Loading...
2000-09-19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ANTHONY METIVIER LARRY RINGER ROBERT VOLLARO CHRIS HUNSINGER JOHN STROUGH PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES July 18, 2000: NONE July 25, 2000: NONE August 15, 2000: NONE August 22, 2000: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 18, 25, AUGUST 15, AND AUGUST 22, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: Duly adopted this 19 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. STROUGH-No, because I never got a chance to say that I didn’t close the meeting, Page 19 on the August 24, 2000 minutes. MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re abstaining from voting on any of them? MR. STROUGH-Well, you put them all on one, right? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but you can pull one out and say. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m just making a correction, that it wasn’t Mr. Strough that closed the hearing. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So noted. MR. STROUGH-Okay. If that’s the only thing I found, then I can approve them. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, and I’ll abstain from the 22, because I was absent that meeting. nd AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MRS. LA BOMBARD-We’re going to table the resolution for Site Plan No. 56-2000, Church of the King. MR. MAC EWAN-Could I have a motion, please? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 56-2000 CHURCH OF THE KING, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: For an October meeting, provided that the applicant makes the deadline submission date of September 27. th 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) Duly adopted this 19 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MRS. LA BOMBARD-The next item is also for the resolution for Subdivision No. 1-63, 3-76 for Courthouse Estates, Section I & II, and that would like to be tabled. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 1-63, 3-76 COURTHOUSE ESTATES, SECTION I & II, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: Until the meeting in October, providing the deadline of September 27 for submission of material is th met. Duly adopted this 19 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MRS. LA BOMBARD-Site Plan No. 60-2000 for Independent Wireless One Leased Realty, and they have a request to be tabled, too. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 60-2000 INDEPENDENT WIRELESS ONE LEASED REALTY, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Until the October meeting, providing that the information necessary is provided to Staff by the September 27 deadline date. th Duly adopted this 19 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MRS. LA BOMBARD-Another item here is for Site Plan No. 51-2000, Type: Unlisted for Garden Time/Barrett Auto Sales, and we need a motion to table that. All the information isn’t in. MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone introduce it, please? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 51-2000 GARDEN TIME/BARRETT AUTO SALES, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: For the October meeting, providing the applicant makes the submission deadline of September 27. th Duly adopted this 19 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-All four of these that we just tabled, are the applicants all going to submit new information, or should we retain what we have? MRS. MOORE-You should retain what you have. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-On Courthouse Estates, I don’t have anything to retain. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t, either. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MRS. MOORE-That’s fine. We’ll get information to you, then. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. OLD BUSINESS: PUD SITE PLAN 44-2000 FEIS: 7/2/87, RES. 201 MICHAELS GROUP (WAVERLY PLACE) OWNER: SAME ZONE: PUD LOCATION: SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF HAVILAND ROAD AND MEADOWBROOK ROAD PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF SITE PLAN/SUBDIVISION FOR IMMEDIATE AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING 56 TWIN TOWNHOUSE UNITS, 35,000 SQ. FT. OF OFFICE SPACE AND 48 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS AND 12 +/- ACRES FOR RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES. THE DEVELOPMENT IS PART OF THE HILAND PARK PUD THAT OFFERS GUIDELINES FOR RESIDENTIAL OPTIONS AND RECREATIONAL AND OFFICE SPACE FOR CONVENIENCE TO RESIDENTS. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 6/12/00 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/14/00 TAX MAP NO. 60-1-2 LOT SIZE: 74.46 ACRES SECTION: 179-58 JON LAPPER, KEVIN HASTINGS, JOHN MICHAELS, REP. APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, PUD Site Plan 44-2000, Michaels Group (Waverly Place), Meeting Date: June 20, 2000 “Staff Notes: The application was tabled from the August 24, 2000 meeting to obtain C.T. Male's response and sign-off to the additional applicant information submitted during the August 15, 2000 Planning Board meeting, to obtain A/GFTC comments, and for staff to prepare a resolution. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan and architectural drawings. The Planning Board is reviewing both a subdivision a site plan. Subdivision Subdivision is to be accomplished in two steps. The overall subdivision of tax parcel (60-2-1) is a 74 acre parcel into 4 lots. ?? Phase I Lot 1-the 56 unit Townhouse Development on 49.63 acres Lot 2-the future multifamily/office parcel on 11.2 acres Lot 3 the office space on 1.7 acres Lot 4-12 acres to be dedicated to the Town (lot references by staff are arbitrary) ?? Phase II The further subdivision of Lot 1 to accomplish the 56 unit Townhouse project. Preliminary and final approval is requested for 56 residential lots, plus 1 lot for Homeowner's Association (HOA) lands. A typical townhouse lot is shown on the plat with final lot lines to be determined at time of construction. Exterior lot lines should comply with the approval issued and the common line should be established before certificates of occupancies (c/o) are issued. The HOA lands should be shown as a separate lot for parcel identification purposes. Assessors will link 1/56 of the HOA lands to each housing unit for assessment purposes. All lots, for Phase I and II need to be labeled. The Master Plan (M-1) and the subdivision plats S-1 and S-2. to be submitted to the County for filing. Individual plot plans for each of the twin lots will be filed upon completion. ?? Phasing/Staging During the last Planning Board meeting there was discussion regarding waiver of 35 units building limit as per 183-36 so that all 56 units proposed may be built as approved. However, the PUD regulations note in 179-58G that a plan requiring more than 2 years to complete requires staging. This requirement should also be waived. Planning Board Approval for Site Plan 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) The approval process and factors for consideration are outlined in Section 179-58. Areas of concern or importance for this application follow: ?? Traffic Creighton Manning Engineering (CME) performed a traffic analysis for Waverly Place. Two reports were submitted. The first report is dated July 20, 2000 and the second report is dated August 15, 2000. The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council (A/GFTC) was asked to review these reports, and within the context of all traffic analyses done to date for the Hiland Park PUD. A/GFTC concluded that the traffic volumes and impacts as per the CME traffic study fall below thresholds identified in the PUD FEIS. A/GFTC did have one minor comment concerning the necessity for 4 separate driveways and future alignment of development opposite proposed ingress/egress. Hiland Park FEIS CME concludes that no mitigation is necessary as a result of this project. Despite this conclusion, Waverly Place will contribute additional traffic, as will the remainder of the subdivision/PUD when built-out. Evaluation of the Hiland Park PUD traffic analyses by A/GFTC indicates that the cumulative impacts of incremental development within the PUD have not been addressed by any of the traffic studies submitted, or in the EIS. The original Town Board Resolution 212.1987 indicates the PUD developer will perform 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. SEQRA findings indicated that the cost burden of any traffic improvements required as a result of development within the PUD were to be assigned on a pro rata basis. The pro-rata methodology has not been established. ?? Recreation Lands Town Board approval is required for dedication to the Town of recreational lands as shown. Access to this parcel is from Rd. via 60 ft. of frontage, of which 30 ft. is the sewer easement to Adirondack Community College (ACC). Access from to the parcel from ACC has not been obtained at this time. ?? Stormwater C.T. Male indicates that all substantial comments have been addressed. ?? Water, Wastewater and Highway Correspondence (written and confirmed verbally) from the Wastewater Dept. indicates the facilities have adequate physical capacity. The Hiland Park Sewer District is in the process of obtaining additional contractual capacity from the GF WWTP. ?? HOA The HOA agreement should contain language allowing the walkway to be built as per the schematic shown on M-1, to the north and south property boundaries of HOA lands. Site Plan Approval As per PUD requirements, 179-58 preliminary and final Site Plan approval for the 56 unit Townhouse project is requested. Development on the remaining parcels will require site plan review. ?? Architecture The Planning Board requested renderings of a two story building. These have been submitted by the applicant and are attached. ?? Details S-1 and S-2 needs location map and seal and signature of engineer/surveyor. Change Laurel Court to Mayfield Court on all notes (currently changed on drawings, but not in notes). Suggestions In addition to changes to made as noted above, staff would suggest: 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) 1. Maintain the silt fence adjacent to lots 7-10 (at Chelsea Place) until construction of homes is completed, since the building envelopes for lots 8-9 shown on the plans extends into the DEC wetland buffer. 2. Consistent with the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) Findings Statement adopted by the Queensbury Town Board by Resolution No. 201 on July 2, 1987 and PUD Approval Resolution adopted by the Queensbury Town Board by Resolution No. 212 on July 14, 1987, as a condition of this site plan approval, the applicant shall bear its pro rata share of cost responsibility for traffic improvements including signalization and/or other mitigation measures at any of the five (5) intersections set forth in condition number 6 of the above Town Board Resolution No. 212 at such time as such improvements are deemed necessary by the Queensbury Town Board or Planning Board.” MRS. MOORE-I can read through that again at a later time. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re going to have to. I don’t think anyone would memorize that one. MRS. MOORE-All right. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Just note, I guess, for the record, August 21, the Michaels Group submitted st both color renderings and cross section of typical foundation details as part of the packet, which was requested. The floor is yours. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Kevin Hastings, and Dave Carr from the LA Group, and John Michaels for the Michaels Group. From our perspective, what we’re here asking for site plan approval and preliminary and final subdivision approval and from our perspective there’s really only one of the comments in the Staff notes, C.T. Male, or Creighton Manning, that we really have any, or A/GFTC, excuse me, that we really have any comment on, and that’s just on this traffic issue that Laura just read. I don’t know what your proposed resolution says, but the issue, in terms of whether or not traffic mitigation may be required in the future, and how we address that at this point. I don’t know what the Board’s position is, but we feel that we have a traffic study done by Creighton Manning that said that there aren’t any improvements that are required at this time. The Michaels Group will be back for Phase II at some point in the future, most likely within about 12 months for the parcel on the corner, which we’ve proposed for a mix of office use and also a multifamily component, in accordance with the PUD, and at that point, if some thresholds are met, we would certainly update the traffic report at that point, and if thresholds are met, we could talk about needed improvements, but we don’t really see that that’ll be, in a practical term, we don’t see that that’ll be needed, just because what’s on the table now for the whole Hiland Park project is so much less intense than what was originally approved, and we’d just like to talk about that with the Board, and answer whatever questions the Board may have. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s your position that you don’t feel that we need to leave the option open for future traffic studies as that corridor gets developed? MR. MICHAELS-No. What I think that we’re trying to say is that we’re going to be back for a second shot at the well, basically, when we do Phase II. Right now, with the units we’re proposing, you know, all the other projects that have been approved there really have done no mitigation, although we’re not just doing traffic mitigation. We are giving 12 acres of recreational land as part of this approval, and if there is a mitigation plan in place, when we come back for our next subdivision approval, certainly we would want to contribute our fair share if it made economic sense to go ahead. The situation now with selling a home and not knowing what the possible costs might be, it would put you in a very precarious situation. You certainly can’t tell a homeowner that your house is going to be $96,000, but if we get a $5,000 traffic impact fee, I’m going to call you later. Certainly they’re not going to go along with that, and that’s kind of the position that we would be in on these units. So I think we’re saying two things. One is we are, hopefully this recreational mitigation will, you’ll see the value in that of 12 acres of developable land that we’re donating to the Town, and, two, when we come back for our higher use, which is the multifamily and the office, if there’s traffic mitigation in place, we’ll certainly pay for it. These people are empty nesters, that are buying these homes. Most of them are retired. They spend the winter in Florida. This part of the project isn’t really going to be the traffic mitigation. I guess it’s just the openendedness of it. It could be $500. According to this, it could be $100,000 a unit, not that it would be, but there’s no way to feasibly go ahead with a project if you don’t know what your costs are. MR. MAC EWAN-What prompted this to be put in here? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MRS. MOORE-Reading through the resolutions that are involved in approving Hiland PUD back in 1987, all applicants are subject to the pro rata, whether this comment is in the resolution or not. It just happens that this way we’re reiterating a condition that’s found in the Findings Statement and the resolution of the original PUD. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that enough of a binder for the Town, should further study or mitigation be required on that corridor, is that enough of a binder for the Town to go back to three individual developers, at this point? MRS. MOORE-It’s possible. The way the Findings Statement reads is that all involved parties within Hiland PUD could be subject to the pro rata share. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-But what’s unusual is just the sort of retroactive nature of it, because no one has said that any traffic mitigation, additional traffic mitigation, is required at this time. We understand that in Phase II it may be, and that would be appropriate, but it’s just a question of looking backwards and saying, the projects that have already been approved. MR. VOLLARO-But that was three independent studies. They weren’t, in effect, integrated studies, and I think that’s what this is really talking about. MR. LAPPER-I think ours was the last. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I believe so. MR. LAPPER-And we took into account the prior stuff, because Creighton Manning had done the Eddy. MR. VOLLARO-I have a question, I guess it’s for Staff. Where is the Glens Falls Transportation Council’s study. They did one strictly for this application. Is that correct? MRS. MOORE-They made a comment letter. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, that’s all they did. MR. VOLLARO-They only made a comment letter? MRS. MOORE-Correct. We provided them with all of the studies of all the Hiland PUD. MR. VOLLARO-And their comment letter said, essentially, no comment. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Was this imposed on the other developers on the other side of Meadowbrook as well? MRS. MOORE-I was going to say, it’s not in their resolutions, no. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-But they are still subject to it because of the way the Hiland PUD original Findings Statement. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, our prepared resolution we have tonight doesn’t make reference to it, either. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see it in there. MRS. MOORE-It’s under Suggestions. That’s why, it’s an option of the Board to take a look at. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. VOLLARO-I think, so long as we haven’t done it for the others, I don’t see why we would do it for this one. MR. MAC EWAN-No discussion on that part. Anything else? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. LAPPER-Not from our perspective. MR. MAC EWAN-John, any questions? MR. STROUGH-Back to our walking trails, and I see where you did make the northern extension that would tie into Phase II on the northern end, but I didn’t see anything in the southern end, where it might tie into, let’s say, the recreational property. MR. LAPPER-What we had said last time was that we’d have to know, that we would agree to it as a condition, but we couldn’t put it on the map because we don’t know what the Town may do with the property on the south, in the future, in terms of where a trail would be. MR. STROUGH-Well, you’re willing to make that a condition that that be done? MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. MR. STROUGH-How would the Homeowners Association address the maintenance of that trail? MR. LAPPER-That would be an item that the Association would be responsible for. MR. STROUGH-So they would have to pay for the extension of that trail to the north and the south? MR. MICHAELS-The developer would pay for the actual construction. The Homeowners Association is only responsible for the maintenance, and it’s not proposed that it’s a plowed path. It just makes summer use, walking use. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, at the point in time, after this phase is done, and you come to us with the next phase, we would then make sure that you extended the trail? MR. MICHAELS-Yes. If that was everybody agreed that they wanted us to do. There might be some reason the recreation wouldn’t want it extended because of a different use. MR. STROUGH-And I see that you did provide another architectural style, the Hickory. MR. MICHAELS-Yes. I have some renderings, too. MR. STROUGH-Now, my only question is, where will they be located? Where will the double stories be located and where will the single stories be located? MR. MICHAELS-That would all depend on when they sell. If someone comes in to buy, they’ll be able to choose. MR. STROUGH-Well, what I’m worried about is, theoretically, if you’re saying the market’s going to push this, we could end up with single story. MR. MICHAELS-Well, every development we’ve ever done with this style, the average price is very high. I think, certainly, the market will dictate it that way. If you go down to Grooms Point, we just did 56 units. I think there’s only six ranches, small units. MR. STROUGH-There’s no guarantees that both styles would necessarily be incorporated with this application? MR. MICHAELS-Yes, there is some guarantee. Because certainly in our models, we’re going to model the two story. Okay, and that’s a commitment we can make, is that that would be our model, is the two story, and if you visit any one of our developments, that’s what sells, because people visualize the model, and they see the model, they want the model. MR. STROUGH-So you’re going to have one model of a single story and one model of a double story? MR. MICHAELS-No, we’re just going to have one model, and we’ll do the two story. Just the two story would be the only model. MR. STROUGH-So that will be the only model, and the option will be a single story? MR. MICHAELS-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. LAPPER-They want to sell the bigger, more expensive one. MR. MAC EWAN-To follow up on that, I was under the impression it was going to be that bottom building you were going to go with, as the design for this extension of the PUD. MR. MICHAELS-What do you mean the bottom building? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, the one you’re showing, the two story version. MR. MICHAELS-Well, that’ll be what we’re going to model, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-But there was never any conversation, prior to tonight, of, as an alternate design for you guys, to have a single story. MR. MICHAELS-The first one was single. We added the double. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Sorry about that. MR. MICHAELS-The doubles still have the master bedroom on the main floor. See, that’s the big market. I mean, if the master bedroom was on the second floor, we wouldn’t sell the doubles. Because people in most of this market wants the master bedroom on the main floor. All our doubles have the master bedroom on the main floor, which is really what these people are looking for, and the second story gives them a place, when the kids come home, so the second story is the most marketable. MR. STROUGH-All right. Let me see if I understand the process, now. If I’m a potential homeowner, and I come to you, and if I start getting serious about this, then I’ll start opting for siding colors, and I believe the roofs are all the same. MR. MICHAELS-The roofs are all the same. The siding colors will be done as a theme. You won’t be able to choose your siding color. There’ll be a theme of siding colors that this building will be a certain color, this building will be a certain color. We don’t let them choose, because then we might end up with three blue ones in a row. No two units can be the same color next to each other. MR. STROUGH-That’s good. MR. MICHAELS-Yes, and the roofs all have to be the same, and then we also paint the garage doors, as you can see, to match the siding. So that they don’t stick out. It doesn’t look like a two unit. MR. STROUGH-Okay. The other question I had, I expressed this concern last time, was landscaping on the north perimeter of the property, and the reason why I was asking you for that was to have some kind of landscaping or vegetation plan to act as the visual buffer from Haviland Road into the project. MR. MICHAELS-Well, I think we’re going to incorporate that in our site plan, when we come back with this. I mean, you’re talking about right here? MR. STROUGH-No, I’m talking about the north side of your current project, Phase I. MR. MICHAELS-Okay. I don’t know what our. These won’t be visible from Haviland, once this project is done, and just as a practical sense, if this is office and mixed use, and this is lower density use, it’s going to make a lot of sense. So I think it’s a good point. MR. STROUGH-Well, I think so, too, but the other phase may not be done for, say, 10 years. I mean, we don’t know, and so I was asking for some kind of, a few trees, it doesn’t have to be a lot, to provide some kind of a break between Haviland Road and looking south. DAVE CARR MR. CARR- Well, let me, the topography here is a little misleading, and that may help you out a little bit, what happens on Haviland here, there’s a large hill, and this is actually the high point of the property, and it starts to drop down here, and there’s a large ravine through here. So these are low. So this up here acts as a natural buffer, and our thinking was, in Phase II, as John mentioned, when we come in and develop this, the best use of the buffer would actually be along Haviland Road. The buffering here, from this distance, you’re not going to get much effect of that at all. I mean, we are talking. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. MICHAELS-These homeowners are going to ask for it anyway. I have no problem adding some trees. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s fine. That would make me happy, and I agree with you that the most effective buffer would be along Haviland, but who knows when it’s going to get developed. MR. MICHAELS-Right. Well, we’re going to end up doing it anyway, because these people are going to going to not want to, until they know what’s going on. MR. STROUGH-Well, aesthetically it would be more pleasing. MR. MICHAELS-Yes, we’d be agreeable to do that. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. STROUGH-And how does the Homeowners Association address the future maintenance of the detention basin? MR. MICHAELS-Well, what happens is the engineer let’s us know exactly what the costs are going to be, and what needs to be maintained, and basically it’s just got to be mowed. That’s the primary thing, and that gets put in the budget. So we have to disclose everything that might be a possible budget, and that will come up in what the fee is. So they might pay, the first five or six years they’d be paying in, there’s not much maintenance, and there’s a fund there in case something happens. MR. STROUGH-And the clearing of debris and everything else, the linkages between the drainage basins, etc., with whatever may exist is also taken care of by the Homeowners Association? MR. MICHAELS-Yes. The engineer will have to prepare, with us, what all the potential costs might be, and then we have to disclose it and charge them. MR. STROUGH-And the only last thing is, thank you for including the detail of the perimeter drain, and that will be included in all projects, because of the potential for water? MR. MICHAELS-Yes. I don’t want water, either. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s always easier going after John, because a lot of the questions I had have already been addressed. I really didn’t have any other specific questions. I was interested in the comments on the traffic which have already been made, and the future liability for a traffic study, and the other big question I had was on the maintenance of the detention ponds, which John’s already asked. I really didn’t have anything beyond that. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, those were my concerns, too. I’m fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I do have a couple of questions. I’m going to take off a little bit on some of the questions that John was asking. He asked a few questions about the Homeowners Association. Now, on our zoning law, 178-58, I’ll give you a chance to get onto that, if somebody wants to, it’s called Site Plan Approval Process, and in there it talks, this is 178A(5). Copies of the Certificate of Incorporation of Homeowners Association and by-laws of the Homeowners Association, the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions and the Offering Plan where applicable. Now, putting that into context it says that “Application for preliminary site plan approval. Application for preliminary site plan shall be to the Planning Board and shall be accompanied by the following information”, and the reason John was asking all those questions is I haven’t seen the copies of the, particularly the by-laws and the declarations, which goes with the Offering Plan, which talks to a lot of the. MR. MICHAELS-We did submit a draft. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s not here. I haven’t seen it, and it’s a requirement of 179-58. MR. MICHAELS-Yes, we did submit a Declaration, because I worked on it. It wouldn’t be in final form, certainly, because until we have the conditions of the approval, it’s impossible for us to put out 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) something that’s for market. Like the thing being brought up today now, the additional landscaping. That changes the budget. So, but we did prepare a draft, for Waverly Place, and submitted it, back in August. MR. VOLLARO-And that draft is available with Staff somewhere? MRS. MOORE-I’ll have to find it. MR. LAPPER-It was part of our submission. MR. MICHAELS-I know because we needed it in like three days. We had to do it in like three days. So I remember it very vividly. MR. VOLLARO-I think there was a question that was brought up, we’ll let Staff go through that. I don’t know, we’ll have to handle that in the resolution, either that, or we’ll waive this, but it’s part of Site Plan approval process. Okay. MR. MICHAELS-Yes, this is it. I can give you a copy, if you just want to, I’m sure you can’t look at it. MR. VOLLARO-I can’t look at it now, no, but as long as I know that it’s available, and it should be in the, at least the draft should be in the packet, because it tells you a lot about, sure. I know, I’ve got one of these myself. I understand what this is. Under Staff notes they talk about a topic called Phasing. Now, 183-36, which is the Subdivision requirements, talks about not putting any more than so many units together. MR. LAPPER-Bob, were you not at the last meeting? I don’t remember. We did discuss that. MR. VOLLARO-Well, and I know 136, I happen to know that 183-36 doesn’t apply, because this is a PUD. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that, but I’m just going to link this with something, if you’d give me just a second. However, 179-58G is part of the requirements of a PUD. Now, in 179-58G they talk about, just give me a minute to get to this, all right, it talks about Staging, and it says, any plan which requires more than 24 months, this is getting back to the comment when you said 10 years and you said, I hope not. MR. MICHAELS-That was for the office part. Certainly that wasn’t for these 56 units. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it says any plan which requires more than 24 months to be completed shall be required to be staged. MR. LAPPER-And we expect that this 56 unit project will be completed within 24 months. MR. VOLLARO-That’s all I want to know. That’s what I had. If you’ll agree to that, then you’ve met the requirements of this part of the Zoning Code. One last question. It’s got to do with the Hiland Park sewer. Now, and I guess that’s, I’m somewhat concerned about that. You’re trying to build in, to come up with a buy in for the remainder of getting into the buying with the Glens Falls Plant, electric. MR. LAPPER-Did you see the letter that we got from Mike Shaw? MR. VOLLARO-No, I did not. MR. LAPPER-We came to a compromise with the Town Board. I’m sure I have a copy of that, that in that case, the Michaels Group would agree to an open ended commitment that because knowing the negotiations between the municipalities, we have a sense that the top number could be $2 a gallon. So we’ve agreed to the buy in now, and if when the Town finally cuts the deal with the City, that decreases, they will pay the difference retroactively, because we were talking about probably a difference of $75 a bedroom, worst case, and that’s something that they can factor into their plans. MR. VOLLARO-You’re lucky that you can. I understand that. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that that was covered. MR. LAPPER-I’ll find that. I just got a letter from the Town about a week ago that confirmed, and the Town Board agreed. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. MAC EWAN-I remember when that was being discussed, that that was agreed to. The capacity was an issue, too, and there was enough capacity to do that. MR. VOLLARO-And I think my last question was Kevin’s answer to Van Dusen’s letter of August the 10 has been satisfied with the last thing that we got from C.T. Male. So that’s all the questions I th have. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No, I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you guys wanted to add? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff? MRS. MOORE-I just want to go back to A/GFTC comments. In their comment letter, it’s not the fact that they didn’t make a comment. It’s that they did want to point out to the Board that traffic study for the entire area for different corners should be evaluated because of the way the process was done during the Hiland PUD, that it is a good idea to make that consideration. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I guess my view on that, as long as there is language in the PUD document that gives the Town the opportunity to go back and re-examine traffic problems within those corridors, and there’s language in there that those developers who are a part of that PUD will help shoulder the cost, that’s a decision that’s going to come out of the Town Board action, not this Board. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think this Board has a requirement to put something of that nature in the motion, so that our thinking is documented there or not. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess my position, I’m not willing to do it with this applicant, when we haven’t done it with the previous two that were in front of the Board, and furthermore, if there’s already language in the PUD document that covers that, it’s redundant and we don’t need to do it. That’s the way I look at it. How does everybody else feel about that? MR. RINGER-I feel the same as you do. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I feel the same way as you do. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, did the other applicants have to come back for further site plan review? Because I know we’re looking at one from Schermerhorn this evening. MR. MAC EWAN-No. They say that’s going to be a modification for phasing. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, but there’s no further site plan review or other? MR. MAC EWAN-There is potential for further site plan review for the Eddy. Right, if they should expand? MRS. MOORE-Both. There’s further site plan for the Eddy as well as the Hiland Springs, as well as this project. MR. MAC EWAN-So the vehicle is there. MR. HUNSINGER-But it’s not all of them. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that’s the only three there are right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. When she said Hiland Springs, that threw me off, because I wasn’t here when the other two were reviewed. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Right. So there’s an actual safety net, so that if they do come back in and want to additionally develop their parcels, we have that in there to kick that in, too. MR. VOLLARO-Was that your feeling, Chris, that you’d like to get another shot at that if they come back? Is that what’s in your thinking process? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, my initial thinking was, if we were to impose that on this applicant, would there be another opportunity to impose it on the other two, but conversely, following your line of thinking, if they have to come back in, then we can always ask for it then. You could look at it either way, and seeing how it wasn’t a condition of the other site plan approvals, I find it very difficult to require it here, and that’s how I felt about the environmental, also, when we first talked about that. You can’t tell one you have to comply with a different standard than the other two. MR. VOLLARO-I agree, but I think we have a responsibility to make sure that the intent of the original Hiland PUD is satisfied. That’s one thing that’s concerning me the most, right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-That’s fine with me. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. If somebody wants to introduce a motion, and whatever you do, if you’re adding to it, be specific. Go for it. MR. STROUGH-I’m not sure I could handle the last condition. MR. MAC EWAN-There was no condition. That was just a discussion item. MR. STROUGH-All right. The only two conditions that I’ve seen so far, let me get this clarified before I go on, is that the developer will be responsible for future extensions of the walkway to adjacent north and south properties. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And the applicant will plant a row of three inch caliper sugar maple. Do you have a suggestion? MR. MAC EWAN-You have to be specific, and if you’re looking to have a buffer that’s going to be used year round, you’re better off going with an evergreen, versus. MR. STROUGH-Right. Okay. White Pines. Okay. Three inch caliper white pine trees. MR. CARR-Probably eight to ten feet, six to eight feet, they grow fairly quickly. So, you know. MR. STROUGH-Okay, a row of white pines at eight to ten feet, adjacent to Lots 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34, 350 feet. So that would be 11 feet if you space them 30 feet apart. That’s my other condition. MR. VOLLARO-We’re still in discussion mode, I think. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. What did you want to put in? MR. VOLLARO-Let John finish talking, before I get to that. MR. HUNSINGER-The question I asked, since John had raised it, was whether or not he wanted a condition that the model home be two story. I don’t have strong feelings one way or another. MR. MAC EWAN-I like that idea. MR. HUNSINGER-John said he was going to do it anyway. MR. MICHAELS-This way I won’t forget. MR. VOLLARO-One other thing is that the 56 units be completed within the 24 month period. MR. STROUGH-Can we do that? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we can. According to our Zoning requirement, if they don’t want to agree to that, they’ve got to agree to phasing. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not a problem. If it becomes a big issue and they’ve got 22 of them done and we’re looking at the 24 month, I mean, you can do a modification to the site plan. You can do th an extension. MR. RINGER-And it’s in the book anyway. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. RINGER-I mean, if it’s already in our Code, why do we have to put it in the resolution? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think it’s got to be in the resolution. MR. RINGER-But it’s in the Code. So they would have to do it anyway if it’s in the Code. MR. VOLLARO-Not necessarily. I think what you’ve got to do is put a motion that reflects the Code, and what you want to have in it. MR. RINGER-They’d have to comply with the Code. MR. VOLLARO-The Code says that they’ve got to go to staging if they can’t complete it within 24 months. MR. MICHAELS-One of the reasons that we asked for the waiver, just, if I could comment, was more for safety and traffic. We fully intend to get this done within two years, but certainly no one can project the market. The phasing of this project would allow us the two entrances right from the beginning, from a traffic, fire and safety issue, was really why we asked for the waiver to begin with, because, if you have the two access points, it’s going to be a lot easier, a fire truck blocks the road, like any subdivision over 15 lots, I think it’s, in this Town, over 15 lots you need two entrances. So it makes sense to build this development at one time. I certainly intend to build it within two years, but, you know, who knows what’s going to happen in November. Certainly that’s not our intent, but I don’t know if every subdivision was based on the market conditions. I think you’d have an awful busy schedule in here. If two units don’t get sold, to come through a whole meeting. It’s certainly our intent. We think we can do it within two years, with our past sales record in Queensbury. MR. MAC EWAN-Mark, can you offer some advice? MR. SCHACHNER-No, I mean, nothing constructive. I agree with both comments, to be honest. I mean, Bob’s point, I think, is that even though the Code requires completion of this number of units within a certain amount of time, so as not to kick in other requirements, I’m a big believer in adding things to motions to make things clear. Larry’s point is equally well taken, which is that, if it’s required, you don’t have to put it in the Code. It’s like, you know, you don’t have to add that the speed limit is 65 on the Northway, because it’s the law, and you’re right about the modification things. I’m comfortable, legally, with any approach of the three. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re a big help. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s why I said no. MR. MAC EWAN-John, add it. MR. RINGER-One more thing before we make a motion. Staff wanted another condition there, Condition One, that they maintain the silt fence adjacent to Lot 7 and 10. You could read it, if you want, from the Staff notes. MR. MICHAELS-Before we add the condition for the two years, because the rules in Queensbury, with the Highway Department, are a little specific here. We can’t get a building permit until the road is paved. I think the intent of this law is not two years from the day you get approval. It’s really two years from the day we start building. So, we could, two years from when we can get our permits, because certainly, that was what our thinking was. I’m not going to get a permit there until the spring. We’ll lose six to eight months of our. MR. MAC EWAN-Is it out of the ordinary for us to make a condition that the project has to be completely developed two years from issuance of the first building permit? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, we’re checking the Code to see if it specifies that. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MRS. MOORE-The public hearing, you may want to continue, if anybody has any comments. You may want to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-The public hearing’s not open tonight. MRS. MOORE-I thought, was it left open? MR. MAC EWAN-No. Sorry. Are you about ready with your motion down there? MR. STROUGH-Yes, the only thing is with maintain the silt fence adjacent to Lots 9 and 10, was it? MR. RINGER-Seven and ten, at Chelsea Place. MR. STROUGH-All right. Here’s what I have so far. Do you want me to go through it, or do you want me to just make the motion? MR. MAC EWAN-No, I think we’ve pretty much got it hammered out. We’re just waiting for this one last piece of information. What do you come up with? MR. SCHACHNER-I think you’re looking at the correct, if I’m overhearing correctly, you’re looking at the right provision, which is 179-58G, called “Staging”, the bottom sentence which says, “Any plan which requires more than 24 months to be completed shall be required to be staged, and a staging plan must be developed”, obviously does not explicitly specify when the 24 months starts to run, but I think that this Board and others have typically interpreted that to be from approval, not from some future issuance of a building permit. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Fine. MR. LAPPER-The only issue for us is just in terms of the process with the Town to build and dedicate a road and get it approved by the Highway Department and Water Department and all that. That necessarily takes some period of time, and you can’t, you’re precluded from pulling building permits. So it would still be a two year building permit, and it’s not like anyone’s trying to get away with anything. It’s just a matter of having two years to build them and sell them. MR. STROUGH-Here’s how I have it worded, 56 units will be completed within a two year time period from the initial issuance of a building permit. MRS. MOORE-But Laura’s not saying that. It’s from approval. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, if you want to interpret the Code that way, as long as you do it consistently from now into the future, it obviously doesn’t say from the date of approval. What I’m saying is that’s how it’s typically been interpreted, I believe. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you feel comfortable if we condition it from the issuance of the first building permit? MR. SCHACHNER-Since it doesn’t specify, I don’t care, but if we’re going to do that, I think we need to be consistent in the future. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, by making it a special condition, what we’re doing is we’re clarifying our position on this one project. I don’t think it prohibits us from interpreting the Code the way it’s been interpreted in the past. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I guess I’m not comfortable with that, Chris. I think if we’re going to say that this provision means two years from the date of issuance of a building permit, than that’s our interpretation and we should be consistent for the future. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Done. Go with it. MOTION TO APPROVE PUD SITE PLAN NO. 44-2000 MICHAELS GROUP/WAVERLY PLACE, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of PUD Site Plan No. 44-2000, Michaels Group proposing subdivision of tax parcel 60-2-1 into four (4) lots consisting of a 49.63 acre parcel, 11.2 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) acre parcel, 1.7 acre parcel and a 12 acre parcel. The 49.63 acre parcel is also to be further subdivided in 57 lots consisting of 56 residential lots and a Homeowners Association lot, and; WHEREAS, the application received 5/25/00 consists of the following: 1. As outlined in the Official File WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 9/19/00 Staff Notes 9/18/00 E-Mail from M. Shaw 9/18/00 CT Male Eng. comments in response to re-submission of info by LA Group (9/15/00) responding to 9/14/00 CT Male comments 9/15/00 LA Group – Response to CT Male eng. comments of 9/1400 9/15/00 Fax to applicant/agent of staff notes 9/13/00 M. Ryba from R. VanDusen 9/12/00 E-Mail from R. VanDusen – no addt’l. comments on water or wastewater 9/8/00 J. Lapper from M. Shaw 8/30/00 Final Stage Submission – cover letter, maps (M-1, S-1, S-2, D-1, D-2, L-1, L-2, G-1, U-1, P-1, P-2, SD-1, SD-2) w/engineering report dated 8/29/00 8/24/00 Planning Board Resolution 8/24/00 Staff Notes 8/24/00 Fax to M. Ryba from R VanDusen 8/23/00 C. Round from R. VanDusen 8/21/00 M. Ryba from J. Michaels – transmittal of Colored Renderings of Typical Townhouse Bldg. & Foundation Cross Section illustrating Typical Foundation Drain System Detail 8/18/00 Fax to J. Sporko (LA Group) from M. Ryba transmitting A/GFTC comments 8/18/00 J. Sporko, LA Group from C. MacEwan – tabling ap. until receipt of all info needed 8/17/00 C. Round from S. Sopczyk, A/GFTC 8/17/00 S. Sopczyk from M. Ryba – transmittal of info from CME and PB res. for comments for 8/24 meeting. 8/17/00 R. Missita, R. VanDusen, M. Shaw from M. Ryba – transmittal of info dated 8/15 from LA Group in response to concerns, etc. from referenced staff 8/17/00 Post Star article 8/17/00 Colored rendering of townhouse 8/16/00 H. Hansen from J. Michaels 8/16/00 S. Sopczyk from M. Ryba 8/16/00 Rec’d. from CME Eng. – response to staff comments on traffic 8/15/00 C. Round from J. Sporko, LA Group in response to concerns from review and comments letters and from consultants 8/15/00 Planning Board resolution 8/15/00 C. Round from K. Hastings – response letter dated 8/15/00 8/15/00 Discussion – L. Moore and S. Sopczyk 8/15/00 D. Coon to Planning Board 8/15/00 Record of Phone Conversation – Maria (Planning Office) & anonymous 8/15/00 Staff Notes 8/14/00 Fax to K. Hastings, J. Lapper – staff notes 8/14/00 Fax to K. Hastings of 8/8 Highway comment and 8/10 Water Dept. comment 8/14/00 L. Moore from C. Round 8/11/00 FOIL request from E. Thibodeau 8/11/00 Post Star article 8/11/00 Fax to M. Brooks from M. Ryba – CT Male comments of 8/10/00 8/10/00 C. Round from K. Hastings in response to 8/7 comment from M.Shaw re: utility plans 8/10/00 C. Round from CT Male - eng. review 8/10/00 C. Round from K. Hastings – 8/10/00 response to 8/10 Wastewater comments 8/9/00 Note to File prepared by C. Round 8/9/00 Post Star article 8/8/00 Planning Bd. from R. Missita 8/8/00 S. Sopczyk from L. Moore re: traffic analysis 8/8/00 Notice of Public Hearing 8/8/00 Revised Info rec’d. – Cover Letter, Lighting to be used on front yard spec. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) Building plan and Elevations, Prelim. Plans to replace the previously submitted plans (M-1, D-1, D-2, L-1, L-2, G-1 U-1, P-1, P-2, S-1, S-2 all revised 8/7/00) 8/7/00 M. Shaw to K. Hastings 8/7/00 Town Board resolution 329,2000 – Speed Limit Reductions for Meadowbrook Road 8/7/00 Beautification Comm. comment 8/3/00 R. Missita from C. Round transmitting application for review 8/3/00 R. VanDusen from C. Round transmitting application for review 8/2/00 Meeting Notice letter 8/2/00 Memo to File from M. Ryba 8/2/00 Checklist review, sketch completed by M. Ryba – 7/27 thru 8/2 7/28/00 L. Moore from D. Carr (LA Group) – revised copies of landscape plan 7/28/00 CT Male from C. Round – transmittal of applications for review 7/24/00 Town Board resolution 297,2000 7/20/00 J. Michaels from S. Johnston of CME 6/30/00 D. Brower, C. Round from M. Ryba 6/20/00 Planning Board minutes 6/20/00 PB Resolution 6/20/00 Staff Notes 6/16/00 M. Ryba from J. Lapper – Authorization Letter 6/16/00 Michaels Grp. from staff 6/14/00 Warren Co. Planning Board recommendation – approve w/conditions 6/13/00 Notice of Public Hearing 6/13/00 C. Round from J. Sporko, LA Group 6/8/00 Meeting Notice 5/2/00 H. Hansen from J. David Michaels WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 6/20/00, 8/15/00 and 9/19/00 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan/Subdivision/PUD 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 Town of Queensbury Town Board previously completed the State Environmental Quality Review Act requirements, a Final Environmental Impact Statement was accepted by the Town Board and findings were developed July 2, 1987 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT The application is approved and is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant is approved as per the resolution prepared by Staff with the following comments: a. That the developer will be responsible for future extension of the walkway to adjacent north and south properties, and b. The applicant will plant a row of White Pine trees of eight to ten foot in height adjacent to Lots 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, and c. The model home will be the two story design referred to by the applicant as the Hickory and Evergreen, and d. 56 units will be completed within a two year time period from the initial issuance of a building permit, and e. The applicant will maintain a silt fence adjacent to Lots 7 and 10 at Chelsea Place, until construction of homes is completed, since the building envelopes for Lots 8 and 9 shown on the plans extends into the DEC wetland buffer. Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. 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. 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, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-And the public hearing back on August 15 was tabled. th STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 58-2000, SBA, Inc. & Southwestern Bell Corp., Meeting Date: September 19, 2000 “Project Description The application for a 195 foot cell tower was tabled at the August 15, 2000 Planning Board meeting. The applicant was requested to address CT Male comments and to address staff concerns about the requested height. The applicant has provided a revised drawing (stamp dated August 31, 2000) and supplemental information that has been forwarded to CT Male for review and comment. Project Analysis The following list identifies staff requests for information and the applicant’s response: 1. The existing and proposed slope of the driveway (The existing driveway slope is 10.5%, The proposed is to be no greater than 10%. Drawing No. C-2.) 2. Color scheme, texture, and design for the structure and accessory structures (The guy tower appears to be gray in color as photo have indicated and the equipment buildings are to have an earth-tone façade. Drawing No.C-2) 3. Visual Environmental Assessment form (The applicant has supplied a visual assessment form. In addition the applicant has completed a long environmental assessment form) 4. Documentation that co-location on a telecommunication tower, shared use of a tall structure, and construction of a tower on a lot containing an existing tower are not practical (The applicant submitted information noted as item #3 of 4 “Existing Towers site inventory” The comment indicates four sites were considered; Exit 18 Tower sites, Prospect Mountain Tower sites, Warren County Municipal Center, and Moon Hill. The sites either did not provided adequate coverage, structural support, or involved negotiation. In addition, the applicant supplied a “site suitability Worksheet describing the criteria used to choose the location. This indicates the Fowler Property was selected) 5. Documentation of locating and inventorying all existing tall structures and existing or approved telecommunication towers within a reasonable distance (The applicant submitted information noted as item #1, #2, #3, #4. The comments refer to some of the existing sites) 6. Documentation of requests to secure use from the owner of each existing tall structure, existing or approved telecommunication tower (The applicant submitted a letter dated July 20, 2000 for Alternate Sites Statement. The letter describes communications with property owners in the area where cell coverage is proposed) 7. A copy of the Federal Communications Commission license (The applicant submitted an FCC Radio Station Authorization License Print Date of December 3, 1999) 8. Setbacks to the guy wire anchors (The plans with an August 21, 2000 revision date drawing C-1 show setback dimensions.) The proposal meets the required setbacks for the RR-3A zone {Front requires 50 feet, Side requires 30 Feet and Rear requires 30 Feet} 9. Alternative designs (The applicant has supplied pictures of a guy tower and alternative designs, The applicant also supplied a comment dated August 2000 that describes the guy tower and the alternatives) 10. Documentation that the tower will accommodate future shared use (The applicant has submitted a comment “Co-location and site specific interest” that indicates that five 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) additional wireless tenants are intended, along with other emergency antennas as noted in a SBA letter of July 25, 2000 addressed to Marv Lemery. There is no engineering statement that indicates the proposed tower is structurally sound.) 11. Documentation that the maximum height of the tower shall not exceed the necessary provided service area (The applicant supplied information noted as comment #2 of 4 indicating the location will overcome local terrain and signal fade problems. Drawing T-1 indicates that the Tower base will be at 565 feet elevation, and the “Cell One tenant” will be about 760 feet elevation. The applicant has also supplied information “Justification of Height Memorandum” that the placement and height of the tower is below the outline view shed of French Mountain.) 12. Documentation of removal upon abandonment (The applicant has submitted a certificate of insurance that outlines the removal of the Tower by the applicant.) 13. Documentation that the applicant has notified the bordering municipalities and the Warren County Emergency Services of the proposed tower (The applicant submitted a SBA letter dated July 25, 2000 addressed to Marv Lemery, Warren County Fire Coordinator) 14. The existing and proposed coverage location (The applicant has supplied several coverage photos. The existing coverage map indicates there is little to no coverage area. The justification height memo indicates the tenant at 160 will have the same coverage area as the tenant at 195 feet to encourage co-location. The applicant indicates if the tower height is lowered other tenants may request additional Towers and will not co-locate on this Tower). The applicant was also requested to complete a RF (Radio Frequency) checklist form, the completed form will be forwarded when finished. A blank copy of the checklist is provided for your review. Also included for your review is “A Local Government Official’s Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Guidelines”. Areas of Concern or Importance The applicant has indicated that additional tenants and other telecommunication equipment may be placed on the antenna. Staff would encourage that each tenant or other telecommunication equipment is evaluated by the Town’s engineer as the tower fills up. Each tenant should provide sufficient information that indicates the Tower will structurally accommodate the tenant and there is adequate space within the existing lease space for the tenants’ accessory equipment Conclusions (Section 179-39) Staff would encourage the Board to require each tenant to have a Town Engineer sign-off.” MRS. MOORE-And that is subject to Section 179-73, as part of the Ordinance, whether an applicant goes through Site Plan review of co-location, or whether they go through administrative review under Section 179-39. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, what is Staff looking to have happen here? Should this be approved tonight, and we do, future tenants come on to that tower, what is Staff looking, for modification to the original site plan? Treat it as a new site plan? Or treat it internally? MRS. MOORE-No. The applicant’s, under Section 179-39, they’re still subject to either an administrative review for co-location, or, depending upon information supplied during the administrative review, they may be subject to site plan review by the Planning Board. MR. MAC EWAN-And that would be left upon the Zoning Administrator to make that determination? Okay. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. Jon Lapper and Shane Newell for SBA, Inc. and Southwestern Bell Corp. We’re continuing where we left off at the last meeting. We believe we’ve submitted everything that was requested, and C.T. Male has indicated that they received what they were requesting. I don’t know if we have anything else to add at this point, but we’re here to answer questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Chris, I’ll start with you. MR. HUNSINGER-There were some additional comments, and I don’t know if I’ve missed the memo from this evening, about the height of the tower. We had talked about it at the last meeting also, and this is from C.T. Male’s comment about propagation data for shorter tower heights. I presume they mean less than 160 feet. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. LAPPER-The issue is what the bottom of the tower needs to be, rather than the top, in order to accommodate five users and they’re confident that all five carriers that presently operate in Queensbury will want to be at this location, and the goal is to have the tower obviously not any taller than it needs to be. Nobody wants that, but to have it tall enough to accommodate the five carriers. So that somebody doesn’t come in later and say, hey, there was only room for four in there. We need our new tower next door. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And when Shane and I were discussing the tower issue in detail yesterday, knowing that that would be certainly a valid area of inquiry of the Board tonight, he mentioned to me, you know, a lot of times tower companies will come in and they’ll ask for 250, knowing that they have an extra 50 feet to give back, but we went in at 195 because we wanted to get the light off the top, because we knew that that would be, the visual issue would be an issue for the Board. So there’s really just enough room with 10 feet per carrier at that 195 level to cover the five users and still have the bottom user effective, and I think Shane could probably add some more detail to that. MR. NEWELL-I’ve drawn a sketch up, trying to get an idea of what this tower would look like with the different carriers on there, but you’ve got to understand, we have a somewhat difficult animal here, because we’re trying to define exactly what these co-location antenna applications might look like, without really knowing. We only know that certainly that Cell One is putting up an eight foot sectored panel, sector panelized antenna at about 190 feet mounting. So, each of these carriers need about 10 feet apart to not have interference between their radio frequencies. I talked to Gary Weiss this morning, and said, you know, is that a standard thing? How do we exactly know that? And he says that some of the carriers, like Omni Point and Sprint, that operate at different band widths, can actually get as close as three feet, point to point, their antenna tip to antenna tip, to another carrier, but he said it’s very difficult to determine. It’s like trying to tune in your radio while the radio’s off. We’re trying to tune in five radios at 190 feet in the air. It’s very difficult for us to decide exactly what the carriers are going to get out of this tower. So, I tried to draw a sketch out, leaving five feet in some increments and 10 feet in others, to see what we might get. Now you can see that the top of the tower is at 195. That would put the mounting, or what they call the rad center, for the first applicant, that’s Cell One, mounting his center at 190, and that his panel, being eight foot, would reach 194 and down to 186, and would leave a 10 foot gap for the next carrier, being somebody like NexTel or Verizon, these are the larger carriers that need a greater distance between their antenna. He starts at 176, runs down to 178, and then you can see I left five foot gaps, three different times, with an eight foot panel, again, and then maybe two six foot panels might fit in there. So, that leaves us down to 128, and we have one more RF plot showing it at 130 that you start to really open up gaps. Again, it’s very difficult to decide, at a specific location, within the radius of the objective, let’s say three miles of that tower, at one particular point, if a car is pulled off to the side of the road, depending on trees and things that are variable, like buildings and things like that, whether that phone call is actually going to be adequate. Will it crackle up? Will the guy fade in and out? It’s very difficult to determine, looking at RF plots, but generally we can see that these holes start to open up, and we feel we’re going to get call drop and we’re going to have definitely some problems on I-87, and even in sections of Route 9 that you can see. I believe you have the 130 plot program that was submitted. MR. VOLLARO-Well, right now I’m looking at the 100 and the 160, trying to follow your line of reasoning here. MR. MAC EWAN-Hold it. Let’s go in order here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I guess where I was going with this was I was looking for a little further explanation about, you know, at what point is the tower tall enough to accomplish the objectives, and I think this kind of helps visualize it and address those concerns, and we had the coverage ratios and the color coded maps before. MR. NEWELL-Well, if you bring the tower down by five feet, you’re going to have a carrier that’s now mounted at 131 feet, and at 130, that’s the fifth carrier, the lowest carrier, and this is optimum situation. I’m only leaving a five foot gap on three carriers. There could be needs of up to 15 and 20 feet, in some situations, from one carrier to the other. Again, it’s very difficult to determine those things without having those applicants here with us. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I mean, you can see where I’m going with this, because at the public hearing we did have some people come and say that they found the tower objectionable, the view of the tower objectionable, the thought being, you know, at what point can you begin to reduce the height of the tower to make it less objectionable, and still accomplish everything you need to accomplish? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. NEWELL-Well, certainly we felt that the thing to do was to get the ASAC Report that we got, determining that it would not require marking or lighting, and we sacrificed what we felt to be 50 feet. I mean, towers can run 700 feet. The tallest one is 1500 feet. We’re making the carriers work within our limits here. We really felt that to minimize the visual impact, this tower would have to be less than 200 feet, and we’re really squeezing them in at that, I feel. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ll get into mine. I noticed in the September 11 letter from C.T. Male, they th talk about, no sites west of the Northway were considered in the alternative reviews. Maybe somebody can clarify that for me. I don’t know, are you familiar with? MR. NEWELL-I spoke to Ed Vopelak from C.T. Male about that exact issue. He didn’t realize Gurney Lane was parallel and west of the Northway. MR. VOLLARO-Right. I didn’t understand their comment. That’s why I’m asking you if you did. MR. NEWELL-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I mean, I had a question mark about that myself. MR. LAPPER- MR. LAPPER-They haven’t been Town Engineers long enough to know where all the roads are in Queensbury. MR. VOLLARO-Right. In looking at the propagation data that I’m looking at, at the 100 foot and the 160 foot, take a look at the RF plots on that, I don’t see much difference in the coverage profile of those heights. What we’re probably most concerned about is the fellow that’s going to mount to the lowest, on the lowest one. Now, I don’t even have a problem with the way this antenna is looking at the view. The view shed looks good to me in most of the photographs you supplied, but I am concerned about a future time when somebody comes in here and says, I can’t jump on the SBA antenna at 136 because my radiation profiles don’t fit that. Now, I’m going to read a note I made to myself. It’s rather short. It’s just a comment. Now, I said, we could push for a shorter tower, this is my thinking when I’m reviewing it, okay, we could push for a shorter tower. However, examining the view sheds, and the need to accommodate future tower tenants, I would approve this tower. However, I would make it a condition of approval, and I don’t know if I can do this, and probably my Counsel would have to tell me whether it’s even tenable or not, but I would make it a consideration of approval that SBA would support the Town in any future application from other wireless providers asking for another tower. The reason we’re giving you 195 is to accommodate all of the potential future. Otherwise we may be pushing down for a lower antenna. We go to 195 in order to solidify the position of other people mounting the antenna. Now, I don’t know whether Counsel agrees that that can be done or not. Do you understand what I’m trying to do, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not positive. I mean, keep in mind that the provisions of our Ordinance already strongly encourage co-location. I guess my question, Bob, is what you mean by SBA will support the Town in future applications? MR. VOLLARO-Well, if, yes, you know, what I would say is we’re giving them 195 foot. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, you’re considering that. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, consideration of this application is 195 foot antenna. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Based on the propagation plots that I see, we could go lower, because I don’t see those propagation plots changing very much, on their reception and transmission, as much as I’m concerned about what goes on the tower later on. The last person to mount the tower says, look, I can’t go. My antenna just plain won’t fit at the 136 foot level, because I’m not going to get the propagation I need. MR. SCHACHNER-Meaning the lowest of the five locations. MR. VOLLARO-The lowest of the five. So you do the worst case analysis first. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-And I’m saying that we would consider 195, based on the co-location requirement. Because 195 gives us a greater basis for co-location on the single tower, but if somebody else comes in and says, I don’t fit at the 160 foot level. I want you, Queensbury, to approve a new tower for me. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Now, that’s where I go back to this application and ask this applicant to help us out in that area, maybe even be a, I want to call it a witness or whatever you want to name it. MR. LAPPER-We would agree to a condition, certainly, do everything within our power to accommodate them. MR. VOLLARO-I want to hear what my Counsel has to say about that. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m still not understanding. I’m with you until you get to the, you want this applicant to help us or to be our witness. I mean, the Ordinance strongly favors co-location. You have the right, for this hypothetical future applicant that you’re talking about, you have the right to say to that applicant, you need to prove to us why you can’t co-locate at this facility. When that applicant supplies you with engineering data, you have the right to seek advice from competent, you know, qualified experts, as to whether that data is valid or not, and if you, as a Planning Board, determine that data is not valid, you certainly have the right to deny this hypothetical future application, on the basis of saying to that applicant, you can co-locate at this previously approved location. You certainly can require of this application, and I doubt that the applicant will have any objection to this, you can require of this applicant that they make space available for at least five entities. MR. VOLLARO-He has. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, they have, and that’s their desire. I’m not sure. MR. VOLLARO-I understand what you’re saying. I guess what I’m saying, I would like them to be that consultant, that I would have the right to go back, as a Planning Board member, to SBA and ask them, in a consulting role, why they feel that that applicant can get on at the 136 foot level. MR. MAC EWAN-I think we’re beating this to death here. MR. SCHACHNER-I think you can ask them, but I don’t think you can obligate them. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t understand where you’re going or even what the end result would be if they had a tenant that came to us. MR. VOLLARO-Because if it wasn’t for that, I would be striving for a lower antenna, Craig, that’s what I’m saying. I’d be asking if (lost words). MR. MAC EWAN-Well, it sounds like what you’re afraid of is that antennas will be popping up all over Town, is what you’re afraid of. MR. SCHACHNER-And that’s the right thing to be concerned about, as far as our Ordinance goes. MR. MAC EWAN-To tell any applicant, whether it’s these people or anybody else, that if they can’t fit a number of tenants located on their tower that they’re hoping to have on there, then they’ve got to help foot the bill, help with engineering costs, whatever the case may be, for another tower to come into Town under review, I don’t think that’s the right thing to do. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have to pick them. In that case, I could pick, if somebody comes in and says they don’t fit at this last level, then I could ask for another engineering firm to come in and confirm why they can’t. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s definitely true, and that’s what I was saying. You have the right, as a Planning Board, in that future application, to seek engineering advice to evaluate that future applicant’s claim that they can’t co-locate on this facility. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I understand that. All I’m trying to do is eliminate somebody coming in for a new tower at a future date, and not applying to the co-location requirement. That’s what I’m trying to look at. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and hopefully our Ordinance already does that by requiring future applicants to co-locate whenever possible. MR. VOLLARO-I agree with Craig. We’re probably pushing this thing all the way to the limit, but I just wanted to bring it out. That’s how I feel about it, otherwise, I’d be pushing for a lower tower, frankly. I don’t see anything in the propagation analysis that says they need to be at 195 feet. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. LAPPER-Shane’s company, they want to be the only tower in this area. They’re a tower company. They want to accommodate everybody else. They don’t want another tower to be popping up two miles away, and they’ll do what they can to accommodate everybody on their tower. MR. VOLLARO-Everything happens. MR. LAPPER-No question, but that’s the business they’re in. MR. NEWELL-We’ve also submitted a statement of intent, whereas SBA, the developer of the proposed 190 foot telecommunications tower in the Town of Queensbury, that it is designed with five platforms, that SBA shall act in good faith in providing co-location opportunities to all FCC licensed wireless providers for the proposed 195 foot tower. It’s signed by SBA Territory Manager, Tim O’Donnell. So I’m putting it in as good faith as I can, in writing, that that’s what our goal is, that’s what we’re here to do, and I can tell you in good faith that certainly if you have another applicant looking to go on a tower that SBA would like to have that guy as a tenant, and we’re going to be here showing that they should be on our tower. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No, I don’t have anything. MR. METIVIER-Tony? MR. METIVIER-No, I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-I gave this a hard look, a real hard look. All right, and I have some concerns. Concern One, a rather large sector of the local economy is based on tourism. Tourists are attracted to the areas of natural beauty, it’s unique mountains, lakes, trees all flow together and make this attractive to others. So it is important that we make every possible effort to maintain its unspoiled nature and appearance. The area you are proposing to locate a cell tower is in an area that many consider to be the gateway to Lake George and the Adirondacks, and it is the eastern introduction to the Town of Queensbury. The area is very visually sensitive. What you are proposing, a lattice type guyed tower, is less than a desirable site, if one is trying to maintain the area as an area of natural beauty. Concern Two, the Town of Queensbury Comprehensive Land Use Plan emphasizes that this area be preserved in Adirondack style. I do not believe that this proposal fits that style. Concern Three, the Town of Queensbury proposed zoning laws will address telecommunications towers. One of the first items mentioned in this Article, Article 16, of the Telecommunications Ordinance, is protection of the natural features and aesthetic character of the Town. The Ordinance also restricts cell towers to only serve the designated areas, that is any light industrial and heavy industrial zone, and on any property where the telecommunication tower or other tall structure exists. Section K of the proposed Ordinance says that all towers shall be sited to have the least practical adverse visual effect on the environment. Concern Four, the propagation maps you provided show little significant difference in service delivery, whether the antenna locations are at 100 foot tower heights or at 190 foot tower heights. Point Five, or Concern Five, other than argue that it may mean fewer tower applications for this area, there appears to be no immediate reason for so many multiple locations on your proposed cell tower. Concern Six, I also feel that you have not completely exhausted a search for other equal or better suited sites. Concern Seven, I do not think you were fair in considering alternate tower types. Basically, you presented pictures of traditional lattice and monifold types, tree type towers which are currently being used all over the Country in visually sensitive areas were not put forward for our consideration, and were hardly addressed in your original oral presentation . SBC has used tree type towers in other areas of the Country where there was visual and aesthetic concern. One site was Mount Vernon. Concern Eight, I believe that this application as proposed would have a less than beneficial impact on adjacent nearby land uses, which include residential area, RV Park, motel, and other uses. Concern Nine, Glen Lake is currently being used for air traffic, and therefore increases the likelihood that the FAA will mandate lighting on top of this tower as it is proposed. So, 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) in my view, the application as proposed is not compatible with the adjacent land uses, nor is it visually and aesthetically harmonious with the natural surroundings. MR. LAPPER-I want to make some general comments, and then Shane will address some specific items. In terms of the Town Zoning, when we started out the process, we went to the Zoning Board, because the Town Zoning Code, as you correctly said, permits towers in the Light Industrial zones, and under State and Federal law, we had to establish to the Zoning Board that there was a need, that there was a deficiency in service in this part of Town, and we received a Use Variance that addressed the issue that this is residential, because the State and Federal law talk about providing adequate service. So we had to establish that, prove that threshold, which we did at the Town Board, at the Zoning Board, excuse me, and that’s why we’re here in this area in North Queensbury, because this is along the two travel corridors, the Northway and 149, and there is a deficiency in service, and anyone who drives there, they lose power on their cell phone. In terms of the aesthetic issues, certainly, a view shed without a cell tower, without a telecommunications tower, is better than a view shed with one. We all accept that as a premise. It’s here because the technology requires it, but the site was chosen, off the road, with 80 foot trees, so that when you’re driving, it’s not that it won’t be seen from some areas. As Bob said, the view sheds are pretty good. It’s not invisible, but when you’re driving along 149, you’re not going to see it because you’ve got tall trees. So we went out of our way to locate a site that was the most compatible, that tried to minimize the negatives. Certainly, you can’t make it invisible. In terms of the alternate locations, if that’s the area of the Town where there is a deficiency in service, as the charts show, any location in that area that’s going to accomplish the goal of providing service is also going to be visual. So it’s a questions, so we looked at a bunch of other areas that weren’t tall structures in that area, but they chose a tower design that was the guyed tower, because it’s less of a structure, less steel than if it was a freestanding structure, and that was also done to minimize the impact. It’s a question of trying to minimize it. It’s not a question of eliminating it, and they did go to talk to all of these other property owners to see what else was available, and came up with this as an alternative. So it’s hard to dispute what you’re saying, in terms of the fact that you see it, and it’s not as nice as looking at trees, but we think that it’s the best, under the circumstances, to provide coverage. In terms of the issue, and Shane’ll get onto this, but about making them look like trees, if you have a single user tower, you can do that, but to have something that has to be 195 feet tall look like a tree is not going to work. MR. STROUGH-No, I agree with that, and so that’s why I don’t support the height, but you can have multiple users use tree towers, and I think at the height I’m thinking that it would consider possibly 125 foot tree type tower, okay, and you could have, I think, two or three potential users on that, as well as the user that is currently signed up, but, you know, the example of tree tower is a lot less intrusive than the lattice type towers that we’ll see along Exit 18, for example. I think this is an environmentally and visually sensitive area, and that’s what I would like you to consider. MR. NEWELL-Well, tree towers can accommodate more than one carrier under certain circumstances, but understand that tree towers also come with some difficulties. We’ve been working closely with other stealth type companies, developing new ways to try to make towers invisible, and although trees got hot for a while, they have some complications with them. One is that you’ve got to understand that the branches that are extended on there, artificial branches, are using PVC piping, I think they have increased the wind load of the tower. So, you know, height becomes a real difficulty when you’re dealing with wind load. Also, with the amount of kind of wet snow atmospheres and winter conditions that we get here, it’s far more difficult in the Adirondacks for these towers to be able to accommodate carriers or even to work. There’s some serious concerns about tower failure under trees. They just have not met the standards set by the industry that carriers are looking for, and especially up in the Adirondacks. There’s not a single application like that, and at 125 feet, there isn’t going to be a carrier that’s going to take that site. So, to get it up into the higher elevations and to take the risk of that wind load is going to be impossible for us. MR. STROUGH-Well, they have been used elsewhere. I mean, hundreds of places elsewhere in the Country, wherever it’s visually sensitive, and I think that’s an alternative that I might consider, but I would not consider, I would not favor what you’re proposing now. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Shane, I’d like to know, when I made a call out in the boat, way up north of the Narrows, up by Hewlett’s Landing, and I called Glens Falls, where did that, what carrier picked up that? And it was as clear as anything, and I’m way up farther north, I’m up in the northern basin of Lake George this summer, and I called Queensbury, and I really did not expect to get any reception at all. I was way up, up at Hewlett’s Landing. MR. NEWELL-Who’s your carrier? Who do you work with, Cell One, Nextel? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, this was my sister’s phone. They’re out of Vermont. So I have no idea where that came from. It was as clear as anything. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. NEWELL-I’m sure it was a spot coverage thing up there. I know that, up in through the Adirondack Park zoning is very, very difficult, but there are cell communication areas like Speculator I think has a little spot coverage. Blue Mountain Lake has some sort of. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So they have towers up there? MR. NEWELL-Some of them are mounted on the fire watch stations on top of mountains, and some of them are mounted, co-located on lower towers that were pre-existing, that the APA could not rule out, that type of thing. So, you’re going to get some spot coverage, but, you know, out of the six million acres they protect, it’s a very small percentage that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Fire watch stations, what about like on top of Buck Mountain or something? Isn’t there a fire tower up there? MR. SCHACHNER-Black Mountain. MR. MAC EWAN-Black Mountain. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, no, Black Mountain has a fire tower, but doesn’t Buck have one up there, too? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-A little something up there? MR. NEWELL-I’m not sure if somebody co-located up there or not, really. Yes, a tower up in that location, obviously, the towers in Lake George aren’t covering this area. The ones on Prospect Mountain are not making the reach down into this area, not adequately. I took some photographs last week to try to just get an idea of, you know, the visual impact of this public utility, and Photo A basically you can tell is taken right from the Million Dollar Half Mile shopping area, and you can see right in the middle is a utility pole with some transformers on it that obviously are far greater impact than this tower’s going to be on the base of that very same mountain, and you can look at your photos that we’ve provided you, visual simulations that’ll show that. Photograph B again showing utility lines on the base of French Mountain, from where all these visitors and shoppers that are traveling through our area mostly look at the mountains. This is, I mean, look at the wires and things that run along these utility poles that have a great visual impact. Near a motel we had a property owner concerned about the impact of the tower as he looked out over the landscaping. You can see the very tip of the boom when we were running a radio test up there, and yet this type of utility is in his front yard. Again, Photo D showing a typical utility line as viewed from the bike trail as you cross over 149. We talked a great deal about the impact of bikers. They’re going to run into that type of situation. Of course, I don’t think they’ll actually see with the communication tower, except from being on the bridge, because the trees are so close to them. Photograph E is taken from the Northway, and there’s a guyed wire tower that sticks out above the tree line, basically where the trees start to dip down. It’s an unpainted tower. It’s thin because it’s the guyed wire design. It has a carrier at the very top. You can barely see it. That’s the kind of impact that this tower is going to have, except for we have a back drop of a mountain because we are not sticking out above the landscape, and that’s the way it’s designed. I mean, visual, the towers and being lit and being on top of a mountainside, as sometimes you’re driving down the highway and you look off over into the horizon and you see seven or eight towers up there and they’re all blinking red lights on them all the way down the tower at 350 foot heights, I think that has a significant visual impact, although they’re there. We’re really looking to minimize this, and the whole application is based on that, at 195, (lost words) the guyed wire, down below the base of the Mountain, and I really think that we have, as Jon said in our opening, in the case of Rosenburg versus Cell Tell Company, New York State case law, whereas a federal ruling was upheld that a cellular telephone facility qualifies as a public utility under local municipal law, and that was based on the fact that these public utilities provide not only conveniences that are somewhat necessary, or deemed necessary, that these utilities can protect or save lives, and cell phones have proven their ware there with 100,000 phone calls coming in from cell phones to 911 every single day in the Country. Now, some of those calls could obviously be eliminated, that they may have been made as fast using a land line, but certainly, you’re talking maybe half of those, of 50,000 accounted for calls that are made using a cell phone that are obviously life threatening, life saving situations. So that’s part of the ruling that they made, because this utility is providing that kind of service. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you done, John, or have you got more? MR. STROUGH-Well, in Sprint versus Ontario, it said that a township can deny a cell tower based on aesthetic and visual reasons. Yes, we haven’t addressed the lighting. At 195 feet, and there’s two current pontoon plane owners that use Glen Lake as an airport, and it would increase the likelihood that the FAA would mandate lighting on top of this structure, especially if you consider the nearby 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) airplane use. Now I also understand that 210 feet automatically triggers lighting, but I also understand the FAA can mandate lighting on any structure it deems to be unsafe for air traffic. MR. NEWELL-In the ASAC Report, which we submitted I think at the last meeting or before, I mean, I’ve read many of these reports. It says here, the FAA notice is not required, that maximum no notice height is 765 feet AMSL. Marking and lighting is not required, an extended study is not required. It’s about the lowest kind of rating I’ve seen us get. Anybody flying at 200 feet at the base of French Mountain, with an elevation, I think, of 2,000 feet, is in a dangerous situation, and they should be not flying in that area. I don’t know the impact of Glen Lake at that distance, but this is only, you’re talking something that’s about 100 feet higher than the tree line. MR. STROUGH-Well, exactly. You’re making my point. MR. NEWELL-I don’t think planes should be flying at that level, and obviously the FAA says it’s 765 feet is where the maximum no notice height is. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but they can also, from what I understand, mandate any structure that it deems to be unsafe for air traffic to be lighted. MR. NEWELL-That’s right, but based on the report, they don’t feel that that’s a possibility. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ve got a couple of things. While I agree with your photographs that, you now, the Niagara Mohawk power utilities are unsightly, they don’t require site plan review, and if they did, we’d probably be viewing it a whole different way. What other areas have you considered for location of your cell tower? Do you have documentation to support other locations you’ve tried to go to? MR. LAPPER-We submitted that to Laura and to C.T. Male. MR. NEWELL-Dated July 20, 2000, I submitted a report discussing alternate sites. I discussed the commercial areas along Route 9/149. I had conversations with Boats By George, vacant property, Shuh Real Estate on the corner of 149 and 9. I met with Dave Kenny from the Days Inn and discussed alternate sites of the different properties that he owned, and basically I ran into all the same thing, that commercial corridor land is a minimum and at a premium value. Ground leasing narrows the potential of the owners property development. Basically, they all resisted the idea of entering into a lease to tie up this area. There was no tree coverage. You know, when you drive down that route, you think about a communications tower sitting in the corner of the parking lot and it just didn’t seem to fit, and certainly the commercial developers didn’t feel that that was a fit for them. We talked to the property owner of the Lake George RV Park, met with Mr. David King. He had no interest in siting the tower anywhere on his property. We met with other property owners up on Route 149, didn’t find any real mix of somebody who had adequate acreage with the Fowler property, with eight acres of land pretty much unused and well treed, it seems to be like a very suitable site. We checked into possibly buying or re-developing the FM tower located on top of Moon Hill, although that, I wasn’t sure if that RF would actually work up there, and we’ve submitted showing that RF actually doesn’t do the job, but we still approached it, and they had absolutely no interest in allowing co-location on the tower. It just isn’t structurally strong enough for that type of thing. That tower’s been up there quite some time, and Broadcast Broadcasting had no interest in selling the tower or its interest there. I approached Mr. Polletti’s property. There’s an existing radio tower up on top of Buckbee Mountain, attempted to acquire that property, and he has 30 acres up there, and he had strong objection to any idea of putting a tower up there. He hopes to develop that for homes later. I met and talked to five different property owners in Gurney Lane. I met with a great deal of resistance in that area for a tower siting in that area. Again, I’m not sure if Gurney Lane would fully satisfy the RF. We also submitted RF reports showing alternate sites like the Light Industrial zone, the gravel pits on Ridge. The Light Industrial zone, there’s actually one a little bit closer where Duke Concrete is. We submitted that site showing that those RF plots just do not provide the coverage along I-87 and 149 and its valleys. MR. MAC EWAN-Your process, then, to try to determine where the ideal location was to site your tower, you pretty much took the intersection of 149 and 9 and went out a certain radius from that center point? MR. NEWELL-That’s pretty much it. Under our agreement with Cell One who provided us with all these propagation reports of what their coverage is, they said, look, we’ve got a hole here. We’ve got to find a way to get this filled, and they said, you know, basically right here on this corner would be the spot to be. So see what you can do there, and we started starting the process, you know, working our way up, selecting those candidates and submitting those candidates to SBC to review, and then they would send them back to me, saying, well, that one you might be able to acquire but it doesn’t work for us. So try something else. We eventually got down to the Fowler site as being the ideal site. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Just so I’m on terra firma, we’re just outside the APA right there, right? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-The next question I’ve got for you is on the document that you had submitted previously, which was called Justification of Height Memorandum, you showed two plots in here, one for 100 foot and one for 160 foot tower. What’s the difference between the two of them? They’re very minimal, that we can see, as far as your coverage gaps. MR. NEWELL-What two heights do you have? MR. MAC EWAN-One’s for 160. One’s for 100 in height, and your plots show a minimal difference, and where the difference shows up is right here, in this little quadrant right here, and you’re still getting adequate coverage with 100 foot. So what’s the need for the 160 foot, if you’re still getting relatively the same coverage? MR. NEWELL-I believe that area, the gap that you’re talking about, is along I-87, and that’s a significant coverage objective there. Also, they expect to have some other gaps, I believe, on some sections of Route 9. I’m not sure if I’ve got the exact report that you have. I don’t remember seeing 100 footer at that level. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you sure that’s 100 foot, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-That’s not my writing. We’re looking at two of them. This is the 160, and that’s the 100 now. We’ve got it with 160 and 100. This isn’t something we put on it. MR. NEWELL-You can see that there’s an opening. Well, the areas in the white are the areas that there’s no coverage expected in those areas. Blue, it starts to get a little crackly. You may or may not have a call drop there, but clearly, at 100 feet, if you look approximately where, opposite of the “L” of Lake George, you see where the white area opens up to a rather large gap on both Route 9 and I- 87 there, and that gap is covered by blue in the 160 height, and we expect our lowest carrier will certainly have that objective to cover both Route 9 and I-87. MR. MAC EWAN-How big of a gap do you feel that is? This area, there’s no scale on those maps, and if you tried to realistically, the position I took when I was looking at this, I’m saying to myself, okay, someone’s going on the Northway. They’re traveling at 72 miles an hour, the average speed. If they get a gap in there, and you’re liable to get a gap anywhere along there between 20 and 21 on the Northway, how long is it going to take for you before you get your cell signal back? MR. LAPPER-That’s exactly the problem that they’re trying to remedy right now. You’re on the Northway and you lose your call. MR. MAC EWAN-So is the sake of a 160 foot tower for a very short window of opportunity to keep or make a cell call, in a very small area, worth weighing it that side, versus the aesthetics part of it, on a 100 foot tower, and you take a gamble that you’re not going to make a cell call in a quarter of a mile on a length of road. MR. LAPPER-For the sake of our discussion, because it’s hypothetical, the 100 feet would be the bottom of the, it’s not a 100 foot tall tower, then you’d still have to go up 65 feet from there. MR. VOLLARO-So that 100 foot is representing 136 on this lot right here? MR. LAPPER-Yes, the 100 would be the bottom. MR. NEWELL-Yes, the 100 would be what you could expect to get in coverage at mounting at 100 feet, the lowest carrier. MR. VOLLARO-That’s your 128. MR. MAC EWAN-But the tower would be a maximum of 160 feet tall, then, instead of 195. MR. LAPPER-It would be 28 feet lower than 195, right, because of instead of 128 being the lowest that we use, it would be 100 foot for the lowest. So that tower would be 28 feet lower than 195, 167. MR. NEWELL-To have a carrier mounted at 100 feet. MR. VOLLARO-So what you’re saying there is that the sensitivity would be down to minus 90 db at that particular point? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. NEWELL-That’s right, and it’s not just that, you know, you’re going to lose that call in that one area. You’ve got to understand, if you’re traveling 72 miles an hour, and you carry a conversation for, let’s say, five minutes, you’ve traveled through that area, if you’re anywhere from there within five miles of that area. So, you know, in a five minute call, if you’re traveling from Lake George to Glens Falls in that time period, you’re going to lose that call. You cover some mileage in that area. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just trying to logically look from balancing it from the needs of what the tower can provide to its customers to what, aesthetically, it’s going to be in that area, and if you could get away with a smaller tower, and still service your needs, there’s got to be a tradeoff here. What documentation do you have to support that the trees design towers do not work in this part of the Country? MR. LAPPER-Just the testimonial. MR. MAC EWAN-Testimonial from who? MR. LAPPER-Shane. MR. NEWELL-And when we had Gary Weiss here and the RF engineer, I think they also expressed, I’m not sure if they did with the Zoning Board and the Town Board, but I know that they expressed concerns, and no interest in mounting on lower heights or with the interference’s caused and difficulties caused by those types of towers. MR. MAC EWAN-With all due respect, though, you’re trying to get the best deal you can for your customers, too. I mean, we’re looking out for the best interests of the Town. You’re looking out for the best interests of your customers. If you’ve got documentation that says those kind of towers do not work in this part of the Country, I mean, certainly that’s going to bolster your position. MR. LAPPER-They don’t want to build a tower any higher than they have to. MR. MAC EWAN-Good. How does 160 foot sound? MR. NEWELL-It sounds like there’s a very strong possibility that there’ll be an applicant at your doorstep in a short time looking to get another tower in there, proving, with RF reports, that he does not have coverage, and you’ve discriminated against him because you’ve given coverage to one or two carriers, and he is a licensed FCC carrier and wants to get coverage at those heights. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions, comments from Board members? Staff? MR. RINGER-One question. It seems like we covered it last month, but why can’t we paint these green or the color of trees? It seems like we discussed it, but I forget why you said we couldn’t have them green. MR. NEWELL-I didn’t say that you couldn’t. It’s just that painting them green, and I’d just encourage you to look at these photographs again and think about what a darker tower colored green, with a back drop of a green mountain is fine, but when it’s snow covered, it’s going to have the same impact. Generally, when they’re steel, they tend to reflect light the right way and they tend to be less visual. We haven’t seen any major difference. When you look up the thing and say, you know, I almost didn’t see that because it was green. It just doesn’t have the kind of effect that you might hope it would have, in painting these towers, especially these lattice construction towers, green. MR. RINGER-The green doesn’t make any difference, then, from a visual standpoint? MR. NEWELL-I suppose that’s completely subjective to everyone’s opinion. MR. RINGER-Being a novice, I’m asking you as an expert. MR. NEWELL-Just as some people feel, the trees are the same way. Some people feel that they look like giant toilet brushes sticking up out of the air. I’ve heard that kind of comment and negative talks about it. Other people think that they actually look like trees. So it’s a matter of opinion. MR. RINGER-I just felt that we’ve got an awful lot of evergreens up there. So we don’t get the changes throughout. So the green does stay four seasons with the evergreen. It’s just a comment. I know we talked about it last month, but I couldn’t remember why we said we couldn’t do it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Larry, if you go back and look at those original photographs, where they were superimposed on the computer, the renderings, the green would stick right out against the blue sky, 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) in some of them. I mean, if the mountain was the background, the green would absorb it, would, you know, fit right in. MR. RINGER-You’re saying that the green would show more than the silver? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. RINGER-I was just curious. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because I thought the same thing, too. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions, comments? Staff? I’ll ask you gentlemen to give up the table for a couple of minutes. We’ve got a public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so. Please come up and identify yourself for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED EARLA OAKLEY MS. OAKLEY-My name is Earla Oakley. I live, what I think is just about directly across the street from the proposed location, probably 500 feet, but I’m not certain because the land is shown, the parcel of land is shown as a certain number, 149. That’s down the street. We all live on a road that’s a very private road. We all have nice homes, and, Number One, I didn’t even get a notice of this, of the public hearing, and these people actually got them either just barely in time or late last month. That’s why we never made it here, but I’d be curious to know where exactly the tower is going to be on this 5. whatever parcel of land, and how close it is to our various houses, basically because I think that there is a radiation possibility, or whatever it is, that towers emit. I know even with your cell phone you’re not supposed to use your cell phone a lot because of this same type of thing. As far as service there, I have Verizon. I have perfect service. I never lose calls. I get service all the way up, down the Northway. I’m a fanatic cell phone user, and so I really don’t know exactly why the need for another tower right there. Additionally, if the tower is going to be up in our end of the road, which is up at, we live at basically a dead end. Our property butts up against the RV Park, Mr. King’s property, actually, and how are they going to gain access to put in this tower from 149 straight up to where they plan to put it because a couple of days after the last month’s hearing, a large truck arrived in front of our house, my house, and in front of their house, and was looking for the project manager to put in this tower. So, none of us are going to give permission for these people to go across our land to put this stuff in. So I’m just curious about a few things, if they can answer these questions. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get those questions answered for you. Thank you. BETSY JUDKINS MRS. JUDKINS-Hi, I’m Betsy Judkins. I live on French Mountain Drive also, we’re assuming right next to where this is going to go in. Earla’s pretty much said the, you know, all of us as neighbors have these same concerns and questions. We’re just basically, you know, wanting to make sure there’s no, it’s not going to be so close on this, I’m not very good at reading the map which they’ve just handed us, so close to, you know, our property lines that it’s going to be like right in our back yard, and as far as it being lighted, I do have a concern about that, when you were bringing up. I understand that planes shouldn’t fly that low, but we do have, especially since we’re near, you know, Lake George, there are recreational planes that fly a lot lower than, you know, your basic FAA or whatever it is, you know, they’re people that have the two seater planes that are in the neighborhood. So it seems that it would be a good possibility that it may be lighted. So that’s another concern that we’d want to have thought about before something like that was okayed, and again, the access to it, you know, whether it’s from down on 149, because where we live is at the end of French Mountain Drive, which is not a huge distance from 149, but is all the construction for this going to come from 149, is basically a question. GABRIELLE WARREN MRS. WARREN-My name is Gabrielle Warren, and I have the same concern as they do, and our property is across the street from, on the east side of French Mountain Drive, which wouldn’t be very far from the location, and I am more concerned about the radiation and also the devaluation of our property. I don’t think too many people like to buy a house that’s near a tower. So, that’s my concern. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Thank you very much, ladies. Anyone else? DAVID KING 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. KING-Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. Again, my name is David King. I’m the General Manager and Vice President of Lake George RV Park Incorporated at State Route 149, directly across from the SBA site for the proposed tower. Now that everyone’s had a chance to review public comment since last month’s public hearing, and when it opened, little has changed, in my opinion, in relation to the scope of the project and how it will have a very negative effect, possibly, on the character of that corridor. I think the comments we just heard prior to me, from residents on French Mountain, is that it’s always been a rural location. It’s always had a country setting, a mountain setting. These three acre residential properties that are zoned in our Town as three acre residential properties, we have allowed through our Zoning Board of Appeals a light commercial, industrial commercial application in an area that has always been very rural and residential in nature, with the exception of a tourist commercial property across the street, the Lake George RV Park, which again has worked very hard, diligently for 35 years to maintain a rural and natural setting for the business to operate in. It’s crucial to our success as an RV Park, rated in the top 100 Parks in the Country for the last 35 years to maintain that character, and there’s no question that the construction of the tower, whether it be 160 feet tall, 100 feet tall or 200 feet tall, will certainly change the character of that area. We forget about looking down from the Mountain. The Park owns 330 acres on the Mountain itself. We own everything you can see, when you look north from the Park towards French Mountain. We have not done anything to change the character of the Mountain since we’ve owned it in the early 60’s, purposely because that is the first mountain you see as you approach the Adirondack Park. It is, in essence, sets the tone for the Adirondack experience for the millions of visitors that come to our area each year, including the over 16,000 families that visit the Lake George RV Park each year. So, obviously, it is in the best interest of these customers that I am here again tonight to plead to this Board that you do not in haste make decisions to allow such an application in what has always been a very rural setting. What you do today, in approving such as tower to be constructed, will forever change the character of this area. It will change the property values of the residential homes near it. It will encourage other people to use these properties proposed to the Town, the use of the properties for other purposes that it is not zoned for. We should not use the Federal Communications Act of 1996 to allow us to completely obliterate all of our zoning, all of our master planning that we’ve worked so hard, as residents in this Town, to put together over the last many decades. So it has long lasting effects. The same tower could be constructed in the other places within the vicinity of this location, to provide the same or better coverage for cell phone users in that corridor, and not have the same effect on the property owners and the businesses on the 149 corridor. I also, too, am very concerned about the long lasting health effects on the residents in this area. I plan to work there the rest of my living life, on that property. I spend 20 hours a day there. We do not know, really, what the long term effects are of the towers and the people that live under them. You can look on the website, or on the Internet, rather, and find numerous websites that are dedicated to community groups, watch groups, so to speak, that are also concerned about this in much more developed areas of the Country, suburbs of metropolitan areas, where they’ve been dealing with this situation for many prior to us. It’s new to the North Country and Queensbury for us to be dealing with these issues. Again, in hindsight, the Federal guidelines that allow these towers to be constructed and the emission levels that are allowable, I know this tower is going to meet all those Federal requirements. However, it will take years before long term studies will be completed to know if there are any negative effects on the health of human beings that lie under the towers, and obviously, in addition to my staff of 60 people who are employed in our Park in the summer, we also have 1500 guests daily in that facility who would also be under the eye of the tower. So, again, perhaps they’ve chosen this rural location, this setting where there are not many year round residents under the tower because perhaps they too are concerned about the long lasting effects on the people that live under it. So, I’m here again to reiterate simply that I believe the construction of the tower has hastily been positioned in this location because the company is very, very motivated to get the tower up as soon as possible. I, too, witnessed the presence of the Northeast Boring Company’s truck, a large commercial boring vehicle that bores through rock to construct, I assume, to either do testing in preparation for foundations or the like. It was on the property. There has been no permits issued. I spoke to Craig Brown, the Monday after I sighted the vehicle at the property. I believe he went to the property to view whether there was any construction being performed, but whether or not, it is just absolutely uncontemplatable, in my mind, that someone that has so much at stake and has spent so many months here in the Town trying to pursue a permit to construct such a tower would be, to put it bluntly, so unprofessional and uncourteous to the neighbors to actually pursue advanced construction endeavors on a property where no permits have been issued, no permission has been allowed by the Town. We’ve been there 35 years on 100 acre parcels on tourist commercial. We go right by the book. We always have, and I believe in zoning and planning, and in following the rules that the Town has outlined, and I am concerned, now, not only if the tower is constructed, but the nature of the company that is constructing it. If they are going to be so blatantly disregarding of the rules, what kind of neighbors are they going to be, if they are the ones that have a 50 year renewable lease across the street from the Park? I am also concerned, too, about the management that they may bring with them. Certainly, when they make presentations here to the Boards of the Town, it’s always done very professionally, but I do not know, really, what the experience has been. They’re a Fortune 500 company, all of that, but on a small scale, for a company that’s going to simply lease a piece of property, that isn’t willing to make an investment and purchase a piece of property in our 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) Town, it seems like they’re making a very limited commitment here that can have a lot of negative effects on the character and the people in this community. So, enough said. I am just very concerned, again, that enough consideration has not been given to alternate sites, and now they are, have lost a great deal of time pursuing only one site, and they are very, very motivated to make it happen, and I believe we could have avoided this situation, had alternate sites been pursued earlier, during the zoning appeals process. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? DONALD MILNE MR. MILNE-Donald Milne, 25 Fitzgerald Road, Queensbury. I represent the Glen Lake Protective Association. We’re opposed to this on aesthetic and visual grounds. It will be viewed from the lake. Instead of viewing French Mountain, we’ll see the tower in front of it, and we’d like to see our beautiful Adirondack views. On a more interesting note, listening to the give and take here, maybe the Northway would be safer if people weren’t using their cell phones and paying attention to their driving. So, maybe a little gap is not so bad. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? ANNA FOWLER MS. FOWLER-Hi. I’m Anna Fowler. I’m from Ash Drive, on Glen Lake, and I’m also involved with the Lake Association, and I would not want to see a tower up on top of that Mountain. I do not, personally, live on the side of the lake where you have the view of French Mountain. Many people do have a view from their houses of French Mountain, but I go out on a boat on the lake in order to get that view, and many of us do. It’s very special, and I think it would be a shame to change that, and to take away the wildness of that Mountain. I, unfortunately, was not here for the entire presentation, but I did hear about painting the tower green. I have seen some pictures, and I assume that you have also, of where the tower actually looks more like a tree shape. You’ve seen that also. So I just wanted to make sure you had also, that it looks like a giant pine tree, or whatever, but I would prefer not to have any tower there at all. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. For the time being, I’ll leave the public hearing open. MR. LAPPER-Well, first of all, Mr. King, who I have a lot of respect for the way he runs his facility, made an assumption that there was some construction going on before approval, and then he went on for a few minutes talking about how that would negatively characterize the ethics of the corporation of the applicant, if you will, and that was just an unnecessary and unfair discussion, because the truck that was on the site was doing soil borings to test for environmental contamination in the soil. It was not a construction. It was just a typical site inspection, for anyone who’s got a site under contract. So, there’s no construction. I had not heard about this. Certainly, Craig would have called me, Craig Brown, if there was an issue, and as Mr. King said, which I’m not aware of, Craig apparently went up to the site, took a look, and there was no issue, and we never heard of anything, and you never heard of anything. So that, there’s just no issue there, but that’s a serious allegation, if that were true, and that shouldn’t be in the record. That’s not the character of the company. We’ve gone through a very lengthy process, I think three meetings, at least, at the Zoning Board, and just in terms of the visual issues, the coverage area is in that part of Town, and we think that this is the best site to minimize the visual impact. If you put it on Route 9, you could say, hey, that’s a commercial zone rather than a residential zone. There are no trees. It’s like the towers at Exit 18 on the Northway. You see them, top to bottom, as you’d see 190 feet, the whole thing, much less attractive than where we picked it. If you put it on top of the Mountain, where you drive up the thru way through the Catskills, you see towers on top of the mountains, you see, when you look at the horizon, you see the top of the mountain and then you see the towers. I believe that that’s more of a visual impact than when you look at the side of the mountain and it blends in with the trees, and certainly you’ve got the 80 feet of the trees covering the base, but because of the Zoning Board, and we went through a very, very detailed hearing at the Zoning Board, before they approved this. They also are aware that Mr. King runs a quality outfit, and they wanted to see what the impact would be from his property, and they asked us to go on the site with a photographer and take pictures. I don’t know if the entire ZBA submission was given to you when we submitted, but I’ll just pass this around. These are the actual visual simulations from various locations of their property, and certainly one of the comments of the members of the Zoning Board, a few of them, in approving this, was that. MR. MAC EWAN-We have those, Jon. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we have these, Jon. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. LAPPER-That the RV Park was developed property, it’s not undeveloped, and that if they didn’t, they just didn’t see that this was a big deal, visually, and they thought it was a fair compromise, and that’s all we’re asking you for. This is, cell towers, telecommunication towers, are a part of life, and we think that this was sited in an appropriate location. The access for construction, the site plan, shows the access for construction is from 149. It’s not through any of the French Mountain Drive parcels. In terms of the radiation issue, that’s something that’s been very well documented, and it’s part of Federal law. This tower is underneath the threshold. MR. NEWELL-I think you’re familiar with the FCC’s handbook guide to local municipalities concerning RF emissions. There’s a form, Appendix A, that you can fill out there. We’ve done that, and when you get to like Number 16, it says if you can qualify for the next five steps, five items, you’re categorically excluded from basically the threshold or continuing on with the analysis of how many feet are you exactly away from these type of applications, and we submitted that, and this site, with all the carriers, is categorically excluded. It’s way below the threshold. I mean, understand microwave frequencies, digital and cellular technology has been around a lot longer than we think. We know that cell phones and their popularity is relatively new, but these frequencies were the radio frequencies that were once used for transmitting television, when you used to have the rabbit ears sticking off the top of your t.v. right in your own living room. Those frequencies, Channels 1 through 60, were the ones that were auctioned off by the FCC to use for personal communications. Concerns over health risks with cell phones close to your head, you know, obviously the distance between that antenna and your head is nothing that we’re discussing here with a tower that’s 250 feet in the air, well below thresholds, again, not a single proven fact or any kind of studies that have suggested that they’re of health concern. That’s why the FCC had to make a Federal ruling. Otherwise, municipalities would be completely bogged down trying to analyze the RF emissions from these type of applications, and to suggest that we actually sited this location in a low population because we wanted to effect the least amount of people with the effects of the tower is quite ridiculous. MR. HUNSINGER-Could you comment on the earlier comment about the woman mentioned that she used Verizon. Where is the nearest Verizon tower? MR. NEWELL-I’m not really sure. I’m not a wireless provider. I’m not even sure if we had Cell One, our co-applicant, here tonight, that they could tell you where the nearest Verizon antenna is. There’s a possibility that Verizon has got an adequate coverage based on their site on Route 18 and Prospect Mountain, that her particular antenna, I’m not sure if she’s using analog and she’s got a hard mount, six watt phone, versus a handheld digital, in-house, in-building, versus, you know, if you’re shopping, obviously, at one of the stores, I know you don’t have coverage. It’s a matter of conditions. She may have made a phone call and not had a call drop. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments? MR. NEWELL-I had one more response to the idea of the commitment, that we didn’t buy property here. We do have a long term lease situation there. The commitment to the site is on those five year terms. It’s for the very simple reason that technology is a changing world, and thus the reason why we’ve placed a $50,000 removal bond for this tower, because, if we ever do figure out a way to shoot this off from the moon or from satellite systems, and this is no longer needed, this tower’s coming down, and that may happen in ten years from now or twenty years from now, and if SBA were to go bankrupt because of that change, this tower still is bonded to come down, and then obviously we don’t want to own land there. We would want to have no land interest and removing that tower. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll entertain some discussion. What’s the pleasure of the Board? MR. RINGER-You’ve still got the public hearing open, too. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I know. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve just been doing some looking. For example, taking a look at a 160 foot tower versus the 195 foot tower. The 195 foot tower on your plot puts the lowest antenna down at about 128 feet. A 160 foot tower puts the lowest antenna down at about 90 feet, the way my calculations show. Ninety feet would probably put you in a minus ninety db sensitivity situation. Is that the way I read that? MR. NEWELL-Depending on where you’re standing in that radius, I’m sure there are 90 areas within there at 100 feet. I’m not real positive. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I guess what I’m trying to determine is the tradeoff, in my mind, whether a 160 foot antenna precludes the use of five, four residents, including yourself, and what’s the degree that it precludes it? That’s what I’m trying to, in my mind, I have my own views on the view shed, sitting here listening to what people are coming up with, but I’m trying to see whether or not we can 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) get by with a 160 foot antenna and still get a fairly high probability of five more residents, or four more residents on the antenna. What I’m trying to do is preserve the co-location requirement in the Code. MR. NEWELL-All I know is SBC’s requirement, as the co-applicant, is at 190 feet. They’re not going to even proceed with this application. MR. VOLLARO-That’s where your antenna would be, at 190? MR. NEWELL-Well, not ours, but SBC’s, the co-applicant, yes. MR. VOLLARO-That’s where their antenna would reside, at the 195 foot level, or somewhat just below that. MR. NEWELL-That’s right, and I can only tell you that in the industry, when you discuss towers that are certainly, when you’ve got a tower that’s in a tree area where you’ve got 70 and 80 foot trees, that if you talk to some of our clients and you say, look, I’ve got 120 mounting spot, there’s just no interest, and we’re generally always discussing heights between 160 and 250 or 300 feet for mounting elevations. It just makes the site suitable. MR. VOLLARO-I guess you’ve answered my question. In your view, the probability at 160 feet of getting four more residents is low. MR. NEWELL-Yes, I’d say very low. I also, at the last meeting, public hearing, there was a gentleman here from the opposite side of Glen Lake who expressed concerns about the visual impact. He’s not here tonight, but other residents showed up with that same concern. So, expecting that that may happen, I went and did visual simulations from that side of the lake looking back at French Mountain. I produced enough copies for everyone. Unfortunately, the copier produced a black and white copy for the second photograph, but generally from the first, being color, they’re only taken from different sides. One is taken from, I think it’s called North Road or something, Fitzgerald Road, and the other one is taken from Hall Road area. So I just took two different photographs and had them plot those on, taking my elevation and where the elevation of the tower is. So you could get a pretty good idea. Again, they had to use filters to increase the site. So you could see the guyed wires, but generally you’ll see about how high and what they can expect to see. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you again reiterate, I think I missed what you were saying, where you were referencing your 195 foot height, that if you didn’t get the 195 foot height, you would lose potential for customers to lease space? Is that what you said? MR. NEWELL-What I just said to you a minute ago? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. NEWELL-I know that when we took the deal with Cell One, concerning the photographs, the earlier photographs were taken from the Lake George RV Park. Those are standing, you can see Photographs Number Five, Six and Seven, but now we’re looking at photographs taken from plots marked as Number Eight and Number Nine, and the first one is Number Nine. That’s from Fitzgerald. It’s standing basically at the lakeside, looking back at the tower, and you can see a before and after. You start to see the very top of the tower sticking out, not above the mountain line, but barely above the second row of tree line. MR. MAC EWAN-How much accuracy can actually be put into these generated drawings? MR. NEWELL-Well, it’s a specialized program just for this use that engineering firms have taken on that do a lot of tower work. They’re as accurate as I believe anything can be. They used to do what they called balloon tests, where they just take some balloons, attach them and float them up 200 feet or whatever the tower height was, and then take some photographs to give you an idea of that, but, you know, wind conditions and things like that, it really didn’t give you an idea what you’d really be looking at. So they developed this type of technology that, given elevations of where you’re standing, which is done with. MR. MAC EWAN-How did you come up with the elevation of where you were at? MR. NEWELL-Well, using a topographical, topo map program, software program, I can put an “X” at exactly where I’m standing. When you’re standing lakeside, you know, based on these maps, the elevation, the AMSL, at any location in the Country. I use these programs all the time. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Shane, I know the programs are reliable, but what I don’t understand is, after I look at this, now I am totally confused. I thought the tower was on French Mountain. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. NEWELL-It’s not on the top of French Mountain. It’s on the base. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I mean, I thought it was not exactly on the base, but on the side. MR. LAPPER-It depends on where you’re looking from, Cathy, in this picture. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because this, if you’re standing, I’m trying to think, I wish I knew exactly where you were. Is the Docksider Restaurant exactly across from here, on this, in this photograph? MR. NEWELL-I’m not really sure where the Docksider is. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because this isn’t really obstructing the big part of the Mountain at all. MR. LAPPER-If you looked from the right side of that photo to the left side of the photo, do you see where the Mountain starts to climb, on the left side of the photo? You just don’t see it from this place on the lake, but if you were looking from the right side of the photo to the left side of the photo, you’d see French Mountain behind you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I thought French Mountain was this big mountain right here? MR. LAPPER-It’s not. MR. NEWELL-It is. Sure, she’s right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Sure it is. I’ve been on that side of the lake all the time, and this mountain is just like one big, beautiful mountain, and then this, where you have this tower, it’s nowhere near the mountain. MR. NEWELL-Well, if you look at the other photographs that we first submitted, standing on Route 9 and 149 in the travel corridor, I-87, it is at the base of the Mountain, it appears, but as soon as you start moving off onto this west side of the lake and look back at it this way, all of a sudden, and you’ll see, on the very first page of the mapping program, where 9 is, when you’re looking at the tower, you completely miss the Mountain. The elevations begin, you can see up at the very top of the page, at 1,000 feet. That tower is missed. So it’s not really, from that view, it doesn’t appear to be at the base of the Mountain. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess the thing that I’m, personally, that I’m hung up on right now is that I look at your two comparisons between 195 foot and 130 foot height, and from what your plots show, there’s virtually no difference in coverage. MR. LAPPER-And the answer is just that, it will lose calls on the Northway. It’s not a large area, but. MR. MAC EWAN-But your plots show me there’s virtually no difference in the coverage. MR. NEWELL-Between 130 and. MR. MAC EWAN-Between your 130 foot, between this one labeled Queensbury Proposed 130 foot, and this one here, Queensbury, 195 foot. MR. LAPPER-One thirty is the lowest at which it works. MR. MAC EWAN-One thirty is the lowest, right. MR. LAPPER-If you go beneath 130, they need from 130 to 190. MR. MAC EWAN-This would be a tower at 130 foot, the lowest would be the maximum height of a tower of 160 feet, roughly, 167 feet. MR. LAPPER-One hundred and thirty lowest is one hundred and sixty-five. MR. MAC EWAN-One hundred and sixty-five. Right. MR. LAPPER-I’m sorry, 128 to 195 was what he showed to get everybody on there. MR. NEWELL-That’s right. The sketch that I drew shows 128. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t care about your sketch. I’m talking about the plots. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. NEWELL-Okay, but the plots show. MR. MAC EWAN-What is this plot for? How high is that tower? MR. NEWELL-One hundred and ninety-five feet. What’s it say on there? MR. MAC EWAN-How high is this tower? MR. LAPPER-One hundred and ninety-five. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the purpose of giving us two different plots then? MR. LAPPER-The bottom of the tower, where the bottom antenna to the top antenna. They all have to work. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that accurate, Shane? MR. NEWELL-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Somebody speak to me with accuracy, then. MR. NEWELL-The number that you see on the right hand side, where it says 130 feet, is where the mounting height of that propagation would be at. If they mounted the antenna at 130 feet, that’s what you can expect to happen. MR. LAPPER-And that would be the bottom antenna. MR. NEWELL-That’s right. Because if you had the top guy at 130, then you’ve got to start working your way down, you’re going to be down to a tower that’s about 70 feet. MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. Now you guys are not agreeing with each other. Is this 130 foot height that you have on here right now, is that the maximum height of this tower and this coverage that it’s showing? MR. LAPPER-That’s not the maximum height. It’s the bottom of the tower. MR. MAC EWAN-Jon, let him answer, please. MR. NEWELL-Yes, that would be what the bottom carrier would get of 190 foot tower, 195 foot tower. MR. MAC EWAN-So both of these are based on a 195 foot high tower, with that being the highest positioned antenna, that being the lowest positioned antenna? MR. NEWELL-That’s exactly right. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have plots showing us what a shorter tower would show for coverage? MR. NEWELL-I’ve submitted at 100 foot. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I’m trying to get to. MR. NEWELL-They first asked us for 10 foot increments coming down from the 200 foot. So we did all those, and then they said, well, they don’t change, and we said, well, they’re not supposed to change, and then they said, well, give us something at 100 feet. Then they asked for the one that’s in between. So I think the 100 foot propagation report came with the very first set. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t have it. Do you have it, the 100 foot? You picked them up off the table earlier tonight, you took them with you. MR. NEWELL-I’m going to give you. MR. MAC EWAN-Give us ours back that are marked, the 100 and the 130 foot, those are the two. Now, this one marked 160, that’s the tower that has a maximum height of 195 feet? MR. NEWELL-With a mounting at 160. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the maximum height of this tower? 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. NEWELL-One hundred and ninety-five feet. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I asked. This tower would be how tall, it says 100 foot. MR. VOLLARO-One hundred and ninety-five. They’re all 195. MR. MAC EWAN-No, no it’s not. This is the shorter one. That’s what I want him to tell me. MR. NEWELL-About 167. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. That’s the difference between a tall tower and a short tower. Right? And there’s very little difference in the coverage. MR. LAPPER-There’s difference. MR. MAC EWAN-There is difference. The question is, is the difference significant enough to justify having a 195 foot high tower. That’s the question. Is everybody with me on that? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I am. There’s 28 feet difference. MR. LAPPER-Right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That would make a big difference. MR. LAPPER-I want to just show Cathy, just so we’re clear, just in terms of where it is in respect to the Mountain. If you’re looking from Route 9. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, I understand. It’s just that, I guess I expected to see something different from this view here. Make sure that you address the concerns of those three women that came up, exactly where this tower is. I think they should get an idea of what these pictures look like. It might alleviate some of their concerns. MR. NEWELL-We gave them a copy of the photograph simulation. MRS. LA BOMBARD-They have this? MR. NEWELL-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s 195 versus 166. MR. LAPPER-As it relates to, French Mountain Drive is on the, I showed them the location. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So they have an idea where it’s located. Okay. I’m looking for some direction from fellow Board members here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I think, Craig, if this thing can work at a height that is 20 to 30 feet less, then I think that’s what we have to go for. If it can’t, I think that this technology issue is going to be with us for the duration of our time on the Board. I mean, it’s going to keep coming. I mean, there’s nothing that you can, technology keeps advancing, and projects keep coming in front of us, and this is just going to be the first of what we have to look for in the future, and I think if how we deal with this is going to set the tone for how we’re going to deal with the next applicant that comes in, whether it be a high tower or whether it be something else that has to do with technology, and I think we’re sometimes caught between a rock and a hard place with this. MR. LAPPER-Remember, the goal is just that this would be the only tower in that part of Town. So you’re not going to have to deal with this all the time. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So that’s the way I feel. Again, though, if the thing can work at any kind of a lower elevation, I think we have to go with that. If it can’t, then, what can you do? MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the logic for five carriers? What if it were only four? MR. LAPPER-The Zoning Code. So that there’s not another tower, and that’s how many carriers there are. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. MR. NEWELL-It might be fewer. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. LAPPER-It might be fewer, but the 167 that we’re talking about, Shane has real concern that we won’t even get the top carrier on at 167, that they won’t take it. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I think we should be very careful with approving a shorter tower, just for the fact that if you have somebody coming back next year, we’re going to go through this whole thing again, and now you’re going to have two towers. It would be so ineffective to approve a shorter tower if it’s not going to work. I mean, don’t approve it at all, or approve it at the height that they need to have it done so we have one tower, but to say 165 feet, and have one carrier on there, and everybody else is going to be, you know, down your throat next year saying, we need our tower, too. You gave them one last year. Now, we’re in trouble. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I said that, basically. The lowest you can go to get the effect. MR. RINGER-I don’t think the concern of the neighbors is the height of the tower as much as the tower is actually there, and I really feel that with all the information they’ve given us, they’re the experts on this, and if 195 is what they feel they need, either we find experts to challenge that, or we go with their expertise, and I don’t see a big difference, if we’re going to approve it at this location, if we approve it at the 190 or 165. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m of the same view. I think that 195 is required to get the coverage they need for five installations, then that’s what it’s got to be, and if we’ve got a problem with the tower at all, then we reject the tower in its entirety, but I don’t think we can sit here and start to trade off on 165, 170, or anything like that. They’ve asked for 195. I think in my view, what the 195 does is preserve the Code. That’s what I’m concerned about. I’m concerned about the same thing that Tony is, that we don’t get somebody coming in, a year from now, saying we can’t use that 160 foot antenna of yours. We need a brand new one. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ve got some sense of where I think we’re going. All right. I’ll close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. Is it Long or Short Form? MR. VOLLARO-Long. MRS. MOORE-It’s Long Form. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Are you ready? MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. “Impact on Land Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?” MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Small to moderate, potentially large, can impact be mitigated by the project change? MR. SCHACHNER-First you have to pick your impact before you go. MR. VOLLARO-Small to moderate. MR. MAC EWAN-Small to moderate. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, what is the impact going to be? MR. SCHACHNER-That’s what I’m asking. You have to first identify your impact before you qualify or quantify its magnitude. MR. RINGER-Reading the examples, it would not have, if you read the examples that they give, it would not have an impact. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, but it says other impacts, that you can put your own in. MR. SCHACHNER-That is correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Read the question again. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?” MR. VOLLARO-And we said yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, but before you quantify the magnitude of the impact, whether it’s small to moderate or potentially large. MRS. LA BOMBARD-We have to identify what it is. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. Cathy’s correct. You need to identify what is the impact on land. You have a list of bullet items that are examples, but again Cathy’s correct. If you feel that the impact is not one of the bullet items, then you should fill in, under “Other”, what you think the impact will be. Not it’s magnitude, what it should be. MR. MAC EWAN-Read your list. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. I’ll read a couple of the bullet items, just to give you an idea here, “Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10% Construction on land where the depth to water table is less than three feet Construction of a paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles” Okay. So none of, there’s nothing itemized here that describes what’s going on with this project, but there is a provision, “Other Impacts”. Can we fill it in? So what is the impact? There’s probably a visual impact, right? MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. If it’s a visual impact, then you may want to wait until one of the later questions, which I think relates to that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It does. Yes, okay. So, maybe this isn’t impact on land, because it’s not doing anything to the land, per se. I mean, it’s not doing anything to the groundwater or flood control or erosion or anything like that. So let’s move on. MR. MAC EWAN-What did you say about slopes greater than 10%, because it’s going to be built on a slope of greater than 10%. MR. RINGER-Fifteen percent. MR. VOLLARO-Fifteen. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It says on slopes of 15% or greater, 15 foot rise per 100. Okay. Let’s go on. MR. SCHACHNER-So how would you answer Question Number One? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Does everyone agree with that? MR. RINGER-I agree. MR. METIVIER-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Aesthetic resources Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources?” Well, I think that’s where we are, that’s where we’re going right here. MR. VOLLARO-Aesthetic resources? Say that again? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, aesthetic, the beauty. Yes, I would say yes. It says here for the bullets, “Proposed Land uses or components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether manmade or natural Proposed Land Uses or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic quality of that resource” That’s it right there. Or “Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area.” MR. VOLLARO-That, too. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it doesn’t really screen it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, but it eliminates it. There is some kind of a, there’s an impact. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s an impact. The question is how much of an impact. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. So those two, small to moderate, large, can it be mitigated by the project, by a change in the project? MRS. MOORE-Can I, before you do that, which items that were in the bulleted? MRS. LA BOMBARD-We picked the second and the third bullet. MR. METIVIER-I just don’t feel, though, that in either case, it’s a significant impact, and I think significant is a key word there. It is an impact. MR. STROUGH-I disagree, because of the nature of the area that it is located, adjacent to the Adirondack Park and adjacent to some of the natural resources, and the whole concept of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for that corridor, I think that this is a significant visual impact. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So you’d say it’s potentially large? MR. STROUGH-I think so. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s poll the Board. John, you say it’s large? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-What are the other choices? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Small to moderate. MR. HUNSINGER-I think it’s small to moderate. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think it’s small to moderate. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Small to moderate. MR. RINGER-Small to moderate. MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t need to go any farther. It’s small to moderate. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right, but it’s still an impact. Can it be mitigated by project change, though? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what we’ve been kicking around. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what. MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve either got a yes or a no answer. MR. STROUGH-It can be mitigated by project change. I suggested the change to begin with, originally, a shorter tower and a tree type. MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re saying, yes, it can be mitigated. Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I’m going to say, no. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’d say it can be mitigated by project change, in the respect of a shorter tower and a tree type, if that works for the applicant, but I’m not an engineer, and the applicant says that, 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) basically, that’s not going to work because of the kind of environment and the weather we have here in the wintertime, and because of, they need a higher tower to put in the five companies. MR. MAC EWAN-So are you undecided? Yes or no is the choice here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So, it can’t be mitigated because you can’t change the project. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why I said no. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, the short answer is no, it can’t be mitigated. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No is also. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s our four. MR. RINGER-What about Tony? MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t need to go any further. There’s a majority right there. I don’t think it can be mitigated either. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. MR. RINGER-We’ve tried to mitigate it and we haven’t been able to. MR. HUNSINGER-We can’t. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you could mitigate it mechanically, but you can’t mitigate it electrically. That’s part of the problem. This is not just a mechanical. It’s a mix of the two. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. If you make it smaller and it doesn’t work, then what good is it? Just like Anthony said. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We answered that one. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Do I go on? How can I go on? MR. MAC EWAN-Guidance? MR. SCHACHNER-You just qualified and quantified the first bullet item, correct? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, the second one. MR. SCHACHNER-The first one that you checked off, meaning the second. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, “Proposed land uses or project components” MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. So now you have to do the same exercise with the third bullet item, which is the second bullet item that you checked. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I thought we were doing them both together. The second one is, “Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area”, and I’d say, again, that’s small to moderate. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think it significantly screens the vista. It’s certainly there. That’s what our concern is. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But it’s got elimination or screening. MR. VOLLARO-A tower like that, as set to the backdrop of a mountain, certainly doesn’t eliminate that vista. MR. MAC EWAN-If screening is defined in this form as totally obliterating your view, no, it doesn’t. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Then that isn’t an impact, then. Then we don’t need to say that’s an impact. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, we’ll start with you this time. MR. METIVIER-Well, it does not screen, but it doesn’t add to the, but, no, it doesn’t screen it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RINGER-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, it doesn’t screen or significantly eliminate, right. So we just have the one. MR. STROUGH-It ruins the view, but it doesn’t screen it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So, really, Laura, we only have the second bullet that we’ve addressed. MR. MAC EWAN-Move on. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Public Health Will proposed action effect public health and safety?” MR. RINGER-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, now, wait a minute, here. All right. We did talk about people having concerns about radiation emanating from it, but, I don’t know. I’ve done some research on that. MR. VOLLARO-Ninety-five watts is what their effective radiated power is. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’d have to just about be sitting on top of it in order to. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, the effect of that, I believe, is the inverse of the square of the distance. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, exactly. MR. MAC EWAN-And it’s well below the Federal guidelines. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, you don’t have to walk too far away to have it almost negligible. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. “Growth and character of community or neighborhood Will proposed action effect the character of the existing community?” MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t believe so. MR. MAC EWAN-What are some examples. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Here’s some examples. “The permanent population of the city or town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%?” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals The action will cause a change in the density of land use The action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community Development will create a demand for additional community services It will set an important precedent for future projects It will create or eliminate employment, or anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. STROUGH-Don’t you think it does? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think it does effect the character. I mean, we’ve heard from Mr. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re talking about from an aesthetic standpoint, which we’ve already hit in the previous section. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but like a rural community, as we’ve been hearing from the people out here. It’s rural, I mean, and all of a sudden you’ve got this tower in the middle of a rural. MR. MAC EWAN-Which is aesthetics, which we’ve already discussed. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But that has to do with character of the community. MR. VOLLARO-Well, take it to the next step, then, Cathy. Is it low or medium? MR. STROUGH-Well, do you think it’s in synch with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and what it proposes for this Board? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know what, I don’t even know that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan talks to telecommunication towers yet, does it? MR. STROUGH-It talks about it in general. It talks about the character of the 149 corridor. MR. VOLLARO-Look. There is going to be a slight modification to the character of that particular portion of the community. There isn’t any question about that, because you’re putting something there that’s not there now, but the magnitude of that effect is, I think, what we’re wrestling with here, and I view the magnitude of that effect rather large, personally. That’s my statement. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, yes. You can say it’s a very small impact, but it is one, when you start reading this, and when you think about what the SEQRA actually identifies and brings to our attention, then you really have to answer it honestly. MR. VOLLARO-Well, suppose we say yes to that. What’s the next, what do you do then? MR. SCHACHNER-The next step is identify the impact. Before you characterize its magnitude, you have to identify the impact. If you answer yes to the question, “Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community?”, you then have to identify in what way, what impact. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The impact I would think would be the fact that a tower is being put up in what was a rural, wooded type of community. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. That’s fine. I’m just saying that the next, somebody said what the next step would be, would be to classify it as small to moderate or not. I’m just pointing out that’s not the case. The next step is identify the impact. If you identify the impact the way you’ve just described it, then that would likely go under “other impacts”. Then, after you do that, you would identify the magnitude of it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s small, small magnitude, I feel. MR. SCHACHNER-Take it a step at a time. First see if you agree that there’s an impact. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy’s put it on the table that the impact is going to be the location of a cell tower in a very rural portion of the Town. Are we agreed on that? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is that small to moderate or large impact? MR. VOLLARO-I’d say it’s small. MR. RINGER-Small to moderate, I agree. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I say it’s small also. MR. MAC EWAN-There you have it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. “Is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential environmental impacts?” MR. VOLLARO-The answer obvious from tonight is yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, right. Good. We answered that right. There you go. So, I can’t make any motion for any negative dec because we had a couple of positive things here. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. SCHACHNER-Not so, because none of them have been identified as potentially large. If you wish to, you can make a motion for a negative declaration. It’s only if any of the potential impacts h have been identified as potentially large that you have to continue on to Part III and evaluate them. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 58-2000, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: SBA, INC. & SOUTHWESTERN BELL CORP., and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 19 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Strough MR. MAC EWAN-Before we entertain a motion, Zoning Ordinance is 179-73? MR. SCHACHNER-Point 1. MR. MAC EWAN-Point 1. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I didn’t mean to interrupt you, unless maybe you’re in 73. I’m in 73. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know, maybe I’ve got an old issue. Maybe my issue’s not been updated yet. MR. VOLLARO-Mine has. MR. SCHACHNER-The Section on Telecommunications Towers is 179-73.1. MR. MAC EWAN-Then mine hasn’t been updated. Wow, I’ve got an old copy. MR. SCHACHNER-If you’re looking at 73, it’s going to say something about satellite receiving antennas. MR. MAC EWAN-That was exactly what I was going to ask you. Everything I’ve got is residential. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. You’re in the next Section, 179-73.1, which is the specific. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, I’d like a new copy of the Ordinance book, please. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. What is it? I have, satellite receiving antennas. Is that what you have, Craig? MR. SCHACHNER-The one right after it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Yes, I’m looking at a whole new Section that I don’t have. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t have it either. MR. MAC EWAN-Mrs. LaBombard would like a new copy of the Ordinance, too. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s because we’ve been here longer than anybody. We still have the ones that are six years old. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-You have the Section, I gather, just not in your book. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t have, I’m looking in Bob’s book. I’m looking at it now though, yes. Okay. My question’s been answered. All right. Does someone want to introduce a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 58-2000 SBA, INC. & SOUTHWESTERN BELL CORP., Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 58-2000, SBA, Inc. & Southwestern Bell Corp., for placement of a 195 ft. tall wireless tower on an 8/74 acre parcel. In accordance with Section 179-73.1 Telecommunication Equipment installation requires Planning Board review and approval. Tax Map No. 30-1-51. Cross Reference Use Var. 30-2000, and; WHEREAS, the application received 6/29/00 consists of the following: 1. Application materials as outlined in the Official File WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: . 9/19/00 Staff Notes 9/11/00 Eng. Review comments 9/8/00 J. Lapper from L. Moore 9/7/00 Meeting Notice 9/5/00 Note to File 9/5/00 J. Edwards from L. Moore 8/23/00 Rec’d. – FCC publication dated 6/2/00 8/22/00 Planning Board resolution – tabled 8/21/00 Record of Telephone Conversation 8/17/00 Picture of example of cell tower alternatives 8/16/00 Picture of Boom Test in Kinderhook 8/15/00 Staff Notes include 8/11 CT Male comment, Justification of Height Memo rec’d 8/4/00 8/14/00 Fax of staff notes to K. Hastings, J. Lapper 8/15/00 S. Newell from L. Tarbox responding to CT Male comments of 8/11/00 8/14/00 TB from T. O’Donnell 8/11/00 CT Male comments 8/11/00 J. Edwards from L. Moore 8/10/00 Property owner from T. O’Donnell 8/9/00 Warren Co. Planning Board recommendation – approved 8/8/00 Notice of Public Hearing 8/2/00 Post Star article 8/2/00 Meeting Letter 7/28/00 J. Edwards from C. Round – transmittal of applications for eng. review 7/5/00 J. Lapper from L. Moore 7/5/00 Review of application by LM Undated Press Release addressing customer concerns about health effects 43 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) 5/17/00 Comment from UV file – J. Dufresne 4/12/00 Evaluation for SBA Towers – ASAC study WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 8/15/00 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); 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; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT The application is approved and is subject to the following conditions: 1. In accordance with the resolution that’s been prepared by Staff with the following conditions: a) Landscaping must be installed and maintained as shown on the accepted final site plan; and b) Upon abandonment, the SBA, Inc./Southwestern Bell Corp. will remove the tower and that removal will be paid for by a bond that has been previously posted;, and c) An engineering statement indicating that the tower is structurally sound will be provided prior to a building permit being issued for the construction of same; and d) Each future tenant on the tower shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Board and obtain Town Engineer sign-off. e) A six-foot chain link fence with an additional one-foot of barbed wire fence will enclose the site; and f) As per Drawing No. C-2 the guy tower is to be gray in color and the equipment buildings are to have an earth-tone façade; and g) The additional driveway slope is to be at a grade no greater than 10%. Duly adopted this 19 day of September 2000 by the following vote: th MR. VOLLARO-And the motion is made in accordance with the resolution that’s been prepared by Staff, and there’s conditions on the prepared motion, and those conditions should stay. MR. RINGER-See the words “must be professionally installed and maintained”, we’ve been crossing that off. I didn’t know, if you were making the motion. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The motion will be the conditions attached to the motion will be changed. Condition One, we’re removing the word “professionally” from the first condition, where it says “Landscaping must be professionally installed and maintained as shown on the accepted final site plan”, and we’ve removed the word “professionally”. Other than that, all the statements remain as they are. MR. SCHACHNER-I think you’re going to have to clarify that before you second it, because Condition Five has three words that don’t say anything, and Condition Six has some blanks in it. So if you want to include those conditions, I think you’re going to need to complete them. If you don’t want to include them, then you’re going to need to delete them. MR. VOLLARO-I understand “Upon the abandonment, the”, and I know what should go, I think I know what should go in there. Are they posting a bond that says, in the event this has to be abandoned, that they will pay for it? I think there’s something in here that I remember reading about that. Is that correct? MR. NEWELL-We’ve provided the bond, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Upon abandonment, the SBA, Inc., Southwestern Bell Corporation, will remove the antenna, and that removal will be paid for by a bond that has been previously posted. Number Six, an engineering statement indicating the tower is structurally sound is dated, and did we get one, as a date for that? Has the engineering statement indicated that the tower is structurally 44 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) sound? Now, I think that what that means is if I was going to put an antenna on another tower. Have you come up with engineering data that says this 195 foot tower is structurally sound? MR. LAPPER-We’ve got an engineered site plan, stamped by an engineer. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ve got to deal with the blanks. There are blanks here, and I’ve got to deal with them. I can’t just eliminate them. MR. MAC EWAN-I know that. Laura, what do you mean by Item Six? Is this the administrative thing that you were talking about, that is each new? MRS. MOORE-No, it’s not. It’s under the, he has to have a dated site plan, which I don’t have. I don’t have an engineer’s letter that says that this was for five antennas and it’s structurally sound to accommodate five antennas. You can reference the site plan, if you want to, but I don’t have a letter from the engineer that says, or his engineer that indicates that this has been. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s our review process? Is there a CO issued on these things? MRS. MOORE-What I don’t have in the file is a letter that indicates to me that this tower is structurally sound, other than the sign off by C.T. Male. MR. MAC EWAN-You want it stamped by a P.E., is what you’re looking for then? MRS. MOORE-I don’t have a letter. I have a site plan that’s stamped by a P.E., but if you believe the plans are enough information. MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. Just re-phrase that so it says that at the time that building permit is issued, a certified drawing by a licensed engineer will be submitted with the packet. That’ll cover it. Okay. MR. LAPPER-I think Bob just made one error. He said removal of the antenna, and he meant removal of the tower, for the bond. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, removal of the tower. Okay. We will say an engineering statement indicating that the tower is structurally sound will be provided prior to a building permit being issued for the construction of same. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RINGER-I’ll second it. MR. MAC EWAN-Before we run through the vote, are we square on that, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes, I do understand that. Are you including the last bulleted item that she has under Item Eleven? MR. MAC EWAN-I didn’t see that. Yes. MR. LAPPER-With the Planning Board or the Zoning Administrator? MR. MAC EWAN-It’s my understanding that would be the Zoning Administrator’s call. If he deemed that it should come back in front of the Planning Board, he’ll make that determination. MR. SCHACHNER-If that’s the case, then your condition should say Zoning Administrator or Planning Board. MR. MAC EWAN-And/or Planning Board. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-I will read that again, Item Eleven. Each future tenant on the tower shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Board and obtain a Town engineer’s sign off. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry, do you want to second that? MR. RINGER-I’ll agree with that on the second. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m going to say yes, but wait a second here. I’m going to say yes, and I’m doing this reluctantly, but I’m also doing it in the hopes that, in the future, we’re going to see that 45 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) tower’s going to be out of there, because our engineer’s going to start bouncing these things off satellite’s, like they do in Australia, and hopefully it won’t be there for that long. MR. LAPPER-Here, here. MR. MAC EWAN-No, and I’ll tell you why. I don’t think that you supplied enough supporting documentation for alternate tower designs. I didn’t see enough compelling reasons to justify a 195 foot tower versus 160, and I didn’t think much of an effort was put into more alternate locations, other than where you immediately were on the 149 area. I think you could have put more of an effort into it. Okay. AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro NOES: Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all approved. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. NEWELL-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 57-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED STONE CAST, INC. OWNER: DAVID DYMINSKI ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 39 BOULEVARD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 60’ X 150’ SINGLE STORY LIGHT MANUFACTURING FACILITY AND A 60’ X 65’ FREIGHT TERMINAL BUILDING. LIGHT MANUFACTURING FACILITY AND FREIGHT TERMINAL IN LI ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 9-1989, AV 10-1989, SP 5-89, SP 53-2000 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 8/7/00 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/9/00 TAX MAP NO. 112-1-15.1 LOT SIZE: 2.56 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 KEVIN HASTINGS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing back on August 22 was tabled. nd STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 57-2000, Stone Cast, Inc., Meeting Date: September 19, 2000 “Project Description The application for a light manufacturing facility was tabled at the August 22, 2000 Planning Board meeting. The applicant was requested to address CT Male comments. Project Analysis (Section 179-38) The applicant has submitted revised plans that satisfy Staff comments. The applicant has confirmed the paved surface per resolution 5-89 is 24 feet in width. The revised plan identifies a no-parking area to discourage parking on the septic area and includes elevation drawings of the proposed building. The applicant also has submitted information for a fifty-year storm event and the site’s ability to accommodate the stormwater. The revised information has been forwarded to CT Male for review and comment. Conclusions (Section 179-39) The proposed light industrial use will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts because of the location of the building in reference to the Feeder Canal, the use is a light industrial use, and the enhancement proposed to improve the property. Suggestions Staff had suggested enhancement to the existing Boulevard entrance be provided for better definition to the entrance and suitable maneuverability for delivery trucks. The applicant’s letter of August 21, 2000 indicates improvements to the Boulevard entrance would need to be negotiated with neighboring property owners and Warren County. Staff would suggest the applicant pursue improvements to the entrance.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? You also have some C.T. Male stuff here. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MRS. MOORE-I’m just going to read their last dated letter, which is dated September 19, 2000, addressed to Mr. Round, “We received the re-submittal of the information from the applicant’s engineer, Kevin Hastings, P.E., consisting of a draft cover letter dated September 18, 2000, and letter sized excerpts from the revised plans for the above referenced project. The information contained in this re-submittal addresses all the comments made in our most recent response letter dated September 15, 2000.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So they’ve adequately addressed everything. Right? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. HASTINGS-Good evening. For the record, Kevin Hastings, engineer. TERRY KARANIKAS MR. KARANIKAS-Terry Karanikas, owner of Stone Cast. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours, Mr. Hastings. MR. HASTINGS-As stated in the application, we’re proposing a 60 by 215 foot building, single story, pre-engineered type construction on 2.61 acre in a Light Industrial zone. The site will be re- graded to level and make usable a work area for the Stone Cast operation. The on-site stormwater will be handled with drywells and infiltration trenches, and on site sewer will be by a conventional septic system. We’re retaining a vegetated buffer along the canal, as a no cut zone. So to minimize visual impact from the canal. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that delineated on your site plan? MR. HASTINGS-Yes, it is. MR. MAC EWAN-How much of a buffer is it, 100 foot? MR. HASTINGS-It’s the full length of the frontage. MR. MAC EWAN-The width. MR. HASTINGS-The width. It varies. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a 100 foot minimum. Right, in Light Industrial? MRS. MOORE-For a buffer to a zone. MR. RINGER-This is to the canal. MRS. MOORE-This is to the canal. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. It’s getting late. Sorry. MR. HASTINGS-Okay. This is a natural buffer of the existing vegetation. MR. MAC EWAN-A canal’s got its own zone. MR. HASTINGS-The actual building setback is 80 feet from the canal. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. My apologies. MR. HASTINGS-Water will be provided by a public service from an existing private branch main, and the existing access to this parcel, which is a 24 foot paved driveway, will remain in use as it exists. There are several on-site encroachments that will be removed as part of the development, namely a stockade fence and some gardens, and along the north side, to accommodate the grading, there will be a stone veneer retaining wall, which varies in height from two feet on each end to four feet in the middle, and there will be an on-site storage area to the west end, which is the existing grass and gravel areas for product storage or raw material storage. That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it. Cathy, we’ll start with you. Any questions? 47 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-C.T. Male, in signage, recommended that the parking sign on the septic be removed from there and put on the road. I’m not sure I understood why they made that recommendation. I thought where the sign was was in exactly the right place. MR. HASTINGS-Their intent is to discourage any parking over the septic system. MR. VOLLARO-And I think where the sign is discourages that exactly. MR. HASTINGS-We, in our last draft site plan, we showed it in a more prominent position that would face the driveway toward any oncoming traffic. MR. VOLLARO-Do I have the right plan, Mr. Hastings, August 31? st MR. HASTINGS-That has been updated with some revised sketches. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Then I’m not looking at the latest data here. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Have they been submitted? MR. HASTINGS-They were submitted to C.T. Male. MR. MAC EWAN-They weren’t submitted to the Town, though. MRS. MOORE-Not at this time, and I would guess, my understanding is that the short timeframe that existed here, and it’s only over the few items that were listed in C.T. Male’s comments, I’m sure they have a copy of it, and based on their information from C.T. Male, I didn’t pursue it, knowing that I’d get it in a timely fashion. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-That was the only question I had, was on the sign. I thought that the drawing of August 31 showed the sign in exactly the right place, myself. st MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No, I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Just a couple. I was just wondering, this may not be a Planning Board thing, and Laura will clarify this, but I see the septic system is just basically a 1,000 gallon septic tank with a (lost word) foot seepage pit. Is that ample for an almost 13,000 square foot building? MR. HASTINGS-According to the New York State Department of Health Codes, yes. At this facility at the moment there’s four employees, and that system is adequate for that number of employees. The facility is large, yes, but as far as the actual. MR. STROUGH-There’s no showers on site? MR. HASTINGS-No showers. MR. STROUGH-No cleaning facilities and things like that? Okay. MR. HASTINGS-Strictly lavatories and toilets. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now reading through the literature, I’m having trouble, maybe you can help me out, confusion over the entrance, 20 foot, 24 foot, it needs clarifying. Have we done anything there, has progress been made on that issue? MR. HASTINGS-We’re looking at improving the entrance on the Boulevard, either with additional pavement or gravel to facilitate the trucks that are coming off of the Boulevard. What I was 48 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) describing in my letter, as far as the complexity, there are several easements that are overlapping in that area, and therefore several adjoining owners that we need to talk to before we can beginning clearing and making these improvements that the Board is interested in seeing. We’re not saying that we disagree, but there’s some things that need to be worked out on that end, in order to accomplish this improvement, but the existing access is adequate. MR. STROUGH-So there’s some things up in the air that you can’t really clarify exactly where you’re going to go until you get those things cleared up? MR. KARANIKAS-Right now, the existing C & R back there, they have trucks going in on an easement on my property as it is now. It’s been sufficient for them and for me to get in there, as it is now. We have an easement, also, across Fred Alexy’s, to my building. So I have like a large area for in and out, and they’ve been doing it for 30 years. We’d like to make a little better. Dave Dyminski has given permission to straighten out a little piece of property that he has, a strip coming down, so that possibly we could widen that. We’re looking into the pole maybe being moved, but right now what we have is working, you know, there’s nothing wrong with it. MR. STROUGH-Could you get two large vehicles? MR. KARANIKAS-They come in and out all the time. Yellow Freight’s been there since 1980. They’ve been using that entrance and exit, and so haven’t my concrete trucks and I’ll be redirecting them a little bit the other way, as much as I do with the building there, but the entrance way has been fine. I’d like to get rid of that telephone pole. Dyminski said that he didn’t care about his little slice. He has an easement. I have an easement. So I’d just like to widen it, and that would be kind of like directly across from Queensbury Ave. MR. STROUGH-Are you going to ask NiMo to move that pole? MR. KARANIKAS-They’ve already elected that they would move it, and Bell Atlantic said that they’d give us some pipe to bring it, you know, to get rid of it totally. The only other issue was cable, and there’s really no cable going to those buildings. So, once we can afford to dig a trench and to do it. I’ve got other things I’m doing first, but I’d like to get the pole out of there and make it 50 feet wide. It would be better for everybody, but it’s working right now. I mean, we haven’t had any traffic problems at all, as far as getting in and out, and Dyminski brings in tractor trailer trucks to his back there, and they negotiate that turn, just as Yellow Freight does, you know, going to my place. MR. STROUGH-All right. So basically you’re going to work with Mr. Dyminski to make sure you’ve got that property line clarified? MR. KARANIKAS-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And you’re going to get the pole moved, just so that you have an unobstructed, clear entrance. MR. KARANIKAS-Right. MR. STROUGH-Otherwise, it’s a good use for the area. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It is. Do we need to do a SEQRA? MR. MAC EWAN-I know you’re anxious, but we’re not done yet. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Hunsinger? MR. HUNSINGER-My only comments sort of echo John’s which you already addressed, which dealt with the main entrance, and I feel just like it what it says in Staff notes, that the proposal is really an enhancement to the property. Improving that entrance, I think, would really go a long way, but I don’t really have any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments from Board members? Staff? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Short, right? MRS. MOORE-Yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 57-2000, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: STONE CAST, INC., and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 19 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a resolution? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 57-2000 STONE CAST, INC., Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 57-2000, Stone Cast, Inc. proposing a 60’ x 150’ single story light manufacturing facility and a 60’ x 65’ freight terminal building. Light Manufacturing Facility and Freight Terminal in LI zones require Planning Board review and approval, and; WHEREAS, the application received 7/26/00 consists of the following: 1. As outlined in the Official File WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 9/19/00 Staff Notes 9/19/00 CT Male engineering review comments 9/8/00 J. Edwards from Planning office – transmittal of new info 9/7/00 New Info rec’d. – Cover letter from K. Hastings, P.E. dated 9/7/00, Engineering Report revised 8/31/00, Maps S-1, G-1, D-1, A-1 50 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) dated 8/31/00 9/7/00 Meeting Notice 8/22/00 Staff Notes 8/21/00 C. Round from K. Hastings, P.E. in response to CT Male comments of 8/17/00, Fire Marshal comments of 8/14/00, Staff Notes of 8/22/00 8/18/00 T. Karanikas from L. Moore – fax of staff notes 8/15/00 Notice of Public Hearing 8/9/00 Warren Co. PB transmittal – NCI w/stipulations 8/7/00 Beautification Comm. recommendation 8/7/00 L.Moore from R. VanDusen – Water Dept. comments (E-mail) 8/3/00 R. VanDusen from L.Moore – transmittal of application 8/2/00 Meeting Notice 7/28/00 J. Edwards from C. Round – transmittal of application for eng. review 7/27/00 New info received – Site Dev. Data sheet WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 8/22/00 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan 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, THAT The application is approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 19th day of September 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. NEW BUSINESS: PUD SITE PLAN NO. 53-99 MODIFICATION SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES, INC. OWNER: SAME AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: PUD LOCATION: MEADOWBROOK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED PLAN. MODIFICATION IS FOR A CHANGE TO THE PHASING PLAN. THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL WAS FOR THREE PHASES, MODIFICATION IS FOR FIVE PHASES. PHASE I OF 22 UNITS HAS BEEN COMPLETED. JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-There is no public hearing. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, PUD Site Plan No. 53-99, Modification Schermerhorn Properties, Inc., Meeting Date: September 19, 2000 “Project Description: 51 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) The applicant proposes to modify the phasing plan for Hiland Springs development. The original phasing plan was for three phases with five lots. The applicant proposes five phases to coincide with the five parcels. The development plan breakdown is as follows: ?? Phase I, Lot One: 22 units, under construction at this time ?? Phase II, Lot Two: 26 units, under Planning Board review at this time The remaining Phases are listed are not prepared at this time: ?? Phase III, Lot Three: 24 units ?? Phase IV, Lot Four: 36 units ?? Phase V, Lot Five: 12 units Areas of Concern or Importance: The Planning Board approved the five-lot subdivision and Phase I for Hiland Springs in December of 1999. The modification to the phasing plan does not alter the intended build out of the project to 120 units.” MR. LAPPER-Hi. We have a quick comment, Jon Lapper, Rich Schermerhorn, Tom Nace. We’d like to change it to make it even simpler, to have, and Rich would like to propose this, five lots, five phases. The phases will match the lots. When he first proposed it, he thought that when he came in now for the second phase, he might do the two units on the left, but those involved some blasting, and he just thought it would be simpler to do that separately. You’ve got a little bedrock. That’s been done at Hiland before. So, if we just do the lots and the phases the same, it’s pretty simple. Those are the lots up there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Show us what you’ve done so far. MR. NACE-Okay. This is the master plan. So it shows you the proposed units with it. Originally, it was Phase I in Lot 1. Phase II being Lot 2 and Lot 5, and Phase being Lot 3 and Lot 4, okay, and what we’re proposing now is just simply Lot 1 Phase I, Lot 2 Phase II, Lot 3, Phase III, Lot 4, Phase IV, and Lot 5, Phase V. MR. MAC EWAN-It makes a lot of sense, makes it easy. I agree with that. How does everybody else feel? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Fine. MR. STROUGH-Fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Okay. Does someone want to introduce a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO PUD SITE PLAN NO. 53-99 SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES, INC., Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: Modification to the original site plan which was for three phases, to now be for five phases which coincide with the five lots, and that the modification doesn’t alter or change the original SEQRA findings. Duly adopted this 19th day of September 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. PUD SITE PLAN NO. 65-2000 SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES, INC. HILAND SPRINGS, LOT #2 OWNER: SAME AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER, THOMAS NACE, JAMES MILLER ZONE: PUD LOCATION: MEADOWBROOK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES PHASE II OF THE HILAND SPRINGS PROJECT FOR 26 TOWNHOUSE APARTMENTS. THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES TWO (2) FOURPLEXES AND THREE (3) SIXPLEXES. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 53-99 TAX MAP NO. 46-2-2.12 LOT SIZE: 3.8 ACRES SECTION: 179-58 JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLLICANT, PRESENT 52 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, PUD Site Plan No. 65-2000, Schermerhorn Properties, Inc., Meeting Date: September 19, 2000 “Project Description: The applicant proposes Phase II of the Hiland Springs project for 26 townhouses. Parcel Two will be developed with two fourplexes and three sixplexes. The Planning Board’s concern with the original project was architectural style. The applicant is in the process of completing the buildings for Phase I. The siding color, shutter color and the building style are consistent with the applicant’ original proposal. The applicant has graded Phase I for the placement of the berm (8 +/- feet), utilities, road and parking areas. The application was forwarded to C.T. Male for review and comment. Areas of Concern or Importance: Staff would suggest the final plans include an inset map identifying the phases and the walkway connection between lot 2 and lot 3. Staff would suggest additional sign detail for signs proposed for Phase I through Phase III. The plan for Phase II indicates only location.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Do you want to me to read C.T. Male’s letter? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, please. MRS. MOORE-This is dated September 19, 2000, addressed to Mr. Round, in regards to Schermerhorn’s property, Hiland Springs, Lot 2, “We’re in receipt of a response letter from Tom Nace, P.E. dated September 19 for the referenced project. The letter addresses items outlined in th our comment letter of September 14. In general, the responses to our September 14 comments thth are adequately addressed. As the applicant is in the process of updating plans the Storm Water Management Report, we do not anticipate that any additional issues will arise. We will provide a sign-off letter, if necessary, upon receipt of said documentation. If you have any questions related to this matter, feel free to call our office.” MR. VOLLARO-Are we in the process of updating plans and stormwater management? MR. NACE-Just, for the record, Tom Nace. Just to address the technical issues and C.T. Male’s original comment letter, we got that Friday and we just haven’t had time to receive the drawings, the revised drawings, but I have discussed all of the items that we changed in detail with Jim, and that is what prompted his response letter. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Are the drawings of July 26, are they being updated? th MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. LAPPER-They were minor changes. MR. NACE-They were all technical, minor. I don’t think Jim’s letter of September 14 was read into th the record, but those were the detailed technical issues. I’ll be glad to respond to each of those items and tell you exactly what I’ve changed on the plans, if you’d like. MR. LAPPER-In general, this was a project that we spent considerable time on last year, including a rare architectural review, and Rich is pretty proud of the way that Phase I has come out, and we hope you guys like it, since it was your idea. I drive by every day, and I think it looks pretty impressive myself. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you want to add? Okay. Larry, we’ll start with you. MR. RINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I like it. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Are these going to be slabs or basements? 53 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) RICH SCHERMERHORN MR. SCHERMERHORN-They all have full basements. MR. STROUGH-Now, you know, mottling’s occurring in some of these areas, over where you are. Did you have to put a perimeter drain around that? MR. SCHERMERHORN-They all have perimeter drains under them, yes. MR. STROUGH-The only other thing that I would comment on is, the front porches, is that going to be concrete (lost word) or is that going to be wood? It says a 4 by 6 pad. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Those are concrete stoops, is what they are. They’re all concrete. There’s no wood porches on them. MR. STROUGH-I’ve worked in construction, and sometimes, doing insurance jobs, I do estimates, and a lot of times with these concrete board porches, you know, you have the backfill your foundation, and that never compacts totally, not right away anyway. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Are you talking about the rear stoops? MR. STROUGH-Yes, where you’re replacing the perimeter boards and the sill plates because they rot out because they tend to tip back. So you’re going to put plenty of pitch in that so that you’ll account for that? MR. SCHERMERHORN-You’re talking about the front stoops, right? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Okay. Well, the front stoop, they’re enclosed, actually, where the front doors are. On the six unit buildings, the ones that have the big, big brown circle windows on them down there, those are all enclosed. When you open those doors, you step onto a cement stoop, but that’s actually an interior foyer, is what that is, with ceramic tile over it. When you step outside the door, you’re stepping down onto the concrete steps, which is part of the concrete sidewalk. So there’s not like a separate, the only ones that have a little stoop is the four unit buildings. For handicap accessibility, they’re flush right underneath the thresholds of the door. MR. STROUGH-But you know what I’m talking about? They tend to settle and then the water goes right into the perimeter joist and rots everything out. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. MR. STROUGH-That’s fine. No further questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I just wanted to ask Tom Nace a question, and this goes back to the SP-1 drawing, and it’s on the September 14, 2000 C.T. Male question, and it talks about the buildings are all shown to be served by two inch copper water lines, fire protection for the southern most building. Now, was he referring to the pressure drop along the long two inch line? MR. NACE-No. What he’s referring to, if you look at the site plan here, he’s (lost words) inch main up here on the road, and what Jim’s confusion was, or problem was, is that the fire hydrant that exists on that main is just off the edge of our drawing. So he didn’t see it. Okay. We’ve got to be 500 feet away from a fire hydrant. Well, we’re 400 feet back to the remote part of the site here where a pumper would be. So we’re adequate. We’ve addressed that with him. It was just a matter of that hydrant, he didn’t have the plans for Phase I which show the hydrant, were the subdivision plans, and this plan here, he was thinking the next hydrant was up the road a ways. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I don’t have any other questions. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. MAC EWAN-We have a public hearing scheduled. I’ll open up the public hearing. Anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-No SEQRA. I’ll entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE PUD SITE PLAN NO. 65-2000 SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES, INC., Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of PUD Site Plan No. 65-2000 Schermerhorn Properties, Inc. for Phase II of the Hiland Springs project for 26 townhouse apartments. The proposal includes two (2) fourplexes and three (3) sixplexes, and; WHEREAS, the application received 7/26/00 consists of the following: 1. Application materials as listed in the Official File WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1. 9/19/00 Staff Notes 9/14/00 C.T. Male engineering review comments 8/24/00 Fax to R. Schermerhorn from L. Moore 8/1/00 C. MacEwan from J. Lapper 7/28/00 J. Edwards from C. Round – transmittal of applications for. eng. review WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 9/19/00 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the PUD Site Plan 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, THAT, The application is approved as per the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 19th day of September 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Rich, how close are you to finishing one of the units in Phase I? MR. SCHERMERHORN-The first building, we just put the kitchen countertops in today. If you were to do a walk through, Wednesday, Thursday next week, most of that four unit would be done inside. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Would it be all right if when we did site visits on the 14 of October, to do a th walk through? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, go in any of them. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. MR. SCHERMERHORN-And by the way, 50% of it is committed to right now. I have people, November 15, moving into the first four unit. th MR. MAC EWAN-See what a little architectural change will do for you? MR. SCHERMERHORN-I don’t know if you noticed, but I actually increased the roof pitches from originally approved, and just gave it more of an effect. MR. MAC EWAN-They look nice. I would like to go see them, though, when we’re out on site visits. MR. SCHERMERHORN-You’re welcome anytime. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thanks. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 67-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED CONNIE GEBO OWNER: CONNIE & WILLIAM GEBO ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1,248 SQ. FT. DAY CARE CENTER. DAY CARE CENTERS IN SR ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 18-94 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 9/11/00 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/13/00 TAX MAP NO. 138-1-15 LOT SIZE: 0.20 ACRES SECTION: 179- 19 CONNIE GEBO, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-I’m recusing myself from this one. MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to have to say that I’m not going to be able to participate in this either because I didn’t get a chance to see the site. We went out on site visits, couldn’t find it, spent a good half hour looking for it, could not find the site. So I have not reviewed this site, and being that it’s a. MR. SCHACHNER-Is that true of the entire Board? MR. VOLLARO-There were only four of us. MR. SCHACHNER-But those who went were unable to locate it? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. METIVIER-We could not find it. MR. RINGER-We went down the road, and it was some place on the road, but there was no sign out, no number in the application. So there was no way to locate the property. We were provided, tonight, with pictures of the property. MR. SCHACHNER-My suggestion would be, instead of not participating, I mean, the public hearing’s been scheduled. I assume it’s been properly noticed. Why don’t you open the public hearing, you know, let the applicant make whatever presentation they want to make, hear that presentation, open the public hearing, hear whatever comments anybody wants to make, but obviously not decide the application tonight, and in between now and next month, go to it again. That would be my suggestion. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I didn’t get any pictures. When did you get those pictures? MR. VOLLARO-We just got them just now. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. RINGER-How does the Board feel on that? We’ve got the pictures. If we want to go and look at this, we certainly can. We’ll do what Mark said, but do you want to just do that and then table it for next month? MR. SCHACHNER-You don’t have to make a decision now either. You could wait and hear people out. MR. STROUGH-Why don’t we see what the public has to say, and if there’s a problem. MR. RINGER-Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 67-2000, Connie Gebo, Meeting Date: September 19, 2000 “Project Description The applicant proposes a 1,248 square foot Day Care center to be located on Big Boom Road. The neighboring uses in the area include light industrial and residential. Big Boom Road provides access to the Hudson River Park. 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 use is an allowed use within the zone. Site Overview The building is located on the lot to accommodate parking and the septic system. The exterior of the building will be similar to a single-family dwelling. The applicant proposes security lighting at the entrances to the building. The area to the rear of the building is noted as a play area that will be enclosed with a 48 inch fence. The applicant has requested a waiver from the sign location and design. Traffic, Circulation, Parking The applicant proposes a one-way traffic route including a drop-off zone. This will allow parents to have enough space to bring a child and gear into the day-care facility and minimize pedestrian and vehicle conflicts. The applicant proposes 4 parking spaces for employees. The parking requirements do not refer to the specific use proposed. Staff utilized an American Planning Association Bulletin “Off Street Parking Requirements” to determine the amount of parking needed for the use. One space for each employee in a daycare facility is adequate. Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping, Emergency Services The applicant’s information was forwarded to Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District for development of a stormwater management guideline. The applicant will obtain water service from the Town and has proposed an Elgin septic system. The applicant has indicated a lawn will be installed. The application was referred to the Beautification committee for review and comment. Conclusions (Section 179-39) The proposed Day Care facility will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts because of the location of the building in reference to the residential and industrial uses and the enhancement proposed to improve the property.” MR. RINGER-That’s it, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes, it is. MR. RINGER-Okay. Can we hear from the applicant? Would you identify yourself for the record, please. MRS. GEBO-Connie Gebo. MR. RINGER-Okay. Connie, you heard what our problem was. We went out Saturday, as we do with all of our applications, to view the site. We were unable to find, with the information we had, we were unable to find the location. We went up and down Big Boom Road looking at mailboxes for names and stuff, and we just didn’t find any with that name. So we want to hear what you have 57 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) to say tonight, and have the public hearing. We may or may not make a decision on your application. We may be tabling it until next month. Okay. So tell us a little bit, now, about your project. MRS. GEBO-I want propose a 26 by 48 day care center, and in ’94 I had come in front of the Planning Board and gotten approval for a duplex on this same parcel of land, and at that time we had the same concerns from Mrs. Anable about access to her property, and that was a big discussion that we had through that, and through my attorney and her attorneys, there were correspondences back and forth, and the Board approved it because, looking at the map, they had access to their parcel of land. I wasn’t blocking their access. MR. RINGER-I guess I didn’t understand. You came before the Board in 1994 with this same application? MRS. GEBO-No. At that time I had sought approval for a duplex. I was going to put a duplex up there. MR. RINGER-A house. Okay, and then you got approval for a duplex house, but you never went through with it? MRS. GEBO-Right. MR. RINGER-And now on that lot you want to put a day care center? MRS. GEBO-Yes. MR. RINGER-Okay. Anything else you want to? MRS. GEBO-And we had the discussion back then about the access to the lots behind me, and looking at the map, there is an eight foot parcel of land that goes between myself and the property owner towards the Hudson Park, and that takes the property back out to the two parcels out behind me. MR. RINGER-Okay. I guess not seeing the property, we are at a loss here. Okay. Anything else? MRS. GEBO-I have a map that shows that eight foot. MR. RINGER-Anything else you want to add, Connie? MRS. GEBO-No. MR. RINGER-Okay. We’ll start with the Board. John? MR. STROUGH-The septic system, the infiltration system seems to be five foot by sixty-two foot? MRS. GEBO-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Is that ample for a day care center? How many kids are you going to have? MRS. GEBO-Thirty to forty. MR. STROUGH-Thirty to forty, and the infiltration bed is a mere five feet by sixty-two feet. MRS. GEBO-Right, and with a 1,000 gallon tank and the Building and Codes Department I had talked to, and they had told me that that was enough. MRS. MOORE-I know she had conversation with someone in the Building Department and they provided her with the information that that was an adequate sized system. It’s called the Elgin system that they’re going to propose. MR. STROUGH-Well, (lost words) doesn’t say what system. MRS. MOORE-Yes, it does. MR. STROUGH-It makes a difference. Okay, but still, since it’s .2 acres. MRS. GEBO-I believe it’s 85 by 100. MR. STROUGH-It has it labeled as .2 acres. The only other problem that I have is that if you have a septic failure, where would you re-locate it on this lot? That’s what I mean, this is a .2 acre lot. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MRS. GEBO-Well, you can put a regular septic system in the back yard. The back yard is 26 by 85, and that’s enough room for a regular septic system. So you could put a regular septic system back there if this one had failure and you had to take it out and replace it, you could replace another system in that same area. MR. STROUGH-Well, you’re going to have to remove the dirt and everything else back there in order to get an infiltration system working. MR. RINGER-Well, my neighbor had a similar situation because it was pulled, John, and what he ended up doing was digging a deep hole and putting the tanks on top of one another and somehow eliminating that problem that you were just saying. His system failed. He didn’t have anymore land because of the pool that he put in. So in order to take care of this thing, he had to dig a huge hole and put two tanks on top of one another, and apparently there’s a way to do it. I guess is what I’m saying. MR. STROUGH-It’s a less than ideal situation, right? MR. RINGER-I don’t know. I’m telling you those things happen, and it happened to my neighbor, and that was how he was able to get around it, if the system failed. MR. STROUGH-Okay, thanks, Larry. Where is your electric meter going to be? MRS. GEBO-I believe it would go on the side of the home. MR. STROUGH-Well, not toward the play area, right? MRS. GEBO-No, the play area is in the back yard, and that’ll be fenced off. It’ll be on the side by the handicap parking area. MR. STROUGH-All right. So they won’t have access to the utility then? MRS. GEBO-No. MR. STROUGH-Is this handicap accessible? MRS. GEBO-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And where will be the handicapped ramp? MRS. GEBO-This is going to be built to grade level, and at each entrance way there will be a handicap sidewalk coming out. MR. STROUGH-So both that entrance by the handicap parking and the one in front will be accessible? MRS. GEBO-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And another thing, since we didn’t find the site, I didn’t know your proximity to your neighbors. What kind of situation exists there, and I’m not quite sure if these pictures tell me, either. What’s the closest residence to you? Maybe we’ll start there. How many feet, 100, 50? MRS. GEBO-No, maybe 30. MR. STROUGH-Thirty, and about how many people, residents are within 30 to 50 feet of you? You know of one. Do you know of others that are that close? MRS. GEBO-Probably about I think two residences that are within 30 to 50 feet. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Have you spoken with those potential neighbors about the noise that a day care center might create when the kids are let out in the yard? MRS. GEBO-No. MR. STROUGH-So it’s something that might have to be resolved. Okay. MR. RINGER-Anything else, John? MR. STROUGH-No. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. RINGER-Okay. Tony. MR. METIVIER-How many employees do you plan on having? MRS. GEBO-Three or four. If there are 40 kids, there will be four. You need one for every ten kids. MR. METIVIER-Right, and I would assume that, this is for Staff, that the neighborhood was contacted regarding this? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. METIVIER-For now, that’s all I have. MR. RINGER-Okay. Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just, I remember that property, because I said, wait, I remember Connie and Bill Gebo coming here years ago. It was like one of the first applicants on my tenure here. I don’t think, I can’t remember when we’ve really approved a project where we haven’t had, like, this is going to be building from scratch. You’re putting up a brand new building. I’d like to see some elevations and see what the building is going to look like, and some more detail, instead of just this. I mean, we get more detailed drawings for regular boathouses on Lake George, and I’m really having a tough time visualizing this, Connie. I really think that we should have something that shows the elevations, shows where the meter’s going to be, shows specifically where the play area is going to be, as far as in relationship to the house. I know this is, it tells you, but I’d like to see the elevations and to see real plans. We’ve always been pretty strict about that. Okay, but, I mean, as far as, all the neighbors were notified, and nobody’s here. MRS. GEBO-Yes. MR. RINGER-Well, we don’t know. There could be. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, well, there could be. Okay. MR. RINGER-Anything else, Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. I’m just concerned. I would just like to see a little more detailed plans, as far as the bathrooms, the play areas, I mean, the different rooms that you’re going to have in the actual day care center and all of that. MRS. GEBO-I don’t have the house design. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. RINGER-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I had the same, just to sort of reiterate Cathy’s comments, I had some of the same difficulties in reviewing the plan. John asked some questions about utilities and other things. It’s kind of hard to really do an adequate review without having all of the information there. The other question I had was on the waiver from the sign location design. Could you just elaborate on that? MRS. GEBO-Because I wasn’t sure where I was going to put it. Most likely it would be on the building, but I’m not sure of the size or anything. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and also I saw that you went before the Beautification Committee and they approved the vegetation plan? MRS. GEBO-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I really didn’t have anything else. MR. RINGER-Bob, did you want to have any questions? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’ve got a question or two. It involves the fact that you would like a waiver from the percolation tests and the results of those tests. I think it would be to your benefit, really, not to have that waived and to find out what your percolation is in this particular section. Because as Mr. Strough said, you don’t have an alternate spot to put this system, in the event of failure, and if 60 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) you were to have to, because of septic problems, excavate this and bring in fill, in order for this system to work properly, the DOH says if that system fails, what you’ve got to do is completely remove what they consider to be contaminated material and bring back in fill that’s suitable for the septic setting. So I don’t know if you really want to waive the percolation test at all, and I really feel that an alternate position here is something we really ought to think about. Most of the time, when we review things like this, we have a set aside system for a second installation of a septic system. I mean, somebody ought to take the time to read the Department of Health requirements when you have to vacate a system. It’s not as simple as just taking this out and sticking another system in, because the saturation field here is now no longer functioning, and you’ve got to provide material to allow the next system to function, and usually you do that on an alternate site, but here you’d have to completely re-do your system. I understand what Larry said about putting a tank on top of a tank. I really don’t understand that, but I do know what the DOH requirements are for replacing a septic system. So, just, you know, think that one out a little bit, and that’s really all I have, Larry, other than I have to back up what Cathy has to say about the drawing. The drawing should be a little more explicit, and probably an elevation wouldn’t be a bad idea either. MR. RINGER-Okay. Connie, we have a public hearing scheduled tonight. So, I’ll ask you to leave the table, and if anyone from the public would care to comment on the application. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DEL MULDER MR. MULDER-I’m Del Mulder. I’m an attorney, and I had a telephone call this afternoon from a Marie Anable. She asked me to come and express some concerns that she had about a day care center going in at this location. Marie owns a parcel that is located directly behind the proposed site, and have you seen the tax maps? Have you looked at the tax maps? MR. RINGER-We have them. MR. MULDER-The parcel is, I think the one that I’m talking about, is 138-1-16. It’s a parcel about the same size, directly behind, and it contains a dwelling, and if you look at the tax map, it’ll also show that the driveway for this dwelling crosses directly through the center of the Connie Gebo property. MR. RINGER-There’s an easement for that? MR. MULDER-Well, that’s why I’m here. My understanding is that this driveway has been there and used for probably close to 50 years, and my understanding is that there is no easement of record, but she has, Marie would allege, an easement by prescription or an easement by use, and as to the Lot 138-1-16, it’s actually the only access that she has. Now there’s some question or some comments about maybe there being an eight foot access. It would be I guess to the southerly side on the Connie Gebo property. I haven’t had a chance to look into that. I don’t know if there really is or there isn’t, and even if there is, it appears from the tax map, assuming the tax map is right, that it’s actually access to the property that would be behind 138-1-16, and the lot that I’m, tax lot that I’m particularly focused on is the one of 138-1-16, which is landlocked, and any kind of construction on the Connie Gebo lot obviously is going to interfere with the access to the lot that is owned by Marie Anable. I think that Marie may own the lot behind it, the one with the eight foot access, and possibly another one. To be honest, I don’t know, okay. I haven’t had time to even check into it. So I’m here really just to express the concern, and the other concern that I would have, on behalf of Marie, is that the property, again 138-1-16, is property that has tenants in it, and if, you know, a day care center is one thing, but when I hear 30 to 40 kids going into an area as small as the Connie Gebo lot, it would have to have a negative impact on the, I my opinion, on the value of the lot directly behind it, and on probably the ability of Marie Anable to get future tenants in there. Not everyone would want to live very close, I mean very close, to a day care center with 30 or 40 kids in it, and so I see a future problem there on her behalf as well, but again, my main reason is just to indicate a concern, not so much an objection or an opposition to a day care, although your concerns would be my concerns, but just to let you know that there is a problem with an easement going across the middle of the property, and it’s open. It’s visible. It’s known to Connie that it’s there. It’s been there for years. MR. RINGER-Okay. We’ll try to get an answer for what that is and what she plans on doing with that, but this is probably going to be tabled. So you’ll have time to get information yourself by next month. MR. MULDER-Well, I can tell you that my legal advice to her would be that it’s probably not even a Planning Board issue. If she applies for a building permit and goes forward and starts construction, then Marie will have to bring an action for an injunction and try to establish her right, her easement by prescription, but it’s a concern, and I wanted to alert the Board to it. 61 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know what material the driveway’s made of? Is it gravel? MR. MULDER-It’s gravel. It’s not a macadam or anything like that, and I’ve talked to Connie, and maybe something can be worked out, but the only way a compromise, as far as we’re concerned, would probably be to extend the Connie Gebo driveway, maybe have a common driveway, but I don’t know what that would do to the plan that she’s proposed. So it might interfere with the plan, too. So, that’s it. MR. RINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? MRS. MOORE-I do have a letter. MR. RINGER-Okay. We’ll do the letter after, Laura. ROSE CORBETT MRS. CORBETT-My name is Rose Corbett. I used to own the property that Mrs. Gebo now owns. This was back quite a few years ago, and we could never block, that driveway has been there for a good 50 years or more. My ex-mother-in-law who has passed away now used to own the house that Mrs. Anable now owns back there, and we had problems at one time and I wanted to block it, and the Town of Queensbury said no. There’s no way that that could be blocked. She has to have access to that. We have to have access to that property, and that is the only access we have to it. We don’t care what they build up there, but we just want access to the house out in back. We have no objections to a day care center or whatever she wants to build, but we need to have an access to the house out in back. We have tenants living out there, and if there’s no way for them to get from Big Boom Road into the house, it’s going to pose a problem for us having tenants there. MR. RINGER-Okay. We’ll see what we can do. MRS. CORBETT-All right. Her son is here, if he wants to talk. He’s up there all the time. He knows what’s there. MR. RINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I’m going to leave the public hearing open, and, Connie, if you’d come back up. The driveway that they’re talking about, is that this thing right here, Connie, in the picture? You can come and take a look at it, or does it show better in this one? MRS. GEBO-This one shows it. MR. RINGER-All right. So we’re looking at this, looking out at the property. I thought this was the property. Actually, the property’s back here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right here, we’re looking out. Yes. MR. RINGER-Okay. MRS. GEBO-Back in here there’s like a cement slab. MR. RINGER-Now that eight foot that you were talking about, where is that in relation to this? MRS. GEBO-Over here. MR. RINGER-Okay. Now where is that in relation to this driveway? MRS. GEBO-Over here. It’s here. This is like in the middle of the parcel, and this over this way would be the eight foot. See this is actually, if you put this in here, this is actually right here in the middle. MR. RINGER-Okay. So where’s your? MR. VOLLARO-This picture doesn’t tell us anything about the septic. MR. RINGER-Not at all. MRS. GEBO-The eight foot is over here on this side. MR. RINGER-Okay. Whereas the driveway right now, though, is right here. MRS. GEBO-Coming through the middle, yes. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. RINGER-Okay. So, if you put your building up, you’re going to have to provide a driveway, or there’s going to have to be some access onto that property. MRS. GEBO-They have this eight foot over here on this section that goes out to these back properties. That belongs to Marie Anable who owns these back parcels. MR. RINGER-Okay. So she has an eight foot that she owns that goes back to her house. So, other than that driveway, there is another access to that house? MRS. GEBO-Yes. MR. RINGER-Okay. Now you can go back to the table. Thank you. MRS. GEBO-And in 1985 there was a dwelling on that parcel of land, then that burnt in ’85. MR. RINGER-Okay. Did you have anything else to add, Connie, before I go back to the Board? Okay. Any other comments from the Board members? MR. STROUGH-Just that we’ve got to get this easement thing all straightened out. MR. RINGER-Yes, well, we’re going to be tabling it for sure. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But that doesn’t have anything to do with us. MR. RINGER-It doesn’t have anything to do with us, but I would guess, we’re going to go look at this property, certainly, and we’ll want to make sure that we’re not landlocking, by approving a site plan, we’re not landlocking another lot. I’m sure we’re going to want to look at that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, we can’t approve the site plan if there’s something. MR. RINGER-We’re not going to do anything tonight, Cathy. We’re going to be tabling this. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I see what you mean. MR. RINGER-Mark, if there’s no easement, what would our position be, or am I premature in trying to even think about that now? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, it’s okay to ask the question, actually, and I’m glad you’re asking it tonight at the meeting, but I think you have to take into consideration the fact that the neighbor’s alleged means of access is probably not one of your site plan considerations here. In fact, I believe the neighbor’s own attorney, Mr. Mulder, accurately stated that that may not be a Planning Board issue, that if that neighbor has a real property interest, that the applicant’s project somehow allegedly infringes on that neighbor may have other avenues available to him or her to pursue that claim. MR. RINGER-I would think that the Planning Board, before they would approve a site plan, would not approve a site plan that landlocked another lot. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, again, remember that your concern, as a Planning Board, is really, I mean, two fold, I guess. Principally, what is happening on the property in question, the applicant’s property, and you don’t really have an ability to sort out competing real property rights on other properties. Now by the same token, I mean, if you were landlocking somebody’s property, and there was no claim, you couldn’t see any way that there was any claim that they had any other way to get to their property, I suppose you could argue that approving the application would somehow have a negative impact on a neighbor, and that is one of your considerations, impact on neighborhood, but, so when you say landlocked, obviously I haven’t been there. I don’t know the site any better than any of you all, but the mere fact, I guess what I want to say is the mere fact that a neighbor claims to have some real property right to go across the applicant’s property, in and of itself, is probably not a valid concern of the Planning Board, especially if there’s some other way for the neighbor to get to his or her property. If there’s absolutely no other way to get there, then I suppose, when you go out to the site and it appears to you that construction of this proposed project will physically block the only access to the property, then you may have a problem with that in terms of impact on the neighbor. MR. RINGER-Okay. Then I’d say that there is perhaps an eight foot area that the owner of the property that is landlocked does own. Would it be the, could it be the responsibility of the Planning Board to ask the applicant to put a driveway in there, since they’re tearing up? Again, I’m prematurely. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, I think we’re pushing it here, because I think that would be, you know, if there’s some other eight foot access, if the applicant takes the position that this neighbor does have some other access, and if you can physically see that there’s some other access, I don’t think it’s incumbent upon the Board to have the applicant forced to improve that access. That’s really an issue between the neighbors, I think. MR. RINGER-Okay, all right, and I agree with you. Okay. Connie, definitely you’re going to be tabled, but I want to make sure that you understand some of the things that we’ve asked for here. We want a site plan, a map showing your property, the elevation, the building, you know, what you’ve got there, where things are going to be. I realize you don’t have a building plan yet, but in order to get approved, we want more than what you’ve shown us. Okay. What I would suggest, you get together with the Planning Staff, with Laura, and she’ll show you what she thinks we’re looking for. She knows what we’re looking for. She’ll show you. Okay, and your elevation request, Bob has made a good suggestion here, not elevation request, but your drainage, what was it that she had requested the waiver on, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-The percolation tests. MR. RINGER-The percolation tests, you may want to have that done. Anything else that the Board can think of that we need from? I’d also suggest you talk with your neighbors, to see if you can come up with some kind of a solution for that, not necessary that you have that before you come with us, but it might make it easier for you. MRS. GEBO-I can talk to the tenant before coming here. MR. RINGER-I don’t know about the tenant, but the owner of the property, certainly. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think part of the site plan would be some sort of elevation. MR. RINGER-Normally for a single family we don’t, you know, but does the Board feel we need an elevation plan? It’s relatively, looking at it, it’s flat land. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean of the building. MR. VOLLARO-He means the elevation of the building. MR. RINGER-Well, that would come with the site plan. It should show the elevation. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You mean of the building. MR. RINGER-Of the building itself. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Of the size. MR. RINGER-Get together with Laura, okay, before, and you’ll have to, in order to get on for next month, you’re going to have to have this in by, when? MR. VOLLARO-September 27. th MR. RINGER-September 27. So you may actually not get this on until November. Okay. th MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I just have a problem with, when I see the driveway going through, you know, I’ve got to see where that, the structure is going to be in relationship to the driveway, if it’s going to be moved or what the resolution of all of this is going to be. MR. RINGER-It’s going to have to be moved, Cathy, because the driveway is in the middle of the building. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I understand that, right. MR. VOLLARO-That should come with the next application. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. RINGER-But get together with Laura and she should be able to answer most all of your questions, okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because it ought to be able to work, you know. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. RINGER-So I need a motion to table. MR. VOLLARO-Well, should we table for October or? MR. RINGER-I’m thinking we should table for November, to tell you the honest truth. Laura, how does October look? MRS. MOORE-I don’t have a count on how many applications are in, but. MR. RINGER-We’ve tabled three already tonight. Correct? Four tonight. MRS. MOORE-Four. MRS. LA BOMBARD-See if Connie can get all the data in. She only has a week. If she can get it in, then maybe we can squeeze it in. MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s presumption to think that she can get this data in in a week. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. Well, that’s what I’m saying. MR. RINGER-So look for a table for November. So I need a motion to table until November. MR. VOLLARO-Well, what I need for the November, I’ll make the motion, but I need a date when she needs the material by for the November. Do you have that with you? MRS. MOORE-I don’t have my calendar with me. MR. VOLLARO-I left mine home. MR. RINGER-Have you got one, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-The last Wednesday in October is the Wednesday the 25 of October. th MRS. GEBO-If I had this in by the end of this month, I would be able to be on October? MR. RINGER-No, you’d get it in November. MRS. GEBO-Even if I had it in by the end of this month, by the required date? MR. RINGER-I really think we’re going to be so tight already for October. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Wait a minute, I think that the Chairman of this Committee should make that decision. I think if Connie can get, if she can try to get it in by September 27, then you do what you th can, bring it to the Board, to the Planning Staff rather, and then with all the other things that they have, they can see where you fit in, but I don’t think it’s up to us, because we don’t make the agendas, our Chairman does, to tell you you’re not going to be on for November. MR. RINGER-If you can get it in, Connie, by the 27, then Laura will have a better feel for it. th MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. RINGER-Go ahead, Bob. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 67-2000 CONNIE GEBO, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: To get on the agenda for October, provided that all the material is received by September 27. The th tabling is based on providing a new drawing showing the location of the new building itself, the location of the septic system, the distance from the septic system to the property line of the adjoining properties, an elevation drawing of the building itself, so we can get a look at what that looks like, and that percolation test information should be supplied along with the application. Duly adopted this 19 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. VOLLARO- To get on the agenda for October, provided that all the material is received by September 27. th MRS. MOORE-And the material that you want to receive is an elevation drawing and maybe perc test information? 65 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. VOLLARO-Well, I guess what the Chairman said on that particular thing, he was asking you to make that determination, as to what Planning Staff thought was necessary to get this back onto the agenda. Do you want us to tell you what that is? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I could tell from your look that you do. The tabling is based on providing a new drawing showing the location of the new building itself, the location of the septic system, the distance from the septic system to the property line of the adjoining properties, an elevation drawing of the building itself, so we can get a look at what that looks like, and that percolation test information should be supplied along with the application. MR. RINGER-I think you’ve got it all. MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s about what we want. MR. RINGER-Could I get a second? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I second it. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. RINGER-So, Connie, you know what you’ve got to do. You’ve got to get together with Laura. MRS. GEBO-Yes. SITE PLAN NO. 69-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED JEFFREY SCHWARTZ OWNER: SAME ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 53 CAREY ROAD, CAREY IND. PARK APPLICANT PROPOSES A 10,000 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 10,000 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE. NEW USES IN LI ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 6-87, SP 23-99 TAX MAP NO. 137-2-1.12 (LOT #4), 137-2-1.22 (LOT #13) LOT SIZE: 2.62 AC., 2.08 AC. SECTION: 179- 26 JEFF SCHWARTZ, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 69-2000, Jeffrey Schwartz, Meeting Date: September 19, 2000 “Project Description The applicant proposes a 10,000 square foot addition to an existing 10,000 square foot light manufacturing warehouse facility (Site Plan 23-99). 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 use is an allowed use within the zone. Site Overview The addition will be architecturally consistent with the existing building. The applicant has indicated that there may be a security light installed at the doorway to the new addition. There is no proposed sign for the addition. Traffic, Circulation, Parking The applicant has indicated there will be no increase in employment. Therefore, there is no need for increase in parking required. Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping, Emergency Services The applicant has provided an engineering comment that indicates the stormwater generated from the addition and the existing impervious surface will be maintained on-site (from W. 66 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) Montgomery dated 8/29/00). The property is within the Carey Industrial Park (Sub. 6-87). The proposed facility is consistent with the stormwater management plan prepared for the subdivision. The applicant proposes to remove vegetation within the area for the addition and provide temporary access for the construction of the addition. The access to the new addition will be maintained at the original location. Conclusions (Section 179-39) The proposed addition will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts because of the location of the building on the property and stormwater will be maintained on-site.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. SCHWARTZ-Hello. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. SCHWARTZ-Jeffrey Schwartz. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you tell us a little bit about your project, please. MR. SCHWARTZ-Okay. Right now we have a 10,000 square foot building right here, and pretty much we want to duplicate it with just a warehouse addition, for storage. Pretty much we have all the infrastructure in with the bathrooms, the office, all that. So it’s basically a butler style building. We’re not going to, the driveway’s already in. Everything’s going to stay the same there. So it’s simply putting up a warehouse, storage. Questions? MR. MAC EWAN-Who did we leave off with? We’ll start with you, John. MR. STROUGH-Well, I just have a couple of questions. Why remove the trees along here? It says large trees to be removed in this area. MR. SCHWARTZ-Well, I think we want to have a, you’re talking right here? MR. STROUGH-No, over to your right, next to the road. MR. SCHWARTZ-Here? MR. STROUGH-No, right there where the thing is, where the trees are located. See where the road is? MR. SCHWARTZ-Okay. Those trees, no, we’re going to leave, I think we’re talking about the trees, we’re going to leave a buffer of trees here. The trees that are going to be removed are going to be. MR. STROUGH-Well, the way the plans say, it looks like the trees are going to be, large trees are going to be removed in that particular zone. So that’s not the case? MR. SCHWARTZ-Okay. Well, maybe we are going to take a couple of large trees so they don’t hit the building, but we want to leave a buffer here so people can’t drive through and, you know, aesthetically make it look nice. So maybe there would be a couple of selective big trees that might hi the building, but, for the most part, we’re going to leave a buffer right here. MR. STROUGH-So you’re only going to remove trees that might endanger the safety of the building? MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And the rest are going to be left? MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes. We don’t want people driving in there like that anyway. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, and it looks better. 67 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. SCHWARTZ-Right, exactly. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and the other thing that I have, just a note, is right in front of your retaining wall, right next to the freight delivery doors, you have that one paved area that some cars have discovered, because you can see the scrapes. Do you think you could put a reflector up there or something? MR. SCHWARTZ-Right past the retaining wall, you’re talking about? MR. STROUGH-Yes. I see some cars have discovered that. MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes, well, I think it’s normal driving, but we could put a reflector there. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but, you know, to some people inadvertently going in there, it’s kind of a public access. Probably if you turned around, and all of a sudden, if it’s at night and the lighting’s poor, they’re going to damage the bottom of their car there. MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes, probably if they went fast, close by the front. MR. STROUGH-So, even just a small reflector or something would alleviate that. Do you experience any flooding, just in front of those freight delivery doors. MR. SCHWARTZ-No, because it drains over to the pit area. MR. STROUGH-And there’s a drywell down there? I couldn’t see them when I did site visits. MR. SCHWARTZ-There’s no drywell, but it’s so sandy there, the water goes there and it’s just, it’s gone. MR. STROUGH-Because it dips down in front of the doors like that. MR. SCHWARTZ-Right, but it drains away. MR. STROUGH-So that hasn’t been a problem? MR. SCHWARTZ-No. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, that’s fine. MR. SCHWARTZ-I mean, we had a rainy year, and with the soil there, it just goes right away. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you. MR. SCHWARTZ-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I just had a couple of clarifications also. You’re not adding any new dock doors? MR. SCHWARTZ-We’re undecided. If we do add any dock doors there, they would just be, they wouldn’t be in use. They would just be filled in with some wood or anything, you know, just form the concrete now because of the cost, but we really don’t have use for the doors. The only reason to maybe do it is maybe some future use of the building, but right now, the two doors are sufficient for us. MR. HUNSINGER-So there’s no additional paving that’s proposed or anything else? MR. SCHWARTZ-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Just the building. MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes, and if we do make provisions for it, it would just be in the concrete, and we wouldn’t be putting doors in at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Fine. 68 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff? We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need a SEQRA, please. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO 69-2000., Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JEFFREY SCHWARTZ, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 19 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-If someone would like to introduce a motion, please. 69 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/19/00) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 69-2000 JEFFREY SCHWARTZ, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 69-2000, Jeffrey Schwartz for a 10,000 sq. ft. warehouse addition to an existing 10,000 sq. ft. warehouse. New uses in LI zones require Planning Board review and approval. Tax Map No. 137-2-1.12, 1.22. Cross Reference: SB 6-87, SP 23-99, and; WHEREAS, the application received 8/30/00 consists of the following: 1. Application materials as outlined in the Official File. WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1. 9/19/00 Staff Notes WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 9/19/00 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan 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, THAT, The application is approved per the resolution as prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Mr. Schwartz. MR. SCHWARTZ-Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Sorry for the very long wait. Any other business? Is everyone going to be here Tuesday? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I’ll be here. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good. Okay. I’ll make a motion we adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 70