Loading...
10-27-2015 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2015) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 27, 2015 INDEX Subdivision No. 22-2005 & Townhouses at Haviland HOA, Inc. 1. Subdivision No. 3-2014 Modification Tax Map No. 290.17-2-39 Further Tabling PUD Zoning & PUD SP# 57-2015 Queensbury Partners 1. SEQR Tax Map No. 289.19-1-23 through 35 Site Plan No. 55-2015 New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC 9. Tax Map No. 279.-1-48 Subdivision No. 9-2015 Joseph Noonan 13. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 302.18-2-61.21 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 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2015) SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 27, 2015 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, ACTING CHAIRMAN PAUL SCHONEWOLF, SECRETARY BRAD MAGOWAN DAVID DEEB GEORGE FERONE THOMAS FORD JAMIE WHITE, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-Well, good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for October 27, 2015. We have two items on our agenda and two Administrative Items. We'll start with the two Administrative Items and there is no public hearing for those. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: FURTHER TABLING: SB 22-2005 & SB 3-2014 MODIFICATION TOWNHOUSES AT HAVILAND HOA, INC. BEEKMAN PLACE MR. TRAVER-They're looking for a further tabling, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes, they are. They've asked for either the 17th or 19th, and I've suggested the Board table them to November 19tH MR. TRAVER-November 19tn? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Do we have a tabling resolution for that? RESOLUTION TABLING SB 22-2005 & SB 3-2014 MODIFICATION TOWNHOUSES AT HAVILAND MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 22-2005 & SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2004 MODIFICATION TOWNHOUSES AT HAVILAND HOA, INC. BEEKMAN PLACE, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled to the November 19, 2015 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 28th day of October, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE SEQRA FURTHER REVIEW PUD ZONING AND PUD SITE PLAN 57-2015 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS MR. TRAVER-Okay, and the second item relates to the Queensbury Partners project of further SEQR review of Part II of the Full Environmental Assessment Form This relates, in part, to the discussion we had with the applicant last week where we re-affirmed, in effect, the prior SEQR review that we had done, and we subsequently discovered that the applicant had updated the Environmental Assessment and so it was felt that in order to be completely proper in our review we should actually go through the Part II of the Environmental Assessment Form, and, Laura, did you want to review your Staff Notes? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2015) MRS. MOORE-I'll identify, under Summary, the Applicant completed a SEQRA Full/Long Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 in 2013 using the official SEQRA forms which were in effect at that time. As you know they've changed. The Project was then subject to extensive review, including SEQRA review by the Planning Board as SEQRA Lead Agency, during 2013 and 2014. The Planning Board ultimately completed Part 2 of that EAF, after several Project modifications during the course of review, and issued a SEQRA Negative Declaration. As part of the current PUD application review process, the Applicant has submitted a new Full/Long EAF reflecting the current proposal and using the new SEQRA EAF Form. As the Project is substantially identical to that which was previously approved by the Planning Board, the Planning Board reaffirmed its prior SEQRA Negative Declaration on October 20, 2015. However, to fully complete SEQRA review and to be consistent with the Applicant's new EAF Part 1, the Planning Board wishes to review and complete the new EAF Part 2, and I can go through that for the Board. MR. TRAVER-Yes, that would be great, Laura. Before we begin the Part 2, are there any members of the Board that have any questions on what it is we're doing this evening or why? Okay. All right, Laura, can you begin then? MRS. MOORE-All right. So this is the Part 11. I'll start with Question One. This is Impact on Land. Does the proposed action involve construction on or physical alteration of, the land surface of the proposed site? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And I would say the relevant part would be E. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Proposed action may involve construction that continues for more than one year or in multiple phases. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and that's no or small impact. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Consensus of the Board? MR. FERONE-1 agree. MR. DEEB-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Question Number Two, Impact on Geological Features The proposed action may result in the modification or destruction of, or inhibit access to, any unique or unusual Iandforms on the site. MR. TRAVER-1 would say no. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-Everyone in agreement with Number Two, no? MR. DEEB-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Number Three Impacts on Surface Water Does the proposed action affect one or more wetlands or other surface water bodies? MR. TRAVER-1 would say no. MR. FORD-No. MR. DEEB-No. MRS. MOORE-Question Four Impact on Groundwater The proposed action may result in new or additional use of ground water, or may have the potential to introduce contaminants to ground water or an aquifer. MR. TRAVER-1 would say no. MR. DEEB-No. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2015) MR. FORD-No. MRS. MOORE-Question Five, Impact on Flooding The proposed action may result in development on lands subject to flooding. MR. TRAVER-No. MR. DEEB-No. MRS. MOORE-Question Six, Impact on Air Does the proposed action may include a state regulated air emission source? MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-Question Seven, Impact on Plants and Animals Does the proposed action result in any loss of flora or fauna? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. DEEB-No. MRS. MOORE-Number Eight, Impact on Agricultural Resources Does the proposed action impact agricultural resources? MR. TRAVER-I'd say no. MR. DEEB-No. MRS. MOORE-Number Nine Impact on Aesthetic Resources Is the land use of the proposed action obviously different from, or in sharp contrast to, current land use patterns between the proposed project and a scenic or aesthetic resource? MR. TRAVER-1 would say no. MR. FORD-No. MRS. MOORE-Question 10, Impact on Historic or Archeological Resources Does the proposed action occur in or adjacent to a historic or archeological resource? MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. MOORE-Number Eleven, Impact on Open Space and Recreation Does the proposed action result in a loss of recreational opportunities or a reduction of an open space resource as designated in any adopted municipal open space plan? MR. TRAVER-1 would say no. MR. FORD-No. MR. DEEB-No. MRS. MOORE-Number Twelve, Impact on Critical Environmental Areas Is the proposed action located within or adjacent to a critical environmental area (CEA)? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. MOORE-Number Thirteen, Impact on Transportation Will the proposed action result in a change to existing transportation systems? MR. TRAVER-No. Everyone in agreement with No for 13? MR. FERONE-Yes. MR. FORD-Could we just, let's examine that for a moment if we could. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2015) MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. FORD-Existing transportation systems, they do exist. Will it result in a change? Is that not possible with an increase in the usage and population, a moderate increase? MR. TRAVER-Well, we did, there was a traffic study and they did modify the intersection out here. So if you look at the subparts, it's primarily focused on the one parking area issue, but predominantly a degrading of transportation, or have a negative impact on movement, and in fact it appears that the modification they've made to the one intersection where the project is effecting is actually an improvement, and I believe there was testimony to that last week during our discussion, that the rating of the intersection actually had improved and it's proposed to get even better because they're going to be adding another lane for a turning movement. So I'm not seeing that it's having an impact on transportation in any kind of negative environmental impact. MR. FORD-Then I would suggest that it in fact is resulting in a change and it is a positive change. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But the change isn't now, it could be in the future 20 years from now. MR. FORD-That's good. MR. TRAVER-All right. Then do we want to say, if we say yes, then we have to look at A through F, and I don't know that we would, I mean, it's not exceeding the capacity of the network. We don't have parking. It's not degrading existing transit access or pedestrian or bicycle accommodations. You know, I think when you're talking about movement of people or goods they're talking about an impact that covers an area larger than one intersection, when you're talking about people or goods. So I think that the impact, the answer is no, but did you feel that we should answer yes, Tom, and then? MR. FORD-Well, as you go through the subsets, I concur with it. MR. DEEB-Well, none of the subsets apply to what we're talking about. So it's going to end up being no anyway. MRS. MOORE-Does the Board want to identify an Other Impact under F that's no to small impact? MR. DEEB-I don't. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-1 mean, obviously it's up to the Board. Tom, if you want to make a comment. MR. FORD-1 would an no to moderate impact, under F. MRS. MOORE-And what would that other impact? MR. TRAVER-If you want to say traffic flow improvements to an intersection, something like that? What kind of verbiage should we put under Other Impacts? MR. SCHONEWOLF-All that's really going to happen is nothing until they tear that house down. MR. TRAVER-Well, in this assessment we're looking at the whole project, and they are going to be making a change, as Tom points out. They are going to be altering the intersection out here. In fact, they've already, you know, added, replaced some defective sensors and that type of thing, but we know that as part of the project, as we've seen in the plans, they're going to be adding a turning lane to reduce the back up and so on. So in my mind, in terms of SEQR, it was not relevant, but it is a change, and it certainly would be under F where we could choose to make a comment and I think we just need to choose our language carefully. MR. DEEB-Laura, can you clarify? This is for any negative change that comes about. We don't have to list any positive changes. MRS. MOORE-Right, it's an adverse. MR. TRAVER-It's intended to reflect adverse. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2015) MR. DEEB-Not positive. So I don't see where we have to put anything in there. MR. MAGOWAN-If you want to think about it, a lot of these little questions, there's several moderate in there, you know what I'm saying? The amount of change and what they're going to be doing to increase the, what they've already done to adding another turn lane, I really don't see that there would be any. MR. TRAVER-But I think is what you're getting at, Tom, that we should note that positive change in here? MR. FORD-Correct. MRS. MOORE-That's fine. Under Other Impacts you mention that alterations to the intersection are mitigating and actually enhance that, enhance the intersection. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-But do we know that for sure? This is something we're counting on is going to happen in the future. MR. TRAVER-Well, the traffic study reflected that. MR. DEEB-Well, but it hasn't been proven yet, and if we put in here that it has, and then it doesn't. So I'm a little hesitant to put that in there. MR. TRAVER-Well, we're saying, I think if we put that in there what Mr. Ford is pointing out is that in any case we would check no or small impact that may occur. We're not saying it would occur. We're saying it might occur. MR. FORD-And the operative word there is may. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. FERONE-So are we saying an overall no on that question? MR. TRAVER-Well, that's what I had initially proposed, and Mr. Ford is just saying to give it a more detailed or comprehensive answer that we could say that there are other impacts reflecting an improvement to the intersection, but no or small impact may occur, and so it would be a yes, but it doesn't mean that we would, it certainly wouldn't call for a positive declaration. MR. FORD-Correct. MR. TRAVER-So, yes, so, okay. So we're talking bullet F, we're saying, Laura, and you had suggested language, improvements to intersection? MRS. MOORE-Improvements to the intersection, and no or small impact. MR. TRAVER-To the intersection, and then we would check no or small impact may occur, right? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-So then for Number 13, just to clarify for the Board, our proposed response is yes, and then under F we would say, under Other Impacts, improvements to the intersection, and we would check no or small impact may occur. Is that agreeable? MR. DEEB-What impact? MR. TRAVER-It's improvements to the traffic flow because of modifications that are proposed. MR. DEEB-I understand that, but we've never done that before on any other SEQR that we've listed that the improvements were made, and that there might be an impact. I mean, I really see a contradiction here from what we've done in the past. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, let me poll the Board, then. How many feel that they can agree with what I just discussed, that we would say yes on 13 and we would add improvements to the 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2015) intersection as no or small impact. You would vote yes? A show of hands, who would agree with that? And you two gentlemen are a no? MR. DEEB-I'm a no. MR. FERONE-I'm a no. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, I'm seeing that the majority are agreeing with yes. So in that case, Laura, should we consider that a yes answer as suggested? MR. FERONE-And then my other question is once you answer yes do we not have to indicate a through a that those are no or small impact? We have to answer all the questions. MR. TRAVER-Only the relevant one, which in this case would be F, other impacts. We would indicate no or small impact occur. MRS. MOORE-You don't have to answer all of them. You're answering the one that's relevant to the project. MR. TRAVER-So it would only be F, right? MR. DEEB-So are we setting a precedent? MRS. MOORE-Each applicant is taken on its own merit. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we have a majority of the Board approving that we are going to vote yes on 13. We are going to add to line F, under Other Impacts, improvements to the intersection, and we're going to indicate that that F is no or small impact may occur. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Fourteen. MRS. MOORE-Number Fourteen. Impact on Energy Does the proposed action cause an increase in the use of any form of energy? MR. TRAVER-1 would say no. Is everyone in agreement with no for that? MR. FERONE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Number Fifteen, Impact on Noise, Odor and Light Does the proposed action result in an increase in noise, odors or outdoor lighting? MR. TRAVER-1 would say no. MRS. MOORE-Number Sixteen Impact on Human Health The proposed action may have an impact on human health from exposure to new or existing sources of contaminants. MR. TRAVER-1 would say no. MR. FORD-No. MRS. MOORE-Number Seventeen, Consistency with Community Plans Is the proposed action not consistent with adopted land use plans? MR. TRAVER-1 would say, no, it is consistent. Is everyone in agreement with that for Seventeen? MR. FERONE-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Number Eighteen Consistency with Community Character Is the proposed project inconsistent with the existing community character? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2015) MR. TRAVER-Again, I would say no. MR. FORD-No. MRS. MOORE-All right. That completes the entire Part 2 of the Environmental Assessment Form. MR. DEEB-On Number Fifteen, proposed action may result. MR. TRAVER-Impact on Noise, Odor and Light? MR. DEEB-Yes, on light, and if you go to subset E, proposed action may result in lighting creating sky-glow brighter than existing area conditions. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So you're thinking lighting? MR. DEEB-I was thinking I don't know how we can answer that no. MR. FORD-Well, the emphasis there is on sky-glow. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, if you look at the, I understand where you're coming from. I hesitated when I saw that as well, but if you look at the subsections, under A, then we would say, you know, is this producing sound above noise levels established by local regulation. Well, of course we don't have any regulation yet, but it's not noise pollution. There's not going to be any blasting within 1,500 feet. MR. DEEB-No, I wasn't talking about A, B, or C. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So then we go to D, proposed action may result in light shining on to adjoining properties. I think that there are. MRS. MOORE-Our current Code doesn't allow. MR. TRAVER-Right, and have a lighting plan that's showing that they're within the Town Code. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So then that means that our answer to 15 as no would not change after that discussion. Is everyone clear on that and comfortable with that answer? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. FERONE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Laura? MRS. MOORE-You've completed Part 2. There's a SEQR resolution that you can read. MR. TRAVER-Okay. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PUD 57-2015 QSBY PARTNERS Town of Queensbury Planning Board RESOLUTION — Reaffirming SEQRA Negative Declaration for Queensbury Partners application for PUD Zoning and PUD Site Plan 57-2015 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC Tax Map ID 289.19-1-23 through 35 Location: SW Corner of Bay & Blind Rock Roads 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 Blind Rock Roads, and 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2015) WHEREAS, the Planning Board previously served as SEQRA Lead Agency to review potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, and 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, as part of the PUD process, the Applicant has submitted a new Full Environmental Assessment Form which reflects modifications to the Project that evolved during the previous application review process and utilizes the new SEQRA EAF Form; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has also reviewed the new Environmental Assessment Form submitted by the applicant on October 1, 2015, WHEREAS, Part II of the Full EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 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 SEQRA NEGATIVE 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 David Deeb: Duly adopted this 27th day of October, 2015, by the following vote: MS. WHITE-Just a quick clarification with Laura. I understand that I was not here for the discussion last week. However, going through SEQR I'm familiar enough with the history of the project that I feel comfortable voting. Is that okay? MR. TRAVER-Yes. Thank you for the question. Tom? MR. FORD-Could we go back to the beginning of the motion, and I want to verify placement at that particular intersection. I thought I heard southeast corner. I may have misunderstood. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2015) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Where does it say that? MR. FORD-From what you read early on. MR. DEEB-Right at the top, location SE. It should be southwest. MR. TRAVER-It says at the intersection of Bay and Blind Rock Roads. MRS. MOORE-Right, at the top portion there, where it says location. MR. DEEB-SE corner. MR. TRAVER-Southeast corner of Bay and Blind Rock Roads. MR. FORD-It is not. It is the southwest corner. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. FORD-And I want to make sure that we get it on the right corner. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, because it would be a hell of a thing moving it. MR. FORD-Our neighbors across the street might object. MR. TRAVER-All right. Then, Laura, we should be able to simply amend that motion to reflect southwest as opposed to southeast. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-In the comment under location. AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-We are done with SEQR, gentlemen. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 55-2015 SEQR TYPE N/A 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: 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. 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, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-This is a follow up application with the New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC that we did last week. Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant has completed the Site Plan application for the construction of a 130 ft. monopole cell tower and associated site work. The applicant has received a use variance from the zoning board of appeals and is back before this Board for Site Plan review. MR. TRAVER-Good evening. MR. PUCHNER-Good evening, Vice Chairman Traver and members of the Board. Thomas Puchner, Phillips & Lytle law firm on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC. We're back here for the Site Plan Review. We were here last, a week ago today for the Planning Board's 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2015) recommendation on the Use Variance for this tower, which was positive, and on Wednesday we also appeared at the ZBA who granted the Use Variance for the tower. So here we are again. In the interest of time, I know you're busy. It is a public hearing. I'm happy to go through and do a full presentation or I can take questions, whatever the Board wishes. MR. TRAVER-Were there any, and I see, by the way, that you had submitted some documentation related to the balloon flights, and I should thank you for that. Were there any discussions, in review before the ZBA, were there any impacts on your application as we have it before us tonight? MR. PUCHNER-No changes to the application. There were comments, and we responded to the comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Did members of the Board have any questions? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Did we ever ask you for a proposed completion date, or did you talk about that? I may have missed it. MR. PUCHNER-1 don't have a schedule on that. I believe this one is anticipated, or may be anticipated, for 2016. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I hope so. MR. PUCHNER-Yes, well, believe it or not they have a long term view on a lot of this, and sometimes they're further out than 2016. MR. SCHONEWOLF-How many approvals do you have now? MR. PUCHNER-For this one? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Do you have all of them for this one? MR. FORD-Except APA, right? MR. PUCHNER-We have an incomplete application with the APA because of the previous non- compliance. That will be taken care of as soon as we have final notice of decision from the ZBA. DEC has a mining permit on the site. It also has an application in to modify it to recognize that the tower will be there. There's no other real changes to it, but that also, because of the way the DEC permits are coordinated, the APA permits, incomplete on one leads to incomplete on the other. So we start here and they fall like dominoes hopefully. We have an application for an APA permit that's pending. It has an incomplete status because of the Use Variance. MR. TRAVER-Yes. It was interesting reading the correspondence in June that initially it was the other way around. MR. PUCHNER-Right. I think we could have saved a lot of time. I think we just didn't know, and it's not often the case that a project needs a Use Variance locally and an APA. It's more often it's a permitted and APA implements and it makes sense, but the Town has said go to them first. It's a chicken before the egg scenario. MR. TRAVER-In some cases there've been projects related to the lake where applicants have come in and they've already gotten approval from the APA. I might be mistaken. Okay. Very good. Well, are there any other questions from the Board before we open up the public hearing? I guess the hearing is already open. We don't have to re-open it. MR. PUCHNER-There was one other, there was a question about the photo simulation we had. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I'm afraid it was me. MR. PUCHNER-We did go back, we went back to the engineer, VISION Engineers that prepared those, and it's kind of a visual trick for the eye. The photo sim, as far as the tower, the mock tower and antennas and the compound were scaled off of the balloon, and there's a, in your packet there's a photo of that same photo with just a balloon, but it's to scale as to the balloon and everything else from where it was shot. The bulldozer's in the foreground. We don't have distance on that but it's kind of a trick of the eye. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2015) MR. TRAVER-Yes. I thought about that afterwards, later that evening. I was thinking about that. So that's fine. I mean, the application clearly reflects the build to height anyway. So, you know, it was purely, you know, it just struck me as, you know, a visual disparity but then I thought about it and I thought well maybe it's further back than it appears, and with that kind of an object it's easy, as you say, to deceive the view in a two dimensional view. So that's fine, but thanks for following up. MR. PUCHNER-No problem. The balloon is five and a half feet, if you look at it you can see. It's a trick of the eye. With the bulldozer I'm sure it's 10 feet. I'm not an expert on that. So anyway, it's clearly not going to be just twice. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Every balloon test we've had in this Town has been a non-starter. MR. PUCHNER-In terms of what? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, you couldn't see it. MR. PUCHNER-You couldn't see it, right. We also have non-starters because of trees. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I was one of the guys they sent out to watch for them. Five hours later they remembered I was out there and I said I can't see it. It wasn't there. MR. PUCHNER-Okay. Well any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, we have a public hearing tonight. Is there anyone in the audience that's here to speak about this Cingular application? Yes. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MATT FULLER MR. FULLER-For the record, Matt Fuller. I live at 1547 Ridge Road, which is about half a mile north of this site. My wife and I live there, and I did send a letter to the ZBA, but we are in support of that. I'm in that hole along 149 where there's just no service up there, and in today's world cellphones are everything. So, we actually put a small cell, private cell tower at our house. You can buy them. They're a couple of hundred dollars, but it's spotty. If you walk outside the house it doesn't work at 20 feet. MR. TRAVER-But the extra antenna that you added does help the signal? MR. FULLER-Inside the house. You've got to be right about 15 feet away. So, yes, we're very much in support of the application. I think frankly the Town should have put it on the transfer property, but that's a different discussion. So, yes, we'd be in support of the tower. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Anyone else? MRS. MOORE-1 do have one comment that was addressed at the Zoning Board. I'll bring it up so the Planning Board hears this. This is from Mr. Vanness. It says that the, it's addressed to Sue Hemingway. "Good morning, Sue: Just a heads up on the Cell Tower; I have spoken with the attorney about space on the tower for an Emergency Services antenna and he said it would be no problem because they normally will allow this at no charge to the municipality. Is this something we can incorporate into the agreement? Thank you." Our Zoning Administrator responded to this inquire by Bill in a statement and he says the agreement for the space on the tower for emergency services would be between the Town Board and the applicant, and then for purposes of Planning Board review, a notation on the plans regarding potential EMS space on the tower could be fine. So Mr. Puchner addressed that at the Zoning Board meeting and I'm sure he has comments for the Planning Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, and I saw one other gentleman that wanted to speak. Yes, sir. SPENCER HARDING MR. HARDING-1 live at 61 Jenkinsville and I have AT&T, and I don't have service. MR. TRAVER-Could you just state your name for the record. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2015) MR. HARDING-I'm Spencer Harding. It takes me a good like mile, maybe two miles before I end up getting service when I make a call, and I miss a lot of stuff. So I'm completely in support of this. MR. TRAVER-You're in support of the project as well. Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Basically you don't have service is what you're telling us. MR. HARDING-Exactly. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, thank you. Anyone else? Any other interest in speaking to this application? Okay. Then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-Are there any further questions from members of the Planning Board for the applicant? Do you have anything to add? MR. PUCHNER-I just want -to make that one comment about emergency services. I'm not authorized to commit AT&T to co-locations on a tower that hasn't been approved yet. In general we entertain requests all the time for these types of things and I'm sure that they would be willing to in this case, but I can't make a commitment. It's not my role to do that. MR. TRAVER-Right. Understood, and that's not before us tonight anyway, but thank you for that. MR. PUCHNER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I think we're ready for a motion. Do you have one? MRS. MOORE-Prior to you starting that motion, you would also include engineering signoff. The applicant did submit revised plans that have been forwarded to the Town Engineer for review and comment. I haven't received that information back. So in your resolution you should include engineering signoff. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Isn't that part of the draft? MRS. MOORE-It typically is and I don't see it in this one. So I apologize. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we want to make sure that we have engineer's signoff. MR. PUCHNER-And that was as to the stormwater design. MR. TRAVER-Correct. Yes, typically that's what they're commenting on. MR. PUCHNER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 55-2015 NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC 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 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. 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; On 10-21-2015 the Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals; on 10-22-2015 The Zoning Board of Appeals approved the variance request(s), 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2015) The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 10-27-2015 and continued the public hearing to 10-27-2015 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 10-27- 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 55-2015 NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 1. Engineering signoff required. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution Duly adopted this 27th day of October 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-Okay. You're all set. MR. PUCHNER-Thank you very much. MR. DEEB-Get it built. MR. FORD-Good luck with the APA. MR. PUCHNER-Thank you. I want to applaud the Town and Board for their professionalism from start to finish, and also your use of technology. I'm all over the Hudson Valley, up into the Park and, you know, often we have trouble just getting someone to talk to on the phone, but to have all of this and have it work when it needs to work is great and it's a big help for everybody. I'm sure you appreciate it as well. MR. TRAVER-We're very fortunate to have a good Planning Department. MR. DEEB-Thank you very much for that. MR. TRAVER-You're welcome. Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2015 SKETCH PLAN SEAR TYPE JOSEPH NOONAN AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) DAVID A. SALEEM & CATHY M. HOGAN ZONING NR LOCATION 120 COOLIDGE AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3-LOT SUBDIVISION; LOT 1 TO REMAIN AS RESIDENCE; LOT 2 TO BE SUBDIVIDED INTO 3 LOTS CONSISTING OF: LOT 2A OF 0.71 ACRES; LOT 2B OF 0.77 ACRES; LOT 2C OF 1.04 ACRES. NEWLY CREATED PARCELS ARE PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES WITH ONSITE SEPTIC SYSTEMS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER A- 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SIB 4-2008 BP 2003-408 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 95-288 INGROUND POOL; BP 95-561 DETACHED DECK WARREN CO REFERRAL LOT SIZE 3.67 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.18-2-61.21 SECTION A-183 SUBDIVISIONS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a 3-lot subdivision; Lot 1 to remain as residence; Lot 2 to be subdivided into 3 lots consisting of: Lot 2A of 0.71 acres; Lot 2B of 0.77 acres; Lot 2C of 1.04 acres. I've noted the Sketch Plan shows a lot configuration so that each lot has 50 feet of road frontage with a home set back about 200 feet from the property line. All three of these proposed parcels abut the Morse Field recreation area along the rear property line. The 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2015) application materials were forwarded to Water Department and their response is included, and the applicant is aware that the Water district extension is required, and I've identified in the Staff comments information from the Code about lot design. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you, Laura. Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. For the record, Matt Steves with VanDusen and Steves representing the applicant. As Laura has already stated this is property on the southwesterly end of Coolidge Avenue, immediately to the north of the Morse Athletic Field on Sherman Avenue in the NR zone. We're proposing to create three lots off of that parcel. This was part of a previously approved two lot administrative subdivision a few years ago to break the house off of what is now Lot One from the rest of the property, and then the current owner now is Joseph and Kathleen Noonan. They're looking to subdivide their vacant parcel. We are aware of the fact that there is water available there. It's outside of the district so we will take care of that issue. We will leave it open to any questions if there are any. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. STEVES-Obviously moving forward with whatever configuration we go forward with, we would be doing the test pits, perc tests, anything necessary to move this. MR. MAGOWAN-Who's house was this? MR. STEVES-It's currently David Saleem. Before that it was. MR. DEEB-Was it Slack? MR. STEVES-Slack. MR. TRAVER-Yes, there's a deed. MR. STEVES-Robert Slack. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well, it doesn't look as though you are going to be, you're not looking at variances. One of the suggestions we got from Staff is the clarification of the clearing areas, yes, clearing areas and a no cut zone for the construction. I assume that you'd put that on the next? MR. STEVES-Absolutely, and once we have the actual topography and the existing vegetation in the area, we can accurately define it. I don't want to show something on the Sketch Plan that is completely inaccurate. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. STEVES-But at the same time, you know, I know that the Board should review that and I respect that, but at the same time I don't want to show something that I know isn't true until we actually. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. STEVES-1 could superimpose an aerial and hope I'm close, but that's not the best way to do it in this instance, but we would definitely move the houses forward if we had to, to a different size, even look at reconfiguring the parcels. It's tough when you have an existing zone that allows 50 foot frontage in the NR zone, but if you accommodate a house on 50 feet then you create, there are some nice homes that they had built along Parkview Avenue. There's a carriage style house that came out beautiful, and those are all 50 foot lots, if anyone's been by those. MR. TRAVER-1 mean, that was my only comment when I was looking at particularly 2A and 2B. I mean, they're so close together. MR. STEVES-Right. MR. TRAVER-But, you know, there is a housing need. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2015) MR. STEVES-Like I say, if you look at those on Parkview, that's a prime example of a 50 foot lot with the type of home, and they turned out to be beautiful homes. I think they sit in there nice. My perspective on that is they built one and people bought the rest of them. So they know they must like the particular application and the way they were set up. These would be in a similar style. We could talk to the applicant. He's just looking at, you know, subdividing this. He's not going to be building these. I believe he lives down in the southern part of the country, but, you know, you would almost have to develop this site in that type of a home. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. FERONE-The lot sizes are pretty odd, and you said that there would be consideration for re-configuring the lots. MR. STEVES-Yes, that's why we're here. MR. FERONE-Is it absolutely necessary that there be three? I mean, it would probably work a heck of a lot better if there were only two. MR. STEVES-I've stated that from Day One with my client, but, you know, again I have to represent my clients with this Board and that's why we're here for discussion. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and of course they want as many lots as they can because of the revenue. Yes. MR. STEVES-To be totally up front I had suggested this as a primary location except for the fact of the type of residences in the area that it's in and the fact that you end up being in the backyard of other lots going to the northwest. It may be a better scenario for two, but I can't tell my client that it's something that meets the Code you shouldn't do. It's his prerogative to try to do it. MR. TRAVER-Right. Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Has there been any test pits on these lots? MR. STEVES-We had done test pits in the area. We did some conveyances back and forth with Morse Athletic Fields years ago, not directly on these lots. Tom Nace and Tom Center were doing the engineering on this project, and we wanted to confer with the Board before we move forward. MR. MAGOWAN-Because I know that whole area is a high water table. MR. STEVES-Yes, there is high water table in this area. There's no question. The existing home has a septic. Everything works fine, but, again, I'm not going to speak to engineering comments. MR. MAGOWAN-I respect them. That would be my reasoning of bumping that back down to two, instead of trying to cram three on there, you know. MR. STEVES-I think you're absolutely correct there, and I think a lot of it has to do with when we get the test pits what the answer is, whether we have to spread some of these septics out to accommodate. It may be even if the client wants three, he might only end up with two because of the constraints of the property. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, well, that's what I'm leaning towards. MR. DEEB-I would strongly urge you to recommend two. I concur that I feel more comfortable with two than the three lots. MR. STEVES-So do I. Thank you. MR. DEEB-So if you get re-affirmation from us and you go back to him. MR. STEVES-Not a problem. MR. MAGOWAN-I understand him wanting to maximize his lot. MR. DEEB-We understand that. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2015) MR. STEVES-That's the way it always is, in most instances, and like I said I'm representing him and I told him up front that I thought a two lot scenario was much better but we'll go in with three and see if it's acceptable. MR. TRAVER-Well, the next step will be some of the engineering, right? MR. STEVES-Yes, we'll be doing the topography and the test pits, and then we'll come back and, you know, I'm not going to say for certain what it's going to look like, but from my memory actually it's going to be completely different than what we have here. It may be most likely two lots with the type of soils that Mr. Magowan has already started. We're going to have to maybe create a larger bed to accommodate that, and I have a feeling that once we got to preliminary and we got to three, the neighbors would want to see it changed. MR. FORD-You know you're going to get comments from Mr. Ford. Some of us have already tipped their hand. MR. TRAVER-All right. Any other comments on this project at Sketch? All right. MR. MAGOWAN-No, I think Mr. Steves finished this off there. MR. STEVES-And if the Board has a minute for another question, unless you have something else, a question for you for the Board. MR. TRAVER-Go right ahead. MR. STEVES-Could I ask your opinion on this? In talking to Laura earlier, I had a client come to me in the last week asking for a variance, to help them with a variance to place a pool in their backyard, and this is where Laura may be able to help me out here as I go forward with these questions. This is in a conservation subdivision that this Board has approved recently. It's the Village at Sweet Road. Twenty-nine lots. All the lots, the rear of every lot abuts a green area. So there's no direct neighbors behind any lots. So because of the conservation, it's beautiful, and I wanted to let everybody know that I think that because I am also building in there, but the fact that this neighbor came to me and said we want to put in a pool and we're going to need a variance because even if we do a 12 foot wide pool with the required amount of concrete around it we're not going to meet the 10 foot setback. So we'll push it to five feet and we're not really impacting anybody in the back, and in talking with Laura, she came up with a great idea and I wanted to pass it by this Board. We can either come in and, out of 29 lots, say, 15 or 20 want a pool, and we're in clogging up the Zoning Board for 15, 20 applications, or we can as the Planning Board what their thought is as to, because it's a conservation we can kind of amend that approval based upon Planning Board review because it is a conservation subdivision, and adjust the setback requirements for an auxiliary structure such as a pool so then we're not doing that, if this Board deems that that is something that they would want to look at. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think we'd be willing to look at it. MR. FORD-1 don't mind looking at it. MR. DEEB-We never mind looking at anything. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think that's our job. So, yes, I would say refresh our memory. Show us what you have in mind, and we'll look at it. MR. DEEB-But no guarantees. MR. STEVES-1 didn't say there were, but thank you very much. MR. FERONE-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. Thank you. All right. Well that concludes our agenda for tonight. Is there anything else that the Board, that we need to consider? MR. FORD-1 move we adjourn. MR. TRAVER-All right. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 27, 2015, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/27/2015) Duly adopted this 27th day of October, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Acting Chairman 18