Loading...
2000-08-15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 15, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY LARRY RINGER JOHN STROUGH CHRIS HUNSINGER ANTHONY METIVIER MEMBERS ABSENT ROBERT VOLLARO SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES June 20, 2000: NONE June 27, 2000: NONE June 29, 2000: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF 6/20. 6/27. AND 6/29, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Duly adopted this 15 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, and Site Plan No. 51-2000 Garden Time/Barrett Auto Sales, is tabled for tonight. So we will not be discussing that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Next. OLD BUSINESS: PUD SITE PLAN NO. 44-2000 MICHAELS GROUP - WAVERLY PLACE OWNER: SAME AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: PUD LOCATION: SW INTERSECTION OF HAVILAND ROAD AND MEADOWBROOK RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN/SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OF A 56 UNIT TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT ON 14.5 ACRES AND 35.13 ACRES OF COMMON LANDS WITHIN THE HILAND PARK PUD. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO SEEKING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A FOUR (4) LOT SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY TO ALLOW FOR PHASING/PROPERTY TRANSFER. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED CONSISTS OF A 48 MULTIFAMILY PROJECT INCLUDING 30,000 SQ. FT. OF OFFICE SPACE ON 11.2 ACRES; 1.7 ACRES OFFICE SPACE, AND 12 ACRES TO BE DEDICATED TO THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY. TOWN BD. RESOLUTION: 297,2000 (7/24/00) BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 6/12/00 WARRE CO. PLANNING: 6/14/00 TAX MAP NO. 60-2-1 LOT SIZE: 74.46 ACRES SECTION: 179-58 JON LAPPER, JOE SPORKO, DAVID MICHAELS, REPRESENTING APP., PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing is tonight. It was left open from June 20. th 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, PUD Site Plan 44-2000, Michaels Group (Waverly Place), Meeting Date: June 20, 2000 “Application The project is located within the Hiland Park PUD. The applicant is seeking preliminary approval of a four (4) lot subdivision of the property to allow for phasing/property transfer. The applicant is also requesting site plan/subdivision approval of a 56 unit townhouse development on 14.5 acres plus 1 lot of Homeowners Association lands on 35.13 acres. Master Plan A master plan has been submitted. This application is for Phase I for 56 twin town homes and recreation (Lot C: 49.63 acres: the 56 unit townhouse development on 14.5 acres and 35.13 acres of HOA or common lands.) Phase II is for Lot A: 11.2 acres future development of a 48 multifamily project including a 30,000 sq. ft. of office space and Lot B: 1.7 acres future development of office space. Lot D consists of 12 acres to be dedicated to the Town of Queensbury. Town Board The Town Board adopted a Resolution 297.2000 on 24 July affirming consistency with the original Hiland Park PUD (Town Board Resolution 212.87). [See attached copy.] Beautification Committee The Beautification Committee reviewed a revised landscaping plan, which addressed the recommendation that there be additional screening along Meadowbrook Rd. Recreation Commission Please refer to the 7/21/00 Recreation Commission memo indicating that they are in favor of the proposed dedication. Upon subdivision approval the applicant and the Recreation Dept. will proceed with the land dedication process. Planning Board Questions and Comments During the June 20 concept plan review, Planning Board questions and comments concerned the Home Owner’s Association; traffic impacts; architectural design and color schemes; recreational access; and construction phasing. Sketch Plan Sketch Plan Review took place at the time of the original PUD application. Site Plan A site plan has been provided for Phase I. Refuse disposal and other outdoor storage is addressed in the draft home owner’s covenants. No road lighting is proposed. Each home will have a 60 watt walk way light. The Planning Board may wish to light provisions addressed in the draft home owner’s association to prevent undue impacts from floodlights or obtrusive lighting. Plans showing water, wastewater and highway details have been submitted to the appropriate departments. Architectural drawings are enclosed. The applicant intends to have a 56 unit townhouse development on 56 lots. Just 28 lots are shown on the site plan with typical lot lines. A sit e development plan for Phase II lots will be needed in the future. Planning Board Approval for Site Plan The approval process and factors for consideration are outlined in Ss 179-58. Areas of concern or importance for this application follow: Traffic controls Creighton Manning Engineering (CME) has performed a traffic analysis for Waverly Place. The analysis consists of sight distance, existing traffic, trip generation, trip distribution, and level of service considerations. The existing allowed speed limit for traffic is 55 mph. The study does not address existing speed limits. Sight Distances Sight distances are based on the speed limit being reduced to 45 mph for Meadowbrook Rd. Existing Traffic Current traffic counts for peak periods were used and correlated to the Glen at Hiland Meadows Sept. 1999 traffic study. It is not clear whether or not other nearby developments build-out trips were taken into account. AGFTC has been asked to review the Hiland Park EIS traffic study along with the individual traffic studies done for Hiland Springs, The Glen at Meadowbrook, and The Meadows. Development that has taken place for which no individual traffic studies were performed includes Masters Common North and South, and Fairway Court. Level of Service (LOS) The Level of Service (LOS) at unsignalized intersections was determined for full build out of Waverly Place as added to existing traffic. Peak hour conditions will decrease but will still be acceptable. Conclusion CME concludes that no mitigation is necessary as a result of this project. Despite this conclusion, Waverly Place will contribute additional traffic. The original Town Board Resolution 212.1987 conditions the PUD based on updated traffic studies and pro-rata participation by developers should there be a need for signalization of a number of intersections as outlined in the EIS. Upon evaluation by AGFTC and further study, provision may need to be made to condition approval based on traffic related improvements. Pedestrian Circulation Pedestrian traffic outside of the development has not been addressed. Connection of access from the path on Lot C to the public access for Town recreation lands should be addressed. The public access is shown as the sewer line access on the south side of the PUD on the Master Site Plan. Pathway connection to the adjacent northern lot should also be addressed/shown. Off-street Parking and Loading Driveway and garage locations are shown on the typical lot layout. Aesthetics The size and design of buildings, lighting and signs needs to be addressed by the applicant. See attached drawings for architectural reference to other developments within Hiland Park to determine the architectural comparability with other elements of the project and with the neighborhood. a color rendering will be brought to the Planning Board meeting. Recreation Lands Town Board approval is required for dedication to the Town of recreational lands as shown on Lot D. Stormwater See forthcoming C.T. Male comments. Water, wastewater and highway See attached department and C.T. Male comments. The Highway Dept. notes that Laurel Court is not an acceptable name since the Town already has a Laurel Lane. The applicant will need to change the name on all plans submitted after the new name has been reviewed for acceptance by the Town. Subdivision Subdivision approval is required for 56 lots, plus 1 lot for Homeowner’s Association lands. A typical is shown with final lot lines to be determined. Appropriate Town departments and C.T. Male, consulting engineers, are reviewing the proposal for construction details, grading and erosion control plans, and drainage. Demolition and Erosion Control Plans D-1 and D- 2 show limits of grading close to or within the ACOE wetlands, yet also note that existing vegetation 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) will remain. The applicant should be asked to flag no disturbance areas. Grading Plan G-1 note #1 needs to be completed pertaining to the date and person performing the information base field survey. Plans also show disturbance within the 100 ft. DEC wetland buffer and areas of disturbance within ACOE wetlands. The applicant needs to address the extent of disturbance and whether or not permits are required from DEC and/or ACOE. Next Steps Planning Board continues public hearing on the preliminary subdivision plan and site plan Planning Board approves, approves with conditions, or denies Phase I for preliminary plat. Town Board reaffirms SEQR Lot C site plan is approved by the Planning Board. Phase I final plat is approved, approved with conditions, or denied.” MR. MAC EWAN-Marilyn, before we begin, just as a procedural thing, should the site plan and the subdivision be treated as separate applications? MRS. RYBA-They are, essentially, separate applications, and you still have to go through approval of both, but there is no reason why you can’t review both of these concurrently, for a PUD. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Dave Michaels, Joe Sporko and Kevin Hastings from the LA Group, and Shelly Johnston from Creighton Manning Traffic Engineers. We have only one person fewer than the Board, and with this group, we think we can address all of the issues. We’ve had a lot of correspondence from the Town Engineer from Town Planning, and we’ve just submitted some replies, but certainly we don’t have C.T. Male’s response to our response yet. We were here last month to discuss the compatibility with the PUD. We were here last month and the Board unanimously recommended that the Town Board make a motion that the proposed project is compatible with the original PUD, and earlier this month we went to the Town Board, and they did that. At the same meeting we discussed with the Town Board the reduction in the speed limit on Meadowbrook to 45 miles an hour, and at their last meeting, they scheduled a public hearing to start that process. Just preliminarily, Dave would like to do this in one phase, even though they’re 56 units, but because of the cluster nature of the design of this, it just makes sense to go in all at once and do all the utilities and all the roads. With the track record of The Michaels Group, you don’t have to worry that they’re going to get it half done and abandon the project. It just makes sense to put everything in, from a construction standpoint. So we hope that when we get to the resolution, that you’ll allow that. How would you like us to proceed? We have a lot of response. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. Any way you want. MR. LAPPER-Okay. I guess we should start off with Joe going through the project. Do you want to go up and just quickly walk them through. MR. SPORKO-Yes. Just to give you a quick orientation on the project, essentially it’s the same as what you saw last time. The project, the whole site is 74.4 acres. We are proposing 56 twin townhome units on a loop road, which would be Waverly Place. There’d be two entrances onto Meadowbrook Road. In addition to that, there’d be two small cul de sacs located off the loop road. The future development parcels that were referred to are on the north, on the intersection of Meadowbrook and Haviland Road, which is about 11 acres, and a small one and a half acre parcel to the south. A 12 acre parcel to be donated to the Town for recreation to the Town Recreation Department is located in this area over here. That’s 12 acres, and the balance of the lands are 35 acres, which would remain open space. The roads would be Town dedicated roads, also utilities, connections to Town water and sewer, and we have some correspondence and some comments that we’re prepared to address from the departments, and there was one comment I want to point out, or question, rather, on the wetlands, and we’re going to make some modifications to the plan, so that we don’t have to acquire any wetlands permits. The only area that we really are going to have an impact to wetlands will be for the sanitary sewer line, which comes out here and crosses the wetland over in this area, and then over to the pump station, located on Meadowbrook Road, and that will be covered under Nationwide Permit 12, which is a pre-authorized permit under the Army Corps Nationwide Permit Program, and will not essentially require a permit. It essentially is pre- authorized., due to its minor impact. So with that, if it’s okay with the Board, we’d like to go through the comments, I guess letter by letter. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. MR. SPORKO-And starting with the C.T. Male review letter. The first comment, comment number one, is regarding the land to be dedicated to the Town for recreational use. Yes, Kevin, if you could pass them, we faxed earlier today, a written response to these comments, which we’ll hand out to the Board right now, and I’m going to go through these. MR. MAC EWAN-Did you fax those to who? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) MR. SPORKO-We faxed them to Chris Round, who I understand is not here, and to C.T. Male. MR. MAC EWAN-And has C.T. Male signed off on those responses? MR. SPORKO-No, they haven’t. MR. LAPPER-We just got their review letter on Friday, so we’ve now responded to them, and we know that they’ll have to correspond back to the Board, but we want to go over the issues. MR. SPORKO-Okay. So starting at the top here, we’re talking about the C.T. Male comments. Number One, regarding the land donation, we understand that the donation has been accepted by the Town Recreation Department, but subject to Town Board approval, and accepting the land. The comment from C.T. Male was questioning the access through that corridor. The corridor referred to is the southerly 50 foot access reserved for a means of access to get to that land, and the question was regarding crossing the wetlands, yes, a crossing would be required, although we don’t know what type of crossing the Town would like to put in there. Essentially, the land would be dedicated to the Town, so that the wetland permit issue would be a Town issue and would be dependent upon what type of crossing they want to put, whether it’s a road, whether it’s a boardwalk type crossing, or whatever. So we just wanted to mention that also. The land does have access to Adirondack Community College, which borders the property to the west. The second comment refers to, it was unclear whether the units were to be individually sold. Yes, the units will be individually sold. So there’ll be 56 individual units, 28 buildings, twin townhome units. We do not show the lot line between the units because the way it’s normally done is based on the as built condition of the building. When the building is located, a lot line then gets located through the party wall. So then that gets added to the subdivision plat at that time, and to the deeds. So there’d be 56 individual townhouse lots, and actually we’ve added that note to Sheet L-1. MR. MICHAELS-As another footnote, too, that’s how we did Cedar Court, the two unit town home buildings there. We did the envelope, and then we established the common wall, once we did the foundation location. MR. SPORKO-The third comment question, is it consistent with the PUD, we have since been to the Town Board, who has since affirmed consistency with the PUD on July 24. The fourth th comment, about the wetlands, and we have a fairly lengthy response here, but basically what it says is that what I just mentioned earlier, that the permit that would be required would be for the utility line of the sanitary sewer utility line, be covered under Nationwide Permit 12, which is a pre-authorized permit. We also attached to the back of our letter the actual Army Corps of Engineers permit notification, which describes the type of permit that would be required, and all of the guidelines that need to be followed for it. So it does fall into that category. The other impacts that we do show, we did show a detention basin, stormwater detention basin, located within the 100 foot DEC buffer area. I can point to it, which is actually on the grading plan, but we had it located behind this area here, and after looking at that and realizing that, yes, it is in the 100 foot adjacent area, we’ll move it out of the adjacent area, so it falls behind this unit here, and there’s pretty much the same amount of room in this location there. So it works equally well. The fifth comment, the slope at the northern intersection does not meet Town specifications. We are revising that, and that will be revised in the final plans. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that per the Highway Superintendent’s memo, that comment? MR. SPORKO-No, that was a separate comment by C.T. Male. The slope was, I believe we had, the Town requirement is three percent or less per 100 feet, and I believe we had seven feet. So we’d have to slightly change the vertical curve to accommodate that. Likewise, the comment number six, it refers to the sag on vertical curves need to be checked and we will ensure that the AASHTO standards for vertical curvature are met, at 30 miles per hour, design speed. Number Seven, traffic control signage should be added to the plans. Yes, we will add the traffic signs, stop signs at intersections and street signs to the final plans. Number eight, regarding stormwater management report, there was a few inconsistencies between our report and the plan. We will revise the plan, so that both the stormwater management report and the plan are the same, and also to include rip rap lining at the outlet for the detention basin, and comment number nine referred to catch basins being moved slightly so they’re exactly at the low point in the road. Those will be moved, also, for the final plans. Drawing G-1 on number 10 will be revised to include a catch basin between numbers six and seven because we exceeded the Town maximum of 350 feet, by I believe 20 feet. So add another catch basin in there. Number 11, we will add drainage easements around the stormwater detention basins, and those will be added in the as built condition. Number 12 refers to a weir being the outlet for detention basin number one. We will also amend that so that the weir will not have any outlet flow during the 50 year storm event. There is an additional outlet, besides the weir. The weir is a 50 foot wide weir that accepts emergency outflow during the 50 year storm, and the way we had it designed, it provides some outflow during the 25 year storm. So that would be revised. Number 14, regarding the Water and Wastewater Departments, we will obtain letters from them to ensure that 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) they can accept the capacity, and we have had discussions with them. We have comment letters from both Departments. Fifteen, regarding individual water service taps, it is our understanding, after discussing this with the Town, that the individual service taps and curve valves would be installed on demand, per each unit, by Town forces, and that was the reason they weren’t shown on the plans. So that is due to our discussions with the Town, and Number 16, also we’ll add the detail for the tapping tee that’s referred to. Are there any questions on these comments so far? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, why don’t you just go through everything and then we’ll get Staff comments, then I’ll go right down the Board and let them ask questions. MR. SPORKO-Okay. Very good. All right, Kevin, I’ll have you do the Town Highway Department comments. KEVIN HASTINGS MR. HASTINGS-In response to the Town Highway Department comments dated August 8, drainage easements will be given over all of the detention basins and stormwater discharge pipes that lie within the common HOA land. There was a concern there for access for maintenance and cleaning by the Town forces. The second one, the HOA will retain land ownership of the basins, and all legal responsibility. Number Three has to do with a name change that the Town has requested. There’s already a Laurel Lane, and so the name Laurel Court will be changed prior to final submission. The fourth one, regarding sight distance at the intersections, we propose to change the landscaping, if necessary, to ensure that the sight distance will be maintained, and the fifth one, Number Five, regarding the speed limit on Meadowbrook Road, I’d refer this to Shelly Johnston at Creighton Manning. SHELLY JOHNSTON MS. JOHNSTON-Good evening. Again, my name is Shelly Johnston. I’m a traffic engineer with Creighton Manning Engineering. We prepared a traffic impact study that the Town’s Staff has reviewed, and so far that’s the only comments we’ve received are staff comments. The traffic study that was submitted was based on full build out of Waverly Place, not just Phase I. With Phase I, with just the townhouse units, we’ve estimated that the project will generate approximately 40 trips in the peak hour. That includes all traffic entering and exiting during that peak hour. Obviously, we’ll have some distributed to the north and some to the south. So we’ll have the very insignificant impact on the operation of those two unsignalized intersections adjacent to the site. Again, both north and south along Meadowbrook. The Staff comments, also, it seems to me to incorporate some review comments that the Town has received from A/GFTC. One has to do with both the speed limit on Meadowbrook and how it relates to site distance. What we’ve done is take another look at site distance with the existing 55 mile per hour speed limit. Obviously, as Mr. Lapper has indicated, the Town seems to be in the process of changing that speed limit to be consistent with other roads in the area, to be 45 miles per hour. At 45 miles per hour speed limit, there’s no issue at all with sight distance. At 55 mile per hour, we have one driveway looking in one direction where it’s slightly less. The wording is less than desirable, but not critically limited. So, it’s not exactly what the 55 mile per hour speed limit would suggest, but the mitigating effort would be to put up an intersection warning sign, until such time as the speed limit got reduced. So we can do that, again, it’s not usually necessary for something that’s less than desirable. Again, it’s not a critically limited condition where sight distance is a significant concern. We have over 600 feet of sight distance on this road at that one location. On all other locations, we have more than 1,000 feet of sight distance. So, again, we did not see that as an issue at all. The other comment that the Staff brought up was in regard to traffic volumes, and basically the basis from which we determined the relative impacts of this project. We included not only the traffic counts we did. We also included background traffic volumes to include traffic generated by The Glen at Hiland Meadows at full build out, plus a two percent per year background growth rate compounded for five years, to account for some additional traffic that may be generated by other projects in the area, and again, as I stated, we looked at full build out of this project, not just townhouse development, and when you add all that traffic together, and then take a look at how those intersections operate, we have very good levels of service, low delays. There’s really nothing indicates that any mitigating measure is needed. There’s no recommendation for any change in traffic control at the intersections along Meadowbrook. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. HASTINGS-Then in response to the Town Water Department comment letter dated August 10, comments one, two, four and five are related to hydrant locations, which we’ll easily adjust to th the Department’s recommendation. Number Three, minimum separation distance, that’ll also be maintained between any water main and sanitary sewers, and then in the general comments, again, minimum separation distance between water and sewer mains will be maintained, and, two, comment number two, hydrants, again, a technical question. The hydrants will be installed with tee 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) fittings, and the final comment, the water and sanitary sewer crossing detail will be revised, instead of showing a concrete encasement, it’ll have a protective sleeve. MR. SPORKO-Regarding the Town comments from the Staff, I guess the first issue, and it was brought up at the previous meeting, was the architecture, and Dave Michaels is here, and he can show you some renderings and color schemes for what the architecture will be for the units. MR. MICHAELS-This shows a typical two unit town home building. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have one that you can put up on the board, too, Dave? MR. MICHAELS-Yes, and we also, we did a color scheme, pallet or basically three color schemes in three different buildings, that would be configured showing the shingles and the colors. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. MICHAELS-The buildings, what we’re using is, like I said, this shows a typical two unit townhouse building. They actually connect here. This is the party wall, and that’s the reason why we can’t delineate where the actual connection is ahead of time, because different units have different jogs in the way that wall works, and we usually design the buildings so that they’re fairly flexible in terms of how the different units could interrelate to each other. Plus, in some building envelopes, you may have some grade issues that we want to push a building maybe slightly to the left or right and still be within a building envelope, but the buildings are two unit design townhouses, similar in concept to what we did at Cedar Court, when we redesigned that project, when we were brought in to complete it a couple of years back. These designs would all have architectural shingles, vinyl wood grain siding, extra detailing around trim windows, different types of shutter detailing, garage window lights, which we haven’t done in the past, but to try to give it an even more upgraded aesthetic look to even what we were doing at Cedar Court. All the homes would be completely landscaped, and fully maintained by the Homeowners Association. All their grounds maintenance and snow removal would be a service provided by the HOA. The roof pitches would be at least 6 to 9/12 in height and this is a pretty good indication of what we’re trying to accomplish. Then what we also included was a color scheme, which is getting passed around, for basically we’re proposing three different building color schemes, which what we do is we then intermix that in the community so that they’re not all one color. It helps break it up and differentiate it, and we pre-dictate that to our customers, before they come in, and we try to break it up like we did at Cedar Court, in a way to provide a little bit of mix, so that aesthetically everything doesn’t quite all look the same, and we do provide some individuality when it comes to picking their shutter and door color. The door color, entry door color and shutters have to be the same, and the garage doors themselves, we like to keep those the same as the siding, so they don’t jump out quite as much, they sort of blend in. So those are some of the exterior things that we would propose. As far as the site plan, you know, we’re proposing a fair amount of common landscaping, especially along Meadowbrook Road. That’s very important to, I think, not only the Town but also to us as builders and what our buyers, they’re going to want privacy, and they’re going to want the feeling that they’re well buffered from the road themselves, and I think the plan done by LA really shows a nice creative use, the berming on the actual submitted plans, but conceptually we’re calling for extensive landscaping along Meadowbrook. We’re also calling for some good sized trees to be planted along the main roadway, and that would be part and separate than each individual home getting fully landscaped also. We would be putting in the lawns, blacktopped driveways, brick paver walks, that would all be turnkey. The idea of this walkway, this walkway that’s connecting both entrances, we’re proposing that to meander through in and out of the berms and actually be a paved surface, again, owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association, and the idea would be is it would create really a nice loop. This ends up to be a fairly long walkway just in itself, but it’s really a nice benefit for the residents. We also envision for some passive recreation, passive exercise stations, that kind of thing, maybe along the pathway and some benches, maybe some picnic tables, that kind of thing, and the idea is that somebody could easily either just walk through or make a nice loop around the community, and they could easily do it with a bicycle, too. That’s why we wanted to propose paving. Talking to the Rec Department, their goal would be, when they ultimately come up with a plan for what they want to do here, which they have different ideas, but that’s going to be up to them, exactly what they would want to do down the road. We’re proposing to give them the land. The Rec Department told us they’re really happy about the donation of the land. They’re familiar with it. They’ve walked it. They understand what’s involved. They’ve also been talking to the College next door about some ideas of some common interests, and whether it be some combined recreational services that we could split the expenses with or whatever, but we’re really leaving that up to the Town and the Rec Department, but talking to Harry Hansen, his goal is to continue some of the cross country trails that are on the Adirondack Community College area now, and actually take them through the 50 foot access area, and that’s where we talked about, in terms of his walking trails, when they would go in, we told him that conceptually, when they do go in, we would connect our walking trails to them. Whatever design he ultimately comes up with and whatever finished material that he would propose, we would end up at the southerly point making a connection into it, and in terms of our Parcel A to the north, ultimately, when we go 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) forward and we present a site plan for review of this area, in the future, at that time, we would show where a walking trail connection could lead off of this path and connect into this area, but as far as where that actually would come in, we’re really leaving that for the future and how we would develop that, and we would leave it, you know, as the condition that when we presented down the road, that we would have to allow for that access. That was brought up by Staff, too, and Chris. So I wanted to bring up that. All the homes would have lampposts. The design we’ve already submitted to Staff, and they would be on electric eyes. So they would come on automatically. It wouldn’t be something the homeowner owners could switch on and off. Between the lighting on the buildings, there are two unit buildings and then there are two lampposts that are in the front. The setbacks aren’t really that far from the street. It’s a cluster type of product. It’s going to provide quite a bit of lighting, just in itself, with the two unit buildings and two lampposts for each building, and the setbacks, we feel there’s more than adequate light going through. We did consider the idea of some street lighting, but it would have been, in our opinion, too much, and it would actually be a negative, and having these lanterns go on by electric eye, that’s how it was done at Cedar Court. It ends up to be safe enough for security but yet not too much where it’s a negative for the customers living there. So that’s we’re at in terms of the architecture. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. LAPPER-Just one thing, in response to what Craig had asked before. In Queensbury, in the PUD Regulations, one thing that I think is going to be fixed with the new zoning is that the PUD never talked about subdivision. It only talks about site plan, but of course if you have a PUD like this where you want to have single family ownership, you have to have subdivision as well. So the application went in for the PUD for site plan and for subdivision, even though the Ordinance doesn’t specifically talk about subdivision, and I guess that’s it for us, and we’re here to answer questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Marilyn, anything you wanted to add? MRS. RYBA-I do have a couple of comments, and, yes, a couple of things, if you don’t mind. MR. MAC EWAN-No, go ahead. MRS. RYBA-In terms of phasing, I just wanted to remind the applicant that there is a limitation in the Subdivision Regulations where only a maximum of 35 lots at one time can be developed. MR. LAPPER-But the Planning Board can waive that. MRS. RYBA-Okay. The second is, in terms of the lot lines, and showing the lines, yes, it’s shown on a typical, however, I’ve researched some other communities who have condominium situations or common wall situations, and the lot lines are shown. Now there’s a provision in the Subdivision Regulations, which allows substantial compliance for final plat. So, really, if there aren’t significant changes, which you don’t anticipate, you could still show the lots lines for the common walls, because some of the lots are a little bit, are sized differently or shaped differently. MR. LAPPER-We could show a dotted line, but the problem is that, what Dave was getting at is that you could have, just because of what customers want, and want to pick a lot for a three bedroom unit versus a two bedroom unit, so the line, you could have two, three bedrooms next to each other, or three and a two, and it could just, just because of what models, we don’t go in, all the buildings don’t look the same. So you don’t really know, going in, what customers are going to pick, and that’s why they need some flexibility. MRS. RYBA-In terms of one item, number of three, you had a response to C.T. Male comments regarding PUD consistency. Yes, the Town Board did agree to consistency with the overall PUD. However, the SEQRA, this building is to be reaffirmed, and that needs to take place actually before any final approvals. In terms of the. MR. MAC EWAN-When is that scheduled to be done, do you know? MRS. RYBA-No, I don’t. MR. LAPPER-I don’t suggest that that’s wrong, but it’s just not the way that it’s been handled at any of the other projects at Hiland. MR. SCHACHNER-I think it depends, in large part, on whether this Board wants the Town Board to take any second, or whatever number this would be, look at the SEQRA review component. The Town Board has already enacted a resolution, as I recall, and I think it’s in our packets, that affirms, I believe I’m using the language of the resolution, affirms the consistency of the PUD. I mean, I’m sorry, the proposal with the PUD that was approved back in ’87 or so. That resolution does not 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) specifically reference the SEQRA review, nor, and I think I was at the Town Board meeting, nor did the Town Board specifically talk about the SEQRA review in enacting that resolution, but I think that resolution, but I think that unless this Board feels that the SEQRA review or any other involved agency feels that the SEQRA review needs another look, it probably doesn’t. If this Board feels, for some reason, that the SEQRA review does, you could make that request of the Town Board, in which case the Town Board’s responsibility would be simply to look at the new data, new information, and determine whether any supplement to the original Environmental Impact Statement was necessary or not. MR. MAC EWAN-Whatever procedures we did for both The Glen at Hiland and Schermerhorn’s project, we should probably be consistent and do it with this one as well. MR. SCHACHNER-And I think that’s what the applicant’s attorney is basically referencing, and if I’m not mistaken, the procedure is for those for basically what’s been happening thus far, which is the Town Board has confirmed the consistency. The Planning Board did not, as I recall, in either of those projects, have any separate or additional concerns warranting you, or that you felt you had to ask the Town Board to take any further look at SEQRA. That’s my recollection, and if that’s correct, that’s certainly an appropriate path here, too. We were just pointing out that if you had additional concerns, you have the option of asking the Town Board to take another look at that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MRS. RYBA-In reference to traffic study, the Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council has been asked to review all of the traffic information, not only from Creighton Manning Engineering, but also looking at all of the other aspects of the entire Hiland Park PUD. Those comments have not yet been received, and that’s all I have right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Anything else, Mark? Okay, John, we’ll start with you. Any questions? MR. STROUGH-A couple. Are any of these proposed townhouse units going to have basements? Or are they going to be on slab? MR. MICHAELS-Basements. MR. STROUGH-They will have basements? MR. MICHAELS-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Has that been a concern because of some of the mottling and dampness and ledges that we’ve noticed in some areas here, and typical for this area, I might add, but you don’t anticipate any problems with basements? MR. MICHAELS-No. We did extensive test holes. We did test holes at two different timeframes, and one just fairly recently, because that was a concern of ours, too, to make sure there wasn’t a problem. We also had a representative of Kubricky Construction go out with us to do a lot of our projects, the infrastructure, and they’re pretty skilled at sites that have water issues, and from our observations, I’ll let Kevin speak more on it because he was right there while we conducted them just recently. We feel pretty comfortable with how it was designed and the grades, and that it should not present a problem for the basements. In some of the areas on the back what we’re doing is hold the basements up and actually letting them, we call them garden level basements, along the rear of the site, where we drop the foundation four feet, and you could put windows in. We did that at Cedar Court in a number of lots. It allows you again, not to, it let’s the natural grades work better. MR. STROUGH-And how about in areas where, have you considered perimeter drains around the basements at all, in some areas, because there is water there? MR. MICHAEL-Yes. We plan on drainage stone on the inside and typically we make a field evaluation of what’s there, whether we put it on the inside or outside and inside, as far as the drain tile itself. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, this is the architectural style, and I’ve noticed in the book that there are variations, as far as siding color and roof shingle color. MR. MICHAEL-No, the roof shingle is the same for each one. We just put the same sample in for each one. MR. STROUGH-Will this be the same architectural design used for all 28 units? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) MR. MICHAELS-No, that’s just two typical units, two different styles. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Will there be a variation of styles in this development? MR. MICHAELS-The architectural style would be very similar to that, but there could be some, we have maybe two other units that we may offer that would look very compatible with these, but a little bit different, so they don’t all look the same. MR. STROUGH-Well, so there won’t be any dramatic changes to this. MR. MICHAELS-No, there won’t be any dramatic changes, no, but there will be at least one or two additional units offered that will look very similar, let’s put it this way, that will look totally compatible with the look that we’re providing in this rendering. MR. STROUGH-Well, I know compatibility. Sometimes something becomes so compatible and so uniform for that, you know what I’m saying? MR. MICHAELS-Yes. Right there you have a rendering of two ranches, and we’re also going to have at least one or two more two stories with master bedroom downs, and that in itself ends up helping provide quite a different look. MR. MAC EWAN-It sounds very similar to what was done across the street with Schermerhorn’s project. MR. STROUGH-I wouldn’t mind seeing, I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels, a little bit more architectural variation, but we’ll just let it sit as comment, okay. The traffic study, again, I was disappointed to see that it did not address the real speed limit, when I’ve been forced to address the real speed limit in the past, which is 55, and I see the CME study only did sight distances at 45, and as you’ve stated, that they have done a study at 55, but I haven’t seen it. MS. JOHNSTON-I just wanted to comment that (lost words) analysis for the Board and Staff that outlines basically what my response was earlier. MR. LAPPER-John, what Shelly mentioned before was that, at 55, there would have to be, if the speed limit is not changed before the project goes in, there would have to be an intersection ahead sign. MR. STROUGH-Well, I know that, Jon, but my thing is I would expect to see at least both presentations in a traffic study. MR. LAPPER-Totally appropriate, and you have the other one. MR. STROUGH-The only other concern I have about the traffic study, well, a couple of other concerns, but some of them aren’t your fault, is the existing travel pattern. Now CME used a previous study, a 1999 study, that was done for one of the other projects, The Glen or Schermerhorn’s. MS. JOHNSTON-The Glen. MR. LAPPER-That was Shelly’s study also. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Shelly, in that study, you had put that most of the traffic flow on Meadowbrook Road was northerly, which was probably right for that time, but now we have The Glen at Hiland. We have the Schermerhorn apartments. We have you people. I mean, the character of this area is becoming very, changing and becoming much more residential. Now what I’m suggesting is that, in the past, maybe you did have a northerly flow for people going to the golf course, what have you, but now that this area is becoming more and more residential in nature, I’m suggesting that the basic pattern might be a southerly flow on Meadowbrook, people going to work, people going shopping, and I think Meadowbrook’s going to establish more of a southerly, rather than northerly flow. MR. LAPPER-I think that was because it was evening peak hour and everyone’s going home. MS. JOHNSTON-If I may address the comment. What we did, the detail of the study is that we assigned about 45% of the peak hour traffic to the south, and again, the traffic impact study was based on the entire development proposal, all phases. So we have both office uses in there as well as residential uses, in the traffic impact study, that we assigned the trip generation. So we got about 50% going south and about 50% going and coming from the north, but when we looked at the traffic, when we did additional traffic counts, both to the north, and we had the traffic counts, we did 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) the traffic counts to the south, and we had the previous traffic counts from ’99 to the north on Meadowbrook, and when we added our site generated traffic, on top of that, there’s still not a lot of volume out there. I grant you that the character of Haviland and Meadowbrook are changing, but there’s still, relatively speaking, not a lot of traffic out there. So even if we assigned all of our traffic from the townhouse development, all 40 trips, to the south, that still wouldn’t change the result of the analysis. The intersections are still operating with relatively low delays. So when the townhouse development gets developed, you’ll still have levels of service that are B or C, around a 15 second delay. MR. STROUGH-I’m thinking down the road, too. I’m just thinking that the travel pattern, because of the nature of the area is changing, that the travel pattern would probably be changed as well, and that’s something we should consider. MS. JOHNSTON-You’re right. MR. STROUGH-And that I’m not only looking at your project. I’m looking at the Schermerhorn project. I’m looking at The Glen at Hiland. I’m looking at the expansion with the multifamily housing, I’ll get to in a minute, with you people, and other potential projects that could result as an out build of the original Hiland PUD. MS. JOHNSTON-Right. MR. STROUGH-It could be considerable, and have considerable impact on roads such as Hiland and Meadowbrook, and I do have a concern about the intersection with Meadowbrook and Cronin Road, which is just a stop sign situation, but, okay, that’s not just you. It’s something I’m concerned with. That’s why I mentioned it. Okay. Let’s move on. Great idea, the fitness and walking trails. I really enjoy seeing things like that when a developer comes before us and adds an amenity like that. So I was very happy to see that. That’s a big plus. What I would like to see, because I’m concerned, and you did mention that they’re possibly going to be connected to maybe, on the south side, it might be connected to the recreational area, and the north side, somehow through the office proposal, and make some kind of connection. I’m just worried that that might be a homeowner’s decision, in that if it just goes to Waverly Place on both sides that, you know, the homeowners may decide that they don’t want to extend that path because of certain liability or maintenance problems that that could present, because then you’re opening it up to public access, and you mentioned that it basically is a homeowner’s association maintenance and liability problem. I mean, there may be signs there saying Private Drive, public not welcome. I’m not sure what might be the future here. MR. LAPPER-Are you suggesting that we should agree as a condition now that it would get connected if the Recreation Department does something in that area? MR. STROUGH-Well, what I’m suggesting, Jon, is, you know, I like the idea. I told you that. I think it’s a great idea to have a walking fitness trail, and I’d like to see it extended. I’d like to see more of this in Queensbury, and I commend you on the idea of putting it in the development. I would like to see it extended. I’m not sure the problems that would entail. So I guess I’m kind of asking what problems might that, if we want to connect that to the recreation area. For example, are we going to run into problems with the Homeowner’s Association? I mean, they are going to have certain rights themselves, especially if they’re given maintenance and liability of that trail. MR. LAPPER-Well, right now it’s the developer’s decision. So that anything that we agree to or that the Planning Board imposes as a condition, would be something the homeowners would take subject to. So if that’s something you feel strongly about, we could deal with that now. MR. STROUGH-And that’s why I thought it was a good idea to bring it up now, Jon. MR. LAPPER-Sure. MR. STROUGH-In your narrative, you refer to the multi housing. I think I have an idea of where the offices are proposed. Where are the multifamily units? MR. SPORKO-All right. This was the conceptual plan that was proposed and shown last time. This is the cluster here. This was just an idea for how it might look. Conceptually speaking, what we had was a cluster come in to really a village green type concept, where the multifamily units would be clustered on one side, and the office would be clustered on the other side, and also we wanted to point out, too, we wanted to keep an extra large buffer of at least 100 feet from Haviland Road for this area, as well as the continuation of this landscape buffer along Meadowbrook would continue up this way. So that that trail, I guess what we envision is that the trail would come here and connect somehow into this development. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) MR. STROUGH-Yes. Which is nice. I’d like to see that. While you’re right there, I’d also like to see, because we don’t know how much of that is going to be apartments, multifamily housing. We don’t know what part of it’s going to be, and I think what you’re proposing is merely a proposal that we might desire, well, speaking for myself, a little bit more vegetation in the northern area between these two proposed project. You see the northern line? MR. SPORKO-Yes. I would agree with that, and I guess that we would like to address that, would be when this development does get designed, and we come in, we could build, since we have to have site plan review for that project, we could build that into this project, so that the buffer gets placed in appropriate locations, rather than not knowing. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m always thinking the worst. Because the market determines a lot of what’s going to happen. Right? What if office space becomes very popular in Queensbury, so let’s forget the multifamily. Let’s make the whole thing office space, and that might be fine, but I’d like to make sure, and ensure, that there’s a buffer zone between the two. So, again, it’s just my thinking, I’d like to see a little bit more vegetation on that northern side. Now probably if you ask for all office space, I’ll probably ask for that on that side as well, just to maintain a buffer zone between, which potentially could be office space, and residential area. Just a thought. The wetlands, some of the lots, to go back to your other map, are in that buffer zone. The lots aren’t numbered, so I’m going to have difficulty. It is the west/southwest lots, in that kind of hexagonal situation there. MR. SPORKO-Yes. That is correct, and what we propose doing, and we have a grading plan in this package, is to alter the grading plan so that we do not do any grading within that buffer zone. So although the lot line may be back in the buffer zone, we would not propose doing any actual earth work within that zone. MR. STROUGH-Do you have to get any DEC permit for that? MR. SPORKO-Not unless we’re proposing any kind of activity, filling activities in those locations. MR. STROUGH-So a non-activity situation doesn’t require that? MR. SPORKO-Correct. MR. STROUGH-Okay. In the same area, there’s a little drainage pipe going between the Army Corps of Engineers Wetland and the DEC wetland, just at the very tip of that hexagon you and I were just talking about. MR. SPORKO-Yes. That also we feel that that could be pulled back a little bit from that area, and also the detention basin that I spoke of, what I’m talking about there is moving that to this location over here, so that we can pull that directly out of the adjacent area totally. MR. STROUGH-So that, it looks like in its existing situation there’s a pipe there. Do you see where I’m saying? Just go off the tip of that hexagonal thing, go a little bit west further. Is that Army Corps of Engineers maintenance problem or DEC’s or? I don’t know whose it is. MR. SPORKO-Yes. There’s both a DEC wetland and an Army Corps Wetland in this area, and they’re both shown on this plan. There’s no drainage pipes back there now, no existing drainage pipes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Maybe I need glasses. Isn’t that a pipe of some sort? Okay. That’s something we’ll look at later. Thank you very much. MR. SPORKO-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it? Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just have one thing, and maybe the Staff can answer this. As far as this whole site plan 44-2000 goes, does the entire plan encompass the fact that there will be, if it gets passed and you propose it, definitely a 48 multifamily project that will be on that parcel there? Why I’m asking this, because let’s just say with the build out of The Glen and Schermerhorn and this phase, and 56 units here, and let’s just say that, and with the townhouses and everything, and let’s say there’s a build out of property on the home lots at Hiland, and maybe the traffic issue is pretty intense, that maybe 48 multifamily units might be a little bit too much, after everything is completed. So what I’m saying is, is that written in stone, that it’s definitely, that if this motion goes, that there will be 48 multifamily units in that parcel, or would they have to come to us again for site plan review? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) MRS. RYBA-They would have to come back to you for site plan review for the other aspects of the Waverly Place portion of the Hiland Park PUD. Right now that green area is the only thing that’s in front of you for site plan review and preliminary subdivision approval. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. The only thing I’m concerned about is technically and legally, in the date of it, in the paragraph that’s in front of me, it says future development proposed consists of, and so, is that part going to, is this whole, it’s all under site plan no. 44-2000. That’s why I want to make sure that it could be changed, if the traffic issue warranted it. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, what could be changed, and I hope I’m being responsive to your question, Cathy, is sort of tying with what I mentioned earlier. If there comes a time during the phase development of this project or any other project occurring within the four corners, or however many corners there are, of the original Hiland Park Planned Unit Development, that there comes a time when this Board feels that the nature of the development or the cumulative impacts all of the development are such that you want to ask the Town Board, which was the SEQRA Lead Agency, to refresh its SEQRA review, or to take another look at its SEQRA review, and to see whether there needs to be any supplemental SEQRA review or supplemental Environmental Impact Statement information produced by some applicant, whether this applicant or some future applicant, you have the right to make that request of the Town Board. Is that responsive to your question? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I understand what you’re saying there. MR. SCHACHNER-So, in other words, let me pin that down a little bit more, if I can. Let’s say that, I think you’re asking specifically about subsequent phases of this particular project. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But I think they want, the original intent or request was that all 56 units are going to go in right now, at once. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. So there really is no phase at all to this. There’s just one phase to what we see up there in the green. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and if that encompasses 56 proposed units of development, and that’s what’s on the table now, so to speak, then if you, as a Planning Board member, and if you have three colleagues that agree with you, feel that the potential traffic impacts of 56 units on this project, accompanied with the various other things you mentioned, if you feel that that’s of a potential magnitude to possibly warrant further examination of, for example, traffic impacts, then you have the option, as a Planning Board, to ask the Town Board to look at that issue, because the Town Board is the SEQRA Lead Agency. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I understand. I appreciate your comment. MR. SCHACHNER-And you can do that if you like. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Can I take that one step farther? Why are we even making reference to it in a prepared resolution? MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t know. I didn’t look at it. MR. MAC EWAN-The last line says “Future development proposed consisting of 48 multifamily project including a 30,000 square foot office space on 11.2 acres, 1.7 acre office space and 12 acres to be dedicated to the Town”. Why do we even make reference to that in this application in front of us tonight? MR. SCHACHNER-Is that from the resolution you’re looking? MR. MAC EWAN-I’m looking at the prepared resolution for tonight, yes. MR. LAPPER-I can tell you that we submitted the whole thing, with SEQRA in mind, in terms of the traffic study, to show you what the maximum potential build out would be. So that you could, even though we’re not applying for site plan, but so that you could consider what’s proposed, in terms of what the impacts would be. MR. MAC EWAN-The only thing that we’re dealing with tonight is the 56 unit townhouses, the subdivision of the 14 and a half acres, and the 35.13 acres of common land, right? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) MR. LAPPER-We’re also asking for the subdivision of the remaining land which would be the area for that future development because it would be a separate parcel, separate from the common area and separate from the 56 units. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. I’m aware of that. MR. SCHACHNER-As far as the prepared resolution goes, that language is recited in the first Whereas, and you’re certainly not obligated to include that. You would, if you were to enact the proposed resolution tonight, or at some other time, you would not be approving any of the stuff that starts with the sentence, “Future development proposed consists of…”, and if you feel that confusing or misleading, you want to take that out of that Whereas, that’s certainly appropriate. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Are you all set? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I had a number of questions, and some comments, I guess. I tell you, after going through all these materials, I appreciate how much work has gone into this to get it this far, and I guess I just want to pick up on some of the comments that I made when we did the preliminary site plan review, and that have been mentioned also. My personal feeling is that the Town Board’s affirmation of the consistency with the PUD does not imply consistency with the Environmental Impact Statement, and I have a hard time with a statement that’s 13 years old. I understand, and I appreciate the fact, that the proposal is less than what was originally proposed in ’87. You know, we’ve seen the numbers, and I understand that, but I guess I would feel a little bit more comfortable if that was looked at again. I might be the only one that feels that way. I guess that’s kind of where I wanted to start. I had a specific question on the traffic study, and I don’t know if I misread this, but on the table, and it would apply to both the 45 mile an hour speed limit, and also the 55 scenario. On the driveway number one, it talks about the sight distance looking north as being 410 feet, but the recommendation is 845. MS. JOHNSTON-That’s controlled by the proximity to the adjacent intersection. We’re limited just because we’re that close to the intersection. In actuality, you’re probably not going to get someone that can go 55 miles per hour in that short amount of time, or distance, I should say. So it’s limited only by the proximity to the adjacent intersection. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s what I thought. I wanted to make sure I was understanding that correctly. So the 410 feet is from Haviland Road? MS. JOHNSTON-Yes, the site driveway through the intersection of Haviland Road, just to the other side of the pavement on Haviland Road. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. There was a recommendation from the Beautification Committee that additional screening be in place. Is that reflected in the revised drawing? MR. SPORKO-Yes, it is. We appeared before the Beautification Committee last Monday, and they approved the plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I agree with John’s comment about the variations of design. I think we should try to do what you can to make the different units appear different, so that they’re not all the same, as you’re driving down the street. On the lighting, there’s going to be electric eyes for the post lights out front. Will those be on all night or are they timed? MR. MICHAELS-They’re totally keyed in on, their photosensitive. The minute it gets dark they go on, and the minute it starts to lighten up, they go off. MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s like a street light? MR. SPORKO-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Just to pick up on one of the Staff comments that was mentioned about pedestrian traffic. There was no reference in the traffic study for off site pedestrian traffic, and Meadowbrook Road, you know, I live right around the corner. So I know. In fact, driving over tonight, there were joggers, walkers, people riding their bike. I mean, it’s not uncommon to see people drive their car to Meadowbrook Road just so they can go walking up and down the road or rollerblading or whatever, and I’m just curious, and it kind of goes along with some of John’s comments, you know, what kind of impact additional traffic might have on that kind of usage, and I 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) don’t know if there’s any specific, I don’t really have a specific question, other than it’s an observation. MR. LAPPER-The trail system is certainly going to be available. It’s not limited to residents. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MICHAELS-Yes. According to Harry Hansen, the Rec Department already has some extensive that already go in behind the Eddy portion, in back of Hiland, part of the original plan, and they have their own master plan for a trail system, with the sole purpose to keep providing nice recreation activity off the main thoroughfares. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and I guess just a final comment, something that I would encourage you to consider, when you come before the Board for the multifamily office development, that you consider mixing the uses, you know, offices on the first floor and perhaps an owner’s apartment on the second floor. I know it’s something that’s becoming more and more common, as communities seek to build communities, rather than just, you know, create spaces for work and spaces for residences. It might work very well in this particular location, particularly as you consider buffer zones between the different uses, but it’s just something that I’d like you to consider, and I know would require some special action by this Board in order to approve those. I didn’t have anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Larry? MR. RINGER-No, everything has been gone over quite well. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have to say, as a homeowner on Meadowbrook, I am the most sorry to see this land being developed, but I am so pleased with what I see, with everything, that, as much as I don’t want to see the land, you know, be taken away, I’m very excited for the project. I think you’ve all done a wonderful job. I don’t have any concerns with the traffic flow on Meadowbrook or the sight distances. My major concern, and I don’t know if Shelly can address this for us, is the Haviland Road exit, coming from Meadowbrook onto Haviland. My concern there, and living on Meadowbrook, I take that more often than I would the other way. Believe it or not, the light going onto Quaker is so messed up that it’s quicker for me to come around than it would be to go down. So, as I pull out, or if I’m going on toward Ridge, I always find that, coming up the hill there, the cars come up extremely fast. If you pull out, you always find yourself with somebody right behind you. Did you see that as an issue at all? MS. JOHNSTON-I can’t specifically address that, to be honest with you. We didn’t look at that in detail, off site sight distance issues. We looked primarily, or exclusively, I should say, at the proposed intersections on how that would be impacted. So, no. MR. METIVIER-Again, from what I see now, we’ve lived there almost four years, and certainly the traffic has picked up, and who knows what the next few years are going to bring, with all the development, but I don’t foresee it, especially with it being such a straight road, there being any real impact from your exits, you know, coming out. I think the sight distances everywhere will be fine, but again, I’d like to somehow have somebody address that intersection, especially pulling out left or right for that matter. I just think it’s dangerous, and I don’t know what the answer is there, and it’s certainly not your responsibility, but I would like it to be addressed by the Board. Besides that, I think it’s wonderful. I really am pleased with everything that I’ve seen, and I think that with the amount of people that use Meadowbrook for recreation, if we still welcome them to use it with the new trails, I think that’ll be a big plus to everyone. We, in the past, have addressed the issues with the 55 mile an hour, and I think they’re being addressed by the Town Board now, but if we can get people off the road and using the trails, I just think that’s a welcome change for everyone, and I am very pleased with it. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. METIVIER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-A couple of questions for you I have. The roads, your proposed roads that are coming out from your development, where do they fit in alignment with the Schermerhorn roads? MR. SPORKO-The roads are located, well, the entrance into The Glen at Hiland Meadows is roughly in the middle, between the two. The entrance into the Schermerhorn project is further to the south on Meadowbrook Road, shown roughly here. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. When you did your traffic counts, when did you do them? MS. JOHNSTON-The new traffic counts that we did to the south, this intersection to the south, were done this summer. The ones we did for the Glen were done in, I think, September of ’99. MR. MAC EWAN-And you utilized The Glen’s counts as part of coming up with your solution, your input for this project as well. Correct? MS. JOHNSTON-We used the ’99 counts. We increased them by two percent to account for some growth, background growth for that one year difference between ’99 and 2000, and then we added, on top of that, the other site generated traffic from The Glen project, it’s not fully build out, but full build out of The Glen project. MR. MAC EWAN-And Schermerhorn as well? MS. JOHNSTON-Not Schermerhorn. We included a 10% growth factor to account for some Schermerhorn that would be built out by the time our 56 units were built out. MR. LAPPER-So you added two percent plus ten percent. MS. JOHNSTON-No, two percent for one year, for that one intersection, and then on top of that, ten percent for the five years. MR. MAC EWAN-The two percent increase was just like an inflationary type of increase, is what you’re basically saying, and then the 10% you added, considering it was in consideration of your build out for The Glen. Is that what you’re saying? MS. JOHNSTON-The 10% is to include other projects. The Glen was on top of that. We added The Glen traffic, plus 10%, plus the Waverly Place build out. MR. MAC EWAN-So the 10% that you added was not for The Glen specifically. It could be utilized for the Schermerhorn project or whatever else may be developed on Meadowbrook? MS. JOHNSTON-Exactly. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and you took your counts in September of ’99? MS. JOHNSTON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-And then you re-did your counts, took additional counts this summer? MS. JOHNSTON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-When, specifically, this summer, like a date? MS. JOHNSTON-July. It was Wednesday, July 12 from 4 to 6 p.m. th MR. MAC EWAN-And your September ’99? MS. JOHNSTON-I don’t have that exact date, to tell you the truth. Again, that was in The Glen traffic impact study. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess what I’m driving at is to be sure that your traffic counts included any traffic that may be coming out of the College, and funneling down, making sure it’s happening during school session. MS. JOHNSTON-Well, the ones that we counted in September, frankly, were not that much different than what we counted in July. There was not a substantial increase in traffic on Meadowbrook. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, it might not be if your counts in September weren’t on a school day. MS. JOHNSTON-I’ll see if I can find the exact date for you, and while she’s looking that up, this is for Staff, where do we stand on the Town addressing the 45 mile an hour speed limit on Meadowbrook? MRS. RYBA-Actually, on August 7, the Town Board passed a resolution, and. th MR. MAC EWAN-So it’s well within the works, then? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) MRS. RYBA-Right. As of August 7, they passed a resolution to lower one section on th Meadowbrook Road from 55 to 45, another section, where it’s currently set at 40, to 30 miles per hour, and then a third section where it’s currently set at 35 miles per hour to 30 miles per hour, and they’ve submitted that to the Warren County Department of Public Works. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and maybe as a follow up. Did you come up with your answer? MS. JOHNSTON-I have September of ’99, it was after Labor, it’s typical p.m. peak hour from 4 to 6. MR. MAC EWAN-Good. Okay, and to follow up and to echo comments from Mr. Strough and Mr. Hunsinger, I, too, would like to see a mix of architectural design in there, and we really strived to achieve that with not only The Glen, but with Schermerhorn. So if you can do a balance of architectural styling, I think that would add a lot to your project as well. Okay. MR. LAPPER-And again, because you only see two single story units, it doesn’t really show the full value of that design, because a lot of these will be high and low, like what we were talking about in Schermerhorn. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I haven’t got anything else. Have you got anything else, Marilyn? MRS. RYBA-You do have a public hearing. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m working my way there. MRS. RYBA-Okay. I do have some comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do you want to do you comments now, or do you want to wait? MRS. RYBA-I’ll do them now. Actually, you did receive a letter from the Fire Marshal. A copy was placed in front of you. I’ll read it, dated August 14, “Per your request, we have reviewed the site plan for Waverly Place. The Fire Hydrants appear to be spaced appropriately. Please confirm this with the water department. We have made the assumption that the hydrants will be assumed by the town. If this assumption is incorrect, please advise the applicant that the hydrants must be installed to Town and National Specs., and that the hydrants must be regularly maintained according to law.” We received a comment this afternoon at 1:02 p.m., the person would not give their name, just stated opposed to development because of traffic. The third comment is a letter written by Douglas Coon, dated August 15, “Dear Planning Board Members: I viewed the proposed maps of Waverly Place th on Monday, August 14. I understand this is the first phase of the Michaels Group subdivision and th know that they have conceptual approval for the other phases. I am the property owner immediately to the south. My property adjoins the Michaels Group southern border in its entirety from Meadowbrook Road west all the way to the College. I was interested in seeing the placement of the proposed road from Meadowbrook Road along the southern border to the 12 acre parcel to be dedicated to the Town of Queensbury (behind ACC). The road was not shown on the current map. My concern is that the road will hug our common boundary line. I would like the Board to consider a set back of 100 feet from this property line in order to create a buffer zone between my property and the proposed road. Are there currently any projections of traffic volume available for this access road? Also, I am concerned about the extremely rapid development along Meadowbrook Road. Has a traffic study of Meadowbrook Road been done? From what I can see, there is nothing else planned near this boundary except the future office space on the southeastern corner of this land. Thank you for addressing these concerns. Sincerely, Douglas W. Coon” That’s all. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-I’d like to just comment on that last letter, if I could. Just in terms of any kind of analysis of what might be done in terms of roads or other development on that recreation land, the Michaels Group is offering it up to the Town for the Town’s use, but any kind of planning is not part of our project. So we have no control over whether there’d be a road just at the College or on Meadowbrook or anything else. It’s just not part of this. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions, comments from Board members? We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? You’re welcome to come up. Please address your comments and questions to the Board. I’d ask you to just identify your name and address for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KENNETH LINTON 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) MR. LINTON-My name is Kenneth Linton, and I live directly north of the proposed land. In fact, this land was probably part of our farm previously through our ownership 33 years ago. We were just recently given the Historic Preservation Award by the Chapman Museum, and we are very proud of the old house that we have taken care of for 33 years. One of the things that I’m very concerned about is not part of this proposal, but it’s that land immediately at the corner of Haviland and Meadowbrook, and the part that I don’t understand is in the proposal, the applicant is seeking preliminary approval of a four lot subdivision of the property to allow for phasing and property transfer. I don’t understand that. Are they asking for approval, at this time, for that, and does that include the land that is in the white section on the map, on the corner of Haviland and Meadowbrook? The other point on that is that I don’t understand exactly what a multifamily housing project is. Does that mean that they will have ownership of the property, or it will be rentals? I would like consideration to have the same type of housing that is being approved, or under discussion right now, be made on that corner, so that we don’t have multifamily housing right on that corner. It just wouldn’t go along with the nature of the area. The other point being the traffic study. Believe me, just sitting there seeing the increase in traffic from when Meadowbrook was a dirt road, a few years back, it is unbelievable. The one point that Mr. MacEwan mentioned was about the College. The College adds a significant effect with that road now coming out to Haviland Road. The traffic at eight o’clock in the morning is unbelievable, also during the day at the change of classes. The other point being, not with the project, but people take Haviland Road, from Blind Rock, to bypass the lights on Quaker Road. A few years back we didn’t have all those traffic lights on Quaker Road. So people turn at Great Escape, take Round Pond, over to Blind Rock, onto Haviland, cut down Ridge, and that is where a significant amount of traffic is coming from, not from the Golf Course. Gary Bowen mentioned to us, when he was proposing the Hiland development, that there would be no appreciable increase in traffic, and I think someone mentioned it tonight, that there was no appreciable increase in traffic. Believe me, there is. I would ask that the multifamily housing be considered, be changed. I know that was part of the PUD, but I really believe that that is completely out of scope with that area, I think. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? BERNARD RAYHILL MR. RAYHILL-Hi, Craig, how are you? MR. MAC EWAN-Very well, thank you. MR. RAYHILL-My name is Bernard T. Rayhill, and I live in Queensbury, in a beautiful neighborhood, with very nice houses which are single family dwellings, and as a matter of fact, there is a compact in our community which requires that people in the community that I live in, Old Orchard Park, not rent their houses. They are not rental properties. Now we are not very far from this development. So, therefore, I think I have quite a few axes to grind. I’ll make it quite clear. I would like to start by saying that I did not make that telephone call today, but I was really offended by your Town lawyer who is being paid by the taxpayers to do is work, when he scoffed at the fact that a taxpayer in the Town of Queensbury called and said that they were very unhappy with the development. MR. SCHACHNER-Can I respond to that? MR. RAYHILL-Yes, you may. MR. SCHACHNER-As far as I know, we don’t know this was a taxpayer in the Town of Queensbury. MR. RAYHILL-I do. MR. SCHACHNER-You do know that? MR. RAYHILL-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-I do not know that. So you apparently know more about the identity of the mystery caller than I do. MR. RAYHILL-You should not scoff at any person who is disagreeing with you, when you are serving the Town. MR. SCHACHNER-Nobody’s disagreeing with me. You are entitled to your opinion. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll ask you, Mr. Rayhill, to address your comments to the Board, please, and let’s move on. MR. RAYHILL-Okay. This is part of the business. He should not act like a Torian. He should act like a patriot and listen to people who are patriotic and are here for the benefit of the Town. King George is dead, I hope. I did not arrive here prepared specifically because I came in last night from California, and somebody gave me a telephone call, and asked me about this planned development, about which I had not read in the newspaper because I was out of town, and so therefore I do hope that you will bear with me while I go through my questions. I think that the questions are valid and I think that they relate to the Planning Board and to the future of this development. First of all, I see there are 56 twin town homes. Now, what are twin town homes? MR. MAC EWAN-That were illustrated. MR. RAYHILL-No, what are they, I mean, how many people live in them? Is it one family or two families? MR. MAC EWAN-They’re twin town homes. They’re two separate residences hooked together. MR. RAYHILL-They are. Okay. So that would mean 102 families. Is that correct? I’ll ask the developer to address that. MR. MAC EWAN-Ask your questions to the Board, Mr. Rayhill, and we’ll get them answered for you. MR. RAYHILL-Okay. We have 56 twin town homes. Is that 102 families? MR. MAC EWAN-Next question. MR. RAYHILL-We have a 12 acre parcel, and 35 acres of public space, open space. Now, if I take 56 twin town homes, and I divide that into 14.5 acres, that becomes .23 acres per house. Is that part of our Town Planning/Zoning resolution? .23 acres per lot, is that correct? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Acres per house. MR. RAYHILL-Acres per house, right, .23, thank you, Cathy. Is that correct? Is that the way we want to plan the Town of Queensbury? MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not that simple cut and dried, Mr. Rayhill. It’s a PUD. It’s a separate zoning district within the Town, and it also utilizes clustering provisions. MR. RAYHILL-Well, once again, I’m saying there are .23 acres per lot. Is that correct? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get that answered for you. MR. RAYHILL-Okay, and are the Schermerhorn buildings private town homes, houses owned by residents, or are they rentals? MR. MAC EWAN-Schermerhorn is not this application here. MR. RAYHILL-I understand, but he says that they are related, very closely related in style and everything else, and I think that people who have passed by the Schermerhorn houses have indicated that they’re quite ugly and that they’re a blight on the community. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not talking about those same ones, Mr. Rayhill. MR. RAYHILL-They are very similar. MR. MAC EWAN-No, they’re not, sir. MR. RAYHILL-All right, now, we also have 48 multifamily. What is a multifamily? Even if it’s one family per house, we’re saying 48 divided into 11.20 acres, which means .2324. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Rayhill, the definition of a multifamily dwelling, according to our Ordinance, is “Any building used or designed as a residence for two or more families living independently of each other and doing their own cooking therein, including but not limited to apartment houses, townhouse developments, condominium developments and conversion of existing single family residences”. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) MR. RAYHILL-That’s what I thought. Which means you could have 96 people in there, which means it’s going to have a great traffic impact. If I’m not speaking English, then I have a very big problem with people who are listening to me. .234 acres, 48 houses on, so therefore each house is on .234 acres. That sounds awfully small to me, and according to the report made by the traffic study, there are 140 trips per day in one area of this traffic study. I find that if you take 48 plus 56, discounting the fact that you have 56 times 2, which is 112, you have 154 trips of people that are coming out of their house to go to school or to go to work or what have you. That’s 154 trips. Quite numerous, and the gentleman who spoke before me said that traffic is a big problem in that area. So therefore I would apprise you of the fact that you have to go into a new traffic study based on the number of houses and everything else, because this is not accurate. I’m only here to represent the truth, as you all know, and I didn’t do my homework before because I’ve been out of town. I just learned about this today. Mr. Lapper said right now it’s the developer’s decision. Does this mean that he makes the decisions or does the Planning Board makes the decision? MR. MAC EWAN-Is what the developer’s decision? MR. RAYHILL-The decision on, for instance with regard to the questions posed by John Strough? MR. MAC EWAN-Specifically what question are you referring to? MR. RAYHILL-He was referring to trails. Now I believe that Mr. Lapper also has a lawsuit against the Town of Queensbury. So is that the developer’s decision or the Town of Queensbury’s decision? MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not relevant to this application, Mr. Rayhill. I’d ask you to move on. MR. RAYHILL-And what do you mean by a 100 foot buffer to Haviland? What’s a 100 foot buffer to Haviland? What is going to be on that buffer? MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Next question? MR. RAYHILL-And I noticed a mention of the grading. What is the grade of the property, and how would it effect the houses and how will it effect the possibility of density of water, which we do have in our area. We have a lot of basements that are very wet and we have had people in Queensbury having difficulty as a result of their whole neighborhood being inundated with water at times. So, therefore, I think we have to take a look at grade in an area where you have wetlands. I think it’s extremely important that you do that. There’s also mention here of the Army Corps of Engineers study, and the DEC study, which dates back to 1987, and at that point in time, there was a pipe near the location, which was sucking out waters from wetlands in the area. How effective were those pipes, and what do those wetlands look like right now? I think that’s something you have to investigate as well. I think you have a job in front of you, and I think it’s your job to make sure that this is done properly. MR. MAC EWAN-What, specifically, do you mean by what the wetlands look like now? MR. RAYHILL-That they’re not there. In other words, these pipes were put in place, as you well know, during the original project that was on Bay Road, to suck water out of the area and to suck it from other areas, and if we’re going to have garden level basements, perhaps there is a water problem in the area. I think at this point in time, also, I’d like to mention that this is an inappropriate time for this large a plan, a PUD, to be presented to the Town, specifically because many of the homeowners in Queensbury are not here. They are on vacation, and not aware of what’s going on, and I think it’s very important that all the people in the Town of Queensbury be informed of what’s going on so that they can make some decisions as to what their community looks like. Another question with regard to office space. Anybody who’s been in business knows that location, location, location. Location is everything. Now, somebody who has an office space is not going to want his office space away from the populous. He’s probably going to want to have it right as close up to the front row as he can. Is he going to have a sign? These are a lot of things that have to be investigated. I haven’t heard any questions with regard to that, and I think it’s very important. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s because there’s no review of office space in front of us tonight. MR. RAYHILL-Well, we hope that this is brought to your attention, in the future, and that we don’t forget that office space is something that can create an environment, in terms of the beauty of our community, and I’m referring to the beauty of our community, and hoping that it will be maintained as such, without having inappropriate office space in the wrong locations. I’m sorry it’s just I had to take my notes tonight. Now, once again, there is a conflict between what we have in the Town of Queensbury at the present time, and 1987. I think the roads are different than they were in 1987. I think that the build up in many locations of Queensbury has created, and this gentleman who was back here talking about his property and his house, indicates very clearly that we do need a new SEQRA study of this property, specifically because we have had a change over a period of 13 years in 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) the environments in Queensbury. Consequently, I think that you need a SEQRA study, and I think it’s very important, and I do hope that you will be attentive to my thoughts and to the need for a SEQRA review, and not so attentive to somebody who says that it’s the developer’s decision. It’s your decision. You’re the Planning Board. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? MARY FLANNIGAN MRS. FLANNAGAN-My name is Mary Flannagan. I live at 5 Bayberry Court, and my property is adjacent to the southwest corner of the development, specifically near the 12 acres that’s being donated to the Town of Queensbury for use by the Recreation Department. I have a couple of questions. Water is a big issue in our neighborhood. At this particular point in time, drainage tiles under ACC’s athletic fields drain into a big pipe that is at the rear of our property, which would be almost at that southwest corner of their property. It drains into a stream that I’m not sure ever existed before the drainage tiles were there or not, but in any case, it drains into a stream that’s at the rear of our property and of several of my neighbors. This amount of water, over the course of time, contributed by underground streams, has managed to erode our land. I mean, the back yard sinks every year. I have neighbors who have gardens, and the water is encroaching into the garden area. I’m just concerned about what direction is the surface water and ground water from this particular project, what direction is the flow going to be? I realize that there’s a wetland that goes, cuts through that total parcel, and I’m assuming if the houses are on the east side of it, certainly the water would not be flowing into wetland, I would hope. Those are the water concerns. The other thing is in reference to the letter that Doug Coon wrote about the access to the 12 acre parcel that’s being donated to the Town of Queensbury. Is part, that 12 acres, does it include a strip of land for an access road, or is it isolated? I haven’t really had a good look at that. So I can’t really tell, and Doug’s concern about a 100 foot buffer, is there enough space? I don’t know if I’m making myself clear. MR. MAC EWAN-No, I think I understand what you’re asking. MRS. FLANNAGAN-Okay. Thank you. Those are my main concerns. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s rattle off some questions and answers here. Fifty-six units equates to 102 families? MR. LAPPER-In correct. Fifty-six families. MR. MICHAELS-It’s 28, two unit buildings. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Did you hear that, Mr. Rayhill? MR. RAYHILL-Yes, thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Acreage size, lot size. MR. LAPPER-I guess I’d back up on that, just to take a step back, in terms of the whole concept of the PUD. When Hiland Park was approved, in ’87, and this is really for the benefit of the public, not the Board, but the whole golf course concept was to take this 800 acre parcel of property, and to have this mixed use, which leaves open space and vistas, including the golf course, and to cluster the residential and commercial development. That’s, so now, the economy suffered for a while, and the project didn’t move forward, and now it is, but it’s the same concept that was approved in the original PUD. So this is an area where, because it was behind ACC, municipal sewer and water available, this is the area that was approved for office and multifamily use, and that’s exactly what’s being proposed, and there are vast areas, 80 acres that were dedicated to the Town, along the Halfway Brook corridor, at the south end of the front nine of the golf course, the golf course itself and vast areas of open space elsewhere, but this is the area that was deemed to be appropriate for this kind of development. MR. MAC EWAN-One hundred and fifty-four trips generated a day. MR. LAPPER-That was peak hour. So that would be a relatively minor number of trips over a peak hour. MR. MAC EWAN-Trails? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) MR. LAPPER-Well, what I think somebody, what I was quoted as, I was trying to respond to John’s comment that he wanted, if he wanted to make sure that the trail system would be connected to a future Town recreation facility, and he was correct that, at that point, it would be owned and controlled by the Homeowner’s Association, that if it was important to the Board, we could condition it now, so that even though the connection might not be made until some future time, when the Town actually does something with that land, it could be agreed to now, so that it could be the developer agreeing to it as a condition, rather than leaving it up to chance as to what the homeowners might decide in the future, and they may want it or not want it, and John’s right. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re referencing the trails, then, in the HOA? MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you know, in your discussions with the Rec Commission, what they had envisioned for that 12 acre parcel? MR. LAPPER-I don’t think that they know yet. I think that there are a lot of different ideas that they’re floating. There’s not a lot of recreational area in this part of Town, in terms of Town recreational facilities. So they’re looking and saying that the east side of Town is growing, and it would be a good place to do something, possibly in conjunction with the College which is right there. MR. MAC EWAN-Is their intention with this to somehow want to tie it in with the Halfway Brook corridor? Is that their premise behind this? MR. LAPPER-I know that they discussed that, but I think that they’re thinking of something a little, that would be more passive, and I think they’re talking about a more active recreation facility here, in conjunction with the College, some sort of a sports facility, but it’s all up in the air now. They have to decide. It may be in the immediate future or in the distant future, but there were discussions, separate and apart from this, about the land that the Town has in the Halfway Brook corridor, that they would like to do some fishing, some fishing access, and some trails, and whatever trails are adjacent to the homeowner’s property could be connected. MR. MAC EWAN-The 100 foot buffer on Hiland. MR. LAPPER-Joe, do you want to talk about that? MR. SPORKO-The 100 foot buffer that was referred to, off of Haviland Road, we totally agree that the ultimate design of the multifamily office development area incorporate a buffer. We suggested a 100 foot buffer area along there. We agree that that should be carefully considered and carefully designed when we come forward for site plan review. We were all along aware of that situation, and was a concern of ours as well. So that whatever we design there ultimately we want the Town to be happy with. So we don’t want to do anything that’s going to create any kind of problems, but we feel that, again, looking at the density issue, overall, that’s a 74 acre parcel, and there really is not, compared to the original plan, which, as you know, as you probably know, for the public’s sake, was originally proposed for much, much, much more dense development there. This is scaled back to the point where the office space in that area is only 30,000 square feet, as opposed to 130,000 square feet, which was originally proposed for in there. So this project, I think it should be kept in mind is significantly scaled back. That remaining parcel, that 12 acre parcel, or the 11 acre parcel for development, we felt that was a good location to put a combination of a multifamily and office development there, and we also appreciate the comment about combining the two. Certainly we’d consider that as well, and actually we would like to come up with some creative ways of developing that piece. I also want to point out, too, that the overall density, too, as the one gentleman spoke of, in addition to the 12 acres that’s set aside for the Town, which by the way the developer did not have to do. I just want to point out that this is something the developer has chosen to do, and came up with the idea and brought it to the Town on his own behalf. In addition to that 12 acres, there’s 35 additional acres, granted some of which is wetlands, but some of which is not wetlands, that will be not developed. So all that should, when you look at density, should be taken into consideration. You’re looking at 56 units on say 14 acres, but you should look at also that there’s, in addition to the 14 acres, there’s 12 acres plus an additional 35 acres that should be considered, and that’s part of the purpose of having a PUD is to preserve parcels of land for greater good and for common areas, such as we’re doing, and we feel that this development really is in the spirit of the PUD. MR. MAC EWAN-Grading of property and the water table, and I guess to go along with that, one lady asked a question, which way does the groundwater flow. MR. HASTINGS-As Mr. Michaels pointed out, the grading of the units along the wetland will be raised, so that the basements are above the ground water. As far as stormwater flow, the system 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) within the development will be collected and held in detention basins, and then released to the wetland as it does now. There’s no change in that pattern. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So then the direction is basically west. MR. HASTINGS-If it is west now, it will continue to be west, yes. MR. STROUGH-And about the detention basins, you said it was a 25 year design. MR. HASTINGS-It’s 25 year design, the collection system. The basins themselves are a 50 year design storm. MR. STROUGH-So then basically for all practical purpose, for most rainfall amounts, it’ll sit in the detention basin and be absorbed by the soils underneath, and not necessarily overflow in the wetland. Is that correct? MR. HASTINGS-No, that’s not correct. The detention basin would actually collect the water from a storm event, and slowly release it back to the existing drainage course, over time, but it’ll completely drain out. It will not be a wet pond. MR. STROUGH-The rainfall doesn’t go directly into the wetland? MR. HASTINGS-No, it’ll pass through the detention basin. MR. STROUGH-That’s what I said previously, is that it sits in the detention basin, unless it’s an extraordinary event. MR. HASTINGS-Yes, but again, over time, say over a day or two days following an event, it will slowly release. MR. STROUGH-I understand that, but that’s, okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I just have a question about multifamily versus this. Why can’t, I mean, this might sound pretty elementary, but why can’t you put families in here? I mean, if there’s some that are three bedroom units, you could have families in here, and I know that you were gearing it toward people that were going to empty nesters, but if somebody came along with two or three children and wanted to buy a three bedroom unit, you could still let them stay there, live there. MR. LAPPER-Those are single family homes that just happen to have a common wall attaching them. So those are, they’re considered twins because you take the two units and put them together, but each one is just a single family dwelling. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. LAPPER-And the multifamily at the corner will be different. Dave doesn’t have a concept of exactly what he wants, but that could be condominiums. It could be apartments, some combination of office separately or in the same building, just something that incorporates those uses that were part of the PUD. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But that’s why I think it’s just a crazy thing. Multifamily means that each family lives in its own single unit because families have to have a house. So there’s a house here, and there’s a house here. Why can’t you put a family here and a family there? MR. MICHAELS-Multifamily, by definition, that we’re talking about mean stacked flats. You can stack units, have an upper and a lower unit, and we’ve built them in the past very high end condominiums done like that. We feel there’s a certain market that that’s the lifestyle that they want, and that the buildings can look aesthetically, it’s well done, which, in the future, we’d have to present our site plan. We’d have to present our architectural concept. We’d have to present how the offices would interrelate, but we have some really creative ideas of some common dreams and some things that haven’t been done that are pretty innovative, from a land planning and architectural standpoint, but at this stage, we really think that the, it’s better to wait, see how things change and develop. We would do market studies, get an idea from perspective buyers, home buyers, what they really need and what they really want, and then utilize that, that’s Chris’ thought about having offices on the first floor and the residences above might be a legitimate idea to get a market study on, to see what kind of need could be done. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Well, didn’t you do that over here, across the way? When you took over the rest of Cedar Court, the unfinished part, if my memory serves me, wasn’t that designed for like eight plex over there, or something like that, and you changed it to four plex, five plex? MR. MICHAELS-They were designed as four unit town homes. So, in other words, single family attached, same concept, they own the land directly underneath them. They’re not stacked. Instead of putting two together, like we’re proposing, two unit buildings, they had it laid out for four unit buildings, with a common party wall separating each one. That was the difference. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I don’t know who asked about Mr. Schermerhorn’s architecture, but I’ve got it right here in this packet. So if you want to catch me later. It’s here. Bernie, you weren’t here at the meeting way back, when Rich proposed his renderings. I’ve got them here, the drawings. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members? MR. METIVIER-I have a question about stormwater. What is your true feeling on how your stormwater management will effect people behind you in Bayberry? MR. HASTINGS-Again, to emphasize that the stormwater management plan has no impact downstream. We’re totally managing it on site. So anything that exists now will continue to exist. We, as demonstrated by the stormwater report, there is no downstream impacts. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? Anything from Staff? MR. RINGER-The woman had a comment on where the road would be, if there would be a buffer for that road that the Town is going to, for the drive that the Town is going to take over. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The 100 foot buffer? MR. RINGER-No, well, one person asked for 100 foot. One person asked specifically, I think it was Mary Flannagan asked where that access road would be into the Town, where they’re giving the 12 acres. MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t know, because we don’t know what the plans are that the Town’s going to have on that, and whether there’s even a proposed concept of any kind of access road. MR. RINGER-I realize that, but that was one of the questions that came up that we didn’t answer. So we had to say that we don’t know. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Thanks. Anything else? Let’s talk about this resolution for a minute. The first paragraph, what would we be considering to approve? My concerns that I have with this is that I think there’s too much in there. I think we could simplify it, that first paragraph. MR. RINGER-Do we have that resolution, Craig? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it was attached right to all the, the big pile. MR. RINGER-I’m sorry, I do have it. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know how everybody else feels about it, but that was a thought I had on it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Where is your discrepancy? MR. MAC EWAN-Basically the last sentence, the future development proposed. It’s this one right here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s that one. MR. MAC EWAN-Does everybody find that copy? MR. RINGER-It’s behind, attached to the Highway Department letter, behind the Highway Department letter. MR. MAC EWAN-What does Staff think? Two spots in here that I would like maybe to consider changing is where it says that, where it introduces the site plan and Michaels Group Waverly Place for preliminary site plan/subdivision approval. Could we change that to say site plan approval and preliminary subdivision approval? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t think so because this is a PUD, remember, and the PUD process, unlike regular, plain old site plan approval process actually is broken down, as I understand it, into preliminary site plan approval and final site plan approval. That’s unique to the PUD process. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems rather silly. MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t disagree with you. MR. MAC EWAN-I think that’s actually being changed in the new Ordinance, too. MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t disagree with you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-So you may want to add “preliminary” in front of “subdivision”, but keep it in front of site plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and I don’t know how everyone else feels about the line that says “future development proposed consists of 48 multifamily project including 30,000 square foot office space on 11.2 acres, 1.7 acres office space”, and then it says the word “and”. If we took out that entire line, up to the word “and”. Because we’re not considering that tonight. We’re not entertaining anything along those lines. We haven’t seen anything. We haven’t seen any plans. MR. RINGER-So you’re saying take out, “The applicant is also seeking preliminary approval of a four lot subdivision”? MR. MAC EWAN-No. Where the word “future” starts. “Future development…”, that line up to the word “office space, and”, up to that point, take that out, and just leave in the “and 12 acres to be dedicated to the Town”. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Read it, Craig, the way you want it written, read the sentence. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, this is what I’m suggesting, “Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of PUD Site Plan 44-2000, The Michaels Group/Waverly Place for Preliminary Site Plan and Preliminary Subdivision approval of a 56 unit townhouse development on 14 and a half acres, and 35.13 acres of common land within the Hiland Park PUD. The Preliminary approval of a four lot subdivision of the property to allow for phasing and property transfer and 12 acres to be dedicated to the Town of Queensbury Tax Map No. 60-2-1.” MR. HUNSINGER-That language about future development came right out of the application. MR. MAC EWAN-I know, but we’re not looking at any future development tonight. That’s my suggestion. Okay, and the only other things that I came up with that we had added as conditions of approval, other than what’s in the written resolution. It’s the condition that C.T. Male sign off on all engineering site plan/subdivision concerns that they’ve got to do, because they just were moving stuff back and forth today, and waive the maximum of 35 unit phasing and allow the developer to build all 56 units in a single phase. MR. STROUGH-No, I think we have some other concerns as well. MR. MAC EWAN-Those are the two that I wrote down. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But they were all addressed in the. MR. STROUGH-Well, we would like to see some, the rest of this might be site plan stuff, the architectural review and things like that. I mean, there was three members on this Board and maybe more who wanted and desired to see a variety of building styles. MR. LAPPER-We’ll bring that to the next meeting, some renderings of the two story building. MR. STROUGH-And there was two, maybe three, maybe more Planning Board members who desired to see some kind of a plan for the fitness/walking trail, and the future interconnectability to adjacent lots. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s take each one of those. I’m in favor of, for final, that you bring in a couple of alternate renderings of architectural design. I think you were the only one who was talking about the interconnect to other sites. Was anybody else on that one? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) MR. RINGER-I’d like to see the interconnect, rather than we should put it in the resolution or not. I don’t see a problem with putting it in. MR. STROUGH-I think Jon said it, the developer could come up with an alternate proposal, or at least try and deal with the idea, as a proposal. MR. LAPPER-We could say that as a condition that at such time that the Town builds recreation trails on its, on the property adjacent, that they would be connected, but we don’t know where they’re going to be. So we can’t really submit a plan, but that, as a condition, would certainly be acceptable. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d rather hold off on that verbiage for final and have Staff put something together for that. Instead of us doing it tonight. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just don’t see why you can’t put something in where they would work with the Recreation Department, Commission and have some kind of an interconnected trail there. MR. SCHACHNER-I think, I mean, the applicant’s just proposed a condition that you could put in preliminary, if you want that refined for final, you could do that, but it sounds like at least some of the Board members would be more comfortable with that condition as part of the preliminary approval, and then verbiage proposed by the applicant seemed to satisfy Mr. Strough, I believe, and it sounded appropriate to me. MR. STROUGH-Yes. I think we have mutual understanding. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The interconnect on the trail systems, is that what you’re referring to? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I think what the applicant proposed, if I understood it correctly, was that you could add, and you can do this whether the applicant proposes it or not, but you could add, as a condition of preliminary site plan approval, that if the time comes when the Town has recreational trails on the property to be donated to the Town, the applicant will ensure that those trails can be connected to its recreation trails. That’s what I took out of that. MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. MR. SCHACHNER-And you could add that as a condition of preliminary approval, if you wish. MR. MAC EWAN-What else? MR. STROUGH-I, and I don’t know if any other Board members supported me on this, would like to see buffer zones addressed I think both to the north and the south of the project. I think next to Mr. Linton’s property, I know that’s being proposed as a road, but I would like to see a buffer between the road and him, and I don’t know if we can do anything about that, but I would also certainly like to see some kind of plantings being offered between the border of what’s going to be proposed as office/multifamily and the current project. MR. RINGER-I would prefer to handle that when we get to site plan for the office, because we all know how that’ll be. MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. That would probably be more appropriate to do it at that time. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Has anybody got anything else? MR. STROUGH-Could I get a detail of the perimeter drainage? Is that not appropriate for a Planning Board member or? MR. MAC EWAN-Of the what? MR. STROUGH-The detail of the perimeter drainage plan on the (lost words). MR. LAPPER-We can provide that next time, a typical foundation drainage plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Mark? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) MR. SCHACHNER-If you’re looking at the prepared resolution, there are at least two other things that I would strongly recommend. One would be that the last Whereas paragraph be substantially modified, because it really doesn’t apply to the action you’re taking tonight. The way I propose to modify it is to simply keep the first line of it, which says, “Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered”, add the word “previously”, before “considered”, and add the words “by the Town Board as SEQRA Lead Agency”, after the word “considered”, and then I would propose deleting the rest of that paragraph. So that it would read, “Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been previously considered by the Town Board as SEQRA Lead Agency”. MR. MAC EWAN-Boy, the secretary’s earning her money tonight. MR. SCHACHNER-And I have additional, one additional one. The additional one is that unfortunately the previously prepared resolution, although it’s heavy in the “Whereas” department, is kind of light in the “Resolved” department. So it doesn’t approve anything. So you would need to specify, after “Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved”, and prior to “Subject to the following conditions”, you need to somewhere says, “Therefore, Be It Resolved”, if this is the motion that somebody intends to make, to approve, you need to say, “Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the application for preliminary site plan approval and preliminary subdivision is approved”, then “Subject to the following conditions”, whatever you may suggest as the conditions. MR. HUNSINGER-Can I ask a question on the SEQRA? The Town Board passed a Negative Declaration in 1987. MR. SCHACHNER-No, not true. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that what this is saying? MR. SCHACHNER-No, that’s not true what you just said. In 1987, the Town Board passed a Positive Declaration, and caused the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. They did a Full Environmental Impact Statement, right. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So when we say it was previously considered, that’s what we’re referring to? MR. SCHACHNER-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-And keep in mind, Chris, my earlier comments, again, not necessarily for right now for this application, but in general, the Planning Board is certainly an involved agency, and there may come a time when you feel, as an involved agency, that the Town Board needs to take a new, harder look at the potential environmental impacts of something in the Hiland Park PUD, and you have the right to make that request of the Town Board. MR. HUNSINGER-And I already expressed my opinion on that. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, you did. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. RYBA-I was just curious. This means, then, that A/GFTC comments will not be considered when they’re? MR. MAC EWAN-We were just discussing that. If they aren’t here yet, and because we still, you know, even though we’re only preliminarily approving this, we still have final yet to come, that we’d still have outstanding issues to be addressed by C.T. Male as well. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, but be careful there, because once you issue, if, in fact, you issue preliminary approval, then you’re not supposed to substantially change that, for final approval, unless there is substantial modifications coming from the applicant. So be careful. If you still have concerns about information that is yet to be furnished to you, either from A/GFTC or in response to C.T. Male or any other comments, then it might be more appropriate to hold off and get that information before you. Remember that the PUD Regulations and our Subdivision Regulations state that once preliminary approval is issued, unless the applicant substantially modifies it, you know, there’s not too much more you can do on final approval. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Why wasn’t their stuff gotten here in time? MRS. RYBA-I didn’t bring the book with me, but we compiled all of the information from everything in the Hiland PUD, and it was a book about this thick with information, so that they could look at all of the other traffic studies that were done, as well as the proposals. So that’s what they were asked to evaluate. They did call today and indicated that they would have something ready by Thursday. MR. MAC EWAN-Were they aware that the meeting was tonight? MRS. RYBA-Yes, they were. MR. MAC EWAN-How does everybody else feel? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I feel pretty much content. It’s just wording it how it’s going to be. It’s going to be quite a chore putting it all together, to make the resolution, to make the motion. We’ve got to take five minutes to figure something out. MR. MAC EWAN-Then you’re ready to move forward tonight then? You’re not ready to move forward tonight? MR. STROUGH-Well, I’d like to see the Glens Falls Transportation authority. Mark’s warning, I’m 90% there, but. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I have a hard time believing that they would come back and review the traffic study that we have before us. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m ready to move ahead tonight, myself. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry, how do you feel? MR. RINGER-Well, the way I would feel is if we’ve asked somebody for some information and we haven’t gotten it back yet, then we take a vote on something before we get the information that we’ve asked for, I don’t know if we’re really doing a service to the people we asked the information of. I mean, I don’t have any problems with the traffic study that has been completed. However, we did ask somebody to give us some additional information, and I don’t think we’re respecting those people that we asked that of. MR. LAPPER-Remember, we’re only talking 40 peak hour trips. MR. MAC EWAN-I understand. Tony? MR. METIVIER-Well, I agree with Larry, but on the flip side, too, I mean, they should have had it in tonight, and, you know, to penalize the applicant tonight on something where they, I think, have been well prepared for it, I just feel, you know, we have enough now to go on. I don’t think, for this stage, it’s going to be that much of an impact. MR. RINGER-I agree with Tony. I agree with everything Tony has said. It’s just an issue. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you know, probably the thing to do here, and I’ll put it on the record, I’m very disappointed in A/GFTC for not getting the information to us when we requested it. I mean, they were certainly aware that this application was going to be heard tonight, but, also, we’re looking at a rather significantly changed resolution we’re thinking about putting up for a vote here. So maybe this would be an opportunity to table this application to next Thursday, which would be the 24. th Give us time to re-do this resolution, give time for A/GFTC time to get, that’s supposed to be here Thursday? MRS. RYBA-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you kindly call them tomorrow and ask them, per the Planning Board’s request, that it be here Thursday, so that it can be delivered with Staff notes on Friday? So that we can have it? MRS. RYBA-Yes. MR. LAPPER-We very much appreciate the idea of coming back next week, rather than next month. So that’s certainly acceptable. That’s the Board’s prerogative. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) MR. MAC EWAN-I think we’re reasonably close to coming up with some sort of resolution. It’s just, I think we need to make sure we’ve got everything, the T’s crossed. The I’s dotted, so to speak. Is that comfortable with the Board members? MR. RINGER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll introduce a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE PUD SITE PLAN NO. 44-2000 MICHAELS GROUP – WAVERLY PLACE, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: To our August 24 meeting, for the purpose of getting additional information from the A/GFTC on th traffic, also C.T. Male to respond to the applicant’s response to their concerns, and give the Staff time to prepare a written resolution. Duly adopted this 15 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro MR. MAC EWAN-Sorry, gentlemen. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Next item, Cathy. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. The next item is, we’re going to skip down to Joseph Leuci from Mountainside Auto, Site Plan No. 55-98. SITE PLAN NO. 55-98 TYPE: UNLISTED MODIFICATION JOSEPH LEUCI/MOUNTAIN SIDE AUTO OWNER: GUIDO PASSARELLI AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN. MODIFICATIONS INCLUDE A 3,360 SQ. FT. ADDITION FOR AUTO REPAIR FOR OFF STREET VEHICLES (PREVIOUS APPROVAL WAS FOR REPAIR OF ON SITE VEHICLES ONLY); OTHER MODIFICATIONS WILL ADDRESS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, SITE LIGHTING, AND LOCATION OF BUILDING ISSUES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PREVIOUS APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 14-97, SP 55-98 TAX MAP NO. 67-2-1.3 LOT SIZE: 5.83 ACRES SECTION 179-23 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOSEPH LEUCI, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 55-98 Modification, Joseph Leuci/Mountainside Auto, Meeting Date: June 29, 2000 “Project Description The application for modification to an approved site plan was tabled at the June 29, 2000 Planning Board meeting. The Board requested the plans to be revise to show water service, holding tank, and septic location; the plans were also to show lighting details and illumination areas. The applicant was to clarify hours of operation and to provide the Sheriff’s reports for vandalism. The Planning Board also requested verification on the location of the berm on the property. The applicant has provided information on all of the items requested. Project Analysis (Section 179-38) The proposed use as reviewed by Staff was found to be compliant with Sections 179-38 A, B, C, D and E of the Town Code. The proposed modifications for the site and the business are allowed in the Highway Commercial zone. The applicant proposes a series of modifications to the site: four floodlight fixtures, off-street car repairs, increased parking area, and expansion of the existing building. Site Overview a. The applicant has indicated the new addition will be consistent with the existing building. The addition is to be used for additional repair space and storage area. b. The additional gravel area for the site will accommodate about 79 new parking spaces. The parking area will be used for service parking, customer parking, and display area. the plans do not identify how the gravel will be contained in the specified area. c. The applicant was restricted to on-site repair of vehicles, it is understood the applicant has advertised otherwise. The service of on-site and off-site vehicles does not appear to generate any significant traffic. d. The lighting information was referred to the Senior Planner. Please see attached comment. e. The applicant proposes one additional sign “Northway Transmissions” that is subject to obtaining the necessary approvals to have two signs on the property. Traffic, Circulation, Parking There appears to be more than adequate parking on the site. The applicant does not propose altering the existing 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) entrance. The site will contain 130 parking spaces used for display, customer, employee, and service spaces. There is adequate drive aisle space (at least 20 feet) between the parking spaces. The ADA Handbook indicates at least five handicap spaces should be provided when 101-150 parking spaces are provided. The plans should be revised to show handicap parking Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping, Emergency Services The applicant’s stormwater, sewage disposal, and lighting information was reviewed by Rist-Frost Engineers and found to be acceptable. Areas of Concern or Importance The applicant currently uses four lights out of the possible twenty lights available. If all 20 lights are used, the site may appear over-lit. The plans do not indicate a method to contain the gravel surface for the parking area. The gravel area may become enlarged over time when re-stoned which could cause the site plan to not be compliant. Conclusions (Section 179-39) The modifications as proposed will not have a significant adverse environmental impact if mitigation measures are proposed for the gravel area and restrictions are imposed on the lighting. Suggestions The applicant should be encouraged to remove unnecessary light fixtures, and to maintain parking area gravel in the designated areas.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. RYBA-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace and Joe Leuci. Okay. As the Board had requested at the last meeting, we have corrected the water and septic locations on the plan to conform with the as built records from the Town Building Department. We’ve provided lighting, luminar plan, and the subsequently additional plans that show the lighting levels for all three scenarios of high intensity lighting, low intensity security lighting, and the combination of both. We’ve also addressed in a letter form the hours of operation to be 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m.., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sunday. We’ve provided Sheriff’s reports that we’ve just received I guess the end of last week, to show some of the incidents of vandalism, and we’ve confirmed that the berm at the back of the property is in fact in the buffer zone and it is shown correctly on the previously submitted site plan. I said in the letter, however, this area was originally disturbed when the lot was cleared, well prior to this applicant developing the lot. The berm itself does not add significantly to the original disturbance. I’ll be glad to address any other questions. If there are questions on lighting, Joe Gross, from Gross Electric, is here and can address any specific questions you may have there. MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing else to add? MR. NACE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy, I’ll start with you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t want to ask any questions right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I just want to make sure I understand the lighting, the revised proposal. There’s going to be four light poles instead of the original twenty? MR. NACE-Instead of the original what? MR. HUNSINGER-On the Staff notes it talks about 20 lights. MR. NACE-Twenty fixtures, actual luminars. Okay, no, there are, the lighting that is shown on the plan is the existing lighting that is in place now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Has any provision been made to maintain the gravel area, so it doesn’t spill over into the grass area? MR. NACE-No, we have not shown anything. The area surrounding that can be seeded, you know, once the gravel, final gravel configuration is in place. I think once that’s seeded and grass is established there, the area should be fairly well defined. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That was really all I had. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-To cover that area of the gravel, couldn’t you put up some kind of concrete buffers or blocks or something to prevent the snow removal or whatever to go into that grassy area and keep that gravel into one area? 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) MR. NACE-You mean like the parking stops type thing? MR. RINGER-Something like that, only somewhat attractive. MR. NACE-Yes, they’re kind of unsightly. MR. RINGER-I mean, it’s only a thought. It’s not necessarily a recommendation. It’s only a thought. MR. NACE-I think once grass is established around there, it will become a defined edge, okay. MR. RINGER-Well, with snowplowing and stuff, you’re still going to be moving all that stone probably into that grassy area, during the winter, and then you’ve got the problem in the spring. MR. NACE-Well, that’s no different than my own front lawn. MR. RINGER-Right. Well, most people don’t have gravel. MR. NACE-Well, that’s true, gravel off the sanding trucks, but I don’t know how you would prevent it from being plowed up in the snow, and that’s more of a maintenance issue than anything else, but, you know, any kind of edge you’re going to put there is not going to stop gravel, some gravel from being moved with the snow plows. MR. RINGER-It was only a suggestion, Tom, not necessarily a recommendation. It was just a thought that I had. I don’t have anything else right now, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing. I went up there, and I didn’t have any problems with the lights. The way they were up, afterwards, they don’t seem to spill too much. I would, though, however, like to make sure that we put in some kind of landscaping. I just think that the appearance of the area now, although it has been cleaned up considerably, should be maintained that way. For a while it just seemed borderline, I hate to use the word run down, but just wasn’t attractive, and you’re talking about a major thoroughfare. I just wanted to make sure it stays a lot nicer than it has in the past. MR. LEUCI-Since I’ve put the building up, I’ve done, as you said yourself, quite a few improvements, and I plan on keeping it that way, keeping the grass cut and keeping as much green as I can. Okay. It’s in my best interests as well as the Town’s to have the place looking nice, and it will be kept that way. MR. METIVIER-That’s really all I had. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-How come you’ve got cars for sale parked in the handicap parking spots? MR. LEUCI-That would just be a mis-parked vehicle, for the most part, there is nothing parked there in the handicapped area. MR. STROUGH-All right. What is that big metal container out back? MR. LEUCI-Storage. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s for storage. Your extension, your building of the extension, that will be removed, that’s just to hold you over? MR. LEUCI-That’s to hold me over, yes. Once we put the extension up, I won’t need the storage anymore. MR. STROUGH-And your septic tank. I see it’s in an area where cars are parked over the septic tank. Is the septic tank cover of the grade that will allow parking and vehicle use over it? MR. LEUCI-Yes, it is. MR. STROUGH-I mean, was that part of the original Building and Code situation here? MR. NACE-The original plans call for heavy duty. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. NACE-Obviously, I wasn’t there when it was installed. I can’t state for, stand that it was installed that way, but. It called for heavy duty originally, yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Because otherwise it might be a problem. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. STROUGH-And the landscaping is good for a car lot, but not good for, your neighbor makes you look bad, the dentist, he does a nice job, and I see where some of the bushes, some of the tall grass, you know, it’s time for weeding and things like that. So I concur to that, and also, all the lighting and everything else, I’ve been up there three times at night, and on the lower, you know, we’re talking about the 400 floods, and you’ve got doubles, but at night, you only turn on the single, and in my mind, talking from lack of lighting expert here, it seems to pretty much light up most of your property, right? MR. LEUCI-It’s just a night security light. MR. STROUGH-Yes, and you use the singles, the 400’s on the four poles, just the single, and it seems to do a good job. I agree. One thing I would really like to see, though, and it’s not me, it’s other people, is some kind of plantings. You know there’s a buffer zone back there, and I went back to the old minutes and read, and they said, yes, we’ve got a buffer zone, and you’re not to use that, and they said put rye grass or something there, right, if you remember the original agreement, and that is in effect because we don’t know, even though Mr. Passarelli owns the property in back, we don’t know. That might be developed next year. So we have to try and ensure that this buffer zone exists as a buffer zone. I would like to see some kind of plantings along the buffer zone, demarcating where the buffer zone starts, so that it’s use doesn’t become inadvertent. You know how things are. If it’s just grass, it’s pretty easy to start parking vehicles there. Do you know what I mean? So I thought if there were trees, brush, some bush, something to demarcate that buffer zone, and let it goes it’s way, whatever way it’s going to go, you know, kind of natural, that might be a suggestion, and I don’t know if I stand alone on that, or if my other Board members agree. MR. MAC EWAN-Could we jump back to, your opening comment kind of intrigued me. You said you looked at the old minutes and our old agreement, or prior condition of approval was grassy planting? MR. STROUGH-Rye grass planting, yes. Laura and I talked about it today. I was here twice. MR. MAC EWAN-And that was the condition of approval for a buffer zone? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I find that intriguing, because if that was true, then we violated the Town Ordinance ourselves. MR. STROUGH-Well, I know. I went back and read the definition of a buffer zone, and a buffer zone is something to be left in its natural state, and so, you know. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m intrigued by that. MR. NACE-John, what if we were to put some white pine? That’s a droughty soil, and you need something that’s going to survive in a droughty soil. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, whatever works would be fine with me, something to demarcate. MR. NACE-Yes, well, white pine add the most density and survive the best, I think, in that type of soil. MR. STROUGH-This is where the buffer zone is, and in back of that is not to be used. MR. NACE-Sure. We can define that. Obviously, once the bank goes off there, it’s impractical to try to plant anything down that bank, but where the bank is rising up, to the property line, that area directly behind the building, we could define that, yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I see that you’ve located and enclosed your trash bins as we’ve talked about. MR. LEUCI-Yes. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) MR. STROUGH-And the storage building, as you’ve said before, as soon as you get under this big project expansion, that will be removed within a year or so you said. Okay. Well, that’s all I have for now. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s jump back to the buffer zone for a minute. How much planting are you proposing, and how big of an area? MR. NACE-I think the area, okay, from about here on to the north, there’s a steep bank that the buffer zone goes down, and it’s impractical to try to do anything there, but from approximately here on up to the north, where it has been disturbed, where you see this, the tail end of this berm coming up in here, we could certainly define, you know, an area from there up behind the building in here, and I think somewhere up in here, it picks up the natural trees again. So from up to the natural tree line, from there down to approximately there, we could space out some white pine at normal spacing, probably 10, 12 feet. MR. STROUGH-Well, my biggest concern, where it’s getting used right now, which is right back of that building. MR. NACE-Directly behind the building, that’s right, and that would account for that area, directly behind the building. MR. MAC EWAN-How many plantings are you suggesting? MR. NACE-I’m suggesting white pines spaced out along that buffer line approximately 12 feet. That gives them room, as they develop, to. MR. MAC EWAN-Twelve feet apart? MR. NACE-Yes. They’re white pine. White pine becomes a fairly bushy tree. It stays down low. It doesn’t develop an under story that you can see underneath. MR. MAC EWAN-Twelve foot on center would still leave pretty gaping holes in between. MR. NACE-Not in the long term it wouldn’t, Craig. If you plant, I grew up on a tree farm, okay. If you plant them closer than that, once they’re over eight feet high, that’s too close. MR. STROUGH-Yes. That’s only going to give them about 30 feet behind the proposed addition. Is that going to be enough? MR. NACE-Yes. Well, that’s a buffer zone anyway. He can’t do anything within that space, regardless. MR. STROUGH-Yes. I just want him to realize that he’s only going to have about 30 feet of working space in back of your proposed addition. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So, how many trees would be sufficient to fill in that area? MR. LEUCI-Can I just say something? The buffer zone that we’re talking about, it’s a steep bank. It can’t be used to begin with. I’ve already seeded, grassed it, okay, and it looks much nicer than what was there before, okay. It’s in a buffer zone. It cannot be used for any practical purposes whatsoever, but if it’s a question of putting a few trees in there to please the Town, I certainly will, but it’s unusable property because of the steepness of the bank behind there. MR. MAC EWAN-But the problem is that the buffer zone was destroyed. MR. LEUCI-No, I’ve removed no trees. I didn’t do any devegetation in there whatsoever. That’s what was there previously. I’ve only added to it by putting topsoil and re-seeding the whole bank over there. MR. MAC EWAN-Twelve foot on center won’t do it, in my book. MR. NACE-What I was looking at across there, Craig, is maybe 180 feet. MR. MAC EWAN-From the property line by the dental office, is that where you’re talking about starting? 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) MR. NACE-Well, there’s a tree line up toward that property line. There’s a tree line that comes down into the buffer. MR. MAC EWAN-What, about that 472 contour? I’m just trying to get a feel for where you’re starting. MR. NACE-I’m starting right where the existing berm crosses the buffer. That’s where that bank, that berm is right on the top of the steep bank. MR. MAC EWAN-Starting from here going in this direction? MR. NACE-Correct. Starting from right here, going all the way up here. There’s a tree line that comes in here somewhere, like that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So roughly around the 472 mark. MR. NACE-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So you’re looking at about 120 feet. MR. NACE-Actually, I scaled it off on the map. It’s about 180 feet. MR. MAC EWAN-One hundred and eighty feet. MR. NACE-What I’m suggesting is probably 12, 15 trees. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? We don’t have to do a SEQRA. It’s a modification. Anything else? MR. NACE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members? Staff? MR. STROUGH-Just let me get a clarification. Tom, you’re talking, that’s 180 feet. We’re talking in the northeastern section, because then the contour lines south, as you go north, then you enter that valley that you were talking about. MR. NACE-Right, just north of where the berm crosses the buffer line. MR. STROUGH-Just north and in back of the proposed addition, that area to define that, to keep it from being violated. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? Staff? MRS. RYBA-I do have one question. My understanding is that both the display lights and the security lighting will be on during business hours? Or is it just display lighting that’s on during business hours, and security lighting on at night? MR. LEUCI-Security lights will be on at night. The display will only be on when it’s dark, and mostly for the winter months. For the most part, they haven’t been used, and they won’t be used nine months out of the year, because our hours of operation are mostly within daylight hours. MRS. RYBA-So, in other words, the lower pole, the lower lighting at the 15 foot height would just be the security lighting? MR. LEUCI-Yes. MRS. RYBA-And then the upper level lighting at 30 foot pole height would be the display lighting used during business hours, and that would not include the lower level lighting as well? MR. LEUCI-Correct. MRS. RYBA-Okay. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We left the public hearing open. If anybody would like to come up and address the Board, you’re welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOANNE BRAMLELY MRS. BRAMLEY-Good evening. Joanne Bramley, Twicwood Lane. I have a question regarding the plantings in the buffer area. I’ve walked the property, and there is nothing to the south, the area that was mentioned as being planted. There’s considerable footage from the corner of the property line by the dental building. I guess what I’m trying to say is it looks to me that this should be extended to the south, to the property line that borders the dental building. It seems to me that the planting of the buffer is stopping quite short of that area, and are we talking about the fact that we’re going to plant the 50 foot buffer, in depth, not just a strip of white pine across the front of the buffer? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not what they’re proposing, no. MRS. BRAMLEY-What are they proposing? One strip of white pines? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. MRS. BRAMLEY-That as they grow taller, they become, you know, the green extends, and you’re looking right through the bottom of them. It’s not a full dense tree from ground to the top of the tree. So as it grows, so if you’re planting them this distance apart, you’re accommodating the width of the tree, but as it grows, you’re not doing anything, you’re going to look right through them, which is not going to be a visual or a sound buffer for our neighborhood. So I would request that something other than white pine or something in addition to white pine at varying depths be planted. A white pine is not going to grow to suffice completely buffering a 50 foot area. MR. STROUGH-Joanne, isn’t most of the residential area at higher altitude than this? MRS. BRAMLEY-Yes. MR. STROUGH-So isn’t that, in fact, what you want, is a white pine that would give the kind of density that you need, looking down into this site, for noise being ejected from this site? MRS. BRAMELY-We wouldn’t be looking down into it. MR. STROUGH-I mean, what you’re saying is a white pine on a one on one relationship may not be good for a property, here, but most of the residential property in Twicwood is higher. MRS. BRAMLEY-So you’re saying the top of the tree is what would be serving the purpose. MR. STROUGH-The white pine may be what you do want. MRS. BRAMLEY-For that purpose, but what about visually, in terms of looking at it from Route 9? Looking visually as the tree extends? MR. STROUGH-I can’t see back there from Route 9, because it’s bermed. It’s up on a hill. I can’t see back there anyway. MRS. BRAMLEY-So there’s no density requirement for buffer? It’s just planting, regardless of density? MR. STROUGH-Well, it’s 50 feet, and my thinking was, if the white pines demarcate what is the buffer zone, and he’s to leave that alone and let that grow wild, it will take on a character of its own, natural, over time. MRS. BRAMLEY-And nothing, in addition to the white pine that would be lower in shrub would be planted? MR. STROUGH-In addition to white pine, it’s whatever would naturally grow there will be allowed to exist. I’m saying I want something that tells Mr. Leuci that he cannot go and make use of this. This is a buffer zone. MRS. BRAMLEY-But it’s been stripped. I’m not sure anything’s going to grow there naturally again. Will it? 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) MR. STROUGH-I’m not expert in that area, but every little parcel of land that I’ve ever seen left vacant and untouched, something grows there. MRS. BRAMLEY-Okay. It was mentioned that the original plans did call for, I’m not sure I’m using the correct word, heavy duty cover, or whatever, for the septic, but is there any documentation that that’s what was actually installed? I’d like to know if that could be answered. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not aware of that. We’ll ask that. MRS. BRAMLEY-Thank you. The violation of off site repairs that’s been occurring ever since the approval was originally given for repairs of only vehicles that were sold from the premises, is there any, is that going to be addressed in any way? MR. RINGER-That’s not up to us. We’re not an enforcement agency. It’s up to. MRS. BRAMLEY-Up to who? MR. RINGER-It’s up to the enforcement officer of the Town, which would be Craig Brown. MRS. BRAMLEY-Which hasn’t been dealt with to date. MR. MAC EWAN-We have discussed this, and I honestly don’t remember where it was left. Because this application has been in front of us on two or three different occasions. MRS. BRAMLEY-So is that a valid question to be dealt with? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I wrote it down. MRS. BRAMLEY-Thank you. Hours of operation, I would like to request that that be something that be put into the resolution, and as I stated the last time I was before this Board, I don’t feel that this is the proper type of development to encourage in the location that it’s in. It borders a residential neighborhood, and if I may quote from the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Neighborhood Seven, Page Seven, “The east side of Route 9 is zoned Highway Commercial and contains commercial uses such as restaurants, retail, professional offices and motels. Directly in back of the commercial lots are residential zones and uses. Noise, odor, lighting and traffic associated with some types of commercial activity could be detrimental to the quality of existing residential areas and to existing businesses as well.” Recommendations are 7.8, “Allowable commercial activity of small to medium intensity in size and character, similar to what is already existence. Encourage offices and low impact commercial use and ensure that residential areas are adequately buffered from commercial activity. Uses not recommended for the east side of Route 9, recreational and/or amusement centers, auto repair, fast food restaurants, due to concerns about noise, odors, traffic, lighting and access management”. MR. MAC EWAN-If my memory serves me, this application was approved prior to that new Comprehensive Land Use Plan being adopted. MRS. BRAMLEY-I’m just asking that it be considered at this point, too, considering that this business went unchecked in its violation for, I’m sorry I can’t quote how many years, and now there is an addition requested to this building to continue that type of usage in this type of area where it is not recommended, and I believe the police reports indicate that there has not been only larceny, but burglary occurring, which the difference is attempting to break into the building versus attempting to break into the cars. There has been both types of activity, I believe. Is that what your police reports indicate? I would just have to say that on behalf of my neighborhood, that we really have a problem with this type of activity in the proximity that we are in. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? We’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members? Comments? Discussion? Staff? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, she asked the question about the septic tank. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, do we have verification on the septic? I know there were a couple of visits made by Building and Codes or the Code Compliance Officer, but was there any determination as to whether that was a commercial industrial type septic system? MRS. RYBA-The only thing I see in the file right now is Rist-Frost Associates, a letter dated August 3 about receipt of supplemental information from Nace Engineering, information regarding storm rd 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) drainage, sewage disposal and lighting continues to be acceptable, and they don’t have any further comments. I don’t see anything else regarding. MR. MAC EWAN-Is there anything in the file about previous violations to previously approved site plans? MRS. RYBA-There should be, because there were two letters, I think, from Craig Brown. Yes, there’s a letter from Craig Brown dated March 21, 2000, and then another letter dated January 10, 2000. MR. MAC EWAN-What was the conclusion to that, do you know? MRS. RYBA-The conclusion was to come forward to the Planning Board with modifications to the site plan for review. MR. MAC EWAN-What are your hours of operation proposed to be? MR. NACE-They’re in my letter to the Board of July 26. th MR. MAC EWAN-Item Three? MR. NACE-Item Three. MR. MAC EWAN-“Our proposed hours of operation are 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 6:00 p.m. Saturday, and 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sunday”. Is that for purpose of selling vehicles only, or is that repair and maintenance of vehicles as well? MR. LEUCI-Repairs will be done Monday through Saturday. Sunday would be sales only. MR. MAC EWAN-Repairs Monday through Saturday only. The buffer. In my opinion, the buffer should be re-established the entire length of the property to a density that’s going to separate the commercial activity from the residential property behind it, and I’m not talking specifically Twicwood. I’m talking about the RR-3A zone behind that, and according to our Ordinance, that’s what we’re supposed to do, and whether it ever got violated and cleared out or whatever, whether it was previous to your taking over this parcel is irrelevant. You’re the keeper of the property now, and it’s up to you to comply with what the Zoning Ordinance requires, and I would like to see that that entire buffer be re-vegetated, with some density to it, and I don’t think that white pines, 12 feet on center is going to do it, do the trick, in my mind. I mean, when I see a lot of the commercial activity that comes in front of this Board, and routinely we see landscaping plans that are either six or eight foot on center of fast growing species, whether they be Austrian Pines or white pines, that they’re a lot closer together and they’re staggered grouping, so it’s not a row, but they’re offset, so that you have a barrier being put up to act as a buffer, and we’ve got nothing there. MR. NACE-The reason, Craig, the reason I suggested white pine, and at the spacing I did, okay, white pine grow differently depending on how you grow them, where you grow them. If you grow them in a plantation setting where they are close together, you will keep the under story clear, and have that visual sight line through. If you plant them in more of a field condition, where they’re allowed to grow out and you don’t trim the under story, it will grow dense and stay dense. Okay. That’s the reason I, you know, John’s original proposal was to define and separate that area behind the buffer line from the area, used area in front of the buffer line, and I felt that that was the best way to do it. MR. MAC EWAN-But you’re talking about re-establishing buffer on approximately 180 feet of property line, in a row, 12 feet on center, and you have a property line that’s almost 550 feet long, that’s been totally wiped out of a buffer. MR. NACE-Well, I don’t know exactly where that buffer line is in relation to the woods line, and in relation to that bank. I know it goes down the bank, okay, and at some point it goes into the woods, okay, and it hasn’t been disturbed. I do know that on that bank, if you look at it, there probably is no practical good way to re-establish ground cover, okay, and that’s down the bank. It’s out of any sight lines from any existing accessible areas. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, in recent months, we just have been working very hard and very diligently with the Batease property on Big Boom Road, which basically has the same kind of a problem, where he pretty much devastated the entire bank, and that’s being re-established. I’m just one person up here, and I’m not hearing anybody else comment to that. MR. RINGER-The difference with Batease is he’s filling it in, and we don’t want them to fill it in. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Well, no, we’re not looking for them to fill it in, but we’re looking for them to re- establish it. I am, anyway. I mean, that’s the purpose of a buffer zone, is to separate commercial activity or industrial activity from residential property. MR. RINGER-I understand that, if we’ve got a slope there that you can’t put trees or anything in, but I mean, you’ve either got to fill it so you can bring it up to plant something in there. MR. STROUGH-You can plant on a slope. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe the appropriate action is to have the Code Compliance Officer go out there and delineate exactly where the buffer area is and have him make some recommendations to the Planning Board. MR. RINGER-That’s what we did with Batease, and maybe that is a good idea. MR. STROUGH-There’s about 480 feet before it hits the wooded area. I mean, if you wanted white pines put every 10 foot, it would be 48 white pines. MR. RINGER-Are you talking the whole area, all the way across, John? MR. STROUGH-The area that’s measured from the property line to the dental office. MR. RINGER-Is that the 472 mark, or the 472 elevation? MR. STROUGH-Yes, from there down to where it shows the wooded area is 480 feet. MR. RINGER-Well, where are you seeing the tree line, you mean? MR. STROUGH-Down to the, on the north side, see where the tree line intersects with the buffer? MR. RINGER-Yes, so you’re saying from the line there all the way over to where it says tree line? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. NACE-Once you go past where the berm crosses the buffer line, trying to establish something down on the sides of that slope, you know, you’re going to have to go in there and do more clearing in order to bring in fill to be able to establish trees? MR. STROUGH-White pines will grow anyway, Tom. MR. NACE-They won’t grow in rock. I don’t know if there’s enough soil in there to. MR. STROUGH-But I mean, you know, they’re relatively, they take the most, a lot of given situations. MR. NACE-Sure. You could certainly try on that slope. I think there are places where you might, and places where I’m sure that you can’t. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let’s take a little survey. What’s the pleasure of the Board? What do you want to do with this buffer? MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, if you want to go to a greater extent, I’ll support you, but my original thing is I do want the buffer established, especially in back of the garage area, and I think white pines will serve there. If you want to go and make a more stringent planting plan, I’ll support that too. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-This entire piece of property has been a nightmare for me for the past five years. I’ve been on this Board for six years. From the day it was clear cut, and so now, and you know how I felt two years ago when it came to the Board. It was a split decision, four, three, about letting this go in. I still believe it’s a nonconforming type of business on that property, and now if this project of yours is going to be enhanced, you want to now bring in cars off the street, which was not going to happen two years ago when you came in, then by golly, I’m going to do anything I can to get this piece of property back as close, or on the way back to looking like it used to look six years ago before all the trees were taken down, and if you have to plant more trees to get it to go back to its original state, then you’re going to have to plant more trees. I will agree with Tom, those white pines, we’ve got them at the lake. Ten years ago, we put them in, and we let them grow in a field setting, and they are monsters. I mean, they are obstructing other people’s view of the lake. So I 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) know that they will work, but as far as this whole property, it’s one of these things that has not set well with me since Day One I’ve been on this Board. That’s how I feel. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I certainly want to see more than just some minimal token gesture. At the very least offset the trees so that they fill in and will not happen in a row. Whether or not these are done the whole length of the buffer zone, I’m not really sure. Having been on the site, I appreciate the slope of some of that zone, but I really don’t have a strong feeling. Certainly, something needs to be done. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I’d like to see the trees planted along the line, and the white pine is fine with me, and I’d like to go from that spot of 472 elevation, out to where the tree line is, and I don’t know if 12 foot, I’m going to have to bow to Tom’s expertise on that. It seems like that’s a wide spread, but if that’s what white pines spread out, then 12 feet I would have to think would be a minimum. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I’ll agree with that. You certainly have to take Tom’s opinion or facts into consideration, but if we’re looking down on this slope, we’re not going to have any gratification over night, no matter what you plant. So we have to look down, you know, in the next couple of years, and if that’s the case we should, I think, go with the white pines, and just, the only other thing you could do is maybe put up a fence for now to, you know, alleviate some of the obstruction or the sight distance flat line, but that’s really not what we’re talking about. It’s more looking down slope. So I guess the bigger the better. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Well, I guess then the pleasure’s up to someone if they want to introduce the resolution, if they want to, and try to nail it down. MR. RINGER-You had mentioned earlier you might like to have Craig Brown go and take a look at this and come up with some thoughts and ideas. Do you still feel that? MR. MAC EWAN-My sense of this is that, the final survey is that there’s not enough interest there to go that route. MR. RINGER-I didn’t think you had polled anybody. I thought you had made the comment and I didn’t know whether you wanted to go with it or not. MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s what I was asking, how everybody felt about things. MR. RINGER-Craig may have some better ideas, perhaps, than what we’ve put forth here. So, you know, if you would like to do that, have Craig take a look at it, I would certainly feel comfortable with that. MR. STROUGH-I would support that, too. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, how do you feel about that? MR. METIVIER-Well, I mean, there again, I mean, nothing is going to be solved overnight with this, no matter what you do. So if he could find something that might be better in the short term, great, but nothing, it’s more the long term is what you’re looking at. It’s an unfortunate thing what is happening there, what has happened, and there’s nothing you can really do about it except to just wait and see, and even take that attitude, wait and see what’s going to happen with planting, whatever you put in there. So if he can come up with something for the short term, great, but I think, too, we have to look at the long. MRS. RYBA-I just wanted to note that, because the concern is the filling in of the area, that any resolution you make should include the diameter tree, size tree that you’d like, including the height. So I just wanted to remind you of that, and typically it’s three inch diameter, four to six feet high. MR. SCHACHNER-And if you’re concerned about hours of operation, I would urge you to include those details in the resolution as well. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments? 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) MRS. LA BOMBARD-The sad thing is that the only way the trees are going to get in is to pass the, to give the application what he’s here for, the site plan. I wish we had done something a long time ago about it. So, I’m caught between a rock and a hard place. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s why we’re trying to deal with it now. MRS. LA BOMBARD-If I vote no on this application, then the trees never get in. If I vote yes on the application, there’s a condition that the trees be planted, then the trees get in, but also Mr. Leuci gets to augment the volume of his business. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Someone can take a stab at it and introduce a motion, and we’ll see where we go with it. MR. STROUGH-What does Mr. Leuci have to say? MR. MAC EWAN-I’m sorry. MR. LEUCI-Okay. What happened to the property five years ago had nothing to do with me. Okay. Since I’ve been there, I’ve only made improvements, and I think you’ve all seen that. You’ve seen the greenery, the trees planted, okay, and I’d be more than happy to do more, whatever pleases the Town. I don’t mind planting trees along the last few feet of the barrier there, okay. It’s not a problem to do that. To plant trees behind the bank would make absolutely no sense whatsoever, because if you’ve seen what the situation looks like, it’s already into the woods, okay, the buffer zone is already into the wood line. I don’t mind planting trees behind the building there, and that buffer zone, it can’t be used anyway. It’s a steep bank. It’s not like I’m going to be using it, but it’s no problem, as far as making it prettier, to put trees there. I’ve been doing nothing but enhancing the property since I’ve been there. I plan on enhancing it more by doing more planting and making it pretty, all in good time. I just would like to continue to do my business and run my business. I run a clean operation, a nice operation, and I’m only asking what everybody else in the Town of Queensbury who has an auto dealership is doing. All new car dealerships, they sell vehicles, when they sell a vehicle, they’re allowed to service their own cars. That’s all I’m asking to do. I’m zoned for it, and I would just like to do what I’m zoned to do, and I will keep the property clean and desirable to look at, given the opportunity. MR. MAC EWAN-Unfortunately, you know, I guess, speaking for the Board, while we admire you efforts to want to make your site more appeasing and beautiful to look at, ultimately what’s brought you here is violations of previously approved site plans. MR. LEUCI-It’s not violations. It’s amendments. I’m asking for amendments here. MR. MAC EWAN-No, no, no. They are violations of previously approved site plans with conditions of approvals that stated that certain things were or weren’t going to exist on that site, and that’s what’s, unfortunately, brought you here tonight, and I think that’s the dilemma that some of the members are having up here, is that this is an ongoing problem for us and how do we best come to a resolution that’s going to appease everybody involved here, and I think that’s what we’re struggling with. John, do you have a resolution in mind that you want to put up? MR. STROUGH-Well, I mean, I don’t know how plantable that, you know (lost words), Mr. Leuci had said it’s unplantable. I don’t know. Maybe the Craig Brown idea isn’t the worst in the world, and see how far along that we can practically plant, and what we should plant along there. I mean, I like the white pine idea from Tom, but how far could we go with this, how far should we go with this? I don’t want to give Mr. Leuci something that he can’t do, or would be very unreasonable to do. I would like to do what is reasonable and would make most people happy, and go on. Now, the two conditions that we see so far, that we’re fairly close to are, he’s going to have some kind of plantings along the buffer, and he’s going to be limited to his hours of operations, to the hours that he stated in the letter to Laura Moore, and if there’s any other conditions, I’m not aware of them. MRS. LA BOMBARD-John, the hours of operation, if he works any more than those, he won’t sleep. I mean, the hours of operation are a lot. MR. RINGER-They’re pretty standard. MR. STROUGH-They’re pretty standard. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, yes, but I mean, how much more can he? MR. STROUGH-Well, he certainly would not be able to exceed the 8:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. He wouldn’t be able to exceed the 6 p.m. on Saturday nights or Sunday nights. I thought that was reasonable. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Your hours of operation of 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday, are for both sales of automobiles and the service of automobiles? MR. LEUCI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-So potentially someone could hear impact wrenches running at eight o’clock, eight fifteen at night? That sort of thing. MR. LEUCI-Not from inside the garage you can’t hear them. MR. MAC EWAN-On a hot summer July day, the doors will be open. MR. LEUCI-You can’t hear it. I’m too far away from any residential property or the dentist’s office. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you keep your garage doors closed at all times? MR. LEUCI-Not during the summer hours. In the winter we do. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m struggling again here folks. What does everybody want to do? MR. RINGER-Well, I still like your idea of having Craig take one final look at it before we put a motion forward, and if we can’t get a consensus on that, then I will present a motion, but I still think it would be a good idea to table it and have Craig take a quick look at it and perhaps he may not have a recommendation, but he may have some, and that’ll give us just another opportunity, and we can have it next Thursday. I mean, it’s not that we’re going to delay him that much. I think Craig could probably get there, couldn’t he, Marilyn, by next week and get something to us? MRS. RYBA-I don’t really want to speak for his schedule, but if that’s what you desire, he’ll accommodate you. MR. RINGER-So, you know, we’re not delaying it that long, a week, a week and a half at most. So I’ll put a motion forward, then, that we table this application MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have a question. Why does Craig know so much about planting? MR. RINGER-He doesn’t, perhaps, Catherine, but he has done some work for us with Batease, and he just may have some ideas for us that we don’t have. MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute here. Staff has resources available to them for doing plantings, for noise buffering, visual buffering, that have some, for lack of a better word, use manuals that will give recommendations and such like that. I’ve seen them. I have copies of some of the stuff. So there are resources. MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 55-98 JOSEPH LEUCI/MOUNTAINSIDE AUTO, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: Until our August 24 meeting, for the purposes of having Craig Brown stop at the site and perhaps th give some recommendation to the Board as to plantings in the buffer zone. Duly adopted this 15 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 58-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED SBA, INC. & SOUTHWESTERN BELL CORP. OWNER: JAMES & DIANE FLOWER AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION: 61 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A 195 FT. TALL WIRELESS TELEPHONE TOWER ON AN 8.74 ACRE PARCEL. IN ACCORDANCE WITH § 179-73.1 TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) CROSS REFERENCE: USE VAR. 30-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/9/00 TAX MAP NO. 30-1-51 LOT SIZE: 8.74 ACRES SECTION: 179-73.1 JON LAPPER, SHANE NEWELL, GARY WEISS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 58-2000, SBA, Inc. & Southwestern Bell Corp., Meeting Date: August 15, 2000 “Project Description The applicant proposes to construct a 195 foot tall cell tower on a portion of property located on Route 149. The Tower is designed to accommodate six tenants. At this time one tenant will be located at the 195 height, as confirmed. The remaining tenants will be located beneath 195-foot height. Project Analysis (Section 179-38) The proposed use as reviewed by staff was found to be compliant with Section 179-38 A, B, C, D and E of the Town Code. The proposed use obtained a Use Variance specific to telecommunication towers, UV 30-2000. The existing site is 8.75 acres and the tower area will use 9,000 square feet of the parcel. The applicant has submitted a site plan application with associated drawings and pictures representing the project. Site Overview a. The tower location is 515 feet from Route 149 and the closest neighbor is to the east at 50 feet. The site currently contains a single-family dwelling that is about 250 feet from the fence and about 70 feet to an existing overhead utility. During the applicant’s use variance review it was determined the height of the tower height did not need a light at the top. b. The applicant has provided a coverage sheet showing the one confirmed tenant at the top of the Tower and at varying heights. The coverage drawings do not change from height to height for the one tenant. There will be coverage changes for the other tenants on the Tower at the lower heights (and below the primary tenant). Coverage drawings of the lowest tenant on the tower at varying tower heights should be provided. This would assist in determining if the tower height is adequate. c. The visual assessment photos indicate the Tower can be seen but it appears to be minimal as long as the existing tree line is maintained. d. A six-foot chain link fence with an additional one-foot of barbed wire fence will enclose the site. Within the fenced in area there will be equipment buildings to accommodate the tenants on the tower. e. A sign will be displayed on the fence identifying the Tower owner and other pertinent information. Traffic, Circulation, Parking The existing driveway will be improved and extended to access the Tower area. The driveway grade will be about 10% and will be about 12 feet wide. The access will be from the existing entrance of the driveway onto Route 149. Utility, Stormwater, landscaping, Emergency Services The application was referred to the Town engineer for review and comment on structural ability of the Tower. There are no anticipated storm water drainage impacts. The plans include a landscape plan as required to provide screening from neighboring properties. Areas of Concern or Importance The coverage area drawings “received 8/4/00” and “Visual Simulation report April 2000” do not show significant discrepancies between height of tenant and coverage area. Conclusions (Section 179-39) The applicant has provided pictures of other cell tower types. The effectiveness of the height for the lowest tenant should be evaluated. Suggestions The information submitted indicates the tower may be lowered.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. RYBA-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Hello, again. Jon Lapper, Shane Newell, to my right, who is here on behalf of SBA, Inc., which is a tower location company, and the other three gentlemen are from SBC, Southwestern Bell Corp./Cellular One, Gary Weiss, to my immediate right, Bob Isgrow, to my left, and Ron is our RF Engineer, to answer questions on that. Just a couple of preliminary comments. We’ve been to the Zoning Board, I think, for three months, addressing the Use Variance issue, and then we’ve been to the County Planning Board twice on Site Plan and on Variance. So we’ve been talking about this cell tower for a long time, although it’s the first time that the Planning Board has had the opportunity to look at it. Nobody gets too excited about the idea of locating a cell tower anywhere, but the Town of Queensbury, everyone wants to have a cell phone. Nobody wants to have a cell tower, but the Town of Queensbury Reg’s are very specific, requiring co-location, and the SBA company, they’re in the business of providing towers for co-location. They want to have all five carriers on the tower. That serves their business needs, but it also serves the Town, because it means that you’d only have to have one tower in this part of the Town. The way that the Town Telecommunications Regulations work, I’m sure you’re familiar with this, although there probably haven’t been that many applications, industrial properties and existing tall structures are what’s preferred. What’s happening here is that there is an existing deficiency in service in the Route 149 corridor, and primarily on the Northway between Exits 20 and 21, where cell and digital phone coverage just gets dropped. So your calls get dropped, and that was something that even the members of the Zoning Board put on the record that they were aware of that from their own experience. So the goal here is to locate a tower in an area of the Town that’s not industrial and doesn’t have any tall structures, but for the purpose of filling that gap, and this would be the only tower in that area, because SBA will agree and has agreed that it will be available for all five carriers. With that in mind, they picked a site that was substantially off of 149, so the base of the tower wouldn’t be seen from the travel corridor. There are 85 foot tall trees there which block half of the tower, and the remaining portion of the 195 foot 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) tower, it’s designed as a guide tower rather than a freestanding tower, so that the structure itself is a thin pole with these virtually invisible guidewires, so it just doesn’t look as massive as, for example, the towers that we’re all familiar with in the industrial area near Exit 18, when you’re on the Northway. At the same time, you’re probably aware that there are towers that are designed to look like trees, that’ll probably go up in the APA in 100 years, when they approve one, but the problem with those is that they’re not constructed, size wise, they’re not constructed for five carriers. So if you’re going to have the, fulfill the goal of co-location, you want to minimize the visual impact, but having something that looks like a Sequoia tree, if it could be done, isn’t going to do that. So this is what was chosen here, was this, the very thin designed tower with the guidewires. Those are really my general comments. We realize that there’s a lot on the table. You’re probably going to want to hear back from C.T. Male, and we just got their response at the end of last week. So we have our submission, and we are here to go over all the issues, and certainly we would love to have an approval tonight, but if this requires C.T. Male concurrence, we’ll talk about it at the next meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Nothing else? MR. LAPPER-Those are the general comments. We can respond specifically to the Town and to C.T. Male. We have a response letter to C.T. Male that we’ll hand you, and we can just go through that point by point if you’d like. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a response to C.T. Male’s letter of the 11? th MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Does C.T. Male have this yet? MR. LAPPER-No. Our stuff, we’ve responded to everything, but it just happened because we just got the engineering comments. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just wondering if maybe it’s the best course of action here to just table the application here tonight, without going any farther, and let C.T. Male, let it run its course like it should. MR. LAPPER-I guess if we’re going to do that, I’d like to first ask these gentlemen if they want to put anything on the record, just to really educate the Board, but also if there’s any questions that Board members have, to focus us on anything that you’re thinking about. That would be good also. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think maybe the best course of action here, Jon, is I’ll go right down the Board and let every member of the Board comment or question if they want. I don’t think I want to get us too wrapped up into this tonight because we’re looking at all this information sitting here again tonight and without having it, so to speak, signed off by C.T. Male. So maybe that would be the best course of action. MR. LAPPER-I understand. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, we’ll start with you. Have you got any comments or concerns you want them to know about? MR. HUNSINGER-I really didn’t. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No, not until we get all the stuff. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I honestly had nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Well, I’ve got some questions I could ask them now or later. I don’t care. MR. LAPPER-We’d probably rather hear some comment now, just so we know what direction. MR. MAC EWAN-Go for it, if you want. I don’t have any problem with it. MR. STROUGH-Okay. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Just so that you’re aware that I think that’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to table this thing. MR. STROUGH-Yes, I know, but at least this way, they can address my questions and concerns, get them out of the way, so that next time maybe I won’t have any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-No. April Fool’s, right? MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thin pole or grid, what are we talking about here? We’re talking about grid, aren’t we? MR. NEWELL-Yes, that’s correct. Yes, it’s a grid design. It’s not wider at the base. It’s the same dimension at the top to the bottom. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s what I more or less gathered, but I saw references to poles, and I guessed that was just for references. Jon mentioned a guide pole. So I thought I better ask. Tower color paint scheme? MR. NEWELL-We felt that, I have some color photographs here better than the digital photographs that you were provided. MR. STROUGH-What color are you painting the grid, the grid work? MR. NEWELL-It’s the natural steel color that it is. MR. STROUGH-And you’re not going to do the old red and white? MR. NEWELL-No. It’s not required by the ASAC report, coloring is not required, red and white alternating. MR. STROUGH-I know, but you do see the red and white ones around. MR. NEWELL-On Exit 18 there’s one that went up. MR. STROUGH-Yes. Okay. Now you have five levels that you can use. In here, in your justification of height memorandum, which we received on August 4, 2000, it doesn’t have a date on it from you, it says you have to space the antennae between 10 and 15 feet apart. MR. NEWELL-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-Now, will you, how will you get five stations between 160 feet and 195 feet, if you’ve got to space them 10 to 15 feet apart. MR. NEWELL-Well, every 10 feet you have what they call the rad center. So that would be one station, and then the next 10 feet up. MR. STROUGH-I’m gathering most of the conversation in the correspondence is that these will be located between 160 and the top of the tower, 195. MR. NEWELL-That’s correct, generally. We show that, some of our RF reports show that coverage starts to drop off around 130, 140, I think. So we think we can get the five carriers in there. I mean, everybody’s RF line is going to be slightly different. We’re not able to go in exactly at their frequency and calculate what they’ll exactly get at that particular height. MR. LAPPER-But it is sufficiently high, and you can fit five carriers. MR. NEWELL-Yes, from the best that we can tell from RF plotting. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I’ll try and work that out, but that’s a concern. MR. NEWELL-Okay, and just kind of a rap session right now, right? I’d like to know, who’s going to be the first one there? Is it going to be Cellular One or is it going to be a Cellular One? MR. NEWELL-Cellular One. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So Cellular One’s going to be located probably the prime spot, the 195 feet. MR. NEWELL-From the center line of 190. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) MR. STROUGH-And what kind of antenna will there be? MR. WEISS-Gary Weiss. They’re eight foot panel antennas. I believe they’re 9 inches wide, the decibel product antennas, flat panel, and seven inches deep. Typically what we do, each of the triangular sides of the antenna sectors they’re called would be 12 feet horizontally spaced. So there’d be three panel antennas, vertically mounted, six feet on center. So three antennas across a twelve foot face on each side of the tower. MR. STROUGH-All right. Could you give me, and maybe some other members of the Planning Board might be interested, the next time you come before us, an example of what the tower will look like with these eight foot panels? Pre-existing antenna, so I have a better visual idea of what I’m doing, okay, and limitations on vegetation removal, but that’s all I have for now, just to get it out there. MR. MAC EWAN-You raise some good points. Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I was very impressed with the photographs with the proposed versus the existing new, and I felt, I was lead to believe that that’s basically what it’s going to look like, from those points where you’ve photographed it. MR. NEWELL-That’s right. That was done digitally. You’ll see some of the guidewires are lit up a little bit. They actually show a little bit more than they actually will, otherwise you couldn’t even see them. We didn’t want to make it look like we’re hiding anything there. It lit them up a little bit. MRS. LA BOMBARD-If it looks almost like this, then I think you’ve done a good job placing it. I mean, as far as the physics of how it works and the mechanics of it, I mean, I don’t think we need to delve into that. I just think, as far as if it’s going to work right and not going to cut down too many trees to put it up, I think you’ve done a good job. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? MR. METIVIER-I guess I’m curious, as to I’m sure some of the public is, too, about health, what kind of things have been brought up in the past about the health of these, you know, the people around these towers. Have any more studies been done on that, and if so, what have they concluded? MR. LAPPER-There’s actually a Federal threshold, because there’s been a lot of cases, in terms of the level of RF, radio frequency, and because that’s certainly, over the last five year, when towers were proliferated all over the Country, this was a community issue. So the Federal Telecommunications Act has a threshold, of which this tower is nowhere near, that anything under that is not a problem. Anything over that would require studies and therefore it’s not, these type towers are not deemed a problem, and that’s why the health issue doesn’t come up. MR. NEWELL-I think basically the Federal government didn’t want to see each local municipality bogged down with these kind of issues. So they passed, in the Telecom Act, that ruling basically that boards can ask all the questions they want about it, but their decision cannot be based on that health concern, because by the Federal Telecom Act, the tower has to operate within this threshold, or underneath it. So what you’re talking about I think is called nonionizing electromagnetic field. There were in-depth studies on it to look it over. I think what a lot of people refer to, and what some of the public scare has been, has been like through a 60 Minutes show. They did a lot of coverage about cell phone use to your head. There’s been very little discussion ever about Telecommunications Towers. The other issue is still, I guess, undetermined or, you know, nothing proven, I guess, but still some studies. MR. METIVIER-So in your eyes it’s a non-issue because they’ve already regulated it? MR. WEISS-Cellular towers are low power installations. They would operate at a small fraction of what police, fire, any public safety frequency would. If you were to look at a graph, cell towers would be one, police would be about two fifty, AM radio/television would be on order of a thousand and up, depending on the wattage. It’s actually Section 332-7C, I believe it is, of the Federal Telecommunications Act of ’96, which stipulates that so long as these facilities comply with FCC regulations, in terms of emissions, which this will, even fully loaded with five carriers, that it’s an FCC issue, and the placement of towers can’t be prohibited by states or municipality based on RF safety concerns. MR. LAPPER-But certainly, as of our first being here, it’s a valid question for you to ask. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? 44 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) MR. METIVIER-I’m sorry I asked. MR. MAC EWAN-You got a good answer. MR. METIVIER-I did. That was very good. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s your arrangements for the property? Are you leasing the property, purchasing it? MR. LAPPER-Leasing. MR. MAC EWAN-What are the terms of your lease? MR. LAPPER-We have a signed multi year lease agreement. MR. NEWELL-It’s a five year lease with eight extensions on it. MR. MAC EWAN-Eight, five year extensions on it? MR. NEWELL-Eight, five year extensions. MR. MAC EWAN-At your whim or at the property owner’s whim? MR. NEWELL-At ours. MR. MAC EWAN-Mutual, then. MR. NEWELL-No, not mutual. They can’t get out of the deal. MR. LAPPER-They agreed to it. MR. NEWELL-Yes. On the sixth year, we renew on the fifth year to go into the next term. They can’t say, well, we’ve changed our minds, we want the tower coming down. We’re going to be there for as long as it works. Unless the site becomes unusable or they event some new way of putting out cell phone radio frequencies, then the tower will be there. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the question that I have is what if technology changes, 10 years down the road, and it’s a whole different way of hanging antennas. Is that required, then? Would that require them to come back in here? MR. NEWELL-Well, our lease states that if we’re not using the tower, we have to take it down. We’ve also posted a bond with the Town. So in case if the company, that happened and the company went bankrupt, the Tower would still have to come down. It’s insured to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not talking about the tower coming down, per se, that if technology changed from what your presentation is here tonight, that if, you know, seven, eight years down the road, some new kind of technology’s out there that’s far reachingly different than what you’re proposing here tonight, would that require them to come back in here for modification to the site plan? MR. SCHACHNER-It seems to me the answer is the same as the answer for any other commercial site plan applicant. If they change something in the physical facility, that is different than what’s been proposed now, then it would constitute a modification of the site plan approval, it would seem to me. Just going back to the taking it down issue, just so you know, many towns do seek to impose conditions similar to what the applicant is indicating is in its lease, that if the tower is not in use, that it comes down within a certain amount of time, because one of the things that communities often fear is that for some reason the tower becomes obsolete, but it is then not removed, that remains on the landscape without serving any functional purpose. I think the applicant’s indicating that their lease says that anyway, but that’s something that you do have the right to review, if you wish. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? We have a public hearing scheduled tonight. If anyone wants to come up and make comments or address the Board, you’re welcome to do so. I’d just ask that you identify your name and address for the record, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAVID KING MR. KING-Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, my name is David King. I’m the General Manager and Vice President of the Lake George RV Park, Inc. at 74 State Route 149, directly across 45 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) the site from the applicant’s property. We own approximately 140 acres of developed RV park, noted as one of the top 100 parks in the United States since 1966. In addition, we own an additional 400 acres of property on French Mountain, that’s most of the mountain you see when you stand on 149 looking north, just about all of that mountain property is owned, maintained, by the Lake George RV Park. The mountain property is primarily used as hiking trails with viewing vistas. From the top of the mountain, you can see Lake George and you can also look south onto the RV Park, and all of the property that we are talking about here, for the development of this tower. I’ve been most opposed to the plan since its original proposal with the Zoning Board. I practically convinced the Zoning Board to deny the variance. However, tonight I think at the planning stages, and you’ll be hearing from me again at the next meeting in more detail, the important thing is to think of why is this the most appropriate place for this tower. I do not deny there is a need for a tower in the community, to improve cellular telephone coverage for many reasons, as part of our society. It’s part of a need of everyone that passes through this region, and so I recognize there is a need for improved telephone coverage, cellular telephone coverage. However, the tests, so to speak, that they used in finding appropriate properties to site and plant the tower was based on several criteria. The criteria that I question the most, that I don’t believe they exhausted their investigation on, was they needed to know if the site was obtainable. In other words, they restricted whether a piece of property was obtainable or not on the basis of whether it could be leased or not. This company had no interest, and I understand they have no interest in ever purchasing property, as it’s not what they do. They lease properties. However, it was there’s quite a dilemma built in to the way that they’ve tested what properties are most appropriate, by screening them as obtainable through leasing options only. They basically approached many property owners, and they had other sites that were actually just as good, to provide the coverage they needed, to construct that tower, but many of those property owners said, no, I’m not interested in leasing a portion of my property or this property to you, and I think that had to do with where mostly commercial properties were asked first, prior to the residential properties, and they basically come to you with a deal that isn’t very lucrative. You know, $8,000 a year to give up your property and your rights to use that property, to have a 190 foot tower right on it, and so they basically limited the number of pieces of property that could be obtainable by lease, by actually making the elements of their lease option so limited that they were not attractive to many of the property owners in this corridor. However, if you’re a three acre residentially zoned piece of real estate, and you have a home on it, and a cellular telephone tower company comes and says they’ll give you $8,000 a year, we’ll give you a 40 year lease, that sounds pretty good, and I don’t debate with any resident that would want that kind of a deal. It’s a great way to pay for a kid’s education or defer some of the costs of owning that property. However, in this Town of Queensbury it’s very clear that these towers are supposed to be put up on the industrial or light industrial properties. We know there’s none of them in the 149 corridor. We know we have to find the next best thing. My big question to this Planning Board, is the property that they want to put this tower on truly the next best thing to a light industrial or industrial property, and did the test they use to find properties to put the tower on, was it a fair test, or was it one that was most economical and profitable for the company wishing to establish the tower? I’m in favor of a tower in the corridor to improve cellular telephone coverage. I really think there are other sites that could have been attained and approached, had they been willing to deal on a different deal. Perhaps ownership in this case was an option. Some of the people they approached were not interested in leasing. They were not interested in buying. However, there’s a vacant piece of property right next to, literally right next to the property in question that’s an eyesore. If you know where The Loft is, south, if you head east from The Loft, there’s a piece of real estate that’s been up for sale by the Shuh Real Estate company for almost as long as I can remember, and there’s a bunch of shacks on it. There’s a bunch of dilapidated, falling down buildings on it. Somebody’s holding out, obviously, for a few dollars, but it’s a piece of property that isn’t good for just any development, and yet they approached those people. They approached other commercial properties like the RV Park, like the Days Inn, some of the big people up on 149, and they said, no, we’re not interested. Well, it wasn’t a deal that made it interesting, and my argument is, is that fair to say that this is the only site in this corridor that’s appropriate, because it was the easiest, and best and quickest deal that this company could come up with? So you need to look at that in great detail. Next is the height. We obviously have a requirement in the Town, which makes sense, to allow multiple users for one tower, to avoid the construction of multiple towers, okay. I believe in that. I believe we shouldn’t have five towers where we can have one. However, if we can minimize the height of that tower, even by 30 or 40 feet, and if the engineers, the RF Engineers, can establish that at 35 feet, or 40 feet, we can almost get, almost get, as good a coverage as we can at 90 feet, and we might really accomplish something by bringing that height requirement down. The other reason you have to look at that 195 height requirement is because of the FAA Regulations for lighted towers. That’s the little red beacon that has to go at the top of the tower when it’s over and 210 feet. They’ve clearly kept that limit under 200 feet because they don’t want it to be lit. They know that’s even more unpopular, in trying to maintain an aesthetic, natural, rural character to the landscape is to have a lighted tower. We all know that at night, when you’re walking your dog, you see a big red beacon on the mountain, it takes a different feel to the area than it if isn’t there, and my concern is, by having it 195 feet, while it isn’t a requirement by FAA to have a light at the top of the tower, it could become a hazard, and the FAA has the right, they have the right to come in and require a light at any time. I’m speaking as the Manager of the Lake George RV Park. We’re a camping resort. The Park was built by my family in 46 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) 1966. Our mission is to provide a rural camping experience for people to come all over the Country. Now when you come to an RV Park like ours, even though we provide services and amenities unmet in most resorts, what we really sell is the experience of outdoors and being in a park like setting. The Park was developed and put in that location, which is a recreational commercially zoned location, with residential properties all the way around it, because it was a perfect setting for a park where people would come from more commercial areas, more densely populated, where you have towers and buildings and lights, and they come to this Park every summer, 16,000 people, to visit, to experience that rural, removed from the business of life landscape, night and day, and that means taking your dog for a walk at night and not seeing a red beacon at the top of the mountain. It means playing tennis in our front tennis areas and our pools and not having to see an eight foot by eight inch wide by seven inch deep reflective antennas, perhaps five of them stacked on top of each other, reflecting the sunlight. Whether you’re on the top of the mountain looking down at the Park, on your rural height, taking a picture of your family, at the top, with the cellular telephone antennas behind them, or whether you’re playing tennis and taking a picture of your kid learning how to ride a bike for the first time, with a cellular telephone tower behind them, it is a concern to me of where it’s positioned. They have done wonderful studies, SBA, in trying to get renditions of what the tower would look like, if it was there. I can see that the pictures that they’ve developed are as good as they can produce in creating a realistic picture of what it would really look like. My feeling is, obviously, they have a job to do, and the pictures, we’re imaging it and we’re creating with digital enhancement software, a way to look at it. It’s obviously going to only steer in their favor. So, when the tower actually goes up, and when they put up a big boom crane there, about a month ago, to do some testing, and you could see that crane at 170 feet up there in the air, a solid pole crane structure, it was quite alarming, when you saw it up there at that height, and it wasn’t just me that noticed it. It was many of the residences and business owners in the area that noticed it that day. They had it up there, I guess, for testing purposes. So we’re very concerned about the possibility of a very high structure, possibly lit at night, and the reason they’re here tonight, obviously, is to get approval for something that I think should have been prevented right at the Zoning Board, but now that it’s in your hands, I ask every member of this Board to really think about, how is it going to change the rural character of this landscape. French Mountain is the southern most of the historic Adirondack Mountains. Battles were fought. The French and Indian War there, kids read about it in the school books, all over the world. When they come and visit the mountain, they climb to the top, and they look down at a cellular telephone tower, that hasn’t been minimized in every way to blend with the landscape, that means in height, in color, in every way that it’s built, they say that they don’t want a Sequoia Tree. I’m just saying if the Sequoia Tree rendition of the tower blends in better with the rural landscape, so be it. There’s very few places that people have to go in the Country where they can feel like they’re getting away from it all, and even though we need to have our cell phone on hip at all times. We need to call 911 when we’re having an accident on 149, we need to be very, very, very conscientious, at this step, in this Town, to be sure the steps we take today not only provide the benefits of technology, but do not in any way negatively impact the environment that we have all come to love and appreciate and call home, and which many people do not call home but for maybe a week or two a year, when they’re on vacation. The 1996 Telecommunications Act is very influential here. It tells this Board that they can pretty much put the Tower anywhere they want to. Look in detail at that Telecommunications Act, and be sure that it isn’t applying completely in the way that SBA wants you to think it applies here, giving them complete carte blanche abilities to come in and put the tower anywhere they want. I think you have to go back and look. Were other sites obtainable, or was this really the only site that they could buy or lease, that would have been appropriate? I still say that we have other towers right near by, right over at the Municipal Center. They went to Warren County. Warren County didn’t want to give them a lease option, but they never went to the point of saying, let’s buy a piece of property from the County. Let’s put a tower up next to it. Let’s get around that lease issue. They never exhausted those options. So they can’t really say that other properties were not obtainable. They just weren’t obtainable to meet what they had as a very fine litmus test for acceptability, and I assume that the property that they’ve chosen, being directly across from my property, was chosen because there isn’t a lot of other property owners that are really opposed to it. There isn’t a lot of other property owners period, with 600 acres around them, and there’s a lot of other small neighborhood residences, of which some have been opposed, but maybe they’re not here tonight, but I just want this Board to be sure that when they picked that site, and they argued that other sites were not obtainable, that that is truly the case. I am not convinced. I really have no other comments at this time. I know it’s late, and I want this Board to be aware that it isn’t just, bing, bing, bing, put up a tower. There’s a lot of long reaching effects the structure of this tower is going to have on the character of this Town, and on the effect of my business and the 16,000 guests a year that visit to get away from cell towers. So I think there are places that are not viewable from my facility or my mountain that would actually provide the same level of service, perhaps at a little more cost to the company, but again, they’re going to gain revenue by leasing this to five different cell companies in time. So I think there’s plenty to be made. Obviously, the company can bring an attorney and four people with them to sit at the table here tonight, I think the company can afford more than the $8,000 lease a year on a piece of property to construct such a tower and perhaps maybe that consideration wasn’t fully made prior to this evening. I thank you for your time. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you, Mr. King. Anyone else? STEVE JACKOSKI MR. JACKOSKI-My name is Steve Jackoski. I’m a resident at 21 Garrison Road, Queensbury, and I also have a property located on Glen Lake, on Hall Road. I’m concerned that Mrs. LaBombard had mentioned earlier today that she was quite impressed with the visual impact photographs of the surrounding shots that were taken, including Frank’s Pizzeria on other areas of the Route 149 corridor. I didn’t see in the application, and maybe I missed it, that there had been consideration given to the visual impact of the Glen Lake shoreline owners. There’s approximately 260 of us, and I’m not here tonight representing the Glen Lake Association. I’m representing myself. There are 260 lot owners that have a direct view of the French Mountain area. In particular, I am concerned because I face due west, which is right at French Mountain, and I suspect that this tower, from what I can see from the other photographs that I saw, will pop up over the west shoreline about 110 feet. That’s a significant vista impact to my property, and to the other 60 property owners at that Hall Road, Reardon Road area. Talking with most neighbors, I didn’t get a chance to have them attend with me, but I did go out in my boat to The Great Escape end of the lake, and we can clearly see that the French Mountain area is clearly visible from all those properties. I, too, am not sure that the height of this tower is appropriate. I, too, am concerned that the FAA will come in, later, and ask for a red beacon, and I am very concerned that we will install here, in the Town of Queensbury, at the Gateway to the Adirondacks, an eyesore similar to the eyesore of the Glens Falls water tanks to the Town of Queensbury’s entrance. So I’d just ask this Board to please ask the applicant to consider the visual impact to the shoreline owners. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much. Anyone else? PAUL MORRIS MR. MORRIS-Paul Morris, and I live across the street from the trailer park, and across French Mountain Drive from the proposed tower. I just have some questions for the people here first. How many antennas are going to be installed on there, is it five? What will be the wattage of each antenna, and the frequency? Will they all be operating at once? Now, under the FCC regulations, or whatever it is, they have a, you’re allowed a safe radiation level of, I believe it’s about 1.5 miliwatts were square centimeter of, I guess, body surface. So, and also, some other information on this subject, I notice that about 300 yards away, the radiation can be more than actually near the tower. In fact, it might even approach .06, and this .06 times 5, that would be .30, which is almost approaching the safe levels. So I’d like those answers, please. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I think I’ll leave the public hearing open. MR. LAPPER-First I’d just like to comment that I think Mr. King’s comments were very balanced and fair and he’s been at all of the Zoning Board meetings, and we respect the quality of his Park across the street. Certainly an asset to the Town, and with that in mind, Shane did try to find an appropriate site on the King property to site the tower, something that they would be happy with, but they couldn’t come up with a mutually agreeable location, but because of his issues and his proximity, we went back out and did the second simulation, which has been submitted to you, which shows what the tower would look like from various significant locations at the Park, and it was really on that basis, after the Zoning Board saw that, that they granted the Use Variance. They thought that it was reasonable and not much of an impact, but certainly we kept him in mind. MR. WEISS-Yes, I mean, I would concur, certainly. The SBA performed extensive diligence throughout their site search process. Mr. King did mention that many property owners were approached, the commercial property owners first, just kind of common practice, and good sound antenna siting practice I might add, and it just would seem to me that they did things right and properly. The site perfectly meets our needs from a network interconnection standpoint. We’ve shown that moving it to existing or other proposed mountain tops or towers in the area would not meet our needs and wouldn’t make the need for us to site a tower in that portion of Queensbury go away, and this is the parcel that we have obtained a Use Variance on. So obviously we would like to continue with that, and it would seem to me that a total of seven meetings between Town zoning and planning and County Planning Boards would constitute a fairly thorough review. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s one man’s opinion. MR. LAPPER-Only seven. MR. WEISS-Well, when I tell my boss, he doesn’t believe that, but I said that can certainly happen. It does in a lot of towns, especially places with the level of planning sophistication that Queensbury takes the time to do. French Mountain is in the background. This isn’t a mountaintop sited tower, 48 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) similar to what you’d see up at Prospect with the FAA Towers and the other communications towers up there, which are much more visible because they impact the horizon, where as this one would not, and I’d just like to add that we’re no slouch, either. SBA Communications was, for three years running, with Fortune Magazine, since the award has been in effect, we’re the most, I get kind of misty when I say this, most admired telecommunications company in the world, since the inception of the award. So we respect the nice job Mr. King does, and we’d like to do the same nice job for the area. MR. MAC EWAN-How many antennas are going to be on the tower, five, is that what we’re talking? MR. WEISS-There’s five platforms for each carrier. Each carrier may have a different number of panels. Some use as little as three in a triangle. Some use different ones. I’m not sure how many panels are proposed with this. MR. MAC EWAN-A question was raised regarding wattage and frequencies. RON RUCINSKI MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. We’re operating on multiple frequencies, on 800 Megahertz bin. As far as power, we are going to be running at about 100 watts effective radiated power, which is, I can assure you, we’re under FCC compliance. MR. STROUGH-Can we get something more specific with frequency range we’re dealing with and wattage power? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. We’re dealing in the 800 Megahertz bin, between 850 and 875. MR. MAC EWAN-What are you looking for, documentation? Can you supply us some documentation to that effect? MR. WEISS-Yes. That’s our licensed cellular A Band frequency. Our receive band is 824.04 to I believe it’s 848, and the transmit band is 869.04 to 891.48, and what those are, that’s, I guess in the layman’s comparative terms, the cellular frequencies were allocated by the FCC, about 16 years ago or so, and formerly that was the public television operating frequency. With the inception of cable, the public television, that band was made available. MR. MAC EWAN-Is each cellular carrier allocated a certain band width, or like do all cellular carriers operate within that band width? MR. WEISS-There’s two licensed cellular carriers in this region of the State, and only two actually, in each metropolitan statistical area, which we’re in the Glens Falls MSA here. We’re the A Side Carrier, and Bell Atlantic Mobile, now known as Verizon, is the B Side Carrier. They also operate in the 8 to 900 Megahertz band width. Those portions of the band that we’re not using, actually NexTel, I believe, receives and transmits, respectively, in the 850 and 870 band, and the PCS carrier, such as Sprint or you may have heard the name IWO, Independent Wireless One. That’s essentially the company in this area that has succeeded Sprint’s interest, and OmniPoint or Voice Stream, and I don’t know if AT&T Wireless is looking or holds a license in this area, but those are all PCS carriers, Personal Communications Services, and they operate at about twice the frequency band, in the 1800 to 1900 Megahertz band. So we’re basically at twice the operating power, on the radio frequency spectrum. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Also some comments about the lake. At the time, that was the potential for a blinking red light. Certainly from my home in Queensbury, I could see the red blinking light on the radio tower on French Mountain, that I don’t find that to be really annoying, but certainly it would be better if it wasn’t there, and so the tower was chosen to be below 200 feet with that in mind, and Shane submitted to you documentation from FAA saying that they would not require a light on the tower. MR. NEWELL-It’s from ASAC. It’s not from the FAA. MR. LAPPER-From? MR. NEWELL-It’s from ASAC, read the top of your report. It’s basically an organization that gives determinations about what the FAA will likely do, or in most circumstances do, because FAA doesn’t typically give a ruling on a tower that hasn’t been approved. It’s part of their requirement for the submission that they have their zoning in place. So they have this agency that basically does the study work for you, and you’ll see there it’s, no marking is required, no lighting and no additional 49 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) study. It’s like one of the lowest ratings you can get is for additional work or additional submitted information required. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? MR. METIVIER-Have you ever been required in any towns to paint the tower a special specific color, or could you paint the tower? MR. NEWELL-I’m not real sure. I’d have to, there’s not any that I know of. I’m not sure about paints, whether they’d adhere to the temperature changes and all the complications that might involve. Certainly I’ve not seen any that have been painted like blue or anything. I’ve seen the red and white ones that are required by FAA lighting. I imagine if they could make a red stick, they could make something else stick, but. MR. METIVIER-You know, a dark green, Hunter Green, Forest Green, not a bright pink. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Shane, how far north could you go to keep, to stay in the range, to service the customers? MR. LAPPER-How far north could the tower be sited? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, in other words, here it is, at this point in French Mountain, could it go any farther north, or could it go any farther east or west? MR. NEWELL-Well, any farther north we’d start going up the slope of the mountain. We certainly wouldn’t want to do that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I don’t mean on French Mountain north. I mean, just in regular direction north and still service the customers in this area that you wanted to serve? I mean, does it have to stay in. MR. NEWELL-I guess that’s an RF question, of what we’re capable of doing in there. MR. RUCINSKI-The search ring was pretty specific to that area. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. That’s what I wanted to know. You had a certain. MR. NEWELL-Yes, in terms of what they were looking for us to place a tower and what area. MRS. LA BOMBARD-In other words, you had a certain point that you had to, only could go out of a certain radius from that point, and it had to be in the, well, this is in the Town of Lake George, no, the Town of Queensbury. That’s why we’re here. Okay. Right. So it had to stay in the Town of Queensbury. MR. NEWELL-That’s right, in order to fill this gap of coverage. Otherwise, there would be another application down the road if we found something that might do something in between, but they’re already up North. They already have a location on Lake George to give coverage, but it’s filtered out by the time it gets down to the 149 area. MR. LAPPER-Because of the mountain. MR. NEWELL-The distance and the mountain. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And it has to be on the mountain because you need that extra height. MR. NEWELL-Well, actually, we’re really more about the tree coverage that we have there, getting those almost 100 foot trees there cover half the tower. If we got that location here, if somebody did take the deal on Route 9, you’d be looking at the whole tower, just like you do on Exit 18, top to bottom, the fencing, the barbed wire, the base station. There’s five base stations here. I thought the tower located there was really appropriate. With eight acres to work with, it’ll have less impact than if he put in somebody with a couple of apartments or something there where he’s got an impact, the landlord gets a rental income with no noise, no trash. There’s no sound pollution here. There’s no, real major impact, compared to something else that he could put up on that eight acres. I’m sure that his property and his residential land has been effected by the major commercial use around him, as that Park does consume a lot of the property there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. So we’re talking about something that’s in the Adirondack Park, and I think that. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) MR. NEWELL-It’s outside the Adirondack Park. This site is outside the Adirondack Park boundary line. MR. LAPPER-Just barely. MR. MAC EWAN-If it was in the APA, we’d still be seeing them. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right, but what I’m saying is, maybe you could come up with some kind of a paint, like Anthony said, and paint it. I mean, there’s good paints out there, and if you had to paint it every six or seven years, so what? I mean, if it doesn’t, like this gentleman here that owns the RV Park, you know, that have people that look in that direction if they’re playing tennis and have the sun reflect off it and hit their eye, or, and at least we know there’s not going to be a red beacon on it. That’s good. Maybe it could be painted. If you paint them red, you could certainly paint them. MR. NEWELL-I would think so, yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Something that would go with the environment. MR. NEWELL-I’d like to submit, show you these digital photographs just don’t show a whole lot, but here’s a guidewire tower. You can see, depending on the background of the sky or (lost words). MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but these are taken right up in front of it. I’m talking about like the ones that you have here from a distance. MR. NEWELL-Right. Depending on your background of the skyscape, you’re going to want a different color. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But like see, right there, it has the entire mountain in the background. MR. NEWELL-That’s right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So, when it’s white, it stands out. Paint it dark brown, or dark green. MR. NEWELL-And then it would show up more when you’re standing closer to it. You’d end up with a greater impact here. It’s difficult to say, depending upon where you’re standing, what color you’d want it. We just feel that steel tends to blend in better. That we had to use a filter to lighten that color so that you could see that tower where it was standing there. I mean, it almost glows it’s so white. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The thing is not many people are going to be within 100 yards of that tower. MR. NEWELL-That’s true. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You know, the impact is going to be at a distance. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know. I think we’re getting caught up with stuff here that we don’t need to be getting caught up with tonight. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. MR. NEWELL-Let me just make a final submission of this picture. It’s called the RF dry test in Kinderhook, New York. It shows a boom, as we had placed at this tower site and he said that there were people who saw it. Here’s a boom placed in the background. You can see it right here, but what I think is think is kind of interesting is, you know, people talk about the impact of the towers, yet, you’re looking right past these items, you know, a utility pole with large transformers on the top. It’s typical. People are looking at this and they’re looking right past these things in their front yard, to look at a tower that’s a mile a way. You can see right past the trees on the left there you see the angle of the boom because it can’t go directly straight up for the test, but it’s that kind of impact you have to look at. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add? Okay. We’re going to table this thing, so that C.T. Male can review their responses and make their final recommendations. Anything else that you want to table it for? Would somebody put a motion up, then, please? I’ve left the public hearing open, too. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 58-2000 SBA, INC. & SOUTHWESTERN BELL CORP., Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: 51 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) So that we can get a final review from C.T. Male. Duly adopted this 15 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. SCHACHNER-This is tabled until next month, I assume? MR. LAPPER-How long will it take C.T. Male to, I know we don’t have a lot of experience with them yet. MRS. RYBA-Well, one of the things I’ve noticed is that your submittal this evening addresses some of the items in the August 11 letter from C.T. Male, but not everything. MR. LAPPER-We think it addresses everything, but we could be wrong. MRS. RYBA-Alternative review, in terms of an existing tower. MR. MAC EWAN-On that note, we’ll table it until next month, then. Because we have a heavy agenda, our two next regular meetings, Jon, are next Tuesday and next Thursday, and we just added two to it tonight, for next Thursday, and Tuesday, coming in tonight, was our heavier of the two agendas, but now they’re both equally heavy. MR. LAPPER-If I could just ask Marilyn, because I’ll be away the next three days, to communicate with Shane, if there’s anything that she feels has to be submitted. MRS. RYBA-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, and that’ll give you time to submit stuff for the submission deadline, if you need to add some more information. AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro MR. LAPPER-Good night. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks, guys. I’m sorry. I just want to jump back to Site Plan No. 55-98, for a minute, for Joe Leuci/Mountainside Auto. Because we tabled that application, I’m going to re- open the public hearing and leave it open. Would you convey that to Mr. Leuci when you see him? I’ll just leave it open. It’s the fair thing to do when we table him. TOM NACE MR. NACE-Yes. SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1999 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED BRB GROUP OWNER: SAME AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES/NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 35.12 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO A 12 LOT COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICES. TAX MAP NO. 60-7-1.1 LOT SIZE: 35.12 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing on April 18 was left open, and July 18. thth MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, there is no public hearing scheduled tonight. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, so we had them and we closed it. Sorry. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 13-1999 Final Stage, BRB Group, Meeting Date: August 15, 2000 “Project Description The applicant received preliminary approval for a 12 lot subdivision at the July 25, 2000 Planning Board meeting. The proposal was determined to be of negative environmental impacts. The Board requested the applicant to address Staff and C.T. Male comments. The applicant has provided information in regards to the concerns. Study of subdivision plat (§ A183-10) (1) Lot arrangement: The number of lots have been reduced from the 52 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) original proposal and is consistent with Board, Staff comments, other Departmental comments, and C.T. Male comments. (2) Location and design of streets: The street design and location has received Warren County Department of Public Works curb cut permit and Town Highway Department review. (3) Topography: The building site area will be graded when the road and other infrastructure is installed. (4) Water supply: The Town Water Department has indicated approval will be received if installed as the plans show. (5) Sewage disposal: Septic systems will be installed as site plans are developed for the site. (6) Drainage: The plans have been forwarded to C.T. Male for review and comment. (7) Lot sizes: The lot sizes exceed the required lot size for the Multi-family Residential zone. (8) Placement of utilities: utilities are to be underground. (9) Future development: Site Plans will be reviewed for each lot. (10) Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The property is located in Neighborhood 4. This area is recognized to contain mixed uses including offices, banking, and residential. (11) State Environmental Quality Review Act: At preliminary stage it was determined the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. (12) Town departments: The application was provided to the Highway and Water Department. These departments have each provided a response letter. (13) Adirondack Park Agency: Not applicable Study of Final Plat (§ A183-13) The final plat should be revised to add the following two items 1. A statement that the plan is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury.” MRS. RYBA-There’s only one suggestion, which is the Final Plat should add a statement that the plan is compliance with the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury. MR. NACE-We’ll do. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I don’t even remember where I left off anymore, but I guess, Tony, we’ll start with you. MR. METIVIER-I’m fine with this, at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-I’m fine with it. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No problems. MR. RINGER-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Wow. Questions, comments? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Marilyn, anything? MRS. RYBA-No, just that one Staff note. MR. MAC EWAN-SEQRA’s been done. Anything to add? MR. NACE-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-No public hearing tonight. No public comment. Does someone want to introduce a resolution, then? MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1999 BRB GROUP, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of final stage application for SB 13-1999, BRB Group to subdivide a 35.12 +/- acre parcel into a 12 lot commercial subdivision for professional offices. Tax map No. 60-7-1.1, and; WHEREAS, the application received 7/26/00 consists of the following: 1. Application Materials & Maps as listed in the Official File WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1 8/15/00 Staff Notes 2. 8/11/00 CT Male engineering comments – complete 3. 7/28/00 CT Male from C. Round – transmittal of info for review 53 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) 4. 7/20/00 Post Star article – J. Gereau 5. 8/2/00 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 7/18/00 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, if applicable, the plans submitted are prepared in accordance with Chapter 136 (Sewers & Sewage Disposal) of the Town Ordinance and the New York State Department of Health; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, Approved and the applicant is subject to the following conditions: 1. Approved as per the resolution prepared by Staff, with the following condition: That a statement should be included in the plat that the plan is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury. 2. All necessary outside agency approvals and Town Department approvals, as applicable, have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 3. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals. Duly adopted this 15th day of August 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro MR. MAC EWAN-You know, just for what it’s worth, Mr. Nace, when we go through and do our agendas, I kind of give direction to Staff and say, well, I think that one will go fast, that one will go quick, that one will go very slow, and you should have been at the top of the list, and I do apologize for that. MR. NACE-No problem. We’ve been here many long nights. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that’s what we try to avoid, these days, but somehow it hasn’t been working lately. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. I have a question. Today while playing golf with a resident of Glen Lake, she informed me that The Great Escape blacktopped that northern parking lot that almost butts up against the Trading Post, and now there’s no permeability, and all the stormwater runs off into Glen Lake, which is all the oil in the cars, the cars leave. Now is that true? Could they do something like that right there? MRS. RYBA-I have no idea. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, if it’s blacktopped, I mean, are they allowed to just blacktop that land that’s so close to the wetlands right there on Glen Lake? MRS. RYBA-Well, blacktopping is reducing the permeability. So, I don’t know what was approved, in terms of plans. That would be something that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Do they have to come to us to blacktop their property? 54 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) MRS. RYBA-Well, it’s changing permeability. It depends. Was it grass or was it gravel? MRS. LA BOMBARD-It was dirt. MR. MAC EWAN-That has been an ongoing situation regarding a mining permit that was issued by some other agency other than the Queensbury Town Planning Board, and for lack of a better phrase, it has been a bone of contention for how many years, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Many. You should bring that concern, I mean, that’s a very valid concern, but bring it to Chris Round and Craig Brown. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. No, I will. I mean, I just found out, a half hour before I got here. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. When I’m reading that Great Escape book, books, how come, you’ve got to help me out here, how come it sounds like everything is in order. They’ve done this wonderful study, and who am I to pick their data apart if they have it backed up? MR. MAC EWAN-You’re a Planning Board member. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s their job, and that’s your job. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But I haven’t gone out and done the study. They have. MR. RINGER-Yes, but our engineers have looked over everything they’ve done, Creighton Manning and all those have looked over it. MRS. RYBA-Actually, the situation is that this study is being done by them, but the Planning Board is the one who is actually doing the Environmental Impact Statement, if I’m not incorrect here. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, it’s not that the Planning Board is doing it. It’s that you’re responsible for it, and ultimately you, as the SEQRA Lead Agency, will have to make certain findings, determinations and conclusions. It’s not, you should neither accept anything any applicant says as the gospel truth, nor should you automatically distrust it. You should exercise your judgement, and you should rely on the judgement of your Staff and your paid professional consultants to advise you. If you have questions about things, ask your Staff, ask your consulting engineers, ask your consulting whomever’s, question things that seem like they should be questioned. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, now, Mark, is there any kind of factual data that they put in there that could be untrue? MR. SCHACHNER-Every single thing could be untrue. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s what I, are we bound by law, like if they say, they pay out $5.4 million a year in salaries to their employees, is there any reason that I should check on that? MR. SCHACHNER-Cathy, the only reason my advice to you is that there’s no reason to check on that is because that’s completely irrelevant to the purpose of the Environmental Impact Statement, and one of the things you need to remember, and I say this to all the Board members, but I know you, yourself, at times, have commented very favorably on the economic benefits of this particular applicant to the region. Nobody disputes, as far as I know, nobody disputes the economic benefits of this particular applicant to the region. That has nothing whatsoever to do with, A, the SEQRA review. It also has nothing whatsoever to do with the, your site plan review criteria. There is none of your site plan review criteria that say, is the applicant a nice guy or not, is the applicant truthful or not, or, does the applicant substantially contribute to the economic well being of our community or not. Those are not criteria for you to look at in site plan review. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Now, here’s one thing, and I know it’s late. How about the fact that they’re going to do their own on-site wastewater treatment and sewer disposal? How do we know that what they’re proposing is going to really do the trick, besides, we have to go by what our, their plans will go to our engineers, and our engineers will say that that’s going to work? MR. SCHACHNER-Sure. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Or that it won’t. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/15/00) MR. STROUGH-Well, now, and another thing is, I’m supposed to absorb that three toned thing, plus get ready for next Tuesday’s and Thursday’s meetings? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. RINGER-John, if you can absorb all that, you should be out as a professional engineer or something, and not as a school teacher. It’s impossible for us, as lay people, to understand that. We can tie ourselves down in detail. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re done. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 56