have 50% and it is recommended that you go 100% expansion in case of failure. Failure, in these soils, is probably not going to happen. However, I do, for what it's worth, I have issues with the effluent filtering capabilities of the soil, and are there amendments in these soils? Seepage pits are allowed in these soils. If Dave's signing off on them, there's not anything I can do about it or say anything about it. MR. CLUTE-We have the home itself and the infrastructure all fully approved. Everything is all done via the Building Department, Craig Brown. MR. FORD-Including its placement? MR. CLUTE-Placement, materials, specifications, all of the above. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-What's the feeling of the Board? MR. KREBS-My feeling is it doesn't really make any difference. If you look at all the rest of the lots in the area, they're similar in size. The houses are similar in size. The house on the corner across the street faces Nathan, as well as, you know, so, to me, I don't have any problem at all. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think my concern is just the proper documentation, and I think Keith's suggestion is a good one. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-I can get on board with that. MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted Action. Short Form. MRS. STEFFAN-"Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) MRS. STEFFAN-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?" MR. SIPP-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Then I'll make a motion for a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 10-2008, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: LARRY CLUTE, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 21st day of, May, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2008 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; 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 1. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 4/21/09; and 2. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 3. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2008 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 21St day of April, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2008 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of a 0.48 acre parcel into two lots of 0.24 acres each. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 4/21/09; and 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2008 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. Paragraph Four B, Negative declaration. Paragraph Four F does not apply. Paragraph Four G does not apply. a) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter A-183], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and d) As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and e) Not applicable, If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and f) Not applicable, The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and g) This is approved with the following condition. 1. That the applicant submit Final subdivision plans to Staff that are Code compliant, specifically the wastewater system is compliant, and also that the applicant will denote on the plan the existing house on Lot Two. Duly adopted this 21St day of April, 2009, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-If I could just, discussion? MR. OBORNE-Code Compliant concerning wastewater replacement. MR. HUNSINGER-Too vague? MR. OBORNE-For a wastewater system which should be Code Compliant, and I'm sure it is because it's not a leach field anymore. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and my issue was that Lot Two should show the location of the existing new house. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Just be specific. MRS. STEFFAN-Should I re-state that for Maria again? MR. OBORNE-Please. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. Thank you. MR. NACE-Thank you. SPECIAL USE PERMIT 15-2009 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2009 SEAR TYPE II JOHN & KIM POLUNCI AGENT(S) FITZGERALD MORRIS BAKER & FIRTH; HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) MARYLEE GOSLINE ZONING RR-3 LOCATION 21 BLIND ROCK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A KENNEL FACILITY WHICH INCLUDES A 2,064 SQUARE FOOT PET CARE BUILDING, A 576 SQUARE FOOT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING/KENNEL WITH ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. KENNELS IN AN RR ZONE REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT; FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR LAND DISTURBANCE/FILLING WITHIN 100 FEET OF A WETLANDS BOUNDARY. BOTH ARE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUP 30-08, SP 18-05 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/11/09 NO COUNTY IMPACT DEC, ACOE, OTHER NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 20.58 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.15-1-1.1 SECTION 179-10, 179-6-060 MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Special Use Permit 15-2009 John and Kim Polunci. Requested Action: Special Use Permit for a kennel facility. Also Freshwater Wetlands Permit required for land disturbance/filling within 100 feet of a wetland boundary. Location, 21 Blind Rock Road, Existing Zoning, RR-3A. SEQRA Status Type II, no further action required. Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a Kennel Facility with associated site improvements on 20.13 acres in the RR-3A zone. There are two buildings associated with this project. The first building is a 576 square foot administrative building which includes boarding for approximately 24 cats, handicap unisex bathroom, water- heater room and laundry facilities. The second building is a 2,064 square foot dog kennel which includes boarding for 8 dogs, a dog play area, mechanical room and numerous facilities to promote cleanliness. The buildings are accessed via an existing private drive which fronts on Blind Rock Road. The length of the access road is approximately 800 feet, crosses NWI wetlands, and terminates in an eight (8) space parking lot with 30 foot drive aisle adjacent to the kennel structures. The kennel is serviced by underground town water and electric. The kennel is also serviced by an on site wastewater system designed for up to 30 dogs and 3 employees per day. Staff Comments: New impervious surface associated with the drive and parking amounts to approximately 5,500 square feet. The two kennel structures and walks amount to 3,132 square feet of impervious area. The total new impervious surface for the project amounts to 8,632 square feet. Couple that with the existing 14,100 square foot drive, the total impervious area associated with this project totals 22,732 square feet. Note: Staff calculates that an additional 18,950 square feet of road surface exists on site but appear to not be associated with this project. Clarification on the type of road surfaces on site may need to be forth coming as well as the applicant's calculation methods. Are these roads compliant with driveway standards? Further, the applicant is incorporating standards and practices set by the Pet Care Services Association with regards to the kennel operation. These standards and practices appear to have been incorporated in the design of the project. Just one quick additional, few additional comments. This plan has been forwarded to Vision Engineering for review and comment This plan has been forwarded to Town of Queensbury Water Department for review and comment Concerning Site Plan 18-2005, which was approved on June 21, 2005 for grading and filling operations on this parcel, has a Notice of Termination been filed with the Department of Environmental Conservation as per the S.W.P.P.P. requirements? Any permitting required from DEC or ACOE for work in or near wetlands? Has that been accomplished, and I'd turn it over to the Board for their comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, Keith. Before I turn the floor over to the applicant, I do have a sign up sheet. If you do wish to speak during the public hearing, there is a public hearing scheduled this evening, I would ask if you would please print your name legibly so that I could read it and put your address as well, and I'll pass this around so you can sign up while the applicant is doing their presentation, and with that, I will turn the floor over to you. MR. FULLER-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) MR. FULLER-Good evening. My name is Matt Fuller. I'm with Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker, Firth, representing the applicants, John and Kim Polunci. I'm here with Tom Hutchins and John Polunci. Just to re-visit, we were here last Fall with a proposed kennel on this property. It's 20.13 acres. Property, as Keith said, 21 Blind Rock Road. It's in the RR- 3A zone. The use is allowed subject to Special Use Permit and Site Plan approval. We went through the process last Fall. The Board expressed concerns with noise. It was an outdoor kennel. The return proposal that we've come back with is directly aimed at those comments. The entire operation has been moved indoors. For the structures, we've got one 576 square foot structure for the office and for some cat boarding. We decided it would be a good idea to keep the cats separate from the dogs. So that's the first building you see on the plan. Immediately, we'll call it behind that on the property, is a 2,064 square foot structure for the dogs. If you look at that, the plans for the dog kennel portion, it's kind of broken up into three different areas. The initial area, if you look at the two entrances, there's an entrance in the front, emergency entrance, exit in the rear. Both have been double doored. I think in the past we had talked about the double gates for the outdoor. We stuck with that kind of theme for the indoor, double door. So that no two double doors will be open at the same time, to, again, control the dogs. If you take a look at the kennel portion of it, looking at the exterior of the structure, I'm pretty sure it's down there, it's double walled construction, and included in the materials that we submitted are additional noise information. The structure itself, the double wall and the insulation, is aimed purely at the noise issue. That double wall construction was designed by the noise consultant that we had here last Fall, and it, you know, incorporates noise studio type of design. That's why the double wall, and we are fully comfortable in saying that there will not be noise issues or concerns outside of this structure. All the dogs will be kept inside. I'm going to get into the run area in a second, but on the noise issue, which I'll get back to, that was the direct aim of that, the double wall construction. Turning back towards the indoor kennel part, there's eight adjustable kennels. I know one of the Staff comments was, how many dogs, and it's adjustable for a reason. If you've gotten through the pet care standards, they're going to come in, when the facility's constructed, we tried to get a number from them in advance and they won't do it. When they come in to evaluate you and give you your certificate, they calculate the square footage that you have available, based on construction, any bins and things that may take up room indoors, and they're going to calculate the available square footage for animals, and based on that, they give you a square footage for animals. Obviously smaller dogs they need less square footage than a large dog. So I've had some conversations with Staff. For us to sit here and give you some number, you know, we can't. You could have 30 small dogs. You could have eight big dogs. It's going to depend on the standards and the licensing that we get from the pet care association. So if that's something we need to explore a bit with the Board, we can, but we did try, we can say that, to get some number from them in advance, and they wouldn't do it, just because they won't commit until they actually get to see the structure. In the kennel area, you'll note we've got a shower area for dog cleaning. Again, that's not to have a full service grooming operation. It's dogs are dogs, and whether they're indoors or outdoors, a dog gets dirty. So that's there for that. You might see the dog toilet and ask, you know, what that is, that's to clean up waste, and it'll go into that toilet and into the septic system, and that was designed intentionally that way. You also notice, the floors are going to be cement. We do have floor drains throughout, and you'll notice the pressure washer installed on the walls. That will be so the facility can be cleaned, obviously, and it'll lie under the floor drains. Again, the pet care standards, all the stuff that we've incorporated in the plans were aimed directly at that 80 pages that we're going to have to satisfy when they come in and give their initial inspection to get the actual certification. Turning to what we think is the creative part, and certainly one of a kind in this area, is the dog play area. Again, noise was the big issue last time I think, and keeping the dogs indoors, but also keeping it a place that's enjoyable for them. Again, the focus is on the animals, and John has done a lot of homework, come up with a plan working with Tom. You'll see the dog run area. I've given you a sample. This is the actual synthetic grass that will be used inside the facility. The backing is just a backing they give you to send it to you. This isn't the backing that'll be used. It's actually porous so water can pass. In between this and the cement floor is a honeycomb type of material, we don't have a sample, but that can be cleaned, can be rolled up. This whole turf is not nailed down or fixed down. It can be rolled up, depending on how soiled it gets. So, you know, for interim cleaning, they can just power wash this. It'll float through. Any waste, obviously, they'd have to pick up and put in the dog toilet. There's another one in the dog run area so they don't have to go back and forth, but this can be cleaned, sanitized, rolled up, the floor cleaned, sanitized, dried, put back down, and I think this is a pretty interesting idea. I think it's certainly something that we don't have around here. It's been used down State in the cities, but I think it's quite a novel idea for bringing a real truer outdoor atmosphere indoors. Continuing with that outdoor theme, you'll see the skylights. We don't have any side windows. Again, addressed with the 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) noise, because that would certainly be a noise issue if we put side windows in. So we put the skylights in. John, if you want, can talk about the HVAC system. You look at the standards, again, going back to that, there's a minimum exchange rate that they have to have for the air. That being different from the kennel area where the dogs are more at rest, and the play area, it's a much more stringent exchange, and that system has been designed to meet that. Again, the same with the power washers and things. The utilities and everything are out back in the mechanical room, hot water, HVAC again, electric, all that. Septic has been designed on site. Tom can touch on that if we need to. One of the other discussions we've had in the past are hours. It's not a 24 hour pick up your dog and drop it off. The hours that they expect to allow people to pick up and drop off their dogs, seven a.m. to nine a.m., during lunch time 12 to 1, and 5 to 7, and they may drop off, too. They're going to have a pick up, drop off service themselves where they'll go to your house and pick up your animal. Obviously, we don't want anybody to get confused. If somebody says I've got to come in and three o'clock and pick up my dog, I think, you know, they might be accommodating to that, but it's not going to be, you can come pick up your dog at any hour. As for cars, we're not expecting 30, 40, 50 cars a day, maybe, based on the projections we came up with with the animals we might be able to have, you know, 15 to 20 range is I think reasonable. The driveway has been talked about, and from the driveway standpoint, we've set it out on the plans, showed you the improvements that we've put on the plans to meet the Code, but I think that's something that the Planning Board can talk about if you want. I think our proposal would be to disturb as little as possible. That property, we all know what it was. Schermerhorn filled it, and they had three or four dump trucks an hour going in and out of there. I can't remember how many years it was, but it was a couple of years straight, for all the fill that they brought in there. That driveway is pretty well compacted. I don't know that we have any machinery that could get it as compacted as it is now. So there's kind of a cost benefit to disturbing it. Obviously there would be a cost savings if we didn't have to, but, you know, we're open, obviously, to discussing not disturbing it as much as we've proposed, if that's what the Planning Board would like to see. The width at the pond, there was a Staff Note on that. Obviously we do not plan to fill in the wetlands to make that wider. We've seen other projects that, if necessary, may have a little turn off at the upper portion, turn off on the other side if it's necessary, but that stretch between there, you know, I've been over there and walked it myself. It's not a few hundred feet distance where there's going to be conflicts and cars, and if somebody's pulling in there to go in, and there's a car coming out, they're going to see each other, and I don't think, the meeting head to head and having to back out extreme distances, I just, you know, I know that's a concern in some areas. I tend to think that it's not so much with this. So that's certainly something to talk about. As for the operations, we included the pet care association standards, talked about the spaces for the dogs, it's very strict, and they do, the goal, obviously immediately is to meet that Level One standard. You'll see in there there's two standards, and, you know, possibly some day they could achieve that Level Two, but you can't just walk in and get the Level Two. You've got to work up to it. Those standards, it's a five year renewal that they have to do. So that's their requirement that they'll have to renew this permit, like accreditation with them every five years. Did I miss everything? Talk about the septic or anything? Yes, we can take questions from the Board if you want. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-You brought up septic, because that was one of my questions. I was on the Board when the Schermerhorn project was approved for the fill, and I'm trying to remember, I know that the scenario, as it was laid out to us, was that was going to be, the pile of fill that was there was eventually going to have a single family residence on it, but I was believing that the septic, because it came up in discussion and I didn't have the minutes when I went back to find them, that there was supposed to be some fill brought in for the septic and leach. Am I remembering that properly, on the original, yes, when Schermerhorn owned it? TOM HUTCHINS MR. HUTCHINS-On the original. I don't recall that we went into detail of a septic design. I remember showing a house location. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and we talked about it. MR. HUTCHINS-And plans up there that perhaps some fill would be required, we'd evaluate it at the time. What we've done with this one is with the location of the septic, which is why it's so far from the building is because I went out to where I got into native material. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Frankly I wanted it down closer to the building, and where I did the first test hole, you'll see where I got into silt that was lousy material that was fill material that was brought in. So we went up the hill a little further and we got into native material that's gravelly and good for the septic. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-So that's why the absorption field itself is so far away from the building. MRS. STEFFAN-That makes sense, because I remember when we first went up to do the walk around for that particular application, it was fairly remarkable how much fill was already there, and so we were all kind of concerned about what was the quality of it, what was underneath our feet. We weren't really sure. So that's why I asked you that question. MR. FORD-In reading through the material that you presented to us, there was mention made of generator back up. What is the fuel source for the generator? JOHN POLUNCI MR. POLUNCI-Basically all it is, it's going to be a transfer switch, and I've got a five horsepower, 4500 watt generator that'll run emergency stuff, and it's an automatic transfer switch. So I basically will be able to run the air filtration system and any type of lighting, just to get by. It's emergency backup. That's it. MR. FORD-And the fuel is LPg or gasoline? MR. POLUNCI-No, it's gasoline generator. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. FORD-Gasoline fuel? MR. POLUNCI-Gasoline, yes. It's just a roll around. It's not a, it's a portable MR. FULLER-Were you looking for that old resolution for Schermerhorn? I have it, but I didn't see anything about the soil. MRS. STEFFAN-No? Okay. I know it was, we had a discussion about it. I didn't think there was any resolution, but I didn't have the minutes. So I couldn't look it up. MR. TRAVER-I had a question regarding the number of dogs, and I understand that the pet care, you explained the pet care services association could not certify your facility for how many dogs you could handle until they've actually seen the structure, and yet you have eight, in the plans that you've submitted you have eight, and now tonight, and in the septic design, you're talking about 30. MR. FULLER-They're eight movable. MR. TRAVER-Eight movable, okay. MR. FULLER-Yes, for eight large dogs. What we did is sized it and designed it based on large dogs, thinking that that's the largest, the maximum, I guess, variable that we could have, and so you may have, those kennels can be shrunk down for MR. TRAVER-The walls are adjustable. Okay. MR. FULLER-Yes, and you could have, they can adjust them to have, you know, kennels. MR. TRAVER-Okay. up and down, they're vertical and horizontal. So seven or eight small dogs in one of those small MR. FULLER-And the same with the septic. It was designed for 30 large dogs, again, using the maximum variable that we could. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the number of 30, then, one could assume would be the maximum that the facility could handle? MR. FULLER-Thirty large dogs, yes. MR. TRAVER-Thirty large dogs. MR. FULLER-Again, and that's why for us to sit here and say it's a maximum of this number of dogs, we don't know that the pet care standard would ever even support that, and so what I thought was that we would file that, you know, when we get that accreditation, you know, we'll file it. MR. TRAVER-I'm curious as to the nature of the difficulty they have. When you have design plans, I mean, granted the building isn't actually erected, but they have the dimensions. They have the mechanicals and all that. Why are they unwilling to./ MR. FULLER-John talked to them. MR. POLUNCI-Basically, the reason that is is because before we even can qualify for it, they want you to be open for one year, and meanwhile they're working with us in the process of that, going through the application. They set us a standard. They actually say in here, I believe it's on like 14A or 14-1, that each dog needs so much space to be able to stand up, turn around, rotate. He's telling me, he says, you know, I could throw a number out there. I mean, the way it's working out with 30 large dogs, it works out to be 88 square foot per dog. He says in some situations, that's fine, he says, but in other situations because we have a wash room, we might not be able to accommodate 30 large dogs because of the size of the wash room. I mean, they put some pretty strict standards on us, all the way to, you know, washing the facility, to playtime, which dogs can play together. They have actually in here a percentage where, of a large, like say a Great Dane of 160 pounds, can't play with a dog that's, say, five pounds. There's actually a formula to calculate. So to get back to your answer on that is he just said there's no way to actually calculate. I mean, if you wanted to put a number on it, we just put worse case scenario saying 30 large dogs, but it's possible, it is feasible that we could have 40 little Chihuahua's. I mean, but they will come in and they will say, you can't do this or you can do that, and that's where they place their standard. He would not commit to an actual square footage he said because there's so many variables involved in that. MR. TRAVER-So that variable, presumably, would be resolved if you've been operating for a year. MR. POLUNCI-For one year, but in the process they'll be with us. Like they swing by one other time in the middle to just evaluate us and tell us, okay, in the next six months you have to comply to this, this and that, and so they would work with us in the process of that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. What would happen if, at the end of that first year, of hypothetical operation, you were not in compliance? You would lose the certification? MR. POLUNCI-I wouldn't even qualify for the certification. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments? MR. SIPP-Does that synthetic grass apply into the kennel area also? Is that covered, or is that just concrete? MR. POLUNCI-No, it's just going to be in the play areas. MR. FORD-The play area. MR. SIPP-The play area, and the other part will be concrete? MR. POLUNCI-Correct. MR. SIPP-And that would be cleaned and hosed down, pressure washed. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) MR. POLUNCI-There's a pressure wash system there for that, in that part. MR. SIPP-Is there any bactericide? MR. POLUNCI-Yes. They actually list, according to pet care services standards, they actually have standards on how you're supposed to clean, but Simply Green is what they really recommend using. They say it's perfect for the environment and it takes care of the bacteria part of it, but like I said, with the grass part of it, we do have to roll this up occasionally and pressure wash the whole system. MR. SIPP-Now, does that bactericide effect the septic system? MR. POLUNCI-No. MR. SIPP-It doesn't kill the bacteria, or is it so dilute? MR. HUTCHINS-Not according to their information. MR. SIPP-How many times a day do you clean the floor, once? MR. POLUNCI-Well, no, it would definitely be more than once. Actually the pet care services association has a standard for that, on picking up and cleaning up. So you know in that year time, the staff has to go through a certain amount of schooling involved in that to make sure that we're doing it properly. So that's why it takes a year to do. They want you to be in business for a year to work through the bumps and bruises to get it to where everybody's on the same page, and that the welfare of the animal is being taken care of. So to answer your question on that, it's as much as needed. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I do have to say, it seems like you've really done your homework. MR. POLUNCI-A little. MR. SEGULJIC-It looks like a much better plan. MR. FULLER-One more thing on the grass being in two areas. One of the comments says you don't want the dogs to get used to being inside playing inside going to the bathroom inside, so that's why we want to keep the play area separate in look and feel from the home area the kennel. The kennel is going to be a little bit more (lost words). MR. TRAVER-That's why you didn't use carpet or. MR. POLUNCI-Correct. MR. FORD-Good thinking. MR. KREBS-I have a question, on the letter from Silverstone Mastering, when they were talking about the double wall thickness, and it has sound transmission classes, and a sound transmission classification. It looks like the classification, is this sound deadening? MR. POLUNCI-Yes. Actually, what we end up doing is we do double wall construction, and we actually have a, it will be over, by the way, a 58 decibel drop. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. POLUNCI-That's what you're losing, and that's on two by four construction, but we're building this at two by six construction. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything between the framing? MR. POLUNCI-Yes. Basically the first layer of it, well, you have your two by six construction that you're going to frame your whole outside of your building. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. POLUNCI-And then what you're going to do is you do your insulation that meets your energy code requirement, then what you do is you sheet rock it and put your tape 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) on it, then what you do is I guess the big thing with the sound is air space. So what then you do is you're going to come out an inch, say, all the way around the perimeter and build another whole structure, and then you sheetrock it again. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. POLUNCI-So the sound gets trapped inside there. I mean, we even put the skylights, the reason why we did skylights is because you have R-35 or whatever you need at the top for the insulation, plus you put U channel on the top and there's the same situation, you're putting a false ceiling there, too, to absorb the sound that way, and we're also, if you look at the plans, we're doing a cathedral ceiling, to angle the angle of the windows, so that we can absorb the sound through the skylights, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. SIPP-Now on the exterior wall, though, you've got to have a concrete curbing, so that that's not, that sheetrock's not constantly being wetted down. MR. FULLER-It's on the inside of the structure. Just normal construction. MR. POLUNCI-Right, which is just standard. MR. SIPP-But the sheetrock would not go to the floor. MR. POLUNCI-Right, but wood would also act as a sound insulator. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions from the Board? MR. FORD-I may have additional ones after the public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any comments on any of the Staff comments or engineering comments? Because they were fairly extensive. MR. HUTCHINS-I can comment on them. I've denoted responses to all of them, but I don't think I'll try to go through them. I'll just generally touch on the primary areas. Both Staff and engineering, one of the comments was on sight distances, and we've shown the sight distances as they are. We've shot them. They've been shot in accordance with ASHTO criteria, and I can provide all of that. They were shot with foliage on, and they are a worst case scenario, and actually they're shot from the white lines, and if you're actually back where a driver of a vehicle is sitting, the sight distance, particularly to the west, is much further than we show on here. They are within stopping sight distance criteria of ASHTO. They are nearly the intersection sight distance criteria for ASHTO, which would be if you were building a new intersection with a new road. They're comparable with the sight distances at the westerly exit of the apartments, okay. So, are they as great as under absolutely ideal circumstances? No, they're not, but they are what they are, and what we've shown is a worst case situation. With regard to some of the comments on the road, again, or the driveway, the driveway, to a certain extent, is what it is. The most difficult area is between the two ponds, and we have, at that point we can comfortably get a 17 foot drive width. We realize Town standard likes 20 feet for a commercial driveway. The Fire Marshal has looked at it and written us a letter indicating that fire apparatus can successfully get in there, at the width that it's shown. We have shown some protection around the ponds in the form of large boulders, something that looks natural and we thought would be a better thing to hit than going in the pond, but it's probably unrealistic for this project to try to widen that drive over that area between the ponds because we'd be into a mess with wetland mediation deal that we really don't want to get into. Septic system, there were some comments there. I searched high and low for a design criteria that I found reasonably credible for a dog kennel, and I did find one. It comes from the State of North Carolina, and the reason it comes from the State of North Carolina is that that was the best one that I could find, and there were none for New York. I have submitted a copy of it. It's indeed North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, and it's a pretty decent design criteria for dog kennels and/or vet clinics without x-ray facilities, which is generally what we have, and I've designed to that, and I've exceeded that, in terms of design flow and in terms of field parameter. So I'm reasonable comfortable with the septic system design. You'll note there's two series septic tanks, and that's a criteria, that's direct from their criteria. The first septic tank serves the dog areas only. The second septic tank serves the effluent from the first septic tank and the restroom facilities. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) MR. FULLER-I can hit on a couple of the other ones. That 20.58 acres vs. 20.13, that's right. It should be 20.13. The 20.58 is incorrect, and we hit on the hours. The HVAC, there was a comment on that. I think John hit on that. Tom talked about the road and the sight distances. The grading plan, we'll have to pick up on the final submission. Talked about the wastewater, talked about the standards, went to VISION. The Notice of Termination, I think you have that. Right? MR. POLUNCI-Yes. That was turned in the last time. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, that was done. MR. FULLER-Yes, when we had the last application that got submitted. So the Town should have that on file, for Schermerhorn's project. If you don't, we'll get you another copy. Just let me know. Handicap, again, mostly what we plan on doing is taken care of on the final plans. MR. HUTCHINS-And I do need to address stormwater control in a little more detail, but I think I touched on most of the. Are there any other comments you'd like me to address specifically or? MR. HUNSINGER-I don't think so. MR. HUTCHINS-Traffic signage. We haven't proposed any traffic signage. We see this to be a very low volume driveway. If you want some traffic signage, I'm sure we could arrange for that. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the comments in the application I found interesting was that there would be no business signs. So how will customers know where to go? MR. POLUNCI-Well, there's going to be a mailbox there, for one, it'll have the address on it. MR. FORD-Otherwise it'll be advertising and word of mouth? MR. POLUNCI-That's exactly it, word of mouth. MRS. STEFFAN-That's what the application says. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FULLER-I think we'd talked about the signs and putting one out there, and one of the ideas of not having a big visual sign out there is we don't want to encourage off hours, people just stopping in. The word of mouth and advertising, somebody's going to have to call and say, okay, where do I go, and then they'll be able to explain to them the hours. So that was kind of the trade off of not having even a small sign out there was to hopefully control that access. MR. SIPP-Will that gate remain there, as it is? MR. POLUNCI-Well, it depends on the width of the driveway. MR. FULLER-Yes, it depends on the driveway. If you have to move things, then the gate would have to come out, but if. MR. HUTCHINS-You wouldn't normally keep the gate, you wouldn't normally keep it closed, the gate. MR. POLUNCI-No, I mean, we only keep it there now to keep people out. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. KREBS-And, you know, there's a Kitty B & B up on Ridge Road, and all they have for advertising is a little tiny sign that says Kitty B & B. In fact, I thought that was the name of a bed and breakfast for a while, until someone told me that they board cats. MR. HUNSINGER-Did the sign up sheet get all the way through the audience? AUDIENCE MEMBER-No. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) MR. KREBS-I just want to bring up one other thing, and that's in the Ordinance, when it was written by the Town Board, under specific standards for special permit use, kennels, it says kennels. Kennels shall be located on parcels of at least 10 acres. So you have double that, and all dog runs and other areas in which the dogs are kept must be located at least 200 feet from the property line, and I think they meet that, and that was the specific subject of the, that's under 179-10-060, specific standards for Special Use Permits. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from members of the Board before we go to the public hearing? Is there more than one sheet of names? No? Okay. Because I'll take the top page and you can finish passing it around. Thank you. I know that most of the people in the audience weren't here when we opened the meeting, but on the back table there is an information sheet for the purpose of the public hearing. The primary purpose of the public hearing is for the Planning Board to get information from neighbors, information that may not otherwise be readily available. It's really for the benefit of the Board, but it is an opportunity for members of the neighborhood to provide information and to say whether or not they're for or against the project. I would ask anyone who wants to approach the Board that you direct your comments to the Board. Please don't direct them to the applicant. If you have a specific question, you can ask the question of the Board and then we will get the answer for you. I would ask that there not be a dialogue between any members of the public and the applicant, and then finally, well, there's only about eight names here, but we will try to limit comment to three minutes. There will be a timer, and you'll hear the bell ring when your time is up, and we would ask that people respect that. Unless there's any other final questions of the Board, of the applicant, I will go ahead and open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-And the first name on here is Ruth Frank, and I'm going to apologize in advance for the names that I mispronounce. Good evening. RUTH FRANK MRS. FRANK-My name is Ruth Frank. I'm from the Queensbury townhouses on Cedar Court. So I timed this. This is about two and a half minutes, if I can, these are my own personal thoughts. I believe the Planning Board of Queensbury is positioning themselves into the proverbial spider's web for unforeseen problems in the future if the applicant is granted a permit to construct and operate this newly revised plan for a dog kennel. My personal concerns are they plan to house dogs into a storage type building with insulated walls, which according to their specification, no barking of dogs will be heard. To substantiate their claim, there should be certified testing of dogs in this type of insulated housing, 24/7, and no such testing has been done. So how do we know we are not going to hear the noise of dogs? They also state there will be no dogs outside barking. Here is a very realistic future problem. On any given day, there will be vehicles pulling in to drop off their dogs. One day there may be one. Another day there may be five or more, all outside before entering the building, subject to barking. Now this is just one week. Multiply that by 52 weeks, and you have the same nuisance noise. What do they intend to do, use a covered conveyor belt to transfer the dogs from vehicle to the building? Now if just the above two problems come to fruition, who is going to be policing this unit, or all the units that we neighbors can call on to voice our complaints? And if the applicant is lax in responding to our complaints, how many times can we call the Sheriff's Department before we are all known as being pesty? Can you not see a barrage of e-mails being sent to the Town Board? I feel that applicants lack the integrity to be granted a permit for this type of business, and I say this because the past harsh words they uttered to our neighbor last December when they were defeated and an in angry voice I quote the words of the applicant, we plan to erect the building anyway and breed and raise 30 Australian Wolfhounds, and we'll show you. The spouse of the applicant then added they would first build a firing range. This was further followed by an interview with a Post Star reporter that had the applicant saying they are discussing a possible lawsuit against the Town, ending with, and the neighbors better be careful what they ask for, and this was the printed words of the Post Star. In closing, a kennel does not fit in with the nice, homogenized blend of the few businesses around our residential settlement who cause no problem. Frankly, based on the past attitudes, I question their integrity, I don't trust them to run the type of business that has no means of being properly monitored from the outside. By their asking for a permanent permit, they have a great escape clause to bend the rules if any unforeseen problems occur in the future, and the same can happen if they give us a renewable, or a two, three year, they can still bend the rules. They're not monitored enough, and there's no proof. Thank you. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Dorothy Sehlmeyer? Good evening. DOROTHY SEHLMEYER MRS. SEHLMEYER-Good evening. My name is Dorothy Sehlmeyer and I live on Cedar Court. I am very distressed to find myself here again, four months after the original petition before you was denied. The petitioners have made changes that seem to address the concerns that were raised. What safeguards are in place to make sure these changes are carried through? Who will be checking? At the same time, they have moved their project even closer to our property lines? Does that have anything to do with the threats they made walking out, following the denial in December? Once given the permit to proceed, what is to prevent their expansion to include an outdoor dog park or moving their planned indoor dog runs outside? Are we going to find ourselves in the same situation highlighted in yesterday's Post Star, boos and bravos column, where a neighbor of the Airport Industrial Park, Ed Lowell, finds himself with a noise problem from an approved adjacent business? As the paper points out, a solution is not going to be easy or soon for him. Will we find ourselves in the same position, after the fact, if the kennel is approved, with no recourse? This proposed dog kennel didn't belong in the neighborhood in December, and it doesn't belong here now, or in the future. Please deny it. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. The next name, and I'm sorry, I can't really read the last name, it looks like Martin, 546 Glen Street. Michael O'Connor. No, you're later. Your name's later. I can read your name. MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Well, that's my address. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Then you're on here twice. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I'm the other Mike. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'm sorry. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I'm the one you can't read. MR. O'CONNOR-The nuns couldn't read my name either. MR. HUNSINGER-Like I said, I can read yours fine. Actually, it's your son's name that I can read fine. It's yours I can't. MR. O'CONNOR-Good. I am Mike O'Connor, for the purposes of the record. I have property in the vicinity on Fitzgerald Road. I'm also representing my son, or mine's on Pioneer Point, which is at the end of Fitzgerald Road. Michael's is on Fitzgerald Road, and you had the property up on the map up there where his property is. I've been talking to Matt Fuller and I've been talking to the neighbors. I recognize that everybody's not going to be totally happy, but it seems as though there is a compromise that would satisfy most of the people. Feelings have run deep in this. I think statements have been made, maybe on both sides, that are inappropriate, and the idea is try to move forward without apologizing or asking for apologies. There are deep concerns, on behalf of the neighbors, that this is not something that fits within the character of that neighborhood, but we recognize the fact that the applicant has tried to make this as good a project as he can and take into consideration the neighbors. What we've suggested, and as I understand it from Matt Fuller, and, Matt, why don't you come up and we'll read it together and make sure we're putting something on the record that's agreed. MR. TRAVER-You guys are working together now? MR. O'CONNOR-People sitting here haven't signed up to speak. They've got a petition with 281 signatures on it that opposes this project. They all could come up here and tell you what they think, but this is an idea to maybe satisfy everybody. They would be satisfied if you conditioned your approval upon the applicant complying with the terms of his application and the conditions, specifically, that you put on the approval. One of those conditions is that the permit would be a renewable permit, and I've got to look at your copy, would be a renewable Special Use Permit valid for a period of four years from the date of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy and will be automatically renewed as a permanent permit, unless an application is filed to not extend or renew the permit by an adjoining neighbor, or by a neighboring, neighbor property owner or resident, those 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) entitled to notice of application, based upon substantial proof that the permitee has not complied with the terms of the application and Board approval and in particular, but not limited to the understanding that all kennel activities, except for arrival and departure, will be conducted within the buildings to be constructed. The application to not extend or renew must be filed prior to the date set for expiration and shall be made in accordance with the applicable provisions now applying to Special Use Permits for a kennel. So your rules and regulations of today is how you would judge it at the time of the renewal. The Planning Board will, after public hearing, act on the application if there is such an application made, and has not materially complied, and we'll give you a handwritten, or a written copy of this thing. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-We understand that the applicant, as part of their application, has said that there will be no external kennel activities, including but not limited to dog runs, dog walking, except for arrival and departure. We understand that they've said there will be no expansion, and we would ask for a condition that there be no expansion without a further Special Use Permit or a modification of this Use Permit. Somebody along the line said once they get the Special Use Permit, to expand all they would need is Site Plan, and there is a concern that they want to be held to the same, if there's going to be an expansion, it be held to the Special Use regulations or standards. MR. FULLER-Which I think it would anyway. If you expand a special use, I think you need a Special Use Permit. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. These conditions would run with the land, and I got lost when they were talking about the certification. I didn't realize the certification wasn't coming before they started operation, but I was saying provide a copy of the certification. Provide a copy of annual inspections, and it's our understanding that this is not a 24 hour operation as far as pick up and delivery of, or departure of animals, and I don't think we have particular concern about the break down, detail, that Mr. Fuller gave you, but if it's not going to be before seven a.m. in the morning and not later than seven p.m. in the evening, that seemed to be reasonable. MR. HUNSINGER-I think that they had said nine, yes. MR. FULLER-Yes. He just said seven to seven. Seven in the morning until seven at night. MR. POLUNCI-That's fine. The only stipulation, my dogs are on the property. I live there. I already have nine dogs that are on there every day now. MR. FULLER-Yes. We're not going to have kennel dogs out running around the property. That's their concern. I concur. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you, Mr. O'Connor. MR. O'CONNOR-I think with that, we would, not withdraw our objection, but have you note our concerns. We could file that petition, if you want, just so it's in the record, but I think everybody that's here, that's from the neighborhood, probably about 30 people at least it was their consensus of agreement with my understanding of what I've presented to you. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Could I offer a comment? In addition to what you've been discussing, which I think is good, my understanding is much of the design of the actual operation of the kennel is designed to be aligned and certified by this Pet Care Services Association, and I'm wondering if it might not be, in view of that, if we shouldn't also condition the continued operation of this kennel on their ongoing approval and certification. MR. POLUNCI-Of that company or one of better. MR. FULLER-Yes, in case they're gone some day. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Equal to or higher standards. MR. POLUNCI-That's fine. MR. TRAVER-That's fine. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) MR. O'CONNOR-One other comment, I may have gone by it, and I don't know if I did or not, Matt. We've said that the first permit would be valid for a period of four years, or on the sale of the property. So if they sold the property in two years, the people would have the, with notice that they're selling it, the people would have the right to then come in and petition for the non-renewal, and that was agreeable. The other comment I guess I make along the same line that was just made, and this is where I got lost, the fact that they aren't going to have this certification for a year. They have put this book in, and they have said that they will operate by those standards. MR. TRAVER-Exactly. MR. O'CONNOR-So I'm taking it to understand that those standards are the standards of operation, whether or not that company gives it it's blessing or not. MR. FULLER-Yes. He's saying whether or not we get the accreditation, these are the standards we're going to go by. MR. POLUNCI-Yes. We're meeting that standards before we get. It takes a year to get that certification. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-I just wanted to put on the record that the voice that was being heard in the background was John Poluci, for the minutes. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-And I'll give you a copy of this. Okay. Great. Mr. Sipp? MR. SIPP-With a condition added such as inspection by the Town, or Animal Control Officer. MR. O'CONNOR-I certainly am not limiting the Board's conditions. These are the ones that I was concerned about. Whatever the Board wishes to add, we will. MR. HUNSINGER-The next name on the list, and I'm sorry I can't read the last name, is Joan at 66 Crown Court. No? Then Michael O'Connor the second. That name I can read very clearly. MICHAEL O'CONNOR, II MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. I'm Michael O'Connor the second. I live at 74 Fitzgerald Road. I'm still opposed to the dog kennel. If you do approve it, I'd appreciate it if you'd put those stipulations into it. That's about it. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-The next it Leo Cote. Good evening. LEO COTE MR. COTE-Good evening. I'm Leo Cote, 63 Cedar Court. I'll keep my remarks brief and to the point. The basis of this problem with this dog kennel issue is faulty zoning. I realize it's not the purview of the Planning Board to deal with zoning problems. You work within the parameters developed by the Zoning Board and approved by the Town. The entire area within and adjacent to the applicant's parcel is zoned, as we all know, Rural Residential. When the area was originally zoned, the classification was appropriate. Farms, fields, woodlands and occasional homes characterized the area. It was rural and it was residential. The area has changed. The zoning has not. The adjacent properties of Hunterbrook Apartments, the Woodlyns at Cedar Court, Surrey Fields, Fitzgerald Road, Blind Rock Road and Blackberry Circle are no longer rural in character. Indeed Hunterbrook apartment complex, some of which are within clear view of the proposed kennel, is high density. The Woodlyns at Cedar Court and Surrey Fields are now considerably closer to the proposed kennel are at least medium density. The densities of Fitzgerald, Blind Rock and Blackberry, though not as high as the others I have 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) mentioned, are clearly residential and can be expected to become more so in the future. Again, I know this is not within your jurisdiction to correct. However, it is clearly the prerogative of the Planning Board to accept, reject, or modify applications for land usage that are permitted by the Zoning Code, but which, and in discernment of the Planning Board, are incompatible with the character of the area. The opposition which many neighbors have expressed having been noted, in all fairness to the applicants, it must be admitted that they have made extensive good faith attempts to satisfy the major objections to the kennel, and that was the noise. Keeping in mind the continued legitimate concern of the neighbors, regarding the project, and at the same time recognizing the also legitimate land use rights of the applicant, I would encourage the Board to consider and accept the option proposed by Mr. O'Connor. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Next is Bob Murtha. BOB MURTHA MR. MURTHA-I'll pass. MR. HUNSINGER-You'll pass. Okay. And then the only other name on the list right now is Jim McLaughlin. JIM MC LAUGHLIN MR. MC LAUGHLIN-My name's Jim McLaughlin, 3 Blackberry Lane. John's my neighbor. I've known John for about five years, and he is probably one of the hardest working persons that I know. Very honest, and when I first moved there, as he said he has nine dogs, and I had asked him one time if he could kind of keep his dogs quiet, and it was done. If you talk to John, he will listen and he will try to do what he can to do this, and being next door to him, and I didn't know anything about the project being a double wall building, cutting down the noise with no windows. That's huge. I mean, how many people can hear their neighbors yelling at each other when they're living right next door? So, okay. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wants to speak? Well, here's your chance. CARL FRANK MR. FRANK-My name is Carl Frank and I live at 66 Cedar Court. I've been at numerous meetings about this dog kennel and heard a lot of things. Number One priority is the noise. I won't beat that to death. It's already been gone over, but the lady who's the applicant for this petition or this dog kennel has got a lot of good publicity for Hovey park. There's a big difference between a park for human beings and a dog park, dog kennels, okay, and another thing, the noise that was talked about at one of the meetings, the last time when it was rejected, the noise about lawn mowers, trucks and everything, those are all standard things that have been going on for years, and people, they're not 24/7 like a dog kennel is 24/7, regardless of whether you have operating hours or not. Every business that operates in this Town has a quiet time, okay. Great Escape was mentioned as one. I happen to be a security officer at The Great Escape. My priority there is quiet time from 11 to 7, okay, and if it's not quiet, it's my job to see that it is. This operation is a commercial venture that's going to be planked into the middle of a residential area. Granted, the application is on a rural residential basis, but as was stated here the last time when this petition was denied, the rural end of this Town is long gone, and especially in our particular section. There's 10 acres right in the middle of a residential area. Granted there's an open field yet on the corner of Blind Rock and Bay Road, but it won't be long before you people will be asked to give a permit to build an apartment complex there. More residents. This is complete residential area, not rural anymore. You have to go past the firehouse, okay, before you come to rural area again. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. MIKE WILD MR. WILD-Thank you. My name is Mike Wild. I live at 11 Blackberry Lane, and I own a number of lots in that subdivision. What I'd like to suggest is that the Board act on the compromise. I think it's important to recognize on the zoning that it's not a denied use. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) It's a Special Use, and I think that if you give the opportunity to create a compromise, you're really fitting the best of both worlds. If it was denied, and I was involved with writing some of that new Zoning Code, it would have been discussed as being denied, and it wasn't such. It was discussed as being an available option, and I guess my position would be to work with the neighbors, work with the applicant, and follow through with the compromise. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone else want to comment? I do know there's written comments to read into the record. MR. OBORNE-There are, and I do want to inform people who are here that supplied me with or supplied Diana Cote with letters from the previous denied application, those will not be read in, as those are not pertinent to this application. However, I will be reading those that are. Queensbury Planning Board, Tuesday, April 21, 2009. "The above- named applicant has again submitted an application for a Special Use Permit for a dog kennel located on Blind Rock Road. The Planning Board rejected a previous request for this project in December of 2008. The new plan is for an indoor kennel, which would seem to address the most serious objection, noise, from neighbors in the area. We still have concerns about such a project in the midst of private homes. If the Board finds that it cannot reject this new application, we strongly urge that you only approve such a Special Use Permit for a limited period of time. At the end of that time, if there has been no reduction in the quality of life in the neighborhood, the Special Use Permit could be extended for another time period, possibly longer than the first. In this way the neighborhood would be assured there would be no expansion without again applying to the Planning Board. Thank you for your serious consideration of this matter. Raymond and Joan Erb 19 Fitzgerald Road Queensbury, NY 12804" 41 Cedar Court, Queensbury, New York "Dear Members of the Planning Board, Unfortunately I am going to be out of town for the next few days and will be unable to attend tomorrow's meeting. However, since I feel very strongly about the proposed dog kennel, I want to make my position quite clear. I am wholeheartedly opposed to the idea of having dogs in my back yard. It has nothing to do with my feelings about the dogs themselves; as a matter of fact, I love dogs. It has to do with the fact that a barking dog can become very annoying. Several barking dogs most probably will become extremely annoying. Perhaps zoning issues in the town need to be re-examined. Twenty-five years ago this area of Queensbury was undeveloped. In the past dozen years building in this area has exploded with, I must stress, the approval of various committees of the Town. Now the Town wants to approve a project that is definitely not suitable for this highly populated area. I hope that you people will examine all of the issues involved and come up with a decision in favor of the many neighbors who have expressed their opinions for several months. In addition, as a biologist, I have great concern about waste from the dogs themselves and from the chemicals which will be used to maintain the cleanliness of the kennels. The area is a wetland used by many wild animals. The presence of a kennel will not only disrupt the general behaviors of these animals but may also cause havoc with the water supply. Very truly yours, Noranne Mulcahy" Nancy Murtha, do you want me to read this in? NANCY MURTHA MRS. MURTHA-No. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Bob? Passed? Elizabeth Merrett, are you here? She isn't? Okay. To: Queensbury Planning Board. "As a close neighbor of the project - I live in Cedar Court in one of the homes that directly borders the area being discussed here - I have, like my neighbors -strong reservations about the placement of this commercial business project in the midst of this residential area. I believe that the arguments against the project that were presented here tonight have overwhelming merit, and I hope you will weigh them carefully as you come to a decision. Is this an appropriate location for such a business? An overwhelming number of the people here tonight and those who have written letters and signed petitions are telling you that it is not now, and never will be. It is the petitions you have before you that I would like to mention. To my knowledge, over 250 homeowners in the area have signed, stating unequivocally that they do not want this dog kennel in this location, and that they are willing to continue to argue against it. I hope that, in spite of the late hour, you have listened to these arguments, and will give them the credence they deserve. For once and all, you should deny the proposed variance. Elisabeth Merrett 59 Cedar Court Queensbury, New York." This is from Ms. Faylene Hooper. I shall read this. "Members of the Planning Board, I will be out of town on Tuesday, April 21, and therefore will be unable to attend the Planning Board Meeting. However, I did want to express my concern over the latest plan of Mr. and Mrs. Polunci and Mrs. Gosline. I live in Cedar Court and feel that this residential neighborhood is 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) certainly not suited for a dog kennel. The proximity of the kennel to Cedar Court would undoubtedly cause the barking dogs to disturb us. I am also concerned about possible contamination of the area wetlands. I strongly urge you to deny the Polunci/Gosline permit application." Faylene Hooper. I believe this is the petition. Not read into the record. MR. HUNSINGER-You don't need to read all the names. How long is the petition itself? MR. OBORNE-The petition is one page. I mean, I just received it. If you wish me to read it in. There are over, 251 names. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you certainly don't need to read all the names, but what does the gist of the, what's the text of the petition? MR. O'CONNOR-It was part of the record, Mr. Chairman, we don't need it read. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. For the record, that was Mr. O'Connor. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Are you satisfied with that? Would you rather I didn't? Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I'm satisfied. MR. OBORNE-Okay. There's one more. That's it for public comment that's applicable. Something was just handed to me, though, by. MR. HUNSINGER-That was the language that Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Fuller worked on. You don't need to read that. MR. OBORNE-I'm not going to. I can't. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That's for distribution for the. MR. OBORNE-Okay, and that's all I have, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. We will leave the public hearing open, because I have the sense we're going to be tabling this, at least for the Staff and engineering comments. Is there anything that you want to add, as a result of the public comments? MR. FULLER-One question. I figured with the Site Plan kind of related comments that we would have to come back with and address those, but would the Board be willing to approve the Special Use Permit part of the application, so that we can go ahead and spend that additional money to comply with what are going to be stormwater plans and things like that. All the comments I think that we have left here seem to address the Site Plan Review portion of the application. It would just give us some comfort that we can go forward, have Tom do the rest of the plans, get back to you on the Site Plan, with that and those conditions, and whatever conditions the Board might recommend on the Special Use Permit part. I'd just throw that out to you. I'm not trying to pull anything, but just so that we can say, okay, now we can go ahead and. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, sure. Go ahead, Gretchen. MRS. STEFFAN-I know that I was actually pleased with this Site Plan. Certainly the applicant and agents listened to some of the comments that came up in the last review for the Special Use Permit and changed the plan and made some modifications. So, you know, this plan certainly seems to work. My only concern is that the applicant will be investing a tremendous amount of money, and I said this during the first review, and for a renewable Special Use Permit, that's a concern, you know, for me as a Planning Board member, and I know that, as stated right in our Code, that the applicant does this of their own free will, understanding that the Special Use Permit could get yanked at some point for non compliance, and so, you know, that issue's on the table, and I'm certainly hoping that everybody can get along, and that, you know, this will be a great business and it will thrive and the neighbors will be happy with the way this works out, and so I'm glad that these issues came out on the table because it was certainly the direction that I felt that I was going, but I'm only one Board member. So I would certainly support the renewable conditional approval of the Special Use Permit, and, you know, even though this is a use, and the issue came up of zoning a couple of times, and Chris and I actually, and I know there were a couple of other people, Don was on the committee at the end and so was Mike Wild, but we went through the zoning and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and we spent three years in the process, and so one of the things that the Planning Board is 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) responsible for is, even if something's an allowed use, we have to review it to make sure that it fits within the parameters of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and especially in the case of a Special Use Permit, neighborhood compatibility is a very big issue, and so, you know, it's important for the masses here to agree that this is good idea, because of the situation of a Special Use Permit. I mean, that is a criteria for approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else want to comment? MR. TRAVER-Yes, and with regards to the proposed agreement, are you on the record as having agreed with that? MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. SIPP-I would like to see a stormwater plan, landscaping plan, and my one worry about the building where the dogs are housed is that could somebody get in there at night and open those doors and let the dogs that are there out? MR. POLUNCI-Yes. We didn't address security. Just so you know. MR. SIPP-With a fence on the end of that building. MR. POLUNCI-Actually we are going to have a security system in there, so that you're aware of that, but to top it all off, is that this is going to be a 24 access on the Internet. You will be able to log onto our logs, our website, and you will be able to punch in your dog's particular number, and you will be able to live look at your dog. We will know if anything's going on in there, relatively fast. MR. SIPP-There will be a camera? MR. FULLER-Yes, that's the plan. MR. SIPP-I still would like to see a fence, because. MR. FULLER-We actually tried to avoid fences, because we thought somebody was going to say, you're going to put a dog out there. MR. SIPP-No, it wouldn't have to be that large to cover that one doorway there, where you have the double doors. MR. POLUNCI-Yes, they're double steel doors. I mean, if you lock both doors, I mean. MR. SIPP-If somebody breaks in from the outside. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, but if they want to break in, I don't think the fence is going to stop them. MR. POLUNCI-I mean, if they're going to go through two steel doors, and a chain link fence. MRS. STEFFAN-Nothing's going to stop. MR. KREBS-I don't know where the rest of you live, but I live in a neighborhood, right down the road here, and people walk their dogs behind my house on the golf course. People walk their dogs in front of my house. When I go out for a walk, I live on Masters Common North, but I walk Masters Common South, and there are dogs that come running out barking, they're behind electronic fences, but they're making noise. I think if you're looking for a world where there are absolutely no barking, that's not a possibility. In fact, if you go to Surrey Field and you go to, you'll probably find dogs in those neighborhoods, okay, and people let them out and they bark occasionally. All right. So, you know, I think if you had, I think the applicant has done what we asked them to do, last time. He has come back, he's reduced the sound level that is necessary, and certainly if we give him a four year permit, and he's willing to accept that, you certainly have an opportunity, at a later time, to be able to come back to him and say, and we will have that same opportunity. MR. SIPP-I still would like a stormwater and landscaping plan. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) MR. HUTCHINS-And we're subject to Site Plan, as a next step, and we fully intend to update our stormwater plan and some landscaping. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess my own personal feeling on the question of the Special Use Permit that you mentioned is I'd like to see that agreement written up, and, you know, have the ability to sit and really read it and digest it, as well as have, you know, the neighbors and the applicant, too, as well. So that it is, you know, clean, sort of final version. I mean, there are a number of Site Plan issues. I don't think there's anything that's huge, but, you know, there are some details to be worked out, and I guess it's just my own personal feeling. I don't mean to speak for the whole Board. I mean, I'd kind of like to do it all at once, and have a nice, clean final product. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, and the other thing, though, if they want to just address a Special Use Permit, would we allow them to do and then address the Site Plan issues later? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I guess I'm not sure what they really gain by. MR. HUTCHINS-I think that's pretty clear in the Ordinance, in effect, 179. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess what we're saying is, and I agree, we'd just like to see that agreement and have that all finalized, and then if they want to address the Site Plan issues later, that's up to them. MR. FULLER-Yes, but I think we'd like to construct this season, and if we came back again for the Special Use Permit and then again for Site Plan, it's August. MR. SEGULJIC-So then I guess he answered your question. MR. HUNSINGER-I misunderstood your question, then. MR. FULLER-No, we would be coming back. What my request was, if the Board approved just the Special Use Permit part, and even said conditioned on the Site Plan approval to follow, all it would do is give us a comfort that the burdensome Special Use Permit is approved. I think all of the issues that are in the comments are Site Plan related. We know that we've got to get out, address those by the next by the next deadline, and get back in here, as part of this application. It's still a continuation of this, for the Site Plan approval. MR. SEGULJIC-How would we word something like that, say we approve the Special Use Permit, but there's, I think four years, there were some other conations in there that we don't know what they are exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FULLER-I just threw it out. I mean, I think we have a reasonable comfort here. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that agreement has become central to this Special Use Permit. It appears that this compromise agreement has become central to the issue of the Special Use Permit, and until that's really clear, and I know you and Mike presented it, I think, well enough to give us the spirit of the thing, but I guess I agree with the Chairman that it would be useful to see that and make sure that that exact language is acceptable to everybody. MR. FULLER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Including the suggestion that was made about the compliance with the standards of the design, you know, the certification association. MR. OBORNE-If I may, there seems to be a few other issues that the Planning Board would like as conditions of approval, and I imagine that there'd be a bit of discussion about that, and then moving on to the Site Plan Review, which, in this case, seems to have been, you know, by the time you're back, should be taken care of. My feeling is that the Board is pretty happy, and I know that you're not asking my feelings, but just to state that you probably want to do these at the same time, for cleanliness, although it is correct in the Code it does state that you get your Special Use Permit and you do go through Site Plan Review, and that's up to the applicant. They can go ahead and do it at the same time, or split it up, but they have to pay the fees anyway. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) MR. FULLER-Yes. I think we would envision, if that's the case, we're fine. I just wanted to throw it out there and see if the Board was comfortable with that. MR. HUNSINGER-So if we table this until June. MR. FULLER-We could do Site Plan and the Special Use Permit that night. MR. OBORNE-Just turn key it and go from there. MR. FULLER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other concerns the Board wants to get on the table before we consider a tabling resolution? MR. FORD-It's not a concern, it's just an observation. MR. HUNSINGER-Same difference. Yes. MR. FORD-Thank you. This is a quantum leap forward. It doesn't, except for the location, even resemble the initial one, and I, personally, thank you for that, and I think there are a lot of people seated here tonight who do as well. This has the potential for truly being, having a positive impact on our community. Thank you for that. MR. FULLER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-And I also think the cat care is a good marketing strategy, because the kitty bed and breakfast is always booked. Always booked. Okay. I'll make a motion. Did you table the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-The public hearing is left open, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SPECIAL USE PERMIT ON. 15-2009 FRESHWATER WETLANDS NO. 1-2009 JOHN & KIM POLUCI, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled to the June 23rd Planning Board meeting, so that the applicant can address Staff comments and VISION Engineering comments. Duly adopted this 21St day of April, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. For members of the audience, we did leave the public hearing open. This application will be tabled to June 23rd. There will be another opportunity for public comment at that meeting as well, and I thank you for coming. Is there any other business for the Board this evening? MRS. STEFFAN-We needed to set a date for a workshop. MR. HUNSINGER-Workshop. I started to ask if there was any other business before the Board, and one of the discussions we had during Site Plan, or site visits on Saturday morning was a workshop date. There's at least, what do we have three issues that we felt were worthy of a workshop? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I almost wonder if maybe we could tag the workshop with the special meeting, as opposed to additional meetings. MR. TRAVER-Sure. The same night? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) MRS. STEFFAN-Good idea. MR. KREBS-Orjust do General Timber and then have. MR. HUNSINGER-Just do General Timber and then do a workshop. MR. TRAVER-As opposed to trying to do some more applications? Yes, that would be fine. I wouldn't want to try to do both. MR. HUNSINGER-No, no. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Good idea. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll, if anyone has specific items that they want to have us address during a workshop, let me know, and, you know, copy me and Keith on an e- mail. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And we'll work up the agenda. MRS. STEFFAN-I know the one item, I brought it up last month, was the motions for denial. We've never had any training on that, not that we do them very often, but that's one of the reasons why we need some education in that area. MR. TRAVER-Maybe if we had some training, we could deny more often. MR. FORD-There were a couple of other items as well. MR. KREBS-Just so everybody else knows, the thing that I brought up on Saturday that I'd like to see is the engineers and the Staff getting the information to the applicant and to us a week earlier, because a lot of times, that applicant could address all the requests, and when they finally met with us the following Tuesday, they could have the drawings changed, they could be prepared to come in and get an approval. MR. OBORNE-I cannot disagree with you on that. That does put a, I know that the contract provision would have to be amended in order for that to happen. As far as my Staff Notes, that's usually not a problem. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. OBORNE-But it can be. I know that everybody on the Board is malleable. MR. HUNSINGER-And I think, Mr. Seguljic, you had an item, and I can't remember what it was. You had sent me an a-mail, maybe a month or so ago. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I think it goes along with what Mr. Krebs had brought up. MR. OBORNE-I agree 100%. MR. SEGULJIC-I think that. MR. TRAVER-And it's not a new issue. MR. FORD-No, we've discussed it before. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-As a matter of fact, at our last workshop. MR. SEGULJIC-One of the things I've seen start happening is the engineer, the two engineers starting to talk, behind the scenes, and I think that that leads to a false sense of approval, and then all of a sudden we get a signoff letter from our engineer, and we didn't even, you know, for example it could lead to signing off and we haven't even seen the project. So we want to direct our engineer as to what exactly we're looking for, before he approves anything. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) MR. KREBS-Yes, but I'm not asking for approval. I'm saying to get the engineer's comments back to the applicant. MR. SEGULJIC-But that's exactly what I'm saying. I don't think that's appropriate. MR. KREBS-Why? MR. SEGULJIC-Because we're supposed to look at the project. The engineer works for us. They're not supposed to work out the deal. MR. KREBS-I didn't say anything about working out the deal, Tom. You're not listening. What I said is we get engineering comments. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. KREBS-We usually get them on the Saturday before the Tuesday of the meeting. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. KREBS-So does the applicant. So the applicant has no time to react. If there are a lot of small, technical things on a drawing, or questions that the engineer has about, was this test pit correct, was this the correct location for the test pit, did they do any other locations? All those questions that applicant could come prepared to answer at the next meeting. I'm not saying the engineer has any right to approve anything, okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Just get those comments to us earlier. MR. FORD-Let's put the whole relationship and our expectations of that relationship with the engineer on the agenda, and then there are a lot of different items that we could address. MR. KREBS-Right. Absolutely. I was just explaining why. MRS. STEFFAN-And maybe Keith can explain the timeline, because we know that the application deadline's the 15t", but we don't know what happens after that. So if we knew the schedule, maybe that would help us. MR. OBORNE-Yes. A lot of it has to do with the development of the agenda, that there's only so many days in a month, and, I mean, I think Tom's issue, if I may speak for you, is that two engineers talk with each other, and that's happened quite often in the recent. That's something that VISION should not allow. MR. HUNSINGER-That's bad. MR. SEGULJIC-But the other thing I'm getting at is the comments are for us. I think where we should get better is we go through those and say, yes, you have to address all these, but we're not concerned about this, we're not concerned about that, but in addition, we have these concerns, because it's not to get them, the comments to the applicant and have them address them all and come up with a revised plan. MR. KREBS-Well, one of the things that I hear constantly, okay, from the public, is that this Board and the Boards from this Town are very difficult to deal with and are very costly to come before, because we force them to come back again and again and again, and every time this applicant shows up with an engineer and a lawyer, he's just spent $1, 000. MR. SEGULJIC-But that's his decision, Number One, and, Number Two, hopefully we're getting better projects. Case in point tonight. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I think it might be a mixed bag, because there are times when, and Keith can attest to this, when somebody will, you'll tell them this is not a complete plan and the Planning Board's probably going to send you away, but they'll say, well, I'll take my chances, and those are the kind of people that have to be tabled, and they deserve what they get, but then there's the other applicant who has done everything that they need to do and we keep pushing it and pushing it and pushing it. MR. KREBS-And sometimes they just didn't think of the things that the Staff brought up, and they'll answer those and come prepared to answer those to us, and we can make a 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) decision based on a new drawing that they bring with them, that's complete. That's the thing. It just seems like sometimes we've got these little nit picky things that hold up. MR. TRAVER-It would be nice for the applicant to get engineering and Staff comments at about the same time. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SIPP-All right. Can I have a minute here? I think you all got one of these. This is not a done deal, because in the middle of this I discovered some other things that turn my stomach here, particularly with that Mobil station up on Exit 19, and the sign that they ended up with, after we supposedly told them no. This past election not only drove me nuts on the phone, it also drove me nuts out there driving around with all these political signs one on top of the other. MRS. STEFFAN-That's true. MR. SIPP-So I got into that. I did some work on reducing the height of these signs. I did not really push too much on the size, but I was going to go back to that. On the second and third pages, an excerpt from the State on political signs, and if you can work around freedom of speech and freedom of placing signs, expression, we can control them. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we should look at this and have comments by next week, Don? MR. SIPP-If you want to. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. SIPP-This thing at Exit 19, if you read the minutes from the Zoning Board, there was a little bit of fudging the truth, shall we say, by the applicant. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and one of the things I think we've learned, Don, with signs recently is that when we're approving a Site Plan that has signage, we need a condition that only the signs that are approved can be constructed, and if any of the signage changes, they have to come back for a modification, and we have to put that as a condition. Otherwise, applicants are going to do whatever they would like to do with their signage. They'll use the system against us. MR. SIPP-Yes. Well, he went crying to them like we didn't know what we were doing, and he spent $4,000 on the sign and it wasn't acceptable because it wasn't in compliance. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we'll look at that and get comments by next week. I also have some comments from the last time we talked about signs, some heights. When we did our drive around they were like 20 feet instead of 22 feet or 24 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Whatever some of them are. MR. SIPP-There is a joker in here. There is a height restriction on signs in a residential district, residential zone, which would be 24 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. SIPP-In one section it says signs are only acceptable in mixed and commercial areas, except where otherwise stated. You go on to the next two pages, and it says in a residential zone, you can have a freestanding sign of 24 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. I'm going to rent out my front yard. MR. FORD-That's some political sign. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Well, I'll make a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 21, 2009, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/09) Duly adopted this 21St day of April, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 59