Loading...
2008.04.29(Queensbury Planning Board 04/29/08) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 29, 2008 INDEX Site Plan No. 61-2007 The VMJR Companies 1. Freshwater Wetlands Permit No. 1-2008 Tax Map No. 303.15-1-25 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/29/08) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 29, 2008 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY TANYA BRUNO DONALD SIPP STEPHEN TRAVER THOMAS SEGULJIC THOMAS FORD GIS ADMINISTRATOR-GEORGE HILTON LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll call to order the Special Meeting of the Town of th Queensbury Planning Board, Tuesday, April 29. SITE PLAN NO. 61-2007 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 1-2008 SEQR TYPE I THE VMJR COMPANIES AGENT(S) BERGMANN ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) FOREST ENTERPRISES MGMT. ZONING HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION RT. 254 NW INTERSECTION AT QUAKER RIDGE BLVD. SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 199,000 SQ. FT. RETAIL BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND UTILITIES. RETAIL USES IN HC ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FRESHWATER WETLANDS: FILLING WETLANDS TO PROVIDE PARKING AND STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES. THE PLANNING BOARD WILL COMMENCE SEQR REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE UV 27-93, AV 34-93 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/9/08 4/9/08 APA/CEA/DEC/ACOE NWI WETLAND/ACOE LOT SIZE 37.55 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-25 SECTION 179-4-020 MARK PETROSKI & BOB SWEENEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-And if the applicant could come up. George, I don’t know if you want to summarize Staff Notes. They are fairly lengthy. MR. HILTON-Yes. We could be here all night if I did that, but I was going to say that the plan has been revised to reflect or it now proposes a 150,000 square foot retail store. We do have many comments in response to the updated plan, and I guess if the Planning Board has any questions about any items, I’d certainly be happy to answer them, but as we go along, we may interject, and, you know, add to the discussion, but I’m probably going to skip summarizing at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Gentlemen, the floor is yours. Do you want to identify yourself for the record. MR. PETROSKI-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is Mark Petroski. I’m with Bergmann Associates. I’m here tonight representing the Queensbury commercial project, Quaker Road retail that we’ve been discussing. With me this evening is Bob Sweeney from Whiteman, Ossman, and Hannah, and also, of course, Vic Macri, who is the applicant for the project. We asked for this workshop so that we can really ferret out some of the issues that have been raised, and any questions that the Board might have, but at this stage, I just wanted to verify for you that the plans you have have been completely redesigned for a 150,200 square foot project, and the parking required is 751 spaces, and that is the way the plans are currently represented. On those plans, we have narrowed down the amount of wetland disturbance to 0.2 acres, two tenths of an acre. The primary disturbance comes in a few different places. One, there is a, there’s a drainage swale that cuts from the north end of Quaker Ridge Boulevard, kind of south and east, into the wetland area. That, from our understanding, is a manmade drainage swale that basically conveys the runoff from the west side of Quaker Ridge Boulevard to the east side of Quaker Ridge Boulevard. Had that swale not been constructed, the grade adjacent to Quaker Ridge Boulevard, at the north end, would have been too high, and you couldn’t have gotten the water into the wetlands. So 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/29/08) the primary purpose of that drainage swale is just to get the water from one spot to another. Because it held water, and I’m sure helped convey seeds and other things that help propagate wetlands, it became a, quote unquote, wetland area. So there’s that area. There’s a little bit of area next to the highway improvements that were proposed at the intersection of Quaker Ridge Boulevard and Quaker Road, and then there’s the two stormwater outlets from the detention ponds. The pipes have to exit into the wetland areas a short distance, and those areas would be part of that .2 acres. So that is the sum total of our wetland disturbance. So, just for the record, I think we’ve done a great job of really making this as minimal as possible, and the plans also represent areas where we have about 1.55 acres available for creation of new wetlands. Okay. So, at the end of the day, we’re looking to replace .2 with 1.55. We have not submitted an application to the Corps of Engineers. We would certainly like some support from the Town. If we’ve reached a point where we’ve minimized the amount of disturbance that’s practical, for the project, we think we’re there. So we’d like some feedback on that subject. I’ll keep going, just to cover the main topics, and then we can. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MR. PETROSKI-Yesterday, after a lot of planning, we were able to get everybody that needed to be involved to discuss traffic. We had the Warren County DPW, Warren County Planning, the Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council, New York State DOT, members of the Town Staff, members of the Planning Board, and we had everybody there that we were asked to have there. It was a very good meeting, I thought. Mr. Ford and Mr. Sipp can speak to that as well. I think we walked away with an understanding that the scope as, we have conducted the traffic study, was complete, with the exception of a few items that we need to expand on, and there’s a short list of those items, and what I’d like to do, if it’s okay with the Board, is circulate those items to the members that were in attendance and make sure that we’re in agreement with those items and then circulate it formally to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Just for your own edification, we did get a copy of meeting notes that Staff prepared. Did you provide a copy to the applicant, George? MR. HILTON-I can. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t mean to interrupt, but I just wanted to make sure you were aware of that. MR. PETROSKI-No, that’s fine. It’s a workshop. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. PETROSKI-Thank you. So, there is some follow up that needs to be done, but I think we walked away with the understanding that we were in general agreement with the range and scope of the study that was completed. The County Planning Board is looking forward to our next submittal. I understand the deadline is this Friday, for the th May 14 meeting. I think we would like you to just hold off. I think with the need to provide some more feedback on the traffic, and I think we’re expecting more comments from Dan Ryan, the Town Engineer. We’ve got the Staff comments to address, that were just submitted to us on Friday. I’m not sure what’s in this memo here, but with those things, I think we’d rather make a more complete application to the County nd Planning Board. So we’re asking Staff to hold back, don’t submit anything for May 2 to th the County planning, and then by May 30, it seems like it would be an appropriate time to get in front of them at their June meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. PETROSKI-So I did say, we have the Staff comments. I’ve already spent quite a bit of time going through them. I think there’s some, there’s obviously some follow up. I’d like to walk away from this meeting with a commitment from Staff, at the Planning Board’s direction hopefully, to have a meeting, a sit down meeting, and go through some of these comments. I think some conclusions were reached that were inadvertent. There’s just some typos and line work that just needs to be discussed. So rather than assume, I think it would be better to just talk about those things, and I think we can clean up probably 50 to 75% of the comments that were offered up on the new set of plans, but it leaves us with other items. There was a comment about the clear zones. We still want to keep the clear zones in that we talked about. I brought the 3-D simulation with me again, and what I’ve asked our graphic artist to do was to provide me a toggle that turns the trees on and off, so that you can see what the difference is. So if we have time, and 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/29/08) you want to see that, I can show that to you graphically again, but the plans need to be updated to show those clear zone areas. We were asked to do some agency coordination with the Transit Authority, as far as bus pickup, that kind of thing. We haven’t done that yet, but we’d like to do that before the next time we get together. The sidewalk issue, I don’t know how more clearly to say it. We’re willing to build a sidewalk in front of the site. If nobody wants it, we won’t build it. So we’ll ask the County if they will allow us to build it in the right of way, and if they say yes, then we’ll build it. If they say no, we’re not going to build it. I know there’s some confusion in the Town Staff’s comments about wetland numbers, about what one number means on one plan versus another number means on another plan. I think, again, with the meeting we can probably clarify a lot of that. It doesn’t affect the fact that we’re proposing .2 acres of disturbance and 1.55 acres of potential mitigation. MR. HUNSINGER-Can I ask a question on that? If you’re only impacting two tenths of an acre of wetlands, why do you need approval from the Army Corps? Can’t they fall under a nationwide permit? Or is it because you want to replace wetlands? MR. PETROSKI-Well, the jurisdictional determination letter from December, this past December, that the Corps issued, which we gave the Town a copy of, speaks to a disturbance that occurred back in 1986. MR. HUNSINGER-I thought that was the answer. I wanted to make sure. MR. PETROSKI-Okay, and we want to just close the book on that issue and just get it, you know, replace it and just deal with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. PETROSKI-So otherwise, yes, we would be strictly filing a nationwide, and depending on how the Corps wants to handle this, and depending on how the Corps wants to handle this, it may end up being a nationwide permit, and the 1.06 acres may just be mitigated, just because we’re offering up to get it taken care of. MR. HUNSINGER-Wasn’t the property under different ownership in ’86 when the? VIC MACRI MR. MACRI-Yes, it was, but the Cease and Desist was put on the property when we owned it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So you took on that liability then, when you purchased the property, for lack of a better word. MR. MACRI-Yes. We unfortunately assumed the responsibility. We never argued the point. We didn’t feel it was significant in order to resolve, because it was such a minor disturbance, and, you know, I’ve been working with the County and the Airport trying to develop a bank that we could use for future mitigation, and the Corps of Engineers currently has changed their stance on how they want us to do mitigation, and they’re Number One priority is that it go to a bank. Number Two is fee related, and Number Three, is it’s on site mitigation. So they’re moving away from on site mitigation. So because of that, I think we’ll be able to, once we meet with the Corps and deal with that situation, we’ll be able to set that 1.6 acres of disturbance aside, but if they don’t want us to set it aside, then we’re prepared to go ahead and mitigate it on site. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Do you have a timetable for when you might get that approval? Because I know how slow they can be. MR. MACRI-Yes, and basically we’ve been holding off until this meeting here to see what your reaction to, you know, our now minimal disturbance of the wetlands, and whether or not you feel fine with it, which we hope you will, and if, after that, after this meeting, we have a concurrence from the Board that wetlands disturbance is not an issue, and we don’t have to do anything else, we will go to the Corps. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MACRI-And who knows how long it will take to get that resolved, but that will be an issue as far as our ability to start construction more than anything. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. Thank you. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/29/08) MR. PETROSKI-Just two other items, and we’d like to find out what kind of questions that the Planning Board has. We’ve been wrestling with this issue of lighting. We redesigned the lighting for the current Site Plan, and Town Staff pointed out that, in a few areas, we did slightly exceed the minimum foot candle requirements set forth. MR. FORD-The maximum. MR. PETROSKI-Yes, maximum, and even exceeding the maximum in a few areas, our average for the site is still 20% lower than the Town Code. We still very strongly that the lighting levels that we’re being asked to provide are extremely deficient, and we’d like an opportunity to prepare a plan that shows you what we think is more reasonable, and if that’s something that you would take a look at, then we would go ahead and do that design effort, and one other item, just a minor item, is I don’t think we’ve provided any geotechnical information for the property, but we have a considerably detailed geotechnical report, and I would offer up, just to answer questions about rock and what’s underground to provide boring data for the Staff and the Town Planning Board to consider. So, with that, you know, we’re here. Our consultants are with us, both Gordon Stansbury and Barbara Beale, and just questions on traffic, wetlands, site design. We’re here to hear what you have to say so we can answer your questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-I have a question that may help sort of put this in a little bit more context, for planning purposes. I noticed on your wetland alternate plan, I believe it’s Sheet X 2.2. There’s reference to Wal-Mart, and as you know, since we have a Wal-Mart in the Town, we have to wonder if this, in fact, is going to be the new location of the Wal-Mart facility, what’s going to happen to the other one in Town? I wondered if you had any comment on that? MR. SWEENEY-I’ll tell you the company line on this and the company line is that I’m under a confidentiality agreement as to who may be the eventual user of the facility, and I’m not at liberty to reveal that information. MR. TRAVER-Even though it’s on the plan? MR. SWEENEY-Well, it may be something that got carried over from another job, because Bergmann Associates does a lot of work for Wal-Mart. So I can’t speak to that. MR. TRAVER-I see. Thank you. MR. PETROSKI-I’m confused. I don’t see any reference on the plan. MR. TRAVER-It’s on X 2.2. MR. SIPP-Not the latest ones, but the previous one there was a reference to Wal-Mart on the plan. MR. MACRI-The problem with CAD drawings is notes get copied over and don’t get edited. So I don’t know what it was, but I know it happens in our office all the time with various clients getting various names and things. MR. HUNSINGER-Tom, you had questions, comments? MR. SEGULJIC-Procedurally, Freshwater Wetland Permit and a Site Plan, so we approve the Freshwater Wetlands, then we do Site Plan Review? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And SEQRA, how is SEQRA handled? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, technically we always do two separate resolutions, but we always, I shouldn’t say always. We typically review them at the same time. So we would do SEQRA on, you know, the whole project, and that is one of the outstanding items. There was that issue about not looking at the complete SEQRA, and their attorney has provided an opinion, and the Town Attorney’s currently looking at that to decide what their comfort level is with the position that their attorney took. I mean, ultimately it’s up to this Board to make a determination, but we are waiting for comments back from the Town Attorney on the whole segmentation issue of SEQRA. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/29/08) MR. SEGULJIC-So, we would do SEQRA and then we’d go back and do the Freshwater Wetlands approval, and then the Site Plan approval? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that would be the sequence. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-We also just received the engineering comments this evening. They came through at like 6:30. I assume George made a copy, did you make a copy for them, the applicant as well? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So you can at least walk out with those tonight. MR. PETROSKI-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? Don? MR. SIPP-I don’t know if you can see this very well, but this is 2.2, X-2.2. Is this disturbance marked out here compensate for cutting the parking lot off at that point? MR. PETROSKI-That plan is the prior plan submitted. So the current roll of drawings which I see on the table. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. That drawing has now become 2.1 I believe, right? MR. PETROSKI-There is a drawing 2.1 that shows the current present condition and proposed conditions relative to the wetlands. MR. SIPP-All right, but does basically 2.1 cut off the necessary? MR. PETROSKI-Right. We no longer touch that area. MR. SIPP-You no longer touch that. MR. PETROSKI-Right. MR. SIPP-Or this? MR. PETROSKI-Correct. MR. SIPP-All right. That’s what I wanted to know, and this area up here (lost word). MR. PETROSKI-Correct. MR. SIPP-So the only area of disturbance that you have is the .02. MR. PETROSKI-.2. Just a tiny little nub right down there. If you look over here, you can see this. MR. SEGULJIC-Right here? MR. PETROSKI-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-This section right here. Okay. MR. PETROSKI-And then out of this pond, if you look on the utility plan, there’s a storm pipe that comes out here, and there’s a storm pipe that comes out over here. MR. FORD-And empties into the wetland. . MR. SIPP-Now on one plan you show an exit off of here, going to the Feeder Canal, which comes off of this end of this. MR. PETROSKI-This is the low spot of the site. So that’s where we have (lost words). MR. SIPP-And this actually flows to the Feeder Canal to the Hudson. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/29/08) MR. PETROSKI-It goes way north to the Airport and then back around again. MR. SIPP-It goes way north to the Airport? MR. PETROSKI-Yes. This drainage goes all the way up to the Airport and back down. MR. FORD-Show me which one goes to the Airport. MR. PETROSKI-The drainage from this side here ends up in a creek up here, and ends up going all the way north to the Airport, goes all the way back around and comes back down. MR. SIPP-Okay. That’s along Queensbury. MR. PETROSKI-That’s what we were showing at the presentation. MR. SIPP-On the west side of Queensbury Avenue. MR. PETROSKI-This creek does stay on the west side of Queensbury Avenue, then it crosses at the Airport to the east side and goes back down. I have it on my slideshow. I can pull that drawing. MR. HUNSINGER-You say you have that drawing on your slideshow? MR. PETROSKI-Yes. The question that we were talking about at the table had to do with the drainage. The question was there’s a detention pond shown right about here on the project site, and the question was, where does that drain, where does the outlet go? There’s a pipe that exits the property right about here, and that water goes this direction. There’s a drainage channel that starts right here, and goes all the way north, all the way up to the Airport, connects into this stream, continues on up, and it heads back down, and we lose the picture, but this is going back to the Hudson River. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have a blow up of the Site Plan on the overhead. No? Okay. MRS. BRUNO-Does that have topo marks on it, the elevation heights of? MR. PETROSKI-You’re asking about topo marks? MRS. BRUNO-Yes, I’m just curious the difference in elevation between the site and perhaps the most northerly area where the drainage turn around. MR. TRAVER-It looks like they’re about 20 foot contour intervals. MR. PETROSKI-Right here it’s about elevation 320, right there. This is elevation 310. This is elevation 300, and, let’s see, I would count back, 290. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. What about crossing here, the other side? MR. PETROSKI-Right here? MR. TRAVER-There’s Quaker right there. MRS. BRUNO-There’s Quaker right there, yes. MR. PETROSKI-There’s Quaker. MRS. BRUNO-Yes, the other side of that, down by the route mark. MR. PETROSKI-Right here? MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MR. PETROSKI-That, the elevation of this entire area in here is such that the drainage comes around and connects into that spot. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Now going south of Quaker, south of the site, right, right through there. Approximately what’s the elevation? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/29/08) MR. PETROSKI-About 330. MRS. BRUNO-So we’re actually going up? MR. PETROSKI-Yes, this spot is high, well, this side of the road is higher than this area on the north side. MRS. BRUNO-Thanks. MR. FORD-When you traced that stream all the way to the Hudson, that is the current configuration of that drainage? MR. PETROSKI-That’s the way the drainage goes today, yes. MR. FORD-Okay, and how will that be impacted by this project? MR. PETROSKI-The way we do our drainage analysis and the way we manage stormwater on site is that when we release our discharges from the detention ponds, we don’t exceed the rate of flow under existing conditions, okay. So we hold back the water so that the rate of flow coming off the site doesn’t exceed what’s out there today. MRS. BRUNO-That’s the standard minimum as set forth by the major stormwater. Are you asking about the quality, Mr. Ford, in terms of infiltration, and then when it comes back out? MR. FORD-Quality and quantity. Because both are impacts. MR. PETROSKI-In our stormwater designs, we’re following the manual provided by the New York State DEC for water quality. So the ponds are designed in a way that, provided we follow the design standards set forth by the DEC, we’re in compliance with their water quality requirements. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-What other questions do Board members have? MR. FORD-I’ll have more after we hear from the public. MRS. BRUNO-Do you have those aerial shots that you had shown us before? I think you scanned over one of them quickly. I just wanted to look at some of the earlier ones. MR. PETROSKI-These? MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MR. PETROSKI-You can look at them at your own pace here. MRS. BRUNO-No, that’s okay. You can just walk us through, I can see. Thank you. 1948. MR. PETROSKI-1966. MRS. BRUNO-That’s when Quaker’s in. MR. PETROSKI-Quaker Road is now constructed. 1982, and this (lost words) farming has substantially been abandoned on the site. 1990. Further progression of the growth of vegetation, and 2004. That’s the most recent aerial we have. MRS. BRUNO-And was it that you pointed out that the wetlands had grown as the development had changed? MR. PETROSKI-Well, if you go back to 1948, all this land in here, it’s all farm fields. It’s all an agricultural production. MRS. BRUNO-So it’s well drained. Okay. MR. PETROSKI-So once the road went in, and you can see a little gap right here, that’s where the road came through, there was still some agricultural production in 1966. You can still see the fields are being worked. On the south side, pretty much (lost word), and 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/29/08) then by 1982 there was no more farming going on in that section, which is where all the wetlands are that we’re talking about. Again, 1990, the progression, you can see from 1982 to 1990 when all the development occurred on the south side of Quaker, and that’s by 2004 further progression, the same, no more farming. MRS. BRUNO-Bear with me. I’m going to sound like a Devil’s advocate, but I’m just trying to understand this. So you’re making the conclusion that because the farming, they’ve stopped farming the land, it is actually more wetland, rather than thinking that they’ve just stopped the farming as the economy has changed? It just sounds like the, I’m perhaps hearing you wrong. MR. PETROSKI-I think we’re trying to establish a couple of things. One, we’re trying to identify drainage patterns for the site, which was a lot of those previous slides, arrows, and this was trying to show you that the wetlands that are there are not, they’ve only been there a short period of time. Now I don’t know what happened prior to 1948, but what’s grown in there is relatively new, and I think that Barbara Beale, last time, explained to the Board how, throughout New York State, you find that same thing happening. So that’s what you see here is the progression, but it’s not wetlands that are more than 50 years, 60 years old. So they’re going to progress to a certain stage of vegetation or whatever, and what we’re saying in our mitigation plan is we want to be able to restore the area that we (lost words) to something of a nature of an equivalent nature of what’s there today. MRS. BRUNO-I guess my direction of questioning was remembering a point that you had made in the previous one, and I guess that isn’t fair without saying it this evening. I was trying to understand if the wetland, last time you had stated that the wetland partially developed due to the road going in, and I think I was just trying to get my mind around whether it was due to the road going in or the growth that would indicate the wetlands developing. MR. PETROSKI-I think it’s probably a combination of factors, I mean, the fact that the road is here, there’s definitely a physical barrier now, that water cannot flow across the road, and when you go back here, there was a pond here. It was lower. I mean, the water could go off the site and get into that pond. Well, obviously with the road there, it couldn’t get across the road, and I think it’s forced the drainage to start taking that pattern, which it naturally would have done (lost words) site anyway, but now there’s no other outlet. That’s the only place it can go. MRS. BRUNO-And that pond has dried up since then. MR. PETROSKI-And lack of maintenance. I think the farm (lost words) farmers probably had drainage along the perimeter went through there not contained. MRS. BRUNO-All right. That answers my question. Thank you. MR. FORD-Could you refresh our memory, please, as to how these aerial photographs were generated by those years? BARBARA BEALE MS. BEALE-I’m Barbara Beale. I’m a wetland scientist. Generally, there was a program of taking aerial photographs to document what was going on in the countryside. All lot of times Department of Soil and Conservation Service for mapping of soils, for mapping of soils, you know, for soil surveys, and also just for general knowledge about conditions of the land in various areas of the country. MRS. BRUNO-Okay . Thank you. MR. FORD-So the source was? MRS. BEALE-The source here is from, there’s a GIS database from New York State has aerial photographs at different locations throughout New York State stored in a computer down in Albany that you can access if you are a GIS computer programmer. MR. SIPP-I’ve got a question on the soil type, soil series that is prevalent in the wetlands and what is prevalent where you’re going to be putting your mitigation area. One is FR, which I believe is, the other one, and I don’t know the boundaries of these soils. You just have a mark, GA in the area closest to Quaker Road, up at the point, at that boundary right to the point, there. We become an FR. Over on the site where the building is going 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/29/08) to be we have an FA, which is Farmington, I believe, and to the west of that you’ve got a GE. Now there’s different soil types, and will they, if you mitigate this, are these FE and FR and GA, how close are they in soil type, soil structure? I know Farmington is a shallow soil because it’s bedrock down there. I don’t know if FE is that shallow, but it’s poorly drained. MR. PETROSKI-We did the research, what happens, if you want soils, and this is what this slide represents, and you are correct. There’s a Farmington loam predominantly on the property. The Farmington actually is classified as a well drained soil, according to the Soil Conservation Service, and despite that, all the wetlands that we’re talking about, you can see the shadow in the background, the existing hedgerows and where the farm fields were. You can see all this area. This is all where the wetlands are today, the same soils. MR. SIPP-Well, that’s not what your map says. MR. PETROSKI-There’s a GAB soil that’s. MR. SIPP-Well, I couldn’t find it either. MR. PETROSKI-Those soils are all consist of the same type of silt loam on the property, and all these areas here are where the wetlands are today. MR. SIPP-Yes, but Freedon, the Freedon series, which is up in the area, FRC, is classified as a saturated hydraulic conductivity is moderately high, and high, slopes of 10 to 8%, in the B horizon it is, A horizon is loam, darkish gray brown. It says nothing really about the drainage possibility, but in the B horizon you get into problems with drainage, and that’s at 15 to 25 inches. The C horizon, which goes 48 inches, more drainage problem, ion accumulation. So what I’m saying is if you switch one for the other, are we going to get the same drainage capacity, the same amount of ponding that we had before? Can you change the water from one soil type to another soil type and have the same result? MR. PETROSKI-Well, I’d just like to point out that the wetlands that we’re talking about disturbing, it’s a manmade drainage ditch. The majority of it’s a manmade drainage ditch that comes through the site, okay. The other piece of wetland is a little corner by the intersection, that’s the Farmington soils, and the other two areas actually are where the detention pond outlet structures go out in the Farmington soils. So today there are wetlands on those soils, today. So I don’t really understand why there would be any reason to doubt that you can build (lost words) on the same soils. MR. SIPP-Well, yes, but the Farmington, when you have. MR. PETROSKI-If I understand your question, I think the answer to it is the two tenths of an acre to be disturbed are in Farmington soils, and the 1.55 acres of replacement is actually in Farmington soils. It’s the same soil. We’re not disturbing one type of soil and replacing it with another, in an area of another type of soil. MRS. STEFFAN-Can you please identify where the blasting will occur on the site? MR. PETROSKI-This corner of the site here has the highest bedrock. One reason for orienting the store as it is, square, facing Quaker Road, is to minimize how much we touch that corner, but the rock, again, I’ll get you the boring information, but we’re probably five feet below surface with rock here, and it gradually gets deeper as it gets down towards Quaker Road. So that area in there is the most probably area for any kind of rock. MR. SIPP-Well, maybe that’s what I’m looking for is some borings in the different places to tell me that we’ve got the same basic type of soil structure and drainage potential, so that we’re not swapping eggs for olives. Because on your map you show nothing about the boundaries of these soil types, soil series. You just plop a square with the soil type in it, FR, FA, without any. MR. PETROSKI-Which drawing are you looking at? MR. SIPP-Number C 3.15. I’ve got so many sets of these things, down in the lower right hand corner you’ve got a GA soil. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/29/08) MR. PETROSKI-I guess I can see your point. The lines from that to be transferred onto this, it would be more clear. MR. SIPP-Well, yes, but see there’s no boundaries, and you say that this whole area through the southern end of this is all GA, it’s foolish. It’s not, and therefore I would like to see if somebody has mapped this, what these boundaries are and if we trade one area for another area, we’re coming up with the same, basically the same thing. MR. PETROSKI-I understand. Well, the lines shown here would define the boundaries of the soil areas. It just needs to be transferred onto that. Actually, this is in the booklet right there on your table. MR. SIPP-Which one? MR. PETROSKI-I think the top one right there. rd MR. MACRI-The last submission dated April 3, in the back, all these slides are in there. MRS. STEFFAN-Section Eight, Don. MR. SIPP-This one is pretty tough to see. MR. SWEENEY-Yes. We’ll transfer those lines onto the Site Plan. It’s this one right here, right here, which does have the boundaries of the soils. You see the GAB runs through there. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. SWEENEY-And it (lost words) to there, and the Farmington right through here, and we’re not disturbing anything down here. We’re only disturbing that corner there, okay, which is for the turning lane, and we’re disturbing the drainage ditch that currently runs through that. MR. SIPP-All right. I’ll agree to that, but I just want to see, when you transfer from Farmington to GAB, if that’s what’s coming across there, if we’re dealing with the same soil. MR. SWEENEY-But right here, it’s naturally, and we’re not disturbing it at all, and it’s not disturbed at all. MR. SIPP-Well, no, but the mitigation plot is right in here. MR. SWEENEY-No, see, that’s right over here. This GAB basically runs right there. We’re not disturbing that at all. This is Farmington and this is Farmington. That is undisturbed. MR. SIPP-All right. See, you don’t say that. See, you have the Farmington. MR. SWEENEY-No, but we’ll transfer these lines onto this map. MR. SIPP-Yes, thank you. MR. SWEENEY-So that will show that that just comes right through here and does not get disturbed, but these are all hydric soils. These are different from everything that’s shown in the blue here, is really wetlands type soils, and these are drainable soils. MR. SIPP-Yes, but see in Farmington soils, which I’ve dealt with for years, (lost words) and things like that, it’s undulating, and therefore if it’s fairly well drained in one spot, it’s not, ten feet away it could not be. MR. HUNSINGER-I think the boring information will go a long way in answering a lot of these questions on soil types and other soil issues. Did you have any other questions on the soils, Don? MR. SIPP-If we get this map delineated, so we know where one boundary is from the other, plus borings. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/29/08) MRS. STEFFAN-I have two questions. The property is located in Zone C, is this whole area Zone C? It identifies areas of minimal flooding. So I just wanted to know, can you identify where Zone C is? Is it the whole picture that we’re looking at or part of the picture? MR. PETROSKI-My recollection is that everything on the site is the same. Otherwise we would show a line. Zone C is typically above the 100 year floodplain. There’s no rivers or lakes or water bodies (lost words) 100 year storm. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HILTON-All the data I have shows that the entire site is in Zone C. So I would concur. MRS. STEFFAN-The reason that raised in my mind because, you know, we were talking about wetlands and stormwater runoff and those kinds of things. So if it’s already been identified as an area where there’s flooding, I just, the next question is what is the source of the flooding? Is it runoff because of the Quaker Road, which was the case that you made, or is that just inherent to the property, has it always been that way? I don’t know if we have the answer to that. Obviously we’ve got pictures over time, but I don’t know if we have the answer to that. MR. HUNSINGER-Was that both questions? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. It’s a question. MR. MACRI-Your question is, is the flooding inherent to the property? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, even when it was farmland, because you’ve shown the property over time, but if it’s in Zone C, and Zone C, areas of minimal flooding, where’s the flooding from? What’s the root cause of it? MR. MACRI-The root cause of the swamp that’s there currently, is that the question? MR. PETROSKI-No. I think the Federal Emergency Management Agency (lost words). They have a strict methodology that they use for classifying the wetlands. Generally, if you’re adjacent to some kind of water body, like a river or a lake, they do an analysis to determine what would happen during a 100 year storm event or a 500 year storm event, how far back is the water going. So when you have an area that doesn’t have a river or a lake, they’re just going to broadly classify it as an area above the 100 year storm. Sometimes they go further and say there are other areas that are above the 500 year storm. We just happen to be Zone C, which is above the 100 year. Now, can a 100 year storm still occur? Yes. Will it flood the property? No. Will we manage the rainfall event from a 100 year storm? Yes. (Lost words) hold back that extra runoff during that rainfall event and then releases it slowly. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So if it was a floodway or a flood path, then it would be classified, and folks would be eligible for Federal flood insurance, but, other than that, it’s not classified. Okay. I have another question, on sanitary sewer. I asked the Chairman, we weren’t sure, to clarify. Sometimes we ask folks for a map plan and report, and I don’t know whether that’s just for a district extension, and so I’m wondering if Queensbury has the capacity to accommodate your sewer. There was just an article in the paper recently about that Queensbury is out of sewer capacity, and will need to buy more, contract for more from the City of Glens Falls, and so, George, maybe you could help me on that. MR. HILTON-I guess I was going to check and see if it’s already in the district. I’m not sure if it is or not. I’m assuming that it is. MR. MACRI-We are. MR. HILTON-And if that’s the case, I don’t think a map plan and report would be necessary. MRS. STEFFAN-Is that for an extension, George, just for clarification? MR. HILTON-Yes, or a new district, but, and as far as capacity, I would defer to the Wastewater Superintendent. I can’t provide any answers as far as capacity. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/29/08) MR. MACRI-(Lost words) that would run from the Warren/Washington County Industrial Park down to the NiMo power lines, it ties into Dix Avenue. It picks up where Tribune Media, the NiMo property (lost words). There is supposedly plenty of capacity (lost words). I know there’s several pipes there. MR. PETROSKI-I don’t think we’ve submitted any documentation, but I know we’ve sent correspondence to the appropriate parties involved and that question has been answered. MR. MACRI-Mike Shaw. MR. PETROSKI-I will grab those correspondences. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I wouldn’t have even asked the question, but because of the recent article that was in the paper about not having anymore capacity unless we contract for it, it’s an issue now. So I believe the last contract took quite some time to negotiate. So I’m not sure if it will take the same amount of time, but that could be an issue going forward for you. MR. FORD-I have a question that you probably have anticipated, but it begs to be asked. It’s recognized that you’re down to two tenths of an acre of wetland disturbance. Have you explored what it would take? Can this project go forward without any wetland disturbance? MR. PETROSKI-Mr. Ford, the simple answer is no. There’s land, as you can see, behind the back of the store, and I know it could be argued could we put the parking back there. To start to do things like that would require such an amount of earthwork, and we’ve done, we’ve looked at these issues, that by the time we’re done, fill slopes are going to start to enter into the wetland, on the south side, that we’re trying to avoid. So by the time we’re done, we can’t reduce it anymore than we can, to make this project work. We’re primarily asking for permission to fill in a drainage ditch. That’s what it amounts to. Because quite frankly, the areas where there’s a drainage pipe entering the wetland, they’re going to be restored back to wetlands. That’s the (lost words), yet we’re still offering to mitigate even more for that impact. So it all comes down to filling a drainage ditch. MR. FORD-Thank you. MRS. BRUNO-I’m just curious, from what you’ve said, that if you put the parking in the rear, that there’d be more earthwork. I was under the impression that the rock was back there, and therefore you wouldn’t have to blast for footings. I would think that, what you’ve stated sounds counterintuitive to me. Could you just explain it a little bit more? MR. PETROSKI-Actually, if you take a look at the grading plan, you can see, it’s Drawing C-3, the store footprint is at Elevation 330, and you can see that by the time you get (lost word) on the site, we’re at elevation 355. So you essentially have a 25 foot change of grade, from the store to the far north end of the property. We’re already showing 15 foot change in elevation just behind the parking lot in the back (lost word). So that’s what we have to deal with. To try to (lost words) or raise the store (lost words) access from parking to the building (lost words). MRS. BRUNO-That makes more sense, looking at this, I was thinking of the drop in elevation that you had earlier described, but that’s a little more easterly. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Speaking of that, one of the questions identified in Staff Notes was that there was no retaining wall detail. Is that in the plans? MR. FORD-It’s all slope. MR. PETROSKI-We’ve eliminated all the retaining walls in the back with this design. The follow up question was, will that three on one slope be stable. We think it will be. MRS. STEFFAN-At 33% I think was what the Staff Notes identified. MR. PETROSKI-Right. Typically a slope of three on one or flatter is stable, once grass is going on. Probably because of the surveys, we’ll probably add some kind of a mesh or some kind of a fiber reinforcement to help hold things in place until (lost words). No retaining walls. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/29/08) MRS. STEFFAN-I was just wondering, because I’m trying to visualize it. I’m asking a question because in my mind I can’t visualize it, and I was wondering, in comparison to the slope on The Great Escape property that is next to the Northway, if it would be similar. MR. PETROSKI-I’m not as familiar with that property as you are, probably. The Mall, Aviation Mall, some of the slopes would be on the west side of the property, I would place them probably about a three on one. They put a retaining wall on right on that side. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. That makes more sense to me. MR. SIPP-Where does the snow go? MR. PETROSKI-We were asked to identify areas on the plan for snow storage. We haven’t. That’s a comment (lost words). MR. SIPP-If it’s pushed to the rear, down that slope, or. MR. PETROSKI-In the rear it’s actually going, it goes uphill. It’s not uncommon for (lost words) parking lot in the wintertime to use it for snow storage. I think the question was asked about impacts to the vegetation out there (lost words) we’ll identify areas. MR. SIPP-Well, the only thing I’m concerned with is if you get a rubber tired loader or a track type vehicle, probably a rubber tired loader, if that goes off of that slope slightly, and then backs up and leaves an indentation, it just leaves a channel for the water to start up in, and plus the, if you uncover a lot of the vegetation, frost damage can occur that way. MR. TRAVER-The area of wetland, part of the, I should say the larger of the two remaining pieces of wetland that are proposed to be disturbed, you point out likely originated as a manmade drainage ditch. Understanding the history of the property, do you know approximately when that was put in, and for what purpose? MR. MACRI-I can only assume that when we put in the access road and the boulevard, it was designed to drain (lost words) adjacent property, because there is a culvert there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. That would have been in the 80’s? MR. MACRI-’86. MR. TRAVER-’86. Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-I had a quick question. I’m trying to assimilate what you had worked on yesterday at the traffic study meeting, compared to the engineering notes that we also just received this evening. Perhaps you’ve already done this. It is not indicated if Quaker Ridge Boulevard is currently a Town road. It states that you’ve agreed to remedy any concerns with the Highway Department. Have you had a chance to speak with the Highway Department regarding ownership of that road? MR. PETROSKI-I think we responded to Staff comments the last time and indicated that it is a Town road. I think Town Staff has confirmed. MR. HILTON-Yes. I think the question is the extension that’s proposed. Is that proposed as a Town road or a private drive? MRS. BRUNO-Right. MR. PETROSKI-We’re not presently proposing it (lost words). MRS. BRUNO-Okay, but the current, the existing road you’ve said is in the Staff Notes response somewhere. Okay. I’ll have to look for it. Thank you. MR. HILTON-If you look at Sheet CO-1, I think Staff’s interpretation of the plan is where there’s a line crossing Quaker Ridge Boulevard, to the north of that, there seems to be some improvement to allow access to the site. I guess we’re seeing that as an extension of this Quaker Ridge Boulevard. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/29/08) MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. HILTON-And our question was is that extension proposed to be a Town road. MRS. BRUNO-All right. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? Okay. I would ask anyone that addresses the Board to state your name for the record, as we do tape the minutes, and I would ask that you try to keep your comments to no more than five minutes, and with that. Sir? Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOHN CAFFRY MR. CAFFRY-John Caffry on behalf of the Big Cedar Swamp Coalition. I’d like to say, having spent most of last week with Bob Sweeney in Tupper Lake, it’s a pleasure to see him here again tonight. I’m not sure if he’s following me around or I’m following him around. With me here tonight are Joan Robertson and Linda White from Southern Adirondack Audubon Society, which the Audubon is a member of the Coalition. We’re very pleased at the revisions to the plan, and we’d like to congratulate the applicant on their flexibility and their willingness to revise the plans to minimize the wetlands impacts on the project. It’s come down quite a way. I think .2 acres is probably about as good as you’re going to get it. We do have some remaining concerns and comments we’d like to make, and hope that they can be dealt with. Regarding the drainage swale or whatever it is that’s apparently going to be filled, my only concern about that would be that the filling of that not affect the hydrology of the wetland, if that’s providing water to the wetlands now, that that water continue to flow into the wetlands in order to provide water to the wetland. The other concern was already mentioned by the Board, which has to do with pollutants coming from the stormwater basins into the wetlands, and I hope the Board and its engineer will review that carefully and make sure that everything possible is being done to keep those basins from dumping salts and other pollutants, oil, gas from cars into the wetlands. This wetland, and with the addition of another acre and a half, will wind up being almost 12 acres, which is a reasonably good sized wetland, maybe not quite up to the DEC jurisdictional level. Our concern about that is that, as Mr. Macri continues to propose other developments behind this property, that this wetland will essentially become an island of natural area surrounded by asphalt, and any future plans for other developments around it should take that into account and preserve connections between this wetland and other natural areas, so that it doesn’t become just an isolated island of habitat, instead of being part of a larger system. There’s been some debate before about whether this is technically part of the Big Cedar Swamp or not. I don’t think that the Coalition has ever drawn a line around the DEC wetland and said this is the limit of what we call the Big Cedar Swamp. Regardless of the hydrological connection, we would consider it all to be one wetland eco system. It appears that the Niagara Mohawk line, and I’ve just heard tonight that a sewer line has been run through there, is currently the divide between this wetland and the DEC wetlands to the north and west. Who knows what it was before Niagara Mohawk put the line through there, before the sewer line was built. Maybe they were connected back then. Maybe not. If you go back even farther, the Big Cedar Swamp, what’s now the DEC wetland to the north and west, was once much larger, and then a lot of it was drained for farming. At one point there was celery being grown in the muck soils area of it. Eventually that was abandoned for various reasons, and the wetlands have restored themselves. If the whole area was just left alone, the wetlands would probably continue to restore themselves and re-grow over the years. So to get too hung up on what it was like in 1986 or even 1948 and say it was just farmland, may not represent the original natural state of the wetlands, but having said that, we are very encouraged that they’re minimizing the amount of wetlands that’s being filled today. One other curiosity along those lines. When they built the access road, Quaker Ridge Boulevard, which turned out to be an Army Corps violation back in 1986, and they filled an acre or so of wetlands there, if you take all the wetlands on this property now and you add them together, and they were cut off from each other by building that road. So originally this wetland area was over 12 and a half acres, what would have been DEC jurisdictional but for the road that they built in 1986. At this point, that’s probably neither here nor there, but you shouldn’t downplay this wetland just because it’s not a DEC wetland, and I think the Staff Notes picked that up quite nicely when they said that a wetland’s a wetland, regardless of how it was created or whatever under your Town Code, they’re all protected. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/29/08) MR. HUNSINGER-Could you wrap it up, please? MR. CAFFRY-Yes. Lastly with the lighting we would just encourage the Board to minimize the lighting so it doesn’t look like Lowe’s. I don’t know what your Code requires, versus what they’re recommending, whichever one results in the lowest level of lighting we think would be best for the wildlife and the wetland in general, and again, we would like to congratulate the applicant on their willingness to modify the project to protect the wetlands. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Just for a point of reference, Lowe’s was probably the last major commercial project before the Town adopted new lighting standards. So, you know, the new Super Wal-Mart might be more appropriate to think about in terms of, about where this is at. MR. CAFFRY-Or Comstock. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Board on this application? Okay. Well, we’ll leave the public hearing open, but we will conclude the public comments for this evening. Is there any written comments, George? MR. HILTON-No, none that I’ve seen. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to come back to the table. Any other thoughts, comments from the Board? We really haven’t talked about lighting much this evening, other than the applicant asking if we would entertain a revised lighting plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Speaking of lighting, what are you proposing for lighting? What are your thoughts? MR. PETROSKI-Well, the current plan with the attempt to follow the Town’s guidelines, we’re talking about 25 foot high poles. I believe we’re talking 400 watt fixtures. So there ends up being probably three times as many as we’d like to have out there. We would like to go to something that’s taller, something closer to a 40 foot height, which would be about 15 foot higher than what’s out there, according to the current design, and then change the fixtures to something like 1,000 watt. We can still achieve a uniform lighting level at the ground surface, and we can still be dark sky compliant. We can also control the perimeter lights with cutoffs to make sure that the spread doesn’t go beyond the site limits, I mean, within reason. You’re still going to have some kind of light spillage, but even with the photometrics, we’re showing like 0.1 foot candles at the outer reaches, the same kind of thing could be achieved. The Town requires nothing above a 90 degree angle to the pole, which can be achieved. So we can still meet all those requirements, but by going to fewer poles and fewer light bulbs, we’re also looking at a lot less energy consumption and a lot less maintenance. It is a lower cost to install it that way. MR. HUNSINGER-What would that do to the minimum and maximum foot candles, though? I mean, sort of intrinsically it sounds like, you know, 1,000 watt is certainly a lot bigger than 400. So, I mean, it sort of seems like the foot candles would then increase. MR. PETROSKI-I think we would probably propose something a little bit higher. I think generally in the parking field we go up to around three. Near the building we might be closer to five. At intersections we’re still around two, and then you’re going to have hot spots right underneath the pole itself, like you would have, no matter what you did, but we could still achieve a relatively uniform lighting level in the parking lot. Part of the problem that we’re dealing with, and this may sound ridiculous, but, there have been lawsuits because people, like if you look at the angle of the light, as it hits the parking lot surface, and you look at the height between two light poles, and if the crossing point between those light rays is lower than a person’s head, and they can’t be seen or identified, that lawsuits have been lost because of those kinds of issues, and we are trying to provide a safe environment where the lighting level on a person’s face is visible within the parking lot, so that if something does happen, somebody can identify that person, and I see Mr. Ford raising your eyebrows, but these are multimillion dollar lawsuits, and we’re trying to do the right thing for, you know, everybody, and I think if we can provide a lighting design as I described, and compare it between the two, and you can see what the differences are. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I’d just like to jump in there. Our Code says 20 foot light poles. I personally do not like 40 foot light poles. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/29/08) MR. PETROSKI-Twenty footers. MR. SEGULJIC-I think your parking lot is over lit. Our Code says two and a half for commercial parking lots, and you’re up to seven in some spots. I think you’ve got to bring the light poles down, and you might need more of them. Pick energy efficient light bulbs. MR. PETROSKI-Well, 400 watts is still 400 watts. A thousand watts is still one thousand watts. I can’t change the wattage. I mean, it’s still going to draw the same amount of power. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, but I mean, the Code says 20 foot. MR. PETROSKI-And I misspoke. Twenty foot is what we designed it to. The design provides a 2.06 foot candle average across the entire parking lot, and your Code says 2.5 is the max, and there’s a few spots where we were higher, I apologize, oversight. We need to make some adjustments to be perfect, but we’re still saying it’s not enough. We are very familiar with the Wal-Mart on Route 9, and I’m sorry but that place is too dark, and as far as I’m concerned, it’s unsafe, but other people have different opinions. It becomes subjective after a while, but it needs to be, and there may be a reason for that lighting in that area. If there’s residential areas abutting it, and you need to have consideration for the neighbors, then lower light levels are important. We don’t have any residential neighbors. We do have concerns that were expressed about the wildlife, and I think if we can address that with cutoffs and all the dark sky requirements, I think we could have a good design. MR. HILTON-Just a couple of points of clarification, I guess. In looking at the most current lighting plan, the average that’s proposed, at least indicated on the plans, over the entire parking lot, is shown as 3.46, whereas, as has been mentioned, the Town standard is 2.5 as an average for the parking area. That’s with 400 watt fixtures. I can only assume that if you increase that to 1,000, that 3.46 goes above and beyond the 2.5 that is the Town requirement. Maybe you think that Wal-Mart’s too dark, but this is the standard that’s in the Town Code. The Planning Board has applied this to other commercial projects, and I guess I just want to point to our lighting section of our Code. Our lighting code is based on the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America requirements. It’s, you know, these are lighting engineers that have developed these standards and they’ve taken into consideration safety, functionality, and as has been discussed before, excessive lighting doesn’t equal safety, and I just wanted to point that out, and certainly if another plan is presented, we’ll review it, but, you know, currently we have an average foot candle throughout the parking lot that’s above Town Code, and I would only expect that to increase with 1,000 watt fixtures. MR. HUNSINGER-Just for benefit of the Board, I spoke with Staff today and I had asked them to prepare the handout that shows the Wal-Mart lighting scheme as well as the Saturn Dealership, just to give you a basis of comparison between, you know, what’s current in the real world and what had been proposed by the current applicant. So that was to try to give us a point of reference, so that we could understand it a little better. MR. MACRI-I think an important consideration is that I don’t think those standards take into account, is the amount of energy that will be expended because of the sheer amount of poles that are going to be there. You can do, but for four poles we can do it with one, 1,000 watts versus 1500 watts or whatever. So, I mean, we’re going to be cutting down on the energy consumption. I think that’s something that we’re all aware of currently is a concern that we need to address, and the Code is, at this point, from my perspective, antiquated because of that, and maybe there’s a new study by the engineering concern that the Town Code’s based on, but I don’t know that, but I’m just saying that you need to take into account the amount of energy that will be consumed by the amount of poles that you’re putting up. MR. HILTON-I guess just to follow up, and I meant to mention this before, but I’m seeing, according to the lighting plan, that metal halide fixtures are proposed, and our Code refers to high pressure sodium, which are more energy efficient. That’s an option. I know there’s probably some, I don’t know, concern with high pressure sodium, looking at some of the other projects around Town, that they would be radiating into the sky, but with complete downcast fixtures, that’s not the case, and I just wanted to point out that high pressure sodium fixtures as called for in the Code are, I guess, a more energy efficient alternative to the metal halide fixtures that are proposed. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/29/08) MRS. STEFFAN-I shop at the Wal-Mart, and I find the lighting to be adequate. I was out in Iowa Falls, and there’s a Wal-Mart, a Super Wal-Mart out there, and the lighting is so extreme that you actually squint when you go out of your car at night, and comparing, you know, being able to compare my experience in Iowa with my experience here in Queensbury, the Super Wal-Mart here, hands down, is much better, as far as the dark sky, and that Iowa situation that I mentioned, you could see that for miles, you know, it looked like an airport from a distance, and so with the predominantly dark sky over that part of town, I would not be inclined to deviate from our Code. MR. PETROSKI-I don’t know which store you’ve been to, so I don’t have a reference for your comparison, but there’s nothing lost by us developing a plan, showing what we have in mind. I will assure you that it will be dark sky compliant, and it will be energy efficient, and it will meet all of the engineering Illuminating Society’s criteria. So if you would be willing to entertain that, I would be happy to generate that plan for you and we can just take a look at it, and we can even try to find something here locally that would be the equivalent, so you can go out and look at it. MRS. STEFFAN-That would be useful. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, there’s certainly nothing lost on you providing an alternate for us to consider. I’m just speaking for myself. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I mean, you’ve heard our opinion on lighting. Let’s see what you have. The other issue now is you had mentioned you had the display of the trees and no trees. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Thank you, Tom, I forgot about that. MR. SEGULJIC-I like my trees. MR. HUNSINGER-Just while he’s loading that up, is there anything else that the Board wanted to bring up? MR. SIPP-Just a little on the landscaping. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and this certainly relates to the landscaping. Okay. MRS. BRUNO-Which program did they use? Was it Sketch Up, do you know? MR. PETROSKI-No. We use Sketch Up, but this is a program that animators use for like cartoons and, you know, movie graphics and that kind of thing. So it’s not quite the same. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. PETROSKI-I’m trying to get ground level here, the street. So if I’m driving along the street, you kind of get the idea of what you’d see. There’s our entrance to the site again, right at Quaker Ridge Boulevard, and what we had talked about doing was cutting out some trees. This is the entrance at Quaker Ridge Boulevard, and I can toggle trees on and off. Now, this represents the lines that we drew before, which are not on the current set of drawings, which we inadvertently left off, but the idea behind this is to try to create some view sheds from the street to the store, because otherwise all you see is this. MR. SEGULJIC-That looks very nice. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s what we like. MR. SIPP-Keep it like that. MR. PETROSKI-Well, the person who’s spending a lot of money on this property, they like to have their building visible. MRS. BRUNO-Those are mostly representative of what’s there now? MR. SIPP-Give them a little sign at the road there. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/29/08) MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, the problem with that is that then you’re going to want a big sign. MR. PETROSKI-We’ll work with you. We tried, we took aerial photographs, and we placed trees on the locations of the trees on the aerial photograph, and we compared the height of the trees, to photographs of trees on the property, and the species type, to try to represent as close as we could something that you’d see basically during the summertime with trees filled out with leaves on them. Okay. MR. TRAVER-Can you tell us approximately how long after this landscaping is completed that these images represent? MR. PETROSKI-Well, all these trees in the front are what’s out there today. There’s no time span difference, okay. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. PETROSKI-So when you get onto the site, the trees you see here are generally mature trees. They’re probably 15, 20 year old, in terms of the spread of the trees. I mean, we’re proposing to plant them at the calipers that the Town requires as a minimum, and the sizes and heights, I don’t think we’ve deviated from that. There’s a question on a few species types, but. MRS. BRUNO-Could you scan as if you were driving by again, please. MR. PETROSKI-So here’s the gap that we’re proposing at the far end of the site. Trees in, trees out. Trees in. Trees out. Trees in. Trees out. So we’re trying to create gaps. We’ve responded to Town Staff comments saying, we’re happy to work with you, if there’s significant trees in those areas that you want to save, it doesn’t have to be a complete clear cut job, but we’re trying to just open up some gaps so that you can see into the site, and have some visibility to the building, okay. MR. TRAVER-Isn’t it rather the other way around. Don’t you, aren’t you required to leave trees that are above a certain size? MR. PETROSKI-The Code talks about 18 inch caliper. Is that your question? MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. PETROSKI-Yes. If there’s an 18 inch caliper tree out there, we’ll keep it. I don’t have a problem with that. The tenant doesn’t have a problem with that. I think we responded that way saying that if there are trees that you wanted to keep we’ll keep them. I don’t think you’re going to find that many 18 inch caliper trees in those areas. MRS. BRUNO-That’s a little bit of my suspicion is some of those trees I don’t think are quite as full and mature and healthy as perhaps they’re shown here, and I think perhaps some of the development, as it’s going on, may end up undermining a little bit, just with the change of hydrology, and I’m almost wondering if the natural loss and/or responsible cutting of trees would just end up filtering, maybe, across the entire site, but making it look healthy rather than having some swaths going in. MR. PETROSKI-I’m not averse to your suggestion. I don’t think that would be a bad thing. I think if it was properly thinned it might have the same effect. We were just looking to create gaps, just so he could have some visibility, but if the Board, as a consensus, would like us to look at some kind of a thinning plan, then we can come back with that. MR. SIPP-I think you’ve got some maples listed here, (lost word) variety of maple, which is fine. The Staff brings up the fact that at full growth you’re going to be growing them out on the truck entrance way and they’re going to be, they’d have to be pruned on one side or the trucks will prune them, period, and maybe you want to go to a different type of tree, a more height than breadth, looking at something maybe in a conifer, so you don’t have that problem with them branching out. The maximum on that maple is 20 feet, so that means 10 feet on either side of the truck, and you’re hanging it out on the access road. The other thing is, out front, what’s growing there now? What variety of trash tree is in there now? I would suggest maybe there’s some hickories, poplars. MR. PETROSKI-You know the plants better than I do. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/29/08) MS. BEALE-This is Barbara Beale, again. I am going to guess that the tree species growing in the wetlands out there are green ash, American elm, and red maple, which are your typical, and they’d be small diameter trees because they’re relative young growing in wetlands. Those are going to be the wetland trees that you have growing out there right now, and your understory is going to be a lot of dogwood species, silky dogwood is probably your dominant dogwood species there. MR. SIPP-I don’t know if you’re going to get elms to grow there. Maybe. Maybe the blight has passed. There are varieties which are resistant. They’re awful expensive. MS. BEALE-I would say you generally don’t landscape with wetland plants in uplands when you are doing your landscape plan. MR. SIPP-You’d also want to get some mixture in there of evergreens because come, hardwoods, come October, they’re all, the cover, there’s no more cover. You’ve got sight all the way through. So you want to have a mixture, I think, probably some hemlock in there, to give you coverage during the wintertime. MR. FORD-I was going to ask if you had those defoliated. MR. HUNSINGER-That was going to be my question as well, what a winter scene would look like, or Fall. MR. PETROSKI-I think I could probably do that. I’d have to check with the animators to see if the trees that they could put in defoliated are actually see through trees. Sometimes what they do is they’ll fake a tree so it’s got, it’s almost like a, you know, a cardboard stand up tree, you know, you’d have two slots that fit together and so depending on which side you look at, it looks like a defoliated tree, but you can’t see through it. So I just have to figure out if we can do that, and if we can then I could probably change all these trees to non leaf trees. MR. SEGULJIC-Overall I’m encouraged to see what you’ve tried to do there. I mean, you could have come in and said you want to cut down all the trees. MR. PETROSKI-That doesn’t make any sense. MR. SEGULJIC-And, you know, just see if there’s anything else you can do. I personally like trees. When I travel around the country, that’s the difference I see is you stand in these hotel rooms and you look out there, it’s ugly as sin because there’s not a tree around. I like to maintain trees, personally. So I think it’s something we can work on. I like what you did with the wetlands. That was very good. I think we have to work on the lighting. MR. FORD-On the trees a combination of hardwood and softwood. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HILTON-Just, I guess, a comment, based on the presentation that we just saw. These clearing areas, gaps if you will, appear to be, appear to involve removal of vegetation within the wetlands in the front of the property, which should be shown, and the clearing limits, as well, should be updated to show that proposed clearing. MR. SEGULJIC-Is that subject to the waterfront, where you can’t clear within 35 feet? MR. HILTON-Well, they’re in for Site Plan, and they’re also in, the applicant has applied for a Freshwater Wetlands permit through the Town. So they could at least apply for those, but my point is, is that has to be shown to the Board and it has to be shown on the plan, as part of the review process. MR. SIPP-And your grass seed for the slopes, I see you have 90% bluegrass. Bluegrass is a high maintenance piece, chunk of grass, and fescue is a lot cheaper and a lot more rugged, different kinds. I mean, if it’s up to you, you want to spend the money, but it’s, I think you’d get better results. MRS. BRUNO-Mr. Caffry had brought up a good point when he was speaking from the public, in terms of the treatment of the stormwater. We tend to see a lot of very similar designs in Town, and I know, I’m not an engineer, but I have, I know that there are some best practices, better practices. I’ve requested, you know, some workshops from the Town, but we’re just all so busy, in terms of learning more about that. I was wondering if 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/29/08) you could walk us through the intent of how you have designed your stormwater basins and the treatment, you know, is it filtering through sand or is it something more than that? MR. PETROSKI-As you probably know, the State has a SPDES Permit process now, the general permit for construction activities that disturb more than an acre of land, and that is something that we have to comply with in this process. We have not made application yet, but we will. Within that process, the New York State DEC has published various guidance documents. There’s the permit language, but there’s also design guidelines and design standards. There’s some minimum requirements that we have to comply with. There’s nothing that you can do about that. You want the permit, you’ve got to comply, but in the design standards manuals, they provide different types of designs to manage stormwater, and the way they’ve set up the permit, they basically say that if you comply with the standards, if you follow the standards, then you meet the regulatory requirements for water quality. So the ponds that we’re showing on here are what we call P-2 Ponds. They have a four bay and a micro pool. Four bay area is the front half of the pond. If you see there’s like a dividing point in the pond, there’s a line that goes across the middle of each one. So there’s an area where sediment can be deposited, and then there’s an area beyond that where clean water is, again, filtered. It gives you enough time for sedimentation to occur. That’s one of the things you want to maintain is sedimentation time. What we find, I think what’s been found in parking lots is a lot of your contaminants are carried off site with sediment. I don’t know, if you spill something in your driveway, you throw down some sand or you throw down some sawdust or you throw down something to absorb it, and that’s what happens. These products adhere to the sediment and then the sediment washes off the site, and that’s where the contaminants are going. So if you can control the sediments you can control the contaminants. MRS. BRUNO-It doesn’t leach back out from the sediment as it’s sitting there in pools of water and then that water, again, carries it away? MR. PETROSKI-You know, the chemistry, I’m sure there’s some things like that that happen. You can’t stop 100% of what’s going on, but what you can do is through this process you can comply with what the State is saying their minimum expectations are, so that you do not compromise the receiving streams. Ultimately you’re not allowed to exceed the quality of the receiving stream. That is actually the goal. That’s what we’re supposed to be doing. So, the State is telling us that by following these design requirements, that we are not exceeding the receiving stream standards. So our design follows those objectives and those criteria. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-I was encouraged to see that you had a complete maintenance plan, too, of the stormwater detention system that was included in the submission also. We had a conversation about that last week, on another project. It’s a good thing. Is there anything else that the Board wanted to bring up this evening? MR. SIPP-I wanted to thank Mr. Stansbury who sat there doing nothing all this evening, for yesterday. He did a good job on explaining the traffic, which is a complicated affair, and the scope of which I didn’t realize he had taken in, but I think we came away feeling that all the bases had been covered, and we understood, maybe not agreed on, what the mitigation will have to be, but it was a good presentation. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, just for myself, where are we with traffic now? MR. PETROSKI-I haven’t read the Staff’s report to know if we are 100% on the same wavelength. I hope we are, but as Mr. Sipp said, and Mr. Ford was there as well, there was a really good discussion. A lot of things were put on the table. We walked away with about, I don’t know, eight different items that we need to address. A couple of things have to do with looking at the accident history at Dix and Quaker and Dix and Highland, looking at the queuing at Dix and Quaker, make sure that there’s enough stacking right now and in the future for turning lanes. We need to look at, Mr. Ford pointed out that we didn’t properly draw the left turn lane for the car dealership. We need to add that to the drawings. We want to take a look at whether or not a roundabout is an alternative to a traffic signal at Quaker Ridge Boulevard. There was questions about coordination of signals. We agreed that we would put in our mitigation that we would verify that the signals from Dix Avenue to Lower Warren Street would all be properly coordinated at the time that any new signal would be put in to operation. MR. FORD-Truck traffic was clarified. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/29/08) MR. PETROSKI-Okay. MR. TRAVER-There was a question, too, I think in Staff Notes, or somewhere, about public transportation vehicle buses and so on in the parking lot. Was that addressed or would that not be in the scope of the traffic study outside the property? MR. PETROSKI-It’s a traffic study concern from the standpoint of making sure that any public transportation vehicle can navigate through the site. We have not approached the agency that was referred to in the Staff comments, but we will do that because we would like to make that accommodation. MR. SEGULJIC-So does this mean another traffic study is going to be coming our way? MR. PETROSKI-No, what we’re going to do is, we’re going to furnish an addendum, basically addressing those specific questions that were asked. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. SIPP-The study was based on the bigger store size, so actually the actual figures will be lower than what is seen in the report now. MR. PETROSKI-Correct. MR. SIPP-I assume almost by a quarter or a third difference in the amount of traffic. MR. PETROSKI-Yes. Which reminds me, Mr. Sipp, we agreed to take a look at what we call the warrant analysis for the smaller sized store, just to make sure that the signal is still something that’s justified. A warrant analysis just means do you need a signal or don’t you, and it has to pass certain criteria in order to justify putting in a signal. So we’ll look at the smaller sized store to make sure it still meets that criteria. MR. FORD-I’d like to make one further observation, and that is that yesterday’s meeting was really a quality experience from my perspective, both in terms of who you had there, but there also was an atmosphere that I appreciated because there was an acceptance of a lot of different ideas and a brainstorming of possibilities, and there was an acceptance of that, and I’ve seen it manifested in terms, tonight, of you listened to us some months ago, and reacted in a very appropriate manner, and I just wanted to compliment you on that. MR. PETROSKI-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-That might be a good word to end on. Is there anything else from the Board? Just in terms of where we are, you mentioned earlier that your hope is to get before the County Planning Board at their June meeting? MR. PETROSKI-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So that would necessitate us to table our review until at least June as ththth well, the 24. June 24. Any new submission would be due by May 15. Does that give you enough time? MR. PETROSKI-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good. A question of Staff. There’s a couple of members that weren’t here when the latest drawings were passed out. Did those get collected? MR. HILTON-When these plans were handed out? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I know you weren’t here. MR. HILTON-Right. So I don’t know, but either way we’ll get the plans to them. We’ll find out if they’ve been distributed, and if not we will get them to them. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So if you don’t have the latest set, if you could let Staff know, and we’ll make sure you get copies. MR. PETROSKI-What would be most easy for the Board? The Staff had a comment on a variety of drawings. Some of them just mean we have to change some text. Some we 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/29/08) have to add some lines. Do you want us to resubmit an entire new set, or do you want to have just the sheets that changed? MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the feeling of the Board? MR. SIPP-Just the ones you’ve made changes on. MR. SEGULJIC-I say just the ones that change. MR. SIPP-I mean, I’ve got four sets of these things home. MR. FORD-How many will there be? MR. PETROSKI-It could end up being half the drawings, somewhere around that. There’s probably a number right on the front cover that says. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s 27. MR. PETROSKI-Yes. So there could be half, a third to a half. MRS. STEFFAN-Then I would vote for a new package. MR. PETROSKI-It probably would be less confusing. MR. FORD-Please. Yes. I would. I know it’s expensive and so forth, but. MR. HUNSINGER-Then it resolves the problem for members that don’t have the most current. MR. TRAVER-You might also want to remind your CAD operator that the occupant is classified. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you bring colored renderings? MR. PETROSKI-Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-You don’t need to provide copies for everybody, but at least one. MR. MACRI-They are in the back of the first book. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MACRI-You want a large scale one, is that what you’re talking about? MR. PETROSKI-You’re talking about building elevations, site plans, what do you want for? MR. SEGULJIC-Maybe one large scale you could just present to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Building elevations. MR. PETROSKI-Building elevations. Well, in light of the fact that the building is smaller, and we actually flipped it on the site, so the side that used to face Quaker Ridge Boulevard now faces the east. So it’s a mirror image. So we’ll get those new elevations to you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-Good. MR. PETROSKI-We didn’t supply the most current version. So that’s a fair question. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why there was another page to the old drawings. MRS. STEFFAN-I will mention that I was recently in New Hampshire, I’m getting confused with Kittery, Maine. I went by, they have a new comprehensive plan in North Conway, and they have a Super Wal-Mart, not saying that this is a Super Wal-Mart, but they have a beautifully designed Super Wal-Mart that is off white, rust color, and foe 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/29/08) stone on it that is the nicest looking Wal-Mart I’ve ever seen. So I’m just throwing that out, from a design standard point of view, it’s very nice. I didn’t get pictures. MR. PETROSKI-Well, would you like to see a palette of like materials and colors and things like that for the next meeting? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think that would be really helpful. MR. FORD-Yes, that’s always helpful. MR. HUNSINGER-So would anyone like to put forward a tabling resolution? MRS. STEFFAN-Let me just read off some of the things I’ve identified. We’ve got Staff Notes, VISION Engineering, revised lighting plan, a revised landscaping plan, to identify the visual impacts on Quaker Road, and to be Code compliant using approved species, to provide snow plans and contingencies for snow removal, to provide a detailed soil list and identify delineation, to provide an updated traffic plan. So I have seven things. MR. SEGULJIC-And address the Staff letter and engineering comments? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That was first, yes. MR. FORD-And when we talk about the visual impact on Quaker Road, we want both the current one and the one with the defoliation. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else? I assume by then you’ll have an answer on the sidewalk. Is that fair to say? MR. PETROSKI-Well, I’m going t o take the issue to Jeff Tennyson at DPW and find out what, you know, what their preference is, and that would be with the engineer’s addendum that would go to him, because I’d really like to get an answer from him to put in front of you and say, yes, he agrees with the design mitigation that we’re proposing. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What about the sewer capacity issue? MR. PETROSKI-We’ll get a letter out of Mike Shaw. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else, George, that you can think of? MR. HILTON-Not that I can think of. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. PETROSKI-We would just appreciate getting a copy of the final resolution. It probably gets typed and, I don’t know what the process is, but as soon as we can. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. PETROSKI-Just to make sure we don’t miss something. I took notes fast, but. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. How quickly are the minutes transcribed? I know they’re not posted to the website until the following month. MS. GAGLIARDI-I know I’ll have the resolution by tomorrow, but the probably the minutes another week or two. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they just need the resolution. MS. GAGLIARDI-Yes, the resolution will be done tomorrow. MR. HUNSINGER-So you can get that from Staff relatively quickly. Thanks, Maria. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Well, I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 61-2007 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 1-2008 THE VMJR COMPANIES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/29/08) thth To the June 24 Planning Board meeting, with an application deadline of May 15. This is tabled so that the applicant can / will: 1. Satisfy the Staff Notes of April 29, 2008; 2. Satisfy the VISION Engineering comments of April 29, 2008; 3. Provide a revised lighting plan which is Code compliant; 4. Revise the landscaping plan to show the visual impacts on Quaker Road and that would be with foliage and with defoliation, which would be a winter view, and also that should be Code compliant using approved species; 5. Provide snow plans and contingencies for snow removal; 6. Provide a detailed soil list and identify delineation; 7. Provide an updated traffic plan for review and consideration, including a warrant analysis; and 8. Contact the Water Department to identify if adequate sewer capacity exists. th Duly adopted this 29 day of April, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you very much. MR. MACRI-Thank you. MR. PETROSKI-Just one thing, from a timing standpoint, if we want to make the County Planning Board meeting for mid-June, second Wednesday, second Thursday, we would thth have to submit by May 30, which is before this June 24 meeting. So, if we work with Staff, would we be able to make that submission? I think we’re holding off based on our own comfort level, to make sure that the County gets everything that they need at the next meeting to make a decision, because they’ve just been deferring us each time they’ve seen it, but if we’re comfortable, would you be comfortable so that Staff can make that, forward the documents and then we could be on their agenda, and then we th would have an answer before we come to this next meeting on the 24 of June. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s the hope. MR. PETROSKI-Okay. th MR. HILTON-If we receive updated, new, whatever information by May 15, we would treat it just as we would any other cycle where we would forward that information to the County, and hopefully we would have, assuming they have a meeting, which there’d be no reason why they wouldn’t, the County would give us a recommendation prior to this Board’s next meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. PETROSKI-Super. Thank you. MR. MACRI-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other business that the Board has, old or new? Just for th point of clarification to the Board, we do have site visits on May 17, and next month we thth have regular meetings on the 20, and then Thursday the 29, because of Grievance Day. If there’s no other business, as motion to adjourn is in order. MRS. STEFFAN-I make a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 29, 2008, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: th Duly adopted this 29 day of April, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/29/08) NOES: NONE On motion the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 25