Loading...
04-21-2015 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 21, 2015 INDEX Site Plan No. 6-2015 Fort Miller Co., Inc. 1. Special Use Permit No. 7-2015 Tax Map No. 279.-1-59.2 Site Plan No. 30-2014 Robert Kladis 2. EXTENSION REQUEST Tax Map No. 252.-1-36.7 Site Plan No. 26-2014 Hacker Boat Co. 2. EXTENSION REQUEST Tax Map No. 303.16-1-78 Site Plan No. 16-2015 John Weber, Sr. & John Weber 2. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 303.5-1-87 Site Plan No. 17-2015 Kimberlee Polunci 5. Special Use Permit No. 18-2015 Tax Map No. 289.15-1-1.1 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Subdivision No. 6-2015 Maurice Combs 16. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.18-1-1 Site Plan No. 19-2015 Northway Self Storage 24. Tax Map No. 309.13-2-31.11 Site Plan No. 21-2015 Leonard Romeo 28. Subdivision No. 1-2013 (Mod.) Tax Map No. 302.14-1-79.21, 302.18-2-76 Site Plan No. 12-2015 Just Beverages 30. Tax Map No. 294.-1-1 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 21, 2015 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN PAUL SCHONEWOLF, SECRETARY DAVID DEEB STEPHEN TRAVER THOMAS FORD BRAD MAGOWAN GEORGE FERONE (JAIME WHITE, ALTERNATE) IN FOR JUST BEVERAGES ONLY LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. I'd like to welcome everyone to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting on Tuesday, April 21, 2015. For members of the audience, welcome. There are copies of the agenda on the back table. We might have run out. I'm not sure. There's also a handout back there for public hearing procedures. Many of our items do have public hearings scheduled, and when we get to the first public hearing I will talk about the details of the procedures. The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from February 17th and February APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 17, 2015 February 24, 2015 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 17TH AND FEBRUARY 24TH, 2015, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Duly adopted this 21St day of April, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-Under Administrative Items, we have three items before us this evening. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM SITE PLAN 6-2015 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 7-2015 FOR THE FORT MILLER CO.: 1) CONSENT TO NYS DEC REQUEST FOR LEAD AGENCY; FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-And it's my understanding that the applicant wishes, I'm sorry, go ahead, Laura. MRS. MOORE-1 do have a letter that I'll read into the record that I received this afternoon from Fort Miller Company, and it's addressed to Chairman Hunsinger. The Fort Miller Company respectfully withdraws its application for Site Plan 6-2015 & Special Use Permit 7-2015 to allow the continuation of its sand and gravel operation to the north northeast of its existing permitted operation. We began this process to alleviate the truck traffic on Dream Lake Road and allow us to continue to serve our needs when the reserves at the existing permitted location became depleted over the next 20 to 25 years or more. Given the unexpected negative reaction we observed at the public hearings from the residents along Dream Lake Road, and the uncertainty that a setback greater than 50 feet, whereas the DEC requires 25 feet, may be required at the continued location, we have chosen to withdraw our application at this time. This decision will 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) necessitate that we continue to use the Dream Lake Road as we have in the past and we will continue to do our best to be respectful of our neighbors as we adhere to the requirements of our DEC mining permit which was recently renewed for another five year period. We appreciate the time and effort the Town of Queensbury and the Town Planning Board have expended on this project and we leave open the possibility of re-submitting the application at some future date. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Did you have anything else that you wanted to say? Okay. Next item on the agenda is Site Plan 30-2014. SITE PLAN 30-2014 ROBERT KLADIS: FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MRS. MOORE-It's extension. So their request is for an extension, for a one year extension to May 22, 2016. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, the agenda says for, yes. Would anyone like to make that motion? Is there any comments or concerns from the Board? RESOLUTION APPROVING ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP # 30-2014 ROBERT KLADIS Original approval -5-22-2014; good for one year unless a building permit has been applied for; The applicant's agent has requested a one year extension to May 22, 2016 MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 30-2014 ROBERT KLADIS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 21St day of April, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And then the next Administrative Item is Site Plan 26-2014. SITE PLAN 26-2014 HACKER BOAT CO.: EXTENSION REQUEST MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions or concerns from the Board? There is an e-mail in our package that we received this evening, along with a draft resolution, if anyone would like to move that. RESOLUTION APPROVING ONE YEAR EXTENSION SP #26-2014 HACKER BOAT CO. The Planning Board approved this application on 4-22-2014; the approval good for one year unless a building permit has been applied for; The applicant via e-mail has requested a one year extension to 4-22-2016; MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 26-2014 HACKER BOAT CO., Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 21St day of April, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We have two items for Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 16-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED JOHN WEBER, SR. & JOHN WEBER OWNER(S) KINDRED GROUP, LLC ZONING CI LOCATION 352 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 900 SQ. FT. OUTDOOR PATIO AREA FOR 8 TABLES. SITE PLAN: PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOOD 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) SERVICE & CHANGE OF USE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CI ZONE FOR RESTAURANT. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 13-15, AV 107-1989 WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2015 LOT SIZE 0.37 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.5-1-87 SECTION 179-3-040 JOHN WEBER, SR & JOHN WEBER, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a 900 square foot outdoor patio area for eight tables. The nature of the variance: The applicant requests relief from the number of parking spaces required for the additional outdoor eating area. The number of seats indoor is 51 requiring 13 parking spaces and the proposed exterior seating is 40 seats requiring 10 spaces. The number of spaces on the existing site is 15 where the applicant has received a letter from Warren County DPW to allow the 11 spaces in the ROW to remain. The number of spaces total for the restaurant use would be 26. Summary The PB is to provide a recommendation to the ZBA in regards to the applicants request for relief for parking. Staff would encourage the applicant to obtain an agreement with the neighboring business plaza to allow shared parking during off hours for customers of the restaurant. This would then be an alternative if the County were to need the parking area within the ROW. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone here representing the applicant? And if you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. WEBER, SR.-I'm John Weber, Sr. MR. WEBER-And John Weber. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything about your project that you wanted to tell us about this evening? MR. WEBER, SR.-Well, basically the concept is we just want a little bit more space for the outdoors to just be outside the side of the building. The area is 30 by 30. We're not changing anything. The asphalt is the parking lot. We're just putting tables on it, and then we're going to put a little privacy fence around it as you can tell in the photos, and basically we're not going to put up anything outside there like, you know, anything to do with the bar or anything like that. Everything will be coming in from the kitchen and the restaurant where it is now, and the drinks will be coming up. MR. WEBER-And also we have a door on the side entry. So it's a private area closed in from the actual restaurant itself, and it's just a temporary structure that we're only have it up for the summer. MR. HUNSINGER-So would people enter from inside the restaurant? MR. WEBER-Inside the restaurant, and then they will go through the side door. MR. FORD-There's also an entrance, however, through the? MR. WEBER-In the front, yes. MR. FORD-In the front. MR. WEBER-They can come in, directly into that or they can come in through the restaurant. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I just happened to notice in the picture of your display here it looks very nice, but, you know, you still have some snow on the ground in the background. MR. WEBER-Yes. The torch thrower, we couldn't get it for that day. MR. FORD-Have you approached the neighbor about the potential for any parking on that adjoining site? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) MR. WEBER, SR.-We haven't been able to communicate with her yet, but we are looking at some other spaces that might be possible, but we just haven't been able to bring it in at this point. So I think that's where we are at this point. We do have some, right next, if you're looking at the picture on the left hand side, there are grassy areas where the employees can park, straight out. Once they get in there they're not going to come out anyway until after, you know, we close. MR. WEBER-And also we'll be flexible with the amount. We kind of went for the amount that we would like as a maximum. We are flexible in the sense that we can go down further to accommodate the parking situation. MR. FORD-By down further, you mean? MR. WEBER-As the number of tables, sorry. MR. FORD-The amount of tables. MR. WEBER-The amount of tables to accommodate the parking. MR. HUNSINGER-So would you be planning to take the privacy fence and planters and stuff down in the wintertime? MR. WEBER-Correct. MR. WEBER, SR.-Yes, we're just putting it up for the summer. We'll take it down in the winter. It isn't anything that, there's nothing in the whole project that is permanent. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You need a place to plow snow. MR. WEBER, SR.-Yes, you're right. MR. DEEB-What about lighting? MR. WEBER, SR.-The whole parking lot is already lit. We have the lights from National Grid, and we'll be putting lights around the top of the fence area. So that area will be well lit. MR. WEBER-Potentially under the umbrellas. MR. DEEB-You're going to add lighting? MR. WEBER-Well, they would be just like sort of bulb lighting, like Christmas lighting, very subtle. MR. WEBER, SR.-But the whole parking lot is lit by the light on the telephone pole right on the corner there that we pay for. It lights up the whole parking lot area. MR. DEEB-Right, but you are going to put lights under the umbrellas? MR. WEBER, SR.-Correct, yes, and around the top of the fence to. MR. MAGOWAN-String lighting almost. MR. WEBER, SR.-String lighting, yes. MR. WEBER-Sort of little bulb lighting. MR. HUNSINGER-So is that the only lighting you propose is string lighting? MR. WEBER, SR.-Yes. MR. WEBER-And that's going to be, that's with the street lighting, because we looked at it with the streetlight. MR. MAGOWAN-I don't think the ambience would be any brighter outside than it is on the inside. MR. WEBER, SR.-No, it's a little dark inside. So it would probably be lighter outside. MR. MAGOWAN-It might even enhance some more light coming in the big window there. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) MR. WEBER, SR.-We close at nine o'clock and during the summertime it's still light out. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. For me, I really enjoy that restaurant and it was, I think it would be a great improvement. Like I said, it would be, the parking situation is the toughest thing, and like I said, if you could set something up with the neighbors there where the employees park on the other side, you really should have a problem. Let's put it this way, I've never had a problem parking in there. MR. WEBER-No, it really isn't. Even though the sketch is like it is, there are other spots that can be parked on as well. Because there's the trash cans and things that you see on the right hand side now will be moved way over to the right side. MR. FORD-That was my next question, where they were going. MR. WEBER-Yes. MR. WEBER, SR.-Yes, that was the first thing we heard when we mentioned we were going to do it, you're going to leave the garbage there? We're putting it over on the other side, and we'll put new fences up over there just to keep it clean. We have to put that in the fenced in area. MR. FORD-That'll enhance the outdoor seating. MR. WEBER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, Code requires you to fence in your dumpsters. MR. WEBER, SR.-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments or concerns from the Board? Questions from Staff? No? There is no public hearing scheduled for this. Would anyone like to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board? RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION REGARDING AV# 13-2015 WEBER The applicant has submitted an application for the following: A 900 sq. ft. outdoor patio area for 8 tables. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance Food Service & change of use shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2015 JOHN WEBER, SR. & JOHN WEBER, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Duly adopted this 21St day of April, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. WEBER-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Our next item is also a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) SITE PLAN NO. 17-2015 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 18-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED KIMBERLEE POLUNCI AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 21 BLIND ROCK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES AN EXPANSION OF A KENNEL FACILITY. THE NEW BUILDINGS INCLUDE A 2,400 SQ. FT. PLAY & TRAINING ROOM WITH TWO EXTERIOR PLAN/TRAINING AREAS; A 2,600 SQ. FT. LEASE BUILDING FOR THE SPCA HOLDING AREA WITH FENCED-IN LOADING/UNLOADING AREA AND OUTDOOR RUNS. A 23 X 26 SQ. FT. SCREEN ROOM AREA TO BE ATTACHED TO THE EXISTING CAT FACILITY AND TO ADD 8 OUTDOOR RUNS TO THE EXISTING KENNEL BUILDING. SITE PLAN: PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-10 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE KENNEL IN AN RR ZONE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR ALL USES THAT REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUP) SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUP KENNEL REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 14-15, SUP 15-09, AV 48-08, SUP 30-08 WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2015 APA, CEA, OTHER DEC & NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 20.13 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.15-1-1.1 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-10-070 TOM HUTCHINS & JIM FITZGERALD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes an expansion of a Kennel facility. The new buildings include a 2,200 sq. ft. play & training room with two exterior play/training areas; a 2,600 sq. ft. lease building for the SPCA holding area with fenced-in loading / unloading area and outdoor runs. In addition there's a 23 x 26 sq. ft. screened-in room area to be attached to the existing cat facility and 8 outdoor runs are being added to the existing kennel building. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. I'm Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering, here with John Polunci, Tails Wag Inn, and Jim Fitzgerald, Warren County SPCA. The Polunci's were here in 2010 for a Special Use Permit that allowed the opening and operation of the Tails Wag Inn. That Special Use Permit is due for a renewal in October or November of this year, and in planning for that renewal process, it's desired to incorporate an expansion. So we have laid out what's proposed and we'd like to combine the Special Use Permit with an expansion. There is, Jim Fitzgerald is with Warren County SPCA. There's an arrangement in the works to construct a building that would be used by the Warren County SPCA for the impoundment and animal control and treatment of abused and abandoned animals, and you can certainly elaborate on that if you'd like. In putting my information together, I read through Laura's notes and basically what I would say is everything she has in those first two pages in her summary it's very clear. We are looking for a, or we're requesting from the Zoning Board a variance from a 200 foot property line setback, which is a special setback for a kennel use, and you can see on the plan we're, this is the existing building, and this is the overall plan. I'll show you the enlarged. This is the existing building, the Tails Wag Inn, the canine building. This is their office, and cat building. The proposed SPCA building is right here to the north of the existing building, and that building is 135 feet from this property line. That's the variance we're requesting from the Zoning Board of Appeals, and we're here tonight to show you our plan and to answer any questions, introduce this and ask for your support for our visit to the Zoning Board of Appeals tomorrow night, and, anything to add? MR. FITZGERALD-Any questions about how we're going to do this or anything about the facility? It's going to be a secure facility. It's only open to law enforcement, animal control, humane officers. If we impound somebody's dog, they can call us and it will be easier for the public to get their dogs back over the weekend because we will have six officers on call 24/7. We're putting six new officers out in the County for this summer, and we're hoping with this facility we're going to cut down on what the Town pays for their impound fees. Currently we're paying a for-profit to impound an animal. If we bring it to our building here we can cut those costs down directly, right off the bat, for the Town of Queensbury, and that would cut down the impound fees. That would also impact the residents in less fees paid for impounding dogs. So it's money savings for our Town. It's a very secure facility. We're not selling dogs. We are not an SPCA that trucks in dogs. We are enforcement, and these animals are hit by cars, surrendered, old, nobody wants them. We're going to bring them into our facility, rehab them, get them right out to a rescue. So our facility's going to be used for the unwanted animals, hurt animals and abused animals. I'll make that clear that I am not trucking in any animals. I am not doing that. This is all enforcement, and it's for the betterment of the community and our animals. This is about animal cruelty and surrenders of animals, and this is a big problem in our community, and I really look at this as a moving forward in Queensbury in a positive way, and I 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) think it's going to affect us in a really positive manner. Even the cat room we have for these cat issues. This will help. We've all discussed this. I've discussed this with the councilman was well, the problems that we have, and Queensbury is centrally located. Eighty percent of all of our animal issues are in the Town of Queensbury, and this facility is long overdue, if you ask me. So I'd look for your support. MR. HUNSINGER-So, what's the relationship between the SPCA building and Polunci's? JOHN POLUNCI MR. POLUNCI-It would be leased, and we also have the facility in place and a proven record of how the facility works, and there's not a trouble with it, there's no issues with it as far as security goes. It's centrally located. You can get in and out easy, and, you know, there's no houses right next to it. It's built down into a hole, and that's one reason why we want the variance is to put it in that location, to get any sound that does come out of it trapped within that berm of the contour of the land. MR. FORD-You mentioned officers. Could you describe what kind of officers these are, and are these new hires? MR. FITZGERALD-Absolutely. These are, yes, these are new hires who are graduating from the National Animal Control and Care Academy in Rhode Island. They've just completed their Level One. Three other officers right now, including myself, just left class to come here. We're also peace officers. So we'll have peace officer status, animal control officer status and humane officer status. This has been one of the biggest things with our community is you call an animal control officer, and they can't pick up a cat. That's the rule. A humane officer has to pick up a cat. An ENCON Officer has to pick up wildlife. What we did was we merged animal control officers and humane officers together so we can give our community, you know, I don't have to show up to a call and say, yes, there's a cat, let me call somebody else. That's what we're facing right now is we've taken a commonsense approach to this, especially in Queensbury, of using these positions, combining them, so we can address different needs with one person, and that's what a humane officer can deal with as more on the law side. An animal control officer enforces municipal code. So with having our ACO's and humane officers' work together, we can cover every call that comes in. MR. FORD-Who covers payroll for the new officers? MR. FITZGERALD-I do. Why is that? Who covers payroll for the new officers? Warren County SPCA does, and that's part of the reason why we brought so many officers in, because right now I am the only full time officer in Warren County. There's 22 in Saratoga. We're a little bit behind the curve, and the taxpayer is not paying for these officers. This is all off of government contracts that we have, and public donations. So the taxpayer has zero investment in any of these officers. MR. FORD-But it will be a County wide facility? MR. FITZGERALD-It will be a County wide facility. MR. FORD-Not just a Queensbury facility. MR. FITZGERALD-Only for towns that sign up for it. Let me make that clear. Every town, you know, you have towns up in Horicon may decide to go to a facility in Schroon, and that's reasonable with the distance. So, you know, and any time, the most I've had impounded at one time is 14 dogs. So that's the kind of numbers we're looking at. Like I said, this is not an adoption facility at all. This is purely impound and for enforcing municipal code and State law for animals, Ag & Markets. MR. HUNSINGER-So is there a maximum number of dogs that the SPCA building can hold? MR. POLUNCI-Well, that would be determined by the size of the dog. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. POLUNCI-We have capacity, if we had an impound where there were 30 Chihuahuas, we could take them. We might not be able to take 300 Great Danes, you know, it's all size related. There's really no formula to calculate on how much space each dog requires, but it's left up to the people that are the experts, you know, the people, from our experience running the Tails Wag Inn, and Jim with the Animal Control as far as, you know, that's, that would be up to them, determined by them. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) MR. FERONE-How many total dogs or cats or whatever could be on, in the facility, because I know there's a couple of different things going on there. So if he has a total of 14, how many other animals might be? MR. POLUNCI-We, technically, can hold 31 large dogs in our facility, but the building we're building, like I said, we could use stackable or adjustable kennels. It could be a 100, but that's not a lot of animals if you have 100 Chihuahuas, and if you're set up for, as far as, you have the right indoor air quality, if you have the right amount of water, you have the right amount of staffing, the right amount of security, that's not many animals at all. It really isn't, because they're not all going to be outside, running around, they're all going to be controlled. That's the thing with the animals, everything has to be controlled. MR. FERONE-Another question. I was there over the weekend on Sunday, actually. I didn't hear anything. Were there any animals on site? MR. POLUNCI-Yes, actually there's a 200, I'm sorry, 110 pound Presa Canario that was out there, and she was out there, and we foster, ourselves, animals, and we personally own 17 animals, and they're out there off and on all the time, and I believe when you guys stopped by Sunday there was some animals out there. I know mine was, my dog was. MR. DEEB-I saw your dog when I went out, and contrary to George, as soon as I got out of the car. MR. POLUNCI-Did she bark? MR. DEEB-Oh yes, she barked. She's a big dog. MR. POLUNCI-Yes. MR. FERONE-She didn't bark at me. MR. MAGOWAN-Dave, do you think you scared it? MR. DEEB-Yes, I might have, and I mean they just started as soon as I came in. I went through the facility also. MR. POLUNCI-We joke about this. It's stranger danger. The girls that are in there are the safest girls in the world. As soon as you leave. Where I've been in there at night working, and they quiet right down. It's someone new. When they show up, it's activity. Just like any other dog they get all, someone's new here. After that they calm down in 15, 20 minutes. MR. DEEB-So you could have 100 dogs at one time on the whole facility? MR. POLUNCI-Yes. MR. DEEB-That's a pretty high noise level. MR. POLUNCI-Not really. We've had four years of, and not one complaint. No one's filed one complaint with the Town. AUDIENCE MEMBER-1 disagree. I filed a complaint. MR. POLUNCI-According to Bruce Frank, we haven't had one complaint. MR. TRAVER-As I recall the discussion on this project when we first looked at it, because of the nature of the location and the business, my recollection is that, Number One, this is exactly the concern that was raised at the time, that you would be permitted for this and then want to expand it beyond what was felt to be appropriate, and for that reason, there were very strict limits put on a Special Use Permit at that time, to avoid exactly what you're discussing tonight. The idea that in this location you would be dramatically expanding the business. Have you considered this expansion of the business on a different site, because of the limitations that were agreed to when this was, the Special Use Permit was approved? MR. POLUNCI-No, because I actually feel that this is the best spot for it. It's within a central location of Town of Queensbury. If we do have a problem with the animals in this area that Jim was talking about, we are actually having people that are law enforcement that are going to be on the premises controlling the whole situation. It's a perfect location. It's in the middle of nowhere. It really is. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) MR. TRAVER-Do you remember the discussions when the Special Use Permit was issued? MR. POLUNCI-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And did you agree to the limits that were placed on it at that time? MR. POLUNCI-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. DEEB-I'm a little confused. You're not expanding your business MR. POLUNCI-No. MR. DEEB-No, you're just adding the building for the SPCA. MR. POLUNCI-Right, and we're proposing another building an inside play area. Not increasing the volume. MR. FORD-You're expanding the dog run. Correct? MR. POLUNCI-Yes. MR. DEEB-You want eight outdoor kennels. MR. FORD-That's one of the variances that you need. Because you're required to stay 200 feet from a property boundary, and you want to come within 153 feet. MR. POLUNCI-Yes, on the southern side, which is down in that gully by my house. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Jim, who pays for the new facility, the SPCA? MR. FITZGERALD-The Warren County SPCA. MR. FORD-And the outdoor for the SPCA, the training area, would be 145 feet from the property line? MR. POLUNCI-Off the back of the SPCA building, yes. Yes, we're looking for that. It's not where they're going to be out there playing and socializing. They get out there, they get a little bit of exercise, and they go right back in, because that's a holding facility. MR. DEEB-But the SPCA wants eight outdoor kennels. MR. POLUNCI-No, no. That is us. MR. DEEB-That's you. MR. POLUNCI-That's us on the outside. What we want to offer is we want to be able to take the clients that we already have and we want to give them the option to go from, the dogs can go in and out. So we can let them out, clean the stalls and let them back in, in that facility. MR. FORD-How much effort was put in to trying to make this fit your present acreage without infringing on the property values? MR. POLUNCI-Well, it can be done, but the reason we're putting it in this location is to help with noise, because we're putting it into a confined space down in that gully. I don't know if you if you went over to the property, but where you see the kennel right there, that white like tent type thing that's there, that's where we want to put it because of the sound buffer. The sound isn't going to roll back over towards the lake and it's not going to come over there. It's right next to the building that we already have there. MR. HUTCHINS-And there's a bowl there and we've avoided the high ground. MR. POLUNCI-Right. We don't want to put it up on top, put it very high where it can, you know, potentially be a noise issue. MR. DEEB-Well, can you clarify how, you say you're going to bring the dogs out so you can clean the pens inside. How do you do it now? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) MR. POLUNCI-Right now there's a play area inside. There's a play area right now, and then what happens is, what we're finding is you have certain dogs that can play with each other and certain dogs that can't. So, like, it just makes it easier for the dogs that don't necessarily play well together with each other, the girls can let them out, clean that stall, and then they can have, inside, the other dogs that are being let out to clean those stalls, and just, it makes it more feasible and easier to operate the kennel. MR. DEEB-How long would they stay in the kennel outside while you do your chores? MR. POLUNCI-It's going to depend on if there's a mess. MR. DEEB-What's the maximum? MR. POLUNCI-Maybe half an hour, I'm assuming. I mean, there can be some messes. MR. DEEB-Animals. MR. FERONE-And where that building's going, you're saying there's not going to be any type of excavating of that? MR. POLUNCI-There's a small amount, I don't know if you saw that, there's some stakes right there, and the stakes is where, all that fill was brought in by Richard Schermerhorn originally, and we're just going to push it and feather it back up and make, peak the contour of the land, just give us enough to keep the building in that spot. MR. FERONE-And, Tom, no concern with stormwater coming from off that hill? MR. HUTCHINS-Well, there's concern, and we have addressed it. It's a significant issue. We're not concerned with it. We've expanded the facilities and we're comfortable with it, but, yes, it's an issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-There were some engineering, additional engineering issues I want to make sure get addressed. The certification statement provided in the SWPPP has not been revised for consistency with the new general permit. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, that's a typo. That's a typo in the, that's a date on the permit number. When this was submitted, we were under GP Permit 2010-01. As of 2015, we're under GP 2015-01. That's the difference. There was a transition in permit in January 1, 2015. MR. FORD-Tom, how about Number Three, the applicant states that inquiries for endangered species and archeological resources, and permit coverage cannot be obtained until this information is documented in the SWPPP. MR. HUTCHINS-That's correct. You make an inquiry to State Office of Historic Preservation with regard to historic significance on the site, and that's in the works, and we cannot get permit coverage until that letter from Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation is in place. MR. FORD-Can you explain why soil testing has not been provided for the proposed development? MR. HUTCH INS-Because we put this together in the Fall and over the winter and it was just a difficult time to do the soils work. We did soils work in the past. We know the soils work. We're going to do the soils. MR. HUNSINGER-It's all fill, right? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, it's all fill. Mostly. There's some native material down below, but it's mostly to the southern side, and it's predominantly fill. The hill is certainly all fill. MR. HUNSINGER-And I forgot, where did it come from? Do you remember? MR. HUTCHINS-For there? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Off Meadowbrook, right? MR. HUTCHINS-1 believe so, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Waverly Place. Across the street. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) MR. FORD-Can you address Number Nine in the engineering. Do you want me to read that, or do you have that available? It has to do with not providing a maintenance agreement. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, there's a standard maintenance agreement that has to be done when, prior to issuing the final permits to the facility that is an agreement between the applicant and the Town of Queensbury that they will maintain the stormwater system. They're under one presently, and there will be one. There would certainly be one in this case. It's not always put in the initial paperwork. It's a standard two page legal document. MR. FORD-It gets done later? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, it gets done prior to the Zoning Administrator signing off on the Notice of Intent to Obtain Coverage under General Permit for Stormwater Discharge. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. DEEB-So I guess I'm a little curious. The SPCA wants to build a building, and you want to put eight kennels outside for your Tails Wag Inn, and up until now, four years until now, you've been operating okay with the system the way it is? MR. POLUNCI-Yes, it works, but we're constantly trying to better the facility and make it better, make it better for the animals. Yes, it definitely works. MR. DEEB-I'm a little concerned with the noise outside, and I didn't know if there was a way you could either cut the kennels down or? MR. POLUNCI-Well, as far as, we realize that noise is always an issue in that, I mean, any time you're dealing with anything like this, animals and noise. That's one reason why we want to put the added cost of putting another building, a second building which is an indoor play area, where the majority of the dogs play. The outside time is very limited. We just want to be able to offer that option to be able to make it easier to function, more functional and easier to operate the facilities is why we're looking for those outdoor kennels. AUDIENCE MEMBER-We can't hear the applicant very well. MR. HUNSINGER-You can pull the microphone up. MR. POLUNCI-What we're trying to do is we're just trying to better the facility overall, operations, functional, all the way from indoor air quality, all the way down to efficiency in picking up dog waste and removing it and that sort of thing. MR. FORD-We were pretty strict with our initial approval as Steve has mentioned. Can you quantify for us, what is the percentage of expansion of the number of animals that will be serviced in this facility as proposed? MR. POLUNCI-Are we talking about the overall thing, overall? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. POLUNCI-For both buildings, I don't know exactly what number we're talking as far as animals. I just know that we're looking at, we think that number of 30 dogs in the kennel is, for us, should be removed because, like is said, we can have, a lot of times we get 10 small dogs in there, and they're, you know, five of them are in the same family, so they all take up the same space, you know, we kind of need that left to the staff to decide which animals, you know, how many animals can be in the facility. So as far as the total amount goes, he's saying, you know, 15 dogs at a time. MR. FITZGERALD-In and out because, I mean, as dogs come in, they go out. MR. POLUNCI-They're not there for long. So, you know, on average we're looking at 30 dogs, maybe 10 to 15 dogs in our facility, depending on whether they're large dogs or small dogs. MR. FORD-So conceivably you're doubling the number of animals that can be serviced there? MR. POLUNCI-Yes. MR. FORD-You're going from 30 to 60? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) MR. POLUNCI-Exactly, and I do believe the last time you guys approved the 30 dogs, and this was based off the septic usage, more or less. It was thrown in there that they thought the septic system only could handle X number of dogs at a certain size, and that was kind of, we've proven the septic system can handle that just by pumping it mower often, and we don't have an issue with that. MR. TRAVER-As I recall we discussed traffic, we discussed noise, which is why we didn't want outdoors, dogs outside. We did discuss the waste removal and also the appropriateness of the location of being in their neighborhood. That's how we were trying to help you out by coming up with a permit that would work for everybody but had protective limits on it so exactly what you're proposing would not happen in the future. MR. POLUNCI-Well, I understand that, but after being open for four years and networking and seeing that there's a need in here with the Town of Queensbury and working with the Town of Queensbury and Animal Control, it's a feasible spot for everybody, and the noise issue is, like I said, in four years we haven't had a complaint. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think it's great that you have an opportunity to expand your business, but when you were here last for this particular site, we took a look at sound. We took a look at all of these things, and we came up with this 30 dog limit, which you agreed to. So if you have an opportunity to expand, I think that that's fantastic. I would just find another location. Because we have, we have been through this analysis at length. I mean, I think you were here at least two or three times the last time you had a permit. MR. POLUNCI-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And we understood. We thought it was a good concept. You had accreditation at that time, understanding that organization has gone away. MR. POLUNCI-Right. MR. TRAVER-But you had a very high quality, you know, operation, and we felt safe with certain limits in saying, go ahead, make it work. It sounds like it's been very successful, and now you have an opportunity to expand, which, again, I think that's terrific, but I think you need to consider another location for the expansion to protect the integrity of that original project, which we reviewed extensively. All the issues that you are raising tonight we have already looked at, sound, waste, the issue of having the dogs outside, traffic. We haven't really gotten into traffic tonight, but that was one of the reasons that we limited the dogs. You were there. You recall the discussions I'm sure. MR. POLUNCI-Absolutely. MR. FITZGERALD-Mr. Traver, could I just say something? I believe a lot of the discussion also was the personnel, the training that was going to be on site that was in question. Am I correct, John? MR. POLUNCI-Yes, it was. MR. FITZGERALD-What we're doing now is we're putting some of the foremost experts in the State sitting right at that building. MR. TRAVER-Well, actually at the time that we looked at this site plan, and other members of the Board can correct me if I'm wrong, but you had presented us with some quite extensive and detailed information about the level of training and the quality of the staff that would be manning this facility. That also led to our comfort level with, you know, approving a Special Use Permit with these limitations. So, I beg to differ. We looked extensively at, and there was a lot of accreditation. MR. FITZGERALD-Sure, I get it, and I wasn't involved in that. So, I understand that, Mr. Traver. I wasn't involved in that. I'm talking my SPCA building. What I'm saying is we are putting experts there that aren't going to, if you have a problem, I mean, and officer's going to be there. If there's an issue, it's going to be addressed right away. If there's a complaint, we're monitored 24/7. MR. TRAVER-1 can appreciate that. I'm sure that you are well qualified. I'm not questioning that. MR. FITZGERALD-Okay. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) MR. TRAVER-The reason that we designed the permit the way it exists is to avoid those issues. So I think it's a wonderful, it's a great idea. I just think it needs to be in a different location. I mean, the business expansion is fine, but I think it should be in a different, because we've gone through this property analysis extensively, and studied all these issues, the sound, the traffic, the location, and come up with a plan which, your reporting is working very well. So, you know, first do no harm. Let's not take something that's working very successfully and potentially make it an issue, where people are having a problem and people are having to respond to the site. That's, we didn't want that. MR. FITZGERALD-That last part, what was that? MR. TRAVER-Well, you were saying that if there was a problem that there would be people that would be able to respond to the site and take care of the issue, right? MR. FITZGERALD-Well, if there's a barking complaint, you have a professional sitting right there that, if there is a complaint that's valid, you know, which we have to sift through the complaints that are valid, that's what we're facing. I mean, you've got somebody on site with cameras that can record the time, the date, you know, that's all I'm saying. I understand what you're saying, Mr. Traver. MR. TRAVER-1 understand. Look at it from our point of view, and going back to when we first issued the permit, we were trying to come up with a plan that would avoid creating problems. MR. FITZGERALD-Right. I get it. MR. TRAVER-And apparently we've done quite well and we now have a thriving business that's in a position to expand. So, again, I think that's great. I just think that this expansion should be located somewhere else so we can preserve this wonderful facility the way it is. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't know that it has to be located someplace else, but I think we're confusing, there's two different functions here. Your function is what you put in here three, four years ago, and as I think most everybody agrees on the Board, it's working well. We don't have any problems with it. It's like the prison down on Route 9, okay. What you're doing is you're putting in a holding cell, for a short period of time, to get the animals off the street, mostly in Queensbury, and then get them out of there. That's a different function entirely than this function, and I think the jury's already given you a positive vote on what you did from the presentation three years ago and we asked you to do. I think now we've got to look at what you want to do, which is a holding cell, which is a very short term type thing, and we've got to say, is this a good spot for that, and I haven't seen why it isn't, but, you know, you've got to tell me. MR. DEEB-That's what I was driving at the first time, separate the two issues. I think the SPCA is a worthwhile project for Queensbury, especially on that site, but the other issue is something that we have to look at, and by the way, you do have a really nice operation from what I could see there when I went through it. It's well run. MR. POLUNCI-Thank you. MR. FORD-Your operation certainly gets kudos at the SPCA and the service being provided there certainly is, has the ability to be outstanding. My concern, among other things that I've enumerated, is when we're considering doubling the number of animals on that site, that really concerns me, and that's what we're doing. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, you know, I look at it, you did a beautiful job of setting up the original ones, and you did the sound absorptions. I mean, it's a great facility. I've been inside, you know, with the play area. I think what Warren County wants to do up there with the building and with the sound qualities absorbing materials that we have nowadays, I mean, you can pretty much, it would be dead quiet up there. Expanding the other building for another, the playroom for the dogs to play together, the way that you have that and close by, you've got to walk them across to the other playroom, the only concern I would have would be the, you know, the kennel outside where the noise is going to be able to expand. If you're able to get them where we have, you know, a roof or something over the top of it with absorption panels or something where it would absorb some of the sounds for the little bit of time, I hate to see dogs locked up, you know in the doors, but, you know, hey, if you throw in some skylights or something to get some light inside, you know, I think you've got a great operation there, and really with one, you know, alleged complaint there in four years, I think you've done a wonderful job, and I believe what Jim's trying to do here is a saving for, you know, the County and the Town. So, you know, my only concern would be the outdoor station and what we could do to, you know, absorb some of the, you know, a little bit of sound there, but, you know, like I said, if you've got a barking dog, chances are, you're not going to keep that outside long. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) MR. POLUNCI-No, if the dog's barking, there's a problem. We'd address that as soon as possible. MR. HUNSINGER-So if we could get this back to the process this evening. The reason why we're here is because there's a zoning variance required for them to do the project that they've proposed. I've heard a number of concerns, noise, but I haven't heard anything that specifically is related to the variance request which is within 200 feet of a neighboring property. Although transcendentally, the density and the increase of the usage is what's causing it to be within 200 feet, but just in terms of a recommendation. MR. FORD-1 would be concerned about proximity to. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, so I mean, just in terms of any recommendation to the Zoning Board, what's the feeling of the Board? I mean, a lot of these questions are, sometimes it's hard to separate out the process from the site plan, but if we can begin to think about how we separate out the variance request from some of the site plan issues that we've been talking about. MR. TRAVER-Well, there would also be a new Special Use Permit, would there not? MR. HUNSINGER-That's right. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-We'll be back. MR. SCHONEWOLF-This one expires anyhow. MR. TRAVER-Exactly. So I think in that context we need to go back to the extensive analysis that we did initially where how many dogs can we accommodate on this site? And we looked at that. We looked at traffic. MR. HUNSINGER-Again, those are site plan issues, though, not the variance request that's really before us this evening. MR. TRAVER-Well, but were there not an updated site plan there wouldn't be the variance request. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'd give the Zoning Board a shot at it and take another look at it. MR. HUNSINGER-So how would we, Steve, how would we put that into any recommendation to the Zoning Board, relative to the variance request? MR. TRAVER-Sure. For myself, I have concerns raised by, that is triggered by the variance request because of the dramatic expansion of the building at variance with the conditions agreed to by the applicant in the original Special Use Permit. I mean, that's the starting point. We have something that's already been agreed to. MR. FORD-That's where I'm at. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is that the recommendation that people want, the Board wants to make to the Zoning Board? I mean it's not really relative specifically to the variance request, though. It's really a site plan review. MR. DEEB-We could look at maybe a scaled back version. I don't know. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That would call attention to what we were concerned about. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Clarification. I have expansion would exceed the current Special Use Permit conditions? MR. TRAVER-Yes, as agreed originally. MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. MOORE-That's a concern. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-1 just want to make sure I have that. MR. HUNSINGER-Would someone like to make that recommendation? RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION REGARDING AV # 14-15 KIMBERLEE POLUNCI The applicant has submitted an application for the following: An expansion of a Kennel facility. The new buildings include a 2,400 sq. ft. Play & Training room with two exterior plan/training areas; a 2,600 sq. ft. lease building for the SPCA holding area with fenced-in loading / unloading are and outdoor runs. A 23 x 26 sq. ft. screen room area to be attached to the existing cat facility and to add 8 outdoor runs to the existing kennel building. Site Plan: Pursuant to Chapter 179-3- 040, 179-10 of the Zoning Ordinance Kennel in an RR zone and Site Plan review is required for all uses that require a special use permit (sup) shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested from setback requirements of the SUP Kennel requirements. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2015 KIMBERLEE POLUNCI, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following area of concern: The amount of expansion exceeds the current permit. Duly adopted this 21St day of April, 2015, by the following vote: MR. FORD-Do you want to address the more specific reasons for the need for the variance? Because are we giving them, the Zoning Board of Appeals, guidance on that, as we're called upon to do? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, yes, they've got to give their own guidance to that, but we talked about the difference from what we, when we issued the first permit, visa vie what they're asking now. MRS. MOORE-1 can tell the Board that the Zoning Board has similar Staff Notes that explain the requirements that were provided in the Special Use Permit. So they were given, as part of their Staff Notes, they were given that information. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, they know. MRS. MOORE-Therefore when you make this comment, they will go back to the Special Use Permit requirements. Do they feel that's a concern, and during their review they'll address it at that time. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's correct. MRS. MOORE-If it's part of their variance review process. MR. HUNSINGER-But of course all the Special Use conditions are site plan, they're not zoning variance. MRS. MOORE-Right, and you may receive the same comment back from the Zoning Board, you need to look at it at that Planning Board level. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MRS. MOORE-So I can make them. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-1 was trying to get the Board to focus on the 200 foot setback requirement, and, I mean, what I'm hearing are really density issues, not setback issues. Is that fair? MR. TRAVER-Well, the underlying issue to me is that the original Special Use Permit was tailored in just such a way to prevent this from happening, to prevent this business from expanding. We wanted to put limits on outdoors, on the number of dogs, you know, and it worked. MR. FORD-And now the only way they can do what they want, apparently, is getting the variances and infringing on the setbacks. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It worked up to the point where they renew their permit. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-Well, they're not renewing their permit. They want to change the permit. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, they've got to renew the original permit, too. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Well, from what we've heard that wouldn't be a problem. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, we'll see. MR. DEEB-The focus is to send it to the Zoning Board. I think that's the first step. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-So, no, I don't have a problem with the setback. MRS. MOORE-You still have a motion on the table. You should now vote on that. MR. HUNSINGER-We have not voted on that, no. I just wanted to make sure that, we're under discussion at the moment. So is there any further discussion? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Take the vote, please. MR. DEEB-Did you get a second? MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. MRS. MOORE-You didn't get a second. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion, is there a second? MR. DEEB-Second. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. POLUNCI-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Under Old Business, we have one item this evening. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2015 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEAR TYPE TYPE I - COORDINATED REVIEW MAURICE COMBS AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING; MC PHILLIPS FITZGERALD & CULLUM OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MDR LOCATION 636 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 9.24 ACRE PARCEL INTO 7 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1.01 TO 1.45 ACRES. SUBDIVISION: PURSUANT TO CHAPTER A-183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR ZONE. PLANNING BOARD MAY ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS, MAY CONDUCT SEAR REVIEW AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 11-2015; WATER DIST. EXT. LOT SIZE 9.24 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.28-1-1 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 DENNIS PHILLIPS & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura, whenever you're ready. MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant proposes a seven lot subdivision of a 9.24 acre parcel with lots ranging from 1.01 ac to 1.45 ac. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management and pollution prevention plan that information has been forwarded to the Town engineer for review. The project also includes a water district extension that is being reviewed by the Water Department and the Town Board. A portion of the parcel is within the district and portion is not. The project summary, the project as proposed is a realty subdivision and is subject to a coordinated SEAR review. The board may acknowledge lead agency status for SEAR, conduct SEAR and may provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board. The application is currently scheduled to be back before the board for preliminary review at the 2nd Planning Board meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. PHILLIPS-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dennis Phillips, representing Morris Combs, and you know, on my right, Mr. Hutchins quite well, I'm sure. We are seeking a recommendation to the Zoning Board relative to a variance application for a seven lot subdivision in an MDR zone, and we've been before this Board before for a conceptual idea, and based on that conceptual idea, which seemed to be satisfactory at the time, we went back to the drawing board and since that time Mr. Hutchins has done all of the work and has designed a plan which seems to be a reasonable plan. So we are here now to ask for a recommendation to the Zoning Board where we have an appearance tomorrow night and so we are prepared to proceed and answer any questions that you may have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-Yes, as I recall we looked at this at Sketch and it seemed fairly straightforward. I'm not sure that I recall. What change did you make in the designs? MR. HUTCH INS-There's, from what we showed you at Sketch, there's very little change to the layout. We graded it. We've showed the utilities. So we've enhanced it, but I don't believe the layout has changed much at all. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I was thinking there was something different on Lot Two. Was that maybe that the house reversed or something, or am just remembering MR. HUTCHINS-1 don't recall the configuration of the specific lot layout. The geometry of the boundary I don't, we may have tailored the right of way to exactly coincide with highway standards, but conceptually there's been very little change. MR. TRAVER-Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions from the Board? MR. HUTCHINS-And we do realize that, I'm sure you've seen the correspondence. This one parcel is only partially in the Queensbury water district. So there's a process involved to expand the water district to include the western half, actually the western about three quarters of this parcel so that it's actually in the district so we can get water service. MR. MAGOWAN-So only one lot right now is in? MR. HUTCHINS-It is one lot. The water district only goes back 250 feet from the road. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. MR. HUTCH INS-Although it surrounds it. It surrounds it to the north. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, most times when you put in a development you've got to extend the water systems. Correct? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) MR. HUTCHINS-Well, sometimes your parcels are wholly within the water district so then you don't have to expand the water district. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-The district is a legal boundary definition, and I'm not sure how they put all that together, but in this case it did not include the whole parcel, but we have reviewed that with the Water Department and the Town Board has actually seen it as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-1 have none. MR. HUNSINGER-1 was just looking, Laura. I don't know if we had a draft resolution to accept Lead Agency status. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I have one. MR. DEEB-It's right here. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We've got Lead Agency status, Negative Dec, and a recommendation to the ZBA. Take your pick. MRS. MOORE-You did do a notice to agencies, and waited the 30 days. MR. HUNSINGER-We have to accept it. That's the one I was looking for, but the secretary has it. If there's no other questions, comments from the Board. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS SUB # 6-2015 COMBS The applicant proposes subdivision of a 9.24 acre parcel into 7 lots ranging in size from 1.01 to 1.45 acres. Subdivision: Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested from lot size requirements of the MDR zone. Planning Board may acknowledge Lead Agency status, may conduct SEAR review and provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). WHEREAS, in connection with the project, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Community Development Office to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Town Board to conduct a coordinated SEAR review. WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agency. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2015 MAURICE COMBS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 21St day of April, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I didn't have that one in my package. I was looking for it. This is a Type I SEAR review. Are there any specific concerns that members of the Board have identified? MRS. MOORE-You also have a public hearing scheduled. I don't know if you want to go through that as well. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. Should we do that next, then? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board on this project? Okay. We have a couple of takers. The purpose of a public hearing is to solicit comments and concerns from members of the public. The meeting is taped. The tape is made available on the Town website. The tape is also used to transcribe the minutes and for that reason I would just ask that you speak clearly into the microphone and if you could state your name first for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RICHARD JONES MR. JONES-Good evening. For the record, Richard Jones. I reside at 33 Honey Hollow Road, and with me tonight are other residents from the Bedford Close area. Basically when we look at what is being proposed, we have some serious questions. Basically the environmental assessment form is not a complete form. There are several items on the form that have not been completed, some of which are minor in nature, but one of the major items is the depth to water table. Nothing is indicated in that SEAR. Based on the history of the Bedford Close area, which is basically wrapping around that parcel, approximately five years ago the Town came in and did a modification to the storm drainage system in that area adjacent to the site because of several drainage problems in the spring for a lot of residents. The existing storm drainage system that's there is a series of catch basins and closed stormwater transfer systems. It's not open drywells, which is what they're proposing. The water table in the area where we live, which is adjacent to this site, is somewhere in the neighborhood of probably seven to eight feet below ground in the spring. When I look at what they've done for their report for their SWPPP, they've given no indication for any deep test pits. Nothing is indicated on their site plan review, and basically they have a drywell system with connecting culverts which is dumping into the ground, and these drywells are anywhere from seven to nine feet below grade, which probably is going to be problematic with the high water table. When you look at the site plan and the variance request, they basically have a site where they're proposing seven parcels, and with the two acre zoning, they could do four two acre parcels in there. The property is located over an aquifer, and I believe that the intent of the original zoning for the site and for that area with the two acre parcels was because they did not have basically sanitary systems in there. There were no municipal sanitary systems. Everyone was on septic. They are proposing septic systems for these sites which means that you're talking seven versus four if they were two acre parcels. When you look at their sites, they've not indicated any separation, any easements for utilities. They've given no separation between water and electric lines. I believe there's natural gas in the area, but nothing is indicated on their site plan reviews. They are indicating they're extending the water from Corinth Road, but on their plans they indicate the water is being supplied by wells. So there's great inconsistences with the package that they've put together. Basically we have some major concerns, I think the whole neighborhood does, with the density of what they're proposing. The density is almost 75% over what's allowed. The average size of the lot is just over one acre. There's one which is just below an acre and a half. So the majority of them are around one acre, which is almost 50% under what is required under the zoning. So there's many issues which I think we all agree with and at this point we do not believe that you could do a SEAR review tonight because you don't have a complete SEAR. I don't believe they've done any deep test pits on the site, and as I've said, the water issues over there are problematic. Any other comments from anybody else? MR. HUNSINGER-Could you make sure you get on the microphone and identify yourself for the record, please. You can pull it out if you want. JOHN MORABITO MR. MORABITO-Where do we draw the line between two acres and one acre, one point two? What's the purpose of zoning to begin with? Why isn't it two acres and you get four sites to do? I own an acre and a third piece of property next to it. And I was like, well, geez, I'm going to come and divide my property into .67 a piece and try to sell off a lot. Because obviously if you get seven houses you're going to make more money than four. So I'm not sure why you would approve seven properties versus four. I mean, it's not just a slight increase, as thing young gentleman pointed out, it's .75% higher, and I'm not sure why a Planning Board or Zoning Board would agree to this. MR. FORD-John, would you identify yourself? MR. MORABITO-I'm sorry, John Morabito. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Any other questions or comments? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) MR. MORABITO-1 have one more question. I don't know, but is there any size limitation on the houses that they're building or is there any size that they're proposing as far as square footage? We're not to that point yet? Okay. And therefore we don't know if there's going to be any buffers between all those properties and this particular project. MR. HUNSINGER-That's something that we generally would talk about, yes. MR. MORABITO-We talk about now? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MORABITO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, during subdivision review we would. MR. MORABITO-Okay. I'd like to know what the answer to that would be. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. RICHARD KOKE MR. KOKE-Hello. I'm Richard Koke from 31 Honey Hollow. I agree with Richard here as far as the water table. I'm sure some of you remember my last neighborhood that we were into, we had a serious problem from an oversight. That's my main concern here right now. I know that from Bedford Close it's about seven and a half feet where the water table is. All right. I know my house would be under water, the same with my neighbor next door, if I didn't bring in fill. I did my research before I built my last house in Bedford Close, I brought it up for feet so I'd stay out of the water table. That wasn't done prior, and I know you did a study on Bedford Close way back, and all the test holes showed at right around seven and a half feet, but somebody allows houses to be built below seven and a half feet, basements are eight and a half plus. So a lot of houses in that general area did go under water especially just in the last two years. They spent a lot of money to get some other drainage in there, all right. A lot of the water is diverted from West Mountain down, which used to be original streams. I've been in that area since '70, all right, and where my house is presently right now, I just remember as a kid, it's a swamp pretty much in the spring. So I think that's a big indication that Richard was saying, as far as water that needs to be addressed pretty seriously because all of a sudden now you're going to be adding homes, you're going to be adding sewers. Adding a few extra problems in that area if it's not addressed properly. That's it. JOE GIORGIANNI MR. GIORGIANNI-Hi, I'm Joe Giorgianni. We moved in 19 years ago, and for the first several years our basement had two big sump pumps which constantly ran, and in the spring probably for two months there would be two to three inches of water in the basement. So by putting in gutters and doing grading and some other things, it's alleviated it somewhat, and when the Town did some work about five years ago, it's gotten somewhat better, but I think that that area behind that they're talking about developing is, you know, a lot of trees and a lot of grass and it's absorbing a lot of water and if you eliminate that, I think there's going to be a big problem. MR. FORD-How many sump pumps do you have operating now? MR. GIORGIANNI-They didn't run this year. They're still there and plugged in, though, and I still dread hearing them in the middle of the night. But not this year. MR. FORD-Good. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Thank you. MR. GIORGIANNI-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Was there anyone else in the audience that wishes to address the Board on this project? I don't know if you have any immediate responses to some of the concerns that were raised? We haven't talked about the engineering comments either. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, I can touch on the engineering issues. The deep test pits have not been conducted at this time. The submission came in in March, and it was a difficult time to work. I mean, the early fall I had one a walk through with hand dug test pits, but it's correct that we haven't done the 10 foot test pits, and that is on the program here shortly, now that the frost is 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) gone and the snow is gone. So that's correct. It's possible that the design could have to change. I don't anticipate it, but it's certainly possible. With regard to lot size. MR. PHILLIPS-1 think that we understood that as part of the planning process that we had some engineering to do, particularly with some deep hole test pits. So that was a given, but as Tom said, we weren't in a position to do that before we were on the program. As far as lot size is concerned, the lots that we are proposing are in conformity with the lots that surround this piece of land for the most part, and for the most part they are, in fact, larger lots. So as we were designing this plan, we're not trying to minimize what we were doing, but we were trying to conform to a large degree with the neighborhood, not only on this side of Corinth Road, but on the other side of Corinth Road as well. So from a lot size point of view, we think that we are in conformity with the neighborhood. Now obviously of the concerns that have been expressed this evening, relative to water, water table, we will certainly address those issues. We know that those are part of the planning process. The last thing that Mr. Combs would like to do is create a problem for the property, for the neighbors and for any potential consumers of this property. So there's work to be done. From an engineer's point of view we understand that, but still, we would like to proceed to the greatest extent possible. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. MAGOWAN-The average size of the houses was also brought up. Do you have an idea of roughly the size of the house you're looking to put on the lots? MR. PHILLIPS-1 don't think that we have thought that through, except to say that, again, we would be looking at house sizes that are in conformity with the neighborhood. I don't think that Mr. Combs was looking at undersized or oversized houses. I think we're looking at standard houses and whatever the market will bear in this day and age. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Seven lots. MR. PHILLIPS-Seven lots. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Good sized lots. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? Anything from Staff? MRS. MOORE-Tom, do you want to go through the Chazen Engineering comments? MR. HUTCHINS-1 could, yes. MR. PHILLIPS-One thing that I would say, one additional thing, in response to Mr. Koke's response, that to the extent the environmental conditions would require fill to be brought in in order to have a non-problematical construction, that's certainly something that Mr. Combs would be willing to do. I know his engineer and his lawyer would be recommending that. So that's an engineering view that I view as having a solution to it. MR. DEEB-But can we conduct SEAR tonight? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, you wouldn't be able to determine that until you know what the test pits. MR. HUTCH INS-Correct. MR. DEEB-So can we conduct SEAR tonight or do we have to wait? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think that is open for discussion, you know, what the feeling of the Board is. MR. FORD-1 personally would like to see what the test pits teach us. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have engineering comments to review. Those might shed some light and give you some comfort, or raise questions that could cause concern. So why don't we go through those. MR. HUTCHINS-Would you like me to go through them? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, sure. If you're so prepared. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. Well, one is just an acknowledgement that the SWPPP's required. So there's no response to there. Now, again, and we're in a transition mode here, because we 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) started putting this together in '14, and the permit changed in 2015, and when the permit changed it changed the rainfall numbers a little bit. So we have updated, the rainfall numbers could change, and we have updated the rainfall numbers and the model still works. That also means we have all new forms, too, that have to get changed. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, of course, yes. MR. HUTCHINS-And they're longer. MR. FORD-Surprise. MR. HUTCHINS-This is threatened and endangered species, it is in the works. I don't believe we have a response yet. We acknowledge that that has to be cleared before we can get permit coverage for the stormwater permit, and again with the historic preservation. These are calculations for temporary sediment traps to be used during construction. We show them in a generalized nature in an attempt to allow a road builder and a house builder some flexibility in how they work their site. We'll just have to show that we have enough area to provide 3600 cubic feet per acre which we'll be able to. MR. HUNSINGER-You're on Item Five? MR. HUTCHINS-I'm on Item Five, yes, and Item Six is on site soils tests and we acknowledge that that remains to be completed. Okay. This Item Seven is inlet protection on the erosion control plan. That appears that's a drafting item. Item Eight is a comment with regard to our infiltration system design which is a similar design that was used across the street at Hudson Pointe, in terms of double drywells, and it's a recommendation that we go through it with the Highway Department which we're certainly willing to do. Item Nine they're asking for an explanation about two 18 inch culverts that are existing. They're asking for an explanation, they are existing and proposed, and we can certainly provide that explanation. Item Ten is the separation between an infiltration device and a water main, and that's always an issue when you're trying to put all the utilities in the right way, and as stormwater regulations and regulations have evolved, separation distances have increased and there's always some points where it's tight to maintain your separations. We'll have to make an adjustment, and that's the summary of the engineering comments, and again, we're in a, we're kind of in an interesting spot, because if we can't get the variances, the design is really of no value, and we're trying to get to a point where we can see if we're going to get the variances so that we can, I mean we acknowledge there's details to work out here. MR. HUNSINGER-You did provide us with a subdivision layout and utility plan, which shows water line and fire hydrants and electric supplied by National Grid. I guess there was a comment about natural gas, though. I didn't notice that on here. Do you plan to provide natural gas? MR. HUTCHINS-We don't show it on there, but to my knowledge natural gas is available. That would be proposed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and you have showed us proposed layouts of septic fields and again water lines. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MRS. MOORE-When do you anticipate doing additional testing for the? MR. HUTCH INS-Shortly, very soon. What's the feeling of the Board? MR. FORD-1 think there might be general agreement that this is a bit premature with both the applicant and their agents and the Planning Board need more information than we have tonight. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it's a familiar spot, I think, for this applicant, we've seen it before, where they're kind of in a Catch 22 because they want to move forward but they would like some assurance that they can do so. On the other hand, we have the legal requirement from the SEAR. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-1 don't know if maybe some general discussion, I mean, I don't, my own feeling is if we can get through the engineering and SEAR process at a later point, I don't see anything in the variances sought that would prevent this from going forward, provided that the engineering can be worked out. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MR. FORD-Well said. MR. FERONE-I'd agree with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, similar to the applicant's Catch 22, our Catch 22 is we can't make the recommendation to the Zoning Board without doing the SEAR review. MR. TRAVER-Right, and I think we're ill prepared to do that, especially in view of the public comment and the applicant's representative's own remarks about testing that needs to be conducted. So I think the best we can do is get a sort of verbal, some degree of confidence that we're moving generally in a good direction. MR. HUNSINGER-So just to give the applicant further clarification, are there other concerns beyond the test pit information? Understanding that runoff and stormwater are related to that. MR. TRAVER-Right, a lot of the engineering. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, I was going to say the engineering comments are all related to stormwater. MR. TRAVER-No, I think those are the only issues that I would have that would make me comfortable for a SEAR. MR. HUTCHINS-Can I ask how you feel about the general layout and the lot size in particular? I mean, does that seem? MR. TRAVER-Well, that goes to the variance. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-My own feeling is generally it's in character of the neighborhood. It really becomes can the engineering work. I'm hearing from you that it can. So that's where I'm at. MR. MAGOWAN-Like I said, I agree with Steve there. I mean, the lot sizes I like. My main concern is where's the water. I know it is, you know, it's wet over there, and, you know, if you find out that the water is even closer than you thought and you've got to bring in so much more fill, you know, that could change things. MR. HUTCHINS-We'd quantify the design, more likely modify the design. MR. FORD-I'd like to see what you come up with once you've done that. You may simply want to re-design it based upon what you find. MR. HUTCHINS-I'm not going to say it's not possible. MRS. MOORE-For the Board's benefit, I do have pending applications in May that make our agenda very full. So if you are tabling the application, you may be putting it out until June. MR. TRAVER-How soon can you do your test pits? MR. HUTCHINS-Next week. MR. TRAVER-That might work. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I know you sent me the draft. I haven't looked at it. MR. DEEB-So once we do SEAR we can then send it to the Zoning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, we're going to want the Town Engineer to review the test pits. MR. DEEB-So we're looking at a timetable to get this back for them. MR. HUTCHINS-Is it feasible that we can get a date in May? The application's in. It would be a matter of us re-submitting. MR. DEEB-It's up to Staff. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) MR. FERONE-The second meeting possibly? MR. HUNSINGER-It really depends on the information, because if the information comes in and we need to re-design the project. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's different. MR. TRAVER-Could we table until a May date and then give them a date, and if we don't make that date, then table it again? MRS. MOORE-1 would do it the second May date. MR. HUNSINGER-The second May date, the 21St MR. DEEB-That's our second meeting. MRS. MOORE-Yes, it's a Thursday. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would someone like to make that motion? RESOLUTION TABLING SUB # 6-2015 PRELIM. STG. MAURICE COMBS MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2015 MAURICE COMBS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Tabled until May 21St, pending submission of technical data and test pit data. Duly adopted this 21St day of April, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And just for members of the audience, the public hearing was held open. We will take public comments again on May 21St when we hear the project in May. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Will we be allowed to comment on the May 21St meeting? MR. HUNSINGER-1 think that's what I just said, sir. The public hearing is left open. You'll be free to comment again in May, and you can always provide written comment to the Town through the Town website, or just through the mail. We have two items under New Business this evening. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 19-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED NORTHWAY SELF STORAGE AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI LOCATION CAREY ROAD INDUSTRIAL PARK APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 4 - 200' X 30' SELF-STORAGE BUILDINGS AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SELF- STORAGE FACILITY IN A CLI ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SB 6-1987 WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2015 LOT SIZE 15.23 ACRES (PORTION OF) TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-31.11 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant is proposing 200 by 30 self-storage buildings. The applicant has indicated there could be 40 units to each building. The first building is 180 ft. from the front property line. Site Design- The site has 32 parking spaces. Building- The applicant has provided elevation drawings for the buildings. The height from the building eave to the ground is approximately. At this time the applicant has not designed a sign but has indicated it will be compliant with the code requirements. Lighting The applicant has indicated there will be 22 wall packs placed amongst the 4 buildings. The site disturbance is proposed at 2.4 acres. In 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) reference to traffic, the site will be accessible to clients of the storage facility. The drive aisles are to be 25 ft. wide. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center from Nace Engineering with John Shine and Larry Cleveland, the owners of Northway Self Storage. Again, like Laura said, this is a 2.77 acre parcel located in Carey Road Industrial Park. This is a Light Industrial subdivision designed for this lot. It is a compliant use. We're proposing these four buildings and we have deep well drained sands based on the soil studies from the subdivision design. We will be doing some additional test pits during construction to confirm the deep well drained soils. I spoke with the Town Engineer yesterday when while we were at another meeting. He didn't have a problem waiting for that information, knowing the area and knowing that the soils information from the existing subdivision is available that we can just confirm that we have adequate separation distances and the design. After that it's a pretty straightforward design. Stormwater management is going to be with drywells in the center aisles for the roof and small sections of the parking in the middle aisles, with the exterior aisles draining outward towards small sediment infiltration basins with drywells as overflows. We've actually used, as Tom Hutchins, I heard him mentioned in the last project, stormwater design manuals changing and some of the rates and ranges are changing for HydroCad stormwater management design and actually this project was the first project where I used, there's a couple of different methods, they're changing some of the 10, 20 year storm data, and they have some tools where you can choose specific data. We've used, I tried using that and working that out with the Town Engineer. We're both kind of feeling our way through some of this new process with, it's more specific. You can actually go and pick on the site and get the median high low ranges of stormwater data for the years, and sometimes you can use that data and compare it to what you used in the past. It's a little bit higher. So we've actually had more of a factor of safety stormwater wise for this. So that's, which would be a good thing at this range, but we had a few discussions, but nothing I think we're very far apart on as far as addressing the engineering comments that we received. Is there any particular questions? We also have a landscape plan in there, and it's a pretty straightforward design. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-These changing requirements for engineering, it's a challenge, isn't it? MR. CENTER-Stormwater management is a challenge. We go to these meetings and every four, five years they change what we do, and they've changed it again this time, in a way, numbers wise, and there's a lot of interesting ways to look at it. There's a lot of new data that they're using with mapping and trying to incorporate the maps. So some things get easier. Some things get harder trying to figure out the numbers and the runoff rates. It's a work in progress, I think. It's never really done, and you go to these same meetings that we go to and the folks from Albany come down to explain the Notice of Intent, the stormwater management design, and it seems like it's always evolving and changing. So we're all trying to catch up with it, but commonsense prevails. This site in particular, deep well drained sands, good for infiltration as we move forward. MR. FERONE-In looking at that drawing, on the back side of the lot, so this would be facing east, it looked like stormwater was draining in that direction, and there was a well on the south side, one on the north side. So in the back of the lot, is that going to drain in one of those directions to be picked up by the drywell? MR. CENTER-Yes, the back side of the lot will drain towards the, the back sides of the lot will drain towards the north and the south, kind of split the distance, to get them to drain. MR. FERONE-So you're just grading it? MR. CENTER-Yes, just grading it so that it drains. The asphalt will drain towards the back and then that will drain towards the drywell. There's very little runoff. If you go up there and look at it, the soils and what not in there coming off the pavement, there's very little runoff. It gobbles it up pretty quick. So you're just trying to get it to flow into these basins. MR. FERONE-It's gravel? It's not going to be? MR. CENTER-Yes, initially it'll be crushed stone parking eventually to be paved. MR. FERONE-Eventually? MR. CENTER-Yes. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Where's the fire hydrant? MR. CENTER-1 believe it's out. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Out in the road? MR. CENTER-Yes, there's one out on the road, and I believe there's one on the other side going towards Hudson Headwaters, and this won't have a, you know, there's no water or sewer facilities. MR. FERONE-And there's nobody stays on site or anything, too, right, it's just for storage? MR. CENTER-That's correct. MR. FERONE-Nobody inside. MR. FORD-Could you address the lighting please? MR. CENTER-The lighting that we are using for this project is similar to the Jerome Boat Storage, the same style of downcast lighting, laid out in a manner so that it covers the units based on, these folks own several storage units and know the lighting pattern that they need to keep them secure. MR. FORD-All within Town Code? MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. FORD-Looking to the future, would there be consideration given to, as you go from, did you say gravel to paved? MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. FORD-1 like the sound that some people are using now with permeable surfaces once they're paved. What's your reaction to that, and the potential for it? MR. CENTER-Well, that's interesting. We looked at that. One of the interesting things about permeable pavement, and Mr. Nace and I have discussed this in our office, and one of the things we're looking to do, when we do use permeable pavement, is what happened on Beach Road this winter. There was an issue where Beach Road is permeable asphalt, all the way. There is no relief cuts on the curbs. There is no drywells in the center to give water a path to get to if the porous asphalt is ever covered. As everybody remembers, we had an ice storm. That entire road was covered with a quick coverage of ice. The water had nowhere to go. The ice didn't melt and the water backed up on the road and they had to close the road, is my understanding what happened there up on Beach Road. So that made us think, as engineers, wait a second, somebody missed something. So our thoughts are if we ever do permeable pavement, we have to make sure we have curb inlets to get it around and into the storage layer, the infiltration layer, or you put drywells, like we've done here, in the middle of the asphalt, and that gives it the potential relief. The folks have storage in these buildings. We have, you know, narrow aisles. We can't, you know, quickly slope the pavements. We don't want water to back up and create a problem. So that's one of the things with permeable pavement that, you know, porous pavement that people are learning. Where there's relief, if you were going down a slight slope and you had nowhere to go, where would it go if it got clogged, that's great. Here, we have to protect the storage units in those center aisles, and that's why we did what we did by putting the, eventually, even if I did put permeable pavement, I'd want to put these drywells in there for that reason, so why put permeable pavement when the drywells handle more than enough. Actually at the 100 year storm with a seven, eight inches per hour rainstorm, they barely come up three quarters of the way to the drywell. So it doesn't make sense to use permeable asphalt in this application per se, but it is a thought. MR. FORD-Thank you for thinking of it. Good explanation. I appreciate it. MR. CENTER-Yes, it's something that we all thought about at the office. MR. FORD-Good. MR. MAGOWAN-It's amazing you thought about it afterwards. With all the thought that went into that permeable paving, and now that you're saying it it makes so much sense. MR. CENTER-It's interesting. I mean, I've watched them flow the hose into it and it took all the water. We asked the questions, oh, no, that'll never happen, it'll never happen. The first winter 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) they had it there was an issue, and then we were all thinking, well, wasn't there a curb cut somewhere? It would make sense that you would give it some relief. It has to go somewhere other than fill up and then go into the lake. MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments, concerns from the Board? MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a public hearing scheduled for this project. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-No takers? Any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-1 didn't have any written comments. I did receive a phone call today from Jeff Schwartz who just asked, he inquired about the project. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, I'll open the public hearing and we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show no comments were received. This is an Unlisted SEAR. Are there any SEAR concerns that have not been discussed already? MR. FORD-1 have none. MR. HUNSINGER-There are a few engineering comments related to stormwater. I mean, these are all well drained soils. MR. CENTER-1 briefly spoke with him yesterday. Most of these are housekeeping items, a few dealing with the new design manual, and we discussed the soils issue and he said if we explain to them we're going to do test pits prior to installation of the drywells, and provide that data to the Town, that he's comfortable with that. He understands the site and understood why we used the subdivision data. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion? RESOLUTION APPROVING A NEGATIVE DEC FOR SEAR -SP # 19-2015 NORTHWAY SELF STORAGE The applicant proposes construction of 4 - 200' x 30' self-storage buildings and associated site work. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance Self-storage facility in a CLI zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 19-2015 NORTHWAY SELF STORAGE, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Per the draft resolution prepared by staff: 1. Part 11 of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) 2. Part III of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 21St day of April, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other items of concern for discussion? We didn't ask about colors. Green? JOHN SHINE MR. SHINE-1 believe we're going with a red and green combination. Similar to what's on Sherman Avenue at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SHINE-358 Sherman across from Hidden Hills. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 19-2015 NORTHWAY SELF STORAGE The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes construction of 4 - 200' x 30' self-storage buildings and associated site work. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance Self-storage facility in a CLI zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration - Determination of Non-Significance; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 4-21-2015 and continued the public hearing to 4-21-2015 when it was closed; The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 4-21-2015; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval approved as further discussed below MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 19-2015 NORTHWAY SELF STORAGE, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: In accordance with the draft prepared by Staff: 1. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman 2. Adherence to the items on the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. Duly adopted this 21St day of April, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. MR. CENTER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) SITE PLAN 21-2015 SUBDIVISION 1-2013 MODIFICATION SEAR TYPE TYPE II LEONARD ROMEO AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) HAYES GROUP ZONING NR LOCATION DEPALO LANE & 2 GRIFFING PL. SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES REDUCTION IN LOT SIZE OF OWNER'S PARCEL BY 0.44 ACRES AND ADDITION OF 0.44 ACRES TO APPLICANT'S PROPERTY. SUBDIVISION: DUE TO SITE PLAN REVIEW A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN TWO PROPERTIES IS ALSO REQUIRED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 AND CHAPTER A-183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN AND SUBDIVISION REVIEW SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SB 1-13, SP 7-14, SP 80-10 WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2015 LOT SIZE 7.44 ACRES; 0.40 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.14-1-79.21, 302.18-2-76 SECTION 179-3-040, CHAPTER A-183 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you're ready, Laura. MRS. MOORE-This, again, is a site plan application and a subdivision modification. We've seen this previously, and again it does not change. The applicant has completed the site plan application and the modification requests the reduction of a 0.44 acre parcel by 0.44 acres and the 0.44 acre parcel will be combined with the applicant's parcel for a 0.84 acre parcel. The applicant has not requested waivers as the previously approved plans are provided with detail of the parcel area to be reduced. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, representing the applicant, Len Romeo, to my left. This is a project that received approvals in January of 2014. We got an extension in July of 2014, and have tried to file the signed Mylar. Chris, you know, as you've signed it four different times. MR. HUNSINGER-1 signed, it, yes. MR. MAC ELROY-Because of the 180 day requirement for the approval and then the 62 day requirement for the Chairman to have signed it before it gets filed. Unfortunately because of some tax issues by the owners, it wasn't cleared to be able to be filed. So in January it actually expired. The approvals have been extended and we're back with the same exact application. We know now that the delinquent taxes have been cleared up by the ownership group. This allows the Romeos to proceed with these approvals to purchase the property, or file the plan to purchase the property to merge it with this existing contiguous lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-That was a lot of work, wasn't it? All for a couple of more trees in your backyard. You go for it. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any questions or concerns? MR. FERONE-It's kind of straightforward. MR. FORD-1 have none. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? I will open the public hearing. Any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-1 have no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Again, let the record show no comments were received. We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type 11 SEAR. So no SEAR review is required, and unless there's anything else from the Board or the applicant, a motion would be in order. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #21-2015 & SUB 1-2013 (MOD.) LEONARD ROMEO The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval and modification to an approved subdivision pursuant to Article 9 and Chapter A-183 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Site Plan: Applicant proposes reduction in lot size of owner's parcel by 0.44 acres and addition of 0.44 acres to applicant's property. Subdivision: Due to site plan review a boundary line adjustment between two properties is also required. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 and Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance modification to an approved Site Plan and Subdivision review shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; SEAR Type II - no further review required; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 4-28-2015 and continued the public hearing to 4-21-2015 when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 4-21-2015 The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval and Chapter A- 183 Subdivision Regulations; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 21-2015 & MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 1- 2013 LEONARD ROMEO, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Per the draft resolution provided by staff conditioned upon the following: 1. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. Duly adopted this 21St day of April, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. You're all set. The last item on the agenda is under Old Business. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 12-2015 SEAR TYPE 3/24/15 NEG DEC JUST BEVERAGES AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) CITY OF GLENS FALLS ZONING LC-10A LOCATION EAST OF BUTLER POND ROAD ALONG EXISTING LOGGING ROAD WITHIN WATERSHED PROPERTY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ESTABLISH A WATER EXTRACTION OPERATION ON CITY OF GLENS FALLS OWNED WATERSHED PROPERTY ON BUTLER POND ROAD. THE OPERATION WILL INCLUDE SITE IMPROVEMENTS TO FACILITATE EXTRACTION, LOADING AND TRANSPORT OF WATER FROM THE WELL SITE TO THE APPLICANT'S WATER BOTTLING FACILITY IN THE CITY OF GLENS FALLS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE WATER EXTRACTION IN THE LC- 10 ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND WARREN CO. REFERRAL MARCH 2015 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS, STREAM OVERLAY LOT SIZE 686.41 +/- ACRES (PORTION) TAX MAP NO. 294.-1-1 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM CENTER, MIKE BORGOS & JIM SIPLON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. FORD-May I, before we do that. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, Mr. Ford, go ahead. MR. FORD-Thank you. While I was away for three months, I've spent many months reviewing the application, reading minutes of Planning Board meetings, and watching videos of public meetings held by the Town Board. Because I have not participated directly in Planning Board 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) meetings, I do not want to place the Town, the Town Board, the Planning Board, the applicant or the public in an uncomfortable or untenable situation. I am, therefore, recusing myself. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Mr. Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Traver. MR. TRAVER-Yes. As you are aware, I'm employed by a nonprofit, an agency, ARC, that provides vocational and residential opportunities for people with developmental disabilities. In recent days one of the staff brought to my attention that they are investigating a possible employment opportunity in our warehouse which would involve sorting and distributing bottled water. With that in mind, I feel I must recuse myself. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Now we're ready for you, Laura. MRS. MOORE-Under Staff Comments, the City of Glens Falls proposes to modify the public water supply of designated watershed property on Butler Pond Road. The applicant has indicated test wells on watershed were completed to determine a viable well location for water extraction. The site area to be utilized is north of the Traver Road and Butler Pond Road intersection located on the east side of Butler Pond Road. The project also includes the placement of two temporary storage containers 8 x 40 ft. that will be utilized for the storage of water from the well prior to transport. The well location is located further east from the containers and is accessed from the same point from Butler Pond Road. The other evening the Town Board did approve adding water extraction to the use table for Land Conservation zone. In addition to that, they identified specific standards for water extraction. I can go through those specifically. Under One requires 200 contiguous acres in the Land Conservation Zone. This parcel is 686 +/- acres. Number Two, a copy of the permit, proposed modification or documentation that no permit is required from New York State DEC. The applicant has submitted their application to the DEC. So I do have that in the file. Number Three, maximum daily quantity of water proposed to be extracted. They have provided information in their submission, and 42,000 gallons per day is the maximum. Hours of operation, which we discussed also during SEAR review, the applicant proposes lam - 6pm Monday through Friday, Sam -4pm occasional on Weekends and Holidays. The transport vehicles will not operate during school bus pick or drop off times, and times will be coordinated with the Queensbury School. Number Five, projected traffic volumes relative to the water volume to be extracted. The applicant has indicated a 4000 to a 3000 gal truck could be hauling 7 days a week, year round. The maximum number of trips per day would not exceed 12. Under Projected Noise Level, the storage units at the site will contain transfer pumps, heaters and generators. They will not run all at the same time, noise to be less than 20 decibels. This is described as a whisper to a quiet room. The containers will be fitted with a two inch insulated barrier. Under Seven which is area lighting, the applicant has indicated there will be wall packs on the storage unit at the door areas. The wall packs are to be cut off fixtures, and Number Eight, Any other site conditions the Planning Board may determine necessary for review. In addition to that, under SEAR we identified areas of concern and mitigation measures applied by the applicant would not result in any significant adverse impacts. Under Nine, an independent report by a qualified professional for hydrogeological investigation and a study. I met with the applicant as well as the hydrologist, Kirby, and we went through each of these items, and the report was prepared by Hanson VanVleet and it was prepared on 1/13/2015. Under A, it says included should be rates of draw down and recharge of any aquifer or other ground water source within accepted standards of geology and engineering professions. So we extracted this information from the report. Test Well # 2 testing on 5/15/2014 completed with a 38.9 ft. total draw down, with a specific capacity of 0.77 gallons per minute per foot drawdown, and then a 72 hour pump test was conducted on 6/23/2014 with a specific capacity of 0.52 gallons per minute per foot. Under b, they should provide characteristics of the aquifer or ground source to include sustainable extraction rates, aquifer boundaries, recharge areas, impacts on water table and impacts on any all existing water bodies. In response to this extracted from the information was Test Well #2 well site consisted of glacial till, granite gneiss granitic schist bedrock. Depth of well was brought to 128 ft. producing 40-45 gpm. Environmental chemical analysis was performed on the water from this well by two separate companies to determine if the product met Just Beverage's requirements. Page 11 of the report covers drawdown and recovery for the aquifer -the production well recovered to 90% in 165 minutes. Under c, the applicant will provide possible effects on the aquifer or other ground source result in disturbance of existing minerals. Information from the applicant, there is to be no disturbance of the aquifer and further explanation, existing residential wells are 200 feet below the proposed extraction area, and letter d, the applicant is to provide extraction volumes, and regulated by DEC permit, they have submitted 25 million gallons maximum. Number 10 it says location of water bodies within 500 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) ft. of the extraction point. They have provided that in the survey. That's been included with their submission, and existing and proposed networks of roadways in the vicinity of the extraction point included Butler Pond, Traver Road and Aviation Road. Number 11 it says site plan may be conditioned upon tender of appropriate financial security or direct payment for repair and improved roadway. I understand the applicant is working with the Highway Department at this time and will forward information in regards to the amount to be held. The agreement may be considered part of the conditions at the Planning Board's discretion. Number 12, that water extraction points will be no closer than 1000 ft. from the nearest residence. The applicant has indicated that it's more than 1,400 ft. I will identified that the Staff and the applicant and the Town Engineer did meet the other day. We talked about the stormwater impact and the details. The applicant will be submitting information for responses to the engineering comments, updated drawing with and information. I'm done. MR. DEEB-Number Five, Laura, projected traffic volumes under A, hauling 7 days a week, year round. The maximum number of trips per day would be, did you say 12? MRS. MOORE- Not to exceed 12, correct. MR. DEEB-Because mine says 23. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, mine does, too. MRS. MOORE-Okay. That's been updated. MR. DEEB-All right. So I want to make sure that's clarified. Not to exceed 12. MR. CENTER-Round trips of 12. MR. DEEB-Yes, that's fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'm sorry, you're all set, Laura? MRS. MOORE-I'm all set. MR. FERONE-I had a question. Laura, could you just explain to me, so on Number Nine, d, proposed extraction volumes, 25 million gallons maximum. What are we talking about there? I mean, is that for the whole project, is that for a year? MRS. MOORE-No, that's, 25 million gallons is the maximum that could ultimately be extracted. MR. FERONE-Annually. MRS. MOORE-Annually. MR. DEEB-Annually. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions that the Board has of the conditions that were just reviewed? Before I turn the meeting over to the applicant, Town Counsel has asked that we consider a reaffirmation of the SEAR review, and there is a draft resolution that's been prepared. Did you have any other comments that you wanted to make? MR. SCHACHNER-Only to suggest to the Board that you'll recall that when you went through the SEAR review, and most of you have heard me say this a number of times in other contexts. For a matter of such complexity, it's hard to shoot from the hip, and it's hard to get every thought sort of codified in an appropriate resolution. Between your last meeting and now, we, and by we I mean Staff and I, tried to put together some thoughts that were consistent and mirrored what you said during the context of your SEAR review, but that wasn't necessarily reflected in your actual resolution when you concluded your SEAR review. That's the short reaffirmation resolution that you have, and I would encourage you to read it closely and make sure, you know, see if it does accurately, like anything else that we and Staff prepared, you know, we're not putting words in your mouth, see if it does accurately reflect what you said and what you meant and what, you know, you reviewed, and if so, we think it would be bolster the record and we would suggest its adoption if you're comfortable doing that. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any questions from members of the Board on this draft resolution? We did spend extensive amounts of time and we did adopt a SEAR review. If there are no questions or concerns, I would ask for someone to make a motion. RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING SEAR SP # 12-2015 JUST BEVERAGES 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) PROJECT DESCRIPTION for SEQRA purposes a) Zoning Ordinance: Town Board Zoning Amendment referral to amend the allowed uses for Land Conservation to add Water Extraction and review standards. b) Site Plan Review: Applicant proposes to install, operate and maintain City-owned well and transport water from the well site to the company's water bottling facility in the City. c) City of Glens Falls DEC permit: City of Glens Falls must amend/revise its current DEC Public Water Withdrawal permit for the addition of an extraction point, a new well. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury, but Coordinated Review has been conducted; Part 1 of the Long EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as Lead Agency that this Action will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. 1. Part 11 of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Long EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 3. The Planning Board acknowledges and explicitly recognizes that the proposed Action includes the generic aspect of zoning amendment to allow water extraction as a permitted use subject to site plan review in the Town's Land Conservation zones and the specific project proposed by Just Beverages. 4. The Planning Board has considered the potential environmental impacts of both the zoning amendment and the Just Beverages Project. 5. The Planning Board recognizes that it is impossible to know what, if any, other water extraction uses may be proposed in the future; 6. In reference to the Zoning Amendment, the Planning Board recognizes the difficulty in analyzing potential environmental impacts of all potential future water extraction uses, but also recognizes that the practical result of the proposed site plan review considerations (including the requirement of ownership of 200 contiguous acres) minimizes or eliminates the likelihood of any additional proposed uses in the future; 7. As a result, SEQRA Review of the Applicant's Site Plan Review Application in conjunction with the Town Board's consideration of the Zoning Amendment request constitutes a reasonable effort to analyze maximum potential environmental impacts and 8. Should there be any future Water Extraction Applications subject to further review, any such applications may require additional SEQRA Review at that time. MOTION TO REAFFIRM NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT AND SITE PLAN NO. 12-2015 AND CITY OF GLENS FALLS REVISED DEC WATER EXTRACT PERMIT JUST BEVERAGES, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Duly adopted this 21St day of April, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else from Staff that we need to discuss before I turn the meeting over to the applicant? MRS. MOORE-No, I don't have anything else. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. BORGOS-Good evening. For the record Michael Borgos as counsel for the applicant. I'm here with Jim Siplon from Just Bev and Tom Center here is the engineer for the applicant. I'll keep it brief. You've all heard a lot from us over the previous meetings. We do have a couple of quick updates for you. So we'd be happy to go through those and then answer any questions you might have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CENTER-As Laura said, we did meet with the Town Engineer and Kirby VanVleet was also with us at the time. We went through the stormwater management comments, and working along the lines of our thought process with the Town Engineer, we were in agreement, informally, that we have enough information for the stormwater design. He understands what we were trying to do with the permeable asphalt, that it was not an infiltration device, that it's a storage device. It's used as a flow filtering device. The bottom stone of the permeable asphalt is open to the ditch line so that everything will flow down that grade and follow that ditch grade where we have the rock check dams, and that the question in regards to the infiltration and sediment basin, one of the things when we were out there with the water superintendent, Mr. Steve Gurzler, he asked to have a sediment trap there to capture anything that may flow down, and, you know, capture it there as opposed to following, going down through the woods and getting to the reservoir. It was just an additional safety device. It's not designed as an infiltration system or infiltration basin. It's designed more as a very shallow swale to capture any debris or sediment that may come across that area before it gets into the woods or potentially get down to the reservoir. So it's more of a protection for the reservoir than a design element. We've kept the disturbance and the roadways to existing dirt roads. We've just improved them with better grading, and all the other, some of the others were more housekeeping items than anything else. The hydrogeology we discussed, Kirby presented a letter to them. We went through the items. Most of the items on the hydrogeology questions were more about the City's water shed then they were about the well and the water extraction end of things. Kirby did explain Number Eight in regards that there are protections in place during times of drought like was explained. They're written into the written agreement between Just goods and the City of Glens Falls that any drought or any issues with the reservoir, the water bottling is, the water extraction is stopped and then it's studied by Just goods and the City and mitigated if there are any issues. So the protections are already in place in the agreement between the City and Just goods. The other items, like I said, were more in regards to the reservoir. We have submitted to both DOH and DEC. The DOH application is a two part application. Part One being for the bottled water facility itself. It's located in Glens Falls, and then the other portion being the well extraction application. DOH has been out to the site. They have these same drawings that you folks have in front of you. Their two major concerns were make sure that we grade around the well so that everything drains away from the well and to make sure that we have at least 18 inches of exposed well head when we're done finished grading. So those were their two major comments. DEC application was put in. There was a second revision just sent back to them in April after their notice for additional information. Most of their additional information was housekeeping, and explanations of what we were trying to, that the first go at it was more of a reaffirmation and explanation of what we provided them. They were looking for some additional information. We provided that. I met with Mark Migliori when I dropped it off. We discussed the changes that we had in that were all minor, mostly explanations of the water system and everything that we're providing, and he did relate to me that the hydrogeological report didn't have any issues and the gentleman that reviewed it was very comfortable with the hydrogeological. That's a big hurdle for DEC. Did they say they approve the application? No, but he did say, you know, that the hydrogeological report was what they were looking and they didn't have any issues with that and the things they wanted me to relay to Kirby that he did a good job with the hydrogeological report. Kirby can't be here tonight. He's on another project out of Town. So I'm kind of filling in that role for that information, and I think that's all the new information. MR. SIPLON-Good evening everybody. I feel like I'm getting to know you all very well. It's nice to spend another evening with all of you. I think we've met, not only with you but with the Town Board and with various bodies and public entities now. This is our 14th in the Queensbury area since we started this process in December. The other night there was somebody who raised a concern about the fact that we keep track of them, but the reason we keep track of them is the fact that every one of them is a learning opportunity for us. We started in a workshop format with the Town to figure out how best to approach the project in terms of what we submit and who we submit to. From that we then, even before we submitted our formal application, held our first public meeting in this room for anyone, anywhere who had any question about what we were doing. We learned a lot in that process which informed our application and gave basis for some of the, not only the information provided in our application but mitigations that we 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) provided right at the outset. Beyond that, we then engaged in both the Town and Planning Board process as you see, and we're hopeful that we're meeting not only your information needs, but the public's needs through what we believe to be a fairl8y extensive process. The reason we continue to count them, though, is because we want everybody to know that we also pay attention to every single meeting we have, every piece of input we get, and what we like to believe is the learnings that we get. In particular, in this process, there have been efforts made by various people to try to continue to bring that information to us, and most recently some of the neighbors, in a meeting that was facilitated by Doug Irish on the Town Council, provided us with a new list of items they would like us to consider in the applications. As I said last night at the Town Council meeting, we were very happy to receive that and we responded as I said we would last night at the conclusion of the meeting, but for you what I wanted to do is offer to you an additional set of communications that we would like to at least propose be considered by you, and if they have applicability at your assention we would be willing to include these in our application. What I'd like to do is first provide just a little bit of context for anybody who, because it's easy for people to kind of keep, lose track of this. Our initial set of mitigations were in our application and they resulted from our public meeting, things like the fact that we chose a form factor of our truck to be of fuel oil size. The fact that we went to daylight operations only. The fact that we offered an escrow for any road repairs. Those were all part of our initial wave of potential mitigations that we offered before we even made application. Then after the public started to engage with us, there were issues that were identified which we also felt were very valid, things like carving out times for school bus deliveries, and even cross country use of the roadway on Butler Pond Road. We met with the Queensbury school officials, as quickly as we could, to begin to put those things in place and our application then reflects the fact that we make positive affirmation that we will carve those out based on the schedules that were provided to us by Queensbury schools. In the third wave, which we began once we started formally engaging with you, and not only listening to the feedback that you provided to us, but that also came about in the public comment periods through these meetings, there were things like the fact that, at our very first Planning Board, we asked that you modify our application from 16 round trips to 12. We did that because we heard that there was what we considered to be a reasonable concern with the tempo of those vehicles, and we looked at our business plan to see what was the maximum amount of impact that we could take, and then we submitted that to you. We now, this is the fourth wave of those that have been received, and in no way do we find this process objectionable. In fact, this is actually what we proposed to do in an ongoing way well beyond any approval that you or other bodies would provide us. This is what we aspire to be. In the last set of requests that was provided to us, it was asked that we be willing to limit our number of trucks for the initial period, which I will call 12 months, to only six a day, and then from there on to make a maximum of 12 a day. So I'm offering the opportunity for us to mitigate for the first year down to a maximum of six trucks a day, in good faith effort to hear what has been offered and try to meet it. In addition we were asked to commit to the fact that we would in some way limit the size of the vehicles, that we would use not only initially but in an ongoing way. What we've agreed to commit to is the fact that we would never put a truck to do our water delivery that would have a capacity of greater than 4500 gallons. That's directly as requested from the neighbors, and in addition, I added to their comments that said that unless that was mitigated by hybrid or electrification. The reason I offer that to you is that we haven't designed to the electric trucks, and until I have that design in hand, I need to make sure that it wouldn't require us to in some way modify the form factor of the truck, but as long as it's in its current state, as a diesel single body dual axel rig, we would limit it to 4500 gallons, and we would never move beyond that. In addition, we would stipulate that we would not ever introduce a truck that is significantly larger and in order to provide some context for what's significantly larger, it means, we mean that to be a single body dual axel truck. The current one that we have is roughly 28 and a half feet long. It's possible that future ones that we get might be, you know, as long as 30 feet perhaps, depending on the body type, but it would still be a single body dual axel truck that would form the basis like a fuel oil truck. We would agree that anything that you provide to us in the way of stipulations today in an ongoing way would apply to any entity in any transfer scenario, and there's been concerns raised about whether or not any of the limitations that we would agree to would transfer to any other party if there was to be some other party that eventually took ownership or interest in our business. I'm not sure that this is actually required because I believe that your enforcement would transfer regardless, but we're certainly happy to stipulate that we would make that part of any transfer that we would have. There was a question about the brake system of our truck. The current truck that we have does not have what's known as a Jake brake, which in some cases is, you know, a very significant air brake structure. We don't have any intention of adding that. So I would certainly stipulate that we would continue to honor that, unless there's a requirement from a safety or a traffic enforcement way that would force us to do so. We specifically sought out a vehicle that did not have that. So as long as we can operate it safely without that, that is our intention. We were asked to agree to a speed limit for our vehicles. We were happy to stipulate that we would do that at 25 miles an hour. I don't know whether that is your province or one that we would take up with the highway group here in the Town. Regardless we are happy to stipulate to whoever it is that's the appropriate entity, and I offer it to you. We were asked whether or not we would in some 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) way enforce our own noise limits. To me the thing that makes the most sense, there was a phrase in what they provided to us that had some number of feet, some number of thousands of feet. What we would say is that the noise cannot be heard at the nearest home, and that we would be accountable to that. Right now as you heard earlier here in the Staff Notes, that is roughly 1400 feet, but our objective is to have no noise impact to anyone, and so we would stipulate to that. We were asked to reiterate the fact that our drivers would be all carrying a commercial driver's license. We're happy to stipulate to that. We were asked to limit our traffic on weeks or holidays, and what we were willing to stipulate is what's in the application is that we would make that only occasional, and we're trying to work with you to define what occasional means. Our operational tempo to date does not include weekends. However, we can imagine a scenario where there may be a need for us to extract some water, particularly in preparing for early Monday deliveries around a school bus schedule where we would have to receive water, for instance, on a Sunday afternoon, and we can also imagine that there would be scenarios where would want to run an occasional shift on a weekend. What we say is that would be happy to continue to dialogue with you about how to best define occasional, but what we're trying to be is consistent. In our application we've identified that to you from the beginning. What we would continue to try to do is to define that to your satisfaction, and finally we were asked to consider the route that our trucks take, and what we offer is the same thing that we have always offered is that we will take whatever route we are directed to, whether it be by the Town or any other enforceable entity. Right now what is in our application is that we propose to go up Butler Pond Road and return down Butler Pond Road, but that is not because we demand that. It's because we believe it to be the most effective route. If we were directed to another route that the Town believes would be more effective, then we would be happy to assent to that. We were asked for additional information with regards to any deliveries of fuel for our generator. Until we're able to site solar at the site, we will have a very small liquid natural gas generator. We don't believe that that would require more than monthly deliveries of fuel. Until we move with an operational tempo, I can't be certain, but right now looking at all the analysis and the amount of time that it would run, it would seem that that would be the right tempo. We would have maintenance vehicles on the site only as much as required, and quite honestly I think the greatest tempo of those would be in the winter when we have to maintain the road and clear it for snow. Other than that, I think that the delivery vehicles themselves will be the primary source of any in and out at the site. Finally we were asked for any additional plans at the well site, in terms of storage or additional buildings. There are none. In our application we've presented to you on the site plan the room for two containers. Our application is to only initially site one. We don't believe that the capacity of the well would ever require us to site more than two, and they've been a part of the application from the beginning. So we're certainly willing to stipulate to the fact that we're not asking for any expandability beyond that at this particular site. I know that that was somewhat exhaustive, but I'm trying to continue to be consistent in our approach to meet any legitimate and reasonable concern that is raised by the neighbors as much as we possibly can. Of the list that we were provided, I believe that we've been able to assent to the vast majority, more than 80%. If there are others, and there may still be others, we'll continue to pledge to engage in the problem solving well beyond any meeting that we have tonight. I hope that what we've been able to demonstrate is that we will do that in good faith. The last thing is that, I wasn't quite, I'm not quite sure it was on topic last night, but there were concerns or at least issues raised about why we did not explore in greater depth water extraction down at the Town's, or the City's property and the old water supervisor's compound on West Mountain Road. In the hydrogeology report that you have, it does actually show that that was one of the 11 sites that we actually went through deep analysis on. In fact, I would love it if we would have been able to extract water there effectively. It would certainly have obviated many of the concerns that were raised and problem solving efforts that we went through. However, it's very clear from the hydrogeology that that particular strata is not going to provide us the water that we're after. There's test data from existing wells there that demonstrate, and our own initial explorations confirmed that. We did actually drill four test wells. We did not drill one before there. All of the data from the already existing wells in that strata demonstrated that the Ph, the TS and the alkalinity of that water would be well beyond the acceptable levels that we could bring to market. So I want to share with you that there was not some cavalier attitude in any way to not considering that property. It would have actually been desirable if we could have figured out how to do it on that property. It's owned by the City. It would have made a much tighter process for us all. I wish it could have worked. If there are others in the public that want greater information, we certainly offer, and have offered, our hydrogeological report and any context that they need beyond that. So with that, you may have more questions, but I want to make sure that you understand that we believe that we have tried very hard to listen to you and other area entities involved in this process. At one of the initial meetings, I was asked by one of the Board members to not put them in the position where we were asking you to plan our project. So I hope that we have never put you in that position, but we have certainly been open to others giving us a fair amount of feedback about how they would like to plan our project, and I believe that what we've tried to do is to do that as much as we possibly could. I believe that the standard that at least I was counseled on, in terms of making application to you, was to demonstrate that we met the standard in terms of usage, that we met the standard in terms of 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) reasonability on impact and that we met the standard in terms of mitigation. I'm certainly not an objective party on this, but I believe that, in our own estimate, we believe that we've tried very hard to meet those three criteria and if there are more to meet those as well. At this point we'd ask you if there are any questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? George? MR. FERONE-The last item that you just talked about, the site on West Mountain Road. In previous meetings here, Mr. Traver brought up the discussion about can you get the water from the top of the mountain down. There's possibly some existing piping or something, was it viable for you to pump the water down to that point, so that the trucks didn't have to go up and down. MR. SIPLON-I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Ferone, for reminding me about that. From one of the very first discussions we had with some of the neighbors, it was suggested to us that we begin to explore this concept of bringing the water down the hill in a pipeline, using the City's right of way, and potentially looking at transfer stations on West Mountain Road. The two primary places to do that would be at the old 88 acres site or at the Town's complex on the other side of the intersection at West Mountain Road and Butler Pond Road. We began the process of planning for that with the City almost immediately. In fact we've had a series of meetings with the City that are all a matter of public record, where we have started to develop very deep technical work in terms of whether that is a viable concept and how we would develop it. This much we know from our engagement with the City. It's going to be a time consuming and expensive project. Their own estimates to us, based on their pipeline work to date, would be that it would be roughly a million dollars a mile. That certainly connects with my own pipeline related expenses that we've done in the past, and we've begun to model in terms of what those costs would be and what would the other parts of the project be if we were to terminate it at either of those two locations. We've evaluated technically. We still don't know whether it's viable. Only in the last two weeks have we begun to be able to access and inspect the pipes that exist today and to walk the route. However, we are committed to doing that because it's going to be the only path by which our business can grow. As you can see in the application, we continue to limit the amount of vehicles that we are putting up and down into this neighborhood, and we're doing that forever. We're not doing that for some period of time. So the only path for this business to grow will be for us to be able to bring that water effectively down the hill. So we're already driven to that by our own hopeful market success. However, even today I can't give you a firm timeline on how long that will take. I can't give you a firm cost, and I also can't tell you what permitting or regulatory materials we will have to pursue in order for that to happen. I believe that process, if we look at this one as a model, is going to be at least a year, because the process we've been engaged in in this part of the project has been over a year, and so what we propose is the fact that we be allowed to actually run the business under the limited mitigations that we have offered so that we can actually generate the revenue to potentially create the solution that would be both workable for us and the neighbors, but I'm very happy to be on the record and accountable to the fact that we have to do this in order for us to grow our business. The timeline on that, something we'll have to continue to share with you as we go. Did I answer your question? MR. FERONE-Yes. Now as you work with, you have the relationship with the City, do I remember reading or possibly being mentioned that the City needs to replace some of that piping coming down from the reservoir? MR. SIPLON-Well, that's what, their evaluating it at the same time while we're evaluating ours. So we're trying to figure out how to bring those two together. MR. FERONE-Would there be a collaboration there? MR. SIPLON-Yes, there is some potential for synergy there, and quite honestly the City's been I think a really great partner in this. It's not classic for somebody like that to open up their facilities to a private entity at the same time that they're doing it. That's their pipes and we're looking at the condition of those pipes and what needs to happen at the same time they are, but I believe that both of us have entered into this in good faith and with great speed. MR. HUNSINGER-Aren't there some existing abandoned pipes that you could re-line with plastic? MR. SIPLON-We're looking at the evaluation of those as alternatives. However, their condition is yet to be confirmed. It may be that it's more expensive for us to actually utilize those than it would be to put new in, and that's part of the analysis that we're engaged in right now. Did you have anything to add? MR. CENTER-Initially when this did come up I went down to the City to speak with Mike Schaffer, the assistant City Engineer who's doing a lot of the GIS work, and he's kind of working 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) the system backwards, and he's trying to cull the information, you know, he's working with ancient documents that he's trying to find and he doesn't have a ton of information that he can get his hands on. So he's working his way up to that and we're trying to work with him as he does that. So we're kind of coordinating it as we go. So as far as, is there something solid, you know, we're not sure yet. We're trying to work with him as he works through the files that he has and does the GIS job, but we do know the location of where it does run, based on the easement that it runs underneath that neighborhood. So it doesn't make the turn down the road. So that either way we would still have to come out and come down West Mountain Road, either to the parcel closer or to get to the other parcel we'd have to cross Butler Pond Road at the West Mountain Road, which then we'd have to come underneath the Wilkie reservoir, I believe it is. Their two pipelines which he's working on getting additional information on the elevation and everything else so that we can cross underneath. I mean, that's what would be a lot of the tie up would be getting survey and culling that data, and making sure that you're crossing whatever utilities and working with the County, of course, because it is a County road and the County right of way, and we'd have to work with the DEC for coming down the side of the hill. There's a stream that goes down there. So we'd have to work with them at the same time. Because that is part of the watershed and that would be their prerogative. They would have a say in how we do that also. So that whole process does take time, but we have started conversations with them. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. FERONE-You spent some time talking about the trucks tonight. One of the problems I have is, and I'm sure you have is information constantly changes. I'm looking at a document here that says you've indicated the trucks would be between four thousand and three thousand gallon trucks, but tonight you've said, you mentioned a 4,500 gallon. MR. SIPLON-We're simply saying that we would never allow a truck that would be larger than that to ever be driven on the route for perpetuity. MR. FERONE-Do you know at what point you're going to make a decision on what size these are? MR. SIPLON-Our current vehicle has a 4,000 gallon tank on it that exists, and we showed a picture of at one of the previous meetings. All we're saying is that as we expand that fleet, if we ever did expand the fleet, it's possible that the form factor might not be exactly four. You can only buy what's available. So if they make them in 4200's or 3800's, we would have to make a decision then, and what we're trying to do is give ourselves a reasonable amount of room to allow whatever it is that the market's going to offer to us as a 4,000 gallon proxy. Right now we can get a 4,000 gallon tank. Five years from now I don't know if we'll be able to. MR. FERONE-1 mean, I don't know what the weight differential is between 4,000 and 4,500. MR. SIPLON-That is the maximum that could be accommodated by the gross vehicle weight of the limitation that we've already provided. MR. FERONE-On the road? MR. SIPLON-Yes, well, of the frame itself. MR. FERONE-Okay, but what can the road handle? MR. SIPLON-Far more than that. The logging trucks are running at 116,000 pounds today. MR. FERONE-Okay. MR. SIPLON-The City re-built that dam with cement and large trucks for more than a year that were two to three times the size of ours. I'm sure that we can provide data on that. The highway, first of all we were talking to them, they have plenty of experience working with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? So all of the, I happened to attend the public hearing last night. The additional mitigation measures that you summarized a few minutes ago, are those the measures that were discussed with the neighborhood group? MR. SIPLON-That is more than 80% of the list that was provided to us. The things that we took off the list are things that we can't actually agree to, for instance that the City and the Town be party to the agreement. It's not something that we can actually assent to because we're not the City or the Town. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Right, nor can we, as Planning Board members. MR. SIPLON-And the other thing we took off the list was that this agreement be in place before we actually come to you. We were provided with the list in the format that I shared with you yesterday and we tried to answer it as fast as we possibly could and we simply could not do that in a way that was reasonably, I mean, more than a few hours before this hearing. So we simply took that out, but it was not because we didn't want to do it, it was simply because that's the way that events unfolded. I think what we're trying to say, though, is the material things that people asked us about, things like additional focus on traffic, additional mitigations, without exception we were able to find a way to be able to say yes either directly to what was requested or at least in substantial form to what was requested, and what I'm hoping we're doing is building a record that says, look, we will continue to do this. This is not an act. We've been doing this for months, and I feel like we're going to continue to do it. If there are things that are not on here, I say this to you and I say this to the neighbors, we will continue to work with those things. If there are ongoing issues, we will solve them, because we want this process to work for everyone. Everyone may not be 100% happy, but we'd like to find a way that we can all live with it, and ultimately we want this product to be one that Queensbury and Glens Falls are proud of, that they're glad is part of this. We're not running from that. We're accountable to that. MR. FERONE-Could you expand about the times with which the trucks will be running? So there's the time limit between Monday Friday, but then, you know, we talk about the weekend, holidays. Could you put more meat around, you know. MR. SIPLON-In the application what we do is say that the maximum number of hours, I think Laura shared them, I think is it seven to six, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Seven to six, yes. MR. SIPLON-And that would then be further carved out by whatever schedule the schools provide to us. In addition on the weekends what we have is some indication of what those limited hours would be, and I'm not even sure that we're actually ever going to do this. I'm only simply putting it in there so that we're being forthright about the fact that I can imagine a scenario where we might actually be able, or need to do this, at which point we would offer additional limits about those hours. I think in the application does it have it? MR. CENTER-1 think they were Saturday and Sunday that we went through. MRS. MOORE-The SEAR, yes. MR. CENTER-And on the SEAR I think there were some limits for time. MR. SIPLON-1 just, I don't want to tell you something that's not in the form. MR. FERONE-1 can imagine the preference would be if there were no weekends, that would be great. MR. SIPLON-Yes, and that's our, listen, I don't have a tempo where I'm operating on the weekends, but I can imagine a scenario, over the lifetime of this agreement, where we might actually need to run a truck, and so what we were trying to define when might we be doing that and under what terms we would do that. That's why we put in there occasional because we're trying to be as forthright as we can possibly be that that scenario could exist. I don't have anyone working at weekends in my factory right now. I don't have any in my business plan for doing that, but I can imagine a scenario where we might if the market, you know, assumes, takes it up and we might have to run an overtime shift on a Saturday some time to be able to keep up with demand. I'm trying to at least let people know that that possibility exists. MRS. MOORE-It's Saturday and Sunday would be eight to four, occasionally Sunday would be eight to four. MR. SIPLON-And what we were trying to do is given that those would be days that there was school bus traffic we were trying to narrow the window even more and try to be clear about the fact that we would have only that period of time to do it if we ever did do it. MR. HUNSINGER-Could you address the, it was in the Staff Notes and it was mentioned a couple of different times during the various meetings, about the financial, and I'm paraphrasing from Staff Notes, financial security or deposit for repair or improvement of the roadway. One of the projects that we actually ended up withdrawing this evening was for a mining permit, and one of the things that DEC requires, and I think it was an insurance binder, if I'm not mistaken, 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) that they have to post to put the site back to natural conditions when they're done with the mining operations. MR. CENTER-A Reclamation Bond. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you. I figured one of the attorneys would know what I was talking about. So I don't know what instrument or vehicle you had in mind here. MR. SIPLON-This is not a Reclamation Bond. This is an attempt for us to essentially add, it's important to understand, first of all, I'm telling you something that you probably already well know, but the City is if not the largest certainly one of the largest property owners in Queensbury. Been paying taxes and some allocation of that continues to go towards roadway maintenance. What we're essentially saying is in addition to what has been the traditional traffic that the City has generated for things like logging or maintenance on that road, that we represent that we would have some additional impact, and in order for us to, you know, acknowledge that we were willing to, in a good faith way, over the Town the process of putting in escrow the monies that they could draw for direct repairs on this route, particularly Butler Pond Road. I anticipate actually where this is most likely to be needed is at the intersection of Butler Pond Road and West Mountain Road in case there's, you know, because a vehicle is stopping there at the stop sign and turning right that you could potentially see some wear at that particular turn, and what we were trying to do is put money up in good faith that would allow the Town to be able to repair that without having to dip into its own funds. Subsequently we've had conversations with John Strough and Staff, and we've also met with Mr. Vanness in the Highway Department and we're laying out the financials on that. They hover around $10,000 in initial entry into the escrow fund, and we're trying to, this has never been done. There's not a game plan for exactly how to do it. So both of us are trying to figure it out, but. MR. HUNSINGER-That's why I raised the question. MR. SIPLON-But we're trying to be as transparent as we can be about this. It's not that we're trying in some way to hide it. It's that what we're trying to do is also make sure that we don't tell people it must be done this way until we find out exactly how can it be done? But our intention is to put $10,000 into an account that the Town can draw on to do direct repairs that can be attributed to us. The process by which we figured out they are attributed to us and how those funds get drawn is one we're sitting to work out with them right now, but the acknowledgement that we're willing to put at least that much money is not. That is something that we've been transparent about since the beginning of the process. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, you can't do it. You can give the money to the Town and they can put a reserve account on it. MR. SIPLON-That's right, and we're trying to figure out, legally, exactly how that process plays out. MR. HUNSINGER-So would this be a onetime thing? MR. SIPLON-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But you could add to it. MR. SIPLON-Right, and I think that's all part of the process that we're in dialogue with them about, but neither of us has, as I said, it's never been done before. So there's not a playbook on exactly how to do it. Listen, our trucks are going to be on that route. So we need to make sure that the road, you know, is in good condition, for our own, you know, sake. So we have a vested interest in this. I'm not interested in a pothole marked road with no ability to resolve it. I think that what we want is enough funds that would allow us to maintain it for those kind of issues as well as anything that we could anticipate, and we believe, and I think that Mr. Vanness has kind of acknowledged, that $10,000 should be enough to do that, in his professional estimate. Now we're just working on the mechanics of how to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-That was the first time a number was ever. MR. SIPLON-Well, it isn't the first time a number has been with the Town. I think it may be the first time that we've introduced it into this. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Did you have something, Mr. Center? 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) MR. CENTER-Just in regards to, there were conversations, and speaking with Mr. Nace this afternoon, something along the lines of working that out with the escrow would be doing and survey and working with Highway to document the roads condition prior to the startup of the project, whether it's a centerline survey and a video of the existing condition, document it, both of us go out there and do that. Tom has done that before, and there's a hard document for everybody to have, that they have the pictures, you have the video, the existing condition when this project is started is kept up, and then as issues come up, it's, you go back and look at the road, look at the existing conditions, and then you draw from the funds as needed to repair whatever is determined that needs to be repaired, that's determined from the road usage. So Tom actually, I hadn't had a chance to share it with everybody, we've had a lot going on today, but that is a very hard way to do this, to have that evidence, here's the existing status of the road. You have a centerline survey. You mark off the areas that are, currently have issues, and then over time you come back and re-visit, but that's a negotiation process between us and the Highway Department. We've started that. I've worked with the Town on many different projects and I don't think that's an issue, and I think it would benefit both sides because it's fair, it's objective and it's set in stone. This is what it is. This is what it was, and then we can start to relegate if there is damage what needs to be repaired, and if more money needs to be put in for damage, then we assess that. If it's not there, then we can document to everybody, the neighbors or whoever, that there isn't any damage to the road, that we're monitoring this, that the two entities involved are looking at it and here it is. We don't have any damage. This isn't occurring. We can look at a year, two years, six months, five months, when the tempo increase, because remember this project, in the first couple of years, is not going to be a very intensive project until you get into the later years, and you have that information from the well reconstruction or the dam reconstruction where you did have the heavy movers and talking with the Highway Department they did not have a lot of damage. So for me, as an engineer, that's a test case. That's a, did you have a lot of issues after that got done and built the road and went up and down, and did they have to do a lot of work to it and, no, that wasn't one of the cases that they put back, that was a question that I asked them, that was our conversation. MR. SIPLON-Important to also remember that, as I've said already, our long term plan would be to develop the pipeline. So we'd rather spend our money on having a more elegant solution to bring it down the hill. All we're trying to do is put enough money in to make sure that we're accountable to the impact we have in the interim, and if it seems, for whatever reason, that the pipeline situation does not develop as quickly as we can, then we continue to address that and we'll put that in the agreement with the Town, but I'd love for us to be able to make this route over a period of time. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. FERONE-1 just had a question. I probably should know tis from previous meetings. So there's a drawing of the structure, and inside the structure there's two tanks. Those are not the same tanks you showed one night, there was the camouflage on it? MR. SIPLON-So the box, the container box itself is what we showed the camouflage on. Inside that container, in the back, are two 1500 gallon tanks. They're kind of rectangular in format in a cage, and then in addition to that, in the container is a small heater and a small generator and a vent that allows that to go out. It's all lined with two inches of foam insulation which both keeps it hopefully warm in the winter and also insulates against any sound that's coming out of it. It's all sealed. Inside, right next to it, is something like 60 decibels. Outside we believe it drops to, you know, less than a third of that, and we believe that within a couple of hundred feet that there's no sound impact whatsoever, but the second container would be an identical match of the first, and it would simply be there if the demand for water increases to what we hope it does. We would need to be able to stage that much water to be able to do the 12 truck trips a day that we talked about in the time period that we've laid out. MR. FERONE-So as the well provides you the 47 gallons per minute. MR. SIPLON-Right, we go into those tanks so that we can transfer 200 gallons a minute to the truck so that the truck's not operating at the well pump's rate but at the transfer pump's rate. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? Anything else from Staff? Any outstanding items? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Could I have a show of hands of people who are prepared to speak this evening? Okay. I don't know if you were all here at the beginning of the meeting, but the purpose of a public hearing is to provide comment to the Board. The meeting is taped. The tape is available on the Town website. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) The tape is also used to transcribe the minutes so I'd ask that anyone wishing to address the Board speak clearly into the microphone. I would ask that you state your name for the record before you make your comments, and that you address any of your comments to the Board. I don't know who'd like to be first. Mr. Ball? Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN RON BALL MR. BALL-Good evening, gentlemen. Ron Ball, Queensbury. The whole thing I'm against here is the amount of traffic that's going to be created on the West Mountain Road. About a year ago I tried to get the Town of Queensbury to take over West Mountain Road because it's a County road. There's a lot of accidents and there just was another accident a couple of weeks ago on there, and I'm afraid this traffic is going to create bigger problems for the West Mountain Road, but I'm listening to the motivational speaker, and he's very good and he speaks very fast sometimes, but correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he said they did four test wells up near the top of the mountain there where they want to extract the water. Am I correct? MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. BALL-And he said he did do samples of water down at the lower level where the Glens Falls property is. He took samples there, and apparently, from what I could understand, because a lot of this I don't understand, he feels that water there, near the West Mountain Road, may be more contaminated than what they're looking for because it's close to the road. Maybe sulfur in the water or whatever, and that makes sense to that point. The point is, and I just don't understand why this isn't happening, but this property up on Glens Falls property, the watershed property, the Glens Falls watershed property is on West Mountain Road, and it's for sale. See the For Sale sign? Thirty-seven acres. That's on the east side of West Mountain Road. Okay. This property is on the west side of West Mountain Road, Glens Falls property. They own a lot of property there. It goes up over to the, up the Mountain at least a thousand feet, ten times greater than this. Why didn't they go up and go up that mountain there and drop a pipe in the ground and they would have exactly the same water and they're going to get up the Butler Pond, and then they can just travel their trucks right behind these barns, run a pipe from where they're drawing it at the top of the hill there, the top of the Mountain, right off this property, and it wouldn't bother anybody, and then pipe it down to the lower level, load their trucks and pull up, because I'm afraid if you guys approve this, which even if you don't approve it, looks like they're going to get their way and they're going to be able to go up there and extract water, but so they do. You approve it. They go up there and they start extracting the water. What's going to stop them from next year doing this, going up there, driving that point down in the ground a thousand feet away from the West Mountain Road on the side of that Mountain, and pump the water down to the City. They don't even have to come to you for any ordinance or anything because they're already got it, and now instead of eight, ten trucks a day, we may see 20 trucks a day on that West Mountain Road. So what I say to you, if you would, ask them to go up there, drive another test pipe, one thousand feet up off the West Mountain Road, right on this property, right here, put the pipe in the ground, test it. They can do this for probably $3,000. Test it to see if it's equal to the water that they want to take off Butler Pond, and if it is, then you tell them to take the water from there, not up there. We don't need the trucks on the Butler Pond Road and we don't need the extra trucks that they're going to want some time to increase the amount of water that they're going to need, and I really wish you folks would look into this because this is going to become a serious issue, and the more trucks are on there, the worse it's going to be, West Mountain Road. I don't care, even if their trucks don't go on the West Mountain Road, West Mountain Road is a terrible road. It needs a lot of repair, and the County hasn't got the money to fix it, but you members of this Board right here, right now can ask them to do that. I'll bet they can do it for$3,000. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes, sir. DOUG IRISH MR. IRISH-Good evening. Doug Irish. I live in Ward 3 and for those of you that don't know, I'm also on the Town Board, and I think Jim did a good job in explaining the concessions that we were looking at between the group, the Queensbury Conservation Coalition, and Just Beverages. We met a few times, tried to come to an agreement that would satisfy the neighbors up there for the use of the property that was being considered. Understanding that they're not probably going to be as happy as they would be without a project, but understanding that there's got to be some reasonableness to what they're asking for and what the expectations can be. So I think Jim did a good job in going through this list, although I would encourage the Planning Board to add these as conditions to the Site Plan Review. I know that Jim's statement was at your discretion. I would encourage you to use your discretion to add these. The thing 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) that I'm trying to prevent in this case is another group of citizens having to file an Article 78 to get their concerns addressed, and I think you have the opportunity to do that tonight. Just Beverages has certainly been agreeable to each of these. As a matter of fact, Jim brought them up to you before I did. MR. HUNSINGER-1 was going to say, he already offered everything that's on here. MR. IRISH-Exactly, and this is the document he was working off of. So just for you, I saw you taking notes. I figured I could give you a copy of it. Again, it's not 100% of everything that we talked about and agreed to, but I think, you know, in the long run, it comes a lot closer to solving the issues of the concerns in the neighborhood, except for the issue of traffic. I know Chris and I had a conversation about this a few weeks ago. We were very adamant about, and that discussion was that it was one way traffic, and understand Buckbee Road is not in the best shape, but I think from the perspective of the neighbors in that area, and the fact that the Town understands that road needs work as well, I think the Town is willing to put the money into road repairs along Buckbee Road, not just Butler Pond Road. So we would like to encourage the Board to strongly suggest that they use Buckbee Road, and make that traffic one way so that it's not 12 round trip trips, or 6 round trip trips through Butler Pond Road, but six trips one way for a year and twelve trips after that. It kind of spreads the pain around for the entire neighborhood there without necessarily creating a huge impact on the neighbors that are right next to the well site. So with that, I would strongly encourage the Board to acknowledge these as conditions for Site Plan Review. Again, my hope is that we can stave off any kind of an Article 78 which would, you know, lengthen this process that much longer for Just Beverages, cost the Town a lot of money, and I think you have the opportunity to address these and alleviate some of the concerns of the neighbors. I won't speak for Dr. Judkins and his group. He's here tonight, I'll let him do that for himself, but I would strongly encourage the Board to accept these as conditions and make them part of the Site Plan Review. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Good evening. GRETCHEN STEFFAN MRS. STEFFAN-Good evening, folks. My name is Gretchen Steffan. I live on 73 Buckbee Road, and most of the Planning Board members know I've been on the Planning Board, I was on for seven and a half years. I was also a member of the Planning Ordinance Review Committee that made recommendations to the Town Board for the current Zoning Code. I've lived on Buckbee Road for 12 years and I have some concerns utilizing Buckbee Road as an alternative to the Butler Pond Road traffic situation. When we bought our property, our road was dirt. The Highway Department paved the road with leftovers from summer paving jobs, and that was about 10 years ago. Buckbee Road was not planned for industrial traffic. There are eight homes on the road right now, soon to be 10. We just had an approved subdivision approved last week, and it's zoned Rural Residential Five acres. Our property is zoned Rural Residential which does not imply industrial or commercial development or transport of materials, even water, at the levels that will be comparable to commercial or industrial traffic, otherwise it will no longer be Rural Residential. The Town Board, last evening, changed the Zoning Code to allow water extraction in the Land Conservation area, but what they did not do was change the definition of Rural Residential, and those of us who live on Buckbee Road are not in favor of commercial traffic on our road, or to be the alternative truck route for Just Beverages trucks. Inflicting this traffic on us is unacceptable to us, and rerouting traffic to Buckbee Road is incongruent with Rural Residential definition. Our road is narrow. It is steep. There are no shoulders. There are no guardrails, and there are drop offs. There's also a water course that runs along Buckbee Road. It is not suitable for commercial traffic. Even with roadwork, unless they're going to widen the road and make significant changes to Buckbee Road, it will not be suitable for truck traffic. Two cars trying to pass on Buckbee Road, whether it's in the watershed property or in the lower areas, one car has to stop so the other one can pass it by. A truck and a car trying to pass with the width of Buckbee Road at this point, would be unacceptable. It would not be safe. Also if you look at the intersection of Buckbee Road and Gurney Lane, it would be difficult for a fully loaded truck, even though Just water has talked about minimizing the size of their trucks, it's on a steep slope, and stopping at the intersection of Buckbee Road and Gurney Lane would be challenging. If they will, one of their conditions was that their trucks will not be going any more than 25 miles an hour, it would still be challenging to stop, and so Gurney Lane as an alternate route is also narrow. There are no shoulders on that road. It is windy, and it just doesn't seem reasonable to me to extend the route, other than to engage in a pain sharing activity, and so I am not in favor of re-routing traffic. I've been here before to the Planning Board and expressed my concerns about the zoning, but that's behind us at this point because that's been re-zoned, but I do have to express my opinion, and I do not think that Buckbee Road is a suitable alternative truck traffic, and I would encourage you to not accept that as a condition of the Site Plan Review. Thank you. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. DAVE JUDKINS DR. JUDKINS-Hi. Dave Judkins, 286 Butler Pond Road. If you wouldn't mind, could you just pass those down, please? So, let me just start by saying that everything that was just said about Buckbee Road is equally true of Butler Pond Road, no shoulders, can't get two cars by at once, certainly not a truck and a car. These are issues that we brought up that were addressed at the SEAR, which was determined to be a Negative Declaration, but I'd certainly agree with those. I would also like to point out that the majority of the log trucks that go up and log there, which happens four to six times per year, and I'll talk about that in just a second, the majority of those trucks actually go down Buckbee and not down Butler Pond Road. So what I'd like to do is I would like to just start with asking a question for the Planning Board tonight, and that is are we fully analyzing the scope of this activity on Butler Pond Road or Buckbee Road to its capacity? Not simply the current capacity that's been discussed by Just Bev, but its maximum capacity. That's the responsibility of the SEAR. It's the responsibility of the Planning Board, not to tell you your job, but not what we think what will happen, what we might see, we don't think we're ever going to need weekends, we might, but what is the capacity, that the impact that could happen to this area in five, ten years? What's the maximum capacity? Simply to perform an environmental review on what will happen a year, two or three years is not adequate. It must look at the scope and full capacity of the project, and to do a SEAR review that's consistent with that. Arguably needed to do a sufficient Site Plan Review as well. This includes ascertaining from Just Bev, among other things, how many gallons of water do they intend to extract each month, each year, what's the full capacity, and for how long? How many days per year will they be working? This affects the number of truck trips. Whether they will extract water for sale to any third party use or any other location, whether they intend to expand capacity of their Glens Falls location or whether they intend to build more processing plants. This is relevant because it speaks to the future of the Town of Queensbury where this property lies. I would like to enter into the record two things. I'm not sure if it exists in the record now, but a copy of the contract between Just Bev and the City of Glens Falls. Much of it will, in fact, impact the Town of Queensbury, and the minutes of the City of Glens Falls meeting where that contract was discussed. I'll enter it and I'm certain that any of you that want to look at it at any time. I just want to make sure it's on the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Actually you can give it to Laura. DR. JUDKINS-Sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's okay. Staff keeps the official record. DR. JUDKINS-Gotcha. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. DR. JUDKINS-So I'm sorry Mr. Traver recused himself, but you remember that during the SEAR Mr. Traver was the only person who voted no in the discussion of minimum or no impact on traffic was discussed. So I went ahead and actually had a motion camera installed in my front window which overlooks Butler Pond Road, because we didn't have data, and I collected data. I presented that data to the Town Board and I made it available to anyone who wanted it. Nace Engineering asked for a copy and I gave it to them. I also gave them the worksheets where I reviewed the video personally and recorded the time of every vehicle that went up and down that road, seven to seven, and you have that in front of you. It's March 27th through April 2nd and I divided it up between mail van, logging truck, large truck, municipal vehicle of any kind, and personal vehicle. That's supposed to be personal vehicle. I should also point out that I probably should have chosen a different week because this is one of the weeks, one of the four to six weeks that the company that contracts with the City of Glens Falls was logging up on the top of Butler Pond Road, but I chose the week and I'll stick to it. As you can see, if you just look at logging trucks, the most number of logging trucks there were were five a day. Most of them were going up. Many of them were support vehicles. My wife and I spoke to the owner of that company and he informed us that they work four to six weeks per year, and in fact not every year. Next year there will be no logging up on Butler Pond Road. So the concept that there's a steady stream of big trucks up and down this road already simply is not true, and I should point out that the majority of those log trucks actually go down Buckbee Road. If you do the math and you look and you take out the mail trucks, which are small mail vans, and you look at the percent of the totals and the total number of trucks, even if you include the municipal trucks, and you increase the number of trucks on that road by 24 per day, 12 round trip, you will increase the total number of truck traffic on that road by 500%. I would ask you to give that great pause. Five hundred percent is not minimal or no impact. Regardless of how big the trucks are, that is not minimal impact on the people who live on that road. It's not minimal impact on the road 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) itself. I offer you this data. I recognize that you're taking it for what it's worth from me, but I will tell you the same thing I told the Town Board. I'll provide the worksheets, and I will provide a flash drive with the actual footage to anyone who wants it. So the question, one of the questions that is raised is, if this is true, does it deserve merit and if there's a question of its truth, doesn't it deserve investigation before you make a final decision? Apart from all of the safety concerns that have been raised regarding the use of this road or Buckbee Road, I presented a letter from the Queensbury cross country coach, the Queensbury running groups say they use that road all the time. Apart from that, are we really able to make a decision here and say that, yes, it's safe, no there's not a significant impact when I'm presenting data that shows that this is a 500% increase daily traffic. There are some days where there were zero large trucks, and now we're going to say it's okay to increase that to 24. Can you really be certain that it'll never be more? And if so, how? A couple of other things, I meant to ask, do we have final DEC approval yet of the project? Do they have approval from the DEC at this point? The only reason I ask that is if we do not have DEC approval, are you able to act tonight if you don't have that information from the DEC? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. DR. JUDKINS-You can? MR. HUNSINGER-We're independent. They're two independent bodies. DR. JUDKINS-Okay. Thank you. I'd also like to point out a couple of things. For whatever it's worth, Mr. Siplon and myself and Mr. Irish met approximately 12 days ago for two and a half hours. I representing the coalition, and I want to point out that it's not a few neighbors. There's approximately 50 members that live throughout Queensbury. We've had people ask us to join because they wanted to, and we hammered out a number of issues which Mr. Irish has presented to you. After two and a half hours, there was no doubt in anybody's mind that this was an absolute agreement. I walked out of there and went and told the coalition that we had an agreement. There was fair compromise on both sides, and that, and we met with Mr. Irish and the coalition. Mr. Irish went through this with the coalition and told everybody there, yes, this is a deal. As long as we agree not to bring an Article 78, and that it had to be from the Town and not that it was negotiated. We were fine with that. Last night at the Town Board meeting that changed. What was agreed upon, no questions, 100% hand shook, is not what happened. So to say that, so when Mr. Siplon says we're 80% agreed, that's not what he said that night. This was 100% agreed, otherwise Mr. Irish would never have gotten up in front of a group of citizens, in his Ward, and told them that. He never would have done that. So my question to you is, do you have all of the details you need to make this decision? What's been said tonight is maybe occasionally might need to use a weekend. No truck bigger than 4500 gallons, unless we change to electric trucks, or some other fuel powered truck, and that might change at that point. We don't see ourselves ever selling out to X, Y, or Z. The maintenance vehicles that'll be up and down that road will be as much as required. Required by who? How many? What does that mean? I have no idea. I don't think you do. We don't believe we will ever need more than two of those containers in the future. What does that mean, we don't believe? Who is doing the analysis on piping the water off the side of the mountain? That was said several times, the analysis, the analysis, the analysis. Who is doing it? Not sure we're ever going to use weekends. Holidays weren't even discussed. Do the people who live in that area not have the right to know the details of these things? I think we do. Many times tonight Mr. Siplon said, right now we don't see. I would again remind this Planning Board we're not talking about right now. We're talking about our neighborhood for the next five, ten, twenty years. He made a point that he makes a concession that they would only run six trucks for 12 months. Well, first of all, that's not what the concession was. It's six trucks for 18 months, but be that as it may, that's not magnanimous. They can't run six trucks now. They only have one line up and running, which is 1,000 gallons per hour, 24,000 gallons per day, six trucks times 4,000 gallons. There was nothing magnanimous in that compromise that he tried to take credit for. Keep in mind that the restrictive covenant that are in place in the City of Glens Falls at the old St. Alphonsus building do not apply to the Town of Queensbury. Just because he can only run so many trucks down there does not mean that they cannot extract more water on Butler Pond Road and open another processing facility. That's another fact. If Just Bev expands to a new facility, they can go to 25 million gallons, perhaps more. The minutes of the September 2014 Glens Falls Water and Sewer Commission where Mr. Siplon advised, and this is in their minutes, that they could go up to a million gallons per year. Has that changed? What does it mean? The one thing I do, and also, I should point out that in another part of their minutes, their hours of operation in the City of Glens Falls will be six a.m. to six p.m. So my question and my plea to you is, the one thing I do agree with Mr. Siplon on tonight, and Just Bev, he said we only received this document last night. I don't know how you can sit in a room for two and a half hours, put your councilman on the spot, agree to something, and then say you only saw it last night and haven't had time to look at it? I don't know, but I agree with him. If he needs more time to work out those details, I ask you to give it to him. I ask you that the details be worked 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) out, and specifics. You're talking about any escrow account, $10,000. How often? When is it in place? How does it get re-funded? How does it get replenished? What happens if it's more? There's no details. I'm just asking for details. Two days ago I received a return call from a Mr. John Williams, who's a groundwater specialist at the U.S. Geologic Survey and Water Resources in Albany, and I asked him if he was aware of this project and if they had any comment on it. He said he was aware of it, didn't know a great deal of the details, but he did have one question which he wasn't able to find. He said what are the pre-piping conditions of the surrounding wells? Mr. VanVleet is a very respected man in the Town, and I'm sure the hydrogeologic survey he did is very reasonable, but what they did not do is they did not check the pre-pumping water conditions of my well or anybody else's well. They say it won't affect my well. It's higher than me. It's less than a quarter mile from my house. So what recourse do I have if a year from now my gallons per minutes is down if nobody's checked the pre-pumping condition of my well? Is it not fair to ask that we do a sample of, not to do them all, but couldn't we do a sample of the wells, maybe one or two on Buckbee and one or two on Butler Pond Road, so that we can establish what my gallons per minute are now, so that I have some recourse to come back to the Town or Just Bev and say, hey, I can't water my lawn now. It seems reasonable, but there's no specifics. I would also like to enter one other thing into the public record. It's something called Reparian Rights. I'm guessing that the Board has not, from the looks on your faces, probably haven't heard of this. MR. HUNSINGER-1 have. DR. JUDKINS-So I have a sheet of paper here just so I get the concept of Riparian Rights entered into the record. It's the right of the owner of the land forming a bank of a river, a stream, to use for the waterway or the use on such land for such as drinking water or irrigation. State laws vary as to the extent or the rights of this water, but controversy exists as to the extent of Riparian Rights for diversion of water to sell to others for industrial purposes. It is an issue in the Federal Government and it is an issue in some states. I'm not asking you to weigh in on it, just to know that it's an issue. It was never brought up for a reason, and I want to make sure that it's in the public record. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anything else? DR. JUDKINS-So what am I asking for? What are we as a land conservation from Queensbury asking for? Number One, you know have some traffic data. I would ask you if you still feel completely comfortable making a decision tonight without giving it more consideration? I would ask that you establish a baseline pumping capacity of a small sample of the surrounding wells to ensure the neighbors in that area that they can be protected in the long term. Establish once and for all the maximum scope of this project. All the issues that I mentioned earlier that do not have details, and while good faith, which was mentioned many times during the project presenters, good faith, you know, there was a great line once said, trust, but verify, and I would ask that you do the same thing to protect those of us who live in the Land Conservation zoning, which specifically says a rural character that should be protected as such. It's in the Comprehensive Plan and it's in the zoning law. I would ask you to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. DR. JUDKINS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-1 just want to assure you that we have no reason to question your data, and we absolutely will give it all due consideration. DR. JUDKINS-1 understand. I appreciate that, and I would be happy to provide the data, including the flash drive. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. DR. JUDKINS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone else that wanted to comment? MIKE WILD MR. WILD-Good evening. My name is Mike Wild. I live on 11 Blackberry Lane here in Queensbury. Some of my history and background, some of you may recognize me, but with Gretchen and Chris and 1, we were all on the Planning Ordinance Review Committee and spent many a long night in this room hashing over many details about what the Zoning Code should be, what it meant, how it related to the master plan, and even with all the late nights, I look back fondly on the conversations and the debate, and the decisions that were made. So to get on with the topic at hand, I'd like to say I'm a bit conflicted. I know Dr. Judkins and others that live 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) on that road and I understand their concerns, and I think it's admirable at some of the compromises and the ability to work together to try to find some solutions, but the other side of the conflict is that I am pro-business in this community, and one of the things that I tried to enforce during my time on that PORC Committee, was to try to prevent language that would impede the realistic opportunity for business growth in this community, and that's a really big concern. I'm pro-growth but also reasonable growth. So I'd look at this from the standpoint of a long time community member. Lived here in '84 and I came back and all of a sudden I thought, you know, it's been 30 years since I've lived in this Town. So I'm not quite a lifer so to speak, but I think I'm coming close to being considered a local, hopefully. I hope I didn't misspeak with someone in the community here, but I really believe that it's important to consider opportunities that fit within the broader community and not just Queensbury. So we have an economic engine here that's really built primarily on tourism, but we have today an opportunity to help support another piece of that economic engine that isn't totally tourism. It doesn't have necessarily the opportunity to have a, what's called significant impact on our environment. I recognize that there's going to be some inconveniences if this does go through. I also recognize, from a business perspective, that this firm needs to find a way to be economically viable to be able to make this happen, and if I look at it from a business perspective, they've placed some limits upon what they're hoping to do in terms of truck traffic and volume, but they're also looking forward to the opportunity to possibly bring down a pipeline to mitigate some of these issues. That was one of the things that I requested and brought up when I was at the first information meeting here in Queensbury. Why don't we bring down a pipeline, and the thought that that's a strong consideration, I think the Board should consider that as being a reality, because a business, if they're successful and if they grow, even if they grow to the point where they need more trucks, they're going to be limited by the agreements and the stipulations that they agreed to today. Their next best option is to continue that growth is to drive that pipeline down. So in essence what I'm trying to say is, and I'm sorry, I've got to back up to one more thing. I occasionally come in front of this Board and have been in front of this Board voicing my opinions on the Fowler's Square development, which was an extreme disappointment, I'm sure, to many, including myself, for the amount of time it took and the ultimate end result, that is still undefined. So I'm hoping that the Board can find a way to navigate this process in such a way that we don't have legal challenges, if that's something that's possible. All right, but hopefully we can find a way to do that by bringing the parties together, coming together with a reasonable solution that allows this to move forward. So I'm sorry if I'm rambling a bit, but I am someone that is in support of the project, as I said last night. I'm in support of a good project, and I'm not sure how we can emphasize that, put that bold in the meeting minutes, all right. It's something that we need to work towards, and I don't envy you, but I hope you come to a feasible decision as soon as possible because business needs to work on deadlines, and we can bring up more points and more points and more points. They're good points that Dr. Judkins has brought up and the members of that committee have brought up, but we can't anticipate everything. We need to give it our best shot, put some limits on the business, in terms of the impact that they're able to impose on the community. Hopefully they're survive, prosper, and find some other way to mitigate this through a pipeline. So thanks again for your time. I know it's late, and I appreciate everything you guys do. It's a tough job. MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks. Anyone else? Any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will conclude the public hearing for this evening. If the applicant wants to come back to the table. I don't know if you had any comments in response to some of the public comments or questions that were raised? MR. SIPLON-Very quickly. In your hydrogeological report you will find some data about the characteristics of the watershed and the data that was available from wells that had already been drilled down near the City's property. So if there is any question about that, not only you, but the public is welcome to explore it there. They'll find the same data that I shared with you. Other than that, I feel like what we continue to try to do is to mitigate at every turn, and this is the very first meeting where I feel like at the end of the meeting we have actually, and I don't have a list of new things, but I think the things that have been brought to our attention, whether, I'm not really sure why it's that important, but whether it's last Friday or yesterday, what we've tried to do is take them and bring them to you. One thing I would just try to clarify, because I'm sure it's confusing, is that when we met that Friday, what we received was a list of requests, and in an agreement what happens is there's a set of issues on one side and a set of issues on another. The reason, it may be semantics, but the reason that we didn't actually believe that we've been submitted with an agreement is because it was only one side's request, and what we were hoping is that whether it would be the Town or some party would actually put the two together on one document that we could then socialize with all parties. I don't, the material that was there, we immediately began problem solving around, and you can see tonight we've attempted to bring into the record as things that we'd be agreeable to, and I think that's probably the most 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) important thing is that the issues that were raised we have attempted to address directly and have committed to do them. One last thing is I'm not quite sure where there's a question about the limits. When I tell you that we're only going to drive 12 trucks and then we're willing to put in language that says that that transfers to any other entity. I don't know how to provide any more finality to it than that. We're saying we will never drive more than 12 trucks. I can't understand what additional detail is missing from that, and if you can help me understand that, and there's a better way to define that, then tell me and we'll enter that, but our intention is to say that we are never going to bring more than 12 trucks, ever, and if another entity were to assume our operation, they would be held to that same limit, and I just want to be unequivocal about that. There's no question about that. Thank you. MR. CENTER-A few clarifications in regard to the Buckbee Road. I know after the last meeting there were some questions, Mr. Traver's questions, and in talking with the Highway Superintendent, in regards to the escrow account and the road itself, I told him of your concerns at the last meeting in regards to the road, and Buckbee and Butler and the things that were going on, and, Number One, he firstly advised, he strongly advised our use against Buckbee Road. Also with that, on a side note, he asked me to go to Mr. Gurzler, because he had gotten some complaints from neighbors that log trucks were going down Buckbee Road. He asked me if I was going to be in contact with Steve, if I could let Steve know that Mr. Vanness was going to go up to speak with the loggers and make sure they came down Butler Pond Road. That night I e-mailed Mr. Gurzler and said, and gave him the information from Tom Vanness, to say, hey, the loggers are going down Buckbee. There's a real shallow spot in the road, it's real soft, everything's melting. He wants them to come down the other way, and Steve responded I'll take care of it. I haven't heard anything more from that, and I relayed the message that I had done that to Mr. Vanness that he had said that. Adding, as it relates to Butler Pond Road itself, our conversations have been he has no reason to believe that Butler Pond Road cannot handle the traffic that we are proposing, in the format that we had talked about, the 12 round trips a day. We both agree there's going to be some issues with maintenance and that's why we're working on the escrow. So it's been an open conversation all the way through, but he strongly put forth his reason that Butler Pond Road is the way, that he, as the Highway Superintendent, wanted the vehicles to go in and out to access the site because of the issues at Buckbee. MR. SIPLON-1 can understand that there's some concern on the part of both sides of this. I think it's important to be really clear about what our position is. What we do is talk to the people who are the authorities in charge of a given issue and follow their direction. If we were directed to use another route other than Butler Pond Road then we would find a way to make that work. So far what we are being directed to do by the authorities in Queensbury is to use Butler Pond Road. In no way are we in some way dictating which path we take. We simply showed where our well site was and then received the feedback as to what was the appropriate route, and we will continue to do that, and if that changes over time, then we will modify it to accommodate that. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any final questions from the Board? MR. DEEB-Mr. Siplon, I was wondering, I have a little bit of concern with the vague numbers or the vague figures you're using on weekends. There are no specifics, and I would feel more comfortable seeing a specific number put in there because we know you can't go over 12. That's the most you can go, but I think what everybody was looking for was a lesser number, and if you could come up with something to say, you know, we won't run more than four or six on any given weekend, if needed, put a maximum limit on it. I mean, I think that would make people more comfortable. MR. SIPLON-Okay. I think the only thing we were trying to do is be consistent with the application that we presented to you, and since we didn't define it in that, what we were trying to do is introduce the new thing, and no one had actually given us a number, and so what we've been trying to do is accommodate, when people give us a number. So I guess what I'm being asked is, would I provide my own number? MR. DEEB-Well, I mean, if you leave it open-ended, it means you can go to the maximum. MR. SIPLON-Well, I would agree with that. MR. DEEB-And I don't know if that's what we're looking for. I think we're looking for a lesser number. I know I am. MR. SIPLON-If that would make the Board more comfortable. MR. MAGOWAN-You've got six trucks a day. I mean, right now you're six trucks a day for a year. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) MR. SIPLON- If that would make the Board more comfortable, we would go with that number. We would go with that interim limit on nights and weekends indefinitely. MR. DEEB-That's fine. MR. MAGOWAN-You can only take so many gallons in your plan anyway. MR. SIPLON-That's right. MR. MAGOWAN-And if you happen to have a holiday and you need to run on a Saturday or Sunday, I mean, come on, this is a business, you know. You have to run it the way you have to run it. MR. DEEB-No, no. I'm fine with, I mean, you might not use the six. MR. SIPLON-I don't anticipate that we will, but I would agree to, fine, I will agree to a limit of half of what the daily limit would be on ever the occasion we would do it, to six. MR. DEEB-That's fine. Dr. Judkins' comment on measuring capacity of their wells, their individual wells. MR. SIPLON-I can help address that. MR. DEEB-Well, my suggestion is, I don't see a problem with that. I don't see why the homeowner themselves can't get a documented measurement of what it is and put it on file. MR. SIPLON-Well, the methodological approach that both DEC and DOH use is what's known as a max draw down test. In the State of New York it's a 72 hour test where you have to run the well at its max output for 72 hours. You have to have a monitoring well that is a specified distance at least away to evaluate what the impact is on the outside, what's considered to be outside water system. So you're not only evaluating the test well, that the well itself can deliver the stated rate over a period of time in a sustained way, but you measure the impact on a test well some distance away. In our case it was several thousand feet away. Okay, 800 feet away according to the hydrogeological study. That well we monitor every hour on the hour for 72 hours, at the same time that you monitor the well that is being pumped. You have to report those results. Those are in your hydrogeological report. They're a matter of record. There is no more demanding test than that. If you were to go to an individual's well that pumps out at something like 20 to 25 gallons a minute and only sporadically, you would actually get not as good data as you would if you put in a test well with the intent of monitoring the impact, which has been provided, and what I would offer to you is that what we're taking is the most demanding standard that exists, which in this case is DOH and DEC's, and we're simply providing you that data. We provided that to the neighbors, but in addition Kirby has issued a letter into the record that says hydro geologically it is virtually impossible for there to be any impact just understanding the geology. That's why the elevation was important. The elevation is a proxy for the rocks, the formations of water as they flow through. They're two water systems away by that elevation, which means the water that we're drawing from has two impermeable layers between it and any well that is several hundred feet below it. All of that is detailed in your report, and we're accountable to it all. So it's a matter of public record, and we have to continue to monitor that. We have the responsibility in the water agreement to monitor that all the time and make that data available. It's very important to us. We need this watershed to continue to be sustainable. We're the ones that are building a business based on the ability to continue to harvest that water at that rate. We're going to be monitoring this every day. That's what we do. That data's going to be made available to the City and to the Town, at whatever frequency they request. MR. DEEB-So that was 800 feet was that test hole? MR. CENTER-One of the test holes is was used to monitor, when they did the 72 hour test. It was 800 and some odd feet away, and it also included the level of the reservoir at the same time. MR. DEEB-The nearest well is 1400 feet. MR. CENTER-The nearest neighbor is 1400 feet away. So our test well is actually closer to our production well. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board on this side? This side? Okay. I think what I would propose to the Board, this is just my own recommendation, if there's no more 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) questions from the Board, that we go ahead and close the public hearing and that we take a couple of days to draft up the resolution, using Staff and Counsel's input. I would ask for maybe some volunteers from the Board to help work on that resolution, that we would then present next Tuesday night, and this is just my idea. MR. MAGOWAN-That's a great idea. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm glad you brought that up. MR. HUNSINGER-Because there's at least 12 conditions that I want to make sure that we have correct, and I want to make sure that we don't leave any vagueness or unclearness in our resolution. So that would be my recommendation, if the Board is amenable to that. MR. FERONE-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you table it until next Tuesday? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-1 see Counsel nodding their head. MR. SCHACHNER-That's a fine idea. MR. DEEB-1 agree with that. MR. HUNSINGER-So the first resolution that I would be seeking is a resolution to close the public hearing. RESOLUTION CLOSING PUBLIC HEARING SP # 12-2015 JUST BEVERAGES MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SITE PLAN NO. 12-2015 JUST BEVERAGES, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 21St day of April, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-And then I would like to have a motion to table this project until next Tuesday, so that we would have time to draft the resolution. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 12-2015 JUST BEVERAGES MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 12-2015 JUST BEVERAGES, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Tabled until next Tuesday, April 28t", so that the Planning Board would have time to draft a resolution. Duly adopted this 21St day of April, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-And I guess just for, I don't know if we would need a motion for this, but I would just ask for Counsel's input on the actual process for drafting the resolution. MR. SCHACHNER-You don't need a motion, and my suggestion is that Staff and I work with you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/21/2015) MR. SCHACHNER-I'll say right now that if it's a possible approval resolution, if there's a proposal to incorporate what I understood to be what at least some parties are using as proposed conditions, I would agree with some of the comments that some of the conditions are so imprecise or so subjective as to cause me concern as Counsel, and I appreciate the Chairman's statement about, I think paraphrasing what you said, you don't want to have a resolution that lacks clarity, and from our perspective that's critical. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. AUDIENCE MEMBER-We'll help clarify that for you. MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't think we asked for your input, but we already have it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'll make a motion that we adjourn. MR. HUNSINGER-That would be the appropriate motion. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 21, 2015, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 21St day of April, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 52