Loading...
03-27-2012 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2012) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 27, 2012 INDEX Site Plan No. 17-2012 Michael Cantanucci 1. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-70 Site Plan No. 7-2012 Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless 6. Tax Map No. 295.6-1-1 Subdivision No. 8-2008 Christine Mozal & Donald Marshall 14. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 289.14-27.1, 27.2 & 28 Site Plan No. 3-2010 Donald Marshall 26. Tax Map No. 289.14-1-28 Special Use Permit No. 15-2012 Robert Tully 18. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-32 Site Plan No. 16-2012 Gary & Jill Wilson 28. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-2 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. QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2012) SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 27, 2012 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN STEPHEN TRAVER DONALD SIPP BRAD MAGOWAN DAVID DEEB, ALTERNATE GEORGE FERONE, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT THOMAS FORD LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, March 27, 2012. Since we're having problems with our audio equipment, I would ask everyone to make sure you silence your cellphones and try to keep any conversation in the audience down to a dim. We do tape the meeting and the tape is running. So it's going to pick up any background noise that's being made. So I would just ask all of your patience on that. I understand we ran out of copies of the agenda. We have a total of six items on the agenda this evening, and the first one is an Expedited Review. EXPEDITED REVIEW: SITE PLAN NO. 17-2012 SEAR TYPE II MICHAEL CANTANUCCI AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 39 BRAYTON LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITION OF A BOAT LIFT WITH CANOPY TO EXISTING BOATHOUSE STRUCTURE. BOATHOUSE IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 11-12, SP 42-11, SB 22-93 WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES LOT SIZE 1.88 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-70 SECTION § 179-5 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, if you want to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 17-2012 for Michael Cantanucci. This is a boathouse in a WR zone and as such requires Planning Board review and approval. Location is 39 Brayton Lane. Existing zoning is Waterfront Residential. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes the addition of a boat lift with canopy to existing boathouse structure. Additional comments: The top of the canopy associated with the lift to be 16'-0" above the mean high water mark and as such does not exceed the 16 foot height requirement and the boathouse, as designed, appears to show no facilities for sleeping, cooking or sanitary facilities. The Planning Board may wish to direct the applicant to enhance shoreline plantings as per §179-8-040 and ZBA approval resolution attached, although not necessarily associated with this parcel. It's associated with the parcel to the north for the 20 foot navigation easement that's required. This is an Expedited Review, as such, and with that I'd turn it over to the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design representing Michael Cantanucci on this application for a dock modification in effect. It's a boatlift with a canopy and as such Queensbury's requirements are for Site Plan Review. It's a fairly simple addition to an existing dock structure. In fact, I think it was last May I was here for two others on that same property, a canopy over a boatlift, and as Keith referenced, because the boatlift structure, or the canopy structure, becomes part of the dock, it is then the point of measurement for the dock. So as you see on the Site Plan, there's a boundary line between the two properties, both owned by the Cantanucci's, that was recently adjusted or approved by the ZBA for that boundary line adjustment which enables us to meet both navigational setbacks for the adjoining or the adjacent docks. So basically that's the process we've been through last week with the ZBA, tonight with your Board. Again, Expedited Review. We've requested in the 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2012) application for a waiver to erosion, sediment control, stormwater, grading and landscaping and lighting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. TRAVER-So with this lift there would then be three in total on the property? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. TRAVER-With the two that previously were approved? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. Add another dock on the same property. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or concerns? MR. SIPP-Are you going to conform with 179-8 on the buffer between the water and the 15 feet in from the edge of the water line? MR. MAC ELROY-1 think what the Ordinance says, where no vegetative buffer exists one is suggested in a certain configuration. I would say on this property we don't propose any changes. It's probably one of the most landscaped properties in the southern basin. What there isn't, specifically, is that frontage of, but there is significant vegetation, significant buffering both visual and in terms of uptake. So it's not proposed that we would be changing that. It's a highly maintained property and we don't suggest that there's any changes to that. MR. SIPP-Well, it's in the rules and regulations here. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. This application is for a boatlift with a canopy. It doesn't involve any site work. So therefore I don't think that it's applicable in this particular case. We are applying for something. MR. SIPP-1 see, and therefore you need this buffer. You need to follow what the rules say. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other thoughts, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-Well, they're asking for a waiver for landscaping, and so no landscaping plan was submitted. So we really don't know, aside from the photographs that Staff has taken, really what exists there in terms of a buffer, that and the comments by the applicant. MR. SIPP-1 think what you need is ground cover more than anything. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, there is a significant area of turf. MR. SIPP-Well, turf is not sufficient. The roots are not deep enough. MR. MAC ELROY-1 think, not in this particular file, but you'll find in the project files a pretty extensive explanation of the stormwater system for that property. That was required back in the, I don't know if it was the late 90's or early 2000's when that property was completed that documentation of the stormwater system, and again, I'd say this property has a stormwater system that's more extensive than any. If you were able to visit the property, you would see that it's, well, there is that open view to the lake. There's significant vegetation, significant buffering, all throughout the property, both existing vegetation and that that had been added through planting. MR. TRAVER-If I could ask a question perhaps to clarify. Just looking at the photograph that we see up on the screen there, it appears in the distance beyond that tree, the leafless tree that's there, there is a lawn that slopes toward the lake, right? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. Correct. MR. TRAVER-And then it appears that there are some two sort of stone posts sticking up and presumably a walkway or something down to the. MR. MAC ELROY-There's a little opening, step down. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the lawn area is probably, again, I'm making some assumptions here looking at the picture, but it appears that the lawn area is beyond that, right? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2012) MR. MAC ELROY-There's lawn area beyond it and above it. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So, and then there is a, like a seawall or something there that goes along the shoreline. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Is there anything between the seawall and the open lawn that comes down to the lake? MR. MAC ELROY-On the inside of the seawall? MR. TRAVER-Correct. MR. MAC ELROY-There's a walkway. MR. TRAVER-There's a walkway. Okay. A stone walkway. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. TRAVER-And does that have a stormwater management system in it? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. It's within that, it's beneath that. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. SIPP-1 think that if we don't start requiring these things, we're never going to get that lake in balance. I don't care how much grass you have, grass is not a good uptake for water. The roots are shallow. MR. MAC ELROY-1 don't want to get off the point, but in this, I mean, we've been through this before on other occasions, and I realize that grass may not be the same as others, but if grass doesn't uptake, this has always made me scratch my head after we've had these conversations, and I've talked to others about this. If grass doesn't uptake, why do you bother, why do you put fertilizer on it? Because it takes up nutrients. That's the purpose. MR. SIPP-Yes, but you know the new rules about use of fertilizer within 50 feet of the. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, exactly. They'll be in compliance with lawn care as per Queensbury's local law. That's a good thing, Zero Peat. MR. SIPP-But grass roots are only this deep. MR. MAC ELROY-Understood. MR. SIPP-And that's not enough to suck up enough water on the slope that you have there. MR. MAC ELROY-And where's the water coming from? MR. SIPP-Out of the heavens, I hope. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct, and that that runs off the roofs and off the other hard scape surfaces are captured within the stormwater system. MR. SIPP-Yes, but all of it is not captured. MR. MAC ELROY-No. That water the falls on that grass, on that natural grass. MR. SIPP-Yes, but that's not going to take up as much water as. MR. MAC ELROY-1 don't know that we, any of us here, can specifically say that. We've been told that. We've been told that, that grass is bad. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it's not that it's bad, it's just that it. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2012) MR. MAC ELROY-I've heard people say that, grass is bad along the shoreline, and I have a little trouble understanding that. It's different than what some people want to see. Now I don't want to get in. MR. SIPP-It's not what I want to see. It's what the regulations are. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, the regulations talk about where a vegetative buffer does not exist, one shall be created such as every 100 feet there should be a large tree and a small shrub, every 50 feet, excuse me. No. I read the Ordinance before I came here tonight. So I'm familiar with what it says, but I don't want to get bogged down. It's an application for a canopy over a boatlift. MR. TRAVER-Yes. It's always a difficult proposition because certainly we are concerned, you know, about the quality of the lake water, and I think that the most pressing need is for those instances where you have runoff going directly into the lake, and there certainly are some properties where a lawn has gone uninterrupted right down into the water. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. TRAVER-So the fact that there does seem to be, not a vegetative buffer but there's a physical buffer between the edge of the lawn and the lake means something. It's not exactly ideal, but it does mean something. The other factor that we have to consider in these cases is if we were to re-landscape that area, what impact might that have on the property and on the lake? It's not without environmental cost to go and dig up that lawn and replace it with something else. So to me the most critical areas are those that lack any kind of barrier between the stormwater runoff and the lake, although this is not perfect, I think it satisfies my need for this application, speaking personally. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. On the back table is a handout for the process of the public hearing. The purpose of the public hearing is for members of the public to provide comment to the Board. Anyone who wishes to speak at a public hearing, we ask that you state your name for the record. As I mentioned earlier, we do tape the meeting and the tape is used to transcribe the minutes. With that, I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-I'm not seeing any hands. Do we have any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-There's no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Then if there are no takers, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type II SEQRA. Unless there's a particular issue that's been identified by a member of the Board, no further SEQRA review is required. With that, I'll entertain a motion, if anyone would like to move one. MR. TRAVER-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 17-2012 MICHAEL CANTANUCCI A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes addition of a boat lift with canopy to existing boathouse structure. Boathouse in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval; A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/27/2012; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 17-2012 MICHAEL CANTANUCCI, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9- 080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2012) 2) Type 11, no further SEQRA review is necessary; 3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 4) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; 5) Waivers are granted for erosion and sediment control, stormwater plan, grading, landscaping and lighting. Duly adopted this 27th day of March, 2012, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any discussion? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Sipp? MR. SIPP-If we're going to cancel this, we might as well rip it out of the book. I mean, if you're not going to have control over what goes into that lake, then what are we doing here? I cannot see that just ignoring it is going to help the process at all. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess personally I agreed with Mr. Traver's comments and the applicant's comments that they have a stormwater management system in place on this property. So, I think that is why I am willing to grant them the waiver. MR. SIPP-If you did nothing but put in some ground cover we'd be further ahead, much further ahead, at a very low cost. You cannot tell me is the perfect erosion control device. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I would challenge, can I speak? MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. MR. MAC ELROY-1 guess I would challenge you that if it's not a perfect erosion control device, there might be erosion in that yard area, in that lawn area. You won't see any. Like it or not, that's a very well maintained property. MR. SIPP-Well, I don't care about the maintenance. You could have 500 feet of grass and I'd still require near the shoreline that you put in some ground cover, small shrubs. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct, and I understand that for an application of some other type of modification or addition to the property. MR. MAGOWAN-If you were disturbing it or. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. This is an addition of a boat, a cover, a canopy top over a boatlift. MR. SIPP-Yes, but when you come for that that's when we would like to require everybody do it. MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't disagree with you on that. Any other comments? Hearing none, call the vote, please. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Traver? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Deeb? MR. DEEB-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Ferone? MR. FERONE-Yes. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2012) MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Magowan? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Sipp? MR. SIPP-Present. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Hunsinger? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Sipp MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 7-2012 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS AGENT(S) MICHAEL E. CUSACK, ESQ. OWNER(S) TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONING RR-SA-RURAL RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 1127 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW 120' MONOPOLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER, TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS IN A RR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE UV 4-12; TB. RES. 85-11 WARREN CO. REFERRAL 1/1112012 LOT SIZE 4.82 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.6-1-1 SECTION §179-9, 179-5-130 MICHAEL CUSACK & RICK ANDRUS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, if you'd like to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I'm going to read in the memorandum I've sent to the Board. This is to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, from myself, Keith Oborne, Land Use Planner for the Town of Queensbury, Cellco Partnership doing business as Verizon Wireless is the reason for the memorandum. "Dear Planning Board Members: On March 19, 2012 the applicant's engineers, Town of Queensbury Water Department staff and Town Planning staff visited the site in order to gather information concerning the potential citing of an additional water storage structure on the site. Concerns were raised relative to the proposed location of the cell tower and as such the Water Department is now in the process of obtaining an engineering opinion on the subject. It is Planning Staff's position that this application be tabled pending resolution of any and all outstanding issues that concern the Queensbury Water Department and Planning Staff." And that's written by me, and what I have, as far as Staff Notes, haven't much changed from before but they will change in the future because we're going to have a different plan before you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Depicting an additional, not a replacement, an additional water storage structure on the parcel, and as Planning Staff I advise that this application gets tabled tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-With that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. CUSACK-Hi, I'm Mike Cusack, regional local counsel for Verizon Wireless. With me is Rick Andrus, the Radio Frequency Engineer with the Verizon Wireless network engineering group. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2012) This question comes up as the result of the prior reviews. There were some concerns expressed that the property be evaluated from the perspective of its ability to support not just new water tank structures but the structure that's there, and this was an objection raised by one of the neighbors, Ron Ball, at the prior hearing. MR. TRAVER-Excuse me, could I ask you to speak a little bit unusually loud tonight because our audio system doesn't seem to be functioning and we want the audience to be able to hear. MR. CUSACK-Certainly. So when we were last before the Zoning Board, we agreed to look at, with the Planning Board, the possibility of moving the access driveway to a more central location of the property, away from Mr. Ball's property. The tower itself is a sufficient distance from Ball's property. It's 160 feet away from the property line, but the idea was to swing the access road towards a more central area of the property to provide less disturbance over on the boundary line, and also to look at the landscaping plan a little bit further to see if there's anything that we could do to reasonably screen the conditions on the site, given the tree fall that's occurred on Mr. Ball's property. So that's the perspective that we're coming at this from, and we concur. I mean, if this Board has no objection, we concur to adjourning this and tabling it for a month to allow the Water Department to more fully look at these issues and the issue of possibly putting another tank on the property. We looked at this in excruciating detail with the Town Attorney and the Water Department before we even did the lease and put it in front of the Town Board, but since the concerns have been expressed with, you know, moving things around a little bit on the site and where that tank's going to be, it seems fair to allow them an opportunity to have their engineering firm go out and look at the conditions on the property and see if anything can be done here that's feasible. The Town has, my understanding is the Town has no plans to construct a new water tank on this property, but they are concerned with planning. They want to make sure that the space, that we don't put our facilities in space that they're going to need in the future if they build this second tank to accommodate the future needs of the Town of Queensbury. So we support that effort because we would have to move our facilities later if it was ever found to be necessary for water district purposes, and we do not want to have to move the road or the underground utilities or anything that might be in the way. So our view is let's let the engineers get together and try to make sure that, this is like they're double checking everything. Let's make sure that everything is going to work and function properly and then turn to the question of how we deal with the landscaping and the possible road revisions, which I don't think the road revisions are very feasible at this point in time, moving the driveway, because I think they want to have that space in the center available for their new tank, if it's ever needed. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, the obvious question is, you know, how much time is going to be needed in order to complete that engineering, revise your plans and re-submit them? MR. CUSACK-1 would propose 30 days myself, you know, put us on next month, on your regular schedule, but if you talk to your Water Department through Keith and they say 60's more realistic, that's okay with us as well, but I'd like to keep the project moving along on the schedule, just to make sure that as questions come up we can come in and touch base with you. I mean, we're down to legitimate Site Plan Review issues at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. CUSACK-We are here for a Site Plan Review. This is a scheduled hearing. We wouldn't have even shown up tonight. We would have taken Keith's memo and stayed home, but since this is a scheduled hearing, we thought it was appropriate to come here in case there's questions or you want to give us direction as a Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I mean, one of the issues is, you know, normally the deadline is the 15th of the month to get on the agenda for the following month. So we've already missed the deadline for March to get on the April agenda. A question I had asked, Keith is, you know, how much time is reasonable to get the engineering done and then, you know, there may be revisions to the Site Plan as a result of the engineering. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I do not see this application moving or being placed on the April agenda. MR. HUNSINGER-That was kind of my thought, too. MR. OBORNE-The Water Department has put out an RFP, I believe, not an RFP, put out feelers for, with C.T. Male for additional engineering comments on the placement of the water structure, the replacement or the additional water structure. I have not seen those plans. I don't know how that's going to change the Site Plan at all. So I think something on the order of May would be more logical. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CUSACK-We can agree to that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-So that would be the 15t" or the 17 th? MR. HUNSINGER-Right, the 15t" or the 17tH MR. DEEB-Considering moving the driveway to the north? MR. CUSACK-Yes. MR. DEEB-Okay, because I was trying to picture where you'd bring it. You're saying that perhaps that might not work because of the new siting of the second tank. MR. CUSACK-1 think they want to reserve sufficient space for municipal purposes to have not necessarily a narrow water tank, but perhaps one of the wider, shorter type, and so when they put that next to the tank that's already there, as visible on the plan, I don't know if we have the plan up here, but we've left that space open because we didn't, when we did this lease originally with the Water Department they did look at it from an engineering standpoint. They didn't know what they wanted, and they wanted to leave the middle open. So I've been very clear in my comments to the ZBA that I wanted to make sure that the Water Department had approved any re-location of the driveway because we don't want to move it twice. We want to do this once. MR. TRAVER-So it's your understanding that what they're looking at is a, like a reserve or potential site for a second water tank, but not plans to construct one in the near future, necessarily. MR. CUSACK-That's correct. That's my understanding from Mr. Ostrander who I spoke with this afternoon, to see if there'd been any updates or changes. There's no commitment on the Town's part, but it is prudent planning on their part to make sure that they reserve the space if it's needed for municipal purposes. MR. TRAVER-In the event that the construction of that second tank were to commence, would that have an impact on your site? MR. CUSACK-We don't believe, from an engineering standpoint, we think you could leave the site right where it is, and by using proper construction practices and anchoring the foundation as much as we can down 40 feet or so that this would be fine with the retaining wall, but the Water Department doesn't want to take our word for that. They want to hire C.T. Male to go out and look at that and see if it's feasible, and if there's a sign off on it we may come back in with the plan just the way it is now or we may tweak it a little bit, and I think Keith is right, you know, that they were probably going to have some revisions of some sort to this, if nothing else to show where this, you know, might be. MR. TRAVER-Right. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-And there were outstanding engineering comments from previous. MR. CUSACK-No, the Town designated engineer is satisfied with the project as far as I'm aware of. We're talking a second engineering firm that C.T. Male is widely known and respected for their water tank work. They have a lot of water tank expertise, so different engineering firm looking at it. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and that's specific to the Water Department. MR. HUNSINGER-Aren't they the backup engineering firm, too, though, if there's something that's beyond the capacity of Chazen? MR. OBORNE-1 don't believe so. MR. HUNSINGER-We didn't do that when we? MR. OBORNE-Chazen's pretty well rounded. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2012) MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any preference as to the 15th or the 17 th? MR. OBORNE-1 have no preference. The 15th is fine. MR. TRAVER-The 15th. Okay. I'm ready. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, before we table this, I understand there's at least one member of the audience that wishes to address the Board. The public hearing was held open to this evening. Can I get a show of hands for how many people wanted to address the Board this evening. Quite a few. I will open the public hearing and unless there's an objection from the Board we will take public comment. I was just asked if I could clarify the question. People that raised your hand, you wish to comment on this application, not any other? Okay. All right. Normally when we have a large number of people who wish to address the Board, we ask that you keep your comments to three minutes. We do have a timer that will be utilized, and when you hear the bell go off, that means that your three minutes is up and I would, as I mentioned earlier, ask anyone who wishes to comment to address your comments to the Board and speak your name for the record. Mr. Ball, would you like to be first? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN RON BALL MR. BALL-Yes, sir. My name is Ronald Ball, property owner south of the water tower, and I know three minutes isn't going to be enough, but if you'll allow me a few more extra minutes I believe some of these people probably wouldn't come forward. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I would ask that you keep it to three minutes and if you have written comment, we can certainly accept written comment. We will take additional comments at the next meeting. MR. BALL-I think there was something that was submitted to Keith Oborne's office. MR. HUNSINGER-He'll read that into the record. MR. OBORNE-I'll read that into the record, right. MR. BALL-He'll read it in. Okay. First off, they mentioned the Verizon representatives mentioned that they thought there wasn't going to be a new water tower built, okay. This is an important issue because there's some major problems up there, and you can see the erosion. If I may, (lost word) do you want to bring it up there so the Board can see this erosion that's up there. All the neighbors are aware of it. This is terrible erosion. This wouldn't be accepted any other place, okay. Then a failure of other water towers in the immediate area, like the one in Wilmington, Massachusetts. Four hundred thousand gallon water tank collapsed about a month ago, and another one in New Hampshire was found to have holes in the bottom of the water tower, and the one in New Hampshire was barely sitting on a hill, but they evacuated the whole town and people rushed to get their belongings and luckily they saved it, but the water was gushing up from the bottom of the water tower. That tower was built in 1980 and it held a million gallons of water, and it was only about a third the hill high as the one that's sitting on West Mountain Road, and I believe there's good reason to believe that our water tower's outlived its life, and I've known all along that they've been looking for a new site and the new site has been marked with blue paint right near the water tower, which was just done recently. I believe it was employees from the Water Department that went up and marked it with blue paint where they thought would be a good spot for the water tower, and from what I understand, they're moving on this as soon as possible because of the dangers that's persisting up there. Now, if it's delayed, and like what they say they may never do it, somebody's going to be held responsible because I brought this to light. There's a huge problem up there with the erosion and now they want to build a cell tower behind this erosion that can soften up the soil, just what happened in New Hampshire with that water tower, and this could go over the bank, and if it does, these people in this area, this is a direct line from the cell tower for a half mile, and what's after the half mile is Rush Pond. So if the water tower goes over, it's in direct line with some good friends of mine that own houses in there, and it could wash their houses out, which they don't have flood insurance. So what I'm bringing to you is I think, because we do need a water tower, and nobody can deny that, sooner the better maybe, but it may take, the way wheels move around here, may take years. It may take five years. I don't know, and they certainly can't predict it, but one thing you can predict, if you allow them to put their cell tower up, and we still have to use the old tower until a new tower's going to be built, it's going to be very tough to do the construction on it, because you're not going to have the room to get the equipment around to dig the holes that's needed, remove the trees that's needed without taking a chance of one going on a cell tower or one landing on our water tower, because it's going to be sandwiched in between the 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2012) two, regardless of what they do. They've got to get the one that's there now off the peninsula, a manmade peninsula, and if they don't, I swear we're going to have a problem up there, and I know David Deeb was up there today. I pointed it out to him, and I'm not making up any of this. I showed him the steep slopes, and when he said he wants to put the road to the north, that property that's up there, from the east side to the west side, on the north side is all straight ledge, and that's already, that's caused a peninsula. In order for that ground to be safe for a new tower and any, you don't have to be a genius to know this, all you've got to do is move the new water tower back further west, get it off the peninsula, get it in a safe area. If the, which I think C.T. Male is qualified to do that and I really think that's what they're going to say, and these want to get their cell tower in there before that happens, so we have to work around their cell tower. So I'm asking you tonight to ask for a delay or put their permit on the table, or later or whatever, not to vote on it, not to say you want it or not denying it, but just to put it until our new water tower's built. That's all, because if you don't wait, our taxes are going to go higher because the cost of construction is going to cost more to construct it because it's sandwiched between the old water tower and the cell tower and it's very hard to work around the area. So I think that should be just taken off the table until the new water tower's in site because the whole geography's going to change. It's going to look a lot different. They don't know if they want another 500,000 gallon one or if they want two tanks, or if they want a million gallon one, which I think is ridiculous but it's too high of a hill to put it on there, but I'm hoping C.T. Male will tell them that, and that's all, I ask you to make an exception on this what I just said and we'll go from there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. BALL-I think I spoke for everybody but I'm not sure, and thank you for the extra few minutes, and I spoke a little bit louder because I don't think the mic works. MR. OBORNE-I think we're good now. MR. TRAVER-Yes, actually they seem to be working now. MR. HUNSINGER-Did anyone else want to address the Board? Yes, sir. STU SIMKOWITZ MR. SIMKOWITZ-1 have a question. Stu Simkowitz and I live in Lehland Estates, right across the street from the proposed cell tower. That's my son Adam sitting back there. I just wanted to let you know. I'll only take a few minutes. I had a question just in layman's terms because I'm not understanding, because I need to know what I need to do afterwards and in what form I need to act. When the Board is saying the engineers need to look at this to see if it's feasible, are we saying that we need to find out, that they're going to put a cell tower here so we need to find out how to do that, or do we need to find out if it's feasible at all that they should be allowed to put a cell tower there? Do you see what I'm saying? I'm trying to understand. Are these engineers, the water engineers, are they coming to find out where can we put this so that we can get this cell tower in there? MR. OBORNE-No. No, what they're doing is they've already staked their claim on where they want to put the additional water tower or water structure, and they need to look at the actual engineering that is involved with that, how is that going to effect this proposal for a cell tower, and that's the first step right now. MR. SIMKOWITZ-Okay. So basically it's not an approved thing. It's a matter of getting it approved. MR. OBORNE-It's a matter of doing due diligence is what it is. MR. SIMKOWITZ-Okay, because I need to know because I plan to help Mr. Ball in organizing and doing whatever I can to stop it, and I know, I understand that legally or whatever this is not a (lost word) but we do have children right across the street from there in Lehland, right down from the tower. If what he's saying is true, and I would like that to be investigated, then that means everybody there is in danger. Also, I am a firm believer that, you know, I'm willing to offer, I could tell the attorneys from Verizon or you people who have children, if I rented a spot from him and rent free people could live right next to that tower with their children, would they do it? We in Lehland are very concerned about RF waves. Now this is radiation that it deals with. There are sites that say the radiation is minimal, and there are sites that say it's not. I just wanted to present to this Board, as the Board of Queensbury, I feel that you are here to not only protect and look after the Town itself, but after the citizens that live in that Town. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2012) MR. SIMKOWITZ-And 2/3 rd's of the houses in there have children. The houses all around there have children in it. So I believe that this should be another issue, and only if it can't be an issue and only if I have hopefully accomplished what they accomplish when attorneys go to court and they something that they know is not going to be admitted, just to get it in, and then it gets stricken from the record but the jury has already heard it, I hope that you'll hear me and what I just said. MR. HUNSINGER-And we can ask the applicant to address that concern. They have provided information in their application. MR. SIMKOWITZ-Okay, but I feel we're asking an applicant, I'm very familiar with Verizon. They're a large corporation. They are after the dollar. They're not here to help my child or any other children in there. So kind of a conflict of interest asking them. We probably should be asking the Cancer Society or whatever society, rather than asking the people who are putting the tower in, but I'm just talking here. I have concerns about that. All the other people in my neighborhood have concerns about that, and I just want to at least present that to you here, that I think that this Board should not only protect the people, in reference to what Mr. Ball was saying, but should absolutely, even in the back of your minds, if it shouldn't have been presented here, protect the people from another disaster, and that's all I wanted to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Who would like to be next? Sir? JOHN SIKORAK MR. SIKORAK-Good evening, Board members. My name is John Sikorak. I live at 1161 West Mountain Road, basically two lots away from where we're talking about. Had I not gone by this morning seeing the people standing there I would have never known there was a cell tower proposed for that area, first of all. My question, I guess, right now, is that on Queensbury's land or is that on the private land that's next door to that? MR. HUNSINGER-It's proposed for the Town land. MR. SIKORAK-So it is proposed for the Town land. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SIKORAK-So that whole area that's been flattened on top is Town land? MR. OBORNE-No. That's Mr. Ball's land. MR. SIKORAK-1 didn't think so. MR. OBORNE-For the most part. MR. SIKORAK-I'm just really surprised that you come back to the residents in that area again, after you just pushed a commercial development right down the street from us that hasn't even opened yet. MR. HUNSINGER-We're talking about the project before us this evening, sir. MR. SIKORAK-Right, and I understand that, but now you've pushed another commercial enterprise right down the street from my house again, even closer. If I'm not mistaken, Verizon is a commercial enterprise, correct? I mean, they're in there to make profit. They're going to put their tower there because they sell cell service, and we're in a residential area. So all of a sudden now I've got to see a cell tower less than probably 1,000 feet from my house every day. I've got to sit out on my porch, I've got to look at a cell tower? You're encroaching on our private area here. I bought where I bought because I looked over on 149. There was lots right up there, too, but there's a cell tower sitting there, too, and that was one of the reasons why I didn't buy. So I found a piece of property I liked, five and a half acre piece of property. My neighbor's next door have got 10. The ones after that have got 20, and then there's the tower right there. I don't believe that that fits into that neighborhood on the footprint, especially on Town land on top of it. It doesn't make any sense again here. I understand that the cell towers have to come off Prospect Mountain and all that, and now they're looking for different places for them and stuff, but not in my neighborhood again. This is the second time you're asking me to put something commercial in my backyard. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry, ma'am, you can be next. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2012) CHERYL TAYLOR MRS. TAYLOR-Thank you. I'm Cheryl Taylor. I live in Lehland Estates, right at 4 Lauren Drive, and I would be directly affected by that cell tower, along with all my neighbors, and my concern is the erosion. I took a walk up with Mr. Ball today, and this does not look to be a recent picture. The erosion to the north of the tower is pretty extreme, and I was informed that the owner of that house right to the north, and the house that's above it, actually, sorry, the house that's above that house, they have already gotten leeway to put another road, they're using their daughter's property as a driveway now, but they have permission to build another road just to the south of that driveway. Now if they come up in there, and all of you need to go out there and take a look at the property, really walk it. They come up in there. That's really threatening that tower. You put another tower, you're going to take out more trees, erode more land, water tower. Then you put a cell tower and another road up in there, you're taking out tons and tons of trees, and the property above that water tower is eroding away consistently, as it is now. What are you going to do when you get another driveway to the north, another road or driveway, the cell tower, and you put in a new water tank? That property is going to be destroyed, and we're talking about Town property, not just what it does to everybody who's in immediate living, living immediately to it, as far as eyesight goes, but you're talking about everybody who's driving down that road all the time. Everybody who lives in Queensbury is going to be affected by that. Now that's Queensbury's land and we all paid for it and I believe in protecting it also, and all that is not going to protect that Town land. You're going to see horrible, horrible ecological problems I think. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. ELSIE BEDROSIAN MS. BEDROSIAN-Hi. Elsie Bedrosian, 16 Lehland Drive, Queensbury. I want to go a little step further than that gentleman did. I went on line and there are a lot of studies that were done with the electromagnetic radiation. They took an area of 1500 feet around a cell tower, before the cell tower was built, examined the people, five years later, examined the people again and there were a greater incidence of cancer during that time. They presented more cancer than the people outside of that 1500 feet radius. Now I got from Mr. Ball the map which I guess you've all seen. The people that are really going to be affected very badly are the ones on Loren, and that is, Number One, the site of where, if there is a water failure, tower failure, the water will go right down to Loren It is right east of West Mountain. I also climbed that mountain, looked at the water tower, saw the erosion, etc., and it has really been devastated by the tropical storm Irene, which really was more like a hurricane, but I want to emphasize that people are going to be exposed to that radiation and I think that is what our concern should really be because it affects young children more. Now I also got this thing, the EMR Policy Institute, and this when a tower antenna site is to be constructed within 1500 feet. This is an internationally recognized precautionary standard of a school, playground, daycare center or other child care facility or homes with small children. Lehland is a nice mix of young couples with young children. In fact, my neighbor got her letter, which I did not, which I guess you have to be within 500 feet before you get a letter about this. MR. HUNSINGER-That's correct, yes. MS. BEDROSIAN-So I'm right next door to her. I did not get a letter, but they're going to have a baby in that family in May. Across the street somebody has two children and they had a baby in December, but that's just right around me. Lehland has young children. It has a nice mix of middle aged people and it has a nice mix of old people like me. So I think that you should also consider the effects of that electromagnetic radiation. There were two studies that were done. I'm going to give you a website, EEMF.health.com, and there's a lot of danger within that quarter mile radius. I think I mentioned before the fifth year there were no problems. After the fifth year, women were affected more than men. There was breast cancer, but there was also prostate, pancreatic, bowel, skin melanoma, lung and blood cancers, and then there was a study done in Israel also where the rate was four times greater than outside of this 1500 radius. The one that I just cited was the one in Germany, and that was three times greater. So please consider that, that electromagnetic radiation is not going to affect me or my husband because we won't be around that long, but the young people will be affected by that, and you should consider that because they are our future, and if anybody would like to go on that website, it's pretty good, the EMR Policy Institute. Thank you for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone else want to address the Board at this time? Okay. We will conclude the public hearing for this evening. MR. OBORNE-1 do have public comment. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. Go ahead, Keith. MR. OBORNE-That's okay. March 24, 2012, to myself RE: Cell tower proposal at West Mountain Road water tower, from John Strough, Councilman, 3rd Ward "Mr. Ball asked me to do a site visit today at the above site. We visited the site today (Saturday, March 24, 2012) whereupon I observed several issues I believe need to be reviewed by an engineer representing the public's interests. They are as follows: 1. 1 was not aware prior to this site visit that the town was considering a replacement water tower. However, there were blue spray paint dash markings that dashed an outline of a rather large circular area - as if to outline an area that would be needed to accommodate a replacement water tower. The western portion of the blue- dashed outline includes a sizable amount of steep terrain - terrain that would likely need to be excavated to accommodate the water tower structure. Given that there is a current proposal to locate a cell tower in the same general area, adjacent and very near to the proposed water tower relocation site, I am concerned about potential erosion and terrain stabilization issues. 2. Also, as I used the steep driveway that is used to access our water tower, I noticed undercutting erosion on the north side of the driveway. This erosion undercutting was threatening the integrity of a couple of trees - it appeared to me that further erosion and/or a good wind will topple those trees. And it also appeared to me that their likely fall would be directly perpendicular to the road's path, blocking access to the water tower (potential cell tower) site. 3. Mr. Ball also showed me the possible route of a separate branch road, branching off our current water tower access road, near the road's first and only switchback. This proposed branch road would be used to service the proposed cell tower. If that is the location of the cell tower branch driveway, has there been an erosion and stormwater assessment of this? This is important to me because this is our (the town's) only access to the town's water tower. 4. Would the current access driveway have to be moved to properly approach the new (relocated) water tower? 5. Have worst case scenarios, like last year's tropical storm Irene, and their potential impacts been considered? Added consideration of this should take place, especially given the site's challenging geography and access and the fact that the cell tower's location is immediately adjacent to a vital public resource. 6. Is the owner of the adjacent, north side, property planning a driveway? If so, that owner would have to excavate the hillside adjacent to the current water tower - that excavation would be sufficient enough to threaten the integrity and stability of the water tower's site. 7. The above lists several issues of concern. They should each be addressed in their own right, but also be reviewed as part of a total comprehensive scheme - because each effects the other. 8. Also demonstrated to me was the potential negative visual impacts. We looked at the site of the cell tower from a variety of perspectives and at no time did it appear that the westward mountainous terrain would mask or mitigate the visual impact of the proposed cell tower- like it does with other cell towers (like the one just south of here or the one in Pilot Knob). We saw blue sky only. Not what many of us originally assumed. Since few, if any, local residents were aware of the original balloon test, the local residents are requesting another balloon test, one that would be better advertised." And that's it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Was there another written comment? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will conclude the public hearing for this evening and the public hearing will be held open to the next meeting. Did you have anything that you wanted to add as a result of the comments that were received? MR. CUSACK-You asked that I address the EMF radio frequency concern that was brought up. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. CUSACK-Verizon Wireless, for land use purposes is considered a public utility under State law and this facility is considered a public utility structure or use. It's not a commercial enterprise, as was represented in the traditional sense or in the land use sense. The service that this facility will provide benefits a significant portion of the Town of Queensbury as a whole, and we've been trying for several years now to find an appropriate location, as this Board knows from our original application from 2008 or 9, and the technology that we operate on is basically two way radio technology, very low power. So there's nothing mysterious about it. It's not microwave. It's not ionizing radiation or anything in that part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The current state of the law is that if the facility is taller than 10 meters in height and operates below the standard power levels, it is under federal law categorically excluded from local regulations and considered to be within safety parameters. Ten meters being approximately 32 feet in height. This is approximately 120 feet in height. So we're well above that standard, but notwithstanding that federal preemption, Verizon Wireless goes an extra step and they do include in the application package a report from a New York State licensed electrical engineer that explains the federal standards and documents how this facility, when it operates, will be at 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2012) one percent of the safety limits. So we're well below the thresholds that are in place under federal law. We encourage people to look at that and make an informed decision about it and not believe a lot of the hype that's out on the Internet about this being mischaracterized as this some form of radiation that's harmful to persons in a wide variety of ways. It's basically two way radio technology. We have these facilities on the rooftops of hospitals. We have them near schools. They're all over the State, as everyone knows. Examples that I can give you are St. Peter's Hospital in Albany. We operate on the rooftop there. Ellis Hospital in Schenectady. Amsterdam Hospital. I can go on and on with examples of healthcare related facilities that have allowed us to place our antennas on their rooftop, and there is a concern. We understand the right of people to raise that concern at a hearing, and we've tried to address it in the materials and hopefully that helps with the overall concern that's been raised. My position really hasn't changed from the comments that I said in the beginning. I think we really need to let the engineers go up there and look at the property. They've heard the concerns the first time they were expressed by Mr. Ball on erosion and everything else. There's a need for the Water Department, and I think it's a legitimate need, for them to at least ask the question for their own future planning needs, if they're allowing the space, and that's not the same thing as saying a water tank is necessary or it's going to be built eminently, but even if it is, it's a proper question. Let them sort it out and we'll come back in May and hopefully fill you in on where that ended up. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. CUSACK-Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Just for the public's benefit, he mentioned the study that's in the application. The application is available for public review in the Planning Department. Any time during Town Hall hours that you want to review that material, you can. Unless there's any other questions or comments from the Board, I will entertain a tabling motion, in accordance with the memo provided by Staff, and we're tabling this to May 15tH MR. TRAVER-May 15tH RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 7-2012 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2012 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Tabled until the May 15, 2012 Planning Board meeting. This tabling is to enable the Water and Planning Departments to obtain engineering studies as needed to resolve and address any and all outstanding issues that concern the Water Department and Planning Staff. Duly adopted this 27th day of March, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-We'll see you in a couple of months, and just for the public's information, we will consider public comment again on the 15th of May. SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2008 MODIFICATION SEAR TYPE UNLISTED CHRISTINE MOZAL/DONALD MARSHALL AGENT(S) THOMAS HUTCHINS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANTS ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 99 FITZGERALD ROAD SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT INVOLVING A TOTAL OF 3 LOTS OF WHICH TWO LOTS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION. MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK AND LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE AV 10-12, SP 3-10, AV 4-10, AV 70-08, AV 77-98, SP 34-91 APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 1.01, 2.42 & 0.14 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.14-27.1, 27.2 &28 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Okay. The first thing that we're going to be tackling tonight is Christine Mozal 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2012) and Donald Marshall's subdivision. Specifically it's Mozal's subdivision. We had been through this earlier. I don't know if it's necessary for me to go through all the notes, Mr. Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I don't think so. We just did it last week. MR. OBORNE-1 think we're pretty familiar with what's going on. I will say that the Zoning Board of Appeals has approved the modification to the Mozal subdivision and the lot line changes associated with it on Marshall's lot, and basically, with that I'm going to turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Did you have anything else that you wanted to add, anything related to the conditions of the Zoning Board or anything? MR. HUTCHINS-No, not specifically, and particularly on this one it's the boundary line adjustment, and we've been through it a number of times. We think it works, and we believe this is the last step, at least for the boundary line adjustment, to iron out the boundary issue. I will make some comments on the decks in the site plan, but that's actually the next application. MR. HUNSINGER-That's the next one. Yes. Okay. I'll open it up for, actually, I should have had you identify yourself for the record. MR. HUTCHINS-I'm sorry. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering. With me is Irene Marshall. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions, comments from the Board? I think by now we've kind of hashed everything out. MR. TRAVER-Yes. There's something familiar about this application. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, more than once, even. This is an Unlisted action, Keith. We took care of SEQRA last week, right? MR. OBORNE-Yes, you took care of SEQRA, and I believe you reaffirmed SEQRA last week at the recommendation stage. I don't, let me make sure that is correct. It wouldn't hurt to re-do it, or reaffirm, but let me make sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it's in the Staff Notes that we did it last week, application protocol 3/20 reaffirm SEQRA. MR. OBORNE-1 wouldn't trust the Staff Notes. MR. HUNSINGER-1 was giving you the benefit of the doubt. MR. OBORNE-Just bear with me, please. If you could, I do request that you reaffirm SEQRA. I don't really have proof right now, and it's as simple as reaffirming previous SEQRA findings. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions, comments from members of the Board? Can we just do that as part of the regular motion, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUB #8-2008 MODIFICATION MOZAL & MARSHALL A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Project Description: Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment involving a total of 3 lots of which two lots are associated with a previously approved subdivision. Modification to a previously approved subdivision requires Planning Board review and approval; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the ZBA on 3/20/2012; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 3/21/2012; A public hearing was scheduled and held on 3/20/2012 & 3/27/2012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2008 MODIFICATION CHRISTINE MOZAL & DONALD MARSHALL, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2012) a) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter A-183], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b) Previous SEAR reaffirmed on 3/20/2012- Note for the record that we have re-visited SEQRA and found that we maintain the previously established Negative SEQRA declaration; c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and d) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans Duly adopted this 27th day of March, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. On to Step Two. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 3-2010 SEAR TYPE II DONALD MARSHALL AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) DONALD MARSHALL ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 101 FITZGERALD ROAD EXT. SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF 130 SQ. FT. OF EXISTING STAIRS AND REPLACEMENT WITH 320 SQ. FT. OF STAIRS, LANDINGS, AND DECKING. FURTHER A 23 SQ. FT. ACCESS LANDING AND STAIRS TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED ON THE WEST SIDE OF STRUCTURE. APPLICANT HAS RECEIVED ZBA APPROVAL FOR A 116 SQ. FT. DECK ALONG SHORELINE (AV 4-2010), TOTAL SQUARE FEET OF NEW STAIRS, LANDING AND DECKING EQUATES TO 456 SQUARE FEET. HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF SHORELINE, REMOVAL OF VEGETATION WITHIN 35 FEET OF A SHORELINE AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. FURTHER RELIEF REQUESTED FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA. CROSS REFERENCE AV 9-12, SUB 8-08M, AV 4-10; BP 06-572 APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.14 +/-ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.14-1-28 (289.14- 1-27.1, 27.2, 28) SECTION § 179-9 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Yes, and if I could, let me get through all this stuff here. I'm not going to re-hash through all the notes again. We saw this last week. What the Zoning Board did, in their approvals, was the following. They put a condition of approval on the setback relief requested, that the decks and landings and stairs not to increase in size, and I'm certain that that is not what the applicant intends, but they were concerned about additional trees coming down. Okay, and the second one was that the Town Board approved septic alterations are to be installed as a condition of approval of this approval. That's what I'm recommending to the Board to do just to be in lock step with the Zoning Board, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, again. Tom Hutchins with Irene Marshall. We're back before you after numerous steps with this application. We've actually cleaned up a number of issues with this property. We've resolved the boundary line issue. We've resolved the septic system issue. We have an approved system from the Board of Health, and we're back, ironically, with the same original application that was here in 2010, 1 believe it was June, to replace the stairway and to add a deck on the, small deck on the lakeside portion of the parcel. To clarify a couple of items that I didn't know when I was at the Zoning Board last week, there will be no tree removal required at all for any portion of this project. All the trees shown are actually locations in the field, and every one of them stays. There is a wooded buffer at the shoreline at this point, which 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2012) does not get touched. The only breach in that is about a four foot wide path going out onto the dock. So we get the new wastewater system. We get the boundary issue resolved, and they get a safe and more effective access down to a difficult location camp, and it's the original application and we hope you support it. I don't have anything else. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions, comments from the Board? MR. DEEB-The deck, when it gets to the top, I'm looking at it here in the plans, and this one here, I was there today and I was looking to see, what does it go to? Does the deck go up and take a right angle near the garage? MR. HUTCHINS-It goes up just to the driveway. The deck, you mean on the side? MR. DEEB-No, not the side, the new addition you're going to put up, this one here. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. That's just a replacement of the existing stairs. There is a landing in the middle of it, because, as I'm sure you noticed today, there's a great number of stairs in a row there, and with today's codes, we put a landing. We break those up with a landing. MR. DEEB-But the access is going to be from the top. MR. HUTCHINS-The access is from the top. MR. DEEB-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board? Well, we have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? We'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-No written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And it's a Type II SEQRA. So if there are no other questions or comments, I'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 3-2010 DONALD MARSHALL A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes removal of 130 sq. ft. of existing stairs and replacement with 320 sq. ft. of stairs, landings, and decking. Further a 23 sq. ft. access landing and stairs to be removed and replaced on the west side of structure. Applicant has received ZBA approval for a 116 sq. ft. deck along shoreline (AV 4-2010), total square feet of new stairs, landing and decking equates to 456 square feet. Hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline, removal of vegetation within 35 feet of a shoreline and expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. The PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 3/20/2012; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 3/21/2012; A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/24/2012 tabled to 3/27/2012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 3-2010 DONALD MARSHALL, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9- 080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) Type II SEAR; 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2012) 3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 4) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; 5) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; 6) This application is approved with two conditions: a) That the stairs and deck not increase in size. b) That the septic alterations be installed as approved by the Town Board. Duly adopted this 27th day of March, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-Sometimes the wheels of government move very slowly, don't they? IRENE MARSHALL MRS. MARSHALL-Very slowly. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. You're welcome. Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-Congratulations. NEW BUSINESS: SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 15-2012 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED ROBERT TULLY OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 167 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONTINUATION OF OPERATION OF A CLASS A MARINA FOR THE BERTHING OF THREE (3) VESSELS. CLASS A MARINA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 2010- 227, SUP 1-04, UV 1417 WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA, APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.88 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-32 SECTION § 179-10-060 ROBERT TULLY, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-This is SUP 15-2012. Robert Tully is the applicant. This is a Class A Marina request, and as such requires review and approval from the Planning Board. 167 Assembly Point Road is the location. Waterfront Residential is the zoning. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. Warren County did receive, March 3, 2012, and issued a No Action. Project Description: Applicant proposes continuation of operation of a Class A Marina for the berthing of three (3) vessels. Class A Marina requires Planning Board review and approval. What I do ask is that, because this is a Special Use Permit, you have to have terms of validity on this. Mr. Tully will explain to you why he probably shouldn't be here, but with that, you'll understand where you may lean on that terms of validity aspect of it, but there are Special Use Permit general criteria that obviously the Board follows and uses in their deliberations, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. TULLY-Hi. My name is Robert Tully, and I'm here to apply for the Special Use Permit to continue operating this as a Class A Marina. Basically we just want to rent some slips at our boathouse. I acquired the property when my aunt passed away, and normally, she had the marina permit it would pass on to me, but for some reason a condition of the permit was it would expire when she passed away. We don't know why. I asked the Town of Queensbury if they could find out. They don't know, and I talked to the Lake George Park Commission. They don't know. So I just applied as a new applicant, but as a matter of fact she had operated it since 2003, was, you know, what I thought, and I was preparing some papers for tonight, and I see that when she applied for it in 2003, in the paperwork here, it says Town of Queensbury 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2012) Planning Board, proposed continuation of existing use since 1984. So as far as I can tell, she's been renting slips up on that boathouse since 1984. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. TULLY-And I just propose to continue doing it. There's been no change to the boathouse except last year it was in poor condition. I had it re-built board for board, decks and crib and exact same boathouse. It was just a rehab, and I need a permit to continue renting the slips. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? Just for your point of information, when the Class A Marina regulations were put in place, and it's by the Lake George Park Commission, which is, I mean, we just defer to them. We're just a conduit, basically, for them. There was a stipulation that if you could prove that it was in continuous use and there was some special date. So that's why you see the reference to 1984 in the original application from 2003. MR. TULLY-1 see. MR. HUNSINGER-Those have since been taken out of the Code, but that's what that reference is about. MR. TULLY-Well, I can assure you that I'm going to be a good steward of the property. I've been on Assembly Point for 53 years. The property's been in my family for 40, and prior to that, we owned another property on Assembly Point. When I'm not up at the house enjoying the lake, my other job is captain of the motor vessel explorer in the Port of Pittsburg, that's owned and operated by River Quest, a nonprofit environmental organization, and our mission is environmental education and research in preserving the waterways, and I am, in fact, the EPA compliance officer on the ship. I prepare all of the quarterly and annual reports. I've had the EPA training. I know what is not supposed to go in the water and what, you know, can be put in the water, and the lake is a little different, but I can tell you I'm pretty darn knowledgeable about this stuff. The lake is our heritage. I certainly wouldn't do anything to hurt it. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thanks. Any questions, comments from the Board? I did have a question in the narrative that I found a little confusing, and I can't remember where it was. It might have been on the site plan. Yes, here it is. It's Exhibit Two, and it talks about what really appears in my mind would be Site Plan Review requirements. The shed was removed, which is no big deal, but a bedroom was added to the house, a bathroom was added, and then the gravel pad and a gravel area was enlarged. Do you know when that was done and whether or not a permit was received by the Planning Board? MR. TULLY-The extension of the gravel pad was, I don't know. MR. HUNSINGER-Would that have required Site Plan Review, Keith, or not necessarily? MR. OBORNE-Not necessarily. It depends on how far away from the shoreline it is. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That answers my question, then. MR. TULLY-In terms of adding a bathroom, I contend that this is all the more evidence that I'm going to be a good steward of that marina, even better than my aunt and uncle, and they were very good stewards of the lake. I noticed in her original marina permit that she was required to provide 24 hour access to the (lost word) tenants. Well, God bless her, up until the time she was 90, she was flitting around over here at the Elks Club playing bingo and going out to Westmount nursing home and, you know, at 90 years old, volunteering to take care of the old people up there, and I'm sure she locked the house when she left, and, you know, it seemed to me that it wasn't really meeting the requirements to have 24 hour access to the property. So what I did was took the laundry room and we added a, it was already plumbed for it. We just put the toilet and the sink in. I put a separate access on the back. I put a motion light so that when people walk around the back of the house the light goes on. So the tenants will have their own key, separate from the house. They will have 24 hour access. I don't even have to be there. There's trash there. There's a washer and dryer. So I just say that's more evidence that I'm going to be a good steward of the property. MR. HUNSINGER-The only other question I had was usually, when someone's applying for a Class A Marina permit, they identify where boats can be pumped out. MR. TULLY-1 submitted that to, did you get my e-mail? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2012) MR. OBORNE-You did. Yes. I got that a week ago. There is a letter in the file that states that the Lake George Boat Company agrees to provide pump out service to customers. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And that was a response to my question on my Staff Notes, and as soon as he received it he shot that off. I didn't get it into your Staff Notes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. MR. TRAVER-So it's an Unlisted action. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-So can we do Short Form? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, he submitted a Short Form. Yes. Well, we should do a public hearing first. We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Written comments? MR. OBORNE-1 do have written comments. March 27, 2012, Mr. Chris Hunsinger, Chairman, Town of Queensbury Planning Board, Tully, 167 Assembly Point Road, Special Use Permit 15- 2012 "Dear Mr. Hunsinger: The above referenced Special Use Permit application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Water Keeper. The Lake George Water Keeper does not oppose the continuation of the Class A marina operations but recommends that the Planning Board take the opportunity to improve water quality protection measures for the property. The Lake George Water Keeper requests that the Planning Board apply the Town's regulations, specifically § 179-10-040 regarding the imposition of conditions for Special Use Permit applications and § 179-10-060 regarding General Criteria for review of infrastructure and environmental impacts, during its deliberations regarding the Special Use Permit application and offers the following comments: The existing onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) for the dwelling and marina should be evaluated and certified as per compliance with existing regulations. A wastewater facility plan should be submitted containing information on the OWTS components and the wastewater flow that the system has been designed for based on the number of bedrooms and marina users. Stormwater management should be required for projects located in the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George. The applicant should provide information on how runoff from impervious surfaces, such as the marina parking lot, is managed and treated to reduce nonpoint source pollution to Lake George. If stormwater management does not exist at the property, the Special Use Permit should be conditioned on the requirement of stormwater management. In closing, the Lake George Water Keeper recommends the Planning Board place the following conditions on the Special Use Permit application: 1) Require a wastewater facility plan for the existing OWTS to determine wastewater design flow and evaluate compliance with existing applicable regulations; and 2) Stormwater management should be required to be implemented and adequately sized for existing impervious surfaces. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. The Lake George Water Keeper looks forward to continuing to work with the Town of Queensbury Planning Board to defend the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper" And that's all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Is the Board comfortable moving forward? I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Type 11 SEQRA. I'm sorry, Unlisted Action. They submitted a Short Form. MR. TRAVER-"Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. TRAVER-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?" 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. DEEB-No. MR. TRAVER-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. DEEB-No. MR. TRAVER-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-"C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?" MR. TRAVER-No. MR. TRAVER-"C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?" MR. DEEB-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-"Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. DEEB-No. MR. TRAVER-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. DEEB-No. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 15-2012, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ROBERT TULLY, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2012) 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 27th day of, March, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. TRAVER-A term. What has been our practice? MR. HUNSINGER-That's what I was going to ask Keith. What's been the practice with Class A Marina's? MR. OBORNE-It's been, and I don't say this as a negative, you've been all over, based on the individual project. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's what I thought. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And we haven't seen them with the frequency that we used to back in 2003 and 4. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. For the most part, I couldn't quantify it to be honest with you, if it's permanent, temporary, renewable. I'm not sure. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, quite frankly, this is really the most complete application that we've seen in a quite a while. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-In terms of the Class A Marina. MR. OBORNE-And the extenuating circumstances, and I don't mean to sound like I'm, you know, on the applicant's side here, but it's been a continuously operated Class A Marina since before 1984. So, you take that into consideration. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I guess since we had the comments from the Water Keeper, we probably should at least have a little discussion about it. I mean, there's almost no ability to put in any kind of shoreline buffer when you have the Town road right there. MR. OBORNE-Yes, that is true. MR. HUNSINGER-And I could just imagine some of the comments that we would hear if some absent members were here about stormwater runoff and the Town road. MR. OBORNE-Yes, but I would say he's not really asking for a shoreline buffer, though. Because I think he knows and understands what we're dealing with there. He's looking for the 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2012) on site wastewater system, which I was a little confused by why that would be accounted for in amount of marina users because it's based strictly on bedrooms. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-And as far as the other one, I mean, that's a valid point. If they've put down hard surfacing, you probably should have some controls, but that's something you have to deliberate on. MR. HUNSINGER-And again, it's all on the other side of the road, though, the property. MR. MAGOWAN-But usually isn't the wastewater counted on bedrooms because that's usually the people that are going to be using it? MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-In this particular application, we have bedrooms and a marina? MR. TULLY-In the personal house, I don't have any plans to rent the house, if that's what you're getting at. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, no, but you have bedrooms in the house. So it's based on the bedrooms of the house, as to the consumption. Now we have people coming across the street to use it there. Now you said it was just a room before, and you added a toilet and a sink. MR. TULLY-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Do you know what kind of septic system you have? MR. TULLY-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-What is it? MR. TULLY-It's a leach field in the back of the house. It's on the side of the house away from the lake. I thought you might find this interesting. Last year the hurricane came through and took down almost all the trees on the high point of Assembly Point, from in back of not only my house but the neighbor to the, I guess it would be to the south of me, right up to Shore Colony, and the fellow that owns the property decided to cut all the timber down, and my neighbors and I were very worried about the runoff from the spring melt and what impact that would have on our property and on the lake. One of the things that I did when I started taking care of the property for my aunt was, and I have to admit, this was out of pure laziness, is I started to let the natural landscaping go back to whatever naturally grows in the Adirondack mountains. It used to be grass and she had a sprinkler system and fertilized and stuff, and now it's like almost a peat material. I've seen stuff like this in Ireland before, but I walked back there today, and it's very spongy and spring like, and as a matter of fact the neighbors on both sides of me have let their backyards go like this, and darn, it absorbed all of that water. I mean, it's spongy, but, I mean, I would have to agree. I was listening to Mr. Sipp's comment earlier about the inadequacy of grass to absorb water. I would suggest that a real good plan, if you could ever implement it, is this peat moss type stuff that develops naturally. You know what, just don't fertilize your grass. Let it go. MR. SIPP-Hallelujah. MR. TULLY-I think if you just let it go, I plan on, if I have to even taking plugs out of the backyard and putting it in the front yard, I'm going to try to start this stuff going. It's going to occur naturally, but I'd like to get it going even faster, because it's like a sponge in absorbing the water, so, for what it's worth. MR. DEEB-Before you added the toilet and the sink. MR. TULLY-Well, there was always effluent from that room because it was the wash room. MR. DEEB-Right. My point is, was it your mother you said? MR. TULLY-My aunt. MR. DEEB-Your aunt. Well, people still had to have use for the facilities, but she made sure they came into the house, right? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2012) MR. TULLY-Right. They always used the facilities. MR. DEEB-They always had that access to it. So you're not really adding any more usage to it. MR. TULLY-No, none whatsoever. MR. DEEB-You're just making it easier for the people. MR. TULLY-Right. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. TULLY-Well, and to be in full compliance with what I expect to be the terms of the marina permit, which I gather she was kind of on the borderline there. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. OBORNE-There's no requirement in 75-A that states that visitors have to be counted in towards the sizing of your leach field. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. DEEB-But we actually didn't add any more anyway. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I mean, think about Christmases and Thanksgivings. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. So what's the feeling of the Board in terms of the terms of validity? Was the prior approval a permanent approval when it was approved for his aunt? MR. OBORNE-I'm not sure, to be honest with you. MR. HUNSINGER-Back in 2003. MR. TULLY-1 can tell you it was a Class A Marina permit. MR. OBORNE-I don't have that file with me. MR. HUNSINGER-2004, yes. MR. TRAVER-Myself, I would be in favor of a long term, but not permanent, maybe 10 years, something like that. MR. TULLY-That's fine. MR. HUNSINGER-It's coming back to me, I think, well, it's here in the Staff Notes, Keith. Special Use Permit 1-2004, Planning Board recognition as pre-existing Class A Marina Special Use Permit 2/17/2004. MR. TRAVER-That must go all the way back to '84. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, if they could demonstrate that they had, that they were a pre-existing use that went back before, I didn't think it was '84, but whatever that magic date was, then it was a permanent. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and I think it's difficult if you put a 10 year timeframe on that, that's difficult to track, to be honest with you. If you're going to do a temporary, do it for one or two years or a renewable, because I don't see how that is easily tracked, ten years, you know, if the next one that comes up you do five years. It's like, that becomes kind of a tracking nightmare, to be honest with you. So I just thought I'd throw my two cents out on that. MR. TULLY-1 hope I wouldn't have to prepare all of these documents again in two years. MR. HUNSINGER-That's the issue. MR. TRAVER-Well, with the involvement of the lake and so on, I guess I'd resist the idea of making it permanent. I mean, I can certainly understand, emotionally, why we'd want to do that, but we just don't know what's coming down the road. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-We'd like to be able to visit it on some regular basis, although I agree, I mean, that onus is on the applicant to mark his calendar 10 years from now. MR. HUNSINGER-If we do it as a renewable, basically, unless there's an issue, it's automatically renewed. Is that correct? MR. OBORNE-Let me check that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-I don't think we've ever issued a renewable. It's usually been temporary with a timeframe on it, or permanent. So bear with me here. MR. HUNSINGER-At least for marinas. We did a renewable with another Special Use. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Maybe if it was renewable, we just reconfirm SEQRA and no Site Plan changes and, boom. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. That's what I'm thinking. MR. TRAVER-Yes. That's a good idea. MR. HUNSINGER-We make it like five years, and if some major issue comes up between now and then then we have the ability to re-visit it. MR. TRAVER-But why is five years easier to track than ten, or two? MR. MAGOWAN-Five or ten. MR. HUNSINGER-But of course if we make it 10 years, we're probably passing that burden on to another Board. I can't imagine any of us planning to be here another 10 years. MR. TRAVER-Presumably. Maybe we should make them all 10. MR. OBORNE-I'm getting there. MR. MAGOWAN-By the way, though, you did do a nice job on re-building that dock. I remember. MR. TULLY-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-You probably have the same customers, I assume, come back year after year? MR. TULLY-In fact one of them is Mr. Rawleigh Suprenaut who lives right here in Queensbury. MR. OBORNE-Okay. I'll run through all three. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Permanent allows a specific use to continue indefinitely until the specific use ceases for any reason for a period of six consecutive months. B. Temporary - allows a specific use to continue to a specific use to continue to a specified date, at which time the Special Use Permit shall automatically terminate and the use shall be permanently discontinued. This type shall not be extendable. Renewable - allows a specific use to continue until a specific date unless renewed or extended by the Planning Board for an additional period of time. If not extended, the use shall be permanently discontinued. It is the responsibility of the applicant and not the Town of Queensbury or any Board, officer or employee thereof to initiate the request for the renewal or extension prior to the expiration of the original term of such renewable Special Use Permit. If not extended or renewed prior to the date of expiration, the right to continue such Special Use Permit shall terminate on such expiration date. An application for the extension or renewal of a renewable Special Use Permit shall be made in accordance with the applicable provisions then applying to Special Use Permits as if it was an original request. So I would suggest not doing a temporary. So, I think your choices are permanent or renewable, and renewable to a specific date. MR. DEEB-What kind of costs would be involved for a renewable? What would be involved? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2012) MR. OBORNE-It would be the submittal of an application, once again, and the $100 fee. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. OBORNE-The same application. Yes. MR. DEEB-It's been that way since 1984? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Well, not this way. It has undergone changes. I mean, it's been in the same use, but it's been re-built. There's been modifications. I mean, there have been changes that have taken place from time to time during that period. What about say a five year renewable? MR. HUNSINGER-That sounds okay MR. TRAVER-Make it maybe June 1, something like that, to give him time. MR. TULLY-Yes, I'm fine with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Okay. MR. TULLY-I'll keep the original application. It'll probably be pretty much, I can tell you, in five years I don't expect anything to change. MR. MAGOWAN-Just change the date and photocopy it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Next month, I saw the draft agenda, Laura Feathers. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-For the shoe outlet. MR. OBORNE-But she's a Site Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-She comes every year, gives us the same plan. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Just photocopies what she's presented the year before. MR. OBORNE-We'll be discussing something different for her this year. MR. TRAVER-Good. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, but for the last five or six years in a row, it's been just a photocopy of the same plan. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-That's true. MR. DEEB-You did a fine job. MR. HUNSINGER-No, you did, you did a great job on the application. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUP # 15-2012 ROBERT TULLY A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes continuation of operation of a Class A Marina for the berthing of three (3) vessels. Class A Marina requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/27/2012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 15-2012 ROBERT TULLY, Introduced by Stephen Traver whom moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2012) In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9- 080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; 3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 4) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans. 5) This Special Use Permit will be renewable for five years, ending June 1 of that year, 2017. Duly adopted this 27th day of March, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. TULLY-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. MR. TULLY-1 have to let the Lake George Park Commission know now? MR. OBORNE-You've already got your approval from the Lake George Park Commission, don't you? MR. TULLY-No. MR. TRAVER-There was a note saying that they were waiting for us, I think. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. TULLY-They were waiting for you to approve it. MR. OBORNE-That's your responsibility. Bob, you'll receive a notice in the mail on what the requirements are to close out this portion of it, which is basically these applications that these gentlemen have, four of them, and then I'll just put the resolution right on them. MR. TULLY-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And it's as easy as that. MR. TULLY-Okay. Great. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 16-2012 SEAR TYPE II GARY & JILL WILSON OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 1043 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A THIRD TENANT TO OCCUPY A 2,640 SQ. FT. PORTION OF EXISTING UNUSED FLOOR SPACE. CHANGE IN USE IN CI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 36-03 WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES LOT SIZE 3.73 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-2 SECTION § 179-9 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2012) GARY WILSON, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 16-2012, Gary and Jill Wilson. This is a change in use in a Cl zone and as such requires Planning Board review and approval. Location is 1043 State Route 9. Commercial Intensive is the zoning. This is a Type II SEQRA. Warren County referral is No County Impact on March 2nd. Project Description: Applicant proposes a third tenant to occupy a 2,640 sq. ft. portion of existing unused floor space formally utilized as a Yamaha repair shop and storage. Currently, the building has two tenants, Sportszone and J.P. Replay Sports. The third tenant proposed is Entertainment One Party Rentals, a bounce house rental operation. Change in use in Cl zone requires Planning Board review and approval. The applicant is seeking waivers from the following: Stormwater, grading, landscaping and lighting. I really have no immediate issues that arise, but my comments are as follows: According to the application there are no plans at this point in time to display any products from the proposed tenant. The Planning Board may wish to ascertain if the display is potentially proposed in the future and if so, locations should be discussed. Signage for new tenant will be shared with existing J.P. Replay Sports, and that's for your own edification. So, with that, I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. WILSON-Gary Wilson. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else you wanted to add? MR. WILSON-Just in reference to Keith's comment with the display area. Back in '07 we did a modification, which is on that map you folks have for display area. Now I don't know if John wants to or not, Entertainment One, but I guess that's the area we'd proposed using, when it was approved previously. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. With that, I'll open it up for questions, comments from the Board. I wanted to commend you on your written summary in your application. I think it's one of the best ones we've ever seen. MR. WILSON-Thank you. I tried. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sure that's part of the reason why you're not hearing a lot of questions or comments because it really, you know, hit all the required points and, you know, gave us the information we needed. MR. WILSON-Well, Keith also was very helpful. MR. HUNSINGER-Any comments from the Board, questions? MR. OBORNE-If I could make a comment for the record. MR. HUNSINGER-There is a display area shown on there, absolutely. MR. OBORNE-Now, it's only for display only, if someone should come and look at it. It can't be used because then you're going into an amusement use, which would require a whole other level of review. MR. WILSON-Right. MR. OBORNE-So I just want to make sure we get that on the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled. Does anyone want to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-No takers? Any written comments, Keith? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2012) MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It's a Type II SEQRA, so no SEQRA review is required, and unless there's any other questions or comments, I will entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 16-2012 GARY& JILL WILSON A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a third tenant to occupy a 2,640 sq. ft. portion of existing unused floor space. Change in use in Cl zone requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 3/27/2012; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 16-2012 GARY & JILL WILSON, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9- 080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) Type II, no further SEQRA review is necessary; 3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 4) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; Duly adopted this 27th day of March, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. WILSON-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Is there anything else that we need to bring before the Board this evening? Does anyone have anything? MR. DEEB-What about going out to visit the sites? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I'm sorry. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I think usually the site visits is something that Planning Board members have, in the past, gone on together on Saturday, something along those lines. So I'll let you speak about that, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Let me just speak to that quickly. It's mostly directed to the two new alternates. Typically on the Saturday before the first Board meeting we try to arrange for site visits. We use the Town van and try to ride together to visit the new sites that are on the agenda for that month, and I've been negligent the last couple of months because I've been tied up on those Saturdays, but I did want to bring it to your attention. Typically I'll send an e-mail out Monday or Tuesday, you know, the week before the first meeting, to tell people that we meet 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2012) behind Town Hall back down here, at 9:30, nine o'clock, at nine o'clock, and, you know, usually we're done in a couple of hours, and we go and go out and visit the sites, and, just, you know, sometimes we get out, sometimes we don't, it depends on the project, and I know I found it really useful, when I was first on the Board, and, you know, I think, as a rule, it's useful for the Board to do that as a group, because oftentimes you'll see something that you might have missed had you gone by yourself. So, I wanted to bring that up to tell you that we'll plan to do that for the 14th of April, and again, I'll send an e-mail out in advance of the meetings, and, you know, if people can come, we'll do it. If not, then, you know, it'll be on your own as usual. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and I would add if you can't do it on Saturdays, obviously you can do it on your own. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-And it is, it's very important, I feel, because when you're on site, you understand, it's a totally different picture than it being on a 2-D, two dimensional piece of paper. Also, if there are any issues as far as understanding existing site plans, I'm more than willing to take anybody out onto that site and we can discuss, you know, in generalities, what's going on with the site, because Dave and I will probably be going out next week to VMJR. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And give him a tour of that lovely site. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Now if I could recommend the way to get in there is that dirt access road on the County property. MR. OBORNE-Yes, actually there's two real easy, with the Wal-Mart being there right now, it's actually incredibly easy to get in. You just park in that back area of Wal-Mart, and you can just hike right onto the property. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-And that's right where the road access is planned for and all that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay, and Dave had made a comment before the meeting started about he was trespassing by going on the property. I mean, one of the requirements in the application is that they authorize us to access the property during review. MR. MAGOWAN-Just bring your tag with you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I was going to say, it wouldn't hurt to have your ID with you. I've never been stopped. I've never been stopped by anybody, but the only other comment that I can make about that is we do specifically do try to refrain from engaging the applicant, and we've been cautioned by the Town Attorney a number of times about that, and it's not because it's not a good thing to do, but because it's outside of the public realm, and all information, all discussion should be on the record and in the public record, either here at the meeting or in writing in part of the file. So that's why that's the way it is. Did anyone else have anything else to bring up this evening? If not, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 27, 2012, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Duly adopted this 27th day of March, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, everybody, and we'll see you next month. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. DEEB-Yes. On motion meeting was adjourned. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/27/2012) RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 31