Loading...
10-20-2015 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2015) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 20, 2015 INDEX Subdivision No. 6-2015 Maurice Combs 1. FURTHER TABLING REQUEST Tax Map No. 308.18-1-1 Site Plan No. 70-2014 James Varano 2. EXTENSION OF APPROVAL Tax Map No. 296.13-1-59 Site Plan No. 55-2015 New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC 2. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 279.-1-48 Site Plan No. 56-2015 Michael LIA, The LIA Auto Group 10. Tax Map No. 303.16-1-1.1 PUD Site Plan No. 57-2015 Queensbury Partners 16. TOWN BOARD RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.19-1-23 through 35 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 FIRST REGULAR MEETING 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2015) OCTOBER 20, 2015 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN PAUL SCHONEWOLF, SECRETARY DAVID DEEB THOMAS FORD BRAD MAGOWAN STEPHEN TRAVER GEORGE FERONE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER— MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'd like to welcome everyone to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting on Tuesday, October 20th, 2015. For members of the audience, welcome. There are copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also a handout for public hearing procedures. We do have a couple of public hearings scheduled later in the agenda. The first item of business is approval of minutes from August 18th and August 25th 2015. If anyone would like to make a motion. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 18, 2015 August 25, 2015 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 18 TH AND AUGUST 25 1 H, 2015, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 20th day of October, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Magowan (25th only) MR. HUNSINGER-We have two administrative items. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: FURTHER TABLING SIB 6-2015 MAURICE COMBS — PRELIM. STAGE 636 CORINTH ROAD MR. HUNSINGER-The first one is a motion, proposed motion for further tabling for SB 6-2015 for Maurice Combs. Any additional information, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes. They are working with the Town Board to get a water district extension, and they're still in the middle of that process now. I talked to the representative of that project and we would like to move it to February of 2016. Because besides the water district he's going to amend a portion of that proposal so it'll be a bit of a different proposal than you've seen. MR. HUNSINGER-We haven't set dates yet for February. So what's the date? MRS. MOORE-You can table to a future date in February of 2016. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to make a motion? MR. SCHONEWOLF-So moved. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2015) MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Chairman, technically if you're going to make a motion I need to have someone actually say I want to table it so I have an official tabling motion. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We don't have a tabling date. MR. FORD-How about the second meeting in February. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You want a specific date, we don't have one. MRS. MOORE-That's fine, the second meeting in February is fine. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. The second meeting in February. MR. MAGOWAN-I'll second the amended. RESOLUTION TABLING SUB #6-2015 MAURICE COMBS MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2015 MAURICE COMBS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Per letter dated 9/25/2015 from Tom Hutchins to the Second Queensbury Planning Board meeting of February 2016. Duly adopted this 20th day of October, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF APPROVAL SP 70-2014 JAMES VARANO MR. HUNSINGER-And the next item is a request for extension of approval for SB 70-2014 for James Varano. Is there any discussion? Has everyone on the Board reviewed the information that was submitted? Any concerns from anyone on the Board? Any concerns from Staff? MRS. MOORE-There's no concerns. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a draft motion. Does anyone want to move it? RESOLUTION APPROVING EXTENSION OF SP # 70-2014 JAMES VARANO The Planning Board approved this application on 11-18-2014; the approval good for one year unless a building permit has been applied for; The applicant submitted a letter dated 9-12-2015 has requested a one year extension to 10-20- 2016; MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 70-2014 JAMES VARANO., Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Duly adopted this 20th day of October, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We have one item on the agenda for a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for Cingular Wireless. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 55-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC AGENT(S) CENTERLINE COMMUNICATIONS C/O DAVID FORD OWNER(S) KUBRICKY CONSTRUCTION CORP. ZONING MDR LOCATION 1359 RIDGE ROAD SITE PLAN: 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2015) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY — 130' MONOPOLE WITH 9 ANTENNAS, ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT SHELTER AND PAD ALL WITHIN A FENCED AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-5 & 179-9 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: USE VARIANCE REQUIRED AS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES ARE NOT ALLOWED IN AN MDR ZONE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE UV 57-2015 WARREN CO. REFERRAL OCTOBER 2015 APA, CEA, OTHER APA LOT SIZE 9.38 ACRES (PORTION OF) TAX MAP NO. 279.-1-48 SECTION 179-5, 179-9 THOMAS PUCHNER & PAUL REID, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to install a 130 foot monopole with nine antenna with associated equipment and shelter and the unit should be fenced in. This is an area of approximately 10,000 square feet. The applicant is also applying for a Use Variance for public utilities. That's all the information I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. PUCHNER-Good evening. My Chairman, members of the Board. My name is Thomas Puchner. I'm an attorney with Phillips Lytle law firm in Albany, and I'm here representing New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC, otherwise known to you and I as AT&T. We're here on the cell tower project that's proposed at 1359 Ridge Road or State Route 9L. It's the Kubricky gravel mine, and what we're trying to do is fill a gap in AT&T's coverage along Route 149 that is a well- established gap. I have with me Paul Reid with Centerline Communications who is the site acquisition consultant, and he did all the background work to investigate this particular search range which we call the attempt to fill a gap and the leasing of this site. So Paul's here as well. This is a 130 foot tall monopole tower on the Kubricky gravel site. It's just south of the intersection of Jenkinsville Road. Like I said it's an existing gravel pit owned by Kubricky Construction. The tower is going to be built, if approved, on a reclaimed portion of that gravel pit. The rest of the gravel mine is still in the process of being reclaimed, but any of that activity will not impact the tower. It's got a gated access right off of Ridge Road. The project is currently not an allowed use, and with the existing zoning for this parcel, which is MDR, one of our applications is for a Use Variance to make the project allowable on this site. The project also requires site plan review and approval from the Planning Board. That's on the agenda for the Planning Board's meeting next week. Today's purpose is the recommendation of the Planning Board on the Use Variance. That's the general idea of what we're doing. Just a little background on cell towers. The proposed slide will represent AT&T's initial build out in the Albany market way back in the 2000's. Every once in a while there's a wave of fill in builds. This is part of the latest fill in build that was around 2013, 2014. This project essentially started in 2013. It's been a long process because there's a lot of agency jurisdictions involved. Most of these towers are aimed at providing in car or in vehicle coverage along the major roads and that's exactly what we're trying to do here is build a coverage gap as you're driving to the east along Route 149 in that area. Right when you hit that area of this road there's no coverage. A couple of statistics. These are changing all the time. Recent statistics. Thirty-eight percent of homes have no Iandline at this point. More and more people are adopting wireless. MR. FORD-Excuse me. Thirty-eight percent where? Is that Warren County or Queensbury or nationwide? MR. PUCHNER-1 think that's nationwide. That's an industry statistic. MR. TRAVER-It's probably much higher in urban areas and lower in rural areas. MR. PUCHNER-1 would say so, probably. One hundred and two percent penetration, again, this statistic may be a bit old, so reflecting that there's beginning to be more of these devices than there are people. I have two of them with me tonight. Some of you may have more than one wireless connected device. So there's an intense demand. Many, many 911 calls are made with these devices. So specifically to this proposal it's a 130 foot monopole tower. In terms of tower designs, this is a very sleek tower. It doesn't have guy wires. It doesn't have the self-supporting lattice structure. It's really the least visually intrusive type of tower, but it needs to be specifically designed to the loading that's going to be put on it. AT&T is proposing nine antennas at the 126 foot level with associated equipment and 126 foot cabling shelter at the base of the tower that's going to be 20 by 11 and a half feet in a 40 by 60 foot compound. It'll have space for additional carriers. The towers can hold two carriers and will provide service 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2015) specific to their own network needs, and I'm happy to go through and talk about the needs. I have material with me to demonstrate the need, in terms of RF coverage. I also have information about visual impacts and I'm happy to take questions or whatever Laura wishes me to do here. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Who owns that land? MR. PUCHNER-Kubricky Construction. MR. SCHONEWOLF-This isn't owned by the County. MR. PUCHNER-No, this is Kubricky Construction. The Town landfill is across the street. I know that there are other gravel mines in this area. MR. FORD-Could you speak specifically to the need in the Town of Queensbury for this service? MR. PUCHNER-Yes, and that's what I was going to get to. So, this is what we call an RF propagation map. This is done on a desktop basis, but engineers who work for AT&T are able to simulate on a computer what the coverage is in particular areas of the Town. Okay. This is a map of all of AT&T's towers in this area. These little round spots with the color on them are ones that are live as far as the existing coverage today, and the colors on the map depict the quality of the coverage in the area. Green is the best. Yellow is slightly decreased from that. Red is still service there and white is basically no service. You pick up the phone and you're not going to be able to make a call. You drive into that area and your call's dropped, okay. The site that we're proposing is right here. That's the Queensbury east site. The nearest towers driving along 149 are the Queensbury site over here and the Fort Ann site over here. As you can see as you drive along here, all of a sudden you hit an area where there's no RF coverage, at least not to the 95 db level. This is an RF prop map that shows plan coverage of other sites in the area, other than the Queensbury east site. The question that's often raised is, well, you have other sites that are proposed, for example this one over here, Glens Falls, Hudson Falls, are those other towers going to make this one moot, or is it redundant? So what this is intended to demonstrate is that even with other towers that are proposed to be built, I recently did one on Luzerne Mountain, a tv tower, a radio tower that's up there. Those are not going to provide coverage for this gap. They might improve it. You can see that this is a better, there's less white on this map than there was before, but it's still having a gap along this way in, and especially to the north. Next slide, please, and this shows the RF coverage once this site is online. As you can see all of a sudden you have coverage now, east west, north south, and also this will provide in home coverage. So I was talking mostly about vehicle coverage, which is, again, what drives most of the build outs we do. It's also going to provide more in home coverage in homes that are in this area because now there's coverage that'll be adequate to cover the inside of homes, getting through penetrating structures and so forth. Next slide please. Another question that is often raised is what are the alternatives to the tower that you're proposing, and I'll get to that and a more specific analysis that Paul did, but there is tower at 22 Westcott Lane. If AT&T were to co-locate these antennas on that tower, it does provide some coverage but it does not fill this gap to the north or as well on this way, on 149. Next slide. The other tower that is available for collocation is a little bit to the west on 149. We call it a box tower. It's a tall lattice structure. If we were to collocate on that tower, again, there's pretty good coverage, but it doesn't cover anything to the north, big gap in that direction. So that's the RF story from existing towers proposed. Next slide. And then the other question is, well, what about locations that do comply with zoning? We're here to talk about a recommendation on the Use Variance, what about parcels that are available that do meet zoning. The closest location is on Hicks Road for a tower that would be a permitted use. That's out by the airport, and this is a hypothetical. We haven't done up a lease there, but hypothetically if we were to site a tower there, this is the coverage you would have from the closest spot where the tower is an allowed use, and you can see that there's still a gap. So next slide, and one more. So that's the RF story. What we try to do, and it's built in to the Town's Code, it's built into many codes, but it's commonsense what AT&T does is first we look at existing towers or existing tall structures. We collocate our antennas. There's a vastly improved federal process for that that's been put in place the last few years, and we also look at what complies with the zoning and what makes sense, even if it doesn't comply with zoning. So here the first two we looked at, all existing structures, all existing towers, there aren't any. We looked at what complies with zoning, there's nothing that does. So if you're going to go for a Use Variance, what site makes sense? We think that this site makes sense. It's an existing disturbed site. There will not be a single tree cut down to, in fact we're going to install trees out by the road. No trees will be cut down, no vegetation will be cut down to do this. It's virtually 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2015) not visible. As part of the process we do a visual analysis. What we do is we float a balloon from the location where the tower will be, and then ride around the neighborhood and look towards the balloon from locations that are sensitive receptors, major roads, parks, Lake George, other recreational locations, and that's what we did here, and by in large the site was invisible from almost every building. There are two locations on major roads, right at the corner of Ridge Road and 149, to where through screened vegetation you can see it, but as you're driving by you have to really look to see it. This is an example of one of those spots. This is just at the, almost at the edge of Ridge Road, coming north towards 149. You can see, this is a simulation and what we did is we took a picture of the balloon, and then we've superimposed a simulated tower drawn to scale on the site. This speck right here is the tower. This is taken with a 55 focal length lens, which most closely approximates our vision. We have telephoto photos that are in the record that show there really is a tower there. It's hard to see here. It's hard to see in person, but it's there. Next slide, please. This is from the business across the street from that intersection. This is Ridge Road from down 149. You can see the tower is right here. Very hard to see. You really have to look. If you're driving a car, you're going to miss it. Go ahead. MR. FERONE-So I did review all these pictures in your proposal. My question is, you're showing everything as it exists now. MR. PUCHNER-Correct. MR. FERONE-But there might be development in the future that might remove those trees and that will make this tower more visible. So my question was going to be, what can you do to mitigate the visibility as much as possible, in the event future development occurs? I mean, nobody wants to see these things, though they're needed. We all walk around with a smart phone, but double edged sword. MR. PUCHNER-Right. Excellent question. The APA had the same question, and in fact, so just to be clear, this tower also requires an Adirondack Park Agency permit. We started with them because initially the Town said go to APA first. Normally I think that's how development projects work when you have overlapping jurisdiction, except in the case of a Use Variance, because APA says go get your Use Variance first. So chicken before the egg. Here we are. We started by going to APA and they said come back here. So what they do is they require a 200 foot protective buffer zone. Either hopefully we'll lease a spot that has 200 feet around it and build that into the lease, that's one way to do it, or we go to the neighbor. In this case we went to the neighbor, Queensbury Country Club. There's recorded no cutting easement for a 200 foot radius, and that's in the records. It's a recorded, it's there. If the tower doesn't get built, we'll have to deal with it, but the 200 foot area facing Ridge Road, those trees cannot be cut down. Absent, you know, a tornado. Okay. So this is one of the other locations, very small visibility from one location in Jenkinsville Park. If you're walking around there normally you have to look to see it. In one spot we saw that it was visible through, again, you can see, there's vegetation that's at the same height. So if you're coming at it from a different angle, you may not see it. Next slide, and the last place that it was visible, with the help of binoculars, was from identified Dunham's Bay marsh. The APA has a woman there with like bionic eyesight. She's able to see these things. No one else in our party could see it, but with binoculars she picked it out. That's it. That speck, and then, so this was like June 2013. We went back, at the request of the APA, to see the visibility from within Dunham's Bay marsh with a boat. MR. TRAVER-That's right near Mr. Salvador's. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That is it. Right there. MR. PUCHNER-So this is floating in the marsh. It's also visible there, again, with binoculars, and so this is a simulation of what the tower would look like in the speck where the balloon was. Next slide, and then the last place where it's visible is looking directly, you know, at the entrance to the gravel pit from Ridge Road. This is a simulation of what it will look like, with the tower built with fencing, and with the trees that AT&T will put in place. They're going to be 10 foot white pine trees. So, again, you'll drive past and you'll see it, depending on the speed you're going, and I think that's the last slide. MR. TRAVER-1 have a question on this particular photograph. If you could help me. In the center of the photograph you have what I believe what you stated was a simulation of the tower as it would appear after it's constructed? MR. PUCHNER-Yes. Right here. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2015) MR. TRAVER-Okay, and that's 130 feet? It seems shorter than that to me. I mean, when I was in the trees and swung around it, there's a vehicle or something on, a dozer, yes. MR. PUCHNER-It's a rough simulation. I mean, we're trying to depict what it's going to look like. If you go back, Laura, I'm sorry. Okay. Flip to the beginning, next one. Okay. So this is, again, roughly graphing scale provided by our engineer. These towers need to be roughly line of sight from the device that's using the tower to the tower, and so they really need to be at or above the tree line. So this is a depiction of the tree. Roughly the top of those trees is about 111 feet above ground level. The trees themselves may not be 111 feet. You can see the tower is 126. So we're trying to be just above but not too much, and, you know, the other ones will be below. Typically they're 10 foot increments. So 126, 116 will be the next carrier when they lease. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I understand the engineering requirements in terms of height. My question was in that particular photograph that you represented as a simulation of how it would appear after it's constructed, it appeared to me that that representation was shorter than 130 feet. I could be wrong. MR. PUCHNER-I could have our engineer check the scale. It's done by photo shopping. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. PUCHNER-We do the best we can. MR. TRAVER-I'm assuming a computer is more accurate than I am. MR. PUCHNER-I'll have VISION Engineering check it out. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Did you do any analysis on the, besides the viewing, did you do any analysis on the signal strengthen in that area and the frequencies that public safety's going to use? Because that's what this is all about. You can drive down that road, and you're disconnected, if you've got an ambulance, a fire truck. It happens all the time. It happens every day, and it's always because you can't get the signal through that area right there, and so I don't know whether we're close to it or far away from it. I don't mean in distance but I mean in signal strength, to get the signal we need, but if we can get the signal we need, that says a mouthful because calls get dropped all the time, or once in a while you get lucky and you get picked up in Washington County long before we get picked up in our area. MR. PUCHNER-You're talking about emergency communications? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, well that's really what goes down those two roads. MR. PUCHNER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments? MR. DEEB-Your simulations for the sitings of the balloons were actual height simulations? MR. PUCHNER-Yes, they're six foot tall big red balloons. MR. DEEB-Right. They were accurate accountabilities of how tall it's going to be. MR. PUCHNER-Yes. All of the earlier ones are. MR. DEEB-So the picture on the tower, then, the simulation of the tower in the last picture, wouldn't be of much consequence, because whatever it is it's going to be 126 feet. MR. PUCHNER-Correct. MR. DEEB-And everything was based on 126 feet with the site. MR. PUCHNER-Everything is based on 126 feet. That, I believe, that that was probably photo shopped in using a photo, I don't have it here, but there's another photo that's in the package of the site, facing the site with the balloon there. It's probably a photo shop over that in scale. I'll have him check it out, but all the other ones are drawn to scale based on the balloon from the visual point of looking from the photo. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Your competitor put the tower up on Pilot Knob Road? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2015) MR. PUCHNER-Correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They put a balloon test up there and they went through the time, you know, insert branches and everything else, and they sent us out on a boat, fire boat, sent us out on the lake and said let us know when you can see the balloon. We were out there for five hours and haven't seen it yet. That, the siting is very close when you get at that height. It really doesn't make a big difference. MR. PUCHNER-Any other questions I can answer? MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Ford? MR. FORD-In anticipation of approval from APA and from us and from the ZBA and so forth, and once constructed, can you approximate when we might see you again with another proposal? Based upon the coverage that you anticipate here? MR. PUCHNER-Another proposal for a different tower within the Town of Queensbury? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. PUCHNER-I don't know that. That's based on plans that are based on the business climate and the time and RF engineers. I don't have any information on that. My guess is, and I'm purely speculating here. I might be back. MR. FORD-1 understand. That was the position I put you in, to speculate. MR. PUCHNER-Okay. Well, let the record reflect we're talking speculation. I might be back to replace these antennas or add more of a different type on this tower before the tower is built. It's very possible. They're already talking, this is for LTE or 4G, cellphone usage. They're already talking about 5G, trying to work out the technology. So we could be back in two years with AT&T's roll out of the 5G. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-So when you did the balloon tests, you know, you say in the engineer's report here that the APA environmental program specialist was present. Did you notify the Town at all, the Town Staff? MR. PUCHNER-We did. We coordinated with Town Staff. I also coordinated with the attorney Mike Hill. I don't know if he's still the Town Attorney currently for the Town. MR. HUNSINGER-He is. MR. PUCHNER-Everyone was aware we did it. It was publicly noticed both times. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we don't tend to read the public notices when there's a balloon test. MR. PUCHNER-But we did send a heads up to the Town. MR. HUNSINGER-I just couldn't remember. I mean, it was two years ago. I couldn't remember if we had been notified. MR. PUCHNER-I could probably find the emails. MR. HUNSINGER-That's okay. The other question I had is, you showed us some of the propagation maps, and I spent a lot of time looking at these, and, I mean, I could see some very subtle differences between the 126 and the, well, even the 96, but I didn't, there really wasn't any significant difference going from 126, 116 to 96. So can you address that for us? MR. PUCHNER-I can. I can do the best I can, and it's in the RF justification memo, because I've written a summary of the propagation maps written by an engineer at AT&T. I expect that tomorrow at the ZBA and at the public hearing next week I'll have an RF consultant, possibly the one who wrote this, who can explain that in more technical details, but in layman's terms, or at least my layman's terms, it is really a line of sight technology. So that picture with that tower and showing the height of the tree canopy, that's really what the story on that is. If you get much lower, the antennas are going to be largely behind the trees, and that impedes the quality of the service and the coverage. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that's why I would have expected, I mean, typically we see some fairly dramatic differences when you start to lower the antenna in the propagation maps, and I didn't see that in this particular case, which is why I asked the question. MR. PUCHNER-I need to refer to my expert who wrote that for that. We think that 126 is justified and it has to do with the canopy. We're trying to be above the tree canopy for us and for future carriers from below, and it's mostly about the line of sight, and this is done, again, as a desktop basis. So if you were to, you know, hang a transmitter at 126 and then drive around with a phone, it may be worse than what it shows there because of actual structures, but we don't have a database that shows where tree is and where every house is that gets in the way of reception. That's my best answer on that, and that's an engineering question that I will try to get answered. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, I don't know about this particular project, but in the past that's become very important, you know, with being able to say the tradeoff is pretty minimal for the impact, and, you know, that's the balance that question addressed. MR. PUCHNER-Absolutely. I understand. I'll make sure to have an answer for that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Do you have any plans to put other towers, other antennas on these towers, this tower? MR. PUCHNER-At this point there is not another tenant. As you know there are four major carriers, and the Codes all drive the carriers to existing structures. So anyone else that has a need in the area, based on the existing towers that are there, the coverage is going to be different, it's a different network, but it's doubtful that those towers would find coverage in that gap for them, too. They'd be driven on to this tower based on the need and their plans. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think they're in an either or situation, at least with the radio frequencies, because either you've got the tower and you're in business or you're out of the system. MR. HUNSINGER-So is there room on the ground for additional carriers, too? MR. PUCHNER-There's room for two more equipment compounds and two on the tower. MR. MAGOWAN-Not that I'm siding with you or anything, but, I mean, we were talking about height and it was brought up, but, I mean, the trees are still going to grow. So say you go with a shorter one and right now there's coverage, but five years from now you're going to start dropping those areas again and then you're going to come back and say, gee, we've got to add on to the tower, and it's becoming such a need in everybody's life to be, you know, totally connected. I can see, you know, what you're trying to do, because I find more and more houses are going Iineless. There's no sense having a Iandline when everybody's talking on a cellphone, but also, too, you're talking like for radio towers for the emergency t and that, too? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, if they've got an emergency out there, I mean, you live there, forget it. They're not going to be able to reach you from the facilities in Warren County. It happens every day. Now they might get one in Washington County and the guy's awake and paying attention and he hears it and jump in on it. I've had that happen to me when I make calls, but I really don't trust it. MR. PUCHNER-So, and those trees, by the way, that are growing, you can't cut those trees. They're deed restricted. MR. MAGOWAN-They're in the 200 foot no cut zone. MR. TRAVER-On the other hand, they don't grow forever. MR. PUCHNER-They're forever wild as far as the APA is concerned. MR. TRAVER-And I don't believe that you had plans to collocate VHF or UHF emergency service radios on this antenna, did you? MR. PUCHNER-Not as it's set up today, but AT&T and all these towers leave it as dead space. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, if you can just get one in the 911 center, those can get jumped. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2015) MR. PUCHNER-You're talking about technology that I don't know. You know that much better that I do. We're happy to assist any way we can. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I just tell you this is the worst place we've got in Warren County. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, he's on the emergency side of, you know, Queensbury in the fire department. So that's what he's talking about is the radio signals, and I know the last tower we put up over off of West Mountain Road, they did a substantial upgrade on that. Didn't they? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, Pilot Knob, too. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, if that's something you can look into. MR. TRAVER-That would be up to the County. MR. PUCHNER-The person you want to contact is Paul Reid at Centerline Communications. MR. FORD-Following up on Mr. Magowan's observation before, is this specific tower, does it have the potential to be extended? MR. PUCHNER-Generally it can be. This one, again, it has to be designed based on loading. Sometimes they can get on there. I've seen that, but that's an engineering question. The foundation needs to be there. MR. FORD-Is this an engineer, you said? MR. REID-No, no. MR. PUCHNER-This is the site acquisition consultant. MR. TRAVER-And likely to be replaced rather than added to, correct? MR. PUCHNER-It could be. It depends on what you're talking about. Towers are modified all the time. Once they're out there we can come out with guy wires and replace that. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? Would anyone like to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board? RESOLUTION RE: RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA RE: UV# 57-2015 NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to construct a telecommunications facility - 130' monopole with 9 antennas, associated equipment shelter and pad all within a fenced area. Pursuant to Chapter 179-5 & 179-9 of the Zoning Ordinance Telecommunication Towers shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Use Variance required as telecommunications facilities are not allowed in a MDR zone. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR USE VARIANCE NO. 57-2015 new cingular wireless pcs, Ilc: Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved its adoption, seconded by David Deeb; and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal - Duly adopted this 20th day of October 2015 by the following vote: 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2015) AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. PUCHNER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You won't see me next week. Mr. Traver will be Chairman. MR. PUCHNER-Okay. One fine point that I wanted to make. The Planning Department's memo identified it as an Unlisted action. MRS. MOORE-It's not. MR. PUCHNER-It's a Type 11 action because it's APA Class A, which covers small aspects of the project, but I just wanted to make that point. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you very much. Good luck. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 56-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED MICHAEL LIA, THE LIA AUTO GROUP AGENT(S) BBL OWNER(S) WILLIAM LIA, SR. ZONING CI LOCATION 373 DIX AVENUE SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY AN APPROVED AUTO DEALERSHIP SITE TO ADD 27,700 SQUARE FOOT OF NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACE FOR 70 PARKING SPACES FOR STORAGE OF VEHICLE INVENTORY. PROJECT INCLUDES ASSOCIATED DRIVEWAY CONNECTION AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. SITE PLAN MODIFICATION: PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN. CROSS REFERENCE SP 14-04, SIB 2-04, SIB 23-89, SP 11- 15 WARREN CO. REFERRAL OCTOBER 2015 LOT SIZE 13.35 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.16-1-1.1 SECTION 179-9-120 MATT COUGHLIN & ERIC MASTERSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes to modify an approved auto dealership. This is to add 27,700 sq. ft. of new impervious surface. This will be for a total of 70 parking spaces for storage of vehicle inventory. What happened was that during current construction they ran into an area of rock ledge where an existing parking area of 20 spaces were proposed, and the applicant reviewed the site and found an additional area of .9 acres that they used for fill and that they could re-locate the 20 spaces and add 50 new for a total of 70. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. COUGHLIN-Hi. My name is Matt Coughlin and this is Doug Masterson. We're representing the LIA Auto Group on LIA Nissan project that was recently approved. What we are proposing to add an additional 50 spots and relocate 20 spots at the other end of the project. Like Laura said we encountered rock, ledge rock on the northwestern corner of the parking lot, which eliminated 20 spots. So for additional parking of new vehicle delivery and overflow, we'd like to add 50 spots in the back and re-locate the other 20 spots. It's currently grubbed. We stole approximately 1200 yards of sand to fill on site since we lost it where the rock was. We're going to be installing binder only with topcoat in back. We've updated SWPPP, all engineered ready to go. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FERONE-Well, you lost 20 but you're coming back and asking for 72 spots. MR. COUGHLIN-An additional 50. MR. FERONE-An additional 50, yes. Why wasn't that in the original plan when the project was built? MR. COUGHLIN-It wasn't in the original plan because this was originally just a grubbed area and we were just going to turn it back to green space or grass, but since we went back there we cleaned it, grubbed it out and took the approximately 1200 yards of sand for the fill in the front of 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2015) the site. It's going to take more work to add the additional parking and the owners can really use it. MR. FERONE-The last row of parking, so where you lost the 20, it looked like it was a double row of parking that was supposed to be back there. MR. COUGH LIN-Correct. MR. FERONE-Is that going to be paved? Because I noticed yesterday everything is paved but that area just stone right now. MR. COUGHLIN-Yes, we didn't do that yet. We're going to install more porous there. They ran out of time so they're going to finish it up. MR. FERONE-And then the, Mr. Ford's favorite subject, but the road going back and the new parking lot's going to be pervious, imperious? MR. COUGH LIN-Impervious. MR. FORD-Why? Why impervious? MR. COUGH LIN-Because we're not going to be installing porous pavement for that. MR. FORD-Why? MR. COUGHLIN-It is not required. Porous pavement wasn't required back there to meet the drainage on the SWPPP, and to install porous pavement it's more expensive and it doesn't hold up as well as impervious because the soil will be required to be de-compacted versus compacted, which typically when we install surface we like to compact our soils so that they hold properly. Porous pavement does not hold up very well with the freeze thaw, up and down breaks up. So if it's not required to meet the SWPPP, we typically do not like to install it. MR. MASTERSON-There's a lot of maintenance required with porous pavement. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-The 50 spots, I think it's a lot to oversee in terms of design. I could understand the 20 spots being moved. MR. COUGHLIN-It's not that the 50 spots were overseen. It's that throughout construction when we hit the rock, the site was so big, it was in the owner's best interest to utilize the soils, as much soils on site as they could, versus importing soil and paying a high premium for it. So they own the dirt, they wanted to use it. To obtain the maximum amount of soil back there, the trees had to be removed and the site grubbed. So at that time, we could re-locate 20 spots, but the area could accept 72. So it was in the owner's best interest to utilize the area, to maximize the area, so that they could use it as an overflow lot. The spots are not required. It wasn't as if they were overseen. It was just the area was cleared and they wanted to maximize the use of the space. MR. FORD-You've used maximize several times. Does this proposal maximize so we're not going to be hearing from you again about any expanded pervious applications? MR. COUGHLIN-On this particular lot? Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm a little confused. I just listened to your statement and I'm not trying to be a hard nose here, but you utilized, you came across a spot where you had a ledge. Right? MR. COUGHLIN-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay, so that to me sounds like, ooh, is that a pervious or non-pervious area now? You're sitting on ledge. Where is the water going to go? It's going out. Now you're going to take another spot that you used premium soil, cut down the trees and everything else, to save money to put in the front, you know, shift, which I understand what you're trying to do with building. So you've created this area. Now you've got a rock ledge that's not going to shed the water or absorb any water. It's going to run it off, and then you want to make a non- permeable parking lot larger for extra cars. MR. COUGH LIN-Correct. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2015) MR. MAGOWAN-1 just wanted to verify that. I was just a little. MR. COUGHLIN-You're 100% correct. MR. MAGOWAN-So basically, in my opinion, it sounds like you've quadrupled the size of a non- permeable area. MR. COUGHLIN-But the engineering in the revised set of documents has increased the size of the retention basin as well as, the impervious area runoff has been re-engineered on the site plan. MR. MAGOWAN-Because I'm thinking that pond that was kind of back there is probably created because the water hits that rock ledge and flows to the pond area. MR. COUGHLIN-That detention area was in the original design also. It did get a little bit bigger. MR. MASTERSON-We've also added one towards the north end of the lot, too, but I think, are you talking about the one that was originally on site, the rock quarry? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I know there was a pond there. MR. MASTERSON-Yes. That was not originally, that's not the detention area that we're installing. MR. MAGOWAN-No, but that was a natural. MR. MASTERSON-A natural. MR. MAGOWAN-That was a natural pond, and the water hit the rock ledge that was down there that you didn't really know about or how large it was, you know, which is understandable. I mean, you do test pits, you know, it's not like you did the whole lot, and I understand it, but what I'm saying is, you know, what you have encountered, and now you're coming in and trying to maximize, you know, and in the process of saving money and moving the soil forward, you came across this. I'm looking at maybe a little compromise. I mean, 20 to 70, that's a lot of cars to get snow off of in the winter time. MR. COUGHLIN-Right, and it's to be utilized as an overflow lot. So when, you know, when we spoke with the owners, they said we have this area, and it would be nice to, when customers come in and trade in cars or used cars, they can put them, those older vehicles, out of sight before they go to auction, before they put them through reclaim, versus putting them up in the show lot, to keep the nicer cars up front, to keep it looking nice, and to keep the older vehicles out back where they can pull them in and out, out of sight of, you know, passersby. MR. TRAVER-It would be very unusual for many of these 70 sites to be full of cars. MR. COUGHLIN-1 would agree with that. MR. FERONE-So no new vehicles are going to be kept out there, just as you explained. MR. COUGHLIN-The way it was explained to us by the owner is it's going to be used as an overflow for older vehicles. Will I sit here and say they won't bring a couple of new cars back there? I'm not going to say that. They very well may. That's not the intent of the lot. MR. FERONE-So I don't see any lighting on this plan. Are you hearing any issues that this is an unlit area? MR. COUGH LIN-They're e not very concerned about that, no. MR. FORD-The word compromise was used before. Let's consider either less of the hard surface or making the surface that you're expanding to, this is a substantial expansion, make that water absorbable. MR. COUGHLIN-Is this a compromise the Board is formally asking us to bring to the LIA Auto Group at this time? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, at least two of us I guess it sounds like. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2015) MR. DEEB-Do you need the total 70 spaces? Could you get by with fewer spaces? MR. COUGHLIN-The owners would like, again, I'm going to use the word maximize. We'd like to maximize the space where they've cleared the lot. MR. DEEB-Just telling me that you might never reach that maximum utilization. MR. COUGH LIN-Correct. They may never, and they may, and I would, personally I would rather to see the lot back there for them to use it and park cars versus dropping the number of spaces, and then at some time have them parking cars on the gravel or the grass, and then we get into another problem. So if the Board is formally asking us to make this recommendation to the owner. MR. HUNSINGER-How do other members feel? MR. FERONE-1 thought it was a lot. I mean, again, driving back there, that is a very large parking lot back there, and I'm impressed, I guess, if they could fill everything up and still need that overflow in the back. MR. DEEB-I'm okay with them asking for that. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, obviously I had the same question. You're going to replace 20 lots with 70, and then I drove back there. I mean, the back lot is in the woods. I don't think it's going to intrude on the neighborhood at all. It's buffered. MR. TRAVER-My concern, quite honestly, was with the stormwater management. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And they seem to have addressed that, at least on paper. So visually, I mean, I wasn't terribly concerned with the visual impact, because as you point out, there is no visual impact, but on the other hand, I would say if they just put 70 down as what they thought was the highest number they could possibly squeeze in there, and they don't really need 70, would it be better to have less of that developed? Sure. So it wouldn't hurt to ask. Do we really need this many or can we do 50? MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean, one of the things, you know, I thought about when you were just speaking was, you know, you bring in older cars, they're going to be sitting back there until you get rid of them. MR. TRAVER-It's typically only a few days. MR. COUGHLIN-Yes, when a used car comes in it's on that lot for a specific amount of time. It doesn't stay there indefinitely. They like to get them off the lot. Nissan is doing very well, and they, I believe they're looking to push 250, 250 cars a month out of there. That's moving a lot of cars, and that's a lot of cars coming in, a lot of cars coming out. Their store down in Saratoga, they don't have enough room down there to get cars in and out they're moving them so fast. MR. TRAVER-And that would be, using your example, hypothetically, that would be something a little bit over 50 a week. So every one of those 250 cars wouldn't take up all those spaces. Typically cars cycling in and going back to auction. MR. COUGHLIN-It is. It is a constant moving target, correct. MR. TRAVER-So if you say 50 a week, then maybe you could get by with 50 sites back there, in addition to all the other, I guess is where we're going. MR. COUGHLIN-Let me touch on the impervious pavement one more time. In the back there we do know there is another ledge. We found some rock back there. So if we were to incorporate the impervious pavement, and like you said the water hits it and it sheds. So if you do impervious pavement, now it's just going through, going through your sub base, hitting the rock, and now it's shedding towards our detention pond, as it would if it was just pervious pavement. At that point you're saving cost. It's doing the same thing. I don't think you'd be able to get impervious pavement back there. It requires almost 24 inches of sub base and it's going right down the rock as it is. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2015) MR. TRAVER-Well, again, if we're reducing the number of spaces, then that lessens the need for the porous pavement. MR. FORD-Yes. As I proposed it, it was an either or. MR. MAGOWAN-Sounds like a good compromise to me. MR. COUGHLIN-It sounds like 50 spaces is what the Board is recommending. MR. DEEB-It gives you can additional 30. MR. COUGH LIN-Correct. So it would be 52 total additional spaces. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the Board about this project? I don't see any takers. Were there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing and for the time being we'll leave the public hearing open. MRS. MOORE-I'll offer this. Our meeting next week, there's only two items proposed on the agenda. If the applicant is able to communicate with the owner about the 50 spaces or 52 spaces to be specific, the Board could allow the applicant to come back next week. MR. COUGHLIN-As the agent for the owner, if I am able to make a decision right now on the owner's behalf, would the Board be able to move forward with this tonight? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, our attorney just walked in. MR. SCHACHNER-What's the question? MR. HUNSINGER-I don't think it's a legal question. MR. MAGOWAN-I know. MR. COUGHLIN-I work very closely with the LIA Auto Group, I do, as BBL, as their agent. As the Board, if you're making a recommendation that 70 is too many and you want to reduce the number to 50, the owner is not going to come back and try to argue with the Board. They would like to utilize the space. They lost 20. If you're offering an extra 30 on top of the 20, I am sure they are going to be thrilled and want to move forward with this. At this time we're going to need to go back to our engineer. We'll have to have a little bit of re-engineering done, some of the impervious pavement removed, turned back into green area. So I feel comfortable making a decision on behalf of the LIA Auto Group. MR. HUNSINGER-Is the Board comfortable with that? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-I'm comfortable. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. Then I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It's an Unlisted action. The applicant submitted a Short Form. Are there any environmental impacts that have been identified by the Board that we did not previously discuss? MR. TRAVER-I don't believe so. MR. HUNSINGER-There is a motion in your package for a SEQR resolution. If anyone would like to move that. MR. MAGOWAN-Sure. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2015) RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION SP# 56-2015 LIA AUTO GROUP Applicant proposes to modify an approved auto dealership site to add 19,786 square foot of new impervious surface for 50 parking spaces for storage of vehicle inventory. Project includes associated driveway connection and stormwater management. Site Plan modification: Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance Site Plan review and approval is required for modification to an approved site plan. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 56-2015 Michael Lia, The Lia Auto Group; Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver; As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not applicable. Duly adopted this 20th day of October 2015 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-1 have one item. In our motion, the draft motion identifies 70 parking spaces. I think you should update that. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-I'll second the amended motion. MR. HUNSINGER-We would also need to update the square footage of new impervious surface. I suppose we could just remove the square foot. MR. MAGOWAN-So are we all set on that, on the SEQR? MRS. MOORE-I'm sorry. Are you amending also the square footage or are you removing that language from the resolution? MR. DEEB-We'll do some calculations. MR. COUGHLIN-It would be 19,786. MR. DEEB-19,786. All right. So we'll change that to 19,786. Right? And that is proportional to 50 spaces. MR. HUNSINGER-Any further discussion? We've amended the number of spaces and also we amended the square footage of new impervious surface. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-And you would obviously make the same corrections on any resolution to grant or deny. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 56-2015 MICHAEL LIA LIA AUTO GROUP The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes to modify an approved auto dealership site to add 19,786 square foot of new impervious surface for 50 parking spaces for storage of vehicle inventory. Project includes associated driveway connection and stormwater management. Site Plan modification: Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance Site Plan review and approval is required for modification to an approved site plan. 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; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-Significance; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 10-20-2015 and continued the public hearing to 10-20-2015 when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 10-20- 2015; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 56-2015 Michael Lia, The Lia Auto Group, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1) Adherence to all requirements of SP 11-2015 resolution of 2/24/2015. 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution 3) Subject to Engineering sign-off and a revised site plan Duly adopted this 20th day of October 2015 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-1 notice on the resolution that it has October 27th for a public hearing and it's obviously this evening which is October 20tH MR. HUNSINGER-The draft should be corrected to read October 20tH MR. DEEB-Laura, what about the stormwater management? That's going to change. MRS. MOORE-The point brought up is it should have engineering signoff. MR. DEEB-Because of stormwater. MR. HUNSINGER-Subject to engineering signoff, yes, and revised site plan. AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2015) MR. COUGHLIN-Thank you very much. MR. DEEB-Two hundred fifty cars a month, that's aggressive. MR. COUGHLIN-Very. PUD ZONE RECOMMENDATION TO TB AND PUD SP 57-2015 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS AGENT(S) MATHEW FULLER, ESQ. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING 0- OFFICE LOCATION SE CORNER OF BAY AND BLIND ROCK ROADS SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) CONSISTING OF OFFICE, BUSINESS, RETAIL AND MULTI-FAMILY USES. THE PROPOSED MIXED USE DENSITY IS FOR 142 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 56,180 SQ. FT. OF COMMERCIAL SPACE. ACTIVITIES ALSO INCLUDE LAND DISTURBANCE FOR INSTALLATION OF PARKING AREAS, PARKING GARAGE, SIDEWALKS AND DRIVE AREAS ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES FOR THE PROJECT. PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD ON THE PUD PROPOSAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 13-99, FWW 6-11, AV 61-11, SP 62-11 WARREN CO. REFERRAL OCTOBER 2015 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI, STREAM OVERLAY LOT SIZE 34.050 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.19-1-23 THROUGH 35 SECTION 179-12 PUD MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. So on this application the Planning Board is to provide a recommendation to the Town Board on the PUD proposal. The site plan is similar to the previous site plan that was reviewed by this Board. There is a proposed mixed use density of 142 residential units and 56,180 square foot of commercial space. I've identified under Staff comments under the PUD so that these objectives you're supposed to find in favor to provide a favorable report to the Board, the Town Board, rather. Do you want me to go through each of those items? Or highlight? MR. SCHONEWOLF-If that's necessary. I can do the reaffirming part. MRS. MOORE-Okay. So there's Staff comments in reference to the PUD where the Planning Board goes through those items which are in your Staff Notes, and then information with regards to also items A through H also under the PUD. The Planning Board is charged with providing this favorable or unfavorable report. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else you wanted to add? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. FULLER-Good evening. Matt Fuller with Meyer and Fuller out of Lake George for the applicant, Queensbury Partners, here with Matt Brobston from the LA Group. If I could digress for a second. I live in that area for that cell tower, and I didn't submit a letter to the Planning Board but I did at the ZBA. We were very much in support of that application. We are on the north end of Ridge Road and have absolutely no service at our house. So we are, visual impact be damned, we need service up at that end. On this application we're back right where, quite frankly, some of us thought we might end up, which is the Planned Unit Development application. We went through the legal process with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court sent us back here, and we had gone to the Town Board and sought the ability to have a Planned Unit Development in the Office zone and the Town Board agreed to that and that obviously did not equate to a project, but at least would allow us to go forward with the Planned Unit Development process. As Laura pointed out, from a technical standpoint, the project hasn't changed in scope, geography, density, anything like that. In the meantime there have been significant sewer discussions, as the Planning Board is likely aware, that we worked through with the Town, and we will be contributing some improvements downstream of us, in addition to the sewer line that we have already created. So I won't go through the technical specs. I can. I did submit a lengthy letter and you've all gotten copies of the binder of information and went through a detailed analysis under the PUD regulations. We do meet the density, and the Staff Notes picked up on that, and we knew that, believe it or not, back when we were doing this before. When Craig Brown and then Keith were going through and calculating the numbers, the numbers for density were also what was allowed under the PUD. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2015) That was not a mistake. We had those discussions back then and this, you know, was a possibility that it could have gone that way then, and in hindsight probably should have, but the density actually is a few under square feet under for commercial. I think 56,800 is the number. We are at 56,180. 1 will note, too, just so that if any blindside comments come along, there are density bonuses that are in the PUD legislation if you read it, in terms of residential and things like that. We are not proposing that. That is not part of this project, and is not going to be part of this project. I've heard that outside already that it's an end run to come back later and build more apartments and that, I will tell you on the record, is not the case. As I said, the plans and specs have stayed the same. We did, after the last site plan approvals and things like that, we did get stormwater signoff. That went through a lengthy back and forth with Chazen to address their comments. So there is a SWPPP that we partially started on the land disturbance out there. So that is still there and binding. Getting back to the case, there was a Neg Dec that was issued, and that was not challenged in the underlying Article 78, nor was, frankly, the entire site plan. It was the aspect of the site plan within 300 feet of Bay Road that was the challenge. So the remainder of the project was not challenged by the petitioners, and if there's any recollection questions, I'd be happy to answer technical questions. I can go through the criteria. I think we've spelled out in pretty good detail and I think we made it. I think frankly the joint process that we did before was a PUD process and it got the input from the Zoning Board. You don't always get that in a PUD. We did, and the project was shaped accordingly, you know, the height was dropped down, elements were pulled off the front to get back the 75 feet. We didn't come in to push any envelopes. They would be built into a final Planned Unit Development agreement. That's one of the things that has to be set out with the Town Board. Frankly I've already drafted it. I have to plug in final setback numbers because that kind of stuff wasn't in there, but the maximum height is, setback from Bay, setback from Blind Rock. All those numbers that are on our plans I will include in the final draft for presentation to the Town Board for their PUD consideration. Process wise, it is two step. We did apply for both of the projects together. We went through Site Plan once already. Generally, you know, we've all dealt with projects in Hiland Park and things like that. You get PUD approval and then as phases and things go on, you come back for Site Plan approval. We did apply for Site Plan for what we'll call the most of the project. If you remember back before we had just the southern lot furthest down Bay Road was kind of set aside for, you know, if a large office user wanted to build something. It is shown. All the calculations that we used in terms of water, sewer, traffic. So we showed the building including it. Two of the big last issues were, one, phasing, making sure that the commercial components on the corner were built at the same time in order for the residential components, again to address the public comments that it was an end run to try and get apartments and never build the corner. That will be the first phase. So that will go in together. Commercial on the corner and residential to the back, and the other part was the turning lane on Blind Rock Road. If you recall we had submitted a traffic plan and had already gone through the timing with the Town. The Town implemented that. Since then there was an accident out there. I think the Town has gone out to replace that pole and in the intervening months we worked with the Town to have our traffic engineer come back out and stake where the pole should go in terms of relationship to that turning lane. So we will be, actually I don't think they sent us a final draft yet, but we will be, in the meantime, granting the easement to the Town so that the new traffic pole can go in a location that will allow a turning lane to come in after. Again, we said what we were going to do and we're still meeting that. So the turning lane, in discussions with Staff, would be no CO for occupancy until that turning lane is in. Because the reality is it will be done as part of construction. We're not going to just go put in a turning lane and come back in and put in driveways and things like that. So I think it made sense that we can't occupy until that turning lane is sitting there. So that's fine, and that will also be in that PUD agreement that we talked about. Those are the conditions that you included. MR. MAGOWAN-I'd like to say one thing is, you know, after looking into that light, just changing the timing and things like that, that was one good thing that came out of, that intersection is so much easier to cross now and the timing is just right so the cars aren't backing up. Every time I come to that light I think of what you did for us. MR. FULLER-It's better. Is it perfect? No. Most intersections aren't. I hit that corner at Ridge and Quaker every morning, and that has never gotten better. The other thing is in the interim the Highway Department, there was an issue with the sensors. They actually weren't working, those detectors that were on there. So, I mean, we said we would follow up and we continue to follow up on these things, regardless of the roadblocks that we faced. MR. HUNSINGER-While we're talking about the traffic signal, there was a lot of discussion previously about the no right on red signs, and there was a comment by the traffic engineer that he saw no reason for those to be there. So with the right hand turning lane off Blind Rock Road, is that sign now going to be eliminated do you know? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2015) MR. FULLER-That one at Blind Rock, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FULLER-1 don't think that one stays. I think the big topic of discussion was right here, Haviland coming out onto Bay. MR. FORD-Yes, Haviland. MR. FULLER-And I think still with, while the traffic engineering said you would probably not have that, I think in the Highway Department there was still a, that house is still there and that it's not a bad thing to have that there heading north on Bay, and it didn't need to be pushed. I think the upgrade was minor there. It started to create a creep issue, I think, on the Town property. There's not really enough room to put a turning lane. So that sign was left alone. MR. HUNSINGER-Was there anything else that you wanted to present? MR. FULLER-Not at this time. I know you've got public hearing. So if anybody's got questions, I can answer them. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-Well, I think this is probably one of the most reviewed projects that we've had. MR. FULLER-And just to clarify. To make your recommendation, the PUD steps are you have a public hearing even before the recommendation. I mean, sometimes like the cell tower you don't, on a variance and things like that, but the PUD regulation is a public hearing, and then there would be yet another public hearing on the site plan. So you've got them both, understand that the site plan, depending on what you do tonight, would be left open. MR. HUNSINGER-We're having some discussion. There was some confusion about the necessity for a public hearing this evening. MR. FULLER-That's what I was just commenting on. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. FULLER-With a PUD, not to jump, Mark, you're probably going to have the same comment on that, but you have to have a public hearing to make the recommendation to the Town Board. So you have really the idea was to have them both, because people may want to comment on the site plan aspects as well, and we don't have a problem with that. We've been down this road before. MR. SCHACHNER-The unusual feature of our Queensbury zoning law is that even though in the context of the Planned Unit Development application you're merely making a recommendation to the Town Board, because a Planned Unit Development, as you all know, is a legislative action by the Town Board. An unusual feature of our Queensbury zoning law that's not typical elsewhere is that even that recommendation is subject to a public hearing in front of this Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes that was my question. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was asking for questions or comments from the Board first. Okay. Well, we will open the public hearing. The purpose of the public hearing is to obtain comments from interested parties. I would ask anyone who wishes to address the Board to state your name for the record and to speak clearly into the microphone. We do tape the meeting. The tape is used to transcribe the minutes and the tape is also available on the Town's website for anyone who wishes to listen to it. With that, is there anyone who wishes to address the Board this evening? Yes, ma'am. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KATHLEEN SONNABEND 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2015) MS. SONNABEND-Kathleen Sonnabend. There was a comment made that the only thing that was challenged in court was the Use Variance, and there was a reason for that. This project is so complicated. It has such a long history. It cost an enormous amount of money to pursue that. It would have cost a lot more if we had tried to object to everything that we found problematic. So the fact that we didn't take them to court over the site plan review or other issues doesn't mean that we don't have serious problems with it. Although the 600 feet prohibition of residences does not apply to a PUD, the sewer study made it very clear that there are very significant limitations on sewer capacity, as well as limitations on being able to increase that capacity on any reasonable or affordable cost. So it's a real issue and I would have hoped that the Town, the Town Board as well as the Planning Board would take that into consideration, the number of apartments they're going to allow with this project. The fact that they still have this exact same project, 142 units, indicates that they don't think they have to accommodate or cooperate with the limited sewer capacity, and as you've heard me say many times before when this property was originally, had a plan for it, it was for only professional offices. They couldn't use septic systems for that, and when they went for their sewer district extension, they were only asking for 12,000 gallons per day because they were basing it on that, the professional office building proposal. I think it was 12, maybe 7. No apartments at all. So now we've got a project that's going to require more then three times the sewer capacity that they were originally looking for when they did the sewage extension. It's a problem. My understanding was the road remediation needed to occur before they started building, not before they got a Certificate of Occupancy. That's something that I think needs to be clarified. The timing of the light definitely helped, but you have to remember that the project hasn't been built yet. So even though the traffic is flowing better now, it doesn't include all the additional dramatic addition to traffic that will occur because of this project. We don't think a right turn lane is the solution. What we really need is a left turn lane because most of the traffic that is backing up on Blind Rock is because of people trying to turn left and everything else getting stuck behind them. A traffic circle would be a whole lot better and from a visual standpoint would add to the quality of this center of Town. I would imagine if all of you were asked why you wanted to serve on this Board, unless you were using it as a stepping stone to a paid County or Town job, most of you would say that you were willing to use your private time, volunteer for the benefit of your community to make a positive difference. Unfortunately the legacy that you're leaving on Bay Road is not a good one. We have dense residential development, mostly three story wood buildings. They don't age well. Ask any good architect. A commercial building should be steel and three three story apartment buildings, larger buildings should be brick. Twenty years or so down the road, Bay Road's not going to look so good and Queensbury's going to have lost some of its beauty. It looks like the owners of Blind Rock and Bay are going to get what they were seeking over the last 11 years. A dense residential development that was never intended with that much. It's been a long manipulative battle over the years with nasty political campaigns to unseat independent minded Town Board members and Planning Board and Zoning Board Chairman and members. It doesn't seem to matter that the recent sewer study confirmed limited capacity or worse, as I said before, the limited ability to upgrade at an affordable cost. This PUD steels capacity intended for the rest of the Bay Road property owners who don't have the same political connections. The concept of apartments over retail office space isn't working for Malta, so I don't know why we think it's going to work here in Queensbury. I urge you to scale this project back and make them pay for sewer upgrades which maybe they will be doing, and for the road upgrades and not just a right turn lane. That would be a positive legacy. Otherwise nothing will have changed for the better. You will have kicked the can down the road with respect to the limited sewer problems and you will have set a precedent for further intensive development, giving certain developers whatever they want without any real regard to the Code. If they don't like the Code, they just have to have the right political friends and connected real estate attorneys to get the Code or key officials changed. I can't believe this is what most of you expected when you joined this Board. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Obviously we'll leave the public hearing open. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I think what you're technically doing, did you open the public hearing for site plan review also, sort of as a joint public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. So, I mean, you're sort of closing it for the purposes of making a recommendation to the Town Board, but leaving it open for the purpose of, if you continue site plan review at a future date, it will be left open for that. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. There's been a lot of comments about the sewer capacity. Can you comment on that? MR. FULLER-1 will, and I don't want to get into a battle and debate over taking possession, just listen to the words that are used. Okay. A potential downstream issue. Go through the nj report, which I understand, again, is getting more work done on it yet. There is capacity for us. There is. Now is there an opportunity for improvements downstream? Yes, there are, and I think the engineer identified about 100 to 125,000, upwards of 140 maybe somewhere in that ballpark, and the cost per user, because I have the report here, too, you know we went through that all and at the Town Board we have committed to contribute to that. That is not included in that report, and you have to also remember, there's a buy in fee that we have to pay as a part of this, for some of these things that are being complained about. That isn't in there. No side from the increase in capacity of the line that was put in there to accomplish some upstream users. So to answer your question point blank, yes, we are making a proposal to the Town Board to contribute to that. Do we believe that we have to pay for the entire thing? No, we don't. Again, we've put in a line and that line has been there and people other than us have benefitted from that. That's fine, and that's where, you know, honestly the pointed comments back about people connected. Nobody wants to remember those things. Sewer lines were put in. We've already accomplished traffic repairs. We didn't have to do that. You do that because it needs to be done and it's for the good of the project, but, you know, we've done these things up front in good faith. There's no backroom deals. Yes, we petitioned our government. That's our right, to go to the Town Board to address a situation and a lawsuit, and I think, you know, the years of cooperation here, and with the Zoning Board and the joint committee that we went through, I think there's a substantial amount of good will and battles back from negative comments. So, yes, we will be contributing to those sewer improvements. So far as I know, there hasn't been a final determination of exactly what they want to do and talked about internal pump improvements, impellor improvements. There are all sorts of things, but to answer you, yes, we will be part of that solution, and those are things that will get built into that final agreement with the Town Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-1 recall it was more than a few months ago that I raised the issue that was raised by Ms. Sonnabend about traffic circle as opposed to right lane turns and other issues like that. Would you please address that? MR. FULLER-That was a topic that was broached with people above us that make those kind of decisions, and we were politely shown the other way, that the better idea for that intersection now, given some of the constraints on the corner, house over there, Town property over here, closest little bank that's there now, we are far enough back that it could be accomplished. It's not part of us. When that was floated out it was not received the best. So that's when there was the suggestion of the right turn lane, and to a comment, sure, part of the stacking, I go through that intersection all the time, yes, there is a left north stack over there. Hopefully getting the people off that may want to go right that right now that cannot get that way will free some of that up, and that was with the data from the tracking showed is that that will help if you can get the people off that want to head south on Bay with a right turn, that will alleviate some of that stacking. Again, is it a 100% fix? No, nothing is a 100% fix. It could be A, B, C, D, or E in a traffic intersection, but the numbers were vastly approved. So to answer you point blank, yes, we did broach that subject and got the not warranted at this time. Would we be opposed to it? No, I don't think we're opposed to it. Do we have enough room? Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Saratoga got two and they asked for one. MR. FULLER-1 mean, if you think about the setbacks that we have and we're back far enough that that proposal never came up, the intersections where the improvements are, obviously it would decrease our setbacks. That was the discussion at that time. MR. TRAVER-So if at some point hypothetically in the future the traffic patterns changed sufficiently that the traffic circle idea was re-examined, you wouldn't be opposed to that at some point in the future? MR. FULLER-Our setbacks are fine over there. I think we're like the furthest back. So, again, it would make it, I wouldn't want to see somebody, again, say that this is some sort of end run to get from 75 to 70 feet, or 65 or whatever it ends up being because those numbers get built into our PUD agreement. We'll have setbacks from Bay and Blind Rock that are built into that. MR. FORD-So the space is there for a traffic circle. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2015) MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. FORD-And will be there? MR. FULLER-Yes. We're not encroaching, we're not going anywhere further near that corner. MR. TRAVER-And it might not be something that will be in the engineer's mind at this point, but at some point, it didn't work 10 years ago but now maybe makes sense. MR. FULLER-Yes, and just to clarify the answer to Tom's question. It wasn't from an opposition from us standpoint. That wasn't the issue. We put data together and got solutions. That's fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? So procedurally the next item is to Acknowledge the Lead Agency Status for SEQR. There is a draft resolution in our packets. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS PUD SP 57-15 QSBY PARTNERS WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board & Town of Queensbury Town Board for PUD zone recommendation to Town Board and PUD Site Plan 57-2015 involving a Zoning Referral: Planning Board to provide a recommendation to the Town Board on the PUD proposal. Site Plan .Applicant proposes a Planned Unit Development (PUD ) consisting of office, business retail and multi-family uses. The proposed mixed use density is for 142 residential units and 56,180 sq. ft. of commercial space. Activities also include land disturbance for installation of a parking areas, parking garage, sidewalks and drive areas along with associated infrastructure and utilities for the project. WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). WHEREAS, in connection with the project, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Community Development Office to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Town Board to conduct a coordinated SEQR review; WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agency; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH PUD ZONING AND PUD SITE PLAN 57-2015 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: As per the draft resolution prepared by staff. Duly adopted this 20th day of October, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-So the next step would be to consider the SEQR. MR. TRAVER-And we have an updated SEQR. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we do. RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING NEG DEC SEQR PUD SP 57-2015 QSBY PARTNERS WHEREAS, Queensbury Partners previously made applications to the Town of Queensbury for a mixed use development proposed to be located on property located at the intersection of Bay and Haviland Roads, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board previously served as SEQRA Lead Agency to review potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, and 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2015) WHEREAS, in its role as SEQRA Lead Agency, the Planning Board reviewed a Full Environmental Assessment Form, evaluated all potential environmental impacts and determined that there would be no significant adverse environmental impacts and, therefore, issued a SEQRA Negative Declaration, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board also issued its Site Plan Approval for the proposed project, and WHEREAS, ZBA Variance approval for the project was nullified by Court Decision, and WHEREAS, Queensbury Partners has now submitted a Planned Unit Development (PUD) application to the Town Board proposing essentially the identical project, and WHEREAS, the PUD, if approved by the Town Board, would also be subject to Site Plan Review by the Planning Board, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has agreed to designation of the Planning Board as SEQRA Lead Agency for review of potential environmental impacts of the proposed PUD, and WHEREAS, all of the physical characteristics and components of the PUD project are substantially identical to those of the previously approved mixed use development project, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has also reviewed the new Full Environmental Assessment Form submitted by the applicant on October 1, 2015, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that the potential environmental impacts of the Queensbury Partners PUD would be no different than those previously identified and analyzed in review of the previously proposed mixed use project, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Planning Board reaffirms its previous determination that there would be no significant adverse environmental impacts, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Planning Board reaffirms and reissues a SEQRA Negative Declaration for the newly proposed PUD project. MOTION REAFFIRMING A NEGATIVE SEAR DECLARATION FOR PUD ZONE RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN BOARD AND PUD SITE PLAN NO. 57-2015 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Duly adopted this 20th day of October, 2015, by the following vote: MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Chairman, I have a question or a comment before you vote. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Go ahead. MR. SCHACHNER-I guess it's important to understand two things. First thing is whether, the Board needs to decide whether, in fact, the project as submitted is essentially identical to the project previously reviewed. I haven't heard anything to the contrary, but I heard elsewhere that there were some minor elements that were different. I didn't hear anything about that tonight I don't think. So make sure you're comfortable, I mean, I would advise you not to adopt this resolution if you don't believe the proposal as submitted is essentially identical to that which was previously reviewed, and then the other comment/question I have is perhaps I'm the only one unclear about this, but I thought that the applicant, I only learned when I got here this evening that the applicant had submitted a new Environmental Assessment Form. I thought the applicant had not submitted a new Environmental Assessment Form and was resting with the Environmental Assessment Form previously submitted. There is a new Environmental Assessment Form. I see it in the file. I don't know if it's exactly the same, other than at the beginning of it, of course, it says Planned Unit Development, which is certainly appropriate, but I think it's important for the Board to understand whether you are considering adoption or re- 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2015) affirmance of a Negative Declaration and adoption of a new determination based on the old Environmental Assessment Form, the new Environmental Assessment Form or both, and if they're identical, other than the labeling of Planned Unit Development that would probably make that an easier decision. Does that make sense? Does my question make sense? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. FULLER-It does. So what we did is we actually went through with Planning Staff, submitted an EAF based on the original EAF. During the review process, aspects of the project changed that weren't on the final EAF. There were changes made during meetings as projects often do. So what we did is we went back and updated those numbers. There were a couple of acreage differences, stormwater and things like that. The height, so we went back, Stu Baker, and said here's the difference. You can see it was a very good memo, multiple columns of here's what it was originally, here's what you're showing now. Here's what the difference is, explain it. So I went through and I did make some change to the EAF that he correctly pointed out things that should be updated based on the as approved plans from before. So in answer to Mark's question, it is the original Neg Dec as updated by the final approval, because you had some changes that were made after the Neg Dec before. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct me if I'm wrong. You just said it's the original Neg Dec as modified during the process. You mean the original EAF as modified during the process? MR. FULLER-Yes. I'm sorry, the original EAF. MR. SCHACHNER-So, if that's the case, I have no reason to disagree with that, obviously, then I'm going to suggest an additional Whereas in the resolution, and the additional Whereas, give me one minute. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. I just wanted to add for the record as well when we adopted the original Neg Dec the only question that the Board answered in any affirmative was the initial question which is will the proposed action result in any changes to the project site, and we said yes. Obviously that hasn't changed. That would still be a small to moderate impact, but that was the only item that we identified as an impact. MR. SCHACHNER-And you all have the, and have had for some time, I take it, the new Environmental Assessment Form. I wasn't aware of it but you all are aware of it. Now what's the date? MRS. MOORE-10/1/2005. MR. SCHACHNER-2005? MR. MOORE-I'm sorry, 2015. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. So the new Whereas I'm suggesting would be a final Whereas, in other words at the end of the Whereas's and before the Now Therefore, Be It Resolved, I would suggest amendment of the resolution to read WHEREAS, the Planning Board has also reviewed the new Full Environmental Assessment Form submitted by the applicant and dated October 1, 2015. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Whereas the Planning Board has reviewed. MR. SCHACHNER-Has also reviewed the new Full Environmental Assessment Form submitted by the applicant dated October 1, 2015. So if you accept that recommendation, then whoever moved the resolution would have to introduce that and whoever seconded it would have to agree. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I move that we add the Whereas. MR. TRAVER-Second the amended motion. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-So the next action would be a recommendation to the Town Board, and there is a draft motion in our package. If anyone would like to move that. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2015) MRS. MOORE-Prior to you making the motion, you still have an open public hearing of that portion. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry? MRS. MOORE-You currently have a public hearing that's open in reference to the recommendation which you will need to close prior to making your recommendation. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-You have two public hearings open. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. I thought I talked about that earlier. I thought you already agreed that you're closing the portion of the public hearing that relates to the recommendation. MR. HUNSINGER-I thought we did, but we will now. I'm sorry. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AUDIENCE MEMBER-Is the public hearing still open? MR. HUNSINGER-No, I thought we closed it earlier. MR. FULLER-It will be opened next for the Site Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-It will be opened at the Town Board as well. MR. FULLER-It will. MR. HUNSINGER-So there's still public hearings, just not on the recommendation. MS. SONNABEND-Can you just clarify that tonight you've agreed that it's okay to let them increase the height? Or is that going to be an Area Variance for the ZBA? MR. SCHACHNER-Did he talk about increased height, the applicant? MRS. MOORE-It's in the SEQR. MR. HUNSINGER-It's in the SEQR. MR. FULLER-Yes. M S. SONNABEND-So you approved it. MR. FULLER-The height is over the 45. something feet. MS. SONNABEND-Does that require an Area Variance? MR. HUNSINGER-It does not. It's a Planned Unit Development. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, can 1, 1 want to make sure Ms. Sonnabend doesn't misunderstand. This Board has not approved any height of anything. This Board has not approved any height of anything. All the Board has done thus far is adopt a SEQR Negative Declaration, meaning that there are no potentially significant adverse environmental impacts on the proposal, on the proposed or from the proposed Planned Unit Development. This Board does not have the authority to approve the height of anything tonight. The proposed use is not yet an authorized use and may never be an authorized use. It will only be an authorized use if the Town Board approves the Planned Unit Development. The Town Board has the unique and unilateral authority to approve or not approve the Planned Unit Development, but if it does so, whatever dimensions are approved by the Town Board are then approved, and are not subject to any variance criteria. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Can I ask a procedural question? So, is there going to be another public hearing? So this is going to go from the Planning Board back to the Town Board. MR. HUNSINGER-There will be another public hearing with the Town Board, and if the Town Board approves the PUD, then it will come back to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2015) MR. SCHACHNER-Which will also have a public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-Which will also have a public hearing. So there's at least two more public hearings. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, there's at least one. There's only a second one if the Town Board approves the PUD. Right. MR. HUNSINGER-And then the next step that we're about to consider is whether or not this Planning Board feels that the project as proposed is consistent with the Planned Unit Development zone that's been adopted by the Town Board. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You don't need to read the whole thing. MRS. MOORE-As per resolution drafted by Staff is good. RESOLUTION RE: TOWN BOARD RECOMMENDATION RE: PUD SP # 57-2015 QSBY PARTNERS WHEREAS, an application has been made to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board & Town of Queensbury Town Board for PUD zone recommendation to Town Board and PUD Site Plan 57-2015 involving a Zoning Referral: Planning Board to provide a recommendation to the Town Board on the PUD proposal. Site Plan .Applicant proposes a Planned Unit Development (PUD) consisting of office, business retail and multi-family uses. The proposed mixed use density is for 142 residential units and 56,180sq ft. of commercial space. Activities also include land disturbance for installation of a parking areas, parking garage, sidewalks and drive areas along with associated infrastructure and utilities for the project. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080 and 179-12 PUD, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the PUD zoning and PUD site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration — Determination of Non-significance; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the PUD Zoning and PUD Site plan application on 10-20-2015 and continued the public hearing to 10-20-2015 when it was closed for PUD Zoning, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing through and including 10-20-2015; The Planning Board determines that the applicant's proposal to create a PUD Zone that involves the construction of eleven buildings; nine of which are residential; one mixed commercial residential; and one commercial with associated site work complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 12 of the Zoning Ordinance and for PUD Section 179-12-010. MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD AS FAVORABLE APPLICATION FOR PUD ZONING QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC. Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 20th day of October 2015 by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-The motion that we're considering is a. MR. DEEB-Recommendation to the Town Board. MRS. MOORE-As per draft prepared by Staff. MR. SCHONEWOLF-As per draft prepared by Staff. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2015) MRS. MOORE-And I would also identify whether you feel this is favorable or unfavorable. That's the terminology that's in the Code. So that's where it's drawn from. MR. SCHACHNER-1 guess what we're trying to say is there are a number of blanks and a number of highlighted things and the motion has to be clear. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'll just say motion for a recommendation to the Town Board as a favorable application for PUD zoning Queensbury Partners, LLC. MR. SCHACHNER-And unless you have one that has the blanks filled in, the one that I have has some blanks in it and has one phrase that should be deleted. The blanks appear almost dead center after a SEQR blank Declaration determination of blank. Do yours have those? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-All right, well those blanks need to be filled in. So the word Negative would come before Declaration and the word non-significance or the phrase non-significance would come after determination of, and then two lines later it says the Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all the comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing. I don't believe there were any submitted in writing, unless I'm mistaken. So I would suggest deletion of the phrase, and submitted in writing. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to amend your motion? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I'll amend my motion with those corrections. MR. FORD-I'll second the amended motion. MR. HUNSINGER- Everyone clear on the motion? It included the words Negative Declaration and non-significance, and no written comments were received during the public hearing. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. FULLER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. MRS. MOORE-There's one more motion on there, simply to table the Site Plan application, which leaves the public hearing open. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. We will table the Site Plan Review and leave the public hearing open. Any other business that needs to be brought before the Board this evening? We need a motion to adjourn? MR. SCHACHNER-Did you make a motion to table the Site Plan or no, on that? MR. HUNSINGER-Do we need a formal motion? MRS. MOORE-You have in the past made a formal motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we don't have a date because we don't know when the Town Board may consider it. MR. SCHACHNER-And you've left the public hearing open. MR. HUNSINGER-And we left the public hearing open. MR. SCHACHNER-That's fine with me. MRS. MOORE-Okay. It's part of the minutes. Okay. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 20, 2015, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/20/2015) Duly adopted this 20th day of October, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 29